Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
13 - Final Remedial Options Analysis & Remedial-Risk Management Action Plan - Soil & Groundwater
FINAL Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Soil and Groundwater Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Bayham, Ontario Stantec Prepared for: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 520 Exmouth Street Sarnia, ON N7T 8B1 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 400-1331 Clyde Avenue Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 Project No. 122511076 September 11, 2015 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................ II 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1.1 2.0 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES........................................................................................3.2 3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...................................................................................3.2 4.0 SCOPE OF WORK.......................................................................................................5.11 5.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK......................................................................................5.11 5.1 GROUNDWATER USE....................................................................................................5.12 5.2 FEDERAL........................................................................................................................ 5.12 5.3 PROVINCIAL..................................................................................................................5.13 5.4 FCSAP DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK..................................................................5.14 6.0 PQRA AND SLERA SUMMARY....................................................................................6.15 7.0 METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................7.16 7.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL.......................................................................................... 7.16 7.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL ACTION/RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN.............................................................................................................................. 7.17 8.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL........................................................................................8.19 8.1 PHYSICAL SETTING........................................................................................................8.19 8.2 HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING...................................................................................8.20 8.3 SOIL................................................................................................................................ 8.20 8.3.1 Stratigraphy................................................................................................8.20 8.3.2 Soil Analytical Results................................................................................ 8.21 8.4 GROUNDWATER...........................................................................................................8.21 8.4.1 Groundwater Monitoring.......................................................................... 8.21 8.4.2 Groundwater Analytical Results.............................................................. 8.21 8.5 DATA GAP ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 8.21 8.6 DESIGN BASIS................................................................................................................8.23 8.6.1 Extent and Mass of Impacts..................................................................... 8.23 8.6.2 Mass Flux..................................................................................................... 8.23 9.0 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS...............................................................................11.24 9.1 SCREENING OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES.........................................................1 1.24 9.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS....................................................................................1 1.24 10.0 RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN......................................................................................11.24 ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER 11.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................11.24 12.0 CLOSURE..................................................................................................................12.28 13.0 STANTEC QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................13.30 LIST OF TABLES IN REPORT BODY Table is Site Land Cover in Hectares.......................................................................................3.3 Table ii: Site Land Cover in Percentage................................................................................. 3.3 Table iii: Summary of Site History and Previous Environmental Work .................................. 3.4 Table iv: Description of Subject Land Parcels and APECs................................................. 3.10 Table v: Summary of Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria - PHCs and Metals........ 5.11 Table vi: Summary of Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria - PAHs ............................ 5.12 Table vii: Soil volumes>AGRC................................................................................................8.23 Table viii: Groundwater volumes>AGRC............................................................................. 8.23 LIST OF FIGURES IN REPORT BODY Figure is Recent encroachment of Project Ojibwa access ramp onto Subject Lands (September 27, 2013, Google Earth)............................................................ 3.4 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIGURES.....................................................................................................A.1 A.1 Site Location...................................................................................................................A.2 A.2 Site Overview.................................................................................................................A.3 A.3 Site Land Cover.............................................................................................................A.4 A.4 Sampling Locations.......................................................................................................A.5 A.5 Port Burwell in 1956........................................................................................................A.6 A.6 Port Burwell in 1973........................................................................................................A.7 A.7 Groundwater Elevation Contours...............................................................................A.8 A.8 Summary of Soil Analytical Results..............................................................................A.9 A.9 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results ..........................................................A.10 APPENDIX B TABLES..................................................................................................... B.11 B.1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results............................................................................ B.12 B.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results.......................................................... B.13 B.3 Remedial Options Analysis......................................................................................... B.14 ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Executive Summary Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to complete a detailed Remedial Options Analysis (ROA) and a Remedial Action/Risk Management Plan (RAP/RMP) for soil and groundwater at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (SCH) located in the Municipality of Bayham, Ontario (the 'Site' or `Property' or `Subject Lands'). The Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie in Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham, Elgin County, Ontario. The DFO property is an active port facility currently managed by the Small Craft Harbours division of DFO (SCH). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 79.1 hectares (ha) and includes land and water lots in Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie, consisting of the Crown -owned parcels identified as Parts 2, 6 and 7. The DFO's objectives are to facilitate the transfer of the Subject Lands to the Municipality of Bayham, and to satisfy internal due diligence requirements. Previous investigations have observed the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), metals and PAHs in excess of applicable generic regulatory criteria (AGRC) in soil and groundwater at the Site. However, a Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA)/Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) prepared under separate cover, has determined that the observed chemical concentrations do not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Land use monitoring is the recommended remediation / risk management approach given the absence of risk at the Site. The remedial action/risk management (R/RM) plan for the Site while under Federal ownership would consist of administrative monitoring of land use changes by internal DFO staff to verify that the risk assessment exposure and receptor assumptions are maintained. Transfer of the property to the municipality may trigger provincial requirements for additional investigation, including groundwater monitoring by the new owner, therefore monitoring well decommissioning is not recommended at this time. As implied by Ontario Regulation 903, ownership of the monitoring wells will be transferred to the new owner concurrently with the land transfer, but it is recommended that this be explicitly stated in any land sale/transfer documents. The impacts above AGRC at the Site are considered unlikely to trigger remediation or additional risk management measures in the future given the Site's restricted land use potential within a flood zone. ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Abbreviations Ag Silver ANA Acenaphthene ANTH Anthracene APEC Area of potential environmental concern As Arsenic ASCS Aquatic Sites Classification System AGRC Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria B(a)A Benzo(a)anthracene B(a)P Benzo(a)pyrene B(bj) F Benzo(b,j)fIuora nthene B(ghi)P Benzo(g,h,i)perylene B(k)F Benzo(k)fluoranthene Benz Benzene BH Borehole BFD Blind field duplicate BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes CALA Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation CCG Canadian Coast Guard CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEPA Canadian Environmental Protection Act CEQG Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines CH Chrysene CoC Contaminant(s) of concern COPC Contaminants of potential concern CRM Certified reference material CSA Canadian Standards Association CWQG Canadian Water Quality Guidelines CWS Canada Wide Standard DCPT Dynamic cone penetration rest DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada DGPS Differential GPS DNAPL Dense non -aqueous phase liquid EIA Environmental impact assessment ESA Environmental site assessment Ethlb Ethylbenzene F1 Petroleum hydrocarbons fraction 1 (C6 -C10 range) ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER F2 Petroleum hydrocarbons fraction 2 (>C10 -C16 range) FAA Flame atomic absorption FCSAP Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan Fe Iron FIGWQG Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines FLAN Fluoranthene FOC Fraction organic carbon g Grams GPS Global Positioning System ha Hectare HHERA Human health and ecological risk assessment HQ Hazard quotient 1(123)P Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene IACR Index of additive cancer risk ICP -MS Inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry IGLD 85 International Great Lakes Datum 1985 L Litres LCP Lead containing paint LNAPL Light non -aqueous phase liquid LPRCA Long Point Region Conservation Authority LTM Long term monitoring m Metre m AMSL Metres above mean sea level mbg Metres below grade MNPT Methylnaphthalene Mo Molybdenum MT Metric tonne MTM Modified Transverse Mercator MW Monitoring well NAD North American Datum NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 NAPH Naphthalene NAPL Non -aqueous phase liquid NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum 1988 NCSCS National Contaminated Site Classification System ND Non -detect ng Nanogram ns No standard OM&M Operations, maintenance and monitoring PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ® Stantec FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls Phase I ESA Phase I environmental site assessment Phase II/III ESA Phase II/III environmental site assessment PHCs Petroleum hydrocarbons PHE Phenanthrene ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million PARA Preliminary quantitative risk assessment PWGSC Public Works and Government Services Canada Py Pyrene QMS Quality management system RAP Remedial action plan ROA Remedial options analysis R/RM Remediation/risk management RMP Risk management plan RSC Record of site condition SARA Species At Risk Act SLERA Screening level ecological risk assessment SLRA Screening level risk assessment SO4 Sulfate SOP Standard operating procedure SQG Soil quality guideline SSRA Site-specific risk assessment SWDA Solid waste disposal areas SWE Surface water equivalent TBC To be completed TCLP Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TDGA Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act Tol Toluene TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbons TRV Toxicity reference value TSS Total suspended solids Pg Microgram USCS Unified Soil Classification System UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VECs Valued ecosystem components VOCs Volatile organic compounds WDA Waste disposal area Xy Total Xylenes ® Stantec iv FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Introduction September 11, 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to complete a detailed Remedial Options Analysis (ROA) and a Remedial Action/Risk Management Plan (RAP/RMP) for soil and groundwater at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (SCH) located in the Municipality of Bayham, Ontario (the `Site' or `Property' or `Subject Lands'). The purpose of the ROA and RAP/RMP is to establish a conceptual understanding of the current site conditions, develop a remedial design basis, identify additional data needs, determine the most appropriate remedial technologies, and develop and compare remedial and risk management (R/RM) options on a technical, cost and time basis. The ROA and RAP/RMP are completed in conjunction with a Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PARA) and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) of Soil and Groundwater. The ROA and RAP/RMP are based on the results of the PQRA/SLERA. R/RM options are therefore evaluated based on their ability to mitigate and/or reduce risks to human health and ecological receptors at the Site. A detailed rationale for selecting preferred R/RM actions is provided. The ROA and RAP/RMP document is structured as follows: • Statement of report objectives, as well as the remedial objectives (Section 2.0); • Summary of background information and history of the Site (Section 3.0); • Scope of work description (Section 4.0); • Regulatory framework and applicable site conditions standards assumed for subsequent analysis (Section 5.0); • Summary of the outcome of the PARA and SLERA (Section 6.0); • Description of the general methodology for the supplemental investigation and ROA and RAP/RMP, including a description of the options evaluation criteria (Section 7.0); • Conceptual site model (CSM), consisting of a summary of existing soil and groundwater conditions, a data gap analysis, and preliminary design basis, which serve to conceptualize and quantify the geology, hydrology, and contaminant distribution to provide design inputs for potential remedial or risk management actions (Section 8.0); (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Statement of Objectives September 11, 2015 The ROA, consisting of a preliminary screening of remedial technologies based on general applicability to site-specific conditions, a description of the coupling of the selected technologies into options, development of remedial/risk management options and associated costs, and comparison of those options against several criteria (Section 9.0); • Recommendations moving forward based on the results of the ROA, consisting of a remedial action/risk management plan describing the preferred project approaches, as well as important considerations for planning, and during implementation and monitoring (Section 10.0). The DFO's objectives are to facilitate the transfer of Part 2 of the Subject Lands to the Municipality of Bayham, and to satisfy internal due diligence requirements. It is understood that Parts 6 and 7 of the Subject Lands, located within Lake Erie, will remain DFO property. In order to achieve these objectives, the ROA and RAP/RMP goals are to: Establish a conceptual understanding of site conditions and identify uncertainties; • Identify and evaluate relevant remediation and risk management strategies, and select the most appropriate approach; and Define an action plan for the Site using the selected approach. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie in Port Burwell, Municipality of Bayham, Elgin County, Ontario (see Figure 0, Appendix A). The DFO properties are currently managed by the Small Craft Harbours division of DFO (SCH). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 79.1 hectares (ha) and includes land and water lots in Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie, consisting of the Crown -owned parcels indicated as Parts 2, 6 and 7 on Figure A.2, Appendix A. As shown in Table i and Table ii, as well as Figure A.3, Appendix A, the Site land cover consists mostly of freshwater (74.5 ha, or 94.3%), while approximately 85% of the 4.5 ha of dry land portions (as observed in 2010 aerial imagery) of the Site fall within a flood zone [ (MacLaren Engineers Inc., 1987) and (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989)], as defined by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA). Municipal zoning of the land portions of the Site are not known, however current Site land use is considered commercial. (A Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx 3.2 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 Table is Site Land Cover in Hectares Table fl: Site Land Cover in Percentage Based on Google Earth aerial imagery dated September 27, 2013 (Google, 2015), and as illustrated on Figure i, an access ramp was constructed on the eastern shore of Big Otter Creek, immediately west of the turning circle at the end of Robinson Street, in order to transport the retired HMCS Ojibwa submarine (Project Ojibwa, 2015) to its exhibit location at the end of Wellington Street. The ramp appears to have been constructed of aggregate material, and to encroach by approximately 4 metres (for a total of approximately 30 m 2) into DFO's water lot (Part 2). Land vs water coverage determined based on 2010 SWOOP imagery (Land Information Ontario, 2010) Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx 3.3 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 Figure is Recent encroachment of Project Ojibwa access ramp onto Subject Lands (September 27, 2013, Google Earth) Figures A.5 and A.6, Appendix A also illustrate the past industrial uses along both shores of Big Otter Creek. Information on past land uses in previous reports, such as the Phase I completed in 2001 (MacViro Consultants Inc., 2001), is limited. A partial history and summary of environmental work (based on available information) completed at the Site are provided in Table iii. Historical activities in and about the harbour may have negatively impacted soils and sediment quality and introduced environmental legacies to the Subject Lands. Given that handling of bulk goods such as coal, fuel oil and fertilizer had taken place at the harbour for over 75 years, in addition to the refueling of small recreational craft, there may have been undocumented spills and other releases of contaminants on land and in -harbour. There were no historical spill records available for the Subject Lands in the documents reviewed by Stantec. Table iii: Summary of Site History and Previous Environmental Work 2 Based on available information 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 3.4 1833 Port Burwell is originally established as a small fishing wharf 1849 Rapid growth of harbour, and shipping of large quantities of lumber, shingles, staves and other commodities to Buffalo and Cleveland 2 Based on available information 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 3.4 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 LearDescription of Investigation- 1860-1872 Decline of lumber industry activity at Port Burwell 1872-1910s Expansion of commercial fishing and coal shipping, with up to 600,000 tons of coal landing at Port Burwell by the 1910s. 1900 Major improvements to wharf for coal shipping Early 1900s Harbour is used largely as a commercial fishing and bulked goods (coal, potash and fuel oil) trans -shipment point 1906 Ashtabula railroad car ferry is launched, providing daily service between Port Burwell and Ashtabula, Ohio. Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks and related rail infrastructure serve the ferry dock on the east side of the harbour, as seen on aerial imagery from 1956 shown on Figure A.5, Appendix A. 1948 Graham Oil constructs 2,700,000 litre (600,000 imperial gallons) oil tank off -Site (visible on aerial imagery from 1973 shown on Figure A.6, Appendix A) circa 1940 Construction of small wharf for fishing 1950s Fire within the area of an 8,000 ton (8,130 MT) coal pile (Gartner Lee Limited, 1997) 1958 Ashtabula ferry sinks in Ashtabula Harbour, and the railcar ferry service is discontinued. 1962-1970 Dredging of the harbour to 24 feet (7.3 metres) is discontinued sometime between 1962 and 1970 (Bradfield, 2011). The turning basin begins to fill with sediment. 1960-1973 Decline of commercial harbour traffic at Port Burwell. By 1973, bulk goods service has been transferred to Port Stanley 1970 -present Sporadic shallow dredging for recreational and small commercial vessels in the lower harbour and at the harbour mouth 1974-2010 Removal of off -Site 2,700,000 litre oil tank Qj, Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 3.5 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 - • 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 3.6 Description of Investigationor EventZ 1976 Transfer of Subject Lands (Parts 2, 6 and 7) from PWSGC/Transport Canada to DFO SCH. Dredging to be completed to 8 feet (2.4 metres) in the harbour, 10 feet (3 metres) at the harbour entrance (Bradfield, 2011). Some DFO SCH parcels are transferred to the municipality after 1976, including the east pier. 1978 Sediment analyses completed by Environment Canada (data unavailable) 1987 Floodline study of Port Burwell is completed (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987) 1989 Floodplain mapping study is completed for Canadian shoreline of Lake Erie (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989) 1996 Inspection of harbour conducted by PWGSC for Small Craft Harbours, considered in `fair condition' 1996 Aquafor Beech completes a study of the potential effects of plough dredging at Port Burwell (Aquafor Beech Limited, 1996), and determines that the methodology, as well as dredging and in -water disposal in general, is acceptable at the Site. 1997 Gartner Lee Phase I Property Transfer Assessment (Gartner Lee Limited, 1997) is completed for DFO to support transfer of Parts 1 and 2 to Village of Port Burwell. The report concludes that there are no significant environmental issues with the Site. They recommend soil sampling to determine if the coal handling operations may have resulted in soil impacts. 1998 A plan of survey is generated for the crown -owned and surrounding land parcels of Port Burwell (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998) (surveyed boundaries are shown on Figure A.2, Appendix A) 2000 Dillon Consulting prepares the "Port Burwell Assessment and Management Strategy" for the Municipality of Bayham (Dillon Consulting Limited, 2000), a planning document that recommends conditional transfer of DFO lands to the municipality assuming a partnership with SCH, and a commercial marina built outside of Big Otter Creek to avoid ongoing dredging expenses, in partnership with the Province of Ontario. 2001 Environment Canada completes an assessment of Lake Erie tributaries, including sediment analyses from Port Burwell. 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 3.6 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 - • 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 3.7 Description of - e • ® or Event2 2001 MacViro prepares an enhanced Phase I ESA. One surface soil sample in Part 1 (beach) finds metals concentrations below applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) criteria. Concentrations of PAHs in excess of Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) interim sediment quality guidelines, as well as concentrations of metals, nutrients and pesticides in excess of MOE guidelines, are identified from six sediment samples collected within Part 2. They recommend further delineation of sediment impacts. A review of the Phase I ESA is completed by Murray Brooksbank at Environment Canada (Environment Canada, 2001) - they note that sediment quality is relatively good at Port Burwell and comparable to background conditions within Lake Erie. 2008 SCH produces a letter report summarizing the impacts of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) on Port Burwell operations (SCH, 2008). SCH identifies two fish species that may be at risk, and outlines the habitat compensation requirements for future dredging work. 2010 A qualitative assessment of the sedimentation problem at Big Otter Creek is completed by Shoreplan Engineering (ShorePlan Engineering Ltd., 2010). The study concludes that regular dredging is likely the most cost-effective solution for maintaining the harbour. 2011 Dredging plans are prepared by Riggs Engineering (Riggs Engineering Ltd., 201 1) for the Elgin Military Museum Ojibwa Project, which consists of moving the retired HCMS Ojibwa Oberon -class submarine to Port Burwell as an outdoor museum exhibit. 2012 An assessment of environmental risks is completed by Stantec for the Municipality of Bayham (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2012). The assessment concludes that data gaps must be filled with a new Phase I ESA as well as a Phase II ESA to support an eventual risk assessment for the Site. 2012 Municipality of Bayham prepares Official Plan (Municipality of Bayham, 2012). This includes a Specific Policy Area (No.2) that includes portions of the Subject Lands (See Figure A.2, Appendix A). 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 3.7 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 Lar Description of Investigation- 2012-2013 HMCS Ojibwa is moved up the harbour to its exhibit location on the east shore of Big Otter Creek (Project Ojibwa, 2015). It is assumed that the required dredging planned in 2011 took place in 2012. The exhibit is opened to the public in the summer of 2013. 2013 Terrapex conducts a Phase I/II ESA on behalf of DFO (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013). The report defines three areas of potential environmental concern (APECs) located both on an off -Site. The Subject Lands are all associated with Terrapex's APEC 1. Three monitoring wells are installed and three sediment sampling locations are placed within Part 2 of the Subject Lands, in addition to three additional background sediment sampling locations outside of the Subject Lands. Analytical results for soil indicated the presence of PHC F2 in one sample and PAHs in three samples that exceed the applicable Federal and /or Provincial guidelines. Groundwater in three locations exceeded the applicable guidelines for arsenic and iron. In sediment, PHC F3 and F4, PAHs and pesticides exceeded the applicable guidelines in up to five locations, including background sampling locations. An NCSCS score of 56.8 for the land lot portions of the Site (CS0001) categorizes the Site as 'Class 2: Medium Priority for Action'. For the water lot portions (CS0002), the FCSAP aquatic sites classification system (ASCS) is applied and a score of 79.4 is assigned, corresponding to 'Class 1: High Priority for Action'. The study recommends additional soil sampling, including vertical delineation, as well as a round of groundwater sampling from all monitoring wells, in support of a PQRA and SLERA for the land lot portions. For the water lot portions, supplemental surficial sediment sampling, toxicology assessment and benthic survey are recommended to support a risk assessment. 2013 IBI Group prepares a waterfront master plan study for Port Burwell (IBI Group, 2013). The report focuses on the valued economic and tourism aspects of the area. Qj, Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_2015091 l.docx 3.8 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 - e The Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) has identified two Contaminated Sites at the Property: Soil and groundwater impacts in the land portions and infilled harbour areas due to the historical handling and storage of bulk fuel, coal, potash, fertilizers, other industrial commodities, above -ground storage tanks (ASTs) and dredgeate. These are labeled as `Land: Floodplain' and `Land: No Flood' (Part 2 only) on Figure A.3, Appendix A, and previously identified as CS0001 by Terrapex (see Table iv). 2. Sediment impacts in the water lot portions of Big Otter Creek and the inner harbour of the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour due to the historical handling and storage of bulk fuel, coal, potash, fertilizers, and other industrial commodities, as well as the current �► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx 3.9 Description of Investigationor Event2 2014-2015 SNC-Lavalin completes a soil and groundwater assessment of the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) automation building (previously referred to as the PWGSC automation building by others) located on the west shore of Big Otter Creek (SNC Lavalin, 2015). PAHs, arsenic or selenium are observed in soil in excess of Federal and/or Provincial criteria in 4 of 7 sampling locations, while PAHs are observed in groundwater in excess of Federal and/or Provincial criteria in 3 of 3 monitoring wells. Present day Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour is owned and operated by SCH and provides privately operated dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels. The harbour is also a possible harbour of refuge for vessels in danger on Lake Erie. Siltation of the harbour due to the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek requires regular dredging in order to maintain small craft access. The foundations for the CPR locomotive turn table at the foot of Wellington Street in the east harbour, and the former bulk fuel tank site near the end of Chatham Street in the west harbour, remain visible in the 2010 aerial imagery (Land Information Ontario, 2010). These features are not on the Subject Lands but are in close proximity. The Port Burwell Provincial Park beach extends to the western property limit (Part 2) along the shoreline. The Port Burwell Municipal East Beach operates seasonally immediately east of Subject Lands. The Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) has identified two Contaminated Sites at the Property: Soil and groundwater impacts in the land portions and infilled harbour areas due to the historical handling and storage of bulk fuel, coal, potash, fertilizers, other industrial commodities, above -ground storage tanks (ASTs) and dredgeate. These are labeled as `Land: Floodplain' and `Land: No Flood' (Part 2 only) on Figure A.3, Appendix A, and previously identified as CS0001 by Terrapex (see Table iv). 2. Sediment impacts in the water lot portions of Big Otter Creek and the inner harbour of the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour due to the historical handling and storage of bulk fuel, coal, potash, fertilizers, and other industrial commodities, as well as the current �► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx 3.9 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Background Information September 11, 2015 handling and storage of fuel at the marina upstream of the Site. These are labeled as `Water (Part 2)' on Figure A.3, Appendix A, previously identified as CS0002 by Terrapex (see Table iv). Table iv provides a description of previously identified APECs at the Site with respect to the land parcels described in the 1998 land survey of the Subject Lands and surrounding properties (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998). Table iv: Description of Subject Land Parcels and APECs Property Owner APEC ID3 Contaminated Description EL Site ID Part 1 unknown N/A N/A Port Burwell Municipal East Beach and shore protection along the Lake Erie shoreline east of Big Otter Creek Part 2 DFO APEC 1 CS0001 (land) Includes piers, harbour walls and appurtenances and land parcels CS0002 (water) about the harbour, and west extension wall and associated water lots at the mouth of Big Otter Creek. Also includes the CCG automation building (approximately 30m2) and a portion of the building's fenced enclosure (approximately 140m2), and the municipal sewer outfall and related piping and manholes. Part 6 DFO N/A Water lot in Lake Erie that includes the stone break wall and signal tower east of the mouth of Big Otter Creek Part 7 DFO N/A Water lot in Lake Erie to the east of Part 6 Multiple Multiple APEC 2 N/A Off -Site lands adjacent to and west of owners property boundary Multiple Multiple APEC 3 N/A Off -Site lands adjacent to and east of owners the property boundary 3 APECs and contaminated site IDs as defined by Terrapex (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013) ® Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 3.10 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Scope of Work September 11, 2015 SCOPE OF WORK In accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) outlined in Request for Proposal (RFP) FP802- 14087, the scope of work for this report focuses on soil and groundwater impacts on the terrestrial portion of the Site. Sediment impacts are assessed under separate cover. Nonetheless, it is understood that the management scenarios for the water lot portions of the project will have an impact on the management of soil and groundwater at the Site. REGULATORY FRAMEWOR'f As the Site is currently federal property (owned by DFO), the federal criteria currently apply in evaluating the extent of impacted soil and groundwater on -Site. However, given that one of the objectives is to transfer the Subject Lands to the Municipality of Bayham, soil and groundwater concentrations are also compared to the applicable provincial standards. A summary of applicable generic regulatory criteria (AGRC) for the principal contaminants of interest is provided in Table v and Table vi, while the following sub -sections describe the AGRC selection process. Table v: Summary of Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria - PHCs and Metals 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 5.11 General Chemistry/Metals Ground- Ontario (1) 420 150 44 1,800 14,000 3,300 ns ns 1,500 ns 7,300 water (pg/L) Federal (2) 9,100 1,300 690 41,000 83 18,000 120 105 5 300 73 Soil Ontario (1) 25 10 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.05 ns ns 18 ns 2 (mg/kg) Federal (3) 320 260 0.030 0.082 0.37 11 ns ns 12 ns 40 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 5.11 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Regulatory Framework September 11, 2015 Table vi: Summary of Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria - PAHs Standard by Parameter (5) Media Jurisdiction PAHs JANANTH B(a A B(a)P B(bj)F B(ghi)P B(k)F CH LFLAN 11(123)P NAPH PHE PY =WEEMEMENEEMEME • -• • - (1) Table 9 Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non -Potable Groundwater Condition (2) Environment Canada Guidance Document on Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites (March 2014); Table 3 Generic Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Land Use - (Tier 2) Lowest Guideline of inhalation, soil organisms direct contact and freshwater life - Coarse, or Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (1999, updated 2012), Chapter 4 Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life for Freshwater provided in the on-line CCME Summary Table (3) Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health - coarse grained soils, Protection of Freshwater Life Exposure Pathway. (4) CCME Canada -Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil- Technical Supplement (January 2008); Table 3 Tier 1 Levels for coarse-grained surface soils in a Commercial land use; Eco Soil Contact Exposure Pathway for PHC F1, F2, F3 & F4 (5) F1 = Petroleum hydrocarbon fraction 1, F2 = Petroleum hydrocarbon fraction 2, Benz = benzene, Ethlb = ethylbenzene, Tol = toluene, Xy = total xylenes, PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, ANA = acenapthene, ANTH = anthracene, B(a)A = benzo(a)anthracene, B(a)P = benzo(a)pyrene, B(bj)F = benzo(b,j)fluoranthene, B(ghi)P = benzo(g,h,i)perylene, B(k)F = benzo(k)fluoranthene, Ill23)P= indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, CH = chrysene, FLAN = fluoranthene, NAPH = naphthalene, PHE = phenanthrene, PY= pyrene, MNPT = methylnaphthalene, F = fluoride, SO4 = sulfate, As = arsenic, Fe = iron, Mo = molybdenum (6) ns = no standard 5.1 GROUNDWATER USE Groundwater is not currently used as a source of potable water at the Site or on surrounding properties (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013). 