ontario ministry of the environment - record of site ... 214249.pdf · ontario ministry of the...

Ontario Ministry of the Environment - Record of Site Condition # 214249

Record of Site Condition

Under Part XV.1 of the Environment Protection Act

Summary

Notice to Readers Concerning Due Diligence

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

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

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

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

Contents of this Record of Site Condition

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

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

submitted in electronic format to the Ministry of the Environment.

Record of Site Condition Number 214249Date Filed to Environmental Site Registry 2014/08/21Certification Date 2014/04/01Current Property Use CommercialIntended Property Use ResidentialCertificate of Property Use Number No CPUApplicable Site Condition Standards** Full Depth Generic Site Conditions Standard,

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

Property Municipal Address 56 BLUE JAYS WAY, TORONTO, ON, M5A1C2

1 of 16Filed Record of Site Condition # 214249 on 2014/08/21

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

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

Owner Name LIFETIME 56 BLUE JAYS WAY INC.

Authorized Person MICHAEL PEARL

Mailing Address 145 DAVENPORT ROAD, SUITE 200, TORONTOONTARIO, CANADA

Postal Code M5R 1J1

Phone (416) 987-3344

Fax (415) 987-5566

Email Address [email protected]


RSC Property Location Information

Municipal Address(es) 56 BLUE JAYS WAY, TORONTO, ON M5A 1C2

Municipality Toronto

Legal Description See Attached Lawyer’s Letter

Assessment Roll Number(s)

19-04-06-2-220-02450-0000-04

Property Identifier Number(s)

21413-0081 (LT)

RSC Property Geographical References

Coordinate System UTM

Datum NAD 83

Zone 17

Easting 629,643.00

Northing 4,833,734.00

RSC Property Use Information

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

Current Property Use Commercial

Intended Property Use Residential

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

No


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

The rest of this page has been left intentionally blank


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

Name BRUCE A. BROWN

Type of Licence Under Professional Engineers Act

Licence

Licence Number 5458013

QP Employer Name BRUCE A. BROWN ASSOCIATES LTD.

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

Phone (416) 424-3355

Fax (416) 424-3350

Email Address [email protected]

Municipal Information

Local or Single-Tier Municipality

Toronto

Ministry of the Environment District Office

District Office Toronto District Office

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


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

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

(YYYY/MM/DD)

2014/03/07

Type of Report

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

Author of Report

Name of ConsultingCompany

P1 ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 50-56 Blue Jays Way, toronto, ON

2007/01/09 John Lewis, B.Sc., C.E.T.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING &N OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH INC.

P1 ESA Update

Phase I Environmental Evaluation Update, 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto, ON

2013/03/14 Bruce A. Brown, Ph.D., RPP, P.Eng.

BRUCE A. BROWN ASSOCIATES LTD.

P1 ESA Update

Supplementary Phase I Environmental Evaluation, 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto, ON

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


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


Author of Report


N/A


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

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

(YYYY/MM/DD)

2014/04/01

Type of Report


Author of Report


P2 ESA PHase Two Environmental Site Assessment, 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto, ON

2007/01/09 Michael J. cugion, P. Geo.

ECOH MANAGEMENT INC.

P2 ESA Update

Enhanced Phase II Environmental Evalutation, 56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto, ON

2013/03/15 Bruce A. Brown, Ph.D., RPP, P.Eng


P2 ESA Update

Supplementary Phase Two Environmental Evaluation, 56 Blue Jays Way

2014/04/17 Bruce A. Brown, Ph.D., RPP, P.Eng


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

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

Author of Report


Supplementary Geotechnical Report, Proposed Residential Development, Bisha at 56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto, ON

2011/09/01 L.S. Mousa, P.Eng. & L.J. Rak, M.Eng., P.Eng.

McClymont & Rak Engineers Inc.

Bisha Hotel, 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto, Designated Substance List 2012/01/26 Bruce A. Brown, P.Eng., RPP, Ph.D.

Bruce A. Brown Associates Ltd.

Geotechnical Investigation of Shale Bedrock, 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto

2013/01/31 Bruce A. Brown, P.Eng., RPP, Ph.D.

Bruce A. Brown Associates Ltd.


