final screening level risk assessment - city of guelph · 2019-01-23 · (client) to conduct a...

© 2018 Pinchin Ltd.

FINAL

Screening Level Risk Assessment 139 Cardigan Street and 70 Norwich Street East Guelph, Ontario

Prepared for:

City of Guelph 1 Carden Street Guelph, ON N1H 3A1 Attention: Prasoon Adhikari, P. Eng, PMP March 15, 2018

Pinchin File: 205063

Screening Level Risk Assessment March 15, 2018

139 Cardigan Street and 70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario Pinchin File: 205063

City of Guelph FINAL

© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page i

Issued to: Contact: Issued on: Pinchin file: Issuing Office: Primary Contact:

City of Guelph Prasoon Adhikari, P. Eng, PMP March 15, 2018 205063 2470 Milltower Court, Mississauga, ON L5N 7W5 Lindsay Shepherd, P.Eng., QPESA 519.746.4210 ext. 3764 [email protected]

Author: Edyta Chorostkowska, M.Env.Sc. Risk Assessor 905.363.1467 [email protected]

Reviewer: Theresa Phillips, Ph.D., QPRA National Risk Assessment Lead

905.363.1438 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




139 Cardigan Street and 70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario Pinchin File: 205063 City of Guelph FINAL

© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pinchin Ltd. (Pinchin) was retained by the City of Guelph (Client) to conduct a Screening Level Risk

Assessment (SLRA) of 70 Norwich Street East (owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority, known

as the “Goldie Mills” property) and 139 Cardigan Street (owned by the City of Guelph, known as the

“Joseph Wolfond Park West” property), Guelph, Ontario (collectively referred to as the Site). The location

of the Site is shown on Figure 1. All Figures are provided in Appendix I.

The Site is currently used as a park. The Goldie Mills portion of the Site holding municipal address 70

Norwich Street East was formerly utilized for sawmill and for other manufacturing activities (i.e. a foundry,

a cooperage, a distillery, a piggery and a tannery). The Joseph Wolfond Park portion of the Site holding

municipal address 139 Cardigan Street was formerly utilized for furniture manufacturing operations. The

Site measures approximately 1.09 hectares.

Pinchin conducted a Technical Peer Review (TPR) of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)

completed by Novatox for the property located at 70 Norwich Street in Guelph, in a document entitled

“Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Peer Review, 70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario”,

dated August 29, 2017. The HHRA was completed for the Site to determine if any human health risks

were identified from exposure to soil impacts identified by Englobe (2016).

Englobe completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and subsequent Limited Phase II

ESA in 2016. The Phase I ESA identified potential environmental concerns at the Site associated with the

placement of fill material, on-Site historical operations, and activities conducted at nearby surrounding

lands. The Phase II ESA identified concentrations of various petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), benzene,

toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (collectively referred to as “BTEX”), polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals in soil, exceeding the applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC, 2011) Table 8 Generic Site Condition Standards for Use Within 30 m of a

Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition for Residential/Parkland/Institutional land use and

coarse-textured soil (Table 8 Standards), in the north portion of the Site. Groundwater was not assessed

as part of the Englobe 2016 Phase II ESA, and the soil impacts were not delineated at the time.

Pinchin noted that the Novatox (2017) HHRA appears to have been conducted in a manner consistent

with the guidance documents cited by Novatox and standard industry practice. Pinchin also concurred

that these documents form an appropriate basis for conducting an HHRA on a property in Ontario.

However, Pinchin recommended the horizontal delineation of PAH and metal impacts in soil at both

surface and full-depth levels, which would include the investigation of areas where insufficient information



© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page iii

is available, to determine whether risk management measures (RMM) are required. This information

would be used, along with Pinchin’s observations made on-Site during its supplemental fieldwork

campaign, to create a more site-specific risk management plan.

Pinchin further recommended the conduct of an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) that would consider

potential effects of the contamination in the park on plants and wildlife, as well as aquatic life in the Speed

River. The above recommendations concerning data collection would assist with an assessment of

ecological risks.

Pinchin subsequently conducted Phase II ESA activities across the entire Site between August 2017 and

December 2017, the results of which further delineated the known impacts and addressed various data

gaps. The soil impacts identified across the Site include PHCs, BTEX, PAHs and metals. There were no

groundwater impacts identified.

To address the known soil impacts in place, Pinchin recommended that an SLRA be completed to

evaluate the potential for human health and ecological risks associated with the soil impacts, and create a

more site-specific risk management plan.

The objective of the SLRA is to assess potential risks to on-Site human and ecological receptors

occupying or visiting the Site that may result from exposure to known subsurface impacts at the Site. It is

Pinchin’s understanding that the SLRA is required for due diligence purposes, and that a Record of Site

Condition (RSC) is not required.

The HHRA portion of the SLRA concluded that no human health risks are likely for the following

receptors/exposure pathways:

• Soil Particulate Inhalation – Subsurface Workers

• Soil Particulate Inhalation – Recreational Users

• Outdoor Air Inhalation – All Receptors

However, there may be potential risks associated with the following receptors/exposure pathways:

• Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact – Recreational Users and Park Facilitators/Workers

• Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact – Subsurface Workers

• Soil Particulate Inhalation – Park Facilitators/Workers

• Trench Air Inhalation – Subsurface Workers

Other than the scenarios listed above, there are no other opportunities for human receptors working at or

visiting the Site to come into contact with contaminants of concern (COCs) sourced from the Site. RMM

are recommended to mitigate potential risks. Proposed RMM are a Health and Safety Plan for activities



© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page iv

taking place where soil contaminants at concentrations above acceptable levels (indicated on Figure 8)

are exposed and the placement of additional hard/fill cap in areas of concern (indicated on Figure 9).

The ERA portion of the SLRA concluded that no ecological risks are likely for the following


• Soil Leaching to Surface Water – Off-Site Aquatic Biota

However, there may be potential risks posed for the following receptors/exposure pathways:

• Direct Contact – On-Site Terrestrial Plants, Soil Organisms, Mammals and Birds

• Soil Erosion to Surface Water – Off-Site Aquatic Biota

Other than the scenarios listed above, there are no other opportunities for ecological receptors present at

or within vicinity of the Site to come into contact with COCs sourced from the Site. RMM are

recommended to mitigate potential risks, in the form of the placement of additional hard/fill cap in areas of

concern (indicated on Figure 9).

In summary, there are no potential risks to human health or the environment from exposure to the known

impacts in soil for the continued parkland use of the property in its current state, with the implementation

of additional hard/fill cap at the areas of concern (indicated on Figure 9). Based on the concentrations

detected in soil across the Site, Pinchin is not of the opinion that additional delineation of soil impacts is

required; and, the implementation of a hard/fill cap at the areas of concern is sufficient for the continued

parkland use of the property.

A hard cap includes any “hard” barrier that would prevent penetration of the ground surface, such as

asphalt, concrete, interlocking stones, etc.

A fill cap includes a “soft” barrier that would act as a suitable barrier between the surface and the

underlying soil impacts, and would limit the potential for contact with soil impacts, such as the placement

of clean soil, gravel, wood chips, play sand, etc. The placement of a filter fabric is also recommended

between the soil impacts and the overlying fill cap, to act as a visual indicator of where the underlying soil

impacts are located.

In the event of future subsurface work where workers are present in a trench scenario or disturbing soil

impacts, a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan is required where soil contaminants at concentrations

above acceptable levels (indicated on Figure 8) are exposed.

This Executive Summary is subject to the same standard limitations as contained in the report and must be read in

conjunction with the entire report.




© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 2 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................... 2 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................... 3

PROPERTY INFORMATION, SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION..................... 3 Physical Site Setting ............................................................................................................. 3

Site Description ...................................................................................................... 3 Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................... 4 Previous Report Summaries .................................................................................. 4

Contaminants of Concern (COCs)........................................................................................ 9 Applicable Site Condition Standards...................................................................... 9 Contaminant Inventory ......................................................................................... 11 Soil COCs ............................................................................................................ 12 Groundwater COCs ............................................................................................. 13

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA) .......................................................................... 13

Problem Formulation .......................................................................................................... 13 Human Health Conceptual Site Model ................................................................. 13

Human Health Secondary Screening ................................................................................. 16 Exposure Assessment ........................................................................................................ 18

Special Considerations for PAHs ......................................................................... 18 Receptor Characteristics .................................................................................................... 18

Pathway Analysis ................................................................................................. 20 Exposure Estimates ............................................................................................. 20

Toxicity Assessment ........................................................................................................... 24 Dose Response Assessment (Toxicological Reference Values) ......................... 24

Risk Characterization ......................................................................................................... 25 Interpretation of Health Risks ............................................................................... 25 Quantitative Interpretation of Health Risks .......................................................... 26 Qualitative Interpretation of Health Risks ............................................................ 30

Summary of Human Health Risks ...................................................................................... 32 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (ERA) ................................................................................. 32

Problem Formulation .......................................................................................................... 32 Ecological Health Secondary Screening ............................................................................ 34

Quantitative Assessment of Ecological Risks ...................................................... 36 Qualitative Assessment of Off-Site Ecological Risks ........................................... 37

Summary of Ecological Risks ............................................................................................. 38 DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTY ................................................................................................ 38




© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page vi

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 39

Conceptual Risk Management Plan ................................................................................... 40 Health and Safety Plan for Subsurface Workers ................................................. 41 Implementation and Continued Maintenance of a Hard/Fill Cap ......................... 41

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 42

LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 42

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 44

TABLES WITHIN BODY OF REPORT

Table 2-1 Groundwater Elevation Data

Table 2-2 List of Soil COCs Carried Forward in SLRA

Table 3-1 Human Receptors and Exposure Pathways

Table 3-2 Exposure Factors used in Human Health Risk Assessment

Table 3-3 Subsurface Worker Exposure Estimates for Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Particulate Inhalation in a Trench

Table 3-4 Recreational User and Park Facilitator Exposure Estimates for Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact at Ground Surface

Table 3-5 Recreational User and Park Facilitator Exposure Estimates for Particulate Inhalation at Ground Surface

Table 3-6 Subsurface Worker Risk Estimates for Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Particulate Inhalation in a Trench

Table 3-7 Recreational User and Park Facilitator Risk Estimates for Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact at Ground Surface

Table 3-8 Recreational User and Park Facilitator Risk Estimates for Particulate Inhalation at Ground Surface

Table 4-1 Ecological Receptors and Exposure Pathways

Table 4-2 Terrestrial Ecological Receptor Risk Estimates for Direct Contact at Ground Surface

Table 6-1 Summary of Potential Risks and Recommendations

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I Figures

APPENDIX II Summary Tables APPENDIX III Inspection Log Template




© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page vii

FIGURES APPENDED TO REPORT

Figure 1 Key Map

Figure 2 Site and Surrounding Land Use Plan

Figure 3 Borehole and Monitoring Well Location Plan

Figure 4A Site Plan Showing Full Depth Soil Exceedances (PHCs/BTEX)

Figure 4B Site Plan Showing Full Depth Soil Exceedances (PAHs)

Figure 4C Site Plan Showing Full Depth Soil Exceedances (Metals)

Figure 5 Approximate Extent of Soil Impacts

Figure 6 Human Health Conceptual Site Model

Figure 7 Ecological Conceptual Site Model

Figure 8 Approximate Extent of HASP Required for Subsurface Worker

Figure 9 Approximate Extent of Additional Hard/Fill Cap Required

TABLES APPENDED TO REPORT

Table 1 – Soil Analytical Results

Table 2A – Contaminant Inventory for Full Depth Soil

Table 2B – Contaminant Inventory for Surface Soil (0-0.76 mbgs)

Table 3 – Groundwater Analytical Results

Table 4 – Contaminant Inventory for Groundwater

Table 5A – Human Health Secondary Screening of Full Depth Soil

Table 5B – Human Health Secondary Screening of Surface Soil (0-0.76 mbgs)

Table 6 – Evaluation of PAHs

Table 7 – Ecological Secondary Screening of Surface Soil (0-0.76 mbgs)




© 2018 Pinchin Ltd. Page 1 of 45

INTRODUCTION

Pinchin Ltd. (Pinchin) was retained by the City of Guelph (Client) to conduct a Screening Level Risk

Assessment (SLRA) of 70 Norwich Street East (owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority, known

as the “Goldie Mills” property) and 139 Cardigan Street (owned by the City of Guelph, known as the

“Joseph Wolfond Park West” property), Guelph, Ontario (collectively referred to as the Site). The location

of the Site is shown on Figure 1. All Figures are provided in Appendix I.

The Site is currently used as a park. The Goldie Mills portion of the Site holding municipal address 70

Norwich Street East was formerly utilized for sawmill and for other manufacturing activities (i.e. a foundry,

a cooperage, a distillery, a piggery and a tannery). The Joseph Wolfond Park portion of the Site holding

municipal address 139 Cardigan Street was formerly utilized for furniture manufacturing operations. The

Site measures approximately 1.09 hectares.

The northern portion of the Site is grass landscaped with asphalt walking trails. The central portion of the

Site contains stone ruins and a tall brick chimney associated with the former mill; gardens are also

located within this area. The southern portion of the Site is grass landscaped with gravel walking trails.

It is Pinchin’s understanding that the SLRA is required in relation to internal due diligence requirements

for the Site.

Background

Pinchin conducted a Technical Peer Review (TPR) of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)

completed by Novatox for the property located at 70 Norwich Street in Guelph, in a document entitled

“Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Peer Review, 70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario”,

dated August 29, 2017. The HHRA was completed for the Site to determine if any human health risks

might be associated with exposure to the soil impacts identified by Englobe (2016).

Englobe completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and subsequent Limited Phase II

ESA in 2016. The Phase I ESA identified potential environmental concerns at the Site associated with the

placement of fill material, on-Site historical operations, and activities conducted at nearby surrounding

lands. The Phase II ESA identified concentrations of various petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), benzene,

toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes (collectively referred to as “BTEX”), polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals in soil, exceeding the applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment and

Climate Change (MOECC, 2011) Table 8 Generic Site Condition Standards for Use Within 30 m of a

Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition for Residential/Parkland/Institutional land use and

coarse-textured soil (Table 8 Standards), in the north portion of the Site. Groundwater was not assessed

as part of the Englobe 2016 Phase II ESA, and the soil impacts were not delineated at the time.





Pinchin noted that the Novatox (2017) HHRA appears to have been conducted in a manner consistent





is available, to determine whether risk management measures (RMM) are required. This information

would be used, along with Pinchin’s observations made on-Site during its supplemental fieldwork, to

create a more site-specific risk management plan.

Pinchin further recommended the conduct of an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) that would consider

potential effects of the contamination in the park on plants and wildlife, as well as aquatic life in the Speed

River. The above recommendations concerning data collection would assist with an assessment of

ecological risks.

Pinchin subsequently conducted Phase II ESA activities across the entire Site between August 2017 and

December 2017, the results of which further delineated the known impacts and addressed various data

gaps. The soil impacts identified across the Site include PHCs, BTEX, PAHs and metals. There were no

groundwater impacts identified.

To address the known soil impacts in place, Pinchin recommended that an SLRA be completed to

evaluate the potential for human health and ecological risks associated with the soil impacts, and create a

more site-specific risk management plan.

Objective

The objective of the SLRA is to assess potential risks, to on-Site human and ecological receptors

occupying or visiting the Site that may result from exposure to known soil impacts at the Site. It is

Pinchin’s understanding that the work is required for due diligence purposes, and that a Record of Site

Condition (RSC) is not required. Therefore, the scope of work completed by Pinchin is for due diligence

purposes only. If, in future, an RSC is intended, further consultation and/or work will be required.

Regulatory Context

The work completed herein was performed in general accordance with standard environmental consulting

practices and the following guidance documents:

• MOECC (2005) “Procedures for the Use of Risk Assessment under Part XV.1 of the

Environmental Protection Act”, dated October, 2005. Queen’s Printer for Ontario;

• MOECC (2011a) “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1

of the Environmental Protection Act”, dated April 15, 2011. Queen’s Printer for Ontario;





• MOECC (2011b) “Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil,

Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario”, dated

April 15, 2011;

• MOECC (2016) Modified Generic Risk Assessment, Approved Model. April 15, 2011, last

updated November 1, 2016; and

• U.S. EPA (1989) “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health

Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final”, dated December 1989.

Scope of Work

The SLRA considered the current and continued use and configuration of the Site, and involved the

following tasks:

1. Review, analysis and reporting of the previously collected environmental data;

2. Assessing potential human health and ecological issues on-Site;

3. Conducting a preliminary assessment of potential RMM for the Site, as required; and

4. Preparation of an SLRA report for the Site.

The SLRA was conducted to assess the continued parkland use of the Site. An SLRA is a scientific tool

that can be used for the assessment and management of environmental contamination caused by

historical, current or future activities at a site. Risk assessment can be used to identify whether

unacceptable risks exist at the Site due to the presence of the primary contaminants of concern (COCs),

and whether remediation or risk management is required.

PROPERTY INFORMATION, SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

Physical Site Setting

Site Description

The Site is currently used as a park. In addition, the intended future land use will remain as Parkland. The

Goldie Mills portion of the Site holding municipal address 70 Norwich Street East was formerly utilized for

sawmill and for other manufacturing activities (i.e. a foundry, a cooperage, a distillery, a piggery and a

tannery). The Joseph Wolfond Park portion of the Site holding municipal address 139 Cardigan Street

was formerly utilized for furniture manufacturing operations.

The north portion of the Site is grass landscaped with asphalt walking trails. The central portion of the Site

contains stone ruins and a tall brick chimney associated with the former mill; gardens are also located

within this area. The south portion of the Site is grass landscaped with gravel walking trails.





As indicated on Figure 1 (Key Map), the Site is located on the northeast side of the intersection of

Norwich Street East and Cardigan Street in Guelph, Ontario. The Site is bound by the Speed River to the

east; Norwich Street East to the south; the Guelph Youth Music Centre and parkland trails followed by

Cardigan Street to the west; and parkland trails to the north. The Royal Recreational Trail/Downtown Trail

surrounding the Site also intersects the Site in various sections.

Geology and Hydrogeology

Based on the soil samples recovered during the borehole drilling program, the soil stratigraphy below the

grass or asphalt surface generally consists of fill material comprising primarily sand and gravel and/or

gravel with occasional silty sand units to an approximate depth of between 0.61 and 5.94 mbgs.

Native subsurface material underlying the fill was observed to generally consist of limestone bedrock to a

maximum drilling depth of 9.14 mbgs. Moist to wet soil conditions were only observed at borehole MW110

at a depth of 3.05 mbgs (refer to Figure 3).

The water level information obtained during groundwater monitoring is presented in Table 2-1. The depth

to groundwater measured within the monitoring wells on August 11, 2017 ranged from approximately 2.90

mbgs at MW110 to 6.61 mbgs at MW102 (refer to Figure 3).

TABLE 2-1 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA

Well Number Date (dd/mm/yyyy)

Water Level Measurement from Top of Well Casing

Water Level Measurement from

Ground

(m) (mbgs) MW102 11/08/2017 6.46 6.61 MW110 11/08/2017 2.73 2.90 MW111 11/08/2017 3.14 3.24

Notes: mbgs

metres below ground surface

The Speed River is located within 30 meters of the Site. The topography of the Site slopes to the east

towards the Speed River. Groundwater flow at the Site is inferred to be towards the east based on the

location of the Speed River and topography of the Site.

Previous Report Summaries

The following environmental reports were previously completed by Pinchin and others:

1. Englobe (2016a) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 70 Norwich Street

East, Guelph, Ontario. Englobe Corp. August 17, 2016.

2. Englobe (2016b) Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 70 Norwich Street

East, Guelph, Ontario. Englobe Corp. December 21, 2016.