5.2 FEDERAL The CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines provide limits for contaminants in soil, sediment, and water and are intended to maintain, improve, and/or protect environmental quality and human health at contaminated sites in general. These criteria include numerical values for the assessment and remediation of soil and water in the context of agricultural, residential/parkland, commercial, and industrial land uses. Environmental soil and water quality guidelines are derived using toxicological data to determine the threshold level to key receptors. ® Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_Burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx 5.12 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Regulatory Framework September 11, 2015 The CCME criteria are intended for generic use and do not address site-specific conditions. They are considered generally protective of human and environmental health for specified uses of soil at contaminated sites. Since the Subject Lands are used for commercial purposes and the Site soils include coarse-grained materials, the available soil results were compared to the Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Protection of Environment and Human Health (commercial use and coarse-textured soil), CCME, on-line summary table viewed in February of 2015, and the Canada -Wide Standards for PHC in Soil (commercial use and coarse-textured soil), CCME, revised January 2008. Environment Canada published the Guidance Document on Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites (March 2014). Based on the Site conditions, the groundwater results from monitoring wells located within Subject Lands were compared to the Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines provided in Table 3 for commercial and industrial land uses, non -potable ground water condition, and coarse soil. Given the proximity of Big Otter Creek within 500 m of the study area, the lowest value of the applicable Tier 2 exposure pathway specific guidelines was used for comparison (considering freshwater life, inhalation, and soil organisms direct contact pathways). 5.3 PROVINCIAL In Ontario, the roles and powers of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) when dealing with contaminated sites are outlined primarily in the Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O. 1990). The MOECC has a mandate to deal with situations where there is an adverse effect, or the likelihood of an adverse effect, associated with the presence or discharge of a contaminant. Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records for Site Condition (O.Reg. 153/04), effective October 1, 2004, provides advice and information to property owners and consultants to use when assessing the environmental condition of a property, when determining whether or not restoration is required and in determining the kind of restoration needed to allow continued use or reuse of the site. The Ontario Standards provide generic numerical standards for sediment, soil and groundwater quality presented as a function of land use, soil texture (medium to fine or coarse), groundwater usage (potable or non -potable), and remediation approach (full depth or stratified). The Province of Ontario amended O.Reg. 153/04, under the Environmental Protection Act. The amendment specifies which values are acceptable in given settings for a suite of analytical parameters. These values are presented in Table 1 to Table 9 of the Provincial document Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, of O.Reg. 153/04, as amended, April 15, 2011. The amendments to O.Reg. 153/04 came into effect on July 1, 2011. Stantec completed generic standards selection according to O.Reg. 153/04, as amended. The land use on -Site is commercial/industrial; the groundwater at the property is non -potable (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013). In addition, in Part IX, Section 42 of O.Reg. 153/04, as (l Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 5.13 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Regulatory Framework September 11, 2015 amended, it states that if at least 1/3 of the soil at the property, measured by volume, consists of coarse-textured soil, then the coarse-textured soil standards shall apply to the Site. Coarse- textured soil is later defined in the regulation as soil that contains more than 50% by mass of particles that are 75 micrometers (pm) or larger in mean diameter. Based on information in previous reports by others, the on-site soils are classified as coarse-grained. In addition, the majority of the land portions of the property are less than 30 metres from a water body (as well as within the 100 -year flood line and therefore subject to O. Reg. 162/06 - Halton Region Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses), indicating that the generic site condition standards should be considered for a site within 30 m of a water body. Therefore, the applicable standards at the Site are those found in Ontario Table 9 Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non -Potable Groundwater Condition, Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, April 15, 2011. 5.4 FCSAP DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK The FCSAP Decision -Making Framework (DMF) (Environment Canada, 2013) provides useful direction for the management of Federal contaminated sites. As outlined in the Introduction to the DMF for FCSAP, the DMF is a roadmap that outlines the specific activities and requirements for addressing federal contaminated sites in Canada. The DMF is based on A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites, a 10 -step process guiding federal custodians in all aspects of working with contaminated sites. At Step 7 (Develop Remediation/Risk Management Strategy) of the federal approach, determination is made as to whether a guideline approach or a risk assessment approach will be used to establish what remediation or risk management objectives will be applied. Although this ROA initially screens soil and groundwater chemical analysis results using AGRCs, the R/RM options are ultimately based on the outcome and recommendations of the PQRA/SLERA, provided under separate cover. Having adopted a risk assessment approach, there are specific recommendations in the PQRA/SLERA that outline the assessed levels of risk from contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). The applicability of the recommendations is subject to the context within which the PQRAs are set: necessary RM measures are derived from the context, and will be discussed in subsequent sections. "A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites, November 1999" (Dillon Consulting Limited, 1999) will be used as guidance, as will the "FCSAP Decision -Making Framework 2013" specific to its guidance concerning a risk management approach. (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 5.14 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER PQRA and SLERA Summary September 11, 2015 ?QRA AND SLERA SUMMARY The purpose of the PARA/SLERA completed by Stantec under separate cover (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015.09.1 1) was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to soil and groundwater for the terrestrial portion of the Site, and to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. For the human health risk assessment (HHRA), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes exceeded guidelines for direct contact with soil and were carried forward into the HHRA. Groundwater is non -potable and not used as a source of drinking water, therefore it was not carried forward for further risk assessment. The results of the HHRA suggest that there are no risks to any of the four human receptors (Toddler Site Visitor, Adult Site Visitor, Landscape Worker and Construction Worker) due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate); exposure to all identified non -carcinogenic COPCs from soil resulted in hazard quotients (HQs) less than 0.2. Additionally, for the Adult Site Visitor and Landscape Worker receptors, average daily ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation exposure to benzene in Site soils resulted in a cancer risk that was less than 1 -in -100,000, therefore the Site can be considered to present "essentially negligible" risks. For the SLERA, benzene, toluene, molybdenum, 1- methylnaphthalene, 2- methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene and phenanthrene in soil, and arsenic, iron, manganese, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene in groundwater, were carried through for risk assessment. Results of the SLERA suggest that it is not anticipated that COPCs identified in soil or groundwater pose a significant risk to aquatic or terrestrial receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. Overall, these results suggest that there are no risks to any of the four human receptors due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate), and no risks to ecological receptors due to COPCs identified in soil and groundwater at the Site. However, should potable drinking water wells be proposed in the future, the groundwater should be resampled and reassessed for potential human health risk, prior to consumption by any individual. Note that in addition, no unacceptable risk under the Federal risk assessment framework was identified in the aquatic environment (as reported separately). Should the land use of the Site change, or should any camping facilities or buildings be constructed on the Site, further environmental assessment may be required to confirm the absence of risks (i.e., to confirm acceptable soil and/or groundwater quality). (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 6.15 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Methodology September 11, 2015 METHODOLOGY The ROA and RAP/RMP is conducted in accordance with current standards, guidance and best practices in Canada and as provided by Expert Support Departments in the suite of Federal Contaminated Action Plan guidance documents. 7.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL As defined in the scope of work, this CSM consists of an update of the Terrapex CSM, based on new information obtained by Stantec. When site-specific data is unavailable, values from literature are provided. The CSM is not intended to comply with the requirements for filing of a record of site condition (RSC) in Ontario. The site investigation methodology and detailed results are provided under separate cover, as an attachment to the PARA/SLERA. The most up-to-date mapping and measurements of the subject property boundaries are provided in the PWGSC property map provided (PWGSC, 2001), however the drawing is not to scale. Using 20 -cm accuracy South Western Ontario Orthoimagery Project (SWOOP) aerial imagery, and the south -westernmost corner of the concrete dock visible on the imagery on the eastern shore of Big Otter Creek in Lake Erie as a reference point, property boundaries were converted to UTM zone 17N NAD83 datum to within approximately 5 m horizontal accuracy. The portions of the property limits indicated as `water's edge' on Plan 1 1 R-6760 were derived from elevation contours from the Big Otter Creek flood line mapping (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987). This allows comparison of sampling locations with property boundaries in the same coordinate system. The locations and elevations of each borehole and monitoring well were surveyed with a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) instrument to a horizontal accuracy of 10 cm and a vertical accuracy of 10 cm. Elevations were measured from NAVD88 vertical datum, expressed in metres above mean sea level (m AMSL). Elevations were converted to and from the International Great Lakes Datum 1985 (IGLD 85) using the National Geodetic Survey online converter (National Geodetic Survey, 2012), which indicates that an IGLD 85 height of 173.50 (Lake Erie chart datum), is equal to a NAVD 88 height of 173.5428 m AMSL at Port Burwell. Flood plain mapping was obtained from Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) to determine the proportion of DFO lands susceptible to flooding (Maclaren Engineers Inc., 1987) (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989). Flood zones were vectorised based on the georeferencing of the flood plain maps completed by LPRCA. (A Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 7.16 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Methodology September 11, 2015 Given the relative simplicity of Site geology, shallow samples, and low-level human and ecological risk at the Site, revised cross-sections are not included with the CSM. The CSM relies instead on the plan views provided in Appendix A. 7.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL ACTION/RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN Remedial or risk management options are typically developed using a combination or sequence of remediation or risk management technologies, since a single technology will rarely constitute the optimal remedy for the entire lifecycle of a remediation or risk management program. Given the absence of significant risk, remedial technology screening was not required. R/RM options are developed using one, or a sequence/combination of several, of the selected remediation and risk management technologies. The options are developed with the objective of providing a representative range of indicative costs and timelines. Given the absence of significant risk, development of remedial options was not required. The recommended R/RM strategy is selected based on a matrix -style evaluation (Environment Canada, 2013) of the R/RM options against the following criteria4: 1) Cost a) Capital and OM&M; b) Indicative estimated cost to implement each remediation/risk management option to completion; c) Qualitative consideration is given to the time -value of remedial costs. 2) Effectiveness a) Ability to protect public health and the environment: i) Evaluation of the ability of each option to protect public health and the environment; ii) Considers the method of removal or control, and any associated engineering or institutional controls needed. b) Short-term effectiveness and impacts: 4 Weightings for each criterion were established in consultation with DFO, in order to reflect the priorities of the department. The weighting scheme is provided in Table B.4, Appendix B. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 7.17 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Methodology September 11, 2015 i) Evaluation of the potential short-term adverse impacts on the community during the construction and/or implementation of the remedy; ii) Short-term benefits and safety aspects of the R/RM measures. c) Long-term effectiveness and permanence: i) Evaluation of the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy after implementation; ii) Effectiveness in meeting remedial goals; iii) If, by design, contamination will remain after the selected remedy was implemented, the evaluation assesses the impact of the residuals on human exposures or ecological receptors, and the need for and complexity of institutional and/or engineering controls; iv) Incremental benefits and safety aspects of the remedial / risk management measures. d) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume: i) Evaluation of the ability of a remedy to reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of site contamination; ii) Preference is given to remedies that permanently or significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the contamination at the site. 3) Regulatory Acceptability a) Compliance with AGRC5, guidelines and risk-based screening levels, while taking regulatory guidance into consideration as appropriate; b) Effectiveness at reducing, eliminating or controlling potential non -occupational human health risk (or at a minimum, human exposure pathways), as well as ecological risks, to substances associated with each proposed remedial/risk management option; 4) Timeframe a) Timeframe or estimated length of time to complete the remediation/risk management of the site compared to desired timeframe outcome. 5 Including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999 (Minister of Justice, 2014) ( ► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 7.18 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 5) Implementability a) Technical and administrative feasibility of implementing a remedy; b) Applies to constructability, access, space, operation, maintenance and monitoring, reliability, as well as the potential difficulties in obtaining permits and approvals; c) Sustainability: Opportunities for reduction of energy and material use associated with remedies. 6) Community/stakeholder acceptance a) Anticipated response of the stakeholders6, including the LPRCA, Elgin County, Municipality of Bayham, the Elgin Military Museum, MOECC, Ontario Parks, and other federal agencies (Transport Canada and DFO), and the public (residents of Port Burwell), to the remedy, following consultation, review and/or implementation; b) Future land use potential: Evaluation of the current, intended and reasonably anticipated future use of the site and its surroundings, as it relates to remedy (e.g., continued use of the Site as a harbour/marina). The following sections aim to develop a preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) for the Site and adjacent properties, in terms of a quantitative physical description of the Site geology and hydrology, as well as quantitative contaminant hydrogeology. Furthermore, that understanding is extended to a remedial design basis, which quantitatively defines the contaminant impacts and hydrogeological parameters as design inputs for conceptual remedial options and associated cost estimates, including an evaluation of uncertainty and data gaps. 8.1 PHYSICAL SETTING The Site is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek with Lake Erie, within the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence primary watershed, the Northern Lake Erie secondary watershed, the Long Point tertiary watershed, and both the Big Otter Creek and South Otter Creek quaternary watersheds. Part 2 of the Site falls within the Big Otter Creek subwatershed (819 km2), as shown in Figure 0, Appendix A. The median stream flow from 1975 to 2003 in Big Otter Creek ranges from 2.9 to 12.7 m3/s, with 901h percentile flows greater than 43 m3/s, at the Calton monitoring station, which is located approximately 15 km upstream from Port Burwell (Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team, 2008). Big Otter Creek has been previously identified as Canada's largest 6 Stakeholders are defined as current and potential owners, regulatory and government agencies having jurisdiction at the Site, as well as local end users and neighbours of the Site. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_2015091 l.docx 8.19 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 source of sediment contamination to Lake Erie (Cridland, 1997), with median sediment loads of approximately 25 milligram per litre (mg/L), and 95th percentile sediment loads upwards of 350 mg/L. High peak flows and sediment load from Big Otter Creek are compounded by agricultural land uses within the subwatershed, the silty soil type of the region, relative lack of riparian vegetation, and the additional particulate loads from upstream wastewater treatment plants at Norwich and Tillsonburg (Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team, 2008). Regional Site topography generally slopes southward towards Lake Erie, and locally towards the many creeks and rivers within the subwatershed, as shown in Figure 0, Appendix A. At the Site scale, as indicated in Figure A.2, Appendix A, the topography is generally flat within the floodplain, with a mean shoreline at approximately 174 metres above mean sea level (m AMSL), and ground elevations ranging from approximately 180 to 183 m AMSL within the village of Port Burwell. Portions of the Site are situated within the Big Otter 100 -year Floodline, the Big Otter Regional Floodline, the Lake Erie Shoreline Regulatory Flood Level, or the Big Otter 100 -year Lake Level (with wind setup), per the flood line mapping studies provided by the LPRCA (Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited, 1989), (MacLaren Engineers Inc., 1987). The LPRCA floodlines are represented with respect to property boundaries on Figure A.2, Appendix A. Given the above, the Subject Lands are considered vulnerable to natural erosion and sedimentation from Big Otter Creek. 8.2 HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING Regional quaternary geology consists of Pleistocene Glaciofluvial outwash deposits characterized by gravel and sand, including proglacial river and deltaic deposits (Ontario Geological Survey, 2000). The drift thickness at the Site is approximately 65 to 67 metres (Gao, Shirota, Kelly, Brunton, & van Haaften, 2006). Unconsolidated deposits overlie Paleozoic bedrock of the Marcellus formation, which consists of black and grey shale and limestone (Armstrong & Dodge, 2007). Given the depth of bedrock and proximity to Lake Erie and Big Otter Creek, the relevant groundwater regime at the Site is therefore considered to be in shallow overburden and to be largely governed by the surface water regime. 8.3 SOIL Boreholes previously drilled at the Site describe the glaciofluvial outwash as silty sand or sandy silt. Hydraulic conductivities for silty sand/sandy silt from literature can vary from 1 E-09 m/s to 1 E-03 m/s (Freeze & Cherry, 1979). They are generally overlain by approximately 10 to 15 cm of top soil, with occurrences of a layer of crushed coal between 5 and 15 cm thick beneath the top soil, the exact horizontal extent of which is unknown. (A Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 8.20 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 8.3.2 Soil Analyticc_al Results Soil analytical results from Stantec's recent investigation as well as historical results from Terrapex (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013) and SNC-Lavalin (SNC Lavalin, 2015) are summarized in Table 0, Appendix B. Sampling locations are shown on Figure A.4, Appendix A. Sampling locations where soil concentrations exceeded AGRC are represented on Figure A.8, Appendix A. Contaminants of concern (CoCs) exceeding AGRC in soil include BTEX, PHCs, metals and PAHs. The metals and PAH impacts are generally associated with the crushed coal layer found throughout the terrestrial portions of the Site, while the BTEX and PHC impacts are likely associated to historical fuel storage/handling. 8.4 GROUNDWATER The depth to groundwater from ground surface has historically ranged from 0.965 to 1.615 m below ground surface (m bgs), or 174.3 to 175.8 m AMSL based on the two monitoring events in December 2012 and February 2015. This is approximately 1 m higher than historical Lake Erie levels at Port Stanley on those dates between (173.8 m AMSL in 2012, and 174.1 m AMSL in 2015) (DFO, 2014). Given the Site stratigraphy and proximity to Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie, groundwater is likely to be highly influenced by the levels in these waterbodies. Groundwater direction may therefore be highly variable over time within the flood zone where the Site is located. Groundwater contours are provided in Figure A.7, Appendix A and indicate northwesterly groundwater flow on February 3, 2015, with an approximate horizontal gradient of 0.005 m/m. Groundwater analytical results from Stantec's recent investigation as well as historical results from Terrapex (Terrapex Environmental Ltd., 2013) and SNC-Lavalin (SNC Lavalin, 2015) are summarized in Table B.2, Appendix B. Sampling locations where groundwater concentrations exceeded AGRC are represented on Figure A.9, Appendix A. CoCs exceeding AGRC in groundwater include metals and PAHs. 8.5 DATA GAP ANALYSIS A high level data gap analysis was completed to identify uncertainties associated with the data collected to date at the Site. Although the current legal survey drawing (Kim Husted Surveying Ltd., 1998) for the Site provides accurate relative Site boundaries, it does not include sufficient information to be translated to a known projection and datum. As a result, the Site boundary accuracy can be validated and improved by completing an updated legal survey based on NAD83 and a Transverse Mercator (A Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 8.21 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 projection. This is also recommended in the context of the legal land transfer. A specific area of improvement is the property line located at the northeast shoreline of Big Otter Creek nearest to Bridge Street, which is defined as the water's edge on December 8, 1997. Soil, groundwater and sediment sampling at the Site has been previously completed on a judgmental basis, rather than a grid approach. Based on a Voronoi tessellation7, each sediment sampling location represents approximately 0.37 ha on average, while each soil sampling location represents approximately 0.68 ha on average. While representing good general coverage of the Site as a whole, previous investigations leave several areas unassessed, including a land parcel along the shoreline at the northeast corner of the Site, and strata of concern such as the crushed coal layer, are not fully delineated. A statistical comparison of a portion of the soil and groundwater data collected by Terrapex and Stantec was attempted using ProUCL 5.0 to determine if the two sampling programs provide comparable information. However, due to the small sample size from each sampling program (n < 20), the two -sample Student's t-tests completed do not provide meaningful results. A comparison of the mean concentrations for select CoCs identified by Terrapex and Stantec in soil (naphthalene, phenanthrene and PHC F2) and groundwater (arsenic and iron) was completed, and the significance of the difference between the means was evaluated based on past experience and professional judgment. It is assumed that the sampling locations are randomly distributed within the area of interest. The mean soil concentrations for the CoCs are comparable (within one order of magnitude). In the case of soil, samples collected by Stantec are not co -located with Terrapex's samples; therefore the test results would appear to indicate that on average the soil conditions for the CoCs are consistent throughout the Site, and fairly independent of sampling location. Similarly comparable means were observed for the CoCs in groundwater. In the case of groundwater, because the two sample sets are co -located but collected at different times (2012 and 2015), the test results would appear to indicate that on average groundwater conditions for the CoCs are fairly consistent over time, and therefore relatively stable. Given the above, previously acquired analytical results are considered to be representative of overall Site conditions. Despite the uncertainty associated with the lack of CoC horizontal and vertical delineation, the impact of this uncertainty on the R/RM outcome is considered low given the absence of risk based on known concentrations of CoCs. 7 Polygons delineated by perpendicular lines located mid -way between points. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 8.22 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Conceptual Site Model September 11, 2015 8.6 DESIGN BASIS 8.6.1 Extent and Mass of Imonct- The approximate horizontal extents of soil and groundwater CoC impacts that are likely to be in excess of applicable generic criteria based on available analytical results are shown on Figures A.8 & A.9, Appendix A. Summaries of estimated soil and groundwater impacts in excess of AGRC for PAHs, metals and/or PHCs are provided in Table vii and Table viii, respectively. Table vii: Soil volumes >AGRC Table viii: Groundwater volumes >AGRC Beach, Automation Building, Parts 2 and 6 22,800 0.2-2.0 1,400 - 13,700 Former turning basin 13,700 0.0 0 Northeast shore 0-3,500 0.0-2.0 0-2,100 Since the soil and groundwater volumes in excess of AGRC do not constitute a risk to potential receptors based on the PARA/SLERA, the mass of contaminants was not quantified. However, the affected volumes may trigger additional remedial or risk management actions should the Site land use change while under DFO ownership. The affected surface areas are used to estimate the extent of the monitoring well network that may be needed for potential MNA. 8,602 Mass Flux A quantitative evaluation of mass flux was not completed, because it is anticipated based on the nature of the CoCs and the results of the PARA/SLERA that the mass flux of PAHs and/or metals is negligible and does not constitute a risk to potential receptors. 8 A total porosity of 30% is assumed Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 8.23 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Remedial Options Analysis September 11, 2015 9.0 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS 9.1 SCREENING OF APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES Land Use Monitoring9 is considered to be the only relevant R/RM technology for the Site, given the evaluated absence of risk. Land Use Monitoring is an administrative tool that can be applied when a risk assessment has found no significant risk, in order to ensure that the conditions under which the risk assessment remains valid (i.e., the context of the risk assessment) are maintained, and to flag cases where they are not, such that risk can then be appropriately re-evaluated. 9.2 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS An analysis of the selected option is provided in Table B.3, Appendix B. Since the estimated cost for the risk management measure is considered negligible, neither an indicative nor a substantive 10 cost estimate is provided. The /risk management plan for the Site while under Federal ownership will consist of administrative monitoring of land use changes by internal DFO staff to ensure that the risk assessment exposure and receptor assumptions are maintained. The impacts above AGRC at the Site are considered unlikely to trigger remediation or additional risk management measures in the future given the Site's restricted land use potential within a flood zone. The administrative and operational considerations involved in the transfer of an active port and associated facilities from SCH to the Municipality of Bayham are considered outside the scope of this Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan. Aquafor Beech Limited. (1996). Port Burwell Harbour Dredge Monitoring Study, Interim Report Prepared for Village of Port Burwell, July 1996, Project No. 67372.30. Aquafor Beech Limited. Armstrong, D., & Dodge, J. (2007). Paleozoic geology of southern Ontario, Miscellaneous Release --Data 219. Ontario Geological Survey. Bradfield, R. (2011, 10 23). E-mail from Ron Bradfield to John Langan (Stantec), Re: Port Burwell Risk Study. Bayham, Ontario, Canada. 9 Land Use Monitoring refers specifically to administrative land use monitoring and is not equivalent to Long Term Monitoring (LTM) 10 "A substantive estimate is one of high quality and reliability..." (PWGSC, 2015) based on detailed design, all significant deliverables, all agreed objectives, and market assessments for lease or capital purchases. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 11.24 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER References September 11, 2015 Cridland, W. (1997). Shoreline Water Quality Study Port Burwell to Long Point, Lake Erie. Long Point Conservation Authority, Environment Canada Great Lakes 2000 Clean Fund. Simcoe ON. DFO. (2014, 10 21). Station Inventory Data, Station 12400. Retrieved 03 23, 2015, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Government of Canada: http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/twl-mne/inventory-inventaire/interval-intervalle- eng.asp?user=isdm-gdsi®ion=CA&tst=1 &no=12400&ref=maps-cartes Dillon Consulting Limited. (1999). A Federal Approach to Contaminated Sites. Prepared for the Contaminated Sites Management Working Group. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Dillon Consulting Limited. (2000). Port Burwell Assessment and Management Strategy, Draft, September 12, 2000. Toronto: Dillon Consulting Ltd. Environment Canada. (2001, 12 17). E-mail from Murray Brooksbank to Kyle Kruger, Port Burwell (Enhanced Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Environment Canada. (2013). Federal Contaminated Sites Action -Plan (FCSAP): Decision -Making Framework, May 22, 2013. Gatineau, QC: Government of Canada. Fletcher, R., Welsh, P., & Fletcher, T. (2008). Guidelines for Identifying, Assessing and Managing Contaminated Sediments in Ontario: An Integrated Approach, May 2008. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario. Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice -Hall Inc. FRTR. (2014, 01 13). Technology Screening Matrix. Retrieved 03 18, 2015, from Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable: http://www.frtr.gov/scrntools.htm Gao, C., Shirota, J., Kelly, R. I., Brunton, F. R., & van Haaften, S. (2006). Bedrock topography and overburden thickness mapping, southern Ontario; Miscellaneous Release --Data 207. Ontario Geological Survey. Gartner Lee Limited. (1997). Phase I Property Transfer Assessment, Site 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, GLL 97-303, September 1997. For PWSGC and DFO Small Craft Harbours Branch. Markham: Gartner Lee Limited. Google. (2015). Google Maps. Retrieved 03 09, 2015, from Port Burwell ON - Google Maps: https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Port+Burwell,+ON/@42.6444881,- 80.807393,898m/data=!3m 1! 1 e3!4m2!3m 1! 1 sOx882dd802da685d47:Oxl ef7689977b5f346?h 1=en Government of Canada. (2012, 07 15). GOST. Guidance and Orientation for the Selection of Technologies. Retrieved 03 18, 2015, from Canada.gc.ca: http://gost.irb-bri.cnrc- nrc.gc.ca/hm.aspx?ind_lang=en Hanscomb Limited. (2012). Yardsticks for Costing - Cost Data for the Canadian Construction Industry. Ottawa, ON: Hanscomb Limited. IBI Group. (2013). Municipality of Bayham Port Burwell Waterfront Master Plan Background Report, Draft Report, January 2013, IBI ref 32894. IBI Group. ITRC. (2015). ITRC Documents - View, Download or Print For Free. Retrieved 03 1 i8, 2015, from Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council: http://www.itrcweb.org/Guidance Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 1 1R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team. (2008). Draft Long Point Region Watershed Characterization Report, January 2008, Revision 2.0. Long Point Region Conservation Authority. Land Information Ontario. (2010). Southwestern Ontario Orthoimagery Project (SWOOP). LIO. Long Point Region Conservation Authority. (2015). Long Point Region Conservation Authority. Retrieved 03 06, 2015, from Home: http://Iprca.on.ca/pages/1 /Home (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-20150911.docx 11.25 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER References September 11, 2015 MacLaren Engineers Inc. (1987). Vittoria, Port Ryerse, Lynedoch and Port Burwell Floodline Mapping Study, Report to Long Point Region Conservation Authority, April 1987. London, ON. MacViro Consultants Inc. (2001). Enhanced Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No.4766, Port Burwell, Ontario. Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Public Works and Government Services Canada. Markham: MacViro Consultants Inc. Minister of Justice. (2014). Consolidation: Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (S.C. 1999, c. 33, Current to February 6, 2014, Last amended on October 25, 2013). Minister of Justice. Municipality of Bayham. (2012). Official Plan of the Municipality of Bayham, Schedule 'D', Port Burwell: Land Use and Constraints. National Air Photo Library. (1956). Port Burwell Air Photo, September 25, 1956. 1:10,000. A 15551. Photo 18. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. National Air Photo Library. (1973). Port Burwell Air Photo, May 19, 1973. 1:30,000. A23285. Photo 196. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. National Geodetic Survey. (2012, 11 5). IGLD 85 Height Conversion. Retrieved 03 18, 2015, from Tool Kit: NAVD88 - IGLD85 Height Conversion: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi- bin/IGLD85/IGLD85.prl Ontario Geological Survey. (2000). Quaternary geology, seamless coverage of the Province of Ontario; Data Set 14 ---Revised. Ontario Geological Survey. Philpott Associates Coastal Engineers Limited. (1989). Shoreline Management Plan, Long Point Region Conservation Authority, Final Report, December 1989. Project Ojibwa. (2015). Home Page. Retrieved 03 13, 2015, from Project Ojibwa: http://www.projectojibwa.ca/ PWGSC. (2001). Sketch of Port Burwell Harbour, lots I 1 & 12, concession 1, geographic Township of Bayham (Village of Port Burwell), Municipality of Bayham, County of Elgin. Scale 1:2,000. Item no. 00 -068 -SKETCH (Derived from Plan 1 1 R-6760). Public Works and Government Services Canada, Real Property Services, Geomatics Advisory Division. Riggs Engineering Ltd. (2011). Project Ojibwa Dredging 2011, prepared for The Elgin Military Museum, June 10, 2011, Project No. 10-893. St. Thomas, ON: Riggs Engineering Ltd. RSMeans. (2014). Heavy Construction Cost Data, 28th Annual Edition. Norwell, MA: Reed Construction Data, LLC. SCH. (2008). Impacts of Species At Risk Act- Small Craft Harbours' Port Burwell Facility, letter by Mark Sandeman from DFO SCH to Kyle Kruger, Municipality of Bayham, dated April 16, 2008. Burlington: Small Craft Harbours, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. ShorePlan Engineering Ltd. (2010). Port Burwell Coastal Processes, Sedimentation and Dredging Review, Municipality of Bayham, Final Report. Toronto: ShorePlan Engineering Ltd. SNC Lavalin. (2015). PWGSC Automation Building, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, ON. SNC Lavalin. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2012). Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, March 2012. London: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2015.09.11). Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil and Groundwater at Port Burwell, Prepared for Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Ottawa, ON: Stantec Consulting Ltd. Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (2013). Final Report on Phase 1/II Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, DFRP# 54022, Port Burwell, ON PWGSC Project No. 8.059352.008/.009. Burlington: Terrapex Environmental Ltd. Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 11.26 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER References September 11, 2015 USDoD. (1998). Estimating Cleanup Times Associated with Combining Source -Area Remediation with Monitored Natural Attenuation, Cost and Performance Report (ER -0436). Arlington, VA: Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, U.S. Department of Defense . USEPA. (2001). Remediation Technology Cost Compendium - Year 2000 (EPA -542-R-01-009). Washington DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 11.27 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Closure September 11, 2015 12.0 CLOSURr' This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential liabilities associated with the identified property. This report provides an evaluation of selected environmental conditions associated with the identified portion of the property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. There are no assurances regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information. All information received from the client or third parties in the preparation of this report has been assumed by Stantec to be correct. Stantec assumes no responsibility for any deficiency or inaccuracy in information received from others. The opinions in this report can only be relied upon as they relate to the condition of the portion of the identified property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted. Activities at the property subsequent to Stantec's assessment may have significantly altered the property's condition. Stantec cannot comment on other areas of the property that were not assessed. Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec's professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property's environmental condition. This report should not be construed as legal advice. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any reliance by any third party is prohibited. Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report. This report is limited by the following: 1. Information received from DFO from work completed by others concerning the Site. 2. Conditions observed at the Site at the time of the 2015 investigation completed by Stantec. The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or sub -surface utilities and structures are not guaranteed. Before starting work, the exact location of all such utilities and structures should be confirmed and Stantec assumes no liability for damage to them. (► Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_20150911.docx 12.28 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Closure September 11, 2015 The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time the work was performed at the specific testing and/or sampling locations, and conditions may vary among sampling locations. Factors such as areas of potential concern identified in previous studies, site conditions (e.g., utilities) and cost may have constrained the sampling locations used in this assessment. In addition, analysis has been carried out for only a limited number of chemical parameters, and it should not be inferred that other chemical species are not present. Due to the nature of the investigation and the limited data available, Stantec does not warrant against undiscovered environmental liabilities nor that the sampling results are indicative of the condition of the entire site. As the purpose of this report is to identify site conditions which may pose an environmental risk; the identification of non -environmental risks to structures or people on the site is beyond the scope of this assessment. Should additional information become available which differs significantly from our understanding of conditions presented in this report, Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report. (30 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt-dfo-burwell-soilgw-roa-final-2015091 l.docx 12.29 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Stantec Quality Management Program September 11, 2015 13.0 STANTEC QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGR, -,.w. This report, entitled FINAL Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial Action/Risk Management Plan - Soil and Groundwater, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario, prepared for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, dated September 11, 2015, was produced by Stantec Consulting Ltd. This report was written by the following individual: Marc Bouchard, P.Eng. (Ontario) Senior Environmental Engineer Signature This report was reviewed by the following individuals: Jane Yaraskavitch, M.Eng., P.Eng. (Ontario) Senior Associate Signature David Wilson, CD, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. (Ontario) Senior Associate 1 xj� L Signature Approval to transmit to client: Alicja Wierzbicka Project ager Signature Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF) 4 Stantec wa v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\roa\final\rpt_dfo_burwell_soilgw_roa_final_2015091 l.docx 13.30 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 Appendix A FIGURES ® Stantec A.1 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.1 SITE LOCATION ® Stantec A.2 I KEY WP / Lake Erie Port Stanley 1:3,000,000 a mrn Vienna Port B� % Burwell Provincial/�ark�� �� Port Barwell ,Cake ShO�e C��e a o u avv I,vvv m �a 1:50,000 515000 520000 March 2015 Project # 122511076 Legend Client/Project Project Area Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (J Sta ntec O Big Otter Creek Watershed Boundary Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/ Long Point Region Conservation Risk Management Plan ® Authority Watershed Boundary Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Notes Figure No. I. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N A.1 2. Base features produced under license with the A. 7 1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Title for Ontario, 2013. Site Location FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.2 SITE OVERVIEW ® Stantec A.3 IN BUR — ❑ J o,� LIBI3YE �a i H H Fyq F- Port Burwell AMIff 17/ - HMCS Ojibwa Exhibit 00I 9 �qw Light Standard L=ighthouse rovincial Park , ♦ � ♦ ♦ , A � � � I BROOK ST (Former ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ , %Q Turning l ♦ ♦ , ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Basin OF40 IN - m 40 e9� ➢ � � � � I � �i � � .; � ELL �9\ '_9 I �• i„ O� MUN CIPAL EAST BEACH ♦ �♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Aboveground� /// , I ♦ , forage Tanks I �- ♦ ♦ ' , ♦ ' ,' is /�,: \ I \ Municipal Waste Water ♦ 1`I ♦ , Treatment Plant « s ♦ I I ♦ ♦ �� Sianal Structure 766 ai 76 ss 76j5 7"4s J 3 Q LU m w Z O Signal Structure k, �� HANNAH ST N N LAKE SHORE LINE F a u~i � N 0 f 150 300 r m 1:6,000 March 2015 Project No. 122511076 Legend Client/Project Sta ntec ® Building I_ _� Contaminated Site Boundary (Terrapex) Lot Parcel Lake Erie Shoreline Regulatory Flood Level Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan QProperty Boundary Big Otter 100 -year Floodline/Lake Level (with wind setup) Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour,. Ontario Notes Aboveground Utility Line Big Otter Regional Floodline Figure No. 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Bathymetric datum assumed to be IGLD. Bathymet is Contour (m) � Provincial Park Boundaries A.2 Title 3. Base features produced under license with the Contour (m AMSL) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Land Printer for Ontario, 2013. 4. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11R-6760, – •S– - Municipal Sewer Outfall Waterbody Site Overview Project 9745621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998, Tillsonburg, ON. Road FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.3 SITE LAND COVER ® Stantec A.4 (3 Stantec Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. Legend QProperty Boundary Approximate Site Land Cover (per 2010 SWOOP Imagery) Land: Floodplain Land: No Flood Zone _ Water September 2015 Project No. 12251 1075 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.3 Title Site Land Cover FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.4 SAMPLING LOCATIONS ® Stantec A.5 Legend Sampling Location StantecED Borehole, Conor Pacific, 1999 ® Borehole, SNC-Lavalin, 2014 ® Borehole, Stantec, Feb 2015 19 Monitoring Well, SNC-Lavalin, 2014 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Monitoring Well, Stantec, Feb 2015 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Monitoring Well, Terropex, Mar 2013 Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. • Surface Soil Sample, SNC-Lavalin, 2014 • Surface Soil Sample, Conor Pacific, 1999 Surface Soil Sample, Stantec, Feb 2015 OProperty Boundary Approximate Terrestrial Site Boundaries Road I I Fence September 2015 Project No. 12251 1076 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.4 Title Sampling Locations FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.5 PORT BURWELL IN 1956 ® Stantec A.6 0 Legend Approximate Terrestrial Site Area Sta me c ® Approximate Aquatic Site Area Property Boundary Notes '.Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Image Source: National Air Photo Library. (1956). Port Burwell Air Photo, September 25, 1956. 1:10,000. A15551. Photo 18. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. ''rte`` e No fa`,r/ °•, r r J' r v° Ir ./;!rA!..' ! P%s' r ,rr, Ey", ,, } I �" '�i fia g�1Y�������rfP +� utr✓Ir �� P.1A • 1 P 100 200 1:4,000 March 2015 Protect No. 122511076 -- Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.5 Title Port Burwell in 1956 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.6 PORT BURWELL IN 1973 ® Stantec A.7 E li_WV.1.j Stantec I Legend Approximate Terrestrial Site Area ® Approximate Aquatic Site Area OProperty Boundary Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Image Source: National Air Photo Library. (1973). Port Burwell Air Photo, May 19, 1973. 1:30,000. A23285. Photo 196. Ottawa, ON: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. it •Ys Ir a a N arm - 4 #� t -xaW"% fro r l�wr4.0 r ` ! !.` ALV6 0 100 200 M 1:4,000 March 2015 Project No. 122511076 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.6 Title Port Burwell in 1973 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.7 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOURS ® Stantec M Legend Stame c Monitoring Well, Stantec (174.19) Groundwater Elevation in m (February 3, 2015) Monitoring Well, Terrapex Interpreted Site Groundwater Flow Direction on �~ Feb. 3, 2015 Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. Interpreted Groundwater Contour (m) OProperty Boundary Road March 2015 Project No. 12251 1076 1 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.7 Title Groundwater Elevation Contours FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.8 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec A.9 r9l • • • • • MW -203 • • (MOECC: MNPT, NAPH, PHE, F2) (Federal: NAPH, PHE) BH2O4 (MOECC: Mo, MNPT, NAPH, PHE) (Federal: As, NAPH, PHE) 1 13 04 • ♦ • 1 \ SS -1401 \ SS -4 \ SS -1 I 1 � � \ B 0 MW -202 (14''SS-3 BH - 101 (MOECC: Mo, MNPT, NAPH, F2) \ 13H-205 (Federal: As, NAPH, PHE) \ ® SS -2 BH -102 \ \ \\ I MW -201 (MOECC: MNPT, NAPH, F2) (Federal: NAPH, PHE) Automation Building 1:250 I I SS15-5 (MOECC: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, Xy, F1, F2) (Federal: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, Xy, NAPH) MW102 (MOECC: ANA, NAPH, PHE, F2) (Federal: NAPH, PHE) SS15-6 (MOECC: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, Xy, MNPT, NAPH, F2) (Federal: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, NAPH, PHE) Legend Stantec ® Borehole Borehole, Stantec • Less than MOECC and Federal Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria (AGRC) 19 Monitoring Well • Exceeds MOECC AGRC 19 Monitoring Well, Stantec •Exceeds MOECC and Federal AGRC Notes Monitoring Well, Terrapex r I- Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N ■ Interpreted and Inferred Extent of Soil Impacts J � ® S in Excess of AGRC 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Soil Sample, SNC-Lavalin v Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. ■ ■ 4. Referto report bodyfor acronym definitions SS15-5 (MOECC: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, Xy, F1, F2) (Federal: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, Xy, NAPH) MW102 (MOECC: ANA, NAPH, PHE, F2) (Federal: NAPH, PHE) SS15-6 (MOECC: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, Xy, MNPT, NAPH, F2) (Federal: Benz, Ethlb, Tol, NAPH, PHE) BH15-3 (MOECC: Xy) I 0 50 100 150 IIII m 1:4,000 March 2015 Project N o. 12251 1076 1 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.8 Title Summary of Soil Analytical Results Legend Stantec ® Borehole Borehole, Stantec • Less than MOECC and Federal Applicable Generic Regulatory Criteria (AGRC) 19 Monitoring Well • Exceeds MOECC AGRC 19 Monitoring Well, Stantec •Exceeds MOECC and Federal AGRC Notes Monitoring Well, Terrapex I- Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Interpreted and Inferred Extent of Soil Impacts 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. ® Soil Sample, MacViro in Excess of AGRC 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Soil Sample, SNC-Lavalin Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. O Property Boundary 4. Referto report bodyfor acronym definitions Soil Sample, Stantec Road BH15-3 (MOECC: Xy) I 0 50 100 150 IIII m 1:4,000 March 2015 Project N o. 12251 1076 1 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.8 Title Summary of Soil Analytical Results FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN — SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 A.9 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec A.10 Legend ® Borehole • Exceeds Federal Applicable Generic 10 Stantec ® Borehole, Stantec Regulatory Criteria (AGRC) 19 Monitoring Well • Exceeds MOECC and Federal AGRC Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON 4. Refer to report body for acronym definitions 19 Monitoring Well, Stantec 19 Monitoring Well, Terrapex ® Soil Sample, MacViro Soil Sample, SNC-Lavalin Soil Sample, Stantec Interpreted and Inferred Extent of Groundwater Impacts in Excess of AGRC OProperty Boundary Road March 2015 Project No . 12251 1076 1 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Figure No. A.9 Title Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix B Tables September 11, 2015 Appendix B TABLE ® Stantec M FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix B Tables September 11, 2015 B.1 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec B.12 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Units CCME Ontario SCS I MW15-1 BH15-2 BH15-3 SS15-4 SS15-5 SS75-6 BH -201-1A BH -201-18 BH -201-2 BH -201-4 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 I 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 24eb-15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 MW75-1-1 MW15-1-11.1t MW15-1-2 MW15.1-2LR MW15-1-5 MW15-1-SLR BH15-2-2 BH15-2-2LR BH15-2-5 BH15-3-1 BH15-3-1 LR BH15-3-20 BH75-3-6 SS15-4-1 SS15-4-1LR SS15-5-1 SS15-6-1 BH -201-1A BH -201-1B BH -201-2 BH -201-4 0. 0.76m 0. 0.76m 0.0.76m 0-0.76m 3.05.3.05m 3.05. 3.81m 0.76. 1.52 m 10.76. 1.52 m 3.05-3.81m 0. 0.76m 0.0.76m 3.81-4.57m 3.81.4.57m 0-0.38m 0.0.38m 0-0.31m 0. 0.38m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC SNC SNC SNC SNC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX 8521696 8521696 8521696 B521696 8521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 5521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 8521696 B4M3089 B4M3089 114M3089 84M3089 ZL0486 ZLO486 ZL0487 ZL0487 ZL0488 ZLO488 ZL0489 ZL0489 ZL0490 ZLO491 ZL0491 ZL0493 ZL0492 ZLO494 ZL0494 ZLO495 ZL0496 YP4046 YP4D47 YP4048 YP4050 Lab Replicate Field Lob Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Duplicate Available (CaC12) pH S.U. 6-8A n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.33 7.50 7.84 7.90 Cyanide (Free) pg/g 8A 0.051 0.01 - 0.02 - - - 0.01 - - 10.01 - - - 0.01 - <0.01 10.01 - - - - Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 4A 0.7' 0.26 - 0.24 - - - 0.18 - - 0.14 0.13 - - 0.14 - 0.14 0.16 - - - - Fluoride pg/g 2000" n/v <5 - <5 - - - <5 <5 - <5 - - - 15 - <5 11 - - - - Moisture Content % n/v n/v 22 - 22 - 27 25 21 - 24 11 - 18 15 17 17 7.0 8.8 - 18 17 18 pH S.U. 6-8A n/v 7.33 - 7.46 - - - 7.07 7.09 - 7.46 - - - 7.30 - 7.69 7.65 - - - - Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) I none I 1241 51 1 0.32 1- 0.32 - - - 1 0.27 - I - 1 0.29 - - I -1 0.30 -1 0.28 1 0.26 1- -I -I - omA ana rerroieam nyorocaraons Benzene pg/g 0.034 0.02' <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - 10.005 - <0.005 - <0.005 0.009 - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - 3.3A� 0.084Al - - <0.005 <0.005 Toluene pg/g 0.374 0.2' 0.05 0.04 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 0.04 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - 12A� 0.53" - - <0.02 <0.02 E}hylbenzene pg/g 0.082" 0.05 0.02 0.01 10.01 - 10.01 - 10.01 - 10.01 10.01 - 10.01 10.01 10.01 - 2., 0.17Al - - 10.01 10.01 Xylene, m & p- pg/g n/v ,11 10.04 10.04 10.04 - 10.04 - 10.04 - 10.04 0.05 - 10.04 10.04 10.04 - 12 0.96 - - 10.04. 