Environmental ConditionSection 41 applies? No

Section 43.1 applies? No

Site Condition InformationCertification date (YYYY/MM/DD) 2014/04/01

Total area of RSC property (in hectares) 0.19790

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

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

Soil Texture Medium and Fine

Assessment/Restoration Approach Full Depth Generic

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

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

Yes

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

Yes

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

AGAT LABORATORIES

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

Applicable Site Condition Standard TABLE 3

Local or single-tier municipality non-potable written notification date 2014/04/28


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

Measured Concentration for Contaminants in Soil

ContaminantName

Maximum Concentration

Applicable Site Condition Standard

Unit of Measure

1 Antimony < 0.8 7.5 µg/g

2 Arsenic 3 18 µg/g

3 Barium 129 390 µg/g

4 Beryllium 0.6 5 µg/g

5 Boron (total) 8 120 µg/g

6 Boron (Hot Water Soluble)* 0.17 1.5 µg/g

7 Cadmium < 0.5 1.2 µg/g

8 Chromium Total 28 160 µg/g

9 Cobalt 11 22 µg/g

10 Copper 23 180 µg/g

11 Lead 8 120 µg/g

12 Molybdenum < 0.5 6.9 µg/g

13 Nickel 22 130 µg/g

14 Selenium < 0.4 2.4 µg/g

15 Silver < 0.2 25 µg/g

16 Thallium < 0.4 1 µg/g

17 Uranium 0.5 23 µg/g

18 Vanadium 35 86 µg/g

19 Zinc 52 340 µg/g

20 Chromium VI < 0.2 10 µg/g

21 Cyanide (CN-) < 0.04 0.051 µg/g

22 Mercury < 0.1 1.8 µg/g

23 Electrical Conductivity 0.324 0.7 mS/cm

24 Sodium Adsorption Ratio 1.15 5

25 Benzene < 0.02 0.17 µg/g

26 Toluene < 0.08 6 µg/g

27 Ethylbenzene < 0.05 15 µg/g

28 Xylene Mixture < 0.05 25 µg/g

29 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1**** < 5 65 µg/g

30 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 < 10 150 µg/g




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

Ground Water

ContaminantName

Maximum Concentration

Applicable Site Condition Standard

Unit of Measure

1 Benzene < 0.2 430 µg/L

2 Toluene < 0.2 18000 µg/L

3 Ethylbenzene < 0.1 2300 µg/L

4 Xylene Mixture < 0.2 4200 µg/L

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

6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 < 100 150 µg/L




Remedial Action and Mitigation

Remediated Soils

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

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

None 0.0

Description of Remediation

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

None

Soil or Sediment Removed and Not Returned

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

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

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

Soil Brought to the Property

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

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

0.0


Ground Water Control or Treatment Measures

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

None

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

None

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

Estimated Volume of Ground Water (in litres) 0.0


Other Activities Including Risk Management Measures

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

None

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

None

Monitoring or Maintenance

Soil Management Measures

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

None

Ground Water Management Measures

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

None

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

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

No


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

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

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

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

As of 2014/04/01, in my opinion, based on the phase one environmental site assessment and the phase two environmental site assessment, and any confirmatory sampling, there is no evidence of any contaminants in the soil, ground water or sediment on, in or under the RSC property that would interfere with the type of property use to which the RSC property will be put, as specified in the RSC.

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

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

As of 2014/04/01, in my opinion, based on the phase one and phase two environmental site assessments and any confirmatory sampling, the RSC property meets the applicable full depth generic site condition standards prescribed by section 37 of the regulation for all contaminants prescribed by the regulation in relation to the type of property use for which this RSC is filed, except for those contaminants (if any) specified in this RSC at Table 2, Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Compared to Standards Specified in a Risk Assessment.

As of 2014/04/01, the maximum known concentration of each contaminant in soil, sediment and ground water at the RSC property for which sampling and analysis has been performed is specified in this RSC at Table 1, Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Compared to Applicable Site Condition Standards.

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

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

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

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, the certifications and statements in this part of the RSCare true as of 2014/04/01.