3. Novatox (2017) Draft Due Diligence Human Health Risk Assessment for Goldie Mill Park,

70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario. Novatox Inc. February 2017.

4. Pinchin (2017a) Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Review, 70 Norwich Street

East, Guelph, Ontario. Pinchin Ltd. August 29, 2017.

5. Pinchin (2017b) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 70 Norwich Street East,

Guelph, Ontario. Pinchin Ltd. October 11, 2017.

6. Pinchin (2017c) Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Joseph Wolfond Park

West, Guelph, Ontario. Pinchin Ltd. December 12, 2017.

7. Pinchin (2018) Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 70 Norwich Street East,

Guelph, Ontario. Pinchin Ltd. January 9, 2018.

All environmental reports were relied upon for the preparation of the SLRA. Summaries of the previous

environmental investigations conducted at the Site are provided below.

The soil and groundwater data are compared to the currently applicable Table 8 Standards in a Potable

Groundwater Condition for Residential/Parkland/Institutional land use and coarse textured soil.

Englobe 2016 Phase I ESA – 70 Norwich Street East The purpose of the Phase I ESA at the 70 Norwich Street East property was to determine the presence or

absence of potential environmental concerns, in accordance with Canadian Standards Association (CSA)

Standards, for due diligence purposes. The scope of work included a records review, Site visit and

interviews with individuals familiar with the Site operations. The salient findings included the following:

• The Site was first developed in 1827 as a wood sawmill. Due to a fire, the sawmill was

destroyed and later rebuilt in 1850, of stone. In 1953, a fire destroyed most of the

structure. The Site was also utilized for various manufacturing activities including a

foundry, a cooperage, a distillery, a piggery and a tannery.

• Based on previous subsurface investigations, fill material of unknown quality is present

on-Site at depths ranging from 1.5 to 4.9 mbgs. Select metal parameters were detected

at concentrations above applicable site condition standards.

• Historical operations conducted at the Site may contribute to potential environmental

concerns. In addition, railway spur lines previously extended onto the south portion of the

Site, which is likely associated with the current railway line located west of the Site.

• Past and present operations conducted at nearby surrounding lands may contribute to

potential environmental concerns on the Site. A railway line is currently located along the

southwest property boundary and extends in a north to south direction. The lands to the

west and north have been utilized for commercial/industrial activities in the past, and

were listed as being generators of hazardous waste. In addition, the Site





representative reported that buried waste debris was identified along the edge of the

Speed River on the Wolfond Memorial Park property (139 Cardigan Street), located

approximately 50 m north of the Site.

A Phase II ESA was recommended to determine the environmental quality of soil and groundwater.

Englobe 2016 Limited Phase II ESA – 70 Norwich Street East The purpose of the Limited Phase II ESA at the 70 Norwich Street East property was to characterize the

soil quality as it relates to the potential environmental concerns identified in the Phase I ESA. The

investigation was done in accordance with CSA Standards, for due diligence purposes. The salient

findings included the following:

• Advancement of twelve boreholes (BH-01 to BH-12) to a maximum depth of 4.6 mbgs.

• Select soil samples were collected from each borehole, and submitted for laboratory

analysis of PHCs, VOCs, PAHs, metals or inorganics.

• The analytical results indicated elevated concentrations of metals, inorganics, PAHs,

VOCs and/or PHCs F2-F4 above applicable Table 8 Standards at ten boreholes (BH-01,

BH-2, and BH-05 to BH-12).

Novatox 2017 HHRA – 70 Norwich Street East The objectives of the HHRA were: to assess whether exposures to contaminants in soils at the 70

Norwich Street East property might affect human health; derive concentrations of contaminants that

would be expected to be protective of human health; and, recommend strategies for minimizing any

potential health risks. The HHRA approach was consistent with MOECC guidance, but was not part of a

submission to support an RSC, and review by the MOECC was therefore not legally required. The HHRA

was supported by information and data collected by CMT Engineering Inc. and Englobe Corp.

Novatox chose two different scenarios to identify contaminants for further study. The first compared

measurements of chemicals in surface soil to the Table 8 Standards. Surface soil was defined as soil

between 0 and 0.76 mbgs. This comparison would represent exposures for visitors to the park and for

people who would work in the park as facilitators, and would only have contact with soil at the ground

surface. The second scenario for contaminant identification was referred to as full depth, and included all

soil samples collected between 0 and 4.27 mbgs. This scenario was expected to represent

construction/subsurface and utility workers who might be exposed to subsurface soils while work below

ground. Groundwater data were not available to Novatox and were not considered in the HHRA.

Novatox considered three types of human receptor that might have contact with soils in the park,

including Recreational Users (all ages); Park Facilitators/Workers (adults); and, Construction/Subsurface

Workers (adults). These people may be exposed to soil in the park through various routes, including





inadvertent ingestion, contact with skin, and by inhaling dust or vapours from volatile contaminants. For

construction workers, all of these activities may occur in a trench or excavation as well as at the surface.

Novatox made the following determinations as part of the HHRA:

• Recreational Users: Potential health risks were identified for PAHs in surface soil via soil

ingestion or dermal contact;

• Park Facilitators/Workers: Potential health risks were identified for PAHs in surface soil

via soil ingestion or dermal contact, and via soil inhalation; and

• Construction workers: Potential health risks were identified for PAHs, arsenic, and lead

via incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact.

No other potential health risks were estimated for any of the other contaminants in the soil through any of

the exposure pathways under consideration.

Novatox also derived what they termed “effects-based standards” for each of the contaminants by

estimating the highest level of each contaminant in park soils that would not be considered a potential

health risk.

Novatox concluded that RMM were necessary to protect visitors and workers in the park from exposures

of PAHs, arsenic, and lead. Specifically, Novatox recommended a cap or barrier on Site soils to prevent

soil ingestion and dermal contact risks, the use of a Health and Safety Plan and Soil Management Plan

for construction workers if excavating activities are undertaken, and a new investigation into groundwater

quality in the park.

Pinchin 2017 TPR – 70 Norwich Street East Pinchin completed a peer review of Novatox’s 2017 HHRA for the 70 Norwich Street East property.

Pinchin noted that the Novatox 2017 HHRA appeared to have been conducted in a manner consistent





is available, to determine whether RMM are required. This information would be used, along with

Pinchin’s observations made on-Site during its supplemental fieldwork campaign, to create a more site-

specific risk management plan. Pinchin also recommended that groundwater be sampled and analyzed

for the full suite of potential contaminants.

Pinchin further recommended the conduct of an ERA that would consider potential effects of the

contamination in the park on plants and wildlife, as well as aquatic life in the Speed River. The above

recommendations concerning data collection would assist with an assessment of ecological risks.





Pinchin 2017 Phase II ESA – 70 Norwich Street East The purpose of the Phase II ESA at the 70 Norwich Street East property was to fill the data gaps identified

in the Pinchin 2017 TPR, in accordance with CSA Standards, to support the SLRA. The salient findings

included the following:

• Advancement of twelve boreholes (BH101 to BH112) to a maximum depth of 9.14 mbgs,

three of which were instrumented as monitoring wells (MW102, MW110 and MW111). It

is noted that three boreholes (BH101, BH103 and BH104) were advanced north of the 70

Norwich Street East property, at the James Wolfond Park West property.

• Select soil samples were collected from each borehole and submitted for laboratory

analysis of PHCs, BTEX, PAHs, or metals. Groundwater samples were collected from

newly installed wells and submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs, BTEX, PAHs and

metals.

• The soil analytical results indicated elevated concentrations of PHCs, BTEX, PAHs

and/or metals above applicable Table 8 Standards at eight boreholes (BH101, BH103,

BH104, BH107, BH108, BH109, BH110 and BH111).

• The groundwater analytical result indicated that all concentrations of PHCs, BTEX, PAHs

and metals were below applicable Table 8 Standards.

Pinchin 2017 Limited Phase II ESA – 139 Cardigan Street The purpose of the Limited Phase II ESA at the Joseph Wolfond Park West property at 139 Cardigan Street

was to delineate the extent of shallow soil impacts identified north of the Goldie Mills Ruins property (at 70

Norwich Street East), in accordance with CSA Standards. The salient findings included the following:

• Advancement of nine boreholes (BH201 to BH209) to a maximum depth of 2.74 mbgs.


analysis of PHCs, BTEX, PAHs or metals.

• The soil analytical results indicated elevated concentrations of PHCs, BTEX, PAHs

and/or metals above applicable Table 8 Standards at three boreholes (BH203, BH207

and BH208).

• It should be noted that the “buried waste” identified in the Englobe 2016 Phase I ESA as

occurring on this portion of the property was not encountered during the investigation.





Pinchin 2018 Limited Phase II ESA – 70 Norwich Street East The purpose of the Limited Phase II ESA at the 70 Norwich Street East property was to delineate the extent

of shallow PAH soil impacts on the south portion of the Site, in accordance with CSA Standards. The salient

findings included the following:

• Advancement of five boreholes (BH401 to BH405) to a maximum depth of 1.52 mbgs.


analysis of PAHs.

• The soil analytical results indicated elevated concentrations of PAHs above applicable

Table 8 Standards at three boreholes (BH401, BH402 and BH405).

Based on the findings of the previous environmental investigations, Pinchin recommended that an SLRA

be completed for the entire Site to evaluate the potential for human health and ecological risks associated

with the soil impacts.

Contaminants of Concern (COCs)

Applicable Site Condition Standards

The chemicals identified in soil and groundwater were screened against MOECC Site Condition

Standards (SCS) for the purpose of the SLRA. The screening was conducted as follows:

What is the intended groundwater use?

The Site is a parkland property located within the City of Guelph which is located within the Grand River

Source Protection Area. Drinking water for the Site and surrounding area is supplied by the City of

Guelph sourcing water from groundwater in the Guelph Waterworks Well Supply as described in the

Grand River Source Protection Plan. Given that drinking water is supplied via groundwater sources, a

potable drinking water scenario is considered relevant when selecting the SCS.

Do stratified site conditions apply?

The SLRA considered full depth restoration/management of the soil. There is no intention to apply

stratified SCS at the Site. However, in addition to the assessment of full depth soil, it is noted that an

assessment of surface soils measured at depths between 0 and 0.76 mbgs were also considered in the

SLRA so as to refine the recommended RMM.

Is the Site an “environmentally sensitive site”?

Section 41 of O.Reg.153/04 states that a property is classified as an “environmentally sensitive area” if,

the property is within an area of natural significance; the property includes or is adjacent to an area of

natural significance or part of such an area; the property includes land that is within 30 m of an area of

natural significance or part of such an area; the soil at the property has a pH value for surface soil





less than 5 or greater than 9; or, the soil at the property has a pH value for subsurface soil less than 5 or

greater than 11. The Site is not located in or adjacent, nor does it contain land within 30 m of, an area of

natural significance.

Pinchin collected two representative soil samples from the boreholes advanced at the Site and submitted

them for pH analysis. The pH values measured in Pinchin’s submitted soil samples were within the limits

for non-sensitive sites. As such, the Site is not an environmentally sensitive area. However, Pinchin notes

that three surface soil samples collected and analyzed for pH during the Englobe Phase II ESA were

outside the range for non-sensitive Sites. This data is discussed further in Section 2.2.1.1.

Is the Site considered shallow soil property or includes a water body?

Section 43.1 of O.Reg.153/04 states that a property must use Table 6 or 7 Standards if the property is a

shallow soil property; or, must use Table 8 or 9 Standards if the property includes all or part of a water

body or is adjacent to a water body or includes land that is within 30 m of a water body. Bedrock was not

encountered in any of the boreholes advanced at the Site (maximum depth was 4.57 mbgs); as such, the

property is not a shallow soil property.

However, the Site is located within 30 m of a water body, the Speed River, located along the east

property boundary. As such, Section 43.1 applies to the Site.

What is the intended land use?

The Site is a parkland property located within the City of Guelph, and will remain parkland.

What is the Soil-Texture Classification?

One soil sample collected from borehole BH107 advanced at the Site was submitted for 75 micron single-

sieve grain size analysis. The results indicated that the material is coarse-textured.

In addition, based on the information collected during previous Phase II ESAs, the general stratigraphy

across the Site included surficial topsoil and sand/sand and gravel fill material, overlying native sand and

gravel, overlying limestone bedrock.

As such, the soil at the Site is considered to be coarse-textured.

Applicable Site Condition Standards

Based on the above, the appropriate SCS for the Site are:

• “Table 8: Generic SCS for Use Within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Ground Water

Condition”, as per MOECC (2011a), for:

• Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use; and

• Coarse-textured soils.





As such, the analytical results have been compared to the Table 8 Standards.

2.2.1.1 Consideration of Elevated Soil pH

Pinchin notes that three surface soil samples collected and analyzed for pH during the Englobe Phase II

ESA were outside the range for non-sensitive Sites. The soil samples were collected from depths of

between 0.76 and 2.29 mbgs, from borehole locations BH-07-16, BH-09-16 and BH-11-16. Borehole logs

from these locations noted that limestone debris was observed at these sample collection depths. Thus, it

is considered likely that the elevated pH results for these locations are due to the presence of limestone

pieces within the samples submitted for pH analysis.

For the purposes of the RA, the impact of elevated pH in soil on individual COCs was considered. The

mobility of non-ionic organic chemicals (such as PHCs and PAHs) in soil are generally not affected by

changes in pH; however, changes in pH may reduce the degradation rate of these chemicals by limiting

soil microorganism growth in strong acidic or alkaline conditions (Dragun, 1998).

For metal COCs, alkaline conditions (i.e. pH > 7) in soil generally result in an increase in adsorption of

cationic metals and decreased mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of these metals (Adriano, 2001). As

such, cationic inorganic COCs are unlikely to be mobile under elevated pH conditions. Anionic metals

and/or metalloids such as molybdenum can combine with oxygen to form oxyanions which may become

more mobile, bioavailable and/or toxic with increasing pH. However, for select parameters such as lead

and silver, speciation as well as oxidation/reduction potential of surrounding soil play a large role on the

behaviour of the COC in soil (Adriano, 2001).

Due to the potential influence of high pH on metals COCs in soil, Pinchin conducted a secondary

screening of the metals concentrations at boreholes BH-07-16, BH-09-16 and BH-11-16 against the

MOECC Table 1 Background SCS. All metal concentrations at these locations met the Table 1

Standards, and the elevated pH in the three surface soil samples named above is therefore not expected

to require the assessment of additional COCs beyond those selected using Table 8 Standards. Additional

discussion of the influence of alkaline soil concentrations on leaching of metals in soil at the Site is

provided in Section 4.0.

Contaminant Inventory

COCs were identified using the analytical data collected during environmental investigations relied upon

for the preparation of the SLRA. A parameter was considered a COC and carried forward for further

assessment in the SLRA if the following applied:

• Chemical exceeded the applicable Table 8 Standard.





• Reported detection limit (RDL) of a chemical exceeded the applicable Table 8 Standard,

and the chemical was associated with a potentially contaminating activity (PCA)

associated with an area of potential environmental concern (APEC).

• Chemical does not have an applicable Table 8 Standard but has been detected above its

RDL, and is associated with a PCA associated with an APEC.

An essential step of the SLRA process is determining the exposure point concentration (EPC) for each

COC to be used in estimating human health and ecological risks. For SLRA purposes, the maximum

measured concentration plus a further 20% of the maximum measured concentration, of each soil COC

found on-Site, was conservatively selected to be the representative concentration of that parameter

across the entire Site footprint. This approach was chosen to be consistent with MOECC guidance on

analytical uncertainty around the true maximum measured concentration on a Site, and to ensure that

human and ecological health risks are not underestimated.

Soil COCs

The parameters that exceeded the Table 8 Standards and are carried forward as COCs in the SLRA are

listed in Table 2-2.

TABLE 2-2 – LIST OF SOIL COCS CARRIED FORWARD IN SLRA

Full Depth Soil (0-4.57 mbgs) Surface Soil (0-0.76 mbgs)

PHC F1 PHC F3

PHC F2 PHC F4

PHC F3 Benzene

PHC F4 Toluene

Benzene Ethylbenzene

Toluene Xylenes

Ethylbenzene PAHs (all parameters)

Xylenes Antimony

Dichlorodifluoromethane Cadmium

PAHs (all parameters) Lead

Antimony Mercury

Arsenic Molybdenum

Barium Silver

Cadmium Zinc

Copper

Lead





Full Depth Soil (0-4.57 mbgs) Surface Soil (0-0.76 mbgs)

Mercury

Molybdenum

Selenium

Silver

Zinc

The soil COCs are also indicated in Table 1 (Soil Analytical Results), Table 2A (Contaminant Inventory for

Full Depth Soil) and Table 2B (Contaminant Inventory for Surface Soil [0-0.76 mbgs]) attached in

Appendix II.

The EPCs utilized in the SLRA to evaluate potential risks are presented in Table 2A for Full Depth Soil,

and Table 2B for Surface Soil, attached in Appendix II.

The locations of soil exceedances on the Site are shown on Figures 4A, 4B and 4C.

Groundwater COCs

As indicated in Tables 3 and 4 (Appendix II), reported concentrations of all analyzed parameters in the

groundwater samples submitted for analysis met the Table 8 Standards. As such, there are no

groundwater COCs considered in this SLRA.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA)

The Human Health section of the SLRA was conducted to assess if the environmental conditions on the

Site present potential human health risks due to COCs identified in soil. The following sections discuss

the quantitative and qualitative assessment of COCs in relation to selected receptors.

This HHRA was completed to be consistent with Novatox’s overall approach and calculation

methodologies, but has considered all data collected by Englobe and Pinchin.

Problem Formulation

Human Health Conceptual Site Model

The problem formulation step is used to identify how contaminants on the Site might adversely impact

human health. It requires an understanding of present and historical activities at the Site, identification of

COCs, identification of potential human receptors, and characterization of exposure pathways. The

outcome of the problem formulation step is a Conceptual Site Model (CSM), which represents the current

understanding of the sources of COCs, release and transport mechanisms within and between

environmental media, and exposure pathways by which COCs may contact identified human receptors.





Where exposure pathways can be reasonably assumed to be complete, a more detailed examination or

quantification of potential risks is conducted. The detailed assessment involves the remaining stages of

the SLRA including exposure and toxicity assessment, and risk characterization.

Novatox chose two different scenarios to identify contaminants for further study, and Pinchin has followed

the same method. The first scenario compares measurements of chemicals in surface soil to the Table 8

Standards. Surface soil was defined by Novatox as soil between 0 mbgs and 0.76 mbgs. This

comparison would represent exposures for visitors to the park and for people who would work in the park

as facilitators, who would only have contact with soil at the ground surface. The second scenario for

contaminant identification is referred to as full depth, and includes surface soil samples as well as deeper

soil samples (0 mbgs- 4.57 mbgs). This scenario is expected to represent construction and utility workers

who might be exposed to subsurface soils in the park.

The CSM for human receptors considered in this SLRA is presented in Figure 6. Receptors included in

the assessment are:

• Recreational Users;

• Park Facilitators/Workers; and

• Construction/Subsurface Worker.

No groundwater COCs were identified. Exposure pathways are limited to surface soil and full depth soil. It

is also noted that there are no enclosed structures at the Site, which renders the indoor air inhalation

pathway incomplete.

Potential exposure pathways considered in the assessment include:

• Dermal contact (touching) and incidental ingestion of surface soil, and inhalation of soil

particulates (dust) from surface soil, by a Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker;

• Inhalation of outdoor air impacted by soil vapours sourced from surface and full depth soil

by a Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker;

• Dermal contact (touching) and incidental ingestion of full depth soil, and inhalation of soil

particulates (dust) from full depth soil, by a Construction/Subsurface Worker; and

• Inhalation of trench air impacted by soil vapours sourced from full depth soil by a

Subsurface Worker.





