Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
13 - Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment & Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil & Groundwater at Port Burwell
Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil and Groundwater at Port Burwell Project No. 122511076 (30 Stantec Prepared for: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 400-1331 Clyde Avenue Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 FINAL September 11, 2015 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK .................... 1.1 2.0 SITE CHARACTERIZATION............................................................................................2.1 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................2.1 2.1.1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use ........................................... 2.1 2.1.2 Site Services.................................................................................................. 2.2 2.1.3 Topography and Drainage........................................................................ 2.2 2.1.4 Regional Stratigraphy................................................................................. 2.2 2.1.5 Biological Setting......................................................................................... 2.3 2.2 PREVIOUS REPORTS........................................................................................................ 2.4 2.3 ANALYTICAL SAMPLING SUMMARY............................................................................. 2.6 3.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT.............................................................................3.1 3.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION.............................................................................................. 3.1 3.1.1 Identification of Human Health COPCs................................................... 3.2 3.1.2 Identification of Human Receptors........................................................... 3.4 3.1.3 Identification of Human Health Exposure Pathways .............................. 3.7 3.1.4 Human Health Conceptual Site Model..................................................3.12 3.1.5 Problem Formulation Uncertainty Evaluation........................................3.12 3.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT...............................................................................................3.14 3.2.1 Bioavailability............................................................................................. 3.14 3.2.2 Exposure Equations................................................................................... 3.15 3.2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations............................................................... 3.15 3.2.4 Exposure Dose Results............................................................................... 3.16 3.2.5 Exposure Assessment Uncertainty Evaluation........................................3.17 3.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT..................................................................................................3.18 3.3.1 Toxicological Reference Values..............................................................3.18 3.3.2 Toxicity Assessment Uncertainty Evaluation ........................................... 3.19 3.4 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION............................................................... 3.21 3.4.1 Non -Carcinogenic Health Effects........................................................... 3.21 3.4.2 Carcinogenic Health Effects....................................................................3.21 3.4.3 Non -Carcinogenic Risk Characterization.............................................. 3.22 3.4.4 Risk Characterization Uncertainty Evaluation ....................................... 3.25 3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................3.26 4.0 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT.................................................4.1 4.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION.............................................................................................. 4.1 4.1.1 Identification of Ecological COPCs.......................................................... 4.2 ® Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL 4.1.2 Identification of Ecological Receptors.....................................................4.8 4.1.3 Identification of Ecological Exposure Pathways ..................................... 4.9 4.1.4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model......................................................... 4.10 4.1.5 Problem Formulation Uncertainty Evaluation........................................4.12 4.2 RISK CHARACTERIZATION............................................................................................ 4.13 4.2.1 Terrestrial Environment.............................................................................. 4.13 4.2.2 Aquatic Environment................................................................................ 4.13 4.3 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................4.15 5.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................5.1 6.0 CLOSURE......................................................................................................................6.1 7.0 STANTEC QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........................................................7.1 8.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................8.1 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Summary of Species of Conservation Concern Potentially at the Site ............ 2.3 Table 3-1 Summary of the Human Health Screening of COPCs in Soil .............................. 3.3 Table 3-2 Summary of Human Health COPCs....................................................................... 3.4 Table 3-3 Human Receptor Characteristics........................................................................... 3.6 Table 3-4 Potential Exposure Pathways for Toddler Site Visitor ............................................ 3.8 Table 3-5 Potential Exposure Pathways for Adult Site Visitor ............................................... 3.9 Table 3-6 Potential Exposure Pathways for Landscape Worker ........................................ 3.10 Table 3-7 Potential Exposure Pathways for Construction Worker ..................................... 3.11 Table 3-8 Summary of Exposure Frequency and Duration for Human Health Receptors .................................................................................................................................................... 3.14 Table 3-9 Exposure Point Concentrations for Human Health COPCs .............................. 3.15 Table 3-10 Toddler Site Visitor COPC Doses from Soil ......................................................... 3.16 Table 3-11 Adult Site Visitor COPC Doses from Soil............................................................. 3.16 Table 3-12 Landscape Worker COPC Doses from Soil ....................................................... 3.16 Table 3-13 Construction Worker COPC Doses from Soil ..................................................... 3.17 Table 3-14 Adult Site Visitor Carcinogenic COPC Doses from Soil .................................... 3.17 Table 3-15 Landscape Worker Carcinogenic COPC Doses from Soil .............................. 3.17 Table 3-16 Toxicological Reference Values Used in Human Health Risk Assessment .... 3.18 Table 3-17 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Toddler Site Visitor from Soil ................................... 3.22 Table 3-18 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Adult Site Visitor from Soil ....................................... 3.22 Table 3-19 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Landscape Worker from Soil ................................. 3.23 Table 3-20 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Construction Worker from Soil ............................... 3.23 Table 3-21 Cancer Risk to Adult Site Visitor from Soil.......................................................... 3.24 Table 3-22 Cancer Risk to Landscape Worker from Soil ..................................................... 3.24 Table 4-1 Summary of the Ecological Screening of Contaminants in Soil ......................... 4.3 Table 4-2 Summary of the Ecological Screening of Contaminants in Groundwater ...... 4.4 Table 4-3 Summary of Ecological COPCs..............................................................................4.5 Table 4-4 Summary of the MOECC Ecological Screening of COPCs in Soil ...................... 4.6 Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Table 4-5 Summary of Valued Ecological Components..................................................... 4.8 Table 4-6 Ecological Exposure Pathways...............................................................................4.9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model..............................................................3.13 Figure 4-1 Ecological Conceptual Site Model..................................................................... 4.11 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIGURES.....................................................................................................A.1 APPENDIX B DATA TABLES............................................................................................. B.1 APPENDIX C HUMAN HEALTH SCREENING....................................................................C.1 APPENDIX D HUMAN HEALTH TOXICITY PROFILES........................................................ D.1 APPENDIX E HHRA INPUTS AND CALCULATIONS..........................................................E.1 APPENDIX F ECOLOGICAL HEALTH SCREENING...........................................................F.1 APPENDIX G LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ESA.......................................................G.1 Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Executive Summary Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to conduct a human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA) and screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) of soil and groundwater, with remedial and/or risk management option analysis and development of a remedial action plan, at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario. The PQRA/SLERA was completed using soil and groundwater data collected by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex) in 2012, SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC) in 2014, and Stantec in 2015. The purpose of the PQRA/SLERA was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to soil and groundwater for the terrestrial portion of the Site, to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. Note that the aquatic environment (i.e., sediment and surface water) have been assessed by Stantec under separate cover. For the human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes exceeded risk-based guidelines for commercial land use, for direct contact with soil and were carried forward into the PQRA. 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 PQRA 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" human health 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, benzo(ghi)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene in groundwater, were carried through for risk assessment. However, the results suggest that there are no significant risks to aquatic or terrestrial receptors at the Site, including species of conservation concern. ® Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL The results of the site-specific risk assessment (SSRA) of the aquatic environment (Stantec, 2015) determined that there were no human health risks to the selected human receptors due to applicable exposure pathways (i.e., inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with Site surface water, and consumption of fish caught at the Site) for all non -carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs. Similarly, the results of the ecological risk assessment suggested that, based on a weight - of -evidence approach, which used surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry, fish tissue residues and benthic community analysis, the COPCs identified within the surface water and sediment did not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie. Overall, the results suggest that there are no risks to 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 individuals. 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 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Abbreviations APEC Area of Potential Environmental Concern ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BC MOE British Columbia Ministry of the Environment BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CCME CEQG CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines CCME ISQG CCME Interim Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines CCME SQG CCME Soil Quality Guideline COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern CPR Canadian Pacific Railway CR Cancer Risk CSM Conceptual Site Model DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DLRA Detailed Level Risk Assessment DQRA Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment EPC Exposure Point Concentration ESA Environmental Site Assessment ERA Ecological Risk Assessment FCSAP Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan FCSI Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory FIGQG Canadian Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guideline HQ Hazard Quotient HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment LEL Lowest Effect Levels masl meters above sea level mbgs meters below ground surface MOECC Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (formerly Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)) MOECC PSQG MOECC Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association OCP Organochlorine Pesticides OMOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment O.Reg Ontario Regulation Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PEL Probable Effect Level PHC Petroleum Hydrocarbon PQRA Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment PWGSC Public Works and Government Services Canada RfC Reference Concentration RfD Reference Dose SARA Species At Risk Act SCH Small Craft Harbour SLERA Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ PCL TCEQ Protective Concentration Level TRV Toxicity Reference Value UR Unit Risk USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA EcoSSL USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Level USEPA IRIS USEPA Integrated Risk Information System USEPA RBC USEPA Risk -Based Concentrations VEC Valued Ecological Component VOC Volatile Organic Compound ® Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Introduction September 11, 2015 1.0 Introduction Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to conduct a preliminary quantitative human health risk assessment (PARA) and screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) of soil and groundwater, with remedial and/or risk management option analysis and development of a remedial action plan, at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario. The PARA/SLERA was completed using soil and groundwater data collected by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex) in 2012, SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. (SNC) in 2014, and Stantec in 2015. The purpose of the PARA/SLERA was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to soil and groundwater for the terrestrial portion of the Site, to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. Note that the aquatic environment (i.e., surface water and sediments) has been assessed by Stantec under separate cover. This work is being completed for due diligence purposes, as well as for the possible divestiture of the Site to the Municipality of Bayham. 1.1 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK All chemicals (from anthropogenic and natural sources) have the potential to cause toxicological effects. However, the level of the potential effect (i.e., risk) depends on the level (quantity) of dose or exposure, the receptor (e.g., person or wildlife) being exposed, the route and duration of exposure (e.g., oral exposure for chronic durations), and the hazard (e.g., cancer, reproductive impairment) caused by the chemical. If all components are present (exposure, receptor, hazard), and exposure is sufficiently high to surpass any threshold for effects, the possibility of a toxicological risk exists. If one or more of these components are missing, then there is unlikely to be potential risk. The PARA/SLERA was conducted according to widely accepted risk assessment methodologies and follows guidance published and endorsed by regulatory agencies, including the Canadian Council of the Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Health Canada, Environment Canada, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Generally, the following framework is used in a risk assessment: • Site Characterization • Problem Formulation • Exposure Assessment • Toxicity Assessment • Risk Characterization • Uncertainty Evaluation These are defined in terms of human health risk assessment (HHRA) in Section 3.0 and in terms of ecological risk assessment (ERA) in Section 4.0. These steps are followed by a discussion of the results and recommendations. Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Site Characterization September 11, 2015 2.0 Site Characterization The following documents (summarized in Section 2.2) were reviewed in order to gain a better understanding of the Site: • Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No. 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2001, completed by MacViro Consultants Inc. • Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, report dated March 2012, completed by Stantec Consulting Ltd. • Phase 1/11 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated July 10, 2013, completed by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. • Supplemental Phase II/ Phase III Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Automation Building at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2015, completed by SNC-Lavalin Inc. In addition to these documents, desktop research as well as information obtained by Stantec during supplemental field investigations conducted in February 2015, were used to obtain Site characterization information as described in the following sections. Note that although the Site Characterization section describes both the terrestrial and aquatic environments at the Site, the PQRA/SLERA relates only to the terrestrial component (i.e., soil and groundwater impacts). 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1.1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (SCH) is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie in Port Burwell, Ontario (see Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 78 hectares (ha) and includes land and waterlots in Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie. Owing to the absence of residential structures, but the fact that the area is open to unrestricted public access, the most representative land use for the Site is commercial. The Site is currently used as a recreational and commercial fishing access point, community wharf and harbour of refuge. From the early 1900s to the mid 1970s, the Site was used as a small fishing wharf. In the 1970s, it was expanded to accommodate shipment of commodities including coal, potash, fuel oil and fertilizer. Bulk materials were stored on both sides of the harbour. Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks served the dock for the rail car ferry/bulk carrier Ashtabula on the east side of the harbour, and a 2.7 million litre capacity bulk fuel tank that received product by boat was located on the west side of the harbour. By 1973, commercial harbour traffic had ceased with transfer of bulk goods service to nearby Port Stanley, leaving just the west side bulk fuel oil tank. Since then, it has operated as a recreational and commercial vessel harbour. There is currently one vacant Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) building on the Site Stantec 2.1 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Site Characterization September 11, 2015 (see Figure 2, Appendix A), located southwest of the harbour, which has been classified as a Contaminated Site. An assessment of that CCG building site, conducted by SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC) in 2015, concluded that it can be considered for closure following demolition of the building, and no further action was required (SNC, 2015). The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) identifies the Port Burwell property as Directory of Federal Real Property (DFRP) Property Number 54022. The TBS notes that there are 10 Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) identifiers for the property. The current Site is identified as FCSI 00024432. Lands to the east and west include private and publically-owned properties, including Port Burwell Provincial Park to the west, which includes a campground and sandy beach for recreation and swimming. Big Otter Creek extends to the north and Lake Erie to the south. 2.1.2 Site Services The Site is serviced with drinking water by the Municipality of Bayham (Terrapex, 2013). Therefore, Site groundwater was categorized as being non -potable. According to the 2012 Assessment of Environmental Risks Report prepared by Stantec, the harbour provides privately operated dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels, and is also a possible harbour of refuge for vessels in danger on Lake Erie. The turning basin has filled in along the west pier wall since the routine or scheduled dredging of the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek has ceased. Dredging of sediment from the harbour was last completed in 2012 as part of Project Ojibwa. The CPR locomotive turn table at the foot of Wellington Street in the east harbour, and the bulk fuel tank site near the end of Chatham Street in the west harbour remain visible today. Although these features are not on the Subject Lands, they are in close proximity. 