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

By checking the boxes above, and entering my membership/licence number in this submission, I, BRUCE A. BROWN, a qualified person as defined in section 5 of O. Reg. 153/04 am, on 2014/07/23:

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

I Agree


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

Certificate of Status or equivalent for the owner

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

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

A Current plan of Survey

Area(s) of Potential Environmental Concern

Table of Current and Past Uses of the Phase One Property

Phase 2 Conceptual Site Model

Owner or agent certification statements

v 4.1.1


“Table of Areas of Potential Environmental Concern” 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto Project 07*3266

Areas of Potential Environmental

Concern

Location of Areas of Potential

Environmental Concern

Potentially Contaminating Activity

Location of PCA (On-

Site or Off-Site)

Contaminants of Potential

Concern

Media Potentially Impacted

1. North Side – Rear of Former Building- within overburden soils/aquifer

North Half and Centre of Site

28. Gasoline and Associated Products in Fixed Tanks – Former UST(s) for

comfort heating

On-Site PHC F1-F4 BTEX

Overburden Soil and

Groundwater

2. Potential migration of impacts from 375 King Street to the North – Overburden soils/aquifer

North Half of Site 52. Storage, maintenance, fuelling and repair of equipment, vehicles and

material used to maintain transportation equipment.

Off-Site PHC F1-F4 BTEX

Overburden Soil and

Groundwater

3. Potential migration of impacts from 38 &55 Spadina to the west-Overburden Soils/Aquifer

West Half of Site 28. Gasoline and Associated Products in Fixed Tanks

Off-Site PHC F1-F4 BTEX

Overburden Soil and

Groundwater

Areas of Potential Environmental

Concern

Location of Areas of Potential

Environmental Concern

Potentially Contaminating Activity

Location of PCA (On-

Site or Off-Site)

Contaminants of Potential

Concern

Media Potentially Impacted

4. Entire Phase IProperty – ShallowFill Soils –Metals/InorganicImpacts fromCinders and Ash

Entire Phase I Property –

Shallow Fill Soils

30. Importation of Fill Material ofUnknown Quality – macro-wastes

from coal combustion, purposefully placed.

On-Site Metals and Inorganics

Shallow Fill Soils

5. Potential migrationof PHC/PAHimpacts from 348Wellington and 36Blue Jays Way tothe south –OverburdenSoils/Aquifer

South Half of the Site

52. Storage, maintenance, fuellingand repair of equipment, vehicles and material used to maintain transportation equipment. (348 Wellington)

Off-Site BTEX PAHs

Overburden Soils and

Groundwater

6. Potential migration of VOC impacts from 370 King Street West to the east- Overburden Soils/Aquifer

East Half of the Site

37. Operation of Dry CleaningEquipment (where chemicals are used)

Off-Site VOCs Overburden Soils and

Groundwater

July 22nd, 2014

Phase II Conceptual Site Model 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto

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

1.0 DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT ___________________________________________________ 1

1.1 Potentially Contaminating Activities ________________________________________________ 2 1.2 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern ___________________________________________ 2 1.3 Subsurface Structures and Utilities ___________________________________________________ 4

2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ______________________________________________________________ - 6 -

2.1 Site Specific Stratigraphy _________________________________________________________ - 7 - 2.2 Hydrogeological Characteristics____________________________________________________ - 7 - 2.3 Depth to Bedrock _______________________________________________________________ - 7 - 2.4 Depth to Water Table ____________________________________________________________ - 7 - 2.5 Application of S. 41 or C. 43.1 ____________________________________________________ - 8 - 2.6 Imported Soil __________________________________________________________________ - 8 - 2.7 New Buildings and Structures _____________________________________________________ - 8 -

3.0 CONTAMINANTS________________________________________________________________ - 9 -

3.1 Location of Contaminants ______________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.2 Contaminant Class _____________________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.3 Contaminated Medium _________________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.4 Description and Assessment _____________________________________________________ - 10 - 3.5 Distribution of Contaminants ____________________________________________________ - 11 - 3.6 Reason for Discharge ___________________________________________________________ - 11 - 3.7 Migration Pathways ____________________________________________________________ - 11 - 3.8 Climatic Conditions ____________________________________________________________ - 11 - 3.9 Vapour Intrusion ______________________________________________________________ - 12 -

4.0 DRAWINGS ___________________________________________________________________ - 13 -

4.1 Figure 1 – APEC and PCA Locations ________________________________________________ - 14 - 4.2 Figure 2 - APEC and Off-Site PCA Qualitative Pathway Assessment ______________________ - 14 - 4.3 Figure 3 – Local Hydrogeological Conditions _________________________________________ - 14 - 4.4 FIGURE 4 – SITE HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONDITIONS __________________________________________ - 14 - 4.5 FIGURE 5 – GENERAL SITE LAYOUT ____________________________________________________ - 14 - 4.6 FIGURE 6 – SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (METALS AND INORGANICS) ______________________________ - 14 - 4.7 FIGURE 7 – SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS (PHC F1-F4) ________________________________________ - 15 - 4.8 FIGURE 8 – CROSS-SECTIONS ________________________________________________________ - 15 - 4.9 FIGURE 9 – GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS _________________________________________ - 15 - 4.10 – HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RECEPTOR MODEL __________________________________________ - 15 -