The human receptors assessed and exposure pathways evaluated include:

TABLE 3-1 – HUMAN RECEPTORS AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Property Use Receptor Pathway

Parkland

Recreational User

Dermal contact and incidental ingestion with surface soil

Inhalation of soil particulates from surface soil

Inhalation of outdoor air sourced from surface and/or full

depth soil (Qualitative)

Park Facilitator/ Worker

Dermal contact and incidental ingestion with surface soil

Inhalation of soil particulates from surface soil

Inhalation of outdoor air sourced from surface and/or full

depth soil (Qualitative)

Construction/ Subsurface Worker

Dermal contact, incidental ingestion and inhalation of soil

particulates from full depth soil

Inhalation of trench air sourced from full depth soil

(Qualitative)

The assessment includes both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Pathways evaluated using a

strictly qualitative approach are indicated accordingly in Table 3-1.

The MOECC’s (2016) Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) Approved Model was used to assess

potential risks to most pathways for on Site human receptors with consideration of Site-specific

assumptions. Site characterization information has been collected, as described in Section 2.0. The data

used for the HHRA is sufficient to meet the objectives of the risk assessment.

Site assessment activities have been completed at the Site providing a substantive base of information on

soil and groundwater quality. Data relied upon in the HHRA were obtained from the Englobe 2016 Phase

II ESA and Pinchin’s Phase II ESA. The data collected as part of these Site investigations are considered

to be of adequate quality and the soil and groundwater data are being relied on in assessing risks to

receptors. It is Pinchin’s opinion that no significant issues related to data quality are associated in the

reviewed reports. Sampling procedures were acceptable and quality assurance/quality control samples,

consisting of trip blanks and field duplicate samples were collected and analysed, and no quality issues

related to field sampling or laboratory methods were noted. Furthermore, the soil and groundwater data

within these reports were obtained within approximately the two years and are considered adequately

representative of current Site conditions.





Human Health Secondary Screening

All COCs that exceeded their respective Table 8 Standard, the EPCs, as presented in Table 2A (full

depth soil) and Table 2B (surface soil), were assessed further against the MOECC human health

component values.

No groundwater COCs were identified, as such no additional assessment of exposure pathways arising

from groundwater impacts was required. Drinking water for the Site and surrounding area is supplied by

groundwater wells and therefore the Table 8 Standards for a potable drinking water scenario apply to the

Site. Novatox did not consider the drinking water pathway as part of their HHRA as no groundwater data

had been collected. All parameters analysed in groundwater by Pinchin were below their respective Table

8 Standards, and therefore human receptors are not being exposed to on-Site COCs via ingestion of

groundwater as drinking water. Furthermore, given that the on-Site soil impacts are historical, and

groundwater exceedances were not found, the soil leaching to groundwater pathway is not a concern for

this Site. No further assessment of the drinking water pathway is required as part of this HHRA.

In selecting the soil component values for the Site, the following criteria were considered:

• The Site land use is to remain Parkland;

• Groundwater for the surrounding area is considered potable; and

• The soil at the Site is considered to be coarse-grained.

Pinchin notes that the Table 8 Standards are the appropriate SCS for the Site due to the location of the

Speed River within 30 m of the Site. The Table 8 Standards were derived by the MOECC specifically for

the protection of aquatic ecological receptors from potential effects of contaminated soil and groundwater,

and potential effects on human health are therefore not expected to be determined solely by an

exceedance of Table 8 Standards. As such the component values for the Table 2 Standards, which

underlie the development of the Table 8 Standards as far as human health is concerned, were used for

supplemental screening in the HHRA.

Based on the selection criteria, the following component values were selected as toxicity benchmarks for

the protection of human health for the surface soil scenario and full depth soil scenario:

Full Depth Soil Scenario (0-4.57 mbgs)

Soil Components for Table 2: Full Depth, Potable Water Scenario, Coarse-Textured Soil and Commercial/

Industrial Land Use:

• S3 – Soil ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of soil particulates protective of a

Subsurface Worker; and

• S/OA – Surrogate for Inhalation of Trench Air protective of a Subsurface Worker.





These component values are summarized in Table 5A (full depth soil).

Concentrations of benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, arsenic,

cadmium, and lead in full depth soil exceeded their respective S3 component values. As such, these

parameters were carried forward for quantitative assessment in the HHRA for the soil ingestion, dermal

contact and inhalation of soil particulates pathways protective of a Subsurface Worker.

Concentrations of acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene exceeded their respective

S/OA component values. It should be noted that a chemical is considered to be sufficiently volatile and

require assessment of vapour air inhalation if its Henry’s law constant is 1 x 10-5 atm-m3/mol or greater,

and has a vapour pressure greater than 0.05 Torr (U.S. EPA, 2004, MOECC 2011). In cases where a

chemical’s Henry’s law constant or vapour pressure is less than described, the MOECC has not derived a

component value, and no further assessment of these parameters is considered to be required. An

exception appears to have been made with the derivation of an S/OA component value for each of

acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene, even though these parameters have vapour

pressures below 0.05 Torr and are not considered sufficiently volatile. Nevertheless, a qualitative

assessment is provided for these three parameters via the inhalation of trench air protective of a

Subsurface Worker.

Surface Soil Scenario (0-0.76 mbgs)

Soil Components for Table 2: Full Depth, Potable Water Scenario, Coarse-Textured Soil and Residential/

Parkland Land Use and Industrial/Commercial Land Use:

• S1 – Soil ingestion and dermal contact protective of a Recreational User who may be a

toddler. Toddlers are considered the most sensitive receptors;

• S2 – Soil ingestion and dermal contact protective of a Park Facilitator/Worker; and

• S/OA – Inhalation of Outdoor Air protective of a Recreational User and Park

Facilitator/Worker.

These component values are summarized in Table 5B (surface soil).


benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene,

methylnaphthalene (total), pyrene, cadmium and lead in surface soil exceeded their respective S1

component values. As such, these parameters were carried forward for quantitative assessment in the

HHRA for the soil ingestion and dermal contact pathways protective of a Recreational User.






benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and

pyrene in surface soil exceeded their respective S2 component values. As such, these parameters were

carried forward for quantitative assessment in the HHRA for the soil ingestion and dermal contact

pathways protective of a Park Facilitator/Worker.

There were no exceedances of the S/OA component values. As such, the assessment of the inhalation of

outdoor air protective of a Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker is discussed qualitatively.

The toxicological interpretation of lead is currently under review by Health Canada. In the interim, the

MOECC recommends potential risk be assumed for any and all concentrations of lead exceeding 120

µg/g. Therefore, no quantitative assessment of lead was performed in this HHRA, and a qualitative

discussion is provided instead.

Exposure Assessment

An exposure assessment is conducted for all COCs, exposure pathways, and receptors described by the

CSM developed during the problem formulation of the HHRA. Estimating exposure involves the

estimation of COC intake by human receptors.

Determining an EPC for each contaminant to be used to estimate human exposure is an essential step of

the exposure assessment process. For SLRA purposes, the EPCs presented in Tables 2A and 2B were

conservatively selected to be representative of on-Site exposures. This approach ensures that human

health risks are not underestimated.

Special Considerations for PAHs

PAHs can cause non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogenic risks are assessed

individually for each PAH identified as a COC, however carcinogenic risks are assessed by considering

all 12 PAHs that are classified as carcinogens by the MOECC due to their additive effects.

Novatox provides a detailed discussion on PAH risks in their HHRA report, and Table 6 provides an

update of Novatox’s analysis based on all available soil data of the calculated benzo[a]pyrene equivalent

concentration for each carcinogenic PAH in the shallow soil and full depth soil scenarios.

Receptor Characteristics

Human health receptor characteristics are described in the Novatox HHRA Report, and are similar to

those described in the MOECC (2011) document entitled “Rationale for the Development of Soil and

Ground Water Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Novatox chose

their receptor characteristics based on the Site-specific use/ activities anticipated for the Site.





Pinchin has chosen receptors consistent with the Novatox report for this HHRA. The exposure

assumptions for the receptors and scenarios described below are also provided in Table 3-2. These

assumptions comprise the receptor specific characteristics for each of the receptors described below,

such as body weight, ingestion rates, body surface areas, and other parameters.

TABLE 3-2 – EXPOSURE FACTORS USED IN HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

Characteristic Units Recreational Users Park

Facilitator Construction/Subsurface

Worker Toddler Composite

Adult Adult Adult

Body Weight kg 16.5 62.44 70.7 70.7

Skin Surface Area cm2 1,745 3,977 3,400 3,400 Soil Adherence Factor mg/cm2/day 0.2 0.09 0.2 0.2

Intake Rates

Soil Ingestion mg/day 200 58.75 100 100 Inhalation m3/hour 0.346 0.655 1.5 1.5

Time Outdoors hours/day 1 1 8 9.8 days/week 5 5 5 5 weeks/year 39 39 20 39

Exposure Duration years 4.5 76 56 1.5

Averaging Period

Non-Carcinogens years 4.5 - 56 1.5

Carcinogens years - 76 56 56 Notes:

Reference: Novatox 2017 HHRA Report

RECREATIONAL USER

A Recreational User may be a toddler or a composite adult as described by the MOECC.

Resident (Toddler)

The Resident (toddler) receptor is a child aged 6 months to 4 years who visits the Site 1 hour per day for 5 days per week for 39 weeks per year over 4.5 years.

Adult (Composite)

The composite adult is on-Site from birth, through life stages of infant, toddler, child, teen, and adult. The

composite receptor is used for calculations of lifetime average daily dose (LADD) for carcinogens. The composite adult is assumed to be exposed to COCs visiting the Site for 1 hour per day, 5 days per week, for 39 weeks per year over 76 years.





PARK FACILITATOR/ WORKER

The Park Facilitator/Worker Receptor is an adult (i.e., >20 years old) who is employed at the Site on a full

time basis and may be involved in outdoor work on-Site. The Park Facilitator was assumed by Novatox to be exposed to COCs for 8 hours per day, for 5 days per week for 20 weeks per year over a 56 year period.

CONSTRUCTION/SUBSURFACE WORKER

The Subsurface Worker Receptor is an adult (i.e., >20 years old) who may be involved in deep

excavation works on the Site, including installing pipelines and other infrastructure. The Subsurface Worker was assumed to be exposed to COCS for 9.8 hours per day for 5 days per week for 39 weeks per year over 1.5 years.

Pathway Analysis

Based on the identified COCs, the relevant environmental media (i.e. soil) and the potential human

receptors, the following exposure pathways for the shallow soil scenario and full-depth soil scenario were

identified and evaluated for human receptors on-Site:

• Dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation of soil particulates of surface soil for a

Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker (Quantitative);

• Dermal contact, incidental ingestion, and inhalation of soil particulates of full depth soil for

a Construction/Subsurface Worker (Quantitative);

• Inhalation of Outdoor Air from surface and full depth soil for a Recreational User, Park

Facilitator/Worker, and Construction/Subsurface Worker (Qualitative); and

• Inhalation of trench air of full depth soil for a Construction/Subsurface Worker

(Qualitative).

Exposure Estimates

EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR FULL DEPTH SOIL (0-0.76 mbgs)

Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Particulate Inhalation in a Trench





contact and inhalation of soil particulates pathways protective of a Subsurface Worker, with the exception

of lead. No quantitative assessment of lead was performed in this HHRA, and a qualitative discussion is

provided instead.





The exposure estimates for these parameters are provided in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3 SUBSURFACE WORKER EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR SOIL INGESTION, DERMAL CONTACT, AND PARTICULATE INHALATION IN A TRENCH

Contaminant

Exposure Estimate mg/kg-day

Ingestion and Dermal Contact

(Non-Cancer)


(Cancer)

Particulate Inhalation

(Non-Cancer)

Particulate Inhalation (Cancer)

Benz[a]anthracene Carcinogenic 3.20E-05 Carcinogenic 5.25E-07 Benzo[a]pyrene Carcinogenic 3.29E-05 Carcinogenic 5.40E-07 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Carcinogenic 2.75E-05 Carcinogenic 4.50E-07 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Carcinogenic 1.69E-05 Carcinogenic 2.77E-07 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Carcinogenic 2.33E-05 Carcinogenic 3.82E-07 Chrysene Carcinogenic 3.66E-05 Carcinogenic 6.00E-07 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Carcinogenic 4.62E-06 Carcinogenic 7.57E-08 Fluoranthene Carcinogenic 9.20E-05 Carcinogenic 1.51E-06 Indeno[1 2 3-cd]pyrene Carcinogenic 1.51E-05 Carcinogenic 2.47E-07 Arsenic 3.13E-05 8.38E-07 1.37E-06 3.67E-08 Cadmium 7.46E-06 Non-Carcinogenic 2.16E-07 Non-Carcinogenic

Inhalation of Outdoor Air and Trench Air

Concentrations of acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene exceeded their respective

S/OA component values.

Novatox modeled soil to outdoor air and soil to trench air using equations developed by the Atlantic

Canada Partners in Risk-Based Corrective Action Implementation Group. Pinchin concurs with the

methodologies presented by Novatox regarding the soil to outdoor air pathway, but notes that some of the

assumptions made by Novatox were conservative (e.g. Site-specific depth to contaminant source is

actually 1.52 mbgs, not Novatox’s model input value of 0 mbgs). Pinchin has chosen to limit the

assessment of the inhalation of outdoor air pathway to a qualitative discussion of potential risk. No

numerical exposure estimates are provided for the inhalation of outdoor air or trench air pathways.

EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR SURFACE SOIL (0-0.76 mbgs)

Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact at Ground Surface















No quantitative assessment of lead was performed in this HHRA.

The exposure estimates for these parameters to a Recreational User and a Park Facilitator/Worker are

presented in Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4 RECREATIONAL USER AND PARK FACILITATOR EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR SOIL INGESTION AND DERMAL CONTACT AT GROUND SURFACE

Contaminant of Concern


Recreational User Ingestion and Dermal Contact

Park Facilitator Ingestion and Dermal Contact

Toddler (Non-Cancer)

Composite Adult (Cancer)

Adult (Non-Cancer)

Adult (Cancer)

Benz[a]anthracene Carcinogen 1.41E-04 Carcinogen 8.24E-05 Benzo[a]pyrene Carcinogen 8.25E-05 Carcinogen 4.82E-05 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Carcinogen 8.55E-05 Carcinogen 4.99E-05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Carcinogen 2.55E-05 Carcinogen 1.49E-05 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Carcinogen 4.05E-05 Carcinogen 2.37E-05 Chrysene Carcinogen 1.07E-04 Carcinogen 6.22E-05 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Carcinogen 1.26E-05 Carcinogen 7.37E-06 Fluoranthene 1.62E-03 2.55E-04 1.49E-04 1.49E-04 Indeno[1 2 3-cd]pyrene Carcinogen 3.19E-05 Carcinogen 1.86E-05 Methylnaphthalene (total) 7.44E-04 Non-Carcinogen Not Required Not Required

Pyrene Carcinogen 2.10E-04 Carcinogen 1.23E-04 Cadmium 1.66E-05 Non-Carcinogen Not Required Not Required


The MOECC does not include the inhalation of soil particulates when deriving the S1 and S2 component

values. For conservatism, all soil COCs identified in the shallow soil scenario were quantitatively

assessed via the particulate inhalation pathway. The exposure estimates for these parameters to a

Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker are provided in Table 3-5.





Pinchin notes that until November 2016, MOECC considered ethylbenzene a developmental toxicant, and

Novatox’s analysis treated this chemical as such. The 2016 version of the MGRA Approved Model does

not designate ethylbenzene as a developmental toxicant for chronic exposures, and consistent with the

up-to-date guidance, Pinchin has made the same assumption.

TABLE 3-5 RECREATIONAL USER AND PARK FACILITATOR EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR PARTICULATE INHALATION AT GROUND SURFACE



Recreational User Particulate Inhalation

Park Facilitator/Worker Particulate Inhalation


Composite Adult

(Cancer) Adult

(Non-Cancer) Adult

(Cancer)

PHC F3 7.34E-07 Non-Carcinogen 3.05E-06 Non-Carcinogen Aliphatic C>16-C21 4.11E-07 Non-Carcinogen 1.71E-06 Non-Carcinogen Aliphatic C>21-C34 1.76E-07 Non-Carcinogen 7.31E-07 Non-Carcinogen Aromatic C>16-C21 1.03E-07 Non-Carcinogen 4.27E-07 Non-Carcinogen Aromatic C>21-C34 4.40E-08 Non-Carcinogen 1.83E-07 Non-Carcinogen

PHC F4 3.95E-06 Non-Carcinogen 1.64E-05 Non-Carcinogen Aliphatic C>34 3.16E-06 Non-Carcinogen 1.31E-05 Non-Carcinogen Aromatic C>34 7.90E-07 Non-Carcinogen 3.28E-06 Non-Carcinogen

Benzene 2.26E-10 1.13E-10 9.37E-10 9.37E-10 Ethylbenzene 2.54E-10 Non-Carcinogen 1.05E-09 Non-Carcinogen Toluene 1.27E-09 Non-Carcinogen 5.27E-09 Non-Carcinogen Xylene Mixture 2.12E-09 Non-Carcinogen 8.79E-09 Non-Carcinogen Acenaphthene 9.60E-08 4.80E-08 3.98E-07 3.98E-07 Acenaphthylene 1.16E-08 5.79E-09 4.80E-08 4.80E-08 Anthracene 3.39E-07 Non-Carcinogen 1.41E-06 Non-Carcinogen Benz[a]anthracene Carcinogen 1.33E-07 Carcinogen 1.10E-06 Benzo[a]pyrene Carcinogen 7.77E-08 Carcinogen 6.45E-07 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Carcinogen 8.05E-08 Carcinogen 6.68E-07 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Carcinogen 2.40E-08 Carcinogen 1.99E-07 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Carcinogen 3.81E-08 Carcinogen 3.16E-07 Chrysene Carcinogen 1.00E-07 Carcinogen 8.32E-07 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Carcinogen 1.19E-08 Carcinogen 9.86E-08 Fluoranthene 4.80E-07 2.40E-07 1.99E-06 1.99E-06 Fluorene 2.42E-07 Non-Carcinogen 1.01E-06 Non-Carcinogen Indeno[1 2 3-cd]pyrene Carcinogen 3.00E-08 Carcinogen 2.49E-07 Methylnaphthalene (total) 2.20E-07 Non-Carcinogen 9.14E-07 Non-Carcinogen Naphthalene 1.64E-07 Non-Carcinogen 6.80E-07 Non-Carcinogen Phenanthrene 7.62E-07 3.81E-07 3.16E-06 3.16E-06 Pyrene 3.95E-07 1.98E-07 1.64E-06 1.64E-06





TABLE 3-5 RECREATIONAL USER AND PARK FACILITATOR EXPOSURE ESTIMATES FOR PARTICULATE INHALATION AT GROUND SURFACE






Composite Adult

(Cancer) Adult

(Non-Cancer) Adult

(Cancer)

Antimony 9.32E-09 Non-Carcinogen 3.87E-08 Non-Carcinogen Cadmium 5.93E-09 Non-Carcinogen 2.46E-08 Non-Carcinogen Mercury 6.21E-09 Non-Carcinogen 2.58E-08 Non-Carcinogen Molybdenum 5.93E-09 Non-Carcinogen 2.46E-08 Non-Carcinogen Silver 4.52E-09 Non-Carcinogen 1.87E-08 Non-Carcinogen Zinc 1.41E-06 Non-Carcinogen 5.86E-06 Non-Carcinogen

Outdoor Air Inhalation

There were no exceedances of the S/OA component values. As such, the assessment of the inhalation of

outdoor air protective of a Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker is discussed qualitatively.