2.1.3 Topography and Drainage As described in the Enhanced Phase I ESA conducted by MacViro (2001), the topography of the land portion of the site is as follows: • Relatively flat with a slight slope towards Lake Erie. The Site is predominantly a water lot. • General direction of groundwater flow is assumed to be towards Big Otter Creek, while groundwater flow at the southern portion of the Site is expected to be to the south, toward Lake Erie. 2.1.4 Regional Stratigraphy Surficial soils in the general area are till and glaciolacustrine deposits consisting predominantly of silt and clay and minor sand, which include basin and quiet water deposits (MacViro, 2001). Bedrock in the vicinity of the Site is described as being of the Middle Devonian Era, specifically the Dundee Formation which consists of limestone, dolostone, and shale. I3 Stantec 2.2 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Site Characterization September 11, 2015 2.1.5 Biological Setting The Site is located within the Lake Erie Lowland ecoregion, which is classified as having one of the most temperate climates in Canada (Environment Canada, 2010). This climate in conjunction with fertile soils makes it an important agricultural area. The dominant land cover in this ecoregion is cropland with limited areas of mixed and deciduous forests on the Niagara Escarpment. Snow cover present during supplemental sampling activities in February 2015 prevented characterization of the biological environment. However, based on 1995 aerial photographs assessed during the Enhanced Phase I ESA conducted by MacViro (2001), the shoreline is covered with grass and/or gravel and rocks where not comprised of structures associated with the SCH, and the terrestrial environment consists of grasses and weeds. MacViro (2001) determined that there were no significant wetlands on or adjacent to the Site as well as no protected or significant wildlife habitat associated with the Site. According to the Phase 1/11 ESA conducted by Terrapex (2013) and additional desktop research, multiple species of conservation concern have the potential to be present at the Site (see Table 2-1). A Site visit conducted in November 2012 determined that suitable habitat was present at the Site for each of these species (Terrapex, 2013). Table 2-1 Summary of Species of Conservation Concern Potentially at the Site Notes: SARA = Species at Risk Act Stantec 2.3 W060 Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Endangered Endangered Birds Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea Special Concern Threatened Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Special Concern Special Concern Yellow -breasted Chat Icteria virens virens Special Concern Endangered American Badger Taxidea taxus Endangered Endangered Mammals Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum Special Concern Special Concern Jefferson Salamander Ambystomajeffersonianum Threatened Endangered Fowler's Toad Anaxyrus fowleri Endangered Endangered Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Threatened Threatened Reptiles and Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum Special Concern Special Concern Amphibians Gray Ratsnake Pantherophis spiloides Threatened Endangered Eastern Ribbonsnake Thamnophis sauritus sauritus Special Concern Special Concern Massassauga Sistrurus catenatus Threatened Endangered Fish Eastern Sand Darter Ammocrypta pellucida Threatened Endangered Notes: SARA = Species at Risk Act Stantec 2.3 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Site Characterization September 11, 2015 2.2 PREVIOUS REPORTS Previous reports conducted at the Site include the following, which are summarized below. • Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No. 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2001, completed by MacViro Consultants Inc. • Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, report dated March 2012, completed by Stantec Consulting Ltd. • Phase 1/II Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated July 10, 2013, completed by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. • Supplemental Phase II/ Phase III Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Automation Building at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2015, completed by SNC-Lavalin Inc. Enhanced Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No. 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2001, completed by MacViro Consultants Inc. MacViro Consultants Inc. (MacViro) was retained by the Ontario Region of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), on behalf of DFO to carry out an Enhanced Phase I ESA of the Port Burwell SCH in the Village of Port Burwell, Ontario. The Enhanced Phase I ESA consisted of a site reconnaissance visit, historical records review and analytical testing of sediment and soil samples. Observations made during the Enhanced Phase I ESA revealed minor concerns. One soil sample taken from the beach property revealed concentrations of metals that were below the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines. However, four of six sediment samples revealed concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and OCPs that exceeded the CCME Interim Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQGs) and the OMOE Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario (PSQGs; August 1993) Lowest Effect Level (LEL). The Enhanced Phase I ESA indicated areas on the property where concentrations of metals, nutrients, pesticides, and PAHs in sediment exceeded the LELs in the PSQGs and/or the ISQGs in the CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQGs). Such contamination poses potential problems for future activities on the property, such as dredging. It was recommended that concentrations of contaminants in the sediment be compared to background sediment concentrations on the SCH property and that the extent of the sediment concentration exceedances be delineated. Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, report dated March 2012, completed by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec Consulting Ltd. was retained in 2011 by the Municipality of Bayham (that includes Port Burwell) to assess environmental risks associated with the property, in advance of the potential property transfer of federal lands at the harbour to the municipality. This assessment was based upon a review of background information and reports readily available from the Municipality Stantec 2.4 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Site Characterization September 11, 2015 and other sources. This study was not intended to meet the requirements of a Phase I ESA under CAN/CSAZ768-01 or Ontario Regulation 153/04, and was intended to be an historical review. Gaps in critical information were identified within the available information, leading Stantec to recommend a Phase I and a Phase 11 ESA to assess soil, groundwater and sediment quality to close the information gaps. It was determined that an assessment of environmental risks must take into consideration risks to the Municipality in assuming the federal lands based on known environmental impacts from currently available documents, and from unknown environmental impacts that might be identified during a Phase I and Phase 11 ESA. However, a full risk assessment could not be completed until the gaps in critical information were closed. Phase 1/11 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated July 10, 2013, completed by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex) was retained by PWGSC on behalf of DFO to conduct a Phase 1/11 ESA at the DFO Port Burwell SCH located in Port Burwell, Ontario. The Phase I ESA identified three Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APECs) and COPCs at each APEC including petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), metals/inorganics, nutrients, PAHs, OCPs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and soil pH issues. As part of the Phase II ESA, three borehole sampling locations were drilled at APEC 1 and monitoring wells were installed to assess near -surface and subsurface conditions in APEC 1. Potential impacts at the Site associated with sources of potential contamination identified in APEC 2 and APEC 3 were also investigated. Additionally, three surficial sediment cores were advanced in Big Otter Creek to collect surficial and subsurface sediment samples. Three additional surficial sediment cores were collected adjacent to APEC 1, as well as from outside the study area to determine background sediment conditions at the site. COPCs in APEC 1 included PHC F2 to F4, select PAHs, metals/inorganics and OCPs. COPCs exceeded the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG), CCME ISQGs, CCME Probable Effect Level (PEL), Canadian Water Quality Guideline (CWQGs) for the Protection of Aquatic Life (PAL) Freshwater (FW), OMOE Lowest Effect Level (LEL), and the Canadian Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guideline (FIGQG), where applicable. Terrapex recommended that a Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PARA) and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) be conducted to further assess the COPCs in contaminated soil and groundwater on the land. They also recommended that a Detailed Level Risk Assessment (DLRA), benthic invertebrate survey and toxicological assessment of the impacted sediment be conducted in the inner harbour of the Port Burwell SCH. Supplemental Phase 11/ 111 ESA, Port Burwell Automation Building at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2015, completed by SNC-Lavalin Inc. SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC) was retained by PWGSC on behalf of DFO to conduct a Phase II/III ESA at the Automation Building, which is located on the terrestrial portion of at the DFO Port Burwell SCH located in Port Burwell, Ontario. In addition, SNC completed a pre -demolition Designated Substance and Hazardous Materials Survey (DSHMS). Stantec 2.5 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Site Characterization September 11, 2015 As part of the Phase II/III ESA, five borehole sampling locations were drilled, three of which were completed as monitoring wells. A total of 19 soil samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis. Three samples were collected from each borehole, one at surface and two samples at depth, and submitted for laboratory analysis of metals, pH, PAHs, BTEX, and PHC F1 to F4. Two field duplicate samples were collected for QA/QC. In addition, two shallow soil samples were collected in proximity of the site, and submitted for laboratory analysis of metals and pH. In total, four groundwater samples were collected from the three new monitoring wells, including one field duplicate samples for QA/QC. COPCs in soil at the Site included arsenic, 1- and 2 -methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene. COPCs in groundwater at the Site included anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, inden o(1,2,3-cd)pyre ne, phenanthrene and pyrene. COPCs exceeded the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for residential/parkland land use, and the Canadian Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG), respectively in soil and groundwater. It should be noted that significant amounts of sediment were present in the groundwater samples. As part of the pre -demolition DSHMS, a visual inspection of the Automation Building was completed. The survey included a visual inspection for asbestos containing materials, lead paint, PCBs, and other designated substances. The inspection identified light bulbs that may contain mercury, two ballasts that may contain PCBs, concrete likely containing silica, and likely lead- based paints. SNC recommended additional sampling of the three new monitoring wells to further assess PAH impacts in groundwater at the Site. This was recommended as part of a larger assessment of the Port Burwell SCH property. It was also recommended that the Site be considered for closure following demolition of the Automation Building. 2.3 ANALYTICAL SAMPLING SUMMARY The soil and groundwater data relied upon for the PQRA/SLERA were collected by Terrapex in November 2012 (see Terrapex, 2013), SNC (2015) in November 2014, and by Stantec in February 2015. The supplemental Phase II ESA report for the field program conducted by Stantec in February 2015 is presented in Appendix G. The full data set used for this HHERA is presented in Appendix B. The screening of those data with respect to identification of COPCs is discussed separately below for human health (Section 3.0) and ecological receptors (Section 4.0). Based on historical activities, potential contaminants at the Site included: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes (BTEX), PHCs F1 to F4, metals, PAHs, PCBs and OCPs. A quantitative screening of all analytical data was conducted within each of the human health and ecological sections of this PQRA/SLERA. Stantec 2.6 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.0 Human Health Risk Assessment The purpose of the preliminary quantitative human health risk assessment (HHRA) was to evaluate the potential that human receptors may experience exposures to contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) found at the Site in excess of what may be considered to be acceptable, tolerable or of negligible risk. The potential for adverse human effects was quantified by comparing the amount of a COPC to which a receptor is expected to be exposed, or come in contact with, on a daily basis (daily dose), to the amount of that substance that can be tolerated (i.e., below which adverse human health effects are not expected), referred to as the toxicity reference value (TRV) or toxicity benchmark. The quotient of the two and the magnitude by which these values differ from parity (e.g. daily dose = TRV) was used to make inferences about the possibility of risks to human receptors. The HHRA process followed a widely recognized framework that progresses from a qualitative initial Problem Formulation step, through Exposure and Toxicity Assessments, and culminates in a quantitative Risk Characterization. Following the Risk Characterization, the Conclusions and Recommendations stemming from the assessment were discussed. An Uncertainty Evaluation followed each step to discuss the uncertainties inherent in the HHRA process. The primary guidance for conducting the HHRA was that of Health Canada, including: • Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PARA), Version 2.0 (Health Canada, 2010a). Revised 2012. • Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical -Specific Factors, Version 2.0 (Health Canada, 2010b). • Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part V: Guidance on Human Health Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Chemicals (DQRAChem; Health Canada, 2010c). 3.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION The objective of the Problem Formulation stage of the HHRA was the development of a focused understanding of which substances constitute COPCs, what human receptors are likely to be present at the site for exposure, and how COPCs migrate from the source(s) and ultimately reach, and are taken up by, the human receptors at the Site. The main points addressed in the Problem Formulation were: • Identification of human health COPCs • Identification of human receptors • Identification of human exposure pathways Results of these activities were then summarized in a human health conceptual site model. Stantec 3.1 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.1.1 Identification of Human Health COPCs COPCs for human health at the Site were identified by screening the maximum reported chemical concentrations in soil and groundwater against applicable human health -based soil and groundwater quality guidelines. The data used for the HHRA was collected by Terrapex in November 2012 (Terrapex, 2013), SNC-Lavalin in November 2014, and by Stantec in February 2015. Given that the Site is a federal property, preference was given to those human health - based guidelines provided by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). In cases where no federal guidelines were available, guidelines or standards from other jurisdictions were identified. A detailed description of the screening process is provided in Section 3.1.1.1 for soil and Section 3.1.1.2 for groundwater. Since the Site is being assessed for possible divestiture to the Municipality of Bayham (in addition to due diligence), maximum chemical concentrations were also screened against human health -based standards provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Exceedances of the MOECC standards were noted in Table 3-1, however these compounds were not carried through for further assessment if the federal guidelines were not exceeded. Given current land use as described in Section 2.0, commercial guidelines were applied to the Site. For all substrates, where a COPC did not have a health -based guideline and all samples analyzed were below the limits of detection, the COPC was reasonably assumed to not be present at the Site at concentrations that would result in unacceptable risks and the chemical was not carried forward for further assessment. Calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, silicon, and sulphur were quantified in the laboratory analysis but were not carried forward for risk assessment. They are considered to be inherently non-toxic and are not necessarily considered to be of concern from a human health standpoint (TCEQ, 2007). 3.1.1.1 COPCs in Soil A total of 45 (including 8 duplicate) soil samples were collected by Terrapex, SNC and Stantec, 19 of which were surface soil samples (0 to 1.5 mbgs). For the determination of human health COPCs, both full -depth soil samples and surface soil samples were screened against applicable pathway -specific guidelines. The maximum chemical concentrations were individually screened against direct contact (the lesser of ingestion, dermal contact, and particulate inhalation, if available), off-site migration, and soil guidelines for the protection of groundwater, to identify COPCs requiring further risk assessment for human receptors. All parameters were screened against the lowest applicable human health -based soil quality guideline for coarse soil with commercial land use. ® Stantec 3.2 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Preference was given to CCME human health -based soil quality guidelines (CCME, 2015a) for screening and identification of COPCs. For petroleum hydrocarbons, the pathway -specific values from the CCME Canada -Wide Standards for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil were used (CCME, 2008a). In the absence of CCME pathway -specific guidelines, guidelines from the following alternate sources were employed, in order of preference: MOECC human soil component standards from Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Ground Water Condition (OMOE, 2011). 2. USEPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for industrial land use (USEPA, 2015a); RSL values were adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05 to reflect differences between the USEPA and Health Canada/CCME approach to guideline derivation. 3. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Protective Concentration Levels (TCEQ PCLs; TCEQ, 2014); PCL values were adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05 to reflect differences between the TCEQ and Health Canada/CCME approach to guideline derivation. In all cases, if only provisional or interim guidelines were available, preference was given to more recent guidelines based on newer science. The complete compilation of data is presented in Appendix B and the pathway -specific human health screening of maximum chemical concentrations is presented in Appendix C. Soil parameters that were carried forward as human health COPCs are presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Summary of the Human Health Screening of COPCs in Soil Maximum Federal MOECC man Health Human Health Number of Carried Parameter Concentration r Guideline ° Guideline b Samples Forward? (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Xylenes • • / - Notes: a CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; lowest of applicable human health guidelines, commercial land -use; coarse textured soil. b OMOE Site Condition Standards. Table 8 - Soil Components for Within 30m of a Water Body, Potable Groundwater; lesser of applicable guideline for human health. Thallium presented in table as exceeding MOECC guidelines but did not exceed CCME guidelines. 4 Stantec 3.3 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.1.1.2 COPCs in Groundwater Groundwater is non -potable and not used as a source of drinking water. All drinking water at the Site is provided by the municipal water supply. Although volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) were observed in soil, they were not observed in groundwater. That, combined with the absence of inhabited buildings on Site, precludes vapour intrusion risks from groundwater to indoor air. Therefore, ingestion of drinking water and indoor vapour intrusion from groundwater were not operable pathways for the Site and groundwater contaminants were omitted from further assessment of human health risk. 3.1.1.3 Summary of Human Health COPCs Based on the screening of maximum soil and groundwater concentrations against applicable human health guidelines, Table 3-2 provides a summary of the human health COPCs carried forward into the HHRA. Table 3-2 Summary of Human Health COPCs 3.1.2 Identification of Human Receptors The current use of the Site is as a SCH for recreational and commercial fishing boats and as a possible harbour of refuge. The Site is anticipated to be maintained for these uses in the future, even if divested to the Municipality of Bayham. Therefore, the potential human receptors expected at the Site are as follows: • Site Visitor (all ages) • Landscape Worker (adult) • Construction Worker (adult) As noted in Section 2.1.1, the most appropriate land use classification for the Site is commercial. The Site is used as a recreational and commercial fishing access point, community wharf and harbour of refuge, and there is currently one vacant building on -Site. Lands to the east and west of the Site include private and publically-owned properties, including Port Burwell Provincial Park to the west, which includes a campground and sandy beach for swimming. The Site property boundaries are not fenced off, allowing unrestricted access to the Site. Therefore, in addition to Construction Workers that may be present at the Site from time to time for work purposes, Site Visitors are also anticipated to be occasionally present at the Site for recreational purposes. Landscape Workers are also anticipated to be present, in order to maintain the Site grounds. Stantec 3.4 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 The Landscape Worker and Construction Worker are anticipated to be adults, while Site Visitors are expected to be of all age groups, given the close proximity of the Provincial Park, the area surrounding the Site having residential land use, and the accessibility of the Site to all members of the public. Site Visitors are expected to be of all age groups, and are conservatively assumed to be present on -Site for 1.5 hours/day, 7 days/week, for 39 weeks/year, the latter being the snow- free period for this part of Ontario (OMOE, 2011). It is assumed that a Site Visitor is a nearby resident that visits the Site on a regular basis. The Site Visitor receptor is considered to be protective of any campers that may be present at the Site during their visit to the Provincial Park, owing to the short duration of camping activities relative to community residents. It is anticipated that a camper of any age group will visit the Site for up to 1.5 hours/day, 7 days/week, for up to 2 weeks/year while they are camping. Therefore, the Site Visitor is considered protective of any campers that may be using the Site for recreational purposes. The Construction Worker is included as a receptor to assess any worker on -Site during possible future construction or remediation activities. The Construction Worker is assumed to be on -Site for 10 hours per day, 5 days per week, 39 weeks per year, for a period of 1 year. It is possible that other personnel such as environmental consultants may work at the Site on occasion in the future, but the Construction Worker receptor will be protective of other possible worker receptors. Landscape Workers are expected to be present at the Site to maintain the grounds; this work is likely to involve up -keep and maintenance of the greenspace present on -Site. It is assumed that Landscape Workers will not encounter groundwater during their work (e.g., tree planting). It is anticipated that Landscape Workers will be at the Site for 4 hours/day, 1 day/week over the course of 39 weeks, throughout their entire career of 35 years. Given the increased dust inhalation potential for Landscape Workers during mowing and other activities, they are also retained as a receptor at this Site. Toddlers are generally the most sensitive receptor for exposure to threshold contaminants (non - carcinogens) due to their greater intake per unit of body weight via ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact. Adults are the most sensitive to non -threshold substances (carcinogens) due to the long duration of this life stage. All receptors are included for non -carcinogenic substances. For exposure to carcinogens, the Adult Site Visitor and the Landscape Worker will be considered. An Adult Construction Worker is anticipated to be on Site more frequently and for longer durations per visit than other receptors, but only for an assumed duration of 1 year. Therefore, the Construction Worker will not be assessed for carcinogenic risk, as the career duration of Landscape Workers will be adequately protective. The physical characteristics (required for exposure calculations) and specific values employed for each receptor were obtained from Health Canada (2010a) and are shown in Table 3-3. ® Stantec 3.5 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-3 Human Receptor Characteristics Notes: Human receptor characteristics obtained from Health Canada (2010a). b Based on snow -free period for the Port Burwell area (OMOE, 2011). The dust or airborne particulate concentrations used in the HHRA will be calculated using the soil EPC multiplied by the average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter. An average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter was assumed to be 0.76 pg/m3 (Health Canada, 2010a) with respect to the Toddler and Adult Site Visitors. However, for the Landscape Worker and Construction Worker, it is expected that landscaping, excavation and/or earth -moving activities may generate additional suspended particulate, for which a suspended particulate matter concentration of 250 pg/m3 is recommended (Health Canada 2010a). Therefore, during the assumed 4 hours per week for landscaping, and the 10 hours of daily construction work period, the Landscape Worker and Construction Worker are expected to have an inhalation rate of 1.4 m3/hr, and average concentration of respirable particulate matter is assumed to be 250 pg/m3. 