5.0 FATES AND PATHWAYS _________________________________________________________ - 16 -

5.1 Release Mechanisms ___________________________________________________________ - 17 - 5.2 Contaminant Transport Pathway _________________________________________________ - 17 - 5.3 Human Ecological Receptors _____________________________________________________ - 17 - 5.4 Receptor Exposure Points _______________________________________________________ - 17 - 5.5 Routes of Exposure_____________________________________________________________ - 18 -

6.0 ATTACHED FIGURES ____________________________________________________________ - 19 -

Figure 1: APEC and PCA Locations

Figure 2: APEC and Off-Site PCA Qualitative Pathway Assessment

Figure 3: Local Hydrogeological Conditions

Figure 4: Site Hydrogeological Conditions

Figure 5: General Site Layout

Figure 6: Soil Analytical Results (Metals and Inorganics)

Figure 7: Soil Analytical Results (PHC F1-F4)

Figure 8: Cross-Sections

Figure 9: Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 10: Human and Ecological Receptor Model

Phase Two Conceptual Site Model

50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto

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

The phase two lands at 56 Blue Jays Way comprise Part(s) of Lot 18 and 19, of Plan 0263 and Part 2 Plan 64RI5263 and are further identified as PIN 21413-0081 and Assessment Role Number 19-04-06-2-220-02450-0000-04 in the City of Toronto. For past uses, the property has been described as various combinations of municipal numbers 50 to 58 Peter Street.

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

Enviromental Technologist QP and Principal

Project Consultant Senior Reviewer

Jamie Sugden

1.0 Description and Assessment

2 Phase II Conceptual Site Model 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto

1.1 Potentially Contaminating Activities

Two potentially contaminating activities were identified for the Phase 2 lands, both historic in nature.

All of the Phase 2 lands had a history of hydrocarbon uses for comfort heating with the potential to impact on shallow disturbed soils and fill materials, generally ranging in depth from 0.75 to locally 1.75m depth below grade. Hydrocarbon uses also had the potential to impact groundwater within the upper, overburden aquifer. These uses included two former Fuel Oil UST(s) utilized by site structures for comfort heating.

Metals and inorganic parameters had the potential to exceed table 3 residential standards in shallow soils, as a consequence of the historic and purposeful placement of cinder and ash from coal combustion as a discrete layer in order to provide bedding and drainage for foundations, footings and utilities.

There were a number of potentially contaminating activities located off-site with the potential to adversely impact the subject lands. These included:

1) A former retail fuel and automotive service facility located at 375 King Street West 2) A former retail fuel location on 38 Spadina Avenue 3) A currently operating retail fuel location on 55 Spadina Avenue 4) A former automotive service facility at 348 Wellington Street 5) A former coal supply yard at 36 Blue Jays Way 6) A former dry cleaning facility at 370 King Street West

Please refer to Figure 1 for PCA and associated APEC locations and descriptions.

1.2 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern

Please refer to Figure 1 for APEC locations and associated PCAs.

(1) An APEC associated with the presence of onsite fuel oil UST(s) for the provision of comfort heating was identified to potentially impact on-site overburden soils and groundwater, across the northern half and central portions of the site.

(2) An APEC was identified for the north half of the site and is directly related to off-site PCA 1, identified in section 1.1. The primary contaminant(s) of concern was both BTEX/PHC F1-F4, migrating onsite as a LNAPL via groundwater and impacting onsite overburden soils and groundwater.

(3) An APEC was identified for the western half of the site and is directly related to off-site PCA 2 and 3 identified in section 1.1. The primary contaminant(s) of concern was both BTEX/PHC F1-F4


migrating onsite as a LNAPL via groundwater and impacting onsite overburden soils and groundwater. These potential impacts from these two sites/PCA were treated as a single APEC as a consequence of the contaminant of concern being the same, as well as the location, distance and likely migration pathway.

(4) An APEC associated with the purposeful placement of cinders and ash on-site for bedding and drainage was identified to potentially impact shallow fill soils with random exceedances of transition metals possible across the site.