Toxicity Assessment

Toxicity assessment involves the classification of potential toxic effects of chemicals and an estimate of

the amounts of chemicals to which human receptors can be exposed without experiencing adverse health

effects. Toxicity assessment is conducted for all COCs and considers possible modes of toxicity

associated with different routes and durations of exposure, and receptors.

Regulatory agencies classify contaminants based on mode of action (i.e., threshold versus non-threshold

substances). For substances exhibiting a threshold for toxicity, an acceptable level of exposure at or

below which no adverse effects are anticipated is established. For non-threshold-acting chemicals, any

level of exposure is assumed to theoretically pose a potential risk, and a slope factor or unit risk is used to

predict risks from estimated exposures. Carcinogenic substances which act through a mechanism

involving damage to the genetic material (i.e., DNA) are usually considered to be non-threshold-acting

substances.

Dose Response Assessment (Toxicological Reference Values)

A toxicity reference value (TRV) is a toxicological index that, when compared with exposure, is used to

qualify or quantify a risk to human health.





For non-carcinogens, which are assumed to exhibit a threshold effect, the TRVs, referred to as reference

doses (RfDs, in units of mg/kg-day) or reference concentrations (RfCs, in units of mg/m3 for inhalation),

are considered to represent conservative exposure limits, below which no adverse health effects are

expected.

In developing RfDs and RfCs for humans, uncertainty factors are applied in extrapolating from animals to

humans or from occupational data. Exposures above the RfD or RfC may pose a health risk, but the

threshold for a response in humans may in fact be much higher than the RfD or RfC. Therefore, the

estimated non-cancer risks are generally thought to provide conservative estimates of the true risk. Based

on the identified COCs, no RfDs for non-carcinogenic effects were required.

Carcinogens are considered to exhibit non-threshold effects, and the potency of the carcinogen is

typically expressed as a slope factor (SF), the rate of cancer incidence per unit of dose ((mg/kg-day)-1), or

as a unit risk factor (UR), the rate of cancer incidence per unit of concentration (e.g., for inhalation

(mg/m3)-1). Moreover, the duration of exposure is averaged over an average person’s lifetime, or 76

years (56 years in the case of an adult worker); therefore, risks increase with longer durations of

exposure.

TRVs for carcinogens are typically derived by characterizing responses observed in animals or

occupationally-exposed humans at high doses, and extrapolating to the low doses expected to be

received by human receptors in the environment. As a result, the estimated incremental lifetime cancer

risks (ILCRs) are generally thought to provide conservative estimates of the true risk.

All the TRVs used in this HHRA are based on accepted values provided in the MOECC MGRA Model.

No human health TRVs are available for phenanthrene. Phenanthrene and anthracene are similar in

structure and size (three ring PAHs). Pinchin has applied the human health TRVs for anthracene as a

surrogate for phenanthrene.

Risk Characterization

Interpretation of Health Risks

Risk characterization is the final step in the RA process, during which the exposure and toxicity

assessments are integrated. The process of risk characterization conducted in the HHRA reflects the

conservative approach used to generate site specific risk estimates.

The process and interpretation of these steps are discussed in the following sections.





Non-Carcinogenic Compounds

For each exposure pathway, the predicted dose rate is compared to the RfD for non-carcinogens. The

ratio of the predicted exposure to the RfD is the hazard quotient (HQ). As outlined by the MOECC, 20%

of the RfD should be allocated to each environmental medium for each compound (MOECC, 2011b), 50%

for PHCs. That is, the target hazard quotient (THQ) is equal to 0.2, or 0.5 for PHCs.

Carcinogenic Compounds

The MOECC considers the upper bound of acceptable lifetime cancer risks to be one in one million

(1.0×10-6) per environmental medium for each carcinogen (MOECC, 2011b). That is, the target cancer

risk (TCR) is 1.0×10-6.

Quantitative Interpretation of Health Risks

The COCs that failed the secondary screening in Section 3.2 were assessed quantitatively in the risk

assessment. All other COCs were assessed via a qualitative assessment of risk.

RISK ESTIMATES FOR FULL DEPTH SOIL (0-0.76 mbgs)

Soil Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Particulate Inhalation in a Trench





contact and inhalation of soil particulates pathways protective of a Subsurface Worker, with the exception

of lead. No quantitative assessment of lead was performed in this HHRA, and a qualitative discussion is

provided instead.

The risk estimates for these parameters are provided in Table 3-6.

TABLE 3-6 SUBSURFACE WORKER RISK ESTIMATES FOR SOIL INGESTION, DERMAL CONTACT, AND PARTICULATE INHALATION IN A TRENCH

Contaminant

Risk Estimate Ingestion and

Dermal Contact

(Non-Cancer) HQ


(Cancer) ILCR


(Non-Cancer) HQ


ILCR

Benz[a]anthracene Carcinogenic 2.34E-05 Carcinogenic 5.77E-08 Benzo[a]pyrene Carcinogenic 2.41E-04 Carcinogenic 5.94E-07 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Carcinogenic 2.00E-05 Carcinogenic 4.95E-08 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Carcinogenic 1.24E-06 Carcinogenic 3.05E-09 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Carcinogenic 1.70E-05 Carcinogenic 4.21E-08





TABLE 3-6 SUBSURFACE WORKER RISK ESTIMATES FOR SOIL INGESTION, DERMAL CONTACT, AND PARTICULATE INHALATION IN A TRENCH

Contaminant

Risk Estimate Ingestion and

Dermal Contact

(Non-Cancer) HQ


(Cancer) ILCR


(Non-Cancer) HQ


ILCR

Chrysene Carcinogenic 2.67E-06 Carcinogenic 6.60E-09 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Carcinogenic 3.37E-05 Carcinogenic 8.33E-08 Fluoranthene Carcinogenic 6.71E-06 Carcinogenic 1.66E-08 Indeno[1 2 3-cd]pyrene Carcinogenic 1.10E-05 Carcinogenic 2.72E-08

Total PAHs Carcinogenic 3.57E-04 Carcinogenic 8.81E-07 Arsenic 1.04E-01 1.26E-06 4.57E-02 5.51E-08 Cadmium 2.33E-01 Non-Carcinogenic 7.18E-03 Non-Carcinogenic Notes: HQ = Hazard Quotient ILCR = Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk

Bold = Risk estimate exceeds target HQ (0.2 of 0.5 for PHCs) or target ILCR (1E-06)

Risk estimates for PAHs (including total PAHs) and metals (arsenic and cadmium) exceeded the target

risk levels for the soil ingestion and dermal contact exposure pathway for Subsurface Workers. As such,

RMMs are required to mitigate this pathway. Pinchin recommends the implementation of a Site Specific

Health and Safety Plan for any subsurface work for the protection of a Subsurface Worker.

Risk estimates for all parameters were below the target risk levels for the particulate inhalation exposure

pathway for Subsurface Workers. As such, RMM are not required for this pathway.

RISK ESTIMATES FOR SURFACE SOIL (0-0.76 mbgs)

Soil Ingestion and Dermal Contact at Ground Surface















No quantitative assessment of lead was performed in this HHRA.

The risk estimates for these parameters to a Recreational User and a Park Facilitator/Worker are

presented in Table 3-7.

TABLE 3-7 RECREATIONAL USER AND PARK FACILITATOR RISK ESTIMATES FOR SOIL INGESTION AND DERMAL CONTACT AT GROUND SURFACE


Risk Estimate

Recreational User Ingestion and Dermal Contact

Park Facilitator Ingestion and Dermal

Contact Toddler

(Non-Cancer) HQ

Composite Adult

(Cancer) ILCR

Adult (Non-Cancer)

HQ

Adult (Cancer)

ILCR

Benz[a]anthracene Carcinogen 1.03E-04 Carcinogen 6.01E-05 Benzo[a]pyrene Carcinogen 6.03E-04 Carcinogen 3.52E-04 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Carcinogen 6.25E-05 Carcinogen 3.65E-05 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Carcinogen 1.86E-06 Carcinogen 1.09E-06 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Carcinogen 2.96E-05 Carcinogen 1.73E-05 Chrysene Carcinogen 7.78E-06 Carcinogen 4.54E-06 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Carcinogen 9.22E-05 Carcinogen 5.38E-05 Fluoranthene 4.05E-02 1.86E-05 3.72E-03 1.09E-05 Indeno[1 2 3-cd]pyrene Carcinogen 2.33E-05 Carcinogen 1.36E-05 Methylnaphthalene (total) 1.86E-01 Non-Carcinogen Not Required Not Required Pyrene Carcinogen 1.53E-06 Carcinogen 8.95E-07

Total PAHs Carcinogen 9.44E-04 Carcinogen 5.51E-04 Cadmium 5.19E-01 Non-Carcinogen Not Required Not Required Notes: HQ = Hazard Quotient ILCR = Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk


Risk estimates for PAHs (including total PAHs) and metals (cadmium) exceeded the target risk levels for

the soil ingestion and dermal contact exposure pathway for Recreational Users and Park

Facilitators/Workers. As such, RMMs are required to mitigate this pathway. Pinchin recommends the

implementation of a hard cap and/or fill cap be placed in areas with soil impacts for the protection of a

Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker.


The MOECC does not include the inhalation of soil particulates when deriving the S1 and S2 component

values. For conservatism, all soil COCs identified in the shallow soil scenario were quantitatively

assessed via the particulate inhalation pathway. The risk estimates for these parameters to a

Recreational User and Park Facilitator/Worker are provided in Table 3-8.





TABLE 3-8 RECREATIONAL USER AND PARK FACILITATOR RISK ESTIMATES FOR PARTICULATE INHALATION AT GROUND SURFACE






Composite Adult

(Cancer) Adult

(Non-Cancer) Adult

(Cancer)

PHC F3 5.19E-06 Non-Carcinogen 2.15E-05 Non-Carcinogen Aliphatic C>16-C21 2.06E-07 Non-Carcinogen 8.53E-07 Non-Carcinogen Aliphatic C>21-C34 8.81E-08 Non-Carcinogen 3.66E-07 Non-Carcinogen Aromatic C>16-C21 3.43E-06 Non-Carcinogen 1.42E-05 Non-Carcinogen Aromatic C>21-C34 1.47E-06 Non-Carcinogen 6.09E-06 Non-Carcinogen

PHC F4 2.65E-05 Non-Carcinogen 1.10E-04 Non-Carcinogen Aliphatic C>34 1.58E-07 Non-Carcinogen 6.56E-07 Non-Carcinogen Aromatic C>34 2.63E-05 Non-Carcinogen 1.09E-04 Non-Carcinogen

Benzene 5.65E-08 9.60E-12 2.34E-07 7.97E-11 Ethylbenzene 2.54E-09 Non-Carcinogen 1.05E-08 Non-Carcinogen Toluene 1.59E-08 Non-Carcinogen 6.59E-08 Non-Carcinogen Xylene Mixture 1.06E-08 Non-Carcinogen 4.39E-08 Non-Carcinogen Acenaphthene 1.60E-06 3.51E-10 6.64E-06 2.91E-09 Acenaphthylene 1.93E-07 4.23E-10 8.01E-07 3.51E-09 Anthracene 1.13E-06 Non-Carcinogen 4.69E-06 Non-Carcinogen Benz[a]anthracene Carcinogen 9.69E-08 Carcinogen 8.04E-07 Benzo[a]pyrene Carcinogen 5.67E-07 Carcinogen 4.70E-06 Benzo[b]fluoranthene Carcinogen 5.88E-08 Carcinogen 4.88E-07 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Carcinogen 1.75E-09 Carcinogen 1.45E-08 Benzo[k]fluoranthene Carcinogen 2.78E-08 Carcinogen 2.31E-07 Chrysene Carcinogen 7.32E-09 Carcinogen 6.07E-08 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene Carcinogen 8.68E-08 Carcinogen 7.20E-07 Fluoranthene 1.20E-05 1.75E-08 4.98E-05 1.45E-07 Fluorene 6.06E-06 Non-Carcinogen 2.51E-05 Non-Carcinogen Indeno[1 2 3-cd]pyrene Carcinogen 2.19E-08 Carcinogen 1.82E-07 Methylnaphthalene (total) 5.51E-05 Non-Carcinogen 2.29E-04 Non-Carcinogen Naphthalene 8.19E-06 Non-Carcinogen 3.40E-05 Non-Carcinogen Phenanthrene No TRV No TRV No TRV No TRV Pyrene 1.32E-05 1.44E-09 5.47E-05 1.20E-08

Total PAHs Carcinogen 8.88E-07 Carcinogen 7.37E-06 Antimony 2.33E-05 Non-Carcinogen 9.67E-05 Non-Carcinogen Cadmium 1.85E-04 Non-Carcinogen 7.69E-04 Non-Carcinogen Mercury 2.07E-05 Non-Carcinogen 8.59E-05 Non-Carcinogen Molybdenum 1.19E-06 Non-Carcinogen 4.92E-06 Non-Carcinogen





TABLE 3-8 RECREATIONAL USER AND PARK FACILITATOR RISK ESTIMATES FOR PARTICULATE INHALATION AT GROUND SURFACE






Composite Adult

(Cancer) Adult

(Non-Cancer) Adult

(Cancer)

Silver 9.03E-07 Non-Carcinogen 3.75E-06 Non-Carcinogen Zinc 4.71E-06 Non-Carcinogen 1.95E-05 Non-Carcinogen Notes: HQ = Hazard Quotient ILCR = Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk


Risk estimates for benzo(a)pyrene and total PAHs exceeded the target risk levels for the soil particulate

inhalation exposure pathway for Park Facilitators/Workers. As such, RMMs are required to mitigate this

pathway. Pinchin recommends the implementation of a hard/fill cap for the protection of a Park

Facilitator/Worker.

Risk estimates for all parameters were below the target risk levels for the soil particulate inhalation

exposure pathway for Recreational Users. As such, RMM are not required for this pathway.

Qualitative Interpretation of Health Risks

Lead

The toxicity of lead is currently under review by Health Canada. In the interim the MOECC recommends

that potential risks are assumed in any and all cases where lead concentrations in soil exceed 120 µg/g

such as the case in the surface soil scenario and full depth soil scenario at the Site.

Potential risk to Recreational Users, Park Facilitators/Workers, and Construction (Subsurface) Workers is

assumed as a result of exposure to lead in surface and/or full depth soil. RMM measures are required for

the protection of all human receptors in areas of the Site where lead exceeds 120 µg/g.

Inhalation of Outdoor Air

Novatox modeled soil to outdoor air and soil to trench air using equations developed by the Atlantic

Canada Partners in Risk-Based Corrective Action Implementation Group and concluded that there was

potential risk to Park Facilitators via the inhalation of Outdoor Air. Pinchin concurs with the methodologies

presented by Novatox regarding the soil to outdoor air pathway, but notes that some assumptions made

were overly conservative, and does not consider the inhalation of outdoor air to present potential risk to

Park Facilitators/Workers. The following paragraphs provide various lines of evidence to support Pinchin’s

conclusion.





Acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene were carried forward in the assessment

because they exceeded the component values protective of inhalation of outdoor air. Pinchin notes that

the depth to contaminant source used to derive the S/OA component values was assumed to be 0 to 2.0

mbgs. This was also the depth assumption made by Novatox in their exposure and risk calculations. The

Site-specific depth to concentrations of acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene that

exceed the S/OA pathway is greater than 1.52 mbgs at borehole BH108. The concentrations of these

parameters in soil above 1.52 mbgs are an order of magnitude below the S/OA component values. As

such, supplemental screening to the S/OA component value is overly conservative as are the

assumptions made by Novatox in their calculation relative to Site-specific characteristics.

A chemical is considered to be sufficiently volatile and require assessment of vapour air inhalation if its

Henry’s law constant is 1 x 10-5 atm-m3/mole or greater and has a vapour pressure greater than 0.05 Torr

(MOECC 2013). In cases where a chemical’s Henry’s law constant is less than 1 x 10-5 atm-m3/mole or a

vapour pressure is less than 0.05 Torr, the contaminant is not considered sufficiently volatile.

Acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, and benzo(a)pyrene have vapour pressures below 0.05 Torr and

therefore are not considered sufficiently volatile, to be considered for the vapour inhalation pathways,

following MOECC vapour guidance.

Furthermore, the MOECC states that organic chemicals that are near neutral (i.e., relatively non-polar)

such as PAH compounds absorb into native organic carbon present in subsurface soils and thus, the rate

of soil vapour transport is expected to be retarded through sorption.

Given that the PAH impacts in exceedance of the S/OA pathway are located at depth, that these

parameters are not considered sufficiently volatile, and that they have instinctually low mobility in from the

soil matrix, no potential risk to Recreational Users or Park Facilitators/Workers through the inhalation of

outdoor air are anticipated.

Inhalation of Trench Air

Initially a quantitative assessment of inhalation of trench air was considered for the Subsurface Worker

due to exceedances identified in soil at the Site.

Pinchin, however, has assumed that concentrations of volatile COCs identified in soil above their

respective MOECC Table 8 Standards or Table 2 component values would result in a non-carcinogenic

HQ exceeding 0.2 (0.5 for PHCs) and a carcinogenic ILCR exceeding 1x10-6 for the Subsurface Worker.

Modelling this pathway using the above noted approach is not expected to provide additional information

since the modelling has a high degree of uncertainty, therefore risks are assumed to be present and risk

management is recommended to reduce potential risk to acceptable levels. More specifically, Pinchin

recommends the implementation of a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan.





Summary of Human Health Risks

The results of the HHRA indicated that no potential human health risks were identified for the following











visiting the Site to come into contact with COCs sourced from the Site. RMMs are recommended to

mitigate potential risks, in the form of a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan where impacts may be

exposed above acceptable levels (indicated on Figure 8) and the placement of additional hard/fill cap in

areas of concern (indicated on Figure 9).

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (ERA)

An evaluation of the potential ecological effects associated with COCs in soil at the Site was carried out in

this SLRA. The ERA considered the following:

• The current environmental setting;

• COCs at the Site and the maximum concentration of each COC present;

• Contaminant fate and transport mechanisms that might exist;

• Mechanisms of ecotoxicity associated with COCs and receptors that may be affected;

and

• Relevant exposure pathways that might exist at the Site.

The following sections outline the assumptions, results and conclusions of the ERA.

Problem Formulation

An ecological CSM was created to show the exposure pathways that are possible between the COCs and

the ecological receptors. The CSM for ecological receptors considered in this SLRA is presented in

Figure 7.





Similar the HHRA, the ERA utilized two different scenarios to identify contaminants for further study. The

first scenario compares measurements of chemicals in surface soil to the Table 8 Standards. Surface soil

was defined by Novatox as soil between 0 mbgs and 0.76 mbgs. This comparison would represent

exposures for on-Site terrestrial ecological receptors present in the park that would only have contact with

soil at the ground surface. The second scenario for contaminant identification is referred to as full depth,

and includes surface soil samples as well as deeper soil samples (0 mbgs- 4.57 mbgs). This scenario is

expected to represent exposures for off-Site aquatic ecological receptors present in the Speed River that

would have contact with soil that may have eroded directly into the river, or that may have leached into

groundwater and discharged into the river.

Root depths of terrestrial vegetation are typically widespread but relatively shallow (Dobson and Moffat,

1993; Dobson, 1995). It is uncommon for tree roots to penetrate depths greater than 2 m, with 80- 90% of

tree root systems found within the top 0.60 m of the soil profile (Crow, 2005).

Soil invertebrates typically occupy surficial soil layers close to organic layers and rhizospheres of

vegetation (Stewart, 1997; COG, 2001; Ogg, 2006). Anecic earthworms, such as Lumbricus terrestris,

burrow more deeply into soil but consume organic matter at the soil surface (Langdon et al., 2003).

Burrowing animals, such as voles, moles, rats and chipmunks, generally have relatively shallow burrows

and dens. For example, the meadow vole makes its burrows along surface runways in grasses or other

herbaceous vegetation (US EPA, 1993), and the Norwegian rat burrows are only about 0.30 m deep.