10.04 Xylene, o- pg/g n/v ,11 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 - <0.02 0.04 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - 7.8 0.69 - - <0.02 <0.02 Xylenes, Total pg/g 11A 0.05,,' <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 - <0.04 - <0.04 0.20 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - - - 1.7' - - <0.04 <0.04 - PHC FI (C6 -C10 range) pg/g 320' 25,E <10 <10 <10 - <10 - <10 - <10 110 - <10 <10 <10 - <0.10 18 - - <10 <10 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX pg/g n/v n/v <10 <10 <10 - <10 - <10 - <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 - _ 16 - - <10 <10 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) pg/g 260' 10-1 <10 - <10 - - <10 - <10 <10 - <10 110 <10 - pg/g - - 5.3 - 5.1 80 130 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) pg/g 1700' 240,8 <50 - <50 - 52 - <50 - <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 - - - <50 <50 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) pg/g 3300' 120„8 <50 - <50 - <50 - <50 - <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 - <50 <50 - - 150 <50 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none n/v n/v YES - YES - YES - YES - YES YES - YES YES YES - YES YES - - YES YES Merais Antimony pg/g 404 1.31 <0.20 - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.40 <0.20 <0.20 Arsenic pg/g 124 18' 1.1 - <1.0 - - - <1.0 - - 1.3 - - - <I.0 - 2.1 1.9 2.5 10 1.5 1.8 Barium pg/g 2000A 220' 14 - 9.0 - - - 9.3 - - 13 - - - 12 - 16 13 18 120 8.3 8.1 Beryllium pg/g 8A 2.5' <0.20 - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.55 <0.20 <0.20 Bismuth pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Boron pg/g n/v 36„8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <5.0 9.6 <5.0 <5.0 Boron (Available) pg/g n/v 1.5, 0.31 - 0.20 0.21 - - 0.19 - - 0.17 - - - 0.14 - 0.12 0.10 - - - - Cadmium pg/g 224 1.2' <0.10 - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - - <0.10 - - - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.14 <0.10 <0.10 Calcium pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chromium (Hexavalent( pg/g 1.4A 0.66' <0.2 - <0.2 - - - <0.2 <0.2 - <0.2 - - - <0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 - - - - Chromium (Total) pg/g 874 70' 5.3 - 5.1 - - - 4.3 - - 4.2 - - - 4.7 - 3.9 3.9 4.8 6.7 5.1 4.0 Cobalt pg/g 3004 22' 2.2 - 1.8 - - - 1.6 - - 2.1 - - - 1.8 - 1.9 2.3 2.1 5.0 1.7 2.1 Copper pg/g 914 92' 4.7 - 3.6 - - - 3.4 - - 4.2 - - - 3.7 - 4.0 3.3 29 18 3.3 3.1 Iron pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lead pg/g 260A 120' 3.9 - 3.2 - - - 2.8 - - 4.6 - - - 3.3 - 4.3 4.0 8.7 9.6 3.9 3.9 Magnesium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Manganese pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mercury pg/g 244 0.27' <0.050 - <0.050 - - - 10.050 - - <0.050 - - - <0.050 - <0.050 <0.050 - - - - Molybdenum pg/g 40A 2' <0.50 - <0.50 - - - 10.50 - - <0.50 - - - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.5 <0.50 0.54 Nickel pg/g 504 821 4.0 - 2.9 - - - 2.6 - - 4.0 - - - 3.1 - 4.1 4.0 4.6 14 3.8 4.1 Phosphorus pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Potassium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Selenium pg/g 2.94 1.51 <0.50 - <0.50 - - - <0.50 - - <0.50 - - - <0.50 - <0.50 10.50 <0.50 0.77 <0.50 <0.50 Silver pg/g 404 0.5' <0.20 - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Sodium pg/g n/v n/a' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Strontium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfur pg/g n/v n/v 310 - 380 - - - 240 - - 170 - - - 110 - 250 250 - - - - Thallium pg/g 1A 11 <0.050 - <0.050 - - - <0.050 - - <0.050 - - - <0.050 - <0.050 0.052 0.063 0.24 <0.050 <0.050 Tin pg/g 300A n/v <5.0 - <5.0 - - - <5.0 - - <5.0 - - - 15.0 - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 15.0 <5.0 <5.0 Tungsten pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uranium pg/g 33A 2.5' 0.29 - 0.30 - - - 0.25 - - 0.28 - - - 0.23 - 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.66 0.25 0.25 Vanadium pg/g 1304 86' 10 - 11 - - - 9.1 - - 8.5 - - - 8.6 - 7.8 8.3 9.0 18 7.3 5.6 Zinc pg/g 360A 290' 20 - 18 - - - 15 - - 19 - - - 17 - 15 15 57 30 15 11 Zirconium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 1 of 7 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Units CCME Ontario SCS I MW15-1 BH15-2 BH15-3 SS15-4 SS15-5 SS75-6 BH -201-1A BH -201-18 BH -201-2 BH -201-4 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 I 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 24eb-15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 MW75-1-1 MW15-1-111.1t MW15-1-2 MW15.1-2LR MW15-1-5 MW15-1-SLR BH15-2-2 BH15-2-2LR BH15-2-5 BH15-3-1 BH15-3-1 LR BHI 5-3-20 BH75-3-6 SS15-4-1 SS15-4-1LR SS15-5-1 SS15-6-1 BH -201-1A BH -201-1B BH -201-2 BH -201-4 0. 0.76m 0. 0.76m 0.0.76m 0-0.76m 3.05.3.05m 3.05. 3.81m 0.76. 1.52 m 10.76. 1.52 m 3.05-3.81m 0. 0.76m 0.0.76m 3.81-4.57m 3.81.4.57m 0-0.38m 0.0.38m 0-0.31m 0. 0.38m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC SNC SNC SNC SNC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX 8521696 8521696 8521696 B521696 8521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 5521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 8521696 B4M3089 114M3089 114M3089 B4M3089 ZL0486 ZLO486 ZL0487 ZL0487 ZL0488 ZLO488 ZL0489 ZL0489 ZL0490 ZLO491 ZL0491 ZL0493 ZL0492 ZLO494 ZL0494 ZLO495 ZL0496 YP4046 YP4D47 YP4048 YP4050 Lab Replicate Field Lob Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Duplicate Acenaphthene pg/g 0.28' 0.072' '0.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - 0.0052 - - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.018 - 0.019 <0.0050 <0.0050 Acenaphthylene pg/g 320' 0.093' 10.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - '0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.0050 - 0.020 <0.0050 <0.0050 Anthracene pg/g 32DFH 0.22' <0.0050 - '0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - 0.0078 - - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.020 - 0.035 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)anthracene Pg/g 10DE 0.36' <0.0050 - 0.015 - - - 0.011 - - 0.028 - - - 0.0058 - <0.0050 0.054 - 0.058 '0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene pg/g 72°fH 8800' 0.3' 0.0074 - 0.014 - - - 0.012 - - 0.024 - - - 0.0063 - <0.0050 0.029 - 0.036 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene pg/g IODE 0.4712' 0.010 - 0.020 - - - 0.019 - - 0.036 - - - 0.011 - <0.0050 0.054 - 0.053 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/g n/v 0.68' 0.0055 - 0.0095 - - - 0.0097 - - 0.017 - - - 0.0058 - <0.0050 0.031 - 0.028 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(k)fluoranthene pg/g 10•E 048' <0.0050 - 0.0066 - - - 0.0065 - - 0.011 - - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.010 - 0.011 <0.0050 <0.0050 Chrysene pg/g n/v 2.8' 0.0068 - 0.012 - - - 0.014 - - 0.023 - - - 0.0063 - <0.0050 0.066 - 0.062 <0.0050 <0.0050 Dibenzo(a,h)anthrocene pg/g LODE 01' <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.0070 - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Fluoranthene pg/g 1BDDFH 0.69' 0.013 - 0.037 - - - 0.028 - - 0.064 - - - 0.016 - <0.0050 0.062 - 0.081 <0.0050 0.0085 Fluorene pg/g 0.25' 0.19' <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.020 - <0.020 MI <0.0050 <0.0050 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene pg/g 1oDF 0.23' 0.0074 - 0.013 - - - 0.011 - - 0.018 - - - 0.0063 - <0.0050 0.014 - 0.017 <0.0050 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene (Total) pg/g n/v 0.59j <0.0071 - <0.0071 - - - <0.0071 - - 0.023 - - - <0.0071 - 0.036 Endosulfan Sulfate - n/v <0.0071 <0.0071 - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- pg/g n/v :3 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - 0.011 - - - <0.0050 - 0.016 0.66 - 0.80 <0.0050 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene, 2- pg/g n/v ,sl <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - 0.012 - - - 0.0052 - 0.020 0.83 - 1.1 <0.0050 <0.0050 Naphthalene pg/g 0.013'•' 22E 0.09' <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - <0.010 MI - - - <0.0050 - - - - - <0.0050 <0.0050 Phenanthrene pg/g 0.046 'DG 50' 0.69' 0.0055 - 0.021 - - - 0.013 - - 0.036 - - - 0.0058 - 0.011 pg/g - 0.01' <0.0050 0.0053 0.067 Pyrene pg/g 100DE 1' 0.011 - 0.030 - - - 0.024 - - 0.051 - - - 0.013 - <0.0050 - 0.097 <0.0050 0.012 Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents pg/g 5.3., ,' n/v 1 0.0123 - 0.0222 - - - 0.0195 - - 0.0362 - - - 0.0115 - 0.00605 0.0502 - 0.0533 0.00605 0.00605 roryanlonnarea ulpnenya Aroclor 1016 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1221 Ng/g n/v 0.3114 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chlordone, alpha- pg/g n/v n/v Aroclor 1232 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1242 pg/g n/v 0.3114' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1248 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1254 Ng/g n/v 0.3114' DDD, o,p'-, DDD, P,p'- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1260 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1262 pg/g n/v 0.314 pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1268 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) pg/g 1 33" 0.3,14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - urganocnlonne resucraes Ndrin pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chlordane (Total) pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chlordone, alpha- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chlordane, gamma- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DDD (p,P=DDD) pg/g. n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DDD,o,P- pg/g n/v n/v DDD, o,p'-, DDD, P,p'- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DDE (p,p=DDE) pg/g n/v 0.05' DDE, o,p'- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DDE, o,p'_+ DDE, P,P- pg/g n/v n/v DDT (p,p'-DDT) pg/g 12' 1.4' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DDT,o,P- pg/g n/v n/v DDT, o,P'- + DDT, P,P'- Pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dieldrin pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Endosulfan pg/g n/v 0.04' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Endosulfan I pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Endosulfan II pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Endosulfan Sulfate pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Encldn pg/g n/v 0.04' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Heptachlor pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Heptachlor Epoxide pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hexachlorobenzene pg/g 10" 0.02' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) pg/g n/v 0.01' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hexachloroethane pg/g n/v 0,01' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) pg/g n/v 0.01' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Methoxychlor (4,4' -Methoxychlor) pg/g I n/v 0.05' See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 2 of 7 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Units CCME Ontario SCS I BH -201-22 BH -202-1A BH -202-1C BH -202-3 BH -203-1A BH -203-1B BH -203-2 BH -203-22 BH -204-1A BH -204-1B SH -204-3 BH -205-1A BH -205-2 SS -1401-1A SS -1402-1A 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-22 BH-201-22LR BH -202-1A 811-202-1C BH -202-3 BH -203-1A BH -203-1B BH -203-2 BH-203-2LR BH -203-22 BH -204-1A BH -204 -IB BH -204-3 BH-204-3LR BH -205-1A BH-205-1ALR BH -205-2 BH-205-2LR SS -1401-1A SS -1402-1A SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX 34M3089 B4M3089 B4M3089 54M3089 64M3089 114M3082 B4M3082 34M3082 B4M3082 54M3082 B4M3082 B4M3082 114M3082 134M3082 B4M3081 34M3081 B4M3081 54M3081 134M3081 114M3081 YP4049 YP4049 YP4051 YP4052 YP4054 YP3992 YP3993 YP3994 YP3994 YP3995 YP3998 YP3999 YP4D00 YP4000 YP3987 YP3987 YP3988 YP3988 YP3990 YP3991 Lab Replicate 18 - - - pH Lab Replicate 6-8" n/v - Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) I none 1 12^ MW101-1A 20 -Nov -12 MW101-1A 0. 0.3m TERRAPEX MAXX Available (CaC12) pH S.U. 6-8" n/v 7.69 - 7.31 7.42 7.99 7.19 7.42 7.82 7.86 7.86 7.48 7.50 7.94 - 7.10 7.19 7.90 - 7.37 7.22 - Cyanide (Free) pg/g 8" 0.051, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 4" 0.7' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fluoride pg/g 2000" n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moisture Content % n/v n/v 17 18 - 23 19 - 14 15 - 16 - 16 17 17 - - 18 18 - - - pH S.U. 6-8" n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) I none 1 12^ 1 51 1 - I - I -I -I -I - I - I - I - I - I - I - I - -I - -I - - I -I - I - -A ana rerroieum nyaracaraons Benzene pg/g 0.03" 0.02' <0.005 - - - 10.005 - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 - - <0.005 - - - <0.005 - - - - Toluene pg/g 0.37" 0.2' <0.02 - - - <0.02 - - 10.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - - - <0.02 - - - - Ethylbenzene pg/g 0.082" 0.05, <0.01 - - - <0.01 - - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - <0.01 - - - <0.01 - - - - Xylene, m & p- pg/g n/v ,11 <0.04 - - - <0.04 - - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - - <0.04 - - - <0.04 - - - - Xylene, o- pg/g n/v ,11 <0.02 - - - <0.02 - - <0.02 <0,02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - - - <0.02 - - - - Xylenes, Total pg/g 11^ 0.05,,' <0.04 - - - <0.04 - - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - - <0.04 - - - <0.04 - - - - PHCFI (C6 -C10 range) pg/g 320' 25,E <10 - - - QO - - <10 <10 <10 - - <10 - - - <10 - - - - PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX pg/g n/v n/v <10 - - - <10 - - <10 <10 <10 - - <10 - - - <10 - - - - PHC F2 (>C 10-C16 range) pg/g 260' 10-1 - - - - - - - 110 - - - 110 110 - - - 150 150 150 150 150 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) pg/g 1700' 240,E - - - - - - - 150 - - - 150 150 - - - PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) pg/g 3300' 120„ <51) - - - <50 - - 150 150 150 - - <50 - - - <50 <50 - - - Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none n/v n/v YES - - - YES - - YES YES YES - - YES - - - YES YES - - - metals Antimony Arsenic Barium pg/g pg/g pg/g 40" 12" 2000" 1.3' 18' 220' <0.20 1.9 8.0 - - - <0.20 2.9 31 0.59 <0.20 1.7 7.8 0.55 2.4 9.9 0.31 8.8 31 0.33 - 1.6 - 4.9 - 0.32 1.6 5.9 <0.20 1.7 9.7 0.64 <0.20 - - 7.4 - <0.20 1.3 6.1 - - - 10.20 1.6 9.7 <0.20 1.8 8.8 <0.20 1.6 10 0.21 2.6 11 - - - 210 MEM41.4 210 Beryllium pg/g 8^ 2.5' <0.20 - 0.22 0.83 <0.20 <0.20 0.24 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 0.94 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - Bismuth pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Boron pg/g n/v 36„6 <5.0 - <5.0 13 <5.0 - - - - - - - - - <5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - Boron (Available) pg/g n/v 1.5, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cadmium pg/g 22" 1.2' <0.10 - <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.49 0.11 0.11 - 0.13 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 0.16 0.14 - Calcium pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Chromium (Hexavalent) pg/g 1.4^ 0.66' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chromium (Total) pg/g 87" 70' 4.6 - 7.3 8.0 3.9 4.7 5.0 3.9 - 3.6 4.3 11 4.6 - 3.5 - 3.5 3.8 3.9 4.2 - Cobalt pg/g 300" 22' 1.9 - 2.8 5.3 1.8 2.1 3.1 2.6 - 2.8 1.7 5.5 1.5 - 1.4 - 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 - Copper pg/g 91" 92' 3.3 - 6.9 26 3.2 5.1 8.5 3.2 - 3.2 3.6 25 3.3 - 2.7 - 3.1 3.2 3.3 9.2 - Iron pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lead pg/g 260" 120' 4.1 - 12 12 3.8 100 7.9 4.0 - 3.8 5.9 12 3.6 - 5.3 - 3.7 3.9 12 60 - Magnesium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Manganese pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mercury pg/g 24" 0.27' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Molybdenum pg/g 40" 2' 0.54 - 0.53 <0.50 <0.50 0.79 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 0.66 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - 14 Nickel pg/g 50" 82' 4.1 - 5.4 4.1 4.3 6.7 9.1 - 9.7 3.5 15 3.4 - 3.1 - 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.7 - Phosphorus pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Potassium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Selenium pg/g 2.9" 1.5' <0.50 - <0.50 1.3 <0.50 <0.50 0.81 <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 0.97 <0.50 - <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - Silver pg/g 40" 0.5' <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - Sodium pg/g n/v n/a' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Strontium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sulfur pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Thallium pg/g 1A 11 <0.050 - 0.075 0.36 <0.050 <0.050 0.13 <0.050 - <0.050 <0.050 0.33 <0.050 - <0.050 - <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 - Tin pg/g 300" n/v <5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 15.0 <5.0 - <5.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 - <5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - Tungsten pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uranium pg/g 33" 2.5' 0.24 - 0.31 0.89 0.21 0.26 0.36 0.24 - 0.34 0.27 0.76 0.21 - 0.19 - 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.24 - Vanadium pg/g 130" 86' 7.2 - 12 23 5.3 8.9 12 7.1 - 6.9 9.6 22 <5.0 - 6.5 - 5.3 5.8 7.7 7.6 - Zinc pg/g 360" 290' 15 - 110 23 14 88 26 31 - 29 28 30 12 - 160 - 14 12 49 94 - Zirconium pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 3 of 7 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Units CCME Ontario SCS I BH -201-22 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-22 BH-201-22LR SNC SNC MAXX MAXX B4M3089 134M3089 YP4049 YP4049 21 -Nov -14 Lab Replicate BH -202-1A BH -202-1C BH -202-3 BH -203-1A BH -203-111 BH -203-2 BH -203-22 BH -204-1A BH -204-1B BH -204-3 BH -205-1A BH -205-2 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 20 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 BH -202-1A BH -202-1C BH -202-3 BH -203-1A BH -203-1B BH -203-2 BH-203-2LR BH -203-22 BH -204-1A BH -204-1B BH -204-3 BH-204-3LR BH -205-1A BH-205-1ALR BH -205-2 BH-205-2LR SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B4M3089 114M3089 B4M3089 114M3082 B4M3082 134M3082 B4M3082 64M3082 B4M3082 B4M3082 B4M3082 B4M3082 B4M3081 B4M3081 B4M3081 B4M3081 YP4051 YP4052 YP4054 YP3992 YP3993 YP3994 YP3994 YP3995 YP3998 YP3999 YP4000 YP4000 YP3987 YP3987 YP3988 YP3988 0.12 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - Lab Replicate - - Benzo(a)pyrene Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate SS -1401-1A 21 -Nov -14 SS -1401-1A SNC MAXX B4M3081 YP3990 SS -1402-1A 21 -Nov -14 SS -1402-1A SNC MAXX B4M3081 YP3991 MW101-1A 20 -Nov -12 MW101-1A 0-0.3m TERRAPEX MAXX Acenaphthene pg/g 0.28' 0.072' 10.