(5) An APEC was identified for the southern half of the site and is directly related to off-site PCA 4 and 5 identified in section 1.1. The primary contaminants of concern was both BTEX/PHC F1-F4 from 348 Wellington St, and PAH from 36 Blue Jays Way. Potential hydrocarbon impacts from 348 Wellington were assumed to migrate onsite via groundwater with any potential impacts concentrated in overburden soils and groundwater Potential PAH impacts from 36 Blue Jays Way were recognized to be contingent on the correct conditions occurring for mobilization of PAH impacts to groundwater and migrating to the site via this medium. Direct impacts from PAH contaminated soils on 36 Blue Jays way were recognized to be remote, even prior to redevelopment of those lands, due to inherent immobility. These off-site PCA were contiguous and were connected and treated as a single APEC for this reason.

Qualitative Assessment of Off-Site PCA and Associated APECs

Subsequent to both the current Phase II ESA and associated investigative efforts, as well as the rejection of the RSC submissions for the subject lands, the QP initiated a complete review of Phase I and II ESA efforts in order to identify shortcomings which caused the failure of planning, delineation, analysis and reporting activities to meet both the regulatory requirements of the MOE and industry standards/best practices.

One of the outcomes of this review was the formulation of a supplementary Phase I ESA by a different author, reviewed and endorsed by the QP, dated March 7th, 2014.

With regards to the selection and identification of APECs associated with off-site PCAs (please refer to figure 1), subsequent to both RSC filing rejections as well as review of continuing investigative efforts and the additional information they yielded, the validity of those APECS was qualitatively assessed.

1. With respect to VOC(s) as a COPC, the initial Phase I ESA selected VOCs in groundwater as an APEC because of the identification of dry cleaning operations from historical records within 250m of the subject lands. There was then a failure to sample groundwater for this COPC.


As previously stated, the QP directed that supplemental Phase I efforts be undertaken and review the validity of the initial Phase I ESA CSM and APECs, following the breakdown of the appropriate site investigation methodology and procedures.

The supplementary Phase I ESA, March 7th, 2014, was conducted with significant geological inputs specific to the subject lands available as well as additional research regarding possible localized preferential pathways. In assessing the risk posed by the previously identified offsite APEC, relating to dry cleaning operations and possible DNAPL/VOC impacts, the QP was able to rule out the likelihood of such potential risks.

In the course of the supplementary evaluation, detailed, site specific hydrogeological data indicated the overburden tills to depth demonstrate very low hydraulic conductivities on the order of 5 x 10 -8 cm.sec- 1 . This was confirmed by referencing literature on hydraulic conductivities for till materials in the immediate area, which validated these findings.

Based on this hydrogeological data, not available for consideration previously, it was determined that the horizontal migration of DNAPL through such overburden till materials from the reference site identified in the EcoLog ERIS report was remote. Migration in a geological medium with such low hydraulic conductivity, combined with the well known propensity of DNAPL contaminants to “sink” vertically in preference to horizontal migration, convinced the reports authors that such risks to the site would be low enough to be eliminated from consideration.

Furthermore, regional groundwater flow within the Scarborough Aquifer, is to the south-east were the specific off-site PCA lies to the east of the subject lands. Additional mitigating factors include the presence of large trunk sewers along the King Street Corridor flowing east (away from the site) and the presence of the buried Russell Creek and associated tributaries, flowing south-east, immediately adjacent and possibly connected with this specific off-site PCA.

For graphical representation of this, and the assessment of other off-site PCA, please refer to Figure 2.

1.3 Subsurface Structures and Utilities The phase two lands were historically served with separate sanitary and storm sewers located in the public road allowance and in public lane on the north and west flanks. Building sanitary drains and sewer laterals were removed in the course of demolition. Water services remain disconnected at the lot line.

All former structures and anthropogenic fill materials have been removed to depth and a four storey underground parking garage erected. A portion of the former building to be preserved and integrated into the new façade was temporarily moved into the Blue Jays Way road allowance and has since been relocated back into the Phase 2 lands now that the underground portion of construction is completed.

2.0 Physical Setting

- 7 - Phase II Conceptual Site Model 50-56 Blue Jays Way, Toronto

2.1 Site Specific Stratigraphy The site is located in an area of very uniform subsurface conditions, comprising a thin mantle of lacustrine sediments imposed on an 8 to 9m depth of older dense to very dense tills which overlie shale bedrock of Ordovician age. There is no significant weathered transition zone at the shale interface and shales in this area are fissile, finely bedded and lack thick continuous limestone inter-beds. Please refer to Figure 8 for both North – South and East – West subsurface cross-sections delineating site stratigraphy.