Moles can have extensive tunnel systems below ground, but are usually confined to depths between 0.15

and 0.50 m below the surface (Anderson and Stephens, 2002; Eder, 2002; PCAB, 2003).

As such, the evaluation of exposure pathways for On-Site Terrestrial Ecological Receptors is considered

suitable for surface soil only (0-0.76 mbgs).

The ecological receptors considered in this ERA are the same as those considered by the MOECC in

setting generic standards, as listed below:

• On-Site Terrestrial Ecological Receptors:

• Plants, specifically the grass, ornamental shrubs, and small trees that could be

planted in the landscaped areas;

• Soil-dwelling invertebrates such as earthworms;

• Mammals such as the meadow vole and short-tailed shrew; and

• Birds including insectivores and herbivores, such as the American robin and red-

winged blackbird respectively.

• Off-Site Aquatic Ecological Receptors in the nearest surface water body, such as aquatic

plants, benthic and pelagic macroinvertebrates, mammals, birds and fish.





No groundwater COCs were identified, therefore exposure pathways are limited to soil.

Potential exposure pathways considered in the assessment include:

• Direct contact with surface soil by Plants and Soil Invertebrates:

• Root uptake by Plants; and

• Ingestion and dermal contact by Soil Invertebrates.

• Ingestion of surface soil by Mammals and Birds:

• Ingestion of soil by Mammals and Birds; and

• Ingestion of plant and animal tissue by Mammals and Birds.

• Indirect contact with full depth soil by Off-Site Aquatic Biota:

• Contact with soil contaminants that have eroded into the river; and

• Contact with soil contaminants that have leached into groundwater and

discharged into the river.

The ecological receptors assessed and exposure pathways evaluated include:

TABLE 4-1 – ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS AND EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Property Use Receptor Pathway

On-Site Parkland Use

Plants and Soil Invertebrates Direct contact with surface soil

Mammals and Birds Ingestion of surface soil

Off-Site Aquatic Biota Indirect contact with full depth soil

Ecological Health Secondary Screening

In selecting the soil component values for the Site, the following criteria were considered:

• The potential effect of alkaline soil conditions on individual COCs;

• The Site land use is to remain parkland;

• The Speed River is located within 30 m of the eastern property boundary; and

• The soil at the Site is considered to be coarse-grained.

Pinchin notes that the Table 8 Standards are applicable to Sites within 30 m of a waterbody, and were

selected to be protective of aquatic receptors within the Speed River. However, there are no applicable

Table 8 Components protective of the soil leaching to the nearest surface water pathway. As such, the

assessment of the exposure pathways protective of Off-Site Aquatic Biota is discussed qualitatively.





For the on-Site ecological exposure pathways, the Table 2 Component values are considered appropriate

for the protection of on-Site terrestrial receptors, and have been selected. Based on the selection criteria,

the following component values were selected as toxicity benchmarks for the protection of terrestrial

ecological receptors:

• Soil Components for Table 2: Full Depth, Potable Water Scenario, Coarse-Textured Soil

and Residential/Parkland/Institutional Land Use:

• P/O – Plants and Soil Invertebrates; and

• M/B – Mammals and Birds.

The selected component values are summarized in attached Table 7 in Appendix II.

Concentrations of PHC F3, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene,

benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, phenanthrene, lead

and zinc in surface soil exceeded their respective P/O component values. As such, these parameters

were carried forward for quantitative assessment in the ERA for the direct contact pathways protective of

Plants and Soil Invertebrates.

Concentrations of fluoranthene, cadmium, lead and zinc in surface soil exceeded their respective M/B


ERA for the direct contact pathways protective of Mammals and Birds.

Exposure Assessment

An exposure assessment was completed to characterize the mechanisms by which the ecological

receptors would be exposed to soil COCs on the Site. As in the HHRA, the reasonable estimates of

maximum measured concentrations of COCs in soil (i.e. maximum plus 20%) were used for exposure

assessment as presented in Table 2B (surface soil) in Appendix II.

Effects Assessment

An effects assessment is completed for ERA to characterize the nature of the effects elicited by each

COC under an exposure condition that is relevant to each receptor of concern. A TRV is often used for

effects information in an ERA. The TRV is broadly defined in an ERA as the exposure concentration or

dose that is not expected to cause an unacceptable level of an effect in a particular receptor(s) exposed

to the COC.

The MOECC develops their SCS through the use of component values calculated using ecotoxicity data,

in an effort to provide a receptor or group of receptors protection from a contaminant via a specific

pathway. These component values represent the levels that should result in negligible risk to biota, their

functions, or any interactions that are integral to sustaining the health of ecosystems and the designated





resource uses they support. In development of these standards, relevant endpoints were selected where

direct effects on growth, reproduction and mortality were identified. Therefore, the MOECC component

values are considered appropriate toxicity benchmarks for use in the effects assessment of this SLRA.

Risk Characterization

Quantitative Assessment of Ecological Risks

Ecological risks are characterized by estimating ecological hazard quotients (EHQs) as shown below:

𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 =𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶

𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇 𝐵𝐵𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑚𝑚𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑚𝑚

For ecological receptors, the MOECC accepts an EHQ of 1 or less as representing an acceptable level of

risk. The allowance of higher EHQ values represents allowances for site specific habitat considerations

and does not necessarily represent an elevated risk to these receptors. EHQs were estimated for this Site

using the MOECC (2011) Table 2 Components and surface soil EPC concentrations, as presented in

Table 4-2.

TABLE 4-2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR RISK ESTIMATES FOR DIRECT CONTACT AT GROUND SURFACE

Parameter Ecological Hazard Quotient

Plants and Soil Organisms Mammals and Birds

PHCs F3 1.04 Not Required Anthracene 57.6 Not Required Benzo(a)anthracene 226 Not Required Benzo(a)pyrene 3.30 Not Required Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 3.09 Not Required Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.26 Not Required Chrysene 12.2 Not Required Fluoranthene 4.08 296 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 66.3 Not Required Naphthalene 116 Not Required Phenanthrene 52.3 Not Required Cadmium Not Required 1.33 Lead 2.93 22.9 Zinc 1.50 1.76 Notes:

BOLD Risk estimate exceeds target EHQ of 1





Risk estimates for PHC F3, select PAHs and select metals (cadmium, lead and zinc) exceeded the target

risk levels for the direct contact exposure pathways for On-Site Terrestrial Ecological Receptors. As such,

RMMs are required to mitigate this pathway. Pinchin recommends the implementation of a hard cap

and/or fill cap be placed in areas with soil impacts for the protection of On-Site Terrestrial Ecological

Receptors.

Qualitative Assessment of Off-Site Ecological Risks

Leaching to the Speed River

Due to the proximity of the Speed River to the Site, the potential for COCs in soil to leach to groundwater

and affect downgradient aquatic receptors was qualitatively assessed in the ERA. As noted in Section

2.2.3, all groundwater concentrations met the Table 8 Standards, which are protective of groundwater

contaminants migrating to waterbodies within 30 m of the Site. As such, soil concentrations do not

appear to have leached to groundwater at concentrations likely to impact aquatic receptors within the

Speed River.

As noted in Section 2.2.1, soil pH was noted to be outside the accepted range for surface soil at select

borehole locations advanced by Englobe (BH-07-16, BH-09-16 and BH-11-16). Alkaline pH conditions

have the potential to impact the mobility of metals COCs in soil, as such, assumptions relied on in the

development of the Table 8 Standards may not always be conservative enough for the protection of

leaching of these parameters.

Pinchin completed a secondary screening of metals parameters at these borehole locations against the

Table 1 Background Condition Standards to account for potential increased mobility of these parameters

in soil. All metals at borehole locations BH-07-16, BH-09-16 and BH-11-16 met the Table 1 Standards.

Sediment Transport via Erosion

In addition, soil COCs in shallow soil have the potential to migrate to the Speed River through sediment

transport via erosion. Pinchin notes a hard cap or grass cover is present over the majority of the Site.

Capping or vegetative cover should be maintained in order to limit future erosion of impacted soils at the

Site to the Speed River.

Based on the groundwater concentrations at the Site below the Table 8 Standards as well as the

presence of the existing hard cap, it is unlikely that the current concentrations of soil COCs at the Site

pose a potential risk to off-Site aquatic receptors.





Summary of Ecological Risks

The results of the ERA indicated that no potential ecological risks are likely for the following







or within vicinity of the Site to come into contact with COCs sourced from the Site. RMMs are

recommended to mitigate potential risks, in the form of the placement of additional hard/fill cap in areas of

concern (indicated on Figure 9).

DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTY

Risk assessments are, by their very nature, attended by many areas of uncertainty. These include the

inherent uncertainty used in the exposure assessment, in the mathematical models and/or equations

used to derive the Table 8 Standards, as well as component values used to characterize potential risk of

each of the COCs for each relevant receptor, as explained in the MOECC (2011b) rationale document.

These uncertainties, which relate to regulatory guidance, are considered acceptable for an SLRA.

As such, the conclusions made with respect to potential human and ecological health risks are influenced

by the level of uncertainty that is proportional to the uncertainty identified in the exposure inputs and

model assumptions and toxicity input values made by the MOECC. Some of the exposure and hazard

uncertainties could result in over- as well as under-estimations of exposure or hazard values. However, in

general, cautious assumptions were applied in order to ensure that exposure and risk would not be

underestimated. These uncertainties were thus considered acceptable for a SLRA.

In their HHRA, Novatox provided a quantitative assessment of uncertainty based on statistical

considerations using Upper Confidence Limits on the Means (UCLMs) of the collected data. The

statistical approach to uncertainty for this Site, while valid, did not appear to change the overall findings of

Novatox’s assessment, and in the same way, a statistical analysis of uncertainty is not expected to affect

Pinchin’s conclusions. This qualitative assessment of uncertainty is expected to be sufficient for the

purpose of assessing potential human health and ecological risks at the Site.





CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the HHRA indicated that no potential human health risks are likely for the following











visiting the Site to come into contact with contaminants of concern sourced from the Site. RMMs are

recommended to mitigate potential risks, in the form of a Site Specific Health and Safety Plan where

impacts may be exposed above acceptable levels (indicated on Figure 8) and the placement of additional

hard/fill cap in areas of concern (indicated on Figure 9).

The results of the ERA indicated that no potential ecological risks are likely for the following







or within vicinity of the Site to come into contact with contaminants of concern sourced from the Site.

RMMs are recommended to mitigate potential risks, in the form of the placement of additional hard/fill cap

in areas of concern (indicated on Figure 9).





Conceptual Risk Management Plan

The main objective of the Conceptual Risk Management Plan is to ensure that risks do not exceed

maximum acceptable levels for the relevant receptors. The current SLRA shows that if no RMMs are in

place, higher than acceptable risks are expected for human and ecological receptors via various

exposure pathways. Table 6-1 summarizes the combination of exposure pathways, environmental media,

COCs, and receptors that need to be mitigated or managed.

TABLE 6-1 – SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL RISKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Media Receptor Pathway Contaminant of Concern

Risk Management

Measure

Full Depth Soil

Subsurface

Workers

Soil Ingestion and

Dermal Contact

Various PAHs

Arsenic

Cadmium

HASP

(Figure 8)

Trench Air

Inhalation

PHC F1 and F2

BTEX

Dichlorodifluoromethane

PAHs

Mercury

HASP

(Figure 8)

Off-Site Aquatic

Ecological

Receptors

Soil Erosion to

Surface Water

All soil impacts along the

east property boundary

Hard/Fill Cap

(Figure 9)

Surface Soil

(0-0.76 mbgs)

Recreational Users Soil Ingestion and

Dermal Contact

Various PAHs

Cadmium

Hard/Fill Cap

(Figure 9)

Park Facilitators/

Workers

Soil Ingestion and

Dermal Contact Various PAHs

Hard/Fill Cap

(Figure 9)

Soil Particulate

Inhalation

Benzo(a)pyrene and

Total PAHs

Hard/Fill Cap

(Figure 9)

On-Site Terrestrial

Ecological

Receptors

Direct Contact

PHC F3

Various PAHs

Cadmium

Lead

Zinc

Hard/Fill Cap

(Figure 9)

The RMMs described below are recommended to protect the receptors on-Site and mitigate potential

risks summarized in Table 6-1. With these RMMs in place, no potential risks are anticipated for the Site.





Health and Safety Plan for Subsurface Workers

Under good Occupational Health and Safety, as well as construction practices, a Site-Specific HASP is

required for any and all subsurface activities where full depth soil impacts were identified above

applicable component values protective of the Subsurface Worker, as indicated on Figure 8. Protecting

workers in occupational settings is the mandate of the Ontario Ministry of Labour and the legislation that it

administers (notably, in this instance, O. Reg. 833).

As part of a HASP, additional personal protective equipment (PPE), including the use of gloves, long

sleeves and pants, and boots when intersecting any soil impacts, is suggested, above and beyond what

would typically be worn for construction/subgrade work on a site where contamination is not present.

If activities require workers to spend time in trenches, mechanical ventilation of the trenches should be

provided (a trench is defined as an excavation that is at least 3 m long, deeper than it is wide, and deeper

than 1 m). This may be achieved using a standard ventilating fan and trunk hose system, as prescribed in

“O.Reg.213/91 – Construction Projects”. Active ventilation of trenches is considered standard practice for

many subsurface works conducted in Canada, given the reduced air flow in such a setting. A Qualified

Person should be retained to determine adequate flow rate required when workers are present in a

trench.

Implementation and Continued Maintenance of a Hard/Fill Cap

A hard/fill cap is required where surface soil impacts were identified, as indicated on Figure 5, to protect

on-Site Recreational Users, Park Facilitators/Workers and Terrestrial Ecological Receptors via the soil

ingestion and/or dermal contact exposure pathways. With implementation of these protective measures,

the on-Site human and ecological receptors would achieve an exposure reduction of 100% for the soil

ingestion and/or dermal contact with impacted surface soil.

A hard/fill cap is also recommended along the east property boundary where soil impacts were identified,

as indicated on Figure 5, to protect off-Site Aquatic Ecological Receptors in the Speed River via the soil

erosion to surface water exposure pathways.

A hard cap includes any “hard” barrier that would prevent penetration of the ground surface, such as

asphalt, concrete, interlocking stones, etc. Pinchin notes that a hard cap is already present across

portions of the Site in the form of asphalt walkways, concrete pads, and “ruins” as indicated on Figure 3.

A fill cap includes a “soft” barrier that would act as a suitable barrier between the surface and the

underlying soil impacts, and would limit the potential for contact with soil impacts, such as the placement

of clean soil, gravel, wood chips, play sand, etc. The placement of a filter fabric is also recommended

between the soil impacts and the overlying fill cap, to act as a visual indicator of where the underlying soil

impacts are located.





At this time, additional hard/fill cap is required in several areas of the Site, as indicated on Figure 9.

Pending the placement of the proposed hard/fill cap, there are no potential risks posed to human health

or the environment from exposure to the known impacts in soil for the continued parkland use.

The hard/fill cap must be maintained so long as the contaminants are present at the Site above applicable

standards. The hard/fill cap must be inspected on at least a semi-annual basis, to ensure that the cap has

not been breached. Inspection logs must be kept and maintained by City staff documenting the cap

inspections. An inspection log template is attached to Appendix III.

In the event of a cap breach whereby soil impacts are exposed, the cap must be repaired in a timely

manner and restored to meet the hard/fill cap requirements. Temporary fencing may need to be erected

during cap repairs so as to prevent contact with exposed soil impacts. All repair and restoration work

must be documented, and the information must be kept and maintained by City staff.

Summary

In summary, there are no potential risks to human health or the environment from exposure to the known

impacts in soil for the continued parkland use of the property in its current state, with the implementation

of additional hard/fill cap at the areas of concern (indicated on Figure 9). Based on the concentrations

detected in soil across the Site, Pinchin is not of the opinion that additional delineation of soil impacts is

required; and, the implementation of a hard/fill cap at the areas of concern is sufficient for the continued

parkland use of the property.

In the event of future subsurface work where workers are present in a trench scenario or disturbing soil

impacts, a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan is required where impacts may be exposed above

acceptable levels (indicated on Figure 8), which is considered standard practice for any subsurface works

conducted in Canada.

LIMITATIONS

This SLRA was performed for the City of Guelph (Client) in order to investigate potential environmental

impacts at 139 Cardigan Street and 70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario (Site).

The term recognized environmental condition means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous

substance on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material

threat of a release of a hazardous substance into structures on the property or into the ground,

groundwater, or surface water of the property. This SLRA does not quantify the extent of the current

and/or recognized environmental condition or the cost of any remediation.





Conclusions derived are specific to the immediate area of study and cannot be extrapolated extensively

away from sample locations. Samples have been analyzed for a limited number of contaminants that are

expected to be present at the Site, and the absence of information relating to a specific contaminant does

not indicate that it is not present.

No environmental site assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized

environmental conditions on a property. Performance of this SLRA to the standards established by

Pinchin is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized

environmental conditions on the Site, and recognizes reasonable limits on time and cost.

This SLRA was performed in general compliance with currently acceptable practices for environmental

site investigations, and specific Client requests, as applicable to this Site. The scope of work completed

by Pinchin, as part of this SLRA, is not sufficient (in and of itself) to meet the requirements for the

submission of a RSC in accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 (as amended). If an RSC is an

intended end product of work conducted at the Site, further consultation and/or work will be required.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client, subject to the terms, conditions and

limitations contained within the duly authorized proposal for this project. Any use which a third party

makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the sole responsibility of

such third parties. Pinchin accepts no responsibility for damages suffered by any third party as a result of

decisions made or actions conducted.

If additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from Pinchin will be required.

Pinchin disclaims responsibility of consequential financial effects on transactions or property values, or

requirements for follow-up actions and costs. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Furthermore,

this report should not be construed as legal advice. Pinchin will not provide results or information to any

party unless disclosure by Pinchin is required by law.

Pinchin 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 these interpretations may change

over time.





REFERENCES

1. Adriano, D.C. (2001) Trace Elements in Terrestrial Environments Volume 1, Second ed.

Springer Science + Business Media.

2. Anderson, R. and Stephens, J. (2002) Tamias striatus. Animal Diversity. Available

online at: http://animaldiversity.ummz.edu/site/accounts/information/Tamias_striatus.html.

3. CCME (2008) Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil:

Scientific Rationale Supporting Technical Document. January 2008.

4. COG [Canadian Organic Growers] (2001) The Organic Field Crop Handbook. Canadian

Organic Growers, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC.

5. Crow, P. (2005) The influence of soils and species on tree root depth. Information

Note. Forestry Commission, Environmental and Human Sciences Division, Forest

Research, Edinburgh, UK. November, 2005. Crown Copyright ©. ISBN 0-85538-679-

7. Available online at: http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/the-influence-

of-soils-and-species-on-tree-root-depth/file. [September 25, 2009].

6. Dobson, M.C. (1995) Tree root systems. Arboriculture Research and Information Note

130. Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service, Farnham. Cited In: Crow, 2005.

7. Dobson, M.C. and Moffat, A.J. (1993) The potential for woodland establishment on

landfill sites. HMSO, London. Cited In: Crow, 2005.

8. Dragun, J. (1998) The Soil Chemistry of Hazardous Materials, Second ed. Amherst

Scientific Publishers.

9. Eder, T. (2002) Mammals of Ontario. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, AB.

10. Englobe (2016a) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 70 Norwich Street East,

Guelph, Ontario. Englobe Corp. August 17, 2016

11. Englobe (2016b) Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 70 Norwich Street

East, Guelph, Ontario. Englobe Corp. December 21, 2016.

12. Langdon, C.J., Piearce, T.G., Meharg, A.A. and Semple, K.T. (2003) Interactions

between earthworms and arsenic in the soil environment: a review. Environmental

Pollution 124:361–373.