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 - 0.018 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.018 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Acenaphthylene pg/g 320' 0.093' <0.0050 - - 0.0066 10.0050 - 0.031 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.037 <0.0050 - - - 10.0050 - - - - Anthracene pg/g 32 DI. 0.22' <0.0050 - - 0.010 <0.0050 - 0.044 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.048 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Benzo(a)anthracene pg/g 10DE 0.36' <0.0050 - - 0.025 <0.0050 - 0.092 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.12 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Benzo(a)pyrene pg/g 72°fH 8800' 0.3' <0.0050 - - 0.010 <0.0050 - 0.036 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.053 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene pg/g 10DE 0.4712' <0.0050 - - 0.030 10.0050 - 0.082 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.088 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/g n/v 0.68' <0.0050 - - 0.013 <0.0050 - 0.037 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.042 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Benzo(k)fluoranthene pg/g 10.E 048' <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 - 0.014 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.015 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Chrysene pg/g n/v 2.8' <0.0050 - - 0.036 <0.0050 - 0.12 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.15 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Dibenzo(a,h)anthrocene pg/g LODE 01' <0.0050 - - <0.0050 10.0050 - 0.010 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.012 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Fluoranthene pg/g 180DFH 0.69' <0.0050 - - 0.035 <0.0050 - 0.093 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.12 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Fluorene pg/g 0.25' 0.19' <0.0050 - - 0.0060 <0.0050 - 0.022 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.028 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene pg/g 1oDE 0.23' <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 - 0.015 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.017 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Methylnaphtholene (Total) pg/g n/v 0.59j 0.010 - - - <0.0071 - - - <0.0071 - <0.0071 - <0.0020 <0.0071 - - - <0.0071 - - - - - - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- pg/g n/v j 0.0052 - - 0.28 <0.0050 - 1.0 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 1.2 <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Methylnaphtholene, 2- pg/g n/v ,sl 0.0052 - - 0.31 <0.0050 - 1.3 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 1.4 <0.0050 - - - 10.0050 - - - - Naphthalene pg/g 0.013e- 22E 0.09' <0.0050 - - Endrin <0.0050 - 0.04' <0.0050 - <0.0050 - _ <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Phenanthrene pg/g 0.046'D' 50E 0.69' 0.0057 - - n/v <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Pyrene pg/g 100DF 1' <0.0050 - - 0.045 0.0084 - 0.15 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.27 0.0057 - - - <0.0050 - - - - Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents pg/g 5.3-"' n/v 0.00605 - - 0.0190 0.00605 - 0.0679 0.00605 - 0.00605 - 0.0909 0.00605 - - - 0.00605 - - - - -y-i nnarea oipnenya Aroclor 1016 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1221 pg/g n/v 0.3,14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Chlordane, alpha- pg/g Aroclor 1232 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1242 pg/g n/v 0.3114 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.015 Aroclor 1248 pg/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.015 Aroclor 1254 pg/g n/v 0.314 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 10.015 Aroclor 1260 pg/g n/v 0.3,14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.015 Aroclor 1262 pg/g n/v 0.31 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Aroclor 1268 pg/g n/v 0.3,14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) pg/g 33" 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.015 organocnlonne resuclaes Aldrin pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Chlordane (Total). pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Chlordane, alpha- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Chlordane, gamma- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 DDDIp,P'- 1 DDD p9/9 n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 DDD, o,P- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0020 DDD, o,p'-+ DDD, P,p'- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 DDE (p,p'-DDE) pg/g n/v 0.05' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <0.0020 DDE, o,p'- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 DDE, o,p'-+ DDE, p,P- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0020 DDT (p,p'-DDT) pg/g 12' 1.4' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 DDT, o,P- pg/g n/v n/v _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ <0.0020 DDT, o,p'-+ DDT, p,p'- pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Dieldrin pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Endosulfan pg/g n/v 0.04' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Endosulfan I pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Endosulfan II pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Endosulfan Sulfate pg/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.005 Endrin pg/g n/v 0.04' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - <0.0020 Heptachlor pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Heptachlor Epoxide pg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Hexachlorobenzene pg/g 10" 0.02' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0020 Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) pg/g n/v 0.01' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0050 Hexachloroe}hane pg/g n/v 0.01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.0050 Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) pg/g n/v 0.01' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 Methoxychlor )4,4' -Methoxychlor) pg/g I n/v 0.05 <0.0050 See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 4 of 7 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type MW 102-1 A 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW101-16 MW101.IC MW101-3 MW101-6 TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 Duplicate Ng/g 8A MW101-16 MW101-1C MW101-3 MW101-6 - - - - - 0.3. 0.4m 0.5-1.5m 3.1-4.6m 3.1.4.6m Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 4A TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX - - - - - MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX Units CCME Ontario SCS n/v - - - - MW 102-1 A 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1A MW102-11) 0.0.15m 0-0.15m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX - - Field - Duplicate MW 102-1 B 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MWI02-16 MW102-1E 0.15.0.3m 0.15. 0.3m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX - - Field - Duplicate MW102-1C 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1C MW102-11F 0.3. 1.5m 0.3. 1.5m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX - - Field - Duplicate MINI 20 -Nov -12 MW102-4 4.6 - 6.1 m TERRAPEX MAXX 12-4 20 -Nov -12 MWI03-4 4.6 - 6.1 m TERRAPEX MAXX Field Duplicate MW103-1A 20 -Nov -12 MW103-1A 0. 0.15m TERRAPEX MAXX MW103-16 20 -Nov -12 MW 103-1 B 0.15 - 1.5 m TERRAPEX MAXX Available (CaC12) pH S.U. 6-8A n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cyanide (Free) Ng/g 8A 0.051 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 4A 0.7' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fluoride Ng/g 2000" n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Moisture Content % n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pH S.U. 6-8A n/v - 7.11 - - - - - - 7.6 7.78 - - - 7.64 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) none 12' 51 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -A ana rerroieum nyaracaraons Benzene Pg/g 0.03A 0.02' - - 10.005 <0.005 - - - - - - <0.005 <0.005 - - Toluene Pg/g 0.37A 0.2' - - <0.02 <0.02 - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 - - Ethylbenzene Pg/g 0.082" 0.05, - - <0.01 <0.01 - - - - - - <0.01 10.01 - - Xylene, m & p- Pg/g n/v 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Xylene, o- Ng/g n/va 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - <1.0 Xylenes, Total Pg/g ill 0.05,,' - - <0.04 <0.04 - - - - - - <0.04 <0.04 - - PHCFI (C6 -C10 range) Pg/g 320' 25,0 - - <10 <10 - - - - - - 110 <10 - - PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX ug/g n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PHC F2 (>C 10-C16 range) Pg/g 260' 10-1 - - _ iIv - - - - - - 69000 <10 - - 44 58 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) Ng/g 1700' 240,0 - - 40 - - - - - - 40 - - PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) Pg/g 3300' 120,,o - - <10 110 - - - - - - <l0 <10 - - Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none n/v n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - merais Antimony Ng/g 40' 1.3' - <0.20 - - - - - - <0.20 <0.20 - - - <0.20 Arsenic Pg/g 12' 18' - 1.8 - - - - - - 1.7 2.2 - - - <1.0 Barium Pg/g 2000A 220' - 8 - - - - - - 7.8 8.9 - - - 8.8 Beryllium Ng/g 8A 2.5' - <0.20 - - - - - - <0.20 <0.20 - - - <0.20 Bismuth Ng/g n/v n/v - <1.0 - - - - - - <1.0 <1.0 - - - <1.0 Boron Ilg/g n/v 36„6 - <5.0 - - - - - - <5.0 <5.0 - - - <5.0 Boron (Available) Ug/g n/v 1.5, - 0.054 - - - - - - <0.050 <0.050 - - - <0.050 Cadmium Pg/g 22' 1.2' - <0.10 - - - - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 Calcium Ng/g n/v n/v - 76000 - - - - - - 67000 69000 - - - 47000 Chromium (Hexavalent) Pg/g 1.4A 0.66' - <0.2 - - - - - - <0.2 <0.2 - - - <0.2 Chromium (Total) Pg/g 87' 70' - 3.5 - - - - - - 3.5 3.7 - - - 3.3 Cobalt ug/g 300A 22' - 1.7 - - - - - - 1.7 2.1 - - - 1.4 Copper Pg/g 91A 92' - 4.1 - - - - - - 3.9 4.3 - - - 3 Iron ug/g n/v n/v - 5400 - - - - - - 4600 5600 - - - 4400 Lead Pg/g 260A 120' - 3.8 - - - - - - 3.6 3.8 - - - 2.6 Magnesium Ng/g n/v n/v - 9900 - - - - - - B400 9000 - - - 8000 Manganese Ng/g n/v n/v - 190 - - - - - - 180 210 - - - 140 Mercury Ng/g 24A 0.27' - <0.050 - - - - - - <0.050 <0.050 - - - <0.050 Molybdenum Pg/g 40' 2� - <0.50 - - - - - - 10.50 <0.50 - - - <0.50 Nickel Ilg/g 50' 82' - 3.2 - - - - - - 3.2 3.6 - - - 2.5 Phosphorus Ng/g n/v n/v - 520 - - - - - - 370 400 - - - 460 Potassium Ng/g n/v n/v - <200 - - - - - - <200 <200 - - - <200 Selenium Ng/g 2.9A 1.51 - <0.50 - - - - - - <0.50 <0.50 - - - <0.50 Silver Ng/g 40A 0.5' - <0.20 - - - - - - <0.20 <0.20 - - - <0.20 Sodium Ng/g n/v n/a' - <100 - - - - - - <100 <100 - - - <100 Strontium Ng/g n/v n/v - 95 - - - - - - 83 84 - - - 57 Sulfur Ng/g n/v n/v - 200 - - - - - - 170 150 - - - 64 Thallium Ng/g lA 11 - <0.050 - - - - - - <0.050 <0.050 - - - <0.050 Tin Pg/g 300A n/v - <5.0 - - - - - - <5.0 <5.0 - - - 15.0 Tungsten Ng/g n/v n/v - <1 - - - - - - <1 <1 - - - <1 Uranium Ng/g 33A 2.5' - 0.25 - - - - - - 0.22 0.22 - - - 0.19 Vanadium Ng/g 130A 86' - 8.5 - - - - - - 6.3 7.3 - - - 6.4 Zinc Ng/g 360A 290' - 15 - - - - - - 13 14 - - - 14 Zirconium Ng/g n/v n/v - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 - - - 11 See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 5 of 7 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons MW 102-1 A 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW701-16 MW 101.1C MW101-3 MW101-6 TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 Duplicate Pg/g 320' MW701-16 MW 101-1C MW101-3 MW101-6 - - - 0.0089 <0.010 0.3. 0.4m 0.5-1.5m 3.1-4.6m 3.1.4.6m Anthracene Ng/g 32DFH TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX TERRAPEX - - - 0.042 0.02 MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX Units CCME Ontario SCS 0.36' 0.063 - - - MW 102-1 A 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1A MW102-1D 0.0.15m 0-0.15m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX - - Field <0.0050 Duplicate MW 102-1 B 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MWI02-16 MW102-1E 0.15.0.3m 0.15. 0.3m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX - - Field <0.0050 Duplicate MW102-1C 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1C MW702-1F 0.3. 1.5m 0.3. 1.5m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX - - Field <0.0050 Duplicate MW7 20 -Nov -12 MW102-4 4.6 - 6.1 m TERRAPEX MAXX )2-4 20 -Nov -12 MWI03-4 4.6 - 6.1 m TERRAPEX MAXX Field Duplicate MW103-1A 20 -Nov -12 MW103-1A 0. 0.15m TERRAPEX MAXX MW103-16 20 -Nov -12 MW 103-1 B 0.15 - 1.5 m TERRAPEX MAXX Acenaphthene Pg/g 0.28' 0.072' '0.010 - - - - - '0.030 - - - - - <0.0050 Acenaphthylene Pg/g 320' 0.093' 10.0050 - - - - - 0.0089 <0.010 - - - - - <0.0050 Anthracene Ng/g 32DFH 0.22' 0.028 - - - - - 0.042 0.02 - - - - - <0.0050 Benzo(a)anthracene Pg/g 10DE 0.36' 0.063 - - - - - 0.23 0.086 - - - - - <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene Ng/g 72°fH 8800' 0.3' 0.028 - - - - - 0.08 0.033 - - - - - <0.0050 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Pg/g IODE 0.4712' 0.028 - - - - - 0.12 0.047 - - - - - 10.0050 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Ng/g n/v 0.68' 0.017 - - - - - 0.057 0.029 - - - - - <0.0050 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Ng/g io.E 048' 0.0053 - - - - - 0.021 0.0097 - - - - - <0.0050 Chrysene Ng/g n/v 2.8' 0.093 - - - - - 0.32 0.12 - - - - - <0.0050 Dibenzo(a,h)anthrocene Ng/g LODE 011 0.0056 - - - - - 0.017 0.0068 - - - - - <0.0050 Fluoranthene Ng/g 1DFH 0.69' 0.046 - - - - - 0.22 0.081 - - - - - <0.0050 Fluorene Ng/g 0.25' 0.19, 0.015 - - - - - 0.077 0.025 - - - - - <0.0050 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Ng/g 1oDF 0.23' 0.0063 - - - - - 0.028 0.012 - - - - - <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene (Total) Ng/g n/v 0.59j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- Ng/g n/v j 0.34 - - - - - 2.3 0.8 - - - - - <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene, 2- Ng/g n/v ,s1 0.41 - - - - - 2.7 1.2 - - - - - <0.0050 Naphthalene 11g/g 0.013D' 22E 0.09 n/v - - - - - <0.0020 - - - - - <0.0050 Phenanthrene Ug/g 0.046, Do 50F 0.69 n/v - - - - - !! - - - - - <0.0050 Pyrene Ng/g 100DE i1 !0.061 - - - - - 0.26 0.095 - - - - - <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents Ng/g 5.3a.y,' n/v Endrin - - - - - 0.14 0.06 - - - - - 0.01 rorycmunnurea ulpnenya Aroclor 1016 Ng/g n/v 0.3,14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1221 Ng/g n/v 0.3,14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1232 Ng/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1242 Ng/g n/v 0.3114' - - - - 10.015 <0.015 - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1248 Ng/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - <0.015 <0.015 - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1254 Ng/g n/v 0.3114 - - - - <0.015 <0.015 - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1260 Ng/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - <0.015 <0.015 - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1262 Ng/g n/v 0.3 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroclor 1268 Ng/g n/v 0.3,14' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pg/g 1 33" 0.3,14 - - - - <0.015 <0.015 - - - - - - 10.015 - urganocmonne resticraes Ndrin Ng/g n/v 0.05' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Chlordane (Total). Ng/g n/v 0.05' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - 10.0020 - Chlordone, alpha- 11g/g n/v n/v - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Chlordane, gamma- Ug/g n/v n/v - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDD (p,p'-DDD) yg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - 0.002 0.003 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDD, o,p'- Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - 10.0020 '0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDD, o,p'-+ DDD, p,p'- Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - 0.002 0.003 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDE (p,p'-DDE) Ng/g n/v 0.05' - - - - 0.018 0.018 - - - - - - 0.009 - DDE, o,p'- Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDE, o,p'-+ DDE, p,p- Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - 0.018 0.018 - - - - - - 0.009 - DDT (p,p'-DDT) Ng/g 12" 1,4' - - - - 0.005 0.016 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDT, o,p'- Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDT, o,p'-+ DDT, p,p'- Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - 0.005 0.016 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Dieldrin Ng/g n/v 0.05' - - - - '0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Endosulfan Ng/g n/v 0.04' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Endosulfan I Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Endosulfan II Ng/g n/v n/v - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Endosulfan Sulfate pg/g n/v n/v - - - - -0.005 <0.005 - - - - - - <0.005 - Endrin yg/g n/v 0.04' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Heptachlor hg/g n/v 0.05' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Heptachlor Epoxide Ng/g n/v 0.05' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Hexachlorobenzene Pg/g 10" 0.02' - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Hexachlorobutodiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) Ng/g n/v 0.011 - - - - <0.0050 <0.0050 - - - - - - <0.0050 - Hexachloroethane Ng/g n/v 0.011 - - - - <0.0050 <0.0050 - - - - - - <0.0050 - Undone (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) Ng/g n/v 0.011 - - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - Methoxychlor (4,4' -Methoxychlor) Ng/g I n/v 0.05' <0.0050 <0.0050 10.0050 See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 6 of 7 Table B.1 - Summary of Soil Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Notes: CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment A Canadian Environmental Qualify Guidelines, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, on-line summary table, for commercial land use and coarse grained soil e Canada Wide Standards for PHC in Soil - Commercial land use - Coarse-grained Surface Soil, tier 1 (Revised. Jan 2008, Table 3), lowest guideline of all pathways c Canadian Soil Quality Guideline for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, PAH, 2008. revised 2010, for a Commercial land use (Table 1 - Direct contact) ° Canadian Soil Qualify Guideline for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, PAH, 2008. revised 2010, for a Commercial land use (Table 1 - Environmental health guidelines based on non -carcinogenic effects of PAHs) E Canadian Soil Quality Guideline for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, PAH, 2008. revised 2010, for a Commercial land use (Table 2 -Interim/Provisional Soil Quality Critera, CCME 1991) F Canadian Soil Quality Guideline for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, PAH, 2008. revised 2010, for a Commercial land use (Table 2 - Soil Quality Guideline for Environmental Health) G Canadian Soil Quality Guideline for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, PAH, 2008. revised 2010, for a Commercial land use (Table 2 - Soil Quality Guideline for Protection of freshwater life) H Canadian Soil Quality Guideline for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, PAH, 2008. revised 2010, for a Commercial land use (Table 2 - Soil Quality Guideline for Soil Contact) Ontario SCS Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act (MOE, 201 1) Table 9 - Residential / Parkland / Institutional / Industrial / Commercial / Community Property Use -Concentration exceeds the indicated standard. 15.2 Measured concentration was less than the applicable standard. <0.50 Laboratory reportable detection limit was greater than the applicable standard. <0.03 Analyte was not detected at a concentration greater than The laboratory reportable detection limit. n/v No standard/guideline value. Parameter not analyzed / not available. SQG based on an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1 in 100,000 (10e-5). B[O]P TPE = Benzo[a]pyrene Total Potency Equivalents, which is the sum of estimated cancer potency relative to B[a]P for all potentially carcinogenic unsubstituted PAHs. The B[a]P TPE for a soil sample is calculated by multiplying the concentration of each PAH in the sample by its B[a]P Potency Equivalence Factor (PEF), given below, and summing the products: Benz[a]anthracene = 0.1, Benzo[a]pyrene = 1, Benzo[b+j+k]fluoranthene = 0.1, Benzo[g,h,i]perylene = 0.01, Chrysene = 0.01, Dibenz[a,h]anthracene =1, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene = 0.1. e This value is the Soil Quality Guideline for the Protection of Freshwater Life. Users may wish to consider the application, on a site-specific basis, of this value where potential impacts to nearby surface waters are a concern (the value may be less than the common limit of detection in some jurisdictions; and the 1991 Interim Soil Quality Criteria for phenanthrene). iia Not applicable. ,I Standard is applicable to total xylenes, and m & p -xylenes and o -xylenes should be summed for comparison. :s Standard is for benzo(b)fluoranthene; however, the analytical laboratory can not distinguish between benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzoij)fluoranthene, and therefore, the result is a combination of the two isomers, against which the standard has been compared. 