2.2 Hydrogeological Characteristics Based on regional mapping and information from TRCA and the MOE, the primary water bearing unit associated with the site is the Scarborough Aquifer. This deep overburden aquifer underlies the Thorncliffe Aquifer, separated by the Sunnybrook Drift.

Within the immediate area of the site, the thickness of this aquifer is inferred to be 2-7m, with groundwater levels expected to be between 70-100mASL. The TRCA mapped 100mASL contour lies a short distance to the north of the site.

As for site specific characteristics it was observed that water table is delineated by the change in colour of tills from brown to grey, indicative of permanent saturation and reduction of iron to soluble ferrous state.

The hydraulic conductivity of tills is sufficiently slow, with overburden tills to depth demonstrating very low hydraulic conductivities on the order of 5 x 10 -8 cm.sec- 1 , as to result in evaporation on faces of excavation prior to any significant seepage into excavations. Water control is not generally required in tills or underlying shales unless there is a precipitation event. General direction of groundwater flow in the area is south to west but this is likely strongly influenced by local services and especially by the perimeter drainage systems of newer contiguous buildings.

Please refer to Figure 3 for Local Hydrogeological Characteristics and Figure 4 for Site Hydrogeological Characteristics.

2.3 Depth to Bedrock Depth to Georgian Bay Formation shale bedrock is generally around 76m geodetic, or 9 to I 0 m below general grade.

2.4 Depth to Water Table Measurements in 20 I I ranged from 77m to 81m geodetic to 69.5m geodetic at the bedrock interface, and in winter 2013, ranged from 63.77 to 64.03m geodetic, in bedrock without equilibration at higher up at the colour change in till, suggesting most free water in local soils has been migrating to the


drainage systems offered at or near site perimeters. Regional groundwater flows are just east of south, ultimately toward Lake Ontario with an elevation of up to 67.6m geodetic.

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

2.6 Imported Soil There was no significant imported fill identified on the site except for granular bedding for building slabs and pavement structures.

2.7 New Buildings and Structures The proposed residential-hotel building covers the site lot line to lot line and the underground structure will have five full levels of underground parking, taking it at least 15m below grade, or 6m into shale bedrock. Elevator sumps and pumping sumps will extend several meters deeper.

3.0 Contaminants


3.1 Location of Contaminants I) PHC impacted soils were confined to the area immediately proximate to the previously removed UST(s) located at the south-central area of the former orphanage. Impacts did not extend further than I.5m from the former tank locations, both laterally and vertically. This was confirmed by verification sampling at the time of test pitting were verification sampling at I .5 - 2.25m yielded non-detect results. Such soils have been removed in the course of excavation and confirmatory sampling has corroborated this. 2) Shallow soils exceeding the table 3 standards for Electrical Conductivity were found in a single test pit location. This was in the former asphalt surface parking lot and loading area at the south- east frontage on Blue Jays Way. Contamination at this locations was directly related to winter road/sidewalk/surface maintenance through the application of road salt. Confirmatory sampling below 0.75m revealed no further impacts.

3.2 Contaminant Class Contaminants identified in section 3.1 included (I) petroleum hydrocarbons associated with soil contiguous to the former UST, generally within a maximum of 750-I500mm in any direction from the former tank wall or base, and (2) road salt contamination in the rear vehicle loading areas and parking lot of the former warehouse facility. In the course of bulk excavation for redevelopment all overburden materials have been removed and no contaminated materials were identified in shallow fill or reworked native materials, all of which were destined to offsite receivers based on meeting Table 3 standards or better. Once general excavation extended to below 2m depth, no disturbed soils were found, and verification sampling at 79.5-79.8m geodetic confirmed the remaining overburden met Table I standards. No contaminates related to groundwater were found in the course of the Phase 2 Investigation.

3.3 Contaminated Medium The contaminated medium associated with electrical conductivity was granular bedding beneath the former parking area and shallow fill mixed with local clay silt soils.

The contaminated medium associated with PHC impacts was native silty clay fill contiguous with the former UST location. All contaminated mediums relate to onsite soils and no groundwater impacts were found in the course of the Phase 2 investigation.