4 Stantec 3.6 Landscape Worker/ Characteristic a Units Toddler Site Visitor Adult Site Visitor Construction Worker Age years 7 mo. - 4 yr. >_ 20 yr. >_ 20 yr. Age Group Duration years 4.5 60 60 Body Weight kg 16.5 70.7 70.7 Soil Ingestion Rate kg/d 1 0.00008 0.00002 0.0001 Inhalation Rate m3/d 8.3 16.6 1.4 m3/hour Skin Surface Area Hands 430 890 890 Arms (upper and lower) 890 2,500 2,500 cm2 Legs (upper and lower) 1,690 5,720 5,720 Body (arms+legs) 2,580 8,220 8,220 Total Body 6,130 17,640 17,640 Soil Loading to skin Hands kg/cm2/ 1 E-07 1 E-07 1 E-06 event Other l E-08 1 E-08 1 E-07 hours/ 1.5 1.5 4 - Landscape Worker Hours per day on Site day 10 - Construction Worker days/ 1 -for Landscape Worker Days per week on Site week 7 7 5 - Construction Worker weeks/ 39 39 39 Weeks per year on Site b year 4.5 60 35 for Landscape Worker Total Years Exposed years 1 for Construction Worker Life Expectancy years - 80 80 Notes: Human receptor characteristics obtained from Health Canada (2010a). b Based on snow -free period for the Port Burwell area (OMOE, 2011). The dust or airborne particulate concentrations used in the HHRA will be calculated using the soil EPC multiplied by the average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter. An average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter was assumed to be 0.76 pg/m3 (Health Canada, 2010a) with respect to the Toddler and Adult Site Visitors. However, for the Landscape Worker and Construction Worker, it is expected that landscaping, excavation and/or earth -moving activities may generate additional suspended particulate, for which a suspended particulate matter concentration of 250 pg/m3 is recommended (Health Canada 2010a). Therefore, during the assumed 4 hours per week for landscaping, and the 10 hours of daily construction work period, the Landscape Worker and Construction Worker are expected to have an inhalation rate of 1.4 m3/hr, and average concentration of respirable particulate matter is assumed to be 250 pg/m3. 4 Stantec 3.6 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.1.3 Identification of Human Health Exposure Pathways Exposure pathways are used to describe how a substance can move from impacted media (e.g., soil) to a point where it can enter the body. Only those pathways for which there is a reasonable potential for exposure were considered quantitatively in the HHRA. For soil exposure, only direct exposure pathways (ingestion, dermal absorption, particle inhalation) were anticipated. Although there is a building present at the Site, it is vacant, and no human receptors are expected to have access to it. Therefore, inhalation of indoor vapours due is not an applicable pathway for this Site. The nature and condition of land cover is such that collection of berries or fruits from on -Site plants does not occur and, therefore, there is no indirect pathway by which soil COPCs could be accumulated into plants for subsequent human consumption. Groundwater is non -potable and not used as a source of drinking water; therefore groundwater is not considered a complete exposure pathway in the assessment of risk to human receptors at the Site. A summary of the exposure pathways relevant for a Toddler Site Visitor, Adult Site Visitor, Landscape Worker, and Construction Worker are presented in Table 3-4, Table 3-5, Table 3-6, and Table 3-7 respectively. ® Stantec 3.7 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-4 Potential Exposure Pathways for Toddler Site Visitor Stantec 3.8 . -- e 0 mo - -. . . - Dermal contact with soil It is very likely that a Toddler Site Visitor will come in contact with soils at the Ingestion of soil Yes Yes Site during their visit. Therefore, this pathway is carried forward for further Inhalation of soil particulate assessment of total on-site exposure. Although there is a vacant building on -Site, it is reasonably assumed that Inhalation of vapours - No No a Toddler Site Visitor will not have indoor access to the building. Therefore, it is reasonably anticipated that this is not a complete pathway. The dilution of vapours in outdoor air would result in an essentially Inhalation of vapours - No No negligible risk from inhalation of outdoor outdoor vapours. Therefore, this pathway is not carried forward for further assessment. Groundwater is not used as a source of drinking water at the Site. Ingestion of groundwater No Therefore, this pathway is inoperable and not carried forward for further No assessment. Dermal exposure to groundwater is Dermal contact with excluded as Toddler Site Visitors are groundwater No unlikely to come into direct contact with groundwater as it is found at depths >1 m. Stantec 3.8 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-5 Potential Exposure Pathways for Adult Site Visitor • • - • • • - •- . Dermal contact with soil It is very likely that an Adult Site Visitor will come in contact with soils at the Ingestion of soil Yes Yes Site during their visit. Therefore, this pathway is carried forward for further Inhalation of soil particulate assessment of total on-site exposure. Although there is a vacant building on -Site, it is reasonably assumed that Inhalation of vapours - No No an Adult Site Visitor will not have indoor access to the building. Therefore, it is reasonably anticipated that this is not a complete pathway. The dilution of vapours in outdoor air would result in an essentially Inhalation of vapours - No No negligible risk from inhalation of outdoor outdoor vapours. Therefore, this pathway is not carried forward for further assessment. Groundwater is not used as a source of drinking water at the Site. Ingestion of groundwater No Therefore, this pathway is inoperable and not carried forward for further No assessment. Dermal exposure to groundwater is Dermal contact with excluded as Adult Site Visitors are groundwater No unlikely to come into direct contact with groundwater as it is found at depths >1 m. Stantec 3.9 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-6 Potential Exposure Pathways for Landscape Worker Potential Exposure Rqou eq Complete Exposure Carried Forward for Further Assessment? AS Lustificafi7on% Dermal contact with soil It is very likely that a Landscape Worker will come in contact with soils Ingestion of soil Yes Yes at the Site during their visit. Therefore, this pathway is carried forward for Inhalation of soil particulate further assessment of total on-site exposure. Although there is a vacant building on -Site, it is reasonably assumed that Inhalation of vapours — No No a Landscape Worker will not have indoor access to the building. Therefore, it is reasonably anticipated that this is not a complete pathway. The dilution of vapours in outdoor air would result in an essentially Inhalation of vapours — No No negligible risk from inhalation of outdoor outdoor vapours. Therefore, this pathway is not carried forward for further assessment. It is anticipated that Landscape Workers will bring their own food and Ingestion of groundwater No water to the Site. Therefore, this pathway is not carried forward for No further assessment. Dermal exposure to groundwater is Dermal contact with excluded as Landscape Workers are groundwater No unlikely to come into direct contact with groundwater as it is found at depths >1 m. Stantec 3.10 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-7 Potential Exposure Pathways for Construction Worker • • - • • • . Dermal contact with soil It is very likely that a Construction Worker will come in contact with soils Ingestion of soil Yes Yes at the Site during their visit. Therefore, this pathway is carried forward for Inhalation of soil particulate further assessment of total on-site exposure. Although a Construction Worker may access the building on -Site, the Inhalation of vapours - No No frequency of exposure is likely to be indoor negligible. Therefore, this pathway is not carried forward for further assessment. The dilution of vapours in outdoor air would result in an essentially Inhalation of vapours - No No negligible risk from inhalation of outdoor outdoor vapours. Therefore, this pathway is not carried forward for further assessment. It is anticipated that Construction Workers will bring their own food and Ingestion of groundwater No water to the Site. It is assumed that during any construction where No groundwater is exposed or accessed, a Construction Worker will be wearing the appropriate PPE to prevent Dermal contact with No dermal contact. Therefore, it is groundwater reasonably anticipated that dermal contact is not a complete pathway. Stantec 3.11 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.1.4 Human Health Conceptual Site Model The human health conceptual site model is presented graphically in Figure 3-1, below. It provides a simplified representation of potential exposure pathways, linking sources and COPCs to each human receptor identified in Section 3.1.2. A rationale for the inclusion/exclusion of exposure pathways is provided above in Section 3.1.3. 3.1.5 Problem Formulation Uncertainty Evaluation Potential sources or deposits of contaminants were identified at the beginning of the project and sampling locations were selected to focus on areas of concern. Consequently, the human health screening is based on a relatively limited number of samples. However, given the available information it was assumed that the targeted sampling locations encompassed the areas with maximum or near maximum concentrations of chemicals tested. Overall, the selection of COPCs, receptors and exposure scenarios chosen for this risk assessment should ensure that a reasonably conservative assessment is conducted. ® Stantec 3.12 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Source Media Transport Mechanisms Exposure Pathways Receptors on-site Consumption of Plant/Animal Site Visitors Construction Workers Landscape Workers Site Visitors Construction Workers Landscape Workers Uutdoor Atmospheric Dispersion (Organic Contaminants) Indoor Air Immersion/Inhalation Enclosed Space Accumulation of Vapours (Organic Contaminants) � H Groundwater Potable Water I NA Ingestion Groundwater Incidental Ingestionl NA Groundwater Dermal Contact I NA SOURCERECEPTOR LEGEND: • r = Complete Exposure Pathway For a complete discussion of human receptors and exposure pathways see Section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. Text = Incomplete Exposure Pathway NA = Not Applicable Figure 3-1 Human Health Conceptual Site Model 19291 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The Exposure Assessment estimates the interaction between receptors and the COPCs at the Site. The main objective of the Exposure Assessment is to develop a quantitative estimate of exposure to each COPC for each receptor, based on available data. The human receptor characteristics summarized in Table 3-3 were incorporated into the Exposure Assessment. Daily intakes from all relevant sources and pathways, as calculated using Health Canada (2010a) exposure equations, are discussed in the following sections and are presented for each COPC. Ingestion rates and receptor characteristics (e.g. body mass) were obtained from Health Canada (2010a), unless otherwise noted in Table 3-3. A summary of the exposure frequency and durations for each human health receptor is presented in Table 3-8. As indicated in Section 3.1.2, all receptors are included for exposure to non -carcinogenic substances. For exposure to carcinogens, the Adult Site Visitor and the Landscape Worker will be considered; although an Adult Construction Worker is anticipated to be on Site more frequently and for longer durations per visit than other receptors, the maximum assumed duration of exposure is only 1 year. Therefore, the career duration of a Landscape Worker exposure will be adequately protective. Table 3-8 Summary of Exposure Frequency and Duration for Human Health Receptors Toddler Site Zl�ltor JL&tUL*JM_@L*j Construction Worker A Toddler Site Visitor is An Adult Site Visitor is A Landscape Worker is A Construction Worker is assumed to ingest, assumed to ingest, assumed to ingest, assumed to ingest, inhale, and come into inhale, and come into inhale, and come into inhale, and come into dermal contact with soil dermal contact with soil dermal contact with soil dermal contact with soil from the Site, for a from the Site for a period from the Site, for a from the Site, for a period of 1.5 hours/ day, of 1.5 hours/ day, 7 period of 4 hours/day, 1 period of 10 hours/day, 5 7 days/week, for 39 days/week, for 39 days/week, 39 days/week, 39 weeks/year over 4.5 weeks/year over a span weeks/year over a span weeks/year over a span years as a toddler. of 60 years in adulthood. of 35 years in adulthood. of 1 year in adulthood. 3.2.1 Bioavailability For all exposure calculations involving oral ingestion and inhalation of contaminated particles, the absorption factors were set to a default of 100% or 1.0, as outlined in Health Canada guidance (2010a). In the case of dermal absorption of contaminants from soil across the skin, relative dermal absorption factors were adopted from Health Canada (2010b) and OMOE (201 1), or set to a default of I % or 0.01 for inorganic substances, as outlined by the USEPA (1995). Stantec 3.14 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.2.2 Exposure Equations Health Canada's exposure equations were used to determine non -carcinogenic hazard quotients (HQs) and cancer risk (CR) for the HHRA. Example calculations are provided in Appendix E. Inherent in the calculation of exposure doses is the issue of exposure amortization. Health Canada (2010c) defines exposure amortization as "the process used to derive the average dose (typically per day) of a chemical over a given exposure period (i.e., average dose rate, often expressed as mg/kg body weight - day) by taking into account the overall duration of exposure and the pattern(s) of exposure in the scenarios selected for the site." Exposure durations can be continuous, intermittent, or can last only for a short period. All of these exposure patterns require an examination of the suitability of amortization of the exposure dose over the entire exposure duration and a critical assessment of the effects of amortization on the resulting exposure dose. Health Canada (2010c) classifies exposure durations as chronic (greater than 90 days), sub- chronic (between 14 and 90 days), and acute (less than 14, but often involving a single high intensity exposure). By amortizing an acute or sub -chronic exposure over a longer (chronic) period of time, the resulting dose may be artificially minimized and potential risks underestimated For the Port Burwell SCH, all exposure durations were considered to be chronic (greater than 90 days). 3.2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) represent the exposure of a receptor over an exposure area during a period of time and are used in the quantitative assessment of risks. As per Health Canada PQRA guidance, and in order to be conservative, maximum measured COPC concentrations in soil and groundwater were used as EPCs for risk estimates. All exposure point concentrations are listed below in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 Exposure Point Concentrations for Human Health COPCs Stantec 3.15 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.2.4 Exposure Dose Results As was noted in Table 3-4 through Table 3-7, as well as Figure 3-1, exposure pathways for all receptors included ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact with soil. The doses resulting from these exposures to COPCs are presented below. The equations and inputs for the calculation of each dose are provided in Appendix E. 3.2.4.1 Non -Carcinogenic COPC Doses Table 3-10 Toddler Site Visitor COPC Doses from Soil ral Ingestion Dose Dermal Dose Inhalation Dose ' . . .. (mg/kg -d) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Benzene 1.20E-05 3.10E-07 5.91 E-1 1 Toluene 9.09E-06 2.35E-07 4.48E-1 1 Ethylbenzene 4.36E-05 1.13E-06 2.15E-10 Xylenes (Total) 6.91 E-05 1.78E-06 3.40E-10 Table 3-11 Adult Site Visitor COPC Doses from Soil Oral Ingestion Dose Dermal Dose Inhalation Dose 'P .. .. .. Volatile Org ompounds Benzene 7.00E-07 1.80E-07 2.76E-1 1 Toluene 5.30E-07 1.36E-07 2.09E-1 1 Ethylbenzene 2.55E-06 6.54E-07 1.00E-10 Xylenes (Total) 4.03E-06 1.04E-06 1.59E-10 Table 3-12 Landscape Worker COPC Doses from Soil Oral Ingestion Dose Dermal Dose Inhalation Dose voln .. .. .. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) AML Benzene 5.00E-07 2.57E-07 7.00E-09 Toluene 3.79E-07 1.95E-07 5.30E-09 Ethylbenzene 1.82E-06 9.34E-07 2.55E-08 Xylenes (Total) 2.88E-06 1.48E-06 4.03E-08 4 Stantec 3.16 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-13 Construction Worker COPC Doses from Soil Oral Ingestion Dose Dermal Dose Inhalation Dose .. (mg/kg -d .. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Benzene 2.50E-06 1.28E-06 8.75E-08 Toluene 1.89E-06 9.73E-07 6.63E-08 Ethylbenzene 9.09E-06 4.67E-06 3.18E-07 Xylenes (Total) 1.44E-05 7.39E-06 5.04E-07 3.2.4.2 Carcinogenic COPC Doses Table 3-14 Adult Site Visitor Carcinogenic COPC Doses from Soil Table 3-15 Landscape Worker Carcinogenic COPC Doses from Soil 3.2.5 Exposure Assessment Uncertainty Evaluation The Exposure Assessment performed as part of the HHRA was based on: • Available data to describe maximum COPC levels in soil • Sound conservative assumptions for certain parameters, as required. • Generally accepted methods for risk prediction that are designed to be conservative (to err on the side of over -predicting exposures and risks). Exposure times and durations were based on Health Canada guidance (2010a) or other sources as referenced, and represent a conservative estimate of Site exposures and durations for the current land use. Use of maximum COPC concentrations in soil for dose calculations significantly over-estimates the true potential for on -Site exposure to contaminants. 4 Stantec 3.17 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.3 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT Toxic effects from exposure to environmental contaminants vary depending on the form of the contaminant, the dosage, the route of exposure, the frequency and duration of exposure, and the physiological state, sex, and age of the exposed population. Toxicological effects may be brief or prolonged, reversible or irreversible, immediate or delayed. The purpose of the Toxicity Assessment is to weigh available evidence regarding the potential for the environmental contaminants to cause adverse effects in exposed populations and to provide an estimate of the relationship between the extent of exposure and the increased likelihood and/or severity of those adverse effects. An essential part of the risk assessment process is the identification of toxicity reference values (TRVs) against which exposures can be compared. These values are based on scientifically reviewed, published toxicological assessments from Canadian, American or other authoritative sources. TRVs have been established by several regulatory agencies including Health Canada, the USEPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the World Health Organization (WHO). In the selection of TRVs, preference has been given to values published by Health Canada, as directed in the Health Canada Guidance document (2010a). 