13. MOECC [Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change] (2011a) “Soil, Ground Water

and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. April 15, 2011.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.edu/site/accounts/information/Tamias_striatus.html

http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/the-influence-of-soils-and-species-on-tree-root-depth/file

http://www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/the-influence-of-soils-and-species-on-tree-root-depth/file





14. MOECC (2011b) “Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil,

Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario”. Ontario

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. April 15, 2011.

15. MOECC (2013) Draft Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment. Ontario

Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. September 2013.

16. MOECC (2016) MGRA User Guide: A Guide to Using the ‘Approved Model’ (November,

2016) When Submitting a Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA)”. Ontario Ministry

of the Environment and Climate Change. November 2016.

17. MOE [Ministry of the Environment]) (2008) Operations Manual for Air Quality Monitoring

in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. March 2008.

18. Novatox (2017) Draft Due Diligence Human Health Risk Assessment for Goldie Mill Park,

70 Norwich Street East, Guelph, Ontario. Novatox Inc. February 2017.

19. Ogg, B. (2006) Centipedes and Millipedes. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Publication

Number 012–93.

20. PCAB [Provincial Council of Agriculture Development and Diversification Boards for

Saskatchewan Inc] (2003) Rat Control in Saskatchewan. Provincial Council of

Agriculture Development and Diversification Boards for Saskatchewan Inc. ISBN 0–

88656–692–0.

21. Stewart, J.W. (1997) Centipedes and Millipedes. Texas Agricultural Extension Service,

Publication Number L–1747.

22. US EPA (1993) Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes I and II. United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,

DC, EPA/600/R-93/187.

205063_FINAL_SLRA_139 Cardigan Street and 70 Norwich Street E, Guelph, ON_Mar 15, 2018.docx

APPENDIX I Figures

SITE

FIGURE NAME

APPROXIMATE SCALE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION

CLIENT NAME

1KEY MAP

AS SHOWNPROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE NO.

©OpenStreetMap contributors

SCREENING LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT

CITY OF GUELPH 139 CARDIGAN STREET AND

70 NORWICH STREET EAST, GUELPH, ONTARIO

MARCH 2018205063

AutoCAD SHX Text

0m

AutoCAD SHX Text

300m

AutoCAD SHX Text

APPROXIMATE SCALE

FIGURE NAME

APPROXIMATE SCALE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION

CLIENT NAME

6


HUMAN HEALTH CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

NOT TO SCALEPROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE NO.

CITY OF GUELPH

139 CARDIGAN STREET AND70 NORWICH STREET EAST, GUELPH, ONTARIO

MARCH 2018205063

FIGURE NAME

APPROXIMATE SCALE

PROJECT NAME

PROJECT LOCATION

CLIENT NAME

7 ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

MARCH 20182015063NOT TO SCALEPROJECT NO. DATE

FIGURE NO.


CITY OF GUELPH

139 CARDIGAN STREET AND 70 NORWICH STREET EAST, GUELPH, ONTARIO

APPENDIX II Summary Tables

TABLE 1 - SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTSScreening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON

BH-01 BH-01 BH-02 BH-02 BH-03 BH-04 BH-057-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16

0-0.76 0.76-1.07 0-0.61 0.61-0.91 0-0.30 0-0.30 1.52-2.29

Minimum Measured Concentration

Maximum Measured Concentration

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)

PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 µg/g 25 <10 43 <10 - <10 - <10 <10 <10PHC F2 (C10-C16) µg/g 10 10 160 <10 - <10 - <10 <10 <10PHC F3 (C16-C34) µg/g 240 20 4420 130 - 30 - <20 <20 60PHC F4 (C34-C50) µg/g 120 <20 1070 50 - 40 - <20 <20 <20PHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric µg/g 120 650 1800 - - - - - - -Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Acetone µg/g 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Benzene µg/g 0.02 <0.02 0.2 <0.02 - 0.08 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02Bromodichloromethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Bromoform µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Bromomethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Carbon tetrachloride µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Chlorobenzene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Chloroform µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Dibromochloromethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,1-Dichloroethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,2-Dichloroethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,1-Dichloroethylene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,2-Dichloropropane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/g NV <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05trans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/g NV <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,3-Dichloropropene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Ethylbenzene µg/g 0.05 <0.02 0.45 <0.05 - 0.09 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Ethylene dibromide µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Hexane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Methyl ethyl ketone µg/g 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Methyl isobutyl ketone µg/g 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Methylene chloride µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Styrene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Tetrachloroethylene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Toluene µg/g 0.2 <0.02 10.4 <0.20 - 0.45 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.201,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.051,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Trichloroethylene µg/g 0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Trichlorofluoromethane µg/g 0.25 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Vinyl chloride µg/g 0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02Xylene Mixture3 µg/g 0.05 <0.04 10 <0.05 - 0.75 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene µg/g 0.072 <0.005 84 - - 0.15 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Acenaphthylene µg/g 0.093 <0.005 117 - - 0.13 - <0.05 <0.05 0.09Anthracene µg/g 0.22 <0.005 820 - - 0.31 - 0.12 <0.05 0.17Benz(a)anthracene µg/g 0.36 <0.005 700 - - 1.01 - 0.19 <0.05 0.74Benzo(a)pyrene µg/g 0.3 <0.005 720 - - 1.11 - 0.25 <0.05 0.72Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/g 0.47 <0.005 600 - - 0.83 - 0.19 0.05 0.64Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/g 0.68 <0.005 370 - - 0.8 - 0.13 <0.05 0.52Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/g 0.48 <0.005 510 - - 0.96 - 0.19 <0.05 0.66Chrysene µg/g 2.8 0.005 800 - - 1.03 - 0.22 <0.05 0.69Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/g 0.1 <0.005 101 - - 0.23 - 0.07 <0.05 0.22Fluoranthene µg/g 0.69 <0.005 2010 - - 1.87 - 0.42 0.06 1.24Fluorene µg/g 0.19 <0.005 189 - - 0.13 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/g 0.23 <0.005 330 - - 0.71 - 0.13 <0.05 0.46

Methylnaphthalene, total4 µg/g 0.59 <0.0071 114 - - 2.85 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Naphthalene µg/g 0.09 <0.005 72 - - 1.06 - <0.05 <0.05 0.05Phenanthrene µg/g 0.69 <0.005 1770 - - 1.68 - 0.27 <0.05 0.36Pyrene µg/g 1 <0.005 1720 - - 1.62 - 0.38 0.05 1.04Metals and InorganicsAntimony µg/g 1.3 <0.2 25 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1Arsenic µg/g 18 1 49 - 2 - 3 4 4 3Barium µg/g 220 2.1 450 - 21 - 51 53 62 53Beryllium µg/g 2.5 <0.2 <1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1Boron (hot water soluble) µg/g 1.5 <0.5 1.3 - <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Boron (total) µg/g 36 5 20 - 10 - 10 20 10 10Cadmium µg/g 1.2 <0.1 7.7 - <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Chromium (total) µg/g 70 2.7 32 - 5 - 13 15 14 8Chromium (VI) µg/g 0.66 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Cobalt µg/g 22 0.15 9 - 1 - 4 5 5 2Copper µg/g 92 0.64 150 - 4 - 6 10 10 17Cyanide µg/g 0.051 0.03 0.03 - <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.7 0.16 0.58 - 0.36 - 0.28 0.26 0.25 0.38Lead µg/g 120 2.8 2340 - 16 - 18 25 27 786Mercury µg/g 0.27 <0.05 2.2 - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1Molybdenum µg/g 2 <0.5 2.1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1Nickel µg/g 82 <0.5 22 - 3 - 8 10 9 6Selenium µg/g 1.5 <0.5 8 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1Silver µg/g 0.5 0.2 9.9 - 0.7 - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Sodium Adsorption Ratio unitless 5 0.03 2.4 - 0.13 - 1.18 0.09 0.03 0.04Thallium µg/g 1 <0.05 <1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1Uranium µg/g 2.5 0.19 0.83 - <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Vanadium µg/g 86 4 48 - 8 - 26 23 24 10Zinc µg/g 290 9.2 7300 - 37 - 45 91 96 97Notes:

2 Standard is for the PHC F1 fraction minus BTEX3 Standard is for the sum of the m+p- and o-Xylene4 Standard is for the sum of the 1- and 2-Methylnaphthalene

Shaded Values - Value exceeds standardShaded Values - RDL exceeds standard

Input By: EC [27-Feb-2018]Checked By:

1 MOECC (2011) Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition for Residential/Parkland/Institutional/ Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use and coarse textured soil.

PARAMETER Units

SAMPLE LOCATION Date Sampled (dd-mm-yy)

Sample Depth (mbgs)

Applicable Site Condition

MOECC Table 8

Standards1

Page 1 of 7



PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 µg/g 25PHC F2 (C10-C16) µg/g 10PHC F3 (C16-C34) µg/g 240PHC F4 (C34-C50) µg/g 120PHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric µg/g 120Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Acetone µg/g 0.5Benzene µg/g 0.02Bromodichloromethane µg/g 0.05Bromoform µg/g 0.05Bromomethane µg/g 0.05Carbon tetrachloride µg/g 0.05Chlorobenzene µg/g 0.05Chloroform µg/g 0.05Dibromochloromethane µg/g 0.051,2-Dichlorobenzene µg/g 0.051,3-Dichlorobenzene µg/g 0.051,4-Dichlorobenzene µg/g 0.05Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/g 0.051,1-Dichloroethane µg/g 0.051,2-Dichloroethane µg/g 0.051,1-Dichloroethylene µg/g 0.05cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/g 0.05trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/g 0.051,2-Dichloropropane µg/g 0.05cis-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/g NVtrans-1,3-Dichloropropene µg/g NV1,3-Dichloropropene µg/g 0.05Ethylbenzene µg/g 0.05Ethylene dibromide µg/g 0.05Hexane µg/g 0.05Methyl ethyl ketone µg/g 0.5Methyl isobutyl ketone µg/g 0.5Methyl tert-butyl ether µg/g 0.05Methylene chloride µg/g 0.05Styrene µg/g 0.051,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/g 0.051,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane µg/g 0.05Tetrachloroethylene µg/g 0.05Toluene µg/g 0.21,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/g 0.051,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/g 0.05Trichloroethylene µg/g 0.05Trichlorofluoromethane µg/g 0.25Vinyl chloride µg/g 0.02Xylene Mixture3 µg/g 0.05Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene µg/g 0.072Acenaphthylene µg/g 0.093Anthracene µg/g 0.22Benz(a)anthracene µg/g 0.36Benzo(a)pyrene µg/g 0.3Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/g 0.47Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/g 0.68Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/g 0.48Chrysene µg/g 2.8Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/g 0.1Fluoranthene µg/g 0.69Fluorene µg/g 0.19Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/g 0.23Methylnaphthalene, total4 µg/g 0.59Naphthalene µg/g 0.09Phenanthrene µg/g 0.69Pyrene µg/g 1Metals and InorganicsAntimony µg/g 1.3Arsenic µg/g 18Barium µg/g 220Beryllium µg/g 2.5Boron (hot water soluble) µg/g 1.5Boron (total) µg/g 36Cadmium µg/g 1.2Chromium (total) µg/g 70Chromium (VI) µg/g 0.66Cobalt µg/g 22Copper µg/g 92Cyanide µg/g 0.051Electrical Conductivity mS/cm 0.7Lead µg/g 120Mercury µg/g 0.27Molybdenum µg/g 2Nickel µg/g 82Selenium µg/g 1.5Silver µg/g 0.5Sodium Adsorption Ratio unitless 5Thallium µg/g 1Uranium µg/g 2.5Vanadium µg/g 86Zinc µg/g 290Notes:





PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

BH-05 BH-05 BH-06 BH-06 BH-06 BH-07 BH-07 BH-07 BH-08 BH-08 BH-087-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-162.29-3.05 3.05-3.66 0-0.76 0.76-1.07 2.29-3.05 0-0.76 0.76-2.29 3.81-4.27 0.75-1.52 0.75-1.52 2.29-3.05

Duplicate

- <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10- <10 <10 - 10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 160

- 40 50 - 50 90 30 30 50 40 4420

- 40 200 - 80 340 130 90 70 80 1070

- - - - - - - - - - -

- <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50- 0.06 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.18- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50- <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- 0.27 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05- <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02- 0.37 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.08

- <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 0.07 0.28 <0.05 <0.05 84- 0.19 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 0.09 0.25 0.26 0.06 117- 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.08 0.55 0.6 0.87 0.26 820- 0.93 0.07 <0.05 - 0.2 0.66 1.26 2.21 0.49 700- 0.87 0.13 <0.05 - 0.24 0.66 1.08 2.08 0.5 720- 0.56 0.1 <0.05 - 0.23 0.54 1.22 1.87 0.34 600- 0.58 0.06 <0.05 - 0.11 0.41 0.71 1.21 0.35 370- 0.75 0.08 <0.05 - 0.18 0.48 0.97 1.66 0.43 510- 0.85 0.15 <0.05 - 0.22 0.58 1.31 1.68 0.45 800- 0.22 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.07 0.16 0.25 0.38 0.17 101- 2.13 0.2 <0.05 - 0.36 1.55 2.29 3.63 0.89 2010- 0.08 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 0.12 0.36 0.16 <0.05 189- 0.52 0.06 <0.05 - 0.11 0.33 0.73 1.21 0.35 330- 0.85 <0.10 <0.05 - <0.10 <0.10 5.99 0.11 <0.10 114- 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 1.57 0.11 <0.05 72- 1.59 0.09 <0.05 - 0.11 1.16 3.06 1.92 0.35 1770- 1.65 0.18 <0.05 - 0.34 1.3 1.75 2.97 0.75 1720

<1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 1 242 - 2 - 2 2 4 30 5 49 30

143 - 40 - 64 12 50 87 45 55 64<1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

<0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 1.3 <0.5 <0.5 <0.510 - 10 - 20 10 20 20 10 20 20

<0.5 - <0.5 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 2.5 <0.5 0.6 1.914 - 6 - 7 4 23 8 7 12 13

<0.50 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.502 - 2 - 2 1 3 9 3 3 414 - 13 - 16 10 12 58 16 18 49

<0.03 - <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.030.43 - 0.28 - 0.44 0.19 0.58 0.47 0.16 0.19 0.262340 - 58 - 97 44 41 136 70 108 4590.1 - <0.1 - 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.7<1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <17 - 5 - 5 4 13 16 8 9 10

<1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 8 <1 4 2<0.2 - <0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.2 0.2 <0.20.1 - 0.63 - 0.73 1.71 1.08 1.44 0.29 0.94 2.4<1 - <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

<0.5 - <0.5 - 0.5 <0.5 0.6 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.58 - 10 - 13 8 18 12 17 17 13

181 - 92 - 92 92 123 1290 147 214 1330

Page 2 of 7








PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

BH-09 BH-09 BH-10 BH-10 BH-11 BH-11 BH-11 BH-11 BH-11 BH-12 BH-127-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-16 7-Sep-160.76-1.07 3.05-3.66 0-0.76 1.83-2.13 0-0.76 0.76-1.52 1.52-2.29 3.66-3.96 3.66-3.96 0-0.76 1.52-2.29

Duplicate

<10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 20 <10 <10 -<10 <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 -<20 20 40 50 - 40 <20 300 70 130 -110 90 160 140 - 70 40 200 100 310 -

- - - - - - - - - - -

<0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 -<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 -<0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 10.4 <0.20 <0.20 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -<0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 -<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 -

<0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 0.13 <0.2 <0.2 -<0.05 <0.05 0.22 0.07 - 0.09 <0.05 <0.05 <0.2 <0.2 -0.07 <0.05 0.67 0.22 - 0.22 <0.05 0.28 <0.2 0.6 -0.15 0.06 1.94 0.44 - 0.54 <0.05 0.67 0.2 0.9 -0.2 0.09 0.63 0.51 - 0.58 0.05 0.35 0.5 1.2 -0.14 0.09 0.55 0.36 - 0.46 <0.05 0.36 0.4 0.9 -0.11 0.05 0.92 0.35 - 0.4 <0.05 0.23 0.4 0.6 -0.14 0.07 0.94 0.37 - 0.42 <0.05 0.25 0.4 0.8 -0.2 0.09 1.47 0.44 - 0.52 0.07 0.8 0.5 0.9 -0.05 <0.05 0.33 0.14 - 0.17 <0.05 0.17 <0.2 0.3 -0.38 0.18 3.16 0.93 - 1.01 0.13 0.9 0.7 2.1 -

<0.05 <0.05 0.12 0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 0.18 <0.2 <0.2 -0.11 0.06 0.94 0.3 - 0.34 <0.05 0.24 0.4 0.6 -0.61 <0.10 0.15 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 0.26 <0.4 <0.4 -0.31 <0.05 0.1 <0.05 - <0.05 <0.05 0.18 <0.2 <0.2 -0.18 0.1 2.05 0.53 - 0.49 0.09 0.52 0.2 1 -0.34 0.17 2.46 0.81 - 0.89 0.13 0.74 0.6 2 -

<1 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 - 10 25 <1 <11 2 3 2 <1 <1 - 8 13 4 27 13 18 36 9 4 - 400 199 46 20

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - 0.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5<10 10 10 10 <10 <10 - 20 20 20 10<0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 0.5 <0.5 0.5

4 5 9 11 10 5 - 32 14 9 10<0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50

<1 1 2 1 <1 <1 - 5 7 2 14 8 12 54 5 2 - 48 46 18 7

<0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 - <0.03 <0.03 <0.03 <0.030.36 0.57 0.18 0.46 0.25 0.37 - 0.33 0.45 0.27 0.3410 83 48 69 18 5 - 1600 1210 117 25

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - 1 2 <1 <13 4 6 5 4 2 - 22 15 6 5

<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1<0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.20.83 1.49 0.24 0.2 1.07 0.79 - 0.87 0.97 0.19 0.23<1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 - <1 <1 <1 <1

<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 - <0.5 0.6 <0.5 <0.55 7 7 8 5 4 - 16 14 14 845 239 154 142 43 15 - 294 348 134 79

Page 3 of 7








PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

BH-12 BH101 BH101 BH102 BH102 BH103 BH103 BH104 BH104 BH105 BH1057-Sep-16 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-173.05-3.81 0.76 - 1.52 1.52 - 2.13 0.76 - 1.52 1.52 - 1.98 0 - 0.68 0.68 - 1.37 0.15 - 0.76 3.81 - 4.57 0 - 0.30 0.30 - 0.61

<10 43 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - -<10 25 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 12 - -80 370 <50 <50 <50 180 99 140 350 - -160 120 <50 <50 <50 60 <50 260 110 - -

- - - - - - - 1400 - - -

<0.50 - - - - - - - - - -<0.02 0.2 0.05 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 0.3 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.50 - - - - - - - - - -<0.50 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.20 1.2 0.1 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 - - - - - - - - - -<0.02 - - - - - - - - - -<0.05 2.6 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 - -

<0.2 0.27 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.050 0.031 <0.0050 0.53 <0.0050 <0.0050<0.2 0.49 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.84 0.45 0.17 0.91 0.011 <0.00500.5 1.1 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.73 0.51 0.13 1.4 0.012 <0.00501.3 8.4 0.0064 0.015 <0.0050 4.7 2.2 1.3 5.5 0.062 <0.00501.5 9.1 <0.0050 0.016 <0.0050 4.3 2 1.1 5.4 0.058 <0.00501.3 11 0.0058 0.021 <0.0050 5.6 2.5 1.2 6.1 0.074 <0.00501 5.2 <0.0050 0.011 <0.0050 2.7 1.6 0.53 2.4 0.033 <0.0050