3.4 Description and Assessment I ) As noted in paragraph A, PHC impacted soils were located immediately proximate to the former fuel oil UST(s) located at the south-central area of the former orphanage. The general tank location was delineated in the course of the Phase I investigation and the area was correctly identified without incident. Confirmatory testing at the time of bulk excavation revealed that PHC

2) As noted in paragraph A, minor impacts associated with exceedance of the table 3 standards for electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio were found in a single location. This was located in


former parking and loading areas adjacent to the public right of way on Blue Jays Way. Such impacts are attributable to the application of road salt for the purposes of winter maintenance and are exempt under s.48.

All such impacted shallow soils have since been removed and verified with confirmatory sampling.

3.5 Distribution of Contaminants I) PHC contamination was localized in the immediate proximity of the former UST located at the south-central portion of the site.

2)Distribution of impacts associated with electrical conductivity were located at the eastern edge of the site in former parking and loading areas along the Blue Jays Way street frontage in shallow soils .

Please refer to the attached cross-sections for the distribution of contaminants.

3.6 Reason for Discharge Contamination with salt at shallow soils in a single test pit was the result of maintenance activities within the public thoroughfare and long-term application of sodium chloride for maintenance purposes in rear loading/parking areas.

PHC contaminants in the south central portion of the site resulted from two previously removed fuel oil UST(s) formerly holding number six fuel oil for comfort heating purposes.

None of the contaminants outlined above demonstrated any mobility from source areas and no pathways for migration were discovered in the course of testing or bulk excavation, except for the pathway of brine solution through cracks in the adjacent street and sidewalk and through pavement bedding and foundation backfill in former parking areas.

As noted PHC impacts were limited to the area immediately proximate to the tank location due to the dense nature of surrounding native silt till fill.

3.7 Migration Pathways No pathways for migration of BTEX/PHC F1-F4 contaminants were observed. As noted in section 2.2, the hydraulic conductivity of the on-site till overburden is extremely low. This served to limit migration of hydrocarbon impacts to the area immediately proximate to the former tank location.

Migration pathways for brine solution, created as a consequence of maintenance of the public right-of-way, would have been through cracks in the adjacent street/laneway asphaltic or concrete surface, through pavement bedding and foundation backfill.

3.8 Climatic Conditions No climatic condition was identified which would have any influence on migration of contaminants, save and except that winter conditions governed the need for initial application of salt for maintenance of the adjacent public right-of-ways and in parking areas.


3.9 Vapour Intrusion No buildings or structures remain on the subject land. No utility corridors or crawl spaces were found in the course of building inspection, and no residual subsurface utility corridors were discovered in the course of complete stripping and bulk excavation of all of the phase two lands. The above-grade HVAC systems contained within the building were removed as part of the general demolition program. No petroleum hydrocarbon or VOC vapours were detected in header space for the three wells constructed on the property.

4.0 Drawings


Nine Figures are attached and described below:

4.1 Figure 1 – APEC and PCA Locations Figure 1 gives an overview of the location of the APECs and the associated off-site PCA, if any. It details the contaminants of concern, and modelled contaminant pathway/release mechanism.

4.2 Figure 2 - APEC and Off-Site PCA Qualitative Pathway Assessment Figure 2 provides a graphic explanation of the qualitative assessment of APECs originally identified as a consequence of off-site PCA. As noted in section 1.2, a re-assessment of these APECs, associated off-site PCAs, and contaminant pathways was undertaken. As noted in section 1.2, particular emphasis was placed on assessing APEC/PCA 6 – connected to a former, off-site, dry cleaning facility were VOCs were the contaminant of concern.

4.3 Figure 3 – Local Hydrogeological Conditions Figure 3 delineates the overall hydrogeological conditions of the local area. The information in the figure is based on TRCA water budget and watershed modelling.

4.4 Figure 4 – Site Hydrogeological Conditions

Figure 4 delineates the site specific hydrogeological conditions observed. It was noted that onsite groundwater gradients, in both the overburden tills and bedrock is in reverse of local groundwater flow. This was believed to be as a result of the drainage influence of public utilities, and deeper perimeter drains from newly developed adjacent structures.

4.5 Figure 5 – General Site Layout

Figure 5 gives an overview of the site with former and proposed building footprints, as well as designating the axis’s for each accompanying sub-surface cross-sections.

4.6 Figure 6 – Soil Analytical Results (Metals and Inorganics)

Figure 6 gives an overview of the site with the analytical results for metals and inorganic parameters in soil.


4.7 Figure 7 – Soil Analytical Results (PHC F1-F4)

Figure 7 gives an overview of the site with the analytical results for Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1-F4 and BTEX parameters in soil.