3.3.1 Toxicological Reference Values Details regarding the toxicity of COPCs and the TRVs selected for use in this HHRA can be found in the toxicological profiles in Appendix D. The TRVs used are shown in Table 3-16. Table 3-16 Toxicological Reference Values Used in Human Health Risk Assessment 0 * Exposure Chronic TRV b Critical Health EffectL5!, "Reference Pathway a Non -Carcinogenic Ingestion 4.0x10-3 mg/kg -d decreased lymphocyte USEPA, 2003 count Benzene Inhalation 0.03 mg/m3 decreased lymphocyte USEPA, 2003 count Ingestion 0.22 mg/kg -d increased relative liver and Health Canada, Toluene kidney weight; neurotoxic, 2010b Health Canada, irritation of the respiratory Inhalation 3.75 mg/m3 tract 2010b Ingestion 0.100 mg/kg -d histopathologic changes in Health Canada, the liver and kidney 2010b Ethylbenzene reduced liter size; increased Inhalation 1.0 mg/m3 relative liver, kidney, and Health Canada, spleen weights of dams; 2010b skeletal variations Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Exposure &S • Ab -. - Reference ill Pathway a Non -Carcinogenic Ingestion 1.5 mg/kg -d enlarged livers and kidneys Health Canada, 2010b Xylenes (Total) maternal effects; fetal Inhalation 0.18 mg/m3 retardation, increased Health Canada, proportion of fetal mortality 2010b and resorbed fetuses Carcinogenic carcinogenic: malignant Health Canada, Ingestion 0.0834 (mg/kg -d)-1 lymphomas; bone marrow 2010b Benzene hematopoietic hyperplasia Inhalation (UR) 0.0033 (mg/m3)-1 non -cancer endpoint = Health Canada, Inhalation SF 0.0145 (mg/kg -d) -i hematoxicity 2010b Notes: Dermal exposure assessed using oral TRVs. b Where no inhalation -specific TRV is published, the oral TRV is employed for risk characterization of soil particulate inhalation, assuming 100% absorption from the respiratory tract. In calculations, inhalation TRVs are converted from mg/m3 to mg/kg/d using the receptor characteristics shown in Table 3-3. NV - no value available 3.3.2 Toxicity Assessment Uncertainty Evaluation There is a very limited amount of toxicological information on the effects associated with human exposures to low levels of chemicals in the environment. What human information is available is generally based on epidemiological studies of occupationally -exposed workers. These studies are generally limited in scope and provide results that may not be applicable to chronic or continuous exposures to low levels of chemicals. Because human toxicological information is limited, TRVs for many contaminants are based on the results of dose -response assessment studies using animals. The use of experimental animal data to estimate potential biological effects in humans introduces uncertainties into the evaluation of potential human health effects. These estimations require that a number of assumptions be made, including the following: • The toxicological effect reported in animals is relevant and could occur in humans; • The assumption that extrapolation from high -dose studies to low-dose environmental exposures adequately represents the shape of the dose -response curve in the low-dose exposure range; • Short-term exposures used in animal studies can be extrapolated to chronic or long-term exposures in humans; and • The uptake of a compound from a test vehicle (e.g., drinking water, food) in animals will be the same as the uptake of the chemical from environmental media (soil, sediment, air -borne particulate matter) in humans. Stantec 3.19 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 There are a number of uncertainties associated with extrapolating from experimental animal data to humans. To address these weaknesses, regulatory agencies such as Health Canada and the USEPA make conservative assumptions to try and account for the uncertainties associated with this process. The uncertainties are accounted for by the use of uncertainty factors (UFs) that are used to lower the TRV well below the level at which adverse health effects have been reported in the test species. Uncertainty factors are generally applied by factors of 10 and are used to account for the following types of uncertainties: • Variation within the population (protection of sensitive members of the population); • Differences between humans and the test species; • Differences in using short- or medium-term studies to estimate the health effects associated with long-term or chronic exposures; and • Limitations in the available toxicological information. The magnitude of the uncertainty factors applied by the various regulatory agencies provides an indication of the level of confidence that should be placed in the reference value. Uncertainty factors typically range between 100 and 10,000, although some can be lower than 10. The latter values are found for a few chemicals where sound and substantial human toxicological information is available to enable the setting of toxicological end-point solely on the basis of human epidemiological information. The application of uncertainty factors is intended to introduce a high degree of conservatism into the risk assessment process and to ensure, as far as possible, that limited exposures which exceed the reference concentrations will not result in adverse human health effects. Because risk assessments that use these regulatory limits incorporate the conservatism used in the development of the toxicological information, the results can generally be viewed as being extremely conservative. ® Stantec 3.20 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.4 HUMAN HEALTH RISK CHARACTERIZATION The purpose of the Risk Characterization is to combine the results of the Exposure Assessment and the information from the Toxicity Assessment to estimate the potential risks to human health from the COPCs evaluated. 3.4.1 Non -Carcinogenic Health Effects For non -carcinogenic (threshold) health effects, the potential for risk is conservatively estimated by dividing the dose by the TRV (oral or inhalation, as applicable) for that COPC, as follows: HQ = Dose (ma/kq-d) TRV (mg/kg -d) The computed ratio is termed the Hazard Quotient (HQ). For all threshold effects chemicals, if the HQ is less than or equal to 0.2, Health Canada considers that the intake of the COPC does not exceed the tolerable intake, and negligible health risks are expected. Conversely, if the HQ exceeds 0.2, Health Canada considers that there may be a potential risk to human health, and a more detailed assessment should be undertaken. The HQ of 0.2 sets the upper limit of exposure from the Site to be equal to or less than 20% of the TRV (termed the tolerable daily intake for a chemical with threshold type effects), thus (protectively) allowing 80% of the exposure to be from additional unquantified sources. 3.4.2 Carcinogenic Health Effects Given that the Site is not residential, and exposure is not continuous (i.e., does not continue uninterrupted for 365 days per year), cancer risk was computed for adult exposure only. Adulthood is the single longest life stage (60 years of 80 year life expectancy). Also, to increase conservatism, average adult daily exposure over a typical year was not adjusted (not amortized) for years exposed over lifetime. In general, the potential for carcinogenic health effects was conservatively estimated by multiplying the average adult daily dose for the carcinogenic COPCs by the appropriate slope factor or unit risk. Since slope factors and unit risks are pathway -specific, only the dose associated with the relevant exposure pathway was considered. In general: Cancer Risk (CR) = Average Adult Daily Dose (mg/kg -d) x Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg -d)-1 Health Canada slope factors were obtained (where available) for the assessment of cancer risks posed by COPCs since Site is a federal property. With the exception of benzo(a)pyrene, Health Canada slope factors do not exist for dermal exposure routes; therefore, most cancer risks posed by simultaneous oral+dermal exposure were determined as recommended in by Health Canada (Health Canada, 2010a). For the purposes of the HHRA, if the CR is less than or equal to 1 -in -100,000 (<_ 1E-05), Health Canada considers the cancer risks to be "essentially negligible". Conversely, if the CR exceeds 1 -in -100,000, Health Canada considers that there may be potential cancer risks to human Stantec 3.21 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 health, and a more detailed assessment may be warranted. The 1 E-05 risk level has been widely accepted by federal agencies and is applicable to the Site. However, the determination of the negligible (tolerable, acceptable) cancer risk is a matter of program policy and not one of science, per se. Although the 1 E-05 cancer risk level has been widely adopted by provincial environmental agencies, Ontario has adopted an essentially negligible target cancer risk of 1 in 1 million (:5: E-06) for purposes of contaminated site management in that province. 3.4.3 Non -Carcinogenic Risk Characterization The results of the Risk Characterization of the Site for direct contact exposure via ingestion of COPCs in soil and groundwater, dermal contact with COPCs in soil, and inhalation of COPCs in suspended soil particulate, are presented below. Calculations for HQs, showing exposure doses from each pathway for each receptor, are found in Appendix E. Table 3-17 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Toddler Site Visitor from Soil Oral HQ Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Dermal HQ Totalr •Total.. Dermal HQ . HQ Benzene 3.00E-03 7.74E-05 3.08E-03 3.92E-09 Ethylbenzene 9.09E-05 2.35E-06 9.33E-05 8.91 E-1 1 Toluene 1.98E-04 5.12E-06 2.03E-04 1.14E-10 Xylenes (Total) 4.61 E-05 1.19E-06 4.72E-05 3.76E-09 Notes: Highlighted values exceed applicable HQ benchmark 1 Derived employing oral TRV Table 3-18 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Adult Site Visitor from Soil IQ� Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) •Total.. Totalro Dermal HQ . HQ Benzene 1.75E-04 4.49E-05 2.20E-04 3.92E-09 Ethylbenzene 5.30E-06 1.36E-06 6.67E-06 8.91 E-1 1 Toluene 1.16E-05 2.97E-06 1.45E-05 1.14E-10 Xylenes (Total) 2.69E-06 6.90E-07 3.38E-06 3.76E-09 Notes: Highlighted values exceed applicable HQ benchmark 1 Derived employing oral TRV 4 Stantec 3.22 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-19 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Landscape Worker from Soil Notes: Highlighted values exceed applicable HQ benchmark 1 Derived employing oral TRV Table 3-20 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Construction Worker from Soil •Total.. TotalDermal . EW:Li;.@i HQ r ey Dermal HQ FIQ Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) L AL Benzene 1.25E-04 6.42E-05 1.89E-04 4.91 E-07 Ethylbenzene 3.79E-06 1.95E-06 5.73E-06 1.12E-08 Toluene 8.27E-06 4.25E-06 1.25E-05 1.43E-08 Xylenes (Total) 1.92E-06 9.86E-07 2.91 E-06 4.71 E-07 Notes: Highlighted values exceed applicable HQ benchmark 1 Derived employing oral TRV Table 3-20 Non -Carcinogenic Risk to Construction Worker from Soil Notes: Highlighted values exceed applicable HQ benchmark 1 Derived employing oral TRV 3.4.3.1 Direct Contact with Soil No risk is evident at the Site from exposure to COPCs via direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate) for any of the receptors. 3.4.3.2 Carcinogenic Risk Characterization Carcinogenic risks were characterized for the Adult Site Visitor and Landscape Worker, for exposure to benzene in soil via direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate). Cancer risk (CR) results are presented in Table 3-21 and Table 3-22. Sample calculations for cancer risks, showing average adult daily doses for the receptor, are found in Appendix E. Stantec 3.23 Total•Total.. . Dermal HQ Dermal HQ HQ Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 7' L AL Benzene 6.25E-04 3.21 E-04 9.46E-04 6.14E-06 Ethylbenzene 1.89E-05 9.73E-06 2.87E-05 1.40E-07 Toluene 4.13E-05 2.12E-05 6.26E-05 1.79E-07 Xylenes (Total) 9.60E-06 4.93E-06 1.45E-05 5.89E-06 Notes: Highlighted values exceed applicable HQ benchmark 1 Derived employing oral TRV 3.4.3.1 Direct Contact with Soil No risk is evident at the Site from exposure to COPCs via direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate) for any of the receptors. 3.4.3.2 Carcinogenic Risk Characterization Carcinogenic risks were characterized for the Adult Site Visitor and Landscape Worker, for exposure to benzene in soil via direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate). Cancer risk (CR) results are presented in Table 3-21 and Table 3-22. Sample calculations for cancer risks, showing average adult daily doses for the receptor, are found in Appendix E. Stantec 3.23 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Table 3-21 Cancer Risk to Adult Site Visitor from Soil Table 3-22 Cancer Risk to Landscape Worker from Soil For both 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 10 million (<_ 1.0E-07). These results indicate that the cancer risk associated with exposure to benzene at the Site can be considered to be "essentially negligible" by both Health Canada (<_ 1.0E-05) and MOECC (:M .0E-06) standards. 3.4.3.3 Overall Results of Non -Carcinogenic Risk Characterization For all four of the human receptors (Toddler Site Visitor, Adult Site Visitor, Landscape Worker, and Construction Worker), exposure to all identified COPCs in Site soil resulted in HQs less than 0.2. These results indicate that there are likely no risks to human receptors from exposure to COPCs via direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate) from the Site. 3.4.3.4 Overall Results of Carcinogenic Risk Characterization For the Adult Site Visitor and Landscape Worker, exposure to benzene in Site soil resulted in a cancer risk that was less than 1 in 10 million. These results indicate that the cancer risk associated with exposure to benzene at the Site can be considered to be "essentially negligible" according to both Health Canada and MOECC. Stantec 3.24 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.4.4 Risk Characterization Uncertainty Evaluation For each human receptor, modeled exposure to COPCs was dependent on receptor characteristics such as body weight, and ingestion rates. These attributes were based on Health Canada (2010a) guidance, where available, or best professional judgement, and are believed to represent a realistic estimate of receptor characteristics. Toxicological reference values (TRVs) employed to characterize risks were published by regulatory agencies such as Health Canada. TRVs are considered to provide a conservative estimate of the dose or exposure level that will have negligible or no health consequences. Due to the methods of derivation, exceeding TRVs is not necessarily indicative of health risk. Instead, exceeding a TRV is only indicative of exceeding the level that is considered, for all intents and purposes, to be definitely safe for the vast majority of the population (within the limits of available science). Use of maximum COPC concentrations in soil for dose calculations and subsequent determinations of potential risk significantly over-estimates the true potential for on -Site risk associated with those contaminants. As a result of these considerations, the estimates of exposure and risk presented herein are considered to err on the side of caution; they likely over-estimate actual exposures and risks. ® Stantec 3.25 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Human Health Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Maximum concentrations of 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. A Toddler Site Visitor, Adult Site Visitor, Landscape Worker and Construction Worker were considered to be the most sensitive receptors at the Site. The exposure pathways considered were ingestion, dermal contact and particle inhalation of Site soils. Consequently, risks for all of the human receptors were assessed for COPCs identified in Site soil. Benzene is a known carcinogen; therefore, the Adult Site Visitor and Landscape Worker were also assessed for cancer risk associated with ingestion, dermal contact, and estimated daily inhalation exposure to benzene at the Site. The potential for adverse non -carcinogenic health effects was estimated by calculating HQs. The potential for adverse carcinogenic health effects was estimated by calculating the CRs for benzene. For all four of the human receptors (Toddler Site Visitor, Adult Site Visitor, Landscape Worker, and Construction Worker), exposure to all identified non -carcinogenic COPCs from soil resulted in HQs less than 0.2. For both 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 10 million. These results indicate that, as per Health Canada and MOECC guidance, the cancer risk associated with exposure to benzene at the Site can be considered to be "essentially negligible". Overall, these results suggest that there are no risks to any of the human receptors due to direct exposure pathways (i.e., soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, inhalation of suspended soil particulate). 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. 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 3.26 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.0 Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment The purpose of the screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) was to evaluate the potential for ecological receptors to experience negative health effects as a result of exposure to contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) found at the Site. The goal of an ecological risk assessment is typically to identify potential risks to ecological receptors at the population level rather than at the individual level, with the notable exception being for species protected under the Species at Risk Act or other legislation protective of wildlife. Changes in individual health do not necessarily equate to eventual changes in population health over time. For the purposes of the SLERA, the primary assessment endpoint was the protection of wildlife populations based on predicted effects on growth, reproduction, or survival (Suter, 2007) as determined through comparison to appropriate guidelines. The SLERA was conducted following widely recognized methodology using guidance from the following documents: • A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, General Guidance (CCME, 1996) • A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment, Technical Appendices (CCME, 1997) • Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance (Environment Canada, 2012) • Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1998) 4.1 PROBLEM FORMULATION The objective of the Problem Formulation was the development of a focused understanding of which chemicals assessed during the Site characterization stage are ecological COPCs and how these COPCs migrate from the source(s) and ultimately reach, and are taken up by ecological receptors living at, near, or frequenting the Site. The main points addressed in the Problem Formulation are: • Screening of ecological COPCs • Ecological receptor identification • Exposure pathway screening The results of these activities were summarized in an ecological conceptual site model that provides a visual depiction of the relevant pathways linking the source(s) of COPCs in various environmental media and biota to the ecological receptors of interest. ® Stantec 4.1 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.1.1 Identification of Ecological COPCs Ecological COPCs at the Site were identified by screening the maximum reported chemical concentrations in on-site soil and groundwater against applicable ecological health -based guidelines. The Site characterisation data used for the SLERA was collected by Terrapex in November 2012, SNC in 2014 and by Stantec in February 2015. A detailed description of the screening process is provided in Section 4.1.1.1 for soil and Section 4.1.1.2 for groundwater. Given that the Site is a federal property, preference was given to those ecological health -based guidelines provided by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). However, where suitable values were not available, ecologically relevant standards or guidelines were obtained from alternate jurisdictions. Since the Site is being assessed for possible divestiture to the Municipality of Bayham (in addition to due diligence), maximum chemical concentrations were also screened against ecological health -based guidelines provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC); however, the results of the MOECC screening are intended for information purposes only and will not be carried forward into the risk assessment. The full screening is provided in Appendix F. Given current land use as described in Section 2.0, commercial guidelines were applied to the Site. For all substrates where a chemical did not have an ecologically -based guideline and all samples analyzed were below the limits of detection, the chemical was assumed to be present at the Site at concentrations that would not result in unacceptable risks, and the chemical was not carried forward for further assessment. Calcium, iron (in soil only), magnesium, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur were quantified in the laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater but not carried forward in the substrates in which they were analyzed. They all serve as micro -nutrients for many organisms and are thus highly regulated. As a result, they are considered to be inherently non-toxic. Although iron is considered a micro -nutrient, it was assessed in groundwater because within the area where the groundwater seeps into the surface water, oxidation of the iron to iron oxide causes it to settle out of water as a precipitate with the potential to smother fish eggs and benthic organisms. 4.1.1.1 COPCs in Soil Only soil samples from 0 to 1.5 meters below ground surface (mbgs) were screened for the determination of ecological COPCs. The CCME considers the top 1.5 m of soil (i.e., 0 to 1.5 mbgs) to be surface soil, which is the main rooting zone for plants and the main burrowing zone for small mammals (CCME, 2008a). Below 1.5 mbgs, the soil contact pathway for ecological receptors is considered to be incomplete. The maximum chemical concentrations from all the available surface soil samples collected from the Site were compared to ecological health -based guidelines based on the following order: ® Stantec 4.2 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 • CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health (commercial land use, coarse textured soil; CCME, 2015a) • CCME Canada -Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soil (commercial land use, coarse-grained surface soil; CCME, 2008b) • MOECC ecological soil component standards from Table 9: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non -Potable Ground Water Condition (OMOE, 201 1) • USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSLs; USEPA, 2010) • Alberta Tier I Soil Remediation Guidelines (Alberta Environment, 2010) It was assumed that where only plant and soil invertebrate guidelines existed (direct contact) that this value would be protective of mammals and birds (soil ingestion). The complete compilation of soil data is presented in Appendix B and the pathway -specific ecological screening of maximum chemical concentrations is presented in Appendix F. Soil parameters that were carried forward as ecological COPCs are presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Summary of the Ecological Screening of Contaminants in Soil Site Parameter Concentration e o eum ` y rota ons and BT Maxim?M ederal Ecologic ne GuidellgAf OECC Ecological Guideline b No. of Federal -.. - Benzene 3.3 1 0.02 1/15 Toluene 12 0.10 0.2 2/15 Metals Molybdenum 2.5 2b 2 2/29 PAHs Acenaphthene 0.1 0.28 0.072 0/22 Methylnaphthalene, 1- 2.3 0.59b 0.59 6/22 Methylnaphthalene, 2- 2.7 0.59b 0.59 7/22 Methylnaphthalene (Total) 1.5 0.59b 0.59 4/18 Naphthalene 1.3 0.013 0.59 9/22 Phenanthrene 1.8 0.046 0.09 8/22 Notes: CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; lowest ecological commercial land -use guideline; coarse textured soil. b OMOE Site Condition Standards. Table 9 - Soil Components for Within 30m of a Water Body; lesser of applicable guideline for ecological health. Stantec 4.3 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.1.1.2 COPCs in Groundwater All groundwater samples were collected within approximately 10 m from a water body (i.e., Lake Erie). Therefore, maximum reported groundwater concentrations were compared to ecological health -based guidelines using the following order of preference: • CCME Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life; freshwater (CCME, 2015b) • MOECC ecological groundwater component standards from Table 9: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non -Potable Ground Water Condition (OMOE, 201 1) • British Columbia Approved Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (BC MOE, 2015) • USEPA freshwater screening benchmarks (USEPA, 2014) The CCME, BC MOE and USEPA guidelines and benchmarks are protective of aquatic life but are surface water quality values that are applied to groundwater with the assumption that there is no attenuation of contaminants within the groundwater or dilution as the groundwater seeps into the surface water (i.e., the surface water attains the same concentration of contaminants as found in the groundwater). In contrast, the MOECC groundwater standards are calculated from aquatic protection values (APVs), which are equivalent to the surface water quality guidelines, with the addition of a 10 -fold multiplier to conservatively account for dilution within the receiving water body. Within small lakes and low energy streams, dilution is often orders of magnitude higher but further adjustment of the APV would require the dilution potential to be quantified on a site-specific basis. The complete compilation of data is presented in Appendix B and the pathway -specific ecological screening of maximum chemical concentrations is presented in Appendix F. Groundwater parameters that were carried forward as ecological COPCs are presented in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 Summary of the Ecological Screening of Contaminants in Groundwater Parameter r Metals Site Maximum Concentration (pg/L) Federal Ecological Guideline (pg/L) MOECC Ecological Guideline b (pg/L) No. of Federal Exceedances Arsenic 8.9 5 1500 5/13 Iron 37000 350c NG 9/9 Manganese 3500 2985° NG 1/9 PAHs Anthracene 0.57 0.012 1 1/13 Benz(a)anthracene 1.5 0.018 1.8 2/13 Benzo(a)pyrene 1.3 0.015 2.1 3/13 4 Stantec 4.4 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Parameter Site Maximum Concentration Federal Ecological Guideline ° I MOECC Ecological Guideline b No. of Federal Exceedances Yes (N9/L) (N9/L) (P9/L) Yes Iron - Yes Manganese - Yes Molybdenum Yes - PAHs Anthracene - Yes Fluoranthene - Yes Benzo(a)pyrene - Phenanthrene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - Yes Chrysene - Yes Fluoranthene - Yes Notes: a CCME Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) for the Protection of Aquatic Life; freshwater guideline. b OMOE Site Condition Standards. Table 9 - Groundwater Components for Within 30m of a Water Body. c BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Manganese guideline calculated based on average hardness value. NG - No guideline value 4.1.1.3 Summary of Ecological COPCs Based on the screening of maximum soil and groundwater concentrations against applicable ecological pathway -specific guidelines, Table 4-3 provides a summary of the ecological COPCs at the Site. Table 4-3 Summary of Ecological COPCs Petroleum Hydrocarbons and BTEX Benzene Yes - Toluene Yes - Metals Arsenic - Yes Iron - Yes Manganese - Yes Molybdenum Yes - PAHs Anthracene - Yes Benz(a)anthracene - Yes Benzo(a)pyrene - Yes Benzo(g,h,i)perylene - Yes Chrysene - Yes Fluoranthene - Yes Methylnaphthalene, 1- Yes - Methylnaphthalene, 2- Yes - Methylnaphthalene (Total) Yes - 4 Stantec 4.5 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Parameter - Naphthalene Yes - Phenanthrene Yes Yes Pyrene - Yes In summary, benzene, toluene, molybdenum and select PAHs were identified as ecological COPCs in surface soils, and arsenic, iron, manganese and select PAHs were identified as ecological COPCs in groundwater. Phenanthrene was the only ecological COPC identified in both soil and groundwater. 