1.4 4 <0.0050 0.0079 <0.0050 2.1 0.81 0.49 1.8 0.023 <0.00501.7 6.8 0.0057 0.014 <0.0050 3.3 1.6 0.98 5.3 0.05 <0.00500.5 0.97 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.79 0.42 0.19 0.76 0.0087 <0.00502.6 12 0.012 0.022 <0.0050 7.2 3.5 1.4 14 0.11 <0.0050

<0.2 0.23 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.12 0.11 0.0067 0.56 <0.0050 <0.00501 5.9 <0.0050 0.012 <0.0050 3.2 1.9 0.67 3.9 0.037 <0.0050

<0.4 0.69 <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.071 0.044 0.015 0.31 <0.0071 <0.0071<0.2 0.23 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.050 0.017 0.013 0.24 <0.0050 <0.0050

1 3.7 0.0085 0.012 <0.0050 0.99 1 0.15 7.7 0.039 <0.00502.2 12 0.011 0.022 <0.0050 6.1 2.8 1.7 12 0.1 <0.0050

<1 - - - - 0.31 1.7 0.56 8.9 0.76 <0.204 - - - - 4.3 11 4.4 10 3 <1.036 - - - - 65 110 76 71 49 2.1<1 - - - - 0.41 0.53 <0.20 0.61 0.33 <0.20

<0.5 - - - - - - - - - -10 - - - - <5.0 5 5.5 13 <5.0 <5.0

<0.5 - - - - 0.45 0.34 0.68 7.7 0.32 <0.1014 - - - - 13 9.3 8.7 21 11 2.7

<0.50 - - - - - - - - - -2 - - - - 5.3 5.1 3.3 8.7 4 0.1515 - - - - 13 24 27 53 16 0.64

<0.03 - - - - - - - - - -0.51 - - - - - - - - - -64 - - - - 54 100 190 640 53 2.80.3 - - - - 0.21 0.22 0.37 0.12 0.089 <0.0501 - - - - <0.50 2.1 0.96 1.5 <0.50 <0.507 - - - - 11 13 8.8 19 7.9 <0.50

<1 - - - - 0.81 0.84 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50<0.2 - - - - 0.28 1.6 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.200.77 - - - - - - - - - -<1 - - - - 0.23 0.23 0.1 0.38 0.086 <0.050

<0.5 - - - - 0.4 0.44 0.5 0.49 0.51 0.1913 - - - - 25 21 16 32 21 <5.0169 - - - - 130 120 260 7300 140 9.2

Page 4 of 7








PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

BH106 BH106 BH107 BH107 BH108 BH108 BH109 BH109 BH110 BH110 BH1118-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-17 8-Aug-170 - 0.30 1.52 - 2.29 0.76 - 1.52 3.05 - 4.11 0 - 0.61 0.61 - 1.22 0 - 0.76 1.52 - 2.59 0.76 - 1.52 3.05 - 3.51 0 - 0.76

<10 <10 - - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10<10 <10 - - <10 <10 <10 <10 25 <10 <10<50 <50 - - <50 260 98 <50 440 <50 <50<50 <50 - - <50 83 85 <50 300 <50 <50

- - - - - - 650 - 1800 - 1400

- - - - - - - - - - -<0.020 <0.020 - - <0.020 0.024 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

<0.020 <0.020 - - <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

<0.020 <0.020 - - <0.020 0.036 <0.020 <0.020 0.037 <0.020 <0.020- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

<0.040 <0.040 - - <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 0.084 <0.040 <0.040

<0.0050 <0.0050 0.89 3.2 <0.0050 0.11 0.19 <0.0050 0.66 0.025 <0.00500.0059 <0.0050 0.72 0.25 <0.0050 0.89 0.037 <0.0050 1.3 0.049 <0.00500.01 0.007 2.4 1.5 <0.0050 1.6 0.39 <0.0050 2.7 0.099 <0.00500.046 0.069 9.3 1 0.0059 5.4 1.1 0.0054 7 0.24 <0.00500.046 0.094 7.9 0.71 0.0057 5.1 0.83 0.0052 7.5 0.21 0.00540.057 0.11 9 0.88 0.0073 5.2 0.92 0.0068 8.5 0.23 0.00780.026 0.097 3.9 0.32 <0.0050 1.9 0.4 <0.0050 3.8 0.11 <0.00500.018 0.037 2.4 0.27 <0.0050 1.5 0.35 <0.0050 2.5 0.092 <0.00500.044 0.062 9.1 0.99 0.0053 4.2 0.82 0.0063 5.7 0.21 0.0050.0068 0.013 0.96 0.11 <0.0050 0.63 0.13 <0.0050 1 0.029 <0.0050

0.1 0.097 20 3.2 0.013 11 2.2 0.011 17 0.56 0.011<0.0050 <0.0050 0.93 2.4 <0.0050 0.33 0.18 <0.0050 1.4 0.051 <0.0050

0.03 0.1 4.6 0.41 <0.0050 2.5 0.52 <0.0050 4.8 0.12 <0.0050<0.0071 <0.0071 0.17 13 <0.0071 0.094 0.12 <0.0071 1 0.034 <0.0071<0.0050 <0.0050 0.097 2.1 <0.0050 0.11 0.07 <0.0050 0.96 0.013 <0.0050

0.057 0.022 12 4.4 0.0068 4.4 1.6 0.0086 14 0.43 0.00550.084 0.12 17 2.6 0.01 9.4 1.6 0.0095 14 0.46 0.0094

- - 3.1 6.1 - - <0.20 0.28 2.3 0.43 <0.20- - 4.8 6 - - 2 1.9 5.9 2.6 3.1- - 33 90 - - 17 42 60 18 22- - <0.20 0.32 - - <0.20 <0.20 0.31 <0.20 <0.20- - - - - - - - - - -- - <5.0 7.1 - - <5.0 <5.0 5.6 <5.0 <5.0- - 1.5 0.64 - - 0.28 0.49 0.59 0.19 0.8- - 6.1 12 - - 5.3 5.4 11 5.3 8- - - - - - - - - - -- - 2.4 4 - - 1.7 1.7 4.2 1.3 3.5- - 15 26 - - 11 2.9 32 6.9 20- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - 100 250 - - 28 6.8 140 30 54- - 0.13 0.24 - - <0.050 <0.050 0.69 0.08 <0.050- - <0.50 0.88 - - <0.50 <0.50 0.69 0.52 0.53- - 4.9 9.2 - - 4.2 3.1 11 2.6 7.4- - <0.50 0.83 - - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50- - <0.20 3.1 - - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20- - - - - - - - - - -- - 0.053 0.16 - - <0.050 0.055 0.11 <0.050 0.092- - 0.31 0.52 - - 0.48 0.44 0.43 0.54 0.43- - 9.6 20 - - 9 9.7 20 10 17- - 390 330 - - 98 66 360 98 390

Page 5 of 7








PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

BH111 BH112 BH201 BH202 BH203 BH204 BH205 BH206 BH207 BH208 BH2098-Aug-17 9-Aug-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17 24-Nov-17

3.05 - 3.66 0 - 0.76 0.76 - 1.52 0 - 0.61 0.3 - 0.61 0.3 - 0.76 0.76 - 1.52 0.3 - 0.76 0.76 - 1.52 1.52 - 2.13 0.76 - 1.52

<30 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1015 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 32 <10 <10490 <50 <50 <50 130 <50 <50 <50 160 62 <50140 <50 <50 <50 82 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50

- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - -<0.060 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

<0.060 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.45 <0.020 <0.020- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

0.18 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.33 0.03 <0.020- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

<0.12 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 <0.040 10 <0.040 <0.040

0.36 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.12 <0.0050 0.0052 0.0089 0.092 0.034 <0.00501 0.0057 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.15 <0.0050 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.03 <0.0050

2.1 0.0076 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.39 <0.0050 0.02 0.028 0.2 0.26 0.00655.7 0.027 <0.0050 0.0054 1.4 <0.0050 0.079 0.13 0.65 1.1 0.0245 0.031 <0.0050 0.0076 1.4 <0.0050 0.075 0.13 0.55 1.2 0.025

6.1 0.042 <0.0050 0.011 1.9 <0.0050 0.12 0.18 0.73 1.4 0.0422.2 0.027 <0.0050 0.008 1 <0.0050 0.075 0.071 0.4 0.62 0.0211.8 0.012 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.73 <0.0050 0.041 0.061 0.27 0.57 0.0145.2 0.024 <0.0050 0.0051 1.2 <0.0050 0.08 0.11 0.54 0.85 0.0210.66 0.0054 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.3 <0.0050 0.019 0.027 0.11 0.3 <0.005014 0.059 <0.0050 0.011 2.6 <0.0050 0.12 0.23 1.4 1.2 0.043

0.67 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.17 <0.0050 0.007 0.008 0.095 0.055 <0.00502.8 0.028 <0.0050 0.0075 0.98 <0.0050 0.068 0.098 0.44 0.86 0.0190.3 <0.0071 <0.0071 <0.0071 0.15 <0.0071 0.082 0.014 0.11 0.029 <0.00710.16 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.077 <0.0050 0.028 0.0056 0.046 0.026 <0.00507.4 0.034 <0.0050 <0.0050 1.8 <0.0050 0.089 0.11 1 0.75 0.02213 0.05 <0.0050 0.0089 2.1 <0.0050 0.11 0.19 1.1 1 0.036

2.4 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 3.3 <0.20 1 0.41 0.61 5.6 <0.204.7 3.3 1 3 5.2 2.5 5.2 2.1 3.2 4.1 2.4100 39 6.8 43 110 37 71 43 69 450 260.27 0.31 <0.20 0.49 0.35 0.32 0.39 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.22

- - - - - - - - - - -6.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.00.71 0.34 0.12 0.26 2.1 0.39 0.2 0.32 0.55 0.51 0.3611 13 4.1 20 19 9.9 12 8.4 16 15 9.2- - - - - - - - - - -

3.5 4.1 1.6 5.8 4.6 3.4 7.3 2.3 3.3 2.7 3.535 13 4.9 8.3 66 12 18 16 100 150 10- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -

290 52 6.7 18 610 15 82 54 65 1200 280.26 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 2.2 <0.050 0.16 0.077 0.06 0.73 <0.050

<0.50 1.3 <0.50 0.52 1.4 0.53 1.7 <0.50 1.7 <0.50 <0.507.1 9.1 2.8 11 21 7.1 11 5.3 19 6.1 7.20.64 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.57 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.500.26 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 1 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 9.9 <0.20

- - - - - - - - - - -0.13 0.1 <0.050 0.077 0.19 0.085 0.18 0.051 0.063 0.17 0.0680.35 0.47 0.32 0.47 0.47 0.83 0.41 0.31 0.38 0.39 0.4216 22 9.5 48 25 20 29 16 16 16 20340 200 42 61 500 66 130 88 210 470 150

Page 6 of 7








PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

BH401 BH402 BH403 BH404 BH40512-Dec-17 12-Dec-17 12-Dec-17 12-Dec-17 12-Dec-170.76 - 1.52 0.46 - 0.91 0.46 - 1.22 0.30 - 0.76 0.91 - 1.52

- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -

- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -

1.8 0.64 0.0091 <0.0050 340.26 2.1 0.043 0.013 4.13.3 6.8 0.063 0.024 1203.3 16 0.27 0.091 942.1 9.6 0.26 0.081 552.2 12 0.28 0.095 570.89 3.1 0.16 0.058 170.86 4.5 0.099 0.031 272.8 13 0.22 0.075 710.37 1.6 0.042 0.013 8.45.8 26 0.46 0.17 1701.9 1.7 0.015 0.0052 861.1 3.8 0.19 0.062 212.1 0.32 0.024 0.021 781.2 0.091 0.01 0.0071 589.3 17 0.16 0.088 2705 23 0.41 0.17 140

- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -

Page 7 of 7

TABLE 2A - CONTAMINANT INVENTORY FOR FULL DEPTH SOILScreening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON


PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 PHCF1 43 µg/g 25 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 51.6 µg/gPHC F2 (C10-C16) PHCF2 160 µg/g 10 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 192 µg/gPHC F3 (C16-C34) PHCF3 4420 µg/g 240 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 5304 µg/gPHC F4 (C34-C50) PHCF4 1070 µg/g 120 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 1284 µg/gPHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric PHCF4 1800 µg/g 120 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2160 µg/gVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Acetone 67641 <0.5 µg/g 0.5 X Below Standards - -Benzene 71432 0.2 µg/g 0.02 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 0.240 µg/gBromodichloromethane 75274 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Bromoform 75252 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Bromomethane 74839 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Carbon tetrachloride 56235 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Chlorobenzene 108907 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Chloroform 67663 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Dibromochloromethane 124481 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541731 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Dichlorodifluoromethane 75718 0.06 µg/g 0.05 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 0.0720 µg/g1,1-Dichloroethane 75343 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1-Dichloroethylene 75354 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156592 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156605 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061015 <0.05 µg/g NV X Below Standards - -trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061026 <0.05 µg/g NV X Below Standards - -1,3-Dichloropropene 542756 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Ethylbenzene 100414 0.45 µg/g 0.05 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 0.540 µg/gEthylene dibromide 106934 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Hexane 11053 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Methyl ethyl ketone 78933 <0.5 µg/g 0.5 X Below Standards - -Methyl isobutyl ketone 108101 <0.5 µg/g 0.5 X Below Standards - -Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634044 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Methylene chloride 75092 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Styrene 100425 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630206 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Tetrachloroethylene 127184 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Toluene 108883 10.4 µg/g 0.2 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 12.5 µg/g1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71556 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Trichloroethylene 79016 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Trichlorofluoromethane 75694 <0.05 µg/g 0.25 X Below Standards - -Vinyl chloride 75014 <0.02 µg/g 0.02 X Below Standards - -Xylene Mixture3 1330207 10 µg/g 0.05 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 12 µg/gPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 83329 84 µg/g 0.072 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 101 µg/gAcenaphthylene 208968 117 µg/g 0.093 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 140 µg/gAnthracene 120127 820 µg/g 0.22 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 984 µg/gBenz(a)anthracene 56553 700 µg/g 0.36 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 840 µg/gBenzo(a)pyrene 50328 720 µg/g 0.3 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 864 µg/gBenzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 600 µg/g 0.47 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 720 µg/gBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 191242 370 µg/g 0.68 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 444 µg/gBenzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 510 µg/g 0.48 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 612 µg/gChrysene 218019 800 µg/g 2.8 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 960 µg/gDibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 101 µg/g 0.1 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 121 µg/gFluoranthene 206440 2010 µg/g 0.69 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2412 µg/gFluorene 86737 189 µg/g 0.19 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 227 µg/gIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193395 330 µg/g 0.23 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 396 µg/gMethylnaphthalene, total4 91576 114 µg/g 0.59 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 137 µg/gNaphthalene 91203 72 µg/g 0.09 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 86.4 µg/gPhenanthrene 85018 1770 µg/g 0.69 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2124 µg/gPyrene 129000 1720 µg/g 1 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2064 µg/gMetals and InorganicsAntimony 7440360 25 µg/g 1.3 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 30 µg/gArsenic 7440382 49 µg/g 18 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 58.8 µg/gBarium 7440393 450 µg/g 220 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 540 µg/gBeryllium 7440417 <1 µg/g 2.5 X Below Standards - -Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428-HWS 1.3 µg/g 1.5 X Below Standards - -Boron (total) 7440428 20 µg/g 36 X Below Standards - -Cadmium 7440439 7.7 µg/g 1.2 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 9.24 µg/gChromium (total) 16065831 32 µg/g 70 X Below Standards - -Chromium (VI) 18540299 <0.5 µg/g 0.66 X Below Standards - -Cobalt 7440484 9 µg/g 22 X Below Standards - -Copper 7440508 150 µg/g 92 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 180 µg/gCyanide 57125 0.03 µg/g 0.051 X Below Standards - -Electrical Conductivity EC 0.58 mS/cm 0.7 X Below Standards - -Lead 7439921 2340 µg/g 120 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2808 µg/gMercury 7439976 2.2 µg/g 0.27 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2.64 µg/gMolybdenum 7439987 2.1 µg/g 2 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 2.52 µg/gNickel 7440020 22 µg/g 82 X Below Standards - -Selenium 7782492 8 µg/g 1.5 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 9.60 µg/gSilver 7440224 9.9 µg/g 0.5 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 11.9 µg/gSodium Adsorption Ratio SAR 2.4 unitless 5 X Below Standards - -Thallium 7440280 <1 µg/g 1 X Below Standards - -Uranium 7440611 0.83 µg/g 2.5 X Below Standards - -Vanadium 7440622 48 µg/g 86 X Below Standards - -Zinc 7440666 7300 µg/g 290 X Full Depth Soil Above Standards 8760 µg/gNotes:




Exposure Point Concentration

Units


Yes No

Retained as a Contaminant for Risk Assessment?

Comment

Contaminant

Applicable Site Condition Standard

(SCS)

MOECC Table 8

Standards1

Maximum Measured

Concentration

Contaminant Identifier

Units

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 2B - CONTAMINANT INVENTORY FOR SURFACE SOIL (0-0.76 mbgs)Screening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON


PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 PHCF1 <10 µg/g 25 X Below Standards - -PHC F2 (C10-C16) PHCF2 <10 µg/g 10 X Below Standards - -PHC F3 (C16-C34) PHCF3 260 µg/g 240 X Surface Soil Above Standards 312 µg/gPHC F4 (C34-C50) PHCF4 340 µg/g 120 X Surface Soil Above Standards 408 µg/gPHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric PHCF4 1400 µg/g 120 X Surface Soil Above Standards 1680 µg/gVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Acetone 67641 <0.5 µg/g 0.5 X Below Standards - -Benzene 71432 0.08 µg/g 0.02 X Surface Soil Above Standards 0.0960 µg/gBromodichloromethane 75274 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Bromoform 75252 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Bromomethane 74839 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Carbon tetrachloride 56235 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Chlorobenzene 108907 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Chloroform 67663 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Dibromochloromethane 124481 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541731 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Dichlorodifluoromethane 75718 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1-Dichloroethane 75343 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1-Dichloroethylene 75354 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156592 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156605 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061015 <0.05 µg/g NV X Below Standards - -trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061026 <0.05 µg/g NV X Below Standards - -1,3-Dichloropropene 542756 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Ethylbenzene 100414 0.09 µg/g 0.05 X Surface Soil Above Standards 0.108 µg/gEthylene dibromide 106934 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Hexane 11053 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Methyl ethyl ketone 78933 <0.5 µg/g 0.5 X Below Standards - -Methyl isobutyl ketone 108101 <0.5 µg/g 0.5 X Below Standards - -Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634044 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Methylene chloride 75092 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Styrene 100425 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 630206 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Tetrachloroethylene 127184 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Toluene 108883 0.45 µg/g 0.2 X Surface Soil Above Standards 0.540 µg/g1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71556 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Trichloroethylene 79016 <0.05 µg/g 0.05 X Below Standards - -Trichlorofluoromethane 75694 <0.05 µg/g 0.25 X Below Standards - -Vinyl chloride 75014 <0.02 µg/g 0.02 X Below Standards - -Xylene Mixture3 1330207 0.75 µg/g 0.05 X Surface Soil Above Standards 0.900 µg/gPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 83329 34 µg/g 0.072 X Surface Soil Above Standards 40.8 µg/gAcenaphthylene 208968 4.1 µg/g 0.093 X Surface Soil Above Standards 4.92 µg/gAnthracene 120127 120 µg/g 0.22 X Surface Soil Above Standards 144 µg/gBenz(a)anthracene 56553 94 µg/g 0.36 X Surface Soil Above Standards 113 µg/gBenzo(a)pyrene 50328 55 µg/g 0.3 X Surface Soil Above Standards 66.0 µg/gBenzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 57 µg/g 0.47 X Surface Soil Above Standards 68.4 µg/gBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 191242 17 µg/g 0.68 X Surface Soil Above Standards 20.4 µg/gBenzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 27 µg/g 0.48 X Surface Soil Above Standards 32.4 µg/gChrysene 218019 71 µg/g 2.8 X Surface Soil Above Standards 85.2 µg/gDibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 8.4 µg/g 0.1 X Surface Soil Above Standards 10.1 µg/gFluoranthene 206440 170 µg/g 0.69 X Surface Soil Above Standards 204 µg/gFluorene 86737 86 µg/g 0.19 X Surface Soil Above Standards 103 µg/gIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193395 21 µg/g 0.23 X Surface Soil Above Standards 25.2 µg/gMethylnaphthalene, total4 91576 78 µg/g 0.59 X Surface Soil Above Standards 93.6 µg/gNaphthalene 91203 58 µg/g 0.09 X Surface Soil Above Standards 69.6 µg/gPhenanthrene 85018 270 µg/g 0.69 X Surface Soil Above Standards 324 µg/gPyrene 129000 140 µg/g 1 X Surface Soil Above Standards 168 µg/gMetals and InorganicsAntimony 7440360 3.3 µg/g 1.3 X Surface Soil Above Standards 3.96 µg/gArsenic 7440382 11 µg/g 18 X Below Standards - -Barium 7440393 110 µg/g 220 X Below Standards - -Beryllium 7440417 <1 µg/g 2.5 X Below Standards - -Boron (hot water soluble) 7440428-HWS <0.5 µg/g 1.5 X Below Standards - -Boron (total) 7440428 20 µg/g 36 X Below Standards - -Cadmium 7440439 2.1 µg/g 1.2 X Surface Soil Above Standards 2.52 µg/gChromium (total) 16065831 20 µg/g 70 X Below Standards - -Chromium (VI) 18540299 <0.5 µg/g 0.66 X Below Standards - -Cobalt 7440484 5.8 µg/g 22 X Below Standards - -Copper 7440508 66 µg/g 92 X Below Standards - -Cyanide 57125 <0.03 µg/g 0.051 X Below Standards - -Electrical Conductivity EC 0.28 mS/cm 0.7 X Below Standards - -Lead 7439921 610 µg/g 120 X Surface Soil Above Standards 732 µg/gMercury 7439976 2.2 µg/g 0.27 X Surface Soil Above Standards 2.64 µg/gMolybdenum 7439987 2.1 µg/g 2 X Surface Soil Above Standards 2.52 µg/gNickel 7440020 21 µg/g 82 X Below Standards - -Selenium 7782492 <1 µg/g 1.5 X Below Standards - -Silver 7440224 1.6 µg/g 0.5 X Surface Soil Above Standards 1.92 µg/gSodium Adsorption Ratio SAR 1.71 unitless 5 X Below Standards - -Thallium 7440280 <1 µg/g 1 X Below Standards - -Uranium 7440611 0.83 µg/g 2.5 X Below Standards - -Vanadium 7440622 48 µg/g 86 X Below Standards - -Zinc 7440666 500 µg/g 290 X Surface Soil Above Standards 600 µg/gNotes:





Exposure Point Concentration

UnitsContaminantContaminant

Identifier

Maximum Measured

ConcentrationUnits

Applicable Site Condition Standard

(SCS) Retained as a Contaminant for Risk Assessment?

MOECC Table 8

Standards1

Yes No Comment

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 3 - GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTSScreening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON

MW102 MW110 MW11111-Aug-17 11-Aug-17 11-Aug-17

Minimum Measured Concentration

Maximum Measured Concentration


PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 µg/L 420 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25PHC F2 (C10-C16) µg/L 150 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100PHC F3 (C16-C34) µg/L 500 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200PHC F4 (C34-C50) µg/L 500 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Benzene µg/L 5 <0.2 <0.2 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20Ethylbenzene µg/L 2.4 <0.2 <0.2 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20Toluene µg/L 22 0.2 0.2 0.2 <0.20 <0.20Xylene Mixture3 µg/L 300 <0.4 <0.4 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene µg/L 4.1 <0.05 0.057 <0.050 0.057 <0.050Acenaphthylene µg/L 1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Anthracene µg/L 1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Benz(a)anthracene µg/L 1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Benzo(a)pyrene µg/L 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/L 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/L 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/L 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Chrysene µg/L 0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Fluoranthene µg/L 0.41 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Fluorene µg/L 120 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/L 0.2 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Methylnaphthalene, total4 µg/L 3.2 <0.071 <0.071 <0.071 <0.071 <0.071Naphthalene µg/L 11 <0.05 0.11 <0.050 0.11 <0.050Phenanthrene µg/L 1 <0.03 0.13 0.089 0.13 <0.030Pyrene µg/L 4.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050Dissolved Metals and InorganicsAntimony µg/L 6 <0.5 2.5 <0.50 1.3 2.5Arsenic µg/L 25 <1 4.7 <1.0 4.7 <1.0Barium µg/L 1000 100 160 100 130 160Beryllium µg/L 4 <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Boron (total) µg/L 5000 31 66 31 66 63Cadmium µg/L 2.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Chromium (total) µg/L 50 <5 <5 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0Cobalt µg/L 3.8 <0.5 0.95 <0.50 0.77 0.95Copper µg/L 69 1.6 2.7 1.6 1.8 2.7Lead µg/L 10 <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50Molybdenum µg/L 70 2.2 11 2.2 11 6.4Nickel µg/L 100 <1 6.9 <1.0 4.4 6.9Sodium µg/L 490000 240000 480000 480000 240000 280000Selenium µg/L 10 <2 2.4 <2.0 <2.0 2.4Silver µg/L 1.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10Thallium µg/L 2 <0.05 0.53 <0.050 0.16 0.53Uranium µg/L 20 0.72 1.3 0.72 1.2 1.3Vanadium µg/L 6.2 0.6 0.91 0.91 0.65 0.6Zinc µg/L 890 7.5 90 7.5 54 90Notes:





PARAMETER Units


MOECC Table 8

Standards1

SAMPLE LOCATION Date Sampled (dd-mm-yy)

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 4 - CONTAMINANT INVENTORY FOR GROUNDWATERScreening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON


PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 PHCF1 <25 µg/L 420 X Below StandardsPHC F2 (C10-C16) PHCF2 <100 µg/L 150 X Below StandardsPHC F3 (C16-C34) PHCF3 <200 µg/L 500 X Below StandardsPHC F4 (C34-C50) PHCF4 <200 µg/L 500 X Below StandardsVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Benzene 71432 <0.2 µg/L 5 X Below StandardsEthylbenzene 100414 <0.2 µg/L 2.4 X Below StandardsToluene 108883 0.2 µg/L 22 X Below StandardsXylene Mixture4 1330207 <0.4 µg/L 300 X Below StandardsPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 83329 0.057 µg/L 4.1 X Below StandardsAcenaphthylene 208968 <0.05 µg/L 1 X Below StandardsAnthracene 120127 <0.05 µg/L 1 X Below StandardsBenz(a)anthracene 56553 <0.05 µg/L 1 X Below StandardsBenzo(a)pyrene 50328 <0.01 µg/L 0.01 X Below StandardsBenzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 <0.05 µg/L 0.1 X Below StandardsBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 191242 <0.05 µg/L 0.2 X Below StandardsBenzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 <0.05 µg/L 0.1 X Below StandardsChrysene 218019 <0.05 µg/L 0.1 X Below StandardsDibenz(a,h)anthracene 53703 <0.05 µg/L 0.2 X Below StandardsFluoranthene 206440 <0.05 µg/L 0.41 X Below StandardsFluorene 86737 <0.05 µg/L 120 X Below StandardsIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193395 <0.05 µg/L 0.2 X Below StandardsMethylnaphthalene, total5 91576 <0.071 µg/L 3.2 X Below StandardsNaphthalene 91203 0.11 µg/L 11 X Below StandardsPhenanthrene 85018 0.13 µg/L 1 X Below StandardsPyrene 129000 <0.05 µg/L 4.1 X Below StandardsMetals and InorganicsAntimony 7440360 2.5 µg/L 6 X Below StandardsArsenic 7440382 4.7 µg/L 25 X Below StandardsBarium 7440393 160 µg/L 1000 X Below StandardsBeryllium 7440417 <0.5 µg/L 4 X Below StandardsBoron (total) 7440428 66 µg/L 5000 X Below StandardsCadmium 7440439 <0.1 µg/L 2.1 X Below StandardsChromium (total) 16065831 <5 µg/L 50 X Below StandardsCobalt 7440484 0.95 µg/L 3.8 X Below StandardsCopper 7440508 2.7 µg/L 69 X Below StandardsLead 7439921 <0.5 µg/L 10 X Below StandardsMolybdenum 7439987 11 µg/L 70 X Below StandardsNickel 7440020 6.9 µg/L 100 X Below StandardsSelenium 7782492 2.4 µg/L 10 X Below StandardsSilver 7440224 <0.1 µg/L 1.2 X Below StandardsThallium 7440280 0.53 µg/L 2 X Below StandardsUranium 7440611 1.3 µg/L 20 X Below StandardsVanadium 7440622 0.91 µg/L 6.2 X Below StandardsZinc 7440666 90 µg/L 890 X Below StandardsNotes:




MOECC Table 3

Standards2


Yes No

Contaminant

Retained as a Contaminant for Risk Assessment?

Comment

Contaminant Identifier

Maximum Measured

ConcentrationUnits


Standard (SCS)

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 5A - HUMAN HEALTH SECONDARY SCREENING OF FULL DEPTH SOILScreening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON


PHC F1 (C6-C10)-BTEX2 51.6 µg/g 100000 26000 No NoPHC F2 (C10-C16) 192 µg/g 48000 25000 No NoPHC F3 (C16-C34) 5304 µg/g 260000 NV No NoPHC F4 (C34-C50) 1284 µg/g 400000 NV No NoPHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric 2160 µg/g 400000 NV No NoVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Benzene 0.240 µg/g 480 17 No NoDichlorodifluoromethane 0.0720 µg/g 44000 NV No NoEthylbenzene 0.540 µg/g 22000 7600 No NoToluene 12.5 µg/g 180000 34000 No NoXylene Mixture3 12.0 µg/g 88000 4900 No NoPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 101 µg/g 3600 1300 No NoAcenaphthylene 140 µg/g 360 96 No YesAnthracene 984 µg/g 420000 NV No NoBenz(a)anthracene 840 µg/g 36 330 Yes YesBenzo(a)pyrene 864 µg/g 3.6 170 Yes YesBenzo(b)fluoranthene 720 µg/g 36 2000 Yes NoBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 444 µg/g 360 NV Yes NoBenzo(k)fluoranthene 612 µg/g 36 2100 Yes NoChrysene 960 µg/g 360 6600 Yes NoDibenz(a,h)anthracene 121 µg/g 3.6 430 Yes NoFluoranthene 2412 µg/g 360 2500 Yes NoFluorene 227 µg/g 56000 NV No NoIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 396 µg/g 36 4000 Yes NoMethylnaphthalene, total4 137 µg/g 560 NV No NoNaphthalene 86.4 µg/g 28000 270 No NoPhenanthrene 2124 µg/g NV NV No NoPyrene 2064 µg/g 3600 23000 No NoMetals and InorganicsAntimony 30.0 µg/g 63 NV No NoArsenic 58.8 µg/g 47 NV Yes NoBarium 540 µg/g 8600 NV No NoCadmium 9.24 µg/g 7.9 NV Yes NoCopper 180 µg/g 5600 NV No NoLead 2808 µg/g 1000 NV Yes NoMercury 2.64 µg/g 670 36 No NoMolybdenum 2.52 µg/g 1200 NV No NoSelenium 9.60 µg/g 1200 NV No NoSilver 11.9 µg/g 490 NV No NoZinc 8760 µg/g 47000 NV No NoNotes:



Input By: EC [1-Mar-2018]Checked By:

1 MOECC (2011) Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition for Residential/Parkland/Institutional/ Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use and

ContaminantExposure Point Concentration

Units

Applicable Table 2 Soil Components -

Industrial/ Commercial Use, for coarse-textured

soil

Quantitative Assessment Required?

S3 S/OA S3 S/OA

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 5B - HUMAN HEALTH SECONDARY SCREENING OF SURFACE SOIL (0-0.76 mbgs)Screening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)PHC F3 (C16-C34) 312 µg/g 5800 40000 NV No No NoPHC F4 (C34-C50) 408 µg/g 6100 42000 NV No No NoPHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric 1680 µg/g 6100 42000 NV No No NoVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Benzene 0.096 µg/g 9.3 13 17 No No NoEthylbenzene 0.108 µg/g 2100 22000 7600 No No NoToluene 0.540 µg/g 1700 18000 34000 No No NoXylene Mixture3 0.900 µg/g 4200 44000 4900 No No NoPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 40.8 µg/g 78 96 1300 No No NoAcenaphthylene 4.92 µg/g 7.8 9.6 96 No No NoAnthracene 144 µg/g 5400 42000 NV No No NoBenz(a)anthracene 113 µg/g 0.78 0.96 330 Yes Yes NoBenzo(a)pyrene 66.0 µg/g 0.078 0.096 170 Yes Yes NoBenzo(b)fluoranthene 68.4 µg/g 0.78 0.96 2000 Yes Yes NoBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 20.4 µg/g 7.8 9.6 NV Yes Yes NoBenzo(k)fluoranthene 32.4 µg/g 0.78 0.96 2100 Yes Yes NoChrysene 85.2 µg/g 7.8 9.6 6600 Yes Yes NoDibenz(a,h)anthracene 10.1 µg/g 0.078 0.096 430 Yes Yes NoFluoranthene 204 µg/g 7.8 9.6 2500 Yes Yes NoFluorene 103 µg/g 720 5600 NV No No NoIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 25.2 µg/g 0.78 0.96 4000 Yes Yes NoMethylnaphthalene, total4 93.6 µg/g 72 560 NV Yes No NoNaphthalene 69.6 µg/g 360 2800 270 No No NoPhenanthrene 324 µg/g NV NV NV No No NoPyrene 168 µg/g 78 96 23000 Yes Yes NoMetals and InorganicsAntimony 3.96 µg/g 7.5 63 NV No No NoCadmium 2.52 µg/g 0.69 7.9 NV Yes No NoLead 732 µg/g 200 1000 NV Yes No NoMercury 2.64 µg/g 9.8 67 36 No No NoMolybdenum 2.52 µg/g 110 1200 NV No No NoSilver 1.92 µg/g 77 490 NV No No NoZinc 600 µg/g 5600 47000 NV No No NoNotes:






Units

Applicable Table 2 Soil Components - Residential/Parkland Use and

Industrial/Commercial Land Use, for coarse-textured soil


S1 S2 S/OA S1 S2 S/OA

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6 - EVALUATION OF PAHSScreening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 101 40.8 µg/g 0.001 0.101 0.0408Acenaphthylene 140 4.92 µg/g 0.01 1.404 0.0492Anthracene 984 144 µg/g NA NA NABenz(a)anthracene 840 113 µg/g 0.1 84.000 11.28Benzo(a)pyrene 864 66.0 µg/g 1 864.000 66Benzo(b)fluoranthene 720 68.4 µg/g 0.1 72.000 6.84Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 444 20.4 µg/g 0.01 4.440 0.204Benzo(k)fluoranthene 612 32.4 µg/g 0.1 61.200 3.24Chrysene 960 85.2 µg/g 0.01 9.600 0.852Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 121 10.1 µg/g 1 121.200 10.08Fluoranthene 2412 204 µg/g 0.01 24.120 2.04Fluorene 227 103 µg/g NA NA NAIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 396 25.2 µg/g 0.1 39.600 2.52Methylnaphthalene, total4 137 93.6 µg/g NA NA NANaphthalene 86.4 69.6 µg/g NA NA NAPhenanthrene 2124 324 µg/g NA NA NAPyrene 2064 168 µg/g 0.001 2.064 0.168

µg/g 1284 103Notes:




Surface Soil


Full Depth Soil Surface Soil

Exposure Point ConcentrationToxic

Equivalence Factor

Total Carcinogenic PAHs

Benzo(a)pyrene Equivalent

Full Depth Soil

Contaminant Units

Page 1 of 1

TABLE 7 - ECOLOGICAL SECONDARY SCREENING OF SURFACE SOIL (0-0.76 mgs)Screening Level Risk AssessmentJoseph Wolfond Park, Guelph, ON

Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs)PHC F3 (C16-C34) 312 µg/g 300 NV Yes NoPHC F4 (C34-C50) 408 µg/g 2800 NV No NoPHC F4 (C34-C50)-Gravimetric 1680 µg/g 2800 NV No NoVolatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Benzene 0.096 µg/g 25 370 No NoEthylbenzene 0.108 µg/g 55 90 No NoToluene 0.540 µg/g 150 150 No NoXylene Mixture3 0.900 µg/g 95 96 No NoPolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)Acenaphthene 40.8 µg/g NV 6600 No NoAcenaphthylene 4.92 µg/g NV NV No NoAnthracene 144 µg/g 2.5 38000 Yes NoBenz(a)anthracene 113 µg/g 0.5 NV Yes NoBenzo(a)pyrene 66.0 µg/g 20 1600 Yes NoBenzo(b)fluoranthene 68.4 µg/g NV NV No NoBenzo(g,h,i)perylene 20.4 µg/g 6.6 NV Yes NoBenzo(k)fluoranthene 32.4 µg/g 7.6 NV Yes NoChrysene 85.2 µg/g 7 NV Yes NoDibenz(a,h)anthracene 10.1 µg/g NV NV No NoFluoranthene 204 µg/g 50 0.69 Yes YesFluorene 103 µg/g NV NV No NoIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 25.2 µg/g 0.38 NV Yes NoMethylnaphthalene, total4 93.6 µg/g NV NV No NoNaphthalene 69.6 µg/g 0.6 380 Yes NoPhenanthrene 324 µg/g 6.2 2700 Yes NoPyrene 168 µg/g NV 4700 No NoMetals and InorganicsAntimony 3.96 µg/g 20 25 No NoCadmium 2.52 µg/g 12 1.9 No YesLead 732 µg/g 250 32 Yes YesMercury 2.64 µg/g 10 20 No NoMolybdenum 2.52 µg/g 40 6.9 No NoSilver 1.92 µg/g 20 NV No NoZinc 600 µg/g 400 340 Yes YesNotes:




M/B

1 MOECC (2011) Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition for Residential/Parkland/Institutional/ Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use and


Units

Applicable Table 2 Soil Components -

Residential/Parkland Use, for coarse-textured

soil


P/O M/B P/O

Page 1 of 1

APPENDIX III Inspection Log Template

1

INSPECTION LOG – HARD/FILL CAP

139 CARDIGAN STREET AND 70 NORWICH STREET EAST, GUELPH, ON

The hard/fill cap must be maintained so long as the contaminants are present at the Site above applicable standards. The hard/fill cap must be

inspected on at least a semi-annual basis, to ensure that the cap has not been breached. Inspection logs must be kept and maintained by City staff

documenting the cap inspections. In the event of a cap breach whereby soil impacts are exposed, the cap must be repaired in a timely manner and

restored to meet the hard/fill cap requirements. Temporary fencing may need to be erected during cap repairs so as to prevent contact with exposed

soil impacts. All repair and restoration work must be documented, and the information must be kept and maintained by City staff.

Date of Inspection: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspection Completed By: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Type of Cap Location of Cap Any observed damage to cap? Include details.

If damage is observed, what type of repair work is required?

Repair work completed (include type of work, date and contractor)

2

Type of Cap Location of Cap Any observed damage to cap? Include details.

If damage is observed, what type of repair work is required?

Repair work completed (include type of work, date and contractor)

final screening level risk assessment - city of guelph · 2019-01-23 · (client) to conduct a...

Documents