4.8 Figure 8 – Cross-Sections

Figure 8 contains two sub-surface cross-sections. One cross-section is oriented on a North – South axis, which is found in plan view on Figure 5. The remaining cross-section is oriented on a East – West axis, which is also found in plan view on Figure 5.

Each cross-section delineates the site specific stratigraphic sequence, based on borehole, test pit and groundwater monitoring well data. The footprints of both the former and proposed site structures are superimposed on each cross-section.

4.9 Figure 9 – Groundwater Analytical Results

Figure 9 gives an overview of the site with the analytical results for groundwater, from three groundwater monitoring wells screened in the upper reaches of shale bedrock.

4.10 – Human and Ecological Receptor Model

Figure 10 is a graphic representation describing potential pathways for identified contaminants/contaminant classes for both human and ecological receptors as well as how each pathway is assessed and eliminated/mitigated.

5.0 Fates and Pathways


5.1 Release Mechanisms The sole contaminant of concern was petroleum hydrocarbons located in the immediate vicinity of a previously removed pair of UST(s). Residual hydrocarbons were sorbed onto clay silt till fill which demonstrate very low hydraulic conductivity, in the order of 5x 10-8 cm.sec – 1. As a consequence, free-phase hydrocarbons, sorbed on native or reworked day-silt till were not found more than 1500mm from the tank perimeter, although the tank had been removed at least 35 years previously.

5.2 Contaminant Transport Pathway The former comfort heating tanks were located beneath asphaltic concrete pavement immediately outside of the former building foundation. Prior to removal via excavation by a previous consultant/contractor, petroleum hydrocarbons would have been slowly reduced by natural soil and groundwater bacteria which would break down heavier hydrocarbons and use products as a carbon source. Migration upward to near grade of free-phase product or dissolved hydrocarbons was prevented by a zone of unsaturated day-silt soils with very low conductivity located below the asphaltic pavement, and by the pavement itself. BTEX and very light hydrocarbons with potential for migrating in vapour phase were both initially present as only minor constituents of number six oil used for comfort heating, and any volatile component would have been lost in a very short time many years ago, resulting in little to no measurable finding of organic vapours in soils beneath the asphaltic concrete in recent years.

5.3 Human Ecological Receptors

Human or other animal receptors which may periodically occupy the commercial lands were protected because of further air dispersion of any trace volatile releases.

There were no plant receptors because the area was historically covered with asphaltic concrete pavement for parking, by a local concrete sidewalk to the south and by the Blue Jays Way travelled road. Concentrations of hydrocarbons as vapours originating from automobile traffic on Blue Jays Way would have been and remain five or six orders of magnitude greater than any volatile losses from the vicinity of the former UST(s).

Human receptors living in adjacent dwellings were protected because hydrocarbons did not migrate further than 1500mm from the former tank location, due to very dense native soils at depth and by the physical distances of separation. There is no vegetation present on the Blue Jays Way right of way, nor on the private residential lands to the south or west of the subject lands.

5.4 Receptor Exposure Points Due to asphaltic cover, and dense native soils no exposure points or routes were identified. This was borne out by the limited lateral and vertical movement of the very minor PHC impacts.


5.5 Routes of Exposure

Due to asphaltic cover, and dense native soils no exposure points or routes were identified. This was borne out by the limited lateral and vertical movement of the very minor PHC impacts.

6.0 Attached Figures

Source Exposure Routes

Resident Site Visitor Landscape Worker

Construction Worker Utility Worker

Resident/ Surface

Receptor

Construction Worker Utility Worker

Historical use of fuel oil in a UST on the property

Soil Historical Release from UST leak or

direct placement of waste sludge at time of tank removal. Transport via onsite

utilities and drains. No offsite impacts

Soil PHC

Ingestion and Dermal Contact

No/incomplete pathway








Vapour Intrusion No/incomplete pathway








Legend/Notes:

Complete Pathway

*Pathwayaddressed through Bulk Excavation and confirmatory sampling at time of Phase II investigative efforts.

No Pathway as entire area covered with several layers of asphalt/concrete. Initial volatilization would have occurred in a very short time immediately after release, without potential for ongoing vapour intrusion beyond the initial release.

This pathway would be incomplete except for redevelopment purposes. Human receptors protected by several layers of asphalt/concrete.

Onsite Potential Receptors Offsite Potential ReceptorsRelease and Transport Mechanisms

FIGURE 10Human and Ecological Receptor Exposure Model