53 Standard is applicable to both 1 -methylnaphthalene and 2 -methylnaphthalene, with The provision that if both are detected The sum of the two must not exceed The standard. ,7 Standard is applicable to PHC in the Fl range minus BTEX. Standard is applicable to PHC in the F3 range, minus PAHs (other than naphthalene). If PAHs were not analyzed, the standard is applied to F3. ,10 If baseline is not reached during F4 analysis, then gravimetric analysis is to be performed, and the standard is applied to the higher of the two results. a4 Standard is applicable to total PCBs, and the individual Aroclors should be added for comparison. :is Standard is applicable to PHC in the F2 range minus naphthalene. If naphthalene was not analyzed, the standard is applied to F2. iib For surface soil, the boron standard is for hot watersoluble extract. For subsurface soil, the standard is for total boron (mixed strong acid digest), as ecological criteria are not considered. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. Sta ntec 122511076 .�,,. .......�...��,....,....,�....................... ....e..-..,-,....- Page 7of7 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix B Tables September 11, 2015 B.2 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS ® Stantec Table B.2 - Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L 120000" 5 120" n/v 1800000, n/v n/v n/v MW15-1 MW -99 MW101 MWI02 MWI03 MW -201 MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 Field Blank Trip Blank Sample Date - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 I 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 3 -Feb -15 Sample ID - <100 - <100 MW15-1 MW15-1 LR MW75-20 MW -99 MW101 MW101 MW102 MW102 MW102LR MW103 MW104 MW103 MW103LR MW -201 MW-201LR MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 BH1110 TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANK Sampling Company pg/L n/v n/v STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC SNC TERRAPEX STANTEC TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC TERRAPEX TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC STANTEC SNC STANTEC Laboratory - - - MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX - <10 - <10 - 6521799/ 8521799/ - B521799/ 8521799/ 8521799/ - - - - - pH Laboratory Work Order 6.5-9° n/v 7.34 B510567 8521799 8510567 84M4234 _ B510567 _ 8510567 8521799 - 8510567 6521799 62M4242 B2M4242 84M4113 B4M4113 B2M4242 6521799 B4M4234 6521799 7.83 7.78 7.65 - ZL0821/ ZL0824/ - ZL0820/ ZL0819/ ZL0818/ n/v 1<5000 MI <5000 1<1000 - - <1000 Laboratory Sample ID <0.40 - -I LQ9646 ZL0821 LQ9647 YQ0484 LQ9645 _ LQ9644 ZL0819 _ _ LQ9643 ZL0818 YQ0539 YQ0539 YP9800 YP9801 Y00540 ZL0822 YQ0484 ZL0823 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) Field ,7 ,7 <25 Field <25 <25 - <25 - <25 - Sample Type Units FIGQG Ontario SCS Lab Replicate <25 <25 Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate <25 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX pg/L Field Blank Trip Blank <25 - <25 <25 Duplicate <25 <25 <25 - Duplicate <25 <25 - 125 - <25 <25 Chloride Cyanide (Weak Acid Dissociable) Fluoride Hardness (as CaCO3) pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L 120000" 5 120" n/v 1800000, n/v n/v n/v 94000 <1.0 110 620000 94000 - - - 93000 <1.0 110 620000 - - - - - 4000 - <1.0 - 120 300000 580000 - - - 510000 16000 <1.0 - - - - - - - 690000 - - - 680000 14000 - <1.0 - - 370000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 500000 Nitrate (as N) pg/L 3000,izA n/v <100 - <100 - - <100 - <100 - - - <100 - - - - - - - - - Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) pg/L n/v n/v <100 - <100 - - <100 - <100 - - - 1100 - - - - - - - - - Nitrlte (as N) pg/L 60' n/v <10 - <10 - - <10 - <10 - - - <10 - - - - - - - - - pH S.U. 6.5-9° n/v 7.34 - 7.35 - 7.3 7.18 7.3 7.60 - 6.89 6.91 7.52 - 7.67 - 7.83 7.78 7.65 - - - Sulfate pg/L I 100000" n/v 1<5000 MI <5000 1<1000 - - <1000 - <0.40 - -I - 123000 - - - - - - I - I - I - on ano rerroieum nyarocaroons Benzene pg/L 690A 44, <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 10.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Toluene pg/L 83, 14000, <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - 0.52 0.49 0.58 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Ethylbenzene pg/L 41000" 1800, <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Xylene, m & p- pg/L "I "I <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 - <0.40 - <0.40 - - - <0.40 - <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 Xylene, o- pg/L ,iA , <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Xylenes, Total pg/L 18000" 3300,,8 <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.20 <0.40 <0.20 <0.40 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.40 - <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) pg/L ,7 ,7 <25 - <25 <25 - <25 - <25 - - - <25 - <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX pg/L 9100" 420178 <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 <25 <25 - 125 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 PHC F2(>C10-C16 range) pg/L 1300" 150,15, <100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - <100 <100 <100 - <100 - <100 <1D0 <100 <100 - <100 PHC F3(>C16-C34 range) pg/L n/v 500,ss <200 - <200 <200 <100 <200 <100 <200 - <100 <100 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 <200 <200 - <200 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) pg/L n/v 500,io, <200 - <200 <200 <100 <200 <100 <200 - <100 <100 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 <200 <200 - <200 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none n/v n/v YES - YES YES - YES - YES - - - YES - YES - YES YES YES YES - YES Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium pg/L pg/L pg/L pg/L 100, 2000" 5, 2900A n/v 16000, 15008 23000, 4.2 <0.60 - - - - 3.9 10.60 - - - - 1.2 10.60 3.3 97 4.3 <0.60 1.4 <0.60 <3.0 <0.60 - - - - 2.2 <0.60 4.1 110 2.2 <0.60 4.5 120 <3.0 <0.60 3.2 110 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 130 130 120 150 170 Beryllium pg/L. 5.3, 538 <1.0 - <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - - - - - - - Bismuth pg/L n/v n/v - - - - <5 - <5 - - <5 <5 - - - - - - - - - - Boron pg/L n/v 360008 28 - 27 - 82 28 77 62 - 41 38 44 - - - - - - - - - Cadmium pg/L 0.017, 2.1, <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.010 - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 - - - - - - - - - Calcium pg/L n/v n/v 210000 - 210000 - 100000 190000 190000 180000 - 200000 210000 120000 - - - - - - - - - Chromium (Hexavalent) pg/L n/v 110, <0.50 - <0.50 - <0.5 <0.50 <0.5 <0.50 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 - - - - - - - - - Chromium (Total) pg/L 8.9A 6408 <1.0 - <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - - - - - - - Cobalt pg/L n/v 52, 0.73 - 0.72 - 1.1 0.67 0.75 0.83 - 0.6 0.63 0.71 - - - - - - - - - Copper pg/L 4, 698 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.37 - 0.73 0.7 0.51 - - - - - - - - - Iron pg/L 300, n/v - - - - - - - - - - - - Lead pg/L 7A 208 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <020 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - - - - - - - - - Lithium pg/L n/v n/v <20 - <20 - <20 <20 <20 <20 - <20 <20 <20 - - - - - - - - - Magnesium pg/L n/v n/v 23000 - 23000 - 12000 27000 13000 13000 - 28000 29000 14000 - - - - - - - - - Manganese pg/L n/v n/v 1600 - 1600 - 640 3500 950 750 - 1800 1800 860 - - - - - - - - - Mercury pg/L 0.026, 0.298 <0.01 - <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - - - - - - - Molybdenum pg/L 73' 7300, 0.41 - 0.40 - 4.1 0.24 4.7 4.0 - 0.73 0.64 2.6 - - - - - - - - - Nickel pg/L 150, 3908 0.63 - 0.60 - 1.7 <0.50 0.98 1.1 - <0.50 <0.50 1.2 - - - - - - - - - Phosphorus pg/L n/v n/v 260 - 240 - <100 1600 <100 <100 - 810 790 <100 - - - - - - - - - Potassium pg/L n/v n/v 2500 - 2400 - 2300 4200 2800 3700 - 4900 5200 1500 - - - - - - - - - Selenium pg/L lA 50, <0.20 - <0.20 - 0.31 0.40 <0.20 <0.20 - 0.37 0.36 <0.20 - - - - - - - - - Silicon pg/L n/v n/v 6100 - 6100 - 5700 11000 6900 5600 - 11000 12000 4900 - - - - - - - - - Silver pg/L O.IA 1.2, <0.10 - <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - - - - - - - - - Sodium pg/L n/v 18000008 57000 - 57000 - 41000 3300 13000 11000 - 4300 4500 16000 - - - - - - - - - Strontium pg/L I n/v n/v 570 - 570 - 240 630 720 1 600 - 610 1 630 270 - - - - - - - - - See notes on last page l'V Stantec 122511076 Page 1 of 3 Table B.2 - Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Sample Location pg/L n/v n/v MW15-1 MW -99 MW101 MWI02 MWI03 MW -201 MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 Field Blank Trip Blank Sample Date - - - - 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 I 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 26 -Nov -14 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 3 -Feb -15 Sample ID <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - MW15-1 MW15-1 LR MW75-20 MW -99 MW101 MW101 MW102 MW102 MW102LR MW103 MW104 MW103 MW103LR MW -201 MW-201LR MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 BH1110 TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANK Sampling Company n/v n/v <I.0 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC SNC TERRAPEX STANTEC TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC TERRAPEX TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC SNC SNC SNC SNC SNC STANTEC SNC STANTEC Laboratory - - - MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 6521799/ 8521799/ <1.0 B521799/ 8521799/ 8521799/ - - - - - Tungsten pg/L Laboratory Work Order n/v - - B510567 8521799 8510567 84M4234 _ B510567 _ 8510567 8521799 - 8510567 6521799 62M4242 132104242 84M4113 B4104113 B2M4242 6521799 B4M4234 6521799 - - - - ZL0821/ ZL0824/ Uranium ZL0820/ ZL0819/ ZL0818/ 0.56 - 0.55 - 0.36 <0.10 Laboratory Sample ID 0.27 - 0.75 0.74 LQ9646 ZL0821 LQ9647 YQ0484 LQ9645 _ LQ9644 ZL0819 _ _ LQ9643 ZL0818 YQ0539 YQ0539 YP9800 YP9801 Y00540 ZL0822 YQ0484 ZL0823 2008 1.0 - 1.1 Field <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Field <1.0 <I.0 <1.0 - - - - Sample Type Units FIGQG Ontario SCS Lab Replicate pg/L 301 Lab Replicate Lab Replicate Lab Replicate <3.0 - <3.0 Field Blank Trip Blank <3.0 - <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 Duplicate - - - - Duplicate - - - Zirconium pg/L I n/v n/v Metals (Continued) Sulfur pg/L n/v n/v 1100 - 1100 - 79000 1700 70000 65000 - 8100 69000 6000 - - - - - - - - - Thallium pg/L 0.81 4008 10.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - - - - - - - - - Tin pg/L n/v n/v <I.0 - <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - - - - - - - Titanium pg/L 100" n/v <1.0 - 1.4 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - - - - - - - Tungsten pg/L n/v n/v - - - - <10 - <10 - - <10 <10 - - - - - - - - - - Uranium pg/L 151 3308 0.56 - 0.55 - 0.36 <0.10 0.23 0.27 - 0.75 0.74 0.47 - - - - - - - - - Vanadium pg/L n/v 2008 1.0 - 1.1 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <I.0 <1.0 - - - - - - - - - Zinc pg/L 301 8908 13.0 - <3.0 - <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 - <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 - - - - - - - - - Zirconium pg/L I n/v n/v - I - I - I - 1 <3.0 - 1 <3.0 - I- 1 <3.0 <3.0 - - - - - - - - - - rorycycuc Aromatic nyarocaroons Acenaphthene pg/L 5.81 6008 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 0.067 <0.010 <0.010 - - - Acenaphthylene pg/L 461 1.48 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 - <0.010 0.014 0.31 0.018 <0.010 - - - Aciidine pg/L 0.05A n/v - - - - <0.032 - <0.032 - - <0.032 <0.032 - - - - - - - - - - Anthrocene pg/L 0.012" 18 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - 0.012 -0.018 0.571 <0.010 0.010 - - - Benzo(a)anthracene pg/L 0.0189A 1.88 <0.010 - 0.010 - <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.021A 0.038A 1.5A 0.011 0.018 - - - Benzo(a)pyrene pg/L 0.015gA 0.818 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.0075 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.010 10.010 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.010 - 0.0191 0.034A 1.3AB 0.01 - - - Benzo(b)fluoranthene pg/L n/v 0.758 - - - - <0.0085 - <0.0085 - - <0.0085 <0.0085 - - - - - - - - - - Benzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) pg/L 3.4A n/v - - - - <0.20 - <0.20 - - <0.20 <0.20 - - - - - - - - - - Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene pg/L 0.489A 0.75128 <0.010 - 0.014 - - <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 - - <0.010 - 0.025 0.043 0.014 0.021 - - - Benzo(c)phenanthrene pg/L n/v n/v - - - - <0.050 - <0.050 - - <0.050 <0.050 - - - - - - - - - - Benzo(e)pyrene pg/L n/v n/v <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 - - - - - - - - - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/L 0.17gA 0.28 <0.010 - <0.010 - 10.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.011 0.018 <0.010 <0.010 - - - Benzo(k)fluoranthene pg/L 0.489A 0.48 <0.010 - <0.010 - 10.0085 <0.010 <0.D085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.010 0.016 <0.010 <0.010 - - - Biphenyl, 1,1'- (Biphenyl) pg/L n/v 17008 <0.010 - <0.010 - - <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 - - <0.010 - - - - - - - - - Chrysene pg/L 1.4gA 0.78 <0.010 - 0.011 - <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.019 0.033 0.011 0.017 - - - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene pg/L 0.26gA 0.48 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.0075 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 0.23 <0.010 <0.010 - - - Fluoranthene pg/L 0.04A 738 0.018 - 0.029 - <0.040 <0.010 <0.040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.040 <0.040 <0.010 - 0.03 - - - Fluorene pg/L 3A 2908 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 - 0.010 0.014 0.29 0.015 0.010 - - - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyre ne pg/L 0.21 gA 0.28 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.D085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.011 0.019 <0.010 <0.010 - - - Methylnophtholene (Total) pg/L 180A 1500,3 - - - - <0.10 - <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - - - - - - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- pg/L 180,x" s38 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 - 0.12 0.14 0.25 0.2 0.12 - - - Methylnophtholene, 2- pg/L 180:3A 138 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 - 0.18 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.17 - - - Naphthalene pg/L 1.1A 14008 0.011 - 0.011 - <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 - 0.17 0.18 0.21 0.2 0.16 - - - Perylene pg/L n/v n/v 0.018 - 0.018 - <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 - - - - - - - - - Phenanthrene pg/l. 0.41 3808 0.013 - 0.020 - <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 - 0.057 0.081 RL 2.1lllllllllllllllll 0.047 0.053 - - - Pyrene pg/L 0.025" 5.78 1 0.014 1 0.022 - <0.020 <0.010 1 <0.020 1 <0.010 I <0.010 1 10.020 1 <0.20 1 <0.010 - 0.054A 0.084 RLA 2.5A 0.037A 0.048A - - - See notes on last page l'V Stantec 122511076 .,,,, ..... ,,,,,,... .... . ..,.-.. ,. ..-,. ,.,. ,. ... Page 2of3 Table B.2 - Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Remedial Options Analysis and Remedial/Risk Management Action Plan - Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour Notes: FIGQG Guidance Document on Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites (Government of Canada, March 2014) A Table 3 Federal Interim Groundwater Guidelines - Generic Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Land Use - (Tier 2) Lowest Guideline of inhalation, soil organisms direct contact and freshwater life - Coarse Ontario SCS Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act (MOE, 2011) B Table 9 - All Types of Property Use Concentration exceeds the indicated standard. 15.2 Measured concentration was less than the applicable standard. <0.50 Laboratory reportable detection limit was greater than the applicable standard. <0.03 Analyte was not detected at a concentration greater than the laboratory reportable detection limit. n/v No standard/guideline value. Parameter not analyzed / not available. Guideline is the lowest of all applicable pathways. 9 For ecological receptors only. "I Standard is applicable to total xylenes, and m & p -xylenes and o -xylenes should be summed for comparison. "A The criterion is applicable to total xylenes, and m & p -xylenes and o -xylenes should be summed for comparison. s2 Standard is for benzo(b)fluoranthene; however, the analytical laboratory can not distinguish between benzo(b)fluoranthene and benzo(i)fluoranthene, and therefore, the result is a combination of the two isomers, against which the standard has been compared. 'a Standard is applicable to both 1 -methylnaphthalene and 2 -methylnaphthalene, with the provision that if both are detected the sum of the two must not exceed the standard. s3A The criterion is for methylnaphthalenes, therefore the sum of 1 -methylnaphthalene and 2 -methylnaphthalene. must be calculated for comparison. :7 Standard is applicable to PHC in the Fl range minus BTEX. Standard is applicable to PHC in the F3 range, minus PAHs (other than naphthalene). If PAHs were not analyzed, the standard is applied to F3. :10 If baseline is not reached during F4 analysis, then gravimetric analysis is to be performed, and the standard is applied to the higher of the two results. viz Added for Nitrate -N as guideline only present for Nitrate. Divided the Nitrate guideline by 4.4. :is Standard is applicable to PHC in the F2 range minus naphthalene. If naphthalene was not analyzed, the standard is applied to F2. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. RL Recovery or RPD for this parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria. Sta ntec 122511076 .,,. ....... ...,.. ..,...., �....................... ....e.. -.. ,-,....- Page 3of3 FINAL REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL/RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN - SOIL AND GROUNDWATER Appendix B Tables September 11, 2015 B.3 REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS ® Stantec B.14 Table B.3 - REMEDIAL OPTIONS ANALYSIS Maximum of Range of Opinion of NPV Probable Remediation and Risk - Management Costs, including Contingency FV - Negligible cost 1) Cost Given absence of risk, land use monitoring is considered an effective management strategy. 2) Effectiveness 4 Given absence of risk, land use monitoring is likely to be acceptable to regulatory agencies. Additional risk assessment and R/RM measures may be required 3) Regulatory Acceptability should the land use of the property change. 4 Duration is undetermined - to be maintained while DFO is owner 4) Timeframe 4 Easiest option to implement, and most sustainable in terms of material and energy usage. 5) Implementability 5 The community is considered likely to favour the cessation of monitoring activities, and the 6) Community/stakeholder acceptance municipality is likely to want to retain monitoring wells 5 on-site for future potential use. Summary . • - Considered • option giventhe negligible cost, •• ••• humanrisks to -• 27.. - Notes: 1 - For all criteria except cost effectiveness, a qualitative absolute score from 1 to 5 is used, with 5 being the highest score possible. As a result, the maximum or minimum score may not be reached by any given option. For cost effectiveness, the score is based on a quantitative absolute scale: ('option cost' minus 'lowest cost')/ (highest cost' minus'lowest cost') x - 2 - Refer to criteria definitions in the report body. 3 - Refer to 'Abbreviations' (section II of the report) for acronym definitions. Page 1 of 1 9/9/2015 V:\01225\active\122511076\reports\ROA\final\tbl_DFO_Burwell_SoilGW_ROA_FINAL_20150911 xlsm\B3_ROA Stantec Consulting Ltd.