4.1.1.4 Ecological Screening against MOECC Guidelines Since the Site is being assessed for possible divestiture to the Municipality of Bayham (federal to provincial jurisdiction), Stantec also screened the contaminants against MOECC guidelines in order to accommodate the transfer from a federal to a provincial jurisdiction. In groundwater, two COPCs (i.e., benzo(g,h,i)perylene and chrysene) exceeded their respective MOECC guidelines (shown in Appendix F), and in soil 13 COPCs exceeded MOECC guidelines (shown in Table 4-4). In addition to the COPCs identified previously (Table 4-3), the following chemicals in soil were identified through the screening of MOECC guidelines: PHC F1 minus BTEX, PHC F2, ethylbenzene, total xylenes and acenaphthene. Although these results will not be carried forward into risk assessment as part of this project, they are intended for information purposes. See Appendix F for additional screening information. Table 4-4 Summary of the MOECC Ecological Screening of COPCs in Soil Parameter - Maximum Concentration . Petroleum Hydrocarbons and BTEX MOECCEcological.- - . PHC Fl minus BTEX 170 25 PHC F2 41 (<50) 10 Benzene 3.3 0.02 Toluene 12 0.2 Ethylbenzene 2.5 0.05 Xylenes, Total 19 0.05 Metals Molybdenum 2.5 2 PAHs Acenaphthene 0.1 0.072 Methylnaphthalene, 1- 2.3 0.59 Methylnaphthalene, 2- 2.7 0.59 Methylnaphthalene (Total) 1.5 0.59 Naphthalene 1.3 0.09 4 Stantec 4.6 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Notes: a OMOE Site Condition Standards. Table 9 - Soil Components for Within 30m of a Water Body; lesser of applicable guideline for ecological health. Stantec 4.7 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.1.2 Identification of Ecological Receptors For the purpose of ecological risk assessment, it is neither practical, nor necessary, to individually assess each wildlife species that may potentially occupy, visit or live near the Site. Instead, the potential for adverse effects is evaluated for a subset of wildlife receptors (referred to as Valued Ecological Components, or VECs) that may be exposed to COPCs at or near the Site. Given that a SLERA assesses media -based exposure, not multi -pathway exposure modelling as for a quantitative risk assessment, the identification of individual VEC species is not required. Instead, classes of ecological receptors were assessed as shown in Table 4-5, which also indicates the classes used as surrogates for assessment of the species of conservation concern identified in Section 2.1.5 (see Table 2-1). Table 4-5 Summary of Valued Ecological Components VEC M11 Surr"ate Receptor Terrestrial VECs • Woodland Vole Mammals (as a class) . American Badger • Acadian Flycatcher • Cerulean Warbler Birds (as a class) • Louisiana Waterthrush • Yellow -breasted Chat • Reptiles and reptile species of conservation concern Soil Invertebrates (as a class) • None Terrestrial Plants (as a class) • None Aquatic VECs Aquatic Life (as a class) • Aquatic species of conservation concern Birds are commonly used as surrogate receptors for terrestrial -phase reptiles due to a lack of toxicity information available for reptiles (USEPA, 2015). As such, birds as a class have been selected as a surrogate to assess the effects of COPCs on reptiles and reptile species of conservation concern at the Site. The effects of potential groundwater migration to surface water will be assessed for freshwater aquatic life (i.e., aquatic plants, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians and fish). However, semi - aquatic birds and mammals were not selected as VECs due to the scope of the assessment and the Site characterization, which includes only soil and groundwater impacts. Instead, these VECs have been assessed in the risk assessment of the aquatic environment (provided by Stantec under separate cover). Stantec PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.1.3 Identification of Ecological Exposure Pathways An exposure pathway describes the movement of a COPC from the source to the eventual point of intake (exposure) by the VEC. Identifying the potential exposure pathways involves consideration of several factors. The life history traits of each VEC (e.g., habitat, diet), features of the Site (e.g., biota, habitat suitability) and environmental fate and transport properties of each COPC comprise but a few of the components taken into account when identifying potential pathways. A detailed assessment of exposure pathways is not necessary for a screening level ecological risk assessment, which only assesses media -based exposures. However, in order to develop the ecological conceptual site model (CSM), Table 4-6 provides a summary of the potential exposure pathways as well as rationale for inclusion or exclusion from the CSM. Table 4-6 Ecological Exposure Pathways IncludedPotential in Exposure CSM? Justification ft Pathwaythe FIMIR-111122122F Soil Ingestion Yes Uptake from incidental ingestion of soil constitutes a potential source of exposure to wildlife receptors. The consumption of contaminated biota such as terrestrial Terrestrial Biota Yes plants, soil invertebrates or prey can often provide a major Ingestion source of exposure to ecological receptors depending on the environmental fate and transport properties of the COPC. Dermal absorption of COPCs is not expected to provide a Soil Dermal relevant source of exposure to mammalian and avian Absorption/Contact No receptors due in most part to the presence of fur or feathers, which can significantly reduce skin surface area available to directly contact contaminants. CCME does not consider inhalation as an ecological exposure Soil Particulate NO pathway. There are data limitations for exposure via Inhalation inhalation (e.g. VOCs or soil particulate) and soil ingestion is considered significantly more important than inhalation. Freshwater Aquatic Pathways Water Ingestion Yes Uptake from ingestion of water as a result of feeding, drinking or grooming is a potential source of exposure. Uptake from incidental ingestion of sediment constitutes potential sources of exposure to wildlife receptors. However, Sediment Ingestion No the assessment of sediment has been undertaken in the assessment of the aquatic environment (provided by Stantec under separate cover). Stantec 4.9 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.1.4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model The ecological conceptual site model for the SLERA is presented as Figure 4-1 and provides a simplified representation of potential exposure pathways, linking COPCs to each identified VEC. Stantec 4.10 Freshwater Aquatic Pathways The consumption of contaminated biota such as freshwater aquatic plants and invertebrates can provide a source of Aquatic Biota exposure to ecological receptors depending on Ingestion No environmental fate and transport properties of COPCs. However, the assessment of uptake into aquatic biota has been undertaken in the assessment of the aquatic environment (provided by Stantec under separate cover). Water Dermal Dermal absorption of COPCs is not expected to provide a Absorption/Contact No significant source of exposure to receptors when compared to ingestion of water. 4.1.4 Ecological Conceptual Site Model The ecological conceptual site model for the SLERA is presented as Figure 4-1 and provides a simplified representation of potential exposure pathways, linking COPCs to each identified VEC. Stantec 4.10 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Source Media Transport Mechanisms Exposure Pathways Receptors Direct Exposure Uptake/Ingestion) Dermal Contact Birds Uptake by TerrestrialMammals Invertebrates Ingestion of Invertebrates Surficial soils I Mammals Uptake by Terrestrial Mimals Ingestion of TerrestrialBirds Mammals/Birds LeachingMammals Uptake by Terrestrial Plants Ingestion of PlantsBirds Groundwater Groundwater Surface Water UptakelingestionlAll Aquatic ECs Direct Exposure Dermal ContactBirds 1 1 Complete E)posure Pathway Figure 4-1 Ecological Conceptual Site Model 4.11 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.1.5 Problem Formulation Uncertainty Evaluation Sources of uncertainty associated with the Problem Formulation tend to focus on the following: • The identification of relevant chemicals of potential concern • The identification of appropriate ecological receptors • The identification of significant exposure pathways The primary concern regarding the selection of COPCs is that relevant contaminants will have been overlooked and thus omitted from consideration within the ecological risk assessment. This concern was addressed through investigation of the Site that focused on historical land -use and how these activities might have led to environmental contamination. Based on this information, sampling programs were designed to target areas expected to contain the highest levels of specific types of contaminants that might be in the soil and groundwater associated with the Site. The analysis of the samples included a broad range of parameters (metals, PHCs, PAHs, PCBs and OCPs) and was conducted by a certified laboratory. A review of the laboratory analytical program for the samples recovered during Site investigations indicated that QA/QC parameters (i.e., percentage recovery for matrix spike, spiked blanks, values for method blanks, and relative percent difference for analytical and field sample duplicates) were within the laboratory quality control limits. Based on the effort associated with the Site characterization, the data used to quantify the potential environmental contamination and identify COPCs was considered to be suitable for the Site. The potential uncertainty associated with the identification of COPCs was further addressed using a conservative screening approach. For the COPC screening, the environmental contaminant concentrations were represented using the maximum reported concentrations from the available data and these were compared to environmental quality standards that were identified from established regulatory authorities and chosen to be specific for ecological receptors protective of environmentally relevant endpoints. The potential uncertainty with the selection of a complete and relevant list of ecological receptors was addressed using information from previous Site and biological assessments and research in the primary literature. An attempt was made to include suitable surrogates, where applicable (e.g., reptiles and species of conservation concern). The result was a comprehensive list of potential VECs. Semi -aquatic birds and mammals were not selected as VECs due to the scope of the assessment, which included only soil and groundwater impacts at the Site. Instead, these VECs have been assessed in the risk assessment of the aquatic environment (provided by Stantec under separate cover). The uncertainty associated with the selection of ecological exposure pathways stems from the potential to omit a relevant pathway from the CSM. However, only certain exposure pathways were determined to be relevant. Therefore, the probability that a significant pathway was missed or omitted was considered to be insignificant. Stantec 4.12 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.2 RISK CHARACTERIZATION In surface soil, maximum concentrations of benzene, toluene, molybdenum and select PAHs (i.e., 1 -methylnaphthalene, 2 -methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene and phenanthrene) exceeded ecological guidelines protective of aquatic life. Additionally, in groundwater, maximum concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese and select PAHs (i.e., anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthracene and pyrene) exceeded guidelines protective of aquatic life. 4.2.1 Terrestrial Environment None of the COPCs identified in surface soil were found at concentrations that exceeded guidelines protective of terrestrial life. This includes plants, soil invertebrates, birds and mammals. All of the exceedances noted during the COPC screening were of guidelines protective of aquatic receptors (i.e., protective of the soil to groundwater to surface water exposure pathway). More specifically, the maximum concentrations of benzene and toluene were less than the CCME soil contact guidelines for the protection of plants and invertebrates and were less than the MOECC component guidelines protective of terrestrial receptors (i.e., plants, soil organisms, mammals and birds). Similarly, maximum concentrations of molybdenum, naphthalene and phenanthrene were less than the MOECC soil guidelines protective of terrestrial receptors (i.e., plants, soil organisms, mammals and birds). For 1 -methylnaphthalene, 2 -methylnaphthalene and total methylnaphthalene, guidelines for the protection of terrestrial receptors were not available from the CCME or MOECC. However, the maximum concentration of all low molecular weight PAHs (<_3 aromatic rings) was 8.3 mg/kg which was less than the ecological guideline of 29 mg/kg from the USEPA (2007), which is based on the lowest guideline for the protection of soil invertebrates and avian and mammalian wildlife. Therefore, it is not anticipated that benzene, toluene, molybdenum, 1 -methylnaphthalene, 2 - methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene or phenanthrene pose a significant risk to terrestrial receptors (i.e., birds, mammals, soil invertebrates, terrestrial plants) at the Site. This includes species of conservation concern. 4.2.2 Aquatic Environment Concentrations in soil of benzene, toluene, molybdenum and select PAHs (i.e., benzo(g,h,i)perylene, 1 -methylnaphthalene, 2 -methylnaphthalene, total methylnaphthalene, naphthalene and phenanthrene) exceeded guidelines protective of aquatic life. However, given the long-term nature of Site activities, it is reasonable to assume that the soil and groundwater has reached a steady-state in which groundwater concentrations are representative of leaching from soil. As such, the assessment of potential risks to the aquatic environment at the Site focused on COPC concentrations in groundwater. Stantec 4.13 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 Therefore, although concentrations of benzene, toluene and naphthalene in soil exceeded the CCME groundwater check values for protection of aquatic life, concentrations of these COPCs in groundwater were less than guidelines, indicating that these COPCs do not pose a risk to aquatic receptors. This also includes species of conservation concern at the Site. Similarly, although soil concentrations of molybdenum, 1 -methylnaphthalene, 2 -methylnaphthalene and total methylnaphthalene exceeded MOECC guidelines protective of aquatic life, concentrations of these COPCs in groundwater were less than guidelines. Therefore, it is not anticipated that these COPCs pose a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. In groundwater, maximum concentrations of arsenic, iron, manganese, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthracene and pyrene exceeded guidelines protective of aquatic receptors. However, for PAHs, all exceedances of CCME and MOECC groundwater guidelines were sampled in the vicinity of the vacant automation building, which is located greater than 100 m from the water's edge. Given the distance from the aquatic environment and the small number of exceedances (i.e., <_ 4 out of 13 samples), it is considered unlikely that PAHs in groundwater pose a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. For arsenic, the maximum concentration exceeded the CCME guideline, but all arsenic concentrations were below naturally occurring background concentrations in Ontario (i.e., 13 pg/L; Table 1 Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards). Therefore, arsenic is considered unlikely to pose a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. Although an essential element required by all living organisms, high iron concentrations in well- aerated aquatic environments can result in the formation of a precipitate that can smother benthic organisms (e.g., benthic plants, benthic invertebrates, fish eggs). All samples exceeded the guideline; however, observations made during field sampling of sediment and benthic invertebrates in support of the assessment of the aquatic environment (conducted by Stantec under separate cover), did not find any evidence of iron precipitate. Therefore, it is not anticipated that iron poses a significant risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. For manganese, only one out of nine samples exceeded the freshwater chronic guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the BC MOE. Given that manganese is an essential nutrient required by all living organisms and is only slightly -to -moderately toxic to aquatic organisms (BC MOE, 2015), it is not anticipated that manganese poses a risk to aquatic receptors, including species of conservation concern, at the Site. It should be noted that an assessment of the aquatic environment has been conducted by Stantec under separate cover. The results of the aquatic assessment are included within Section 5.0. Stantec 4.14 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment September 11, 2015 4.3 SUMMARY In summary, 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. ® Stantec 4.15 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Summary September 11, 2015 5.0 Summary The purpose of the human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA) and screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) was to identify the presence or absence of impacts to soil and groundwater at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario, to determine whether or not concentrations of contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors. The PQRA/SLERA was completed using soil and groundwater data collected by Terrapex in 2012, SNC in 2014, and Stantec in 2015. For the human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes exceeded risk based guidelines for commercial land use, for direct contact with soil and were carried forward into the PQRA. 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 PQRA 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 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 10 million. These results indicate that, as per Health Canada and MOECC guidance, the cancer risk associated with exposure to benzene at the Site can be considered to be "essentially negligible". 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, benzo(ghi)perylene, chrysene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, and pyrene in groundwater, were carried through for risk assessment. However, the results suggest that there are no significant risks to aquatic or terrestrial receptors at the Site, including species of conservation concern. The results of the site-specific risk assessment (SSRA) of the aquatic environment (Stantec, 2015) determined that there were no human health risks to the selected human receptors due to applicable exposure pathways (i.e., inadvertent ingestion and dermal contact with Site surface water, and consumption of fish caught at the Site) for all non -carcinogenic and carcinogenic COPCs. Similarly, the results of the ecological risk assessment suggested that, based on a weight - of -evidence approach, which used surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry, fish tissue residues and benthic community analysis, the COPCs identified within the surface water and sediment did not appear to pose an unacceptable risk to the viability of the aquatic community within Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie. ® Stantec 5.1 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Summary September 11, 2015 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 individuals. 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 5.2 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Closure September 11, 2015 6.0 Closure This report documents work that was completed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time 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 risk assessment was undertaken exclusively for the purpose outlined herein and was limited to those contaminants, exposure pathways, receptors, and related uncertainties specifically referenced in this report. This work was specific to the sites conditions and land use considerations described herein. 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 portions of the identified property that were 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 and the limited data available. 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 use 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. For this report, the sampling was limited to specific areas and the analytical program was limited to the determination of the specific parameters indicated. The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered at the time the field work was performed at the specific testing and/or sampling locations, and conditions may vary among sampling locations. In addition, analysis was carried out for only a limited number of chemical parameters, and it should not be inferred that other chemical species are not present. This document describes only the applicable risks associated with the identified environmental hazards, and is not intended to imply a risk-free Site. 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. Stantec N. PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Stantec Quality Management Program September 11, 2015 7.0 Stantec Quality Management Program This report, entitled Preliminary Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment of Soil and Groundwater at Port Burwell prepared for DFO, dated september 11, 2015, was produced by Stantec Consulting Ltd. This report was written by the following individuals: Alicia Wierzbicka, M.Env.Sc. Project Manager, Risk Assessor (A - Signature Alexis Fast, M.E.Des. Risk Assessor Signature This report was reviewed by the following individuals: Mark Richardson, Ph.D. Senior Risk Assessment Specialist Signature ® Stantec Ulysses Klee, Ph.D. Senior Risk Assessment Specialist Signature 7.1 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL References September 11, 2015 8.0 References British Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE). 2015. Approved Water Quality Guidelines. Accessed March 2015 at: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=044DD64C7E2441 5D83D07430964113C9&title=Approved%20WaterTo20Quality%20Guidelines. MacViro Consultants Inc. (MacViro). 2001. Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No. 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario. March 2001. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2015a. Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health. Accessed March 2015 at http://cegg-rcge.ccme.ca/. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2015b. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Accessed March 2015 at http://cegg- rcge.ccme.ca/ Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008a. Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. January 2008. PN 1399. ISBN 978-1-896997-77-3. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008b. Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil. Technical Supplement. Environment Canada. 2012. Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan (FCSAP) Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance. Report prepared by Azimuth Consulting Group for Environment Canada. March 2012. Health Canada. 2010a. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PARA), Version 2.0. Revised 2012. Health Canada. 2010b. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part 11: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical -Specific Factors, Version 2.0. Health Canada. 2010c. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada Part V: Guidance on Human Health Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment for Chemicals (DQRAChem). OMOE (currently MOECC; Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change). 2011. Rationale for the Development of Soil and Groundwater Standards for use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. April 2011. ® Stantec N PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL References September 11, 2015 SNC Lavalin Inc. (SNC). 2015. Supplemental Phase II/ Phase III Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Automation Building at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario. March 2015. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec). 2012. Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell. March 2012. Suter 11, G.W. (ed). 2007. Ecological risk assessment. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex). 2013. Phase 1/11 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario. July 10, 2013. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2012. Texas Risk Reduction Program (TRRP) Protective Concentration Levels (PCLs). Updated June 2012. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2007. Compounds for which Calculation of a Human Health Protective Concentration Level (PCL) is Not Required. March 30, 2007. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015a. Mid -Atlantic Region Risk -Based Concentrations (RBC). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb- concentration_table/Generic_ Tables/index.htm. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2015b. Technical Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment. Accessed March 2015 at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/ecorisk ders/toera-analysis-eco.htm. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Freshwater Screening Benchmarks. Accessed March 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/risk/eco/btag/sbv/fw/screenbench.htm. Last updated December 2014. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Accessed March 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Interim Final. June 2007. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Benzene. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Accessed March 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. Last updated April 2003. ® Stantec 8.2 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 Figures ® Stantec A.1 Huron 0 nt-a•r--1,O I KEY WP / Lake Erie Port Stanley Ontario 1:3,000,000 a m SI Vienna \da Port Burwell �Stree, Cake Shore 41/�e D o u oVV I,VVV m �a 1:50,000 515000 520000 March 2015 Project # 122511076 Legend Client/Project p Project Area Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sta ntec PQRA/SLERA of Soil & Groundwater Small Crafts Harbour, Port Burwell, ON Notes Figure No. I. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Title Printer for Ontario, 2013. Key Plan Legend SBuilding ta ntec Road Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. 3. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013. 4. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. o"C' 2015 Project No 12251 1 076 Client/Project Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada PQRA/SLERA of Soil & Groundwater Small Crafts Harbour, Port Burwell, ON Figure No. 2 Title Site Plan (5� Stantec Legend Sampling Location ® Borehole 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 March 2015 Proiect No. 122511076 Client/Project OProperty Boundary Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Approximate Terrestrial Site Boundaries PQRA/SLERA of Soil & Groundwater ® Borehole, Stantec Road Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Ontario Monitoring Well I Fence Figure No. 3 Title Sampling Locations Monitoring Well, Stantec Monitoring Well, Terrapex ® Surface Soil Sample, MacViro Surface Soil Sample, SNC-Lovalin Surface Soil Sample, Stantec I Fence Figure No. 3 Title Sampling Locations PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix B Data Tables September 11, 2015 Data Tables ® Stantec a Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Units I SS15-4 BH15-2 MW15-1 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 MW15-1-1 MW15-1-1LR MW15-1-2 MW15-1-2LR MW15-1-5 MW15-1-5LR 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 3.05-3.05m 3.05-3.81 m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0486 ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0487 ZL0488 ZL0488 - Moisture Content Field 22 22 27 25 21 - 24 11 18 15 17 17 Lab Replicate 8.8 Lab Replicate 18 Lab Replicate 18 pH Duplicate 7.33 7.46 - - 7.07 7.09 - 7.46 - - SS15-4 BH15-2 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 BH15-2-2 BH15-2-2LR BH15-2-5 0.76-1.52m 0.76-1.52m 3.05-3.81m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0489 ZL0489 ZL0490 B521696 Lab Replicate B521696 SS15-4 BH15-3 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 BH15-3-1 BH15-3-1LR BH15-3-20 BH15-3-6 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 3.81 -4.57m 3.81 -4.57m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0491 ZL0491 ZL0493 ZL0492 0.16 Lab Replicate 120 <0.01 SS15-4 SS15-5 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 SS15-4-1 SS15-4-1LR SS15-5-1 0-0.38m 0-0.38m 0-0.31 m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0494 ZL0494 ZL0495 - Lab Replicate ms/cm SS15-6 2 -Feb -15 SS15-6-1 0-0.38m STANTEC MAXX B521696 ZL0496 BH -201-1A 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-1A SNC MAXX 134M3089 YP4046 BH -201-1B 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-1B SNC MAXX 114M3089 YP4047 BH -201-2 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-2 SNC MAXX 64M3089 YP4048 BH -201-4 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-4 SNC MAXX 134M3089 YP4050 Available (CaC12) pH S.U. - - - - - - - 7.33 7.50 7.84 7.90 Cyanide (Free) lag/g 0.01 0.02 0.01 <0.01 - 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - - - Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 0.26 0.24 0.18 - 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 - 120 <0.01 <0.01 Fluoride lag/g <5 <5 - - <5 <5 - <5 - - - <5 - <5 11 - - - - Moisture Content % 22 22 27 25 21 - 24 11 18 15 17 17 7.0 8.8 - 18 17 18 pH S.U. 7.33 7.46 - - 7.07 7.09 - 7.46 - - 7.30 - 7.69 7.65 - - - - Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) none 0.32 - 0.32 0.27 - 0.29 0.30 0.28 1 0.26 - - - I - BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene lag/g <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 3.3 0.084 <0.20 0.40 <0.005 <0.005 Toluene lag/g 0.05 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 12 0.53 2.5 10 <0.02 <0.02 Ethylbenzene lag/g 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.5 0.17 - 120 <0.01 <0.01 Xylene, m & p- lag/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 12 0.96 - 0.55 <0.04 <0.04 Xylene, o- lag/g <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 lag/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.09 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 19 1.7 - 9.6 <0.04 <0.04 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) lag/g <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 210 18 - - <10 <10 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX lag/g <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - 170 16 - 0.14 <10 <10 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) lag/g <10 - <10 - 15 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 - 24 41 - - 15 14 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) lag/g <50 - <50 - 52 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - 80 130 - - <50 <50 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) lag/g <50 - <50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 - <50 <50 - 6.7 <50 <50 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none YES - YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - YES YES 2.1 5.0 YES YES Metals Antimony lag/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.40 <0.20 <0.20 Arsenic lag/g 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 2.1 1.9 2.5 10 1.5 1.8 Barium lag/g 14 9.0 9.3 13 12 16 13 18 120 8.3 8.1 Beryllium lag/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.55 <0.20 <0.20 Bismuth lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - - Boron lag/g - - - - - - - - - <5.0 9.6 <5.0 <5.0 Boron (Available) lag/g 0.31 0.20 0.21 - 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 - - - - Cadmium lag/g <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 - - - - - - - - - - - - Chromium (Hexavalent) lag/g <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 - - - - Chromium (Total) lag/g 5.3 - 5.1 4.3 - 4.2 - 4.7 - 3.9 3.9 4.8 6.7 5.1 4.0 Cobalt lag/g 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.8 - 1.9 2.3 2.1 5.0 1.7 2.1 Copper lag/g 4.7 3.6 3.4 4.2 3.7 - 4.0 3.3 29 18 3.3 3.1 Iron Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - Lead lag/g 3.9 3.2 - 2.8 4.6 3.3 4.3 4.0 8.7 9.6 3.9 3.9 Magnesium lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - - Manganese lag/g - - - - - - - Mercury lag/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 - - - - Molybdenum lag/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 1.5 <0.50 0.54 Nickel lag/g 4.0 2.9 2.6 4.0 3.1 4.1 4.0 4.6 14 3.8 4.1 Phosphorus lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - Potassium lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - Selenium lag/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.77 <0.50 <0.50 Silver lag/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Sodium lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - Strontium lag/g - - - - - - - Sulfur lag/g 310 380 240 170 - 110 250 250 - - - - Thallium lag/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.052 0.063 0.24 <0.050 <0.050 Tin Ing/g <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Tungsten lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - Uranium lag/g 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.66 0.25 0.25 Vanadium lag/g 10 11 - 9.1 8.5 - 8.6 7.8 8.3 9.0 18 7.3 5.6 Zinc lag/g 20 18 15 19 17 15 15 57 30 15 11 Zirconium lag/g - - - - - - - - - - - I - - See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 1 of 7 Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Units I SS15-4 BH15-2 MW15-1 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 MW15-1-1 MW15-1-1LR MW15-1-2 MW15-1-2LR MW15-1-5 MW15-1-5LR 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 3.05-3.05m 3.05-3.81 m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0486 ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0487 ZL0488 ZL0488 0.054 - Field <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene Pg/g Lab Replicate Lab Replicate 0.024 Lab Replicate <0.0050 0.029 Duplicate 0.036 <0.0050 <0.0050 SS15-4 BH15-2 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 BH15-2-2 BH15-2-2LR BH15-2-5 0.76-1.52m 0.76-1.52m 3.05-3.81m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0489 ZL0489 ZL0490 B521696 Lab Replicate B521696 SS15-4 BH15-3 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 BH15-3-1 BH15-3-1LR BH15-3-20 BH15-3-6 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 3.81 -4.57m 3.81 -4.57m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0491 ZL0491 ZL0493 ZL0492 0.0078 Lab Replicate <0.0050 0.020 SS15-4 SS15-5 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 SS15-4-1 SS15-4-1LR SS15-5-1 0-0.38m 0-0.38m 0-0.31 m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0494 ZL0494 ZL0495 0.020 Lab Replicate <0.0050 SS15-6 2 -Feb -15 SS15-6-1 0-0.38m STANTEC MAXX B521696 ZL0496 BH -201-1A 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-1A SNC MAXX 134M3089 YP4046 BH -201-1B 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-1B SNC MAXX B4M3089 YP4047 BH -201-2 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-2 SNC MAXX 64M3089 YP4048 BH -201-4 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-4 SNC MAXX 134M3089 YP4050 Acenaphthene pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0052 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.018 0.019 <0.0050 <0.0050 Acenaphthylene Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.0050 0.020 <0.0050 <0.0050 Anthracene Pg/g <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.0078 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.020 0.035 <0.0050 <0.0050 Benzo(a)anthracene Ng/g <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 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 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 fag/g 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 <0.0050 - 0.0066 - 0.0065 0.011 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.010 - 0.011 <0.0050 <0.0050 Chrysene Ng/g 0.0068 - 0.012 - - 0.014 0.023 0.0063 - <0.0050 0.066 - 0.062 <0.0050 <0.0050 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Ng/g <0.0050 - <0.0050 - DDT (p,p'-DDT) <0.0050 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.0070 - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Fluoranthene ug/g 0.013 - 0.037 - hg/g 0.028 0.064 0.016 - <0.0050 0.062 - 0.081 <0.0050 0.0085 Fluorene Pg/g <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 fag/g 0.0074 - 0.013 - 0.011 0.018 0.0063 - <0.0050 0.014 - 0.017 <0.0050 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene (Total) Pg/g <0.0071 - <0.0071 - <0.0071 0.023 <0.0071 - 0.036 1.5 - 1.9 <0.0071 <0.0071 Methylnaphthalene, 1- Pg/g <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.011 <0.0050 - 0.016 0.66 - 0.80 <0.0050 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene, 2- ug/g <0.0050 - <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.012 0.0052 - 0.020 0.83 - 1.1 <0.0050 <0.0050 Naphthalene Pg/g <0.0050 - <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.010 MI - <0.0050 - 0.015 0.50 - 0.71 <0.0050 <0.0050 Phenanthrene Pg/g 0.0055 - 0.021 - 0.013 0.036 0.0058 - 0.011 0.39 - 0.44 <0.0050 0.0053 Pyrene Pg/g 0.011 - 0.030 - 0.024 0.051 0.013 - <0.0050 0.067 - 0.097 <0.0050 0.012 Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents Pg/g 0.0123 - 0.0222 0.0195 0.0362 0.0115 - 0.00605 0.0502 0.0533 0.00605 0.00605 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 ug/g Aroclor 1221 Pg/g - - Aroclor 1232 pg/g - - - - Aroclor 1242 Pg/g - - - Aroclor 1248 Pg/g - Aroclor 1254 Pg/g - - Aroclor 1260 Ng/g - - - - Aroclor 1262 Ng/g - - - - Aroclor 1268 pg/g - - - - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin ug/g Chlordane (Total) ug/g Chlordane, alpha- Pg/g - - - Chlordane, gamma- pg/g - DDD (p,p'-DDD) hg/g DDD, o,p'- hg/g - DDD, o,p'- + DDD, p,p'- Pg/g DDE (p,p'-DDE) Pg/g DDE, o,p'- Ng/g - - - - DDE, o,p'- + DDE, p,p'- pg/g DDT (p,p'-DDT) hg/g - - - DDT, o,p'- hg/g - - - DDT, o,p'- + DDT, p,p'- Pg/g - - Dieldrin Ng/g - - - Endosulfan Ng/g - - Endosulfan I pg/g - - - - Endosulfan II pg/g - - - - Endosulfan Sulfate pg/g - - - Endrin Pg/g - - - Heptachlor Ng/g - - Heptachlor Epoxide pg/g - - Hexachlorobenzene ug/g - - - Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) Pg/g - - - Hexachloroethane pg/g - - Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) Pg/g - - - Methoxychlor (4,4' -Methoxychlor) Ng/g I - - - - - - - - - - - - See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 2 of 7 Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Units BH -201-22 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-22 BH-201-22LR SNC SNC MAXX MAXX 134M3089 64M3089 YP4049 YP4049 21 -Nov -14 Lab Replicate 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 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 134M3089 134M3089 B4M3089 134M3082 134M3082 B4M3082 64M3082 134M3082 134M3082 134M3082 134M3082 134M3082 134M3081 134M3081 64M3081 134M3081 YP4051 YP4052 YP4054 YP3992 YP3993 YP3994 YP3994 YP3995 YP3998 YP3999 YP4000 YP4000 YP3987 YP3987 YP3988 YP3988 15 16 - 16 17 17 Lab Replicate 18 18 - - 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 MW101-1B 20 -Nov -12 MW101-1B 0.3 - 0.4 m TERRAPEX MAXX Available (CaC12) pH S.U. 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm <0.01 31 210 <0.01 9.9 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 9.7 210 <0.01 6.1 <0.01 10 11 Fluoride hg/g - - 0.22 - - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - - - <0.20 - - - <0.20 Moisture Content % 17 18 - 23 19 - 14 15 16 - 16 17 17 - 18 18 - - pH S.U. - - <5.0 - - - - - - - - <5.0 - - <5.0 <5.0 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) none - - - - - - - - <10 - - - - - - - - - - - - BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene Pg/g <0.005 <0.20 0.59 <0.005 0.55 - <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.20 0.64 <0.005 <0.20 <0.005 <0.20 0.21 Toluene Pg/g <0.02 2.9 16 <0.02 2.4 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 1.7 16 <0.02 1.3 <0.02 1.6 2.6 Ethylbenzene Pg/g <0.01 31 210 <0.01 9.9 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 9.7 210 <0.01 6.1 <0.01 10 11 Xylene, m & p- Pg/g <0.04 0.22 0.83 <0.04 <0.20 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.20 0.94 <0.04 <0.20 <0.04 - <0.20 Xylene, o- Pg/g <0.02 - - <0.02 - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - <0.02 - <0.02 - - Xylenes, Total Pg/g <0.04 <5.0 - <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <5.0 <0.04 <5.0 <5.0 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) Pg/g <10 - - <10 - - <10 <10 <10 - - <10 - <10 - - PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX Pg/g <10 <0.10 - <10 0.49 - <10 <10 <10 <0.10 <0.10 <10 <0.10 <10 - 0.16 0.14 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) Pg/g 15 - - 15 - - 12 14 12 - - <10 - <10 <10 - - PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) Pg/g <50 - - <50 - - <50 <50 <50 - - <50 - <50 <50 - - PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) Pg/g <50 7.3 - <50 4.7 - <50 <50 <50 4.3 11 <50 3.5 <50 <50 3.9 4.2 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none YES 2.8 5.3 YES 2.1 3.1 YES YES YES 1.7 5.5 YES 1.4 YES YES - 1.9 Metals Antimony fag/g <0.20 <0.20 0.59 <0.20 0.55 0.31 0.33 0.32 <0.20 0.64 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.21 Arsenic Pg/g 1.9 2.9 16 1.7 2.4 8.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 16 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.6 Barium Pg/g 8.0 31 210 7.8 9.9 31 4.9 5.9 9.7 210 7.4 6.1 9.7 8.8 10 11 Beryllium Pg/g <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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Boron Pg/g <5.0 <5.0 13 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Boron (Available) fag/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cadmium Pg/g <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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chromium (Hexavalent) Ng/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chromium (Total) Ng/g 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 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 fag/g 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lead Pg/g 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 Ng/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Manganese Pg/g - Mercury Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Molybdenum Pg/g 0.54 0.53 2.3 <0.50 <0.50 0.79 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 2.5 0.66 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nickel Pg/g 4.1 5.4 14 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Potassium Ng/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Selenium Pg/g <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 <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 Ing/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strontium Pg/g - Sulfur Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thallium Ng/g <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 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Tungsten Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Uranium fag/g 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 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 15 110 23 14 88 26 31 29 28 30 12 160 14 12 49 94 Zirconium Ng/g - - - I - - - - See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 3 of 7 Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PQRA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons BH -201-22 21 -Nov -14 21 -Nov -14 BH -201-22 BH-201-22LR SNC SNC MAXX MAXX B4M3089 64M3089 YP4049 YP4049 21 -Nov -14 Lab Replicate 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 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 131-1-204-113 BH -204-3 BH-204-3LR BH -205-1A BH -205-1 ALR 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 64M3089 134M3089 134M3089 64M3082 64M3082 114M3082 64M3082 134M3082 64M3082 64M3082 B4M3082 64M3082 B4M3081 134M3081 134M3081 B4M3081 YP4051 YP4052 YP4054 YP3992 YP3993 YP3994 YP3994 YP3995 YP3998 YP3999 YP4000 YP4000 YP3987 YP3987 YP3988 YP3988 - - - 0.063 Benzo(a)pyrene Lab Replicate <0.0050 - - 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 MW101-16 20 -Nov -12 MW101-1B 0.3 - 0.4 m TERRAPEX MAXX Acenaphthene Pg/g <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.0050 0.018 <0.0050 <0.0050 - 0.018 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0020 - Aroclor 1221 <0.010 Acenaphthylene Pg/g <0.0050 - 0.0066 <0.0050 0.031 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.037 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 Aroclor 1232 Ng/g - - <0.0050 Anthracene Pg/g <0.0050 - - - 0.010 <0.0050 - 0.044 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - 0.048 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - - 0.028 Benzo(a)anthracene Pg/g <0.0050 - - 0.025 <0.0050 - 0.092 <0.0050 - <0.0050 <0.015 0.12 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - 0.063 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/g <0.0050 - - 0.010 <0.0050 - 0.036 <0.0050 - <0.0050 Aroclor 1254 0.053 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.028 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene ug/g <0.0050 - 0.030 <0.0050 0.082 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.088 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - 0.028 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/g <0.0050 0.013 <0.0050 - 0.037 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.042 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - 0.017 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Pg/g <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 Ng/g 0.014 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - 0.015 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - - 0.0053 Chrysene Ng/g <0.0050 - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 0.036 <0.0050 - 0.12 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - 0.15 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - - - - 0.093 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ug/g <0.0050 Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 0.010 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.012 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - <0.0020 0.0056 Fluoranthene Pg/g <0.0050 - 0.035 <0.0050 0.093 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.12 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - <0.0020 - DDT, o,p'-+ DDT, p.p'- 0.046 Fluorene ug/g <0.0050 0.0060 <0.0050 - 0.022 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.028 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - Dieldrin ug/g 0.015 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Pg/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.015 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.017 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - - - - 0.0063 Methylnaphthalene (Total) ug/g 0.010 - - 0.60 <0.0071 - 2.3 <0.0071 - <0.0071 <0.0020 2.5 <0.0071 - - <0.0071 - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- Ng/g 0.0052 - 0.28 <0.0050 - 1.0 <0.0050 - <0.0050 Endosulfan II 1.2 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - 0.34 Methylnaphthalene, 2- Pg/g 0.0052 - 0.31 <0.0050 1.3 <0.0050 - <0.0050 1.4 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - 0.41 Naphthalene Pg/g <0.0050 - 0.19 <0.0050 - 0.79 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.77 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - 0.16 Phenanthrene ug/g 0.0057 <0.0020 0.22 <0.0050 ug/g 0.72 <0.0050 - <0.0050 0.98 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 - - 0.32 Pyrene Ng/g <0.0050 - Heptachlor Epoxide 0.045 0.0084 - 0.15 <0.0050 - <0.0050 - - 0.27 0.0057 - - <0.0050 - - - - - 0.061 Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents pg/g 0.00605 Pg/g 0.0190 0.00605 0.0679 0.00605 - 1 0.00605 0.0909 0.00605 - 0.00605 <0.0020 0.04 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 Pg/g - - - <0.0020 - Aroclor 1221 ug/g - - - - <0.0020 - Aroclor 1232 Ng/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Aroc or Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroc or 1 Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1254 Pg/g - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1260 Pg/g - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1262 ug/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - - - Aroclor 1268 Ng/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.015 - Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin Pg/g - <0.0020 Chlordane (Total) Ng/g - <0.0020 Chlordane, alpha- Ng/g - - <0.0020 Chlordane, gamma- Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDD (p,p'-DDD) Pg/g i <0.0020 - DDD, o,p'- Pg/g - <0.0020 - DDD, o,p'- + DDD, p -p'- Pg/g - - <0.0020 - DDE p,p'-DDE iJg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i - - <0.0020 - DDE, o,p'- ug/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDE, o,p-+ , p,p- Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDT (p,p'-DDT) Pg/g <0.0020 - DDT, o,p'- Pg/g <0.0020 - DDT, o,p'-+ DDT, p.p'- Pg/g - - <0.0020 - Dieldrin ug/g - - <0.0020 - Endosul an ug/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - <0.0020 - Endosulfan I Pg/g - - <0.0020 - Endosulfan II Pg/g - <0.0020 - Endosulfan Sulfate Pg/g - <0.005 - Endrin Pg/g - <0.0020 - Heptachlor ug/g - - <0.0020 - Heptachlor Epoxide ug/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <0.0020 - Hexachlorobenzene Pg/g , <0.0020 - Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) Pg/g - <0.0050 - Hexachloroethane Pg/g i <0.0050 - Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) ug/g - <0.0020 - Methoxychlor(4,4'-Methoxychlor)<0.0050 Pg/g - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - See notes on last page ® Stantec 122511076 Page 4 of 7 Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Units I MW101-1C 20 -Nov -12 MW101-1C 0.5 - 1.5 m TERRAPEX MAXX MW101-3 20 -Nov -12 MW101-3 3.1 - 4.6 m TERRAPEX MAXX MW101-6 20 -Nov -12 MW101-6 3.1 - 4.6 m TERRAPEX MAXX MW102-1A 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1A MW102-1D 0-0.15m 0-0.15m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Cyanide (Free) Field 1.8 Duplicate MW102-1B 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1B MW102-1E 0.15-0.3m 0.15-0.3m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Cyanide (Free) Field 1.8 Duplicate MW102-1C 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1C MW102-1F 0.3-1.5m 0.3-1.5m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Cyanide (Free) Field 1.8 Duplicate M W 102-4 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-4 MW103-4 4.6-6.1 m 4.6-6.1 m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Cyanide (Free) Field 1.8 Duplicate MW103-1A 20 -Nov -12 MW103-1A 0-0.15m TERRAPEX MAXX MW 103-1 B 20 -Nov -12 MW103-18 0.15-1.5m TERRAPEX MAXX Available (CaC12) pH S.U. <0.20 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.005 <0.005 <0.20 Cyanide (Free) lag/g 1.8 <0.02 <0.02 - 1.7 2.2 <0.02 <0.02 Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 8 <0.01 <0.01 - 7.8 8.9 <0.01 <0.01 8.8 Fluoride lag/g <0.20 - - - <0.20 <0.20 - - <0.20 Moisture Content % - - - - - - - - - pH S.U. 7.11 <0.04 <0.04 - 7.6 7.78 <0.04 <0.04 7.64 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) none 0.054 <10 <10 - - - - - - BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene lag/g <0.20 <0.005 <0.005 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.005 <0.005 <0.20 Toluene lag/g 1.8 <0.02 <0.02 - 1.7 2.2 <0.02 <0.02 Ethylbenzene lag/g 8 <0.01 <0.01 - 7.8 8.9 <0.01 <0.01 8.8 Xylene, m & p- lag/g <0.20 - - - <0.20 <0.20 - - <0.20 Xylene, o- lag/g <1.0 - - - <1.0 <1.0 - - <1.0 Xylenes, Total lag/g <5.0 <0.04 <0.04 - - <0.04 <0.04 <5.0 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) lag/g 0.054 <10 <10 - <0.050 <0.050 <10 <10 <0.050 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX lag/g <0.10 - - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - <0.10 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) lag/g 76000 13 13 - 67000 69000 20 <10 - 47000 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) lag/g <0.2 40 44 - <0.2 <0.2 58 40 - <0.2 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) lag/g 3.5 <10 <10 - - <10 <10 - 3.3 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none 1.7 - - - - - - - Metals Antimony lag/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Arsenic lag/g 1.8 - 1.7 2.2 Barium lag/g 8 - 7.8 8.9 8.8 Beryllium lag/g <0.20 - - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Bismuth lag/g <1.0 - - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Boron lag/g <5.0 - - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Boron (Available) lag/g 0.054 - - <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Cadmium lag/g <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 Calcium lag/g 76000 - - 67000 69000 - 47000 Chromium (Hexavalent) lag/g <0.2 - - - <0.2 <0.2 - - <0.2 Chromium (Total) lag/g 3.5 - - - 3.5 3.7 - - 3.3 Cobalt lag/g 1.7 - - - - 1.7 2.1 - Copper lag/g 4.1 - - - - 3.9 4.3 - - 3 Iron lag/g 5400 - - - - 4600 5600 - - 4400 Lead lag/g 3.8 - - - - 3.6 3.8 - - 2.6 Magnesium lag/g 9900 - - - - 8400 9000 - - 8000 Manganese lag/g 190 - - - - 180 210 - - 140 Mercury lag/g <0.050 - - - - <0.050 <0.050 - - <0.050 Molybdenum lag/g <0.50 - - - - <0.50 <0.50 - - <0.50 Nickel lag/g 3.2 - - - - 3.2 3.6 - - 2.5 Phosphorus lag/g 520 - - - - 370 400 - - 460 Potassium lag/g <200 - - - - <200 <200 - - <200 Selenium lag/g <0.50 - - - - <0.50 <0.50 - - <0.50 Silver lag/g <0.20 - - - - <0.20 <0.20 - - <0.20 Sodium lag/g <100 - - - - <100 <100 - - <100 Strontium lag/g 95 - - - - 83 84 - - 57 Sulfur lag/g 200 - - - - 170 150 - - 64 Thallium lag/g <0.050 - - - - <0.050 <0.050 - - <0.050 Tin lag/g <5.0 - - - - <5.0 <5.0 - - <5.0 Tungsten Pg/g <1 - - - - <1 <1 - - <1 Uranium lag/g 0.25 - - - - 0.22 0.22 - - 0.19 Vanadium lag/g 8.5 - - - - 6.3 7.3 - - 6.4 Zinc lag/g 15 - - - - 13 14 - - 14 Zirconium lag/g 1 1 - - - 1 1 <1 See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 5 of 7 Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Units I MW101-1C 20 -Nov -12 MW101-1C 0.5 - 1.5 m TERRAPEX MAXX MW101-3 20 -Nov -12 MW101-3 3.1 - 4.6 m TERRAPEX MAXX MW101-6 20 -Nov -12 MW101-6 3.1 - 4.6 m TERRAPEX MAXX MW102-1A 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1A MW102-1D 0-0.15m 0-0.15m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Acenaphthylene Field Duplicate MW102-1B 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1B MW102-1E 0.15-0.3m 0.15-0.3m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Acenaphthylene Field Duplicate MW102-1C 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-1C MW102-1F 0.3-1.5m 0.3-1.5m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Acenaphthylene Field Duplicate M W 102-4 20 -Nov -12 20 -Nov -12 MW102-4 MW103-4 4.6-6.1 m 4.6-6.1 m TERRAPEX TERRAPEX MAXX MAXX Acenaphthylene Field Duplicate MW103-1A 20 -Nov -12 MW103-1A 0-0.15m TERRAPEX MAXX MW 103-1 B 20 -Nov -12 MW103-18 0.15-1.5m TERRAPEX MAXX Acenaphthene lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 0.1 <0.030 <0.0020 <0.0050 Acenaphthylene lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 0.0089 <0.010 <0.0020 <0.0050 Anthracene lag/g - - 0.042 0.02 - - <0.0050 Benzo(a)anthracene lag/g <0.015 <0.015 0.23 0.086 - <0.015 <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene lag/g - 0.08 0.033 <0.015 <0.0050 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene lag/g - - - - 0.12 0.047 - - - - <0.015 <0.0050 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene lag/g - - - 0.057 0.029 - <0.015 <0.0050 Benzo(k)fluoranthene lag/g - - 0.021 0.0097 - - - <0.0050 Chrysene lag/g - 0.32 0.12 - - - <0.0050 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene lag/g - - 0.017 0.0068 - - - <0.0050 Fluoranthene lag/g - - 0.22 0.081 - - <0.0050 Fluorene lag/g - - 0.077 0.025 - - <0.0050 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyre ne lag/g - - 0.028 0.012 - - <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene (Total) lag/g - - - <0.0020 - Methylnaphthalene, 1- lag/g - 2.3 0.8 <0.0020 <0.0050 Methylnaphthalene, 2- lag/g - - 2.7 1.2 <0.0020 <0.0050 Naphthalene lag/g - - 1.3 0.56 - <0.0050 Phenanthrene lag/g - - 1.8 0.58 - <0.0050 Pyrene lag/g - - - 0.26 0.095 - <0.0050 Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents lag/g - - - 0.14 0.06 - 0.01 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Aroclor 1016 lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Aroclor 1221 lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Aroclor 1232 lag/g - - - - Aroclor 1242 lag/g <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 Aroclor 1248 lag/g <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 Aroclor 1254 lag/g - - - <0.015 <0.015 - - - - - - <0.015 - Aroclor 1260 lag/g - - <0.015 <0.015 <0.015 Aroclor 1262 lag/g - - - - - Aroclor 1268 lag/g - - - - - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) lag/g <0.015 <0.015 - <0.015 Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane (Total) lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Chlordane, alpha- lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 Chlordane, gamma- lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 DDD (p,p'-DDD) lag/g 0.002 0.003 <0.0020 DDD, o,p'- ug/g - - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - - - - - - <0.0020 - DDD, o,p'-+ DDD, p,p'- lag/g 0.002 0.003 <0.0020 DDE (p,p'-DDE) lag/g 0.018 0.018 0.009 DDE, o,p'- lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 DDE, o,p'- + DDE, p,p'- lag/g 0.018 0.018 - 0.009 DDT (p,p'-DDT) lag/g 0.005 0.016 - <0.0020 DDT, o,p'- Pg/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 - DDT, o,p'- + DDT, p,p'- lag/g 0.005 0.016 <0.0020 Dieldrin lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan I lag/g <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan II lag/g - <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Endosulfan Sulfate lag/g - <0.005 <0.005 - <0.005 Endrin lag/g - - <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Heptachlor lag/g - - <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Heptachlor Epoxide lag/g - - <0.0020 <0.0020 - <0.0020 Hexachlorobenzene lag/g - - <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) lag/g - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Hexachloroethane lag/g - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Lindane (Hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma) lag/g - - <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 Methoxychlor (4,4' -Methoxychlor) lag/g <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 6 of 7 Table B-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results PQRA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Notes: 15.2 Measured concentration was less 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. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. (3 Stantec 122511076 Page 7 of 7 Table B-2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results PQRA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location Ng/L 94000 94000 93000 MW15-1 - 16000 - MW101 <0.20 MW102 <0.20 <0.20 MW103 <0.20 MW -201 MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 MW -99 Field Blank Trip Blank Sample Date 0.52 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 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 300000 580000 MW15-1 MW15-1 LR MW15-20 MW101 MW101 MW102 MW102 MWI02LR MW103 MW104 MW103 MW103LR MW -201 MW -201 LR MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 MW -99 BH100 TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANK Sampling Company <0.20 <0.20 STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC TERRAPEX STANTEC TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC TERRAPEX TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC SNC 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 - <1000 - 220000 - 6521799/ - B521799/ 8521799/ <100 B521799/ I - PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) 8521799/ <200 <200 <100 <200 <100 <200 - <100 <100 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 Laboratory Work Order PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) Lag/L 6521799 <100 <200 <100 <200 - <100 <100 <200 - <200 - 6521799 <200 <200 <200 6521799 B2M4242 B2M4242 B4M4113 B4M4113 B2M4242 B4M4234 6521799 B4M4234 6521799 YES YES B510567 YES 8510567 B510567 B510567 - 6510567 Ng/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.5 <0.50 <0.5 <0.50 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 - - - ZL0821/ ZL0824/ ZL0820/ ZL0819/ Lag/L <1.0 <1.0 ZL0818/ <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - Laboratory Sample ID ZL0821 Ng/L 0.73 0.72 1.1 ZL0819 0.75 0.83 - 0.6 ZL0818 YQ0539 YQ0539 YP9800 YP9801 YQ0540 YQ0484 ZL0822 YQ0484 ZL0823 ug/L <0.20 LQ9646 <0.20 LQ9647 LQ9645 0.37 - LQ9644 0.7 0.51 - - LQ9643 - - Iron ug/L 15000 15000 4300 37000 7700 8400 - 20000 Field 8800 - - - Field - Lead Ng/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 Sample Type Units - Lab Replicate - Lab Replicate Lithium Ng/L <20 Lab Replicate <20 Lab Replicate <20 <20 - <20 <20 Field Blank - Trip Blank Duplicate Magnesium ug/L 23000 23000 12000 Duplicate 13000 13000 - 28000 29000 14000 - - - - General Chemistry Manganese Ng/L 1600 1600 640 3500 950 750 - 1800 1800 860 - - - - Mercury Lig/L Chloride Ng/L 94000 94000 93000 4000 - 16000 - 14000 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Cyanide (Weak Acid Dissociable) ug/L <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 - <0.20 0.52 0.49 0.58 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Fluoride Lag/L 110 110 - 120 - 860 - - - 240 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Hardness (as CaCO3) Lag/L 620000 620000 300000 580000 510000 500000 - 690000 680000 370000 - <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 Nitrate (as N) Lag/L <100 <100 - <100 - <100 - - - <100 - <0.20 - - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) Lag/L <100 <100 <100 <100 - <100 - <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 - Nitrite (as N) Lag/L <10 <10 - <10 - <10 - - - <10 - - - - - <25 <25 - pH S.U. 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 - <25 <25 <25 Sulfate Lag/L 1 <5000 MI <5000 <1000 - <1000 - 220000 - - - 23000 - - - <100 <100 - I - BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene Lag/L <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 Toluene Lag/L <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 <0.20 Ethylbenzene Lag/L <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- Lag/L <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- Lag/L <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 Lag/L <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 <0.40 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) Lag/L <25 <25 - <25 - <25 - - - <25 <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX Lag/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 - <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) Lag/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - <100 <100 <100 - <100 - <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 - <100 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) Lag/L <200 <200 <100 <200 <100 <200 - <100 <100 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) Lag/L <200 <200 <100 <200 <100 <200 - <100 <100 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none YES YES - YES - YES - - - YES - YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES Metals Aluminum Lig/L 4.2 3.9 1.2 4.3 1.4 <3.0 - 2.2 2.2 <3.0 - Antimony Lig/L <0.60 <0.60 <0.60 <0.60 <0.60 <0.60 - <0.60 <0.60 <0.60 - - - Arsenic Lag/L 5.7 5.8 3.3 7.2 8.4 8.9 - 4.1 4.5 3.2 - - Barium Ng/L 130 130 97 120 150 170 - 110 120 110 - - Beryllium Ng/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - Bismuth ug/L - - <5 - <5 - - <5 <5 - - - Boron Lag/L 28 27 82 28 77 62 - 41 38 44 - - Cadmium Lag/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.010 <0.0050 <0.010 - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.010 - - Calcium Ng/L 210000 210000 100000 190000 190000 180000 - 200000 210000 120000 - - Chromium (Hexavalent) Ng/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.5 <0.50 <0.5 <0.50 - <0.5 <0.5 <0.50 - - - Chromium (Total) Lag/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - Cobalt Ng/L 0.73 0.72 1.1 0.67 0.75 0.83 - 0.6 0.63 0.71 - - - - Copper ug/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.37 - 0.73 0.7 0.51 - - - - Iron ug/L 15000 15000 4300 37000 7700 8400 - 20000 22000 8800 - - - - Lead Ng/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - - - Lithium Ng/L <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 - <20 <20 <20 - - Magnesium ug/L 23000 23000 12000 27000 13000 13000 - 28000 29000 14000 - - - - Manganese Ng/L 1600 1600 640 3500 950 750 - 1800 1800 860 - - - - Mercury Lig/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - - Molybdenum Lag/L 0.41 0.40 4.1 0.24 4.7 4.0 - 0.73 0.64 2.6 - - Nickel Ng/L 0.63 0.60 1.7 <0.50 0.98 1.1 - <0.50 <0.50 1.2 - Phosphorus Lig/L 260 - 240 <100 1600 <100 <100 - 810 790 <100 - - Potassium Ng/L 2500 2400 2300 4200 2800 3700 - 4900 5200 1500 - - Selenium Ng/L <0.20 <0.20 0.31 0.40 <0.20 <0.20 - 0.37 0.36 <0.20 - - See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 1 of 3 Table B-2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results PQRA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sample Location pg/L 6100 MW15-1 5700 MW101 6900 MW102 11000 12000 MW103 MW -201 MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 MW -99 Field Blank Trip Blank Sample Date <0.10 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 5 -Dec -12 5 -Dec -12 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 26 -Nov -14 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 13000 MW15-1 MW15-1 LR MW15-20 MW101 MW101 MW102 MW102 MWI02LR MW103 MW104 MW103 MW103LR MW -201 MW -201 LR MW -202 MW -203 MW -281 MW -99 BH100 TRIP BLANK TRIP BLANK Sampling Company 270 - STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC TERRAPEX STANTEC TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC TERRAPEX TERRAPEX STANTEC STANTEC SNC 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 - <0.010 Tin 6521799/ <1.0 B521799/ 8521799/ <1.0 B521799/ <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 8521799/ - - <0.050 - <0.050 - - - - - - - Titanium pg/L <1.0 Laboratory Work Order <1.0 <1.0 6521799 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - 6521799 - - 6521799 B2M4242 B2M4242 B4M4113 B4M4113 B2M4242 B4M4234 6521799 B4M4234 6521799 - - <10 B510567 - 8510567 B510567 - B510567 - <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 6510567 Ng/L 0.56 0.55 0.36 <0.10 0.23 0.27 - 0.75 0.74 0.47 - - - <0.010 - ZL0821/ - ZL0824/ ZL0820/ ZL0819/ pg/L 1.0 1.1 ZL0818/ <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.017 - Laboratory Sample ID pg/L <0.010 <0.010 ZL0821 pg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 ZL0819 <3.0 <3.0 - <3.0 ZL0818 YQ0539 YQ0539 YP9800 YP9801 YQ0540 YQ0484 ZL0822 YQ0484 ZL0823 ug/L - LQ9646 1 <3.0 LQ9647 LQ9645 - LQ9644 <3.0 - 0.010 0.014 LQ9643 0.015 - - Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.011 0.019 0.79 <0.010 Field - - Methylnaphthalene (Total) Ng/L Field <0.10 - <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - - - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- Sample Type Units <0.10 <0.010 Lab Replicate <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 0.12 0.14 0.25 0.2 Lab Replicate - Lab Replicate Ng/L Lab Replicate <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 0.18 0.21 Field Blank 0.36 Trip Blank - Naphthalene Duplicate 0.011 0.011 <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.10 <0.010 0.17 0.18 Duplicate 0.2 0.16 - Perylene Ng/L 0.018 0.018 <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 Metals (Continued) - - - Phenanthrene Ng/L 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 2.1 0.047 0.053 - Pyrene Silicon pg/L 6100 6100 5700 11000 6900 5600 - 11000 12000 4900 - Acenaphthylene Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.10 <0.010 <0.010 Silver pg/L <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.032 - <0.032 - - <0.032 <0.032 - - - - - - Sodium pg/L 57000 57000 41000 3300 13000 11000 - 4300 4500 16000 - <0.010 0.010 - Benzo(a)anthracene Ng/L Strontium pg/L 570 570 240 630 720 600 - 610 630 270 - Benzo(a)pyrene Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.010 - <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.010 0.019 0.034 Sulfur pg/L 1100 1100 79000 1700 70000 65000 - 8100 69000 6000 - <0.0085 <0.0085 - - - - - - Thallium pg/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - - - Ng/L <0.010 0.014 - <0.010 Tin pg/L <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - <0.050 - <0.050 - - - - - - - Titanium pg/L <1.0 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - - - - - Tungsten pg/L - - <10 - <10 - - <10 <10 - Benzo(k)fluoranthene - <0.010 <0.010 - <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - Uranium Ng/L 0.56 0.55 0.36 <0.10 0.23 0.27 - 0.75 0.74 0.47 - - - <0.010 - - - - - - Vanadium pg/L 1.0 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 0.017 - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene pg/L <0.010 <0.010 Zinc pg/L <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 - <3.0 <3.0 <3.0 - Ng/L - <0.040 <0.010 <0.040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.040 <0.040 <0.010 - 0.058 0.095 RL 3.7 Zirconium ug/L - - - 1 <3.0 - <3.0 - <3.0 <3.0 - 0.010 0.014 - 0.015 - - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene pg/L <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 Ng/L <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 - Acridine pg/L - - <0.032 - <0.032 - - <0.032 <0.032 - - - - - - - Anthracene Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.012 0.018 0.57 <0.010 0.010 - Benzo(a)anthracene Ng/L <0.010 0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 0.021 0.038 1.5 0.011 0.018 - Benzo(a)pyrene Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0075 <0.0075 <0.010 0.019 0.034 1.3 0.01 0.017 - Benzo(b)fluoranthene Ng/L - - <0.0085 - <0.0085 - - <0.0085 <0.0085 - - - - - - Benzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) Ng/L - - <0.20 - <0.20 - - <0.20 <0.20 - - - - - - Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Ng/L <0.010 0.014 - <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 - - <0.010 0.025 0.043 1.7 0.014 0.021 - Benzo(c)phenanthrene pg/L - - <0.050 - <0.050 - - <0.050 <0.050 - - - - - - Benzo(e)pyrene Ng/L <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 Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 0.011 0.018 0.69 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.010 0.016 0.67 <0.010 <0.010 Biphenyl, 1,1'- (Biphenyl) Ng/L <0.010 <0.010 - <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 - - <0.010 - - - - - - - Chrysene Ng/L <0.010 0.011 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.019 0.033 1.1 0.011 0.017 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene pg/L <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 Ng/L 0.018 0.029 <0.040 <0.010 <0.040 <0.010 <0.010 <0.040 <0.040 <0.010 - 0.058 0.095 RL 3.7 0.03 0.050 - Fluorene Ng/L <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)pyrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.010 <0.010 <0.0085 <0.0085 <0.010 - 0.011 0.019 0.79 <0.010 <0.010 - - Methylnaphthalene (Total) Ng/L - - <0.10 - <0.10 - - <0.10 <0.10 - - - - - - - Methylnaphthalene, 1- Ng/L <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 - Methylnaphthalene, 2- Ng/L <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 Ng/L 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 Ng/L 0.018 0.018 <0.050 <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.010 <0.050 <0.050 <0.010 - - - - - Phenanthrene Ng/L 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 2.1 0.047 0.053 - Pyrene pg/L 0.014 0.022 <0.020 <0.010 <0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.020 <0.20 <0.010 0.054 0.084 RL 2.5 0.037 0.048 See notes on last page Stantec 122511076 Page 2 of 3 Table B-2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Notes: 15.2 Measured concentration was less 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. 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. ® Stantec 122511076 Page 3 of 3 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix C Human Health Screening September 11, 2015 Appendix t Human Health Screening ® Stantec C.1 Table C-1 Human Health Screening of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Sta nteC 122511 Pagee 1 1 of of 2 2 Maximum Surface Soil Federal MOECC Number of Samples Samples Concentration Maximum Human Health Human Health Number of Non -Detect Exceeding Exceeding Carried "Parameter (mg/kg) Concentration Guideline a Guideline b Samples Samples Federal MOECC Forward? Guideline Guideline Petroleum Hydrocarbons + BTEX 210 240 °' 4,100 23 21 0 0 No 210 PHC F1 (C6 -C 10 range) PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX 170 170 240 °' 4,100 11 9 0 0 No PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) 41(<50) 41(<50) 320°' 3,100 23 11 0 0 No PHC F3 (>C16-C34range) 130 130 4,3000' 5,800 23 16 0 0 No PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) <50 <50 10,000°' 6,100 23 23 0 0 No Benzene 3.3 3.3 0.03 T 0.92 23 20 2 1 Yes Toluene 12 12 0.37 6.4 23 19 2 1 Yes Ethylbenzene 2.5 2.5 0.082 1.1 23 20 1 1 Yes Xylene, m& p- 12 12 480 c NG 11 8 0 0 No Xylene, o- 7.8 7.8 480c NG 11 8 0 0 No Xylenes, Total 19 19 11 120 23 20 1 0 Yes Metals r IN pH 7.07-7.99 7.07-7.99 6-8 5-9 30 0 0 0 No Antimony 0.64 0.64 94c 7.5 30 22 0 0 No Arsenic 16 16 31 18 b 30 4 2 0 No Barium 210 210 10,000 3,800 30 0 0 0 No Beryllium 0.94 0.94 110 38 30 25 0 0 No Bismuth <1 <1 NG NG 4 4 0 NA No Boron (Total) 13 13 - 4,300 23 14 0 0 No Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.31 0.31 NG NG 11 3 NA NA No Cadmium 0.49 0.49 49 0.69 30 22 0 0 No Calcium * 76000 76000 NGR NG 4 0 NA NA N -See text Chromium (Total) 11 11 630 28,000 30 0 0 0 No Chromium (VI) <0.2 <0.2 - 160 11 11 0 0 No Cobalt 5.5 5.5 - 22 30 0 0 0 No Copper 29 29 4,000 600 30 0 0 0 No Iron 5600 5600 164,000 c NG 4 0 0 NA No Lead 100 100 260 200 30 0 0 0 No Magnesium * 9900 9900 NGR NG 4 0 NA NA N -See text Manganese 210 210 5,200 ` NG 4 0 0 NA No Mercury <0.05 <0.05 24 9.8 11 11 0 0 No Molybdenum 2.5 2.5 - 110 30 22 0 0 No Nickel 15 15 NG 330 30 0 0 0 No Phosphorus * 520 520 NGR NG 4 0 NA NA N -See text Potassium * <200 <200 NGR NG 4 4 NA NA N -See text Selenium 1.3 1.3 125 110 30 26 0 0 No Silver <0.2 <0.2 - 77 30 30 0 0 No Sodium <100 <100 NG 1300 bkg 4 4 NA NA No Strontium 95 95 140,000 c NG 4 0 0 NA No Sulphur * 380 380 NGR NG 11 0 NA NA N -See text Thallium 0.36 0.36 1 0.29 30 23 0 0 N -See text Tin <5 <5 140,000 ` NG 30 30 0 NA N -See text Tungsten <1 <1 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N -See text Uranium 0.89 0.89 33 23 30 0 0 0 No Vanadium 23 23 NG 39 30 1 0 0 No Zinc 160 160 NG 5,600 30 0 0 0 No Zirconium 1 1 18.6 c NG 4 1 0 0 No Non -Carcinogenic PAHs Acenaphthene 700048 0.1 - 21 23 17 0 0 No Acenaphthylene 7 0.037 - 2.3 23 18 0 0 No Anthracene 0.048 - 5,400 23 14 0 0 No Fluorene 0.077 0.077 - 720 23 16 0 0 No Methylnaphthalene, 1- 2.3 2.3 - 30 23 12 0 0 No Methylnaphthalene, 2- 2.7 2.7 - 30 23 11 0 0 No Methylnaphthalene (Total) 1.5 1.5 - 30 19 11 0 0 No Naphthalene 1.3 1.3 - 93 23 14 0 0 No Pyrene 0.27 0.27 - 78 23 7 0 0 No Carinogenic PAHs Benzo(a)anthracene 0.23 0.23 TPE 0.78 23 11 0 0 N- Notes ** Benzo(a)pyrene 0.08 0.08 TPE 0.078 23 10 0 0 N- Notes ** Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 0.12 0.12 TPE 0.78 23 10 0 0 N- Notes ** Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.057 0.057 TPE 7.8 23 10 0 0 N- Notes ** Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.021 0.021 TPE 0.78 23 13 0 0 N- Notes ** Chrysene 0.32 0.32 TPE 7.8 23 10 0 0 N- Notes ** Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.017 0.017 TPE 0.078 23 17 0 0 N- Notes ** Fluoranthene 0.22 0.22 TPE 7.8 23 9 0 0 N- Notes ** Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.028 0.028 TPE 0.78 23 1 1 0 0 N- Notes ** Phenanthrene 1.8 1.8 TPE 17 23 7 0 0 N- Notes" B(a)P TPE J 0.14269 1 0.14269 1 5.3 1 NA 1 23 1 5 1 0 1 0 N Sta nteC 122511 Pagee 1 1 of of 2 2 Table C-1 Human Health Screening of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Maximum Surface Soil Federal MOECC Number of Samples Samples Parameter Concentration Maximum Human Health Human Health Number of Non -Detect Exceeding Exceeding (mg/kg) Concentration Guideline a Guideline b Samples Samples Federal MOECC Guideline Guideline Polychlorinated Biphenyls Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) <0.015 <0.015 - 0.35 4 4 0 0 ArocIoriL942 <0.015 <0.015 10 ` NG 4 4 0 NA AroclorlT248 <0.015 <0.015 10 C NG 4 4 0 NA AroclorlL954 <0.015 <0.015 3 c NG 4 4 0 NA Aroclori1260 <0.015 1 <0.015 1 10 C NG 1 4 1 4 1 0 1 NA ? No No No No No Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin <0.002 <0.002 - 0.56 4 4 0 0 No Chlordane, a- <0.002 <0.002 10.8 d NG 4 4 0 NA No Chlordane, g- <0.002 <0.002 9.2 d NG 4 4 0 NA No Chlordane (total) <0.002 <0.002 - 0.59 4 4 0 0 No Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, o,p'- <0.002 <0.002 NG NG 4 4 0 0 N- Notes *** (o,p'-DDD) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, p,p'- 0.003 0.003 NG NG 4 2 0 0 N- Notes *** (p,p'-DDD) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (total) 0.003 0.003 - 3.3 4 2 0 0 No (o,p'- + p,p'-DDD) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, o,p'- <0.002 <0.002 NG NG 4 4 0 0 N- Notes *** (o,p'-DDE) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, p,p'- 0.018 0.018 68 NG 4 1 0 NA No (p,p'-DDE) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (total) 0.018 0.018 - 2.3 4 1 0 0 No (o,p'- + p,p'-DDE) Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, o,p'- <0.002 <0.002 NG NG 4 4 0 0 N- Notes *** (o,p'-DDT) Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, p,p'- 0.016 0.016 NG NG 4 2 0 0 N- Notes *** (p, p' -DDT) Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (total) 0.016 0.016 - 2.3 4 2 0 0 No (o, p' - + p, p' -DDT) Dieldrin <0.002 <0.002 - 0.94 4 4 0 0 No Endosulfan I (alpha) <0.002 <0.002 19.2 d NG 4 4 0 NA No Endosulfan 11 (beta) <0.002 <0.002 28 d NG 4 4 0 NA No Endosulfan sulphate <0.005 <0.005 1,400 d NG 4 4 0 NA No Endosulfan (total) <0.002 <0.002 - 38 4 4 0 0 No Endrin <0.002 <0.002 - 4.7 4 4 0 0 No Heptachlor <0.002 <0.002 - 0.15 4 4 0 0 No Heptachlor epoxide <0.002 <0.002 - 0.11 4 4 0 0 No Hexachlorobenzene <0.002 <0.002 - 0.52 4 4 0 0 No Hexachlorobutadiene <0.005 <0.005 - 0.52 4 4 0 0 No Hexachloroethane <0.005 <0.005 - 0.49 4 4 0 0 No Lindane (gamma -BHC; <0.002 <0.002 - 0.25 4 4 0 0 No Hexachlorocyclohexane) Methoxychlor <0.005 <0.005 - 0.38 4 4 0 0 No Notes < = reported detection limit - = MOECC value used bkg = Ontario Soil Background NG = no guideline available NGR = no guideline required NA = not applicable CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; lowest of applicable human health guidelines, commericial land -use, coarse soil. 41 CCME Canada -Wide Standards for PHCs in Soil; lowest human health guideline, commercial land use for coarse-grained surface soils. b MOECC Site Condition Standards. Soil Components for Table 8 - Within 30m of a Water Body [default to Table 2 - Res/Park Full Depth, Potable Water Scenario, for coarse textured soil. Lowest of soil contact and soil leaching to potable groundwater guideline values. USEPA RBC Regional Screening Levels; industrial soil (USEPA, 2014). Hazard quotient values adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05. d TCEQ Texas Risk Reduction Program Protective Concentration Levels (Nov. 2014). Table 2 - Commercial Soil PCLs; HQ values adjusted to HQ=0.2 or TR=1 E-05. *According to TCEQ TRRP these chemicals are inherently non-toxic, and are therefore not carried forward in the HHRA. ** Carcinogenic PAHs are assessed based on B(a)P TPE; as B(a)P TPE does not exceed, these are not carried forward. *** Although no guidelines were available for this OC isomer, the detected concentration of the isomer is less than the guideline for total OC. Grey highlighting indicates that the chemical exceeds applicable guideline and is carried forward in the HHRA. Sta nteC 122511 Pagee 2 2 oof f 2 2 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix D Human Health Toxicity Profiles September 11, 2015 ®npendi r) Human Health Toxicity Profiles ® Stantec a Stantec Table of Contents APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 NON -CARCINOGENIC TRVS............................................................................................ 3 1.2 CARCINOGENIC TRVS......................................................................................................4 1.3 BIOAVAILABILITY................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 UBIQUITOUS ELEMENTS.................................................................................................. 5 2.1 CALCIUM............................................................................................................................5 2.2 IRON....................................................................................................................................5 2.3 MAGNESIUM...................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 PHOSPHORUS.....................................................................................................................6 2.5 POTASSIUM.........................................................................................................................6 2.6 SODIUM.............................................................................................................................. 6 2.7 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................6 3.0 BENZENE........................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY.............................................................................. 7 3.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS.............................................................................................. 7 3.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES ........................ 8 12 3.3.1 Oral Exposure.................................................................................................. 8 12 3.3.2 Inhalation Exposure........................................................................................8 4.3.2 Inhalation Exposure...................................................................................... 3.4 SELECTION OF CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES .................................. 8 12 3.4.1 Oral Exposure.................................................................................................. 8 12 3.4.2 Inhalation Exposure........................................................................................9 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................13 3.5 BIOAVAILABILITY................................................................................................................9 3.6 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 9 3.7 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................10 4.0 ETHYLBENZENE.............................................................................................................11 4.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY............................................................................ 12 4.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS............................................................................................ 12 4.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES ...................... 12 4.3.1 Oral Exposure................................................................................................ 12 4.3.2 Inhalation Exposure...................................................................................... 12 4.4 BIOAVAILABILITY.............................................................................................................. 12 4.5 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 12 4.6 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................13 5.0 TOLUENE...................................................................................................................... 14 5.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY............................................................................ 14 5.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS............................................................................................ 14 5.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES ...................... 14 5.3.1 Oral Exposure................................................................................................ 15 Page 1 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX D Stantec Human Health Toxicity Profiles 5.3.2 Inhalation Exposure...................................................................................... 15 5.4 BIOAVAILABILITY..............................................................................................................15 5.5 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 15 5.6 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................15 6.0 XYLENES (TOTAL)......................................................................................................... 17 6.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY............................................................................ 17 6.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS............................................................................................ 17 6.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES ...................... 17 6.3.1 Oral Exposure................................................................................................ 18 6.3.2 Inhalation Exposure...................................................................................... 18 6.4 BIOAVAILABILITY.............................................................................................................. 18 6.5 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 18 6.6 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................18 Page 2 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec 1.0 Introduction APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles For the purpose of this assessment, toxicity reference values (TRVs) were obtained for each of the identified contaminants of potential concern (COPCs). Toxicological information was obtained, as necessary, from various sources including Health Canada, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). TRVs are values used to describe maximum acceptable doses of chemicals that will not result in the development of adverse health effects. TRVs can be used to describe non -carcinogenic and carcinogenic effects and can express effects in different terms based on the magnitude of the dose, length of exposure and route of exposure. 1.1 NON -CARCINOGENIC TRVS Non -carcinogenic chemicals exhibit threshold effects following exposure. Threshold effects are defined by the observation of adverse effects at a given dose or concentration. Given these threshold effects, two measures of interest can describe the dose -response curve: the no - adverse -effects -level (NOAEL) and lowest -adverse -effects -level (LOAEL). The NOAEL is the benchmark at which the highest dose does not result in observed adverse effects. The NOAEL is primarily used in the derivation of non -carcinogenic TRVs; however, the LOAEL may be used when a NOAEL is not available. The reference dose (RfD; oral exposure) and reference concentration (RfC; inhalation exposure) are used in the assessment of non -carcinogenic endpoints. They are estimates of lifetime daily exposure to a non -carcinogenic substance for the general human population that appears to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects. The RfD and RfC are derived from either the NOAEL or the LOAEL determined in a laboratory study. Uncertainty factors (UFs) are applied to the NOAEL or LOAEL to account for interspecies and intraspecies (i.e., sensitive sub -populations) variability. Uncertainty factors are also applied to extrapolate from subchronic exposure to chronic exposure or where there is a paucity of data available for a chemical. Other regulatory agencies have alternate terms for the RfD and RfC, which are reflective of objectives and toxicological endpoints. Health Canada replaces the term RfD with tolerable daily intake (TDI) and replaces RfC with tolerable concentration (TC). The Institute of Medicine (IOM) uses the tolerable upper intake level (UL) expressed as mg chemical/day to describe the highest daily nutrient intake that will not result in adverse health effects. The ATSDR uses a minimal risk level (MRL) similar to the IOM's UL that estimates daily human exposure to a substance that, over a specified duration period, will not cause an appreciable risk of adverse effects. Page 3 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX D Stantec Human Health Toxicity Profiles 1.2 CARCINOGENIC TRVS Carcinogenic chemicals exhibit non -threshold effects following exposure. Non -threshold effects are defined by the observation of adverse effects regardless of concentration and length of exposure. Primarily, two TRVs are used to describe carcinogenic effects: slope factor and unit risk. A slope factor (SF) is used for assessment of carcinogenic effects of a chemical. The SF is a plausible upper -bound estimate of the probability of a response per unit intake of a chemical over a lifetime, expressed as (mg/kg body weight/day)-'. It is used to estimate an upper bound probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to a particular level of a potential carcinogen. Unit risks (UR) are used to estimate an upper bound probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to a particular level (e.g., 1 pg/L in water or 1 pg/m3 in air) of a potential carcinogen. Unit risks are calculated by dividing the SF by body weight and multiplying that product by the inhalation or drinking rate as applicable. 1.3 BIOAVAILABILITY The definition of bioavailability varies with the source and context in which the term is used. The simplest and broadest definition of bioavailability describes the extent or rate that a chemical enters a receptor or is made available at the target site (i.e., blood). The importance of bioavailability in risk assessment is illustrated by comparison of TRVs as toxicity measures that are usually defined by laboratory studies. The fraction of a dose which is absorbed during an animal study may differ from the fraction that is available to a receptor in the environment due to several factors (e.g., weathering). There are two specific types of bioavailability that are applicable to risk assessment: absolute and relative. Absolute bioavailability is the fraction or percentage of an administered dose that reaches systemic circulation (blood). Relative bioavailability is the absolute bioavailability in one medium divided by the absolute bioavailability of the chemical under the conditions used to derive the TRV. Therefore, the relative bioavailability is a comparative fraction which predicts bioavailability in one medium or form in relation to the medium for which the TRV was derived. Relative bioavailability can be expressed as a relative absorption factor (RAF). In the following toxicity profiles, both absolute and relative bioavailabilities have been provided, where applicable, with the relative absorption factor selected for use in the assessment. Page 4 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX D Stantec Human Health Toxicity Profiles 2.0 Ubiquitous Elements 2.1 CALCIUM Calcium is expected to be present in its ionic form in the overburden groundwater (CRC, 2004). Calcium is an essential mineral for living organisms, and one of the major components of bone in animals: in humans, over 99% of the calcium stored in the human body is found in the skeletal system (IOM, 1997). Calcium serves many functions in living organisms, but in the human body, its other major roles are the mediation of vascular contraction, vasodilation, muscle contraction, nerve transmission, and glandular secretion (IOM, 1997). It is also ubiquitous, as it makes up over 3% of the Earth's crust by weight, corresponding to an average concentration of 41 500 mg/kg (CRC, 2004), and is found at an average concentration of 412 mg/L in seawater. Given its essentiality and its common occurrence in the environment, calcium is not expected to contribute to excess health risks, and a quantitative assessment of the risk due to calcium is therefore considered unnecessary. 2.2 IRON Iron is an essential nutrient which aids in the formation of haemoglobin, whose primary function is to transport oxygen in red blood cells. Anaemia is a deficiency condition that results from insufficient nutrient intake and can cause adverse health effects such as decreased cognitive performance and growth in children (WHO, 2006). Given that iron is an essential nutrient and a naturally occurring metal, toxicity reference values do not exist from any of the major regulatory agencies; however, US EPA Region 3 does provide a provisional value of 62000 mg/kg. Nevertheless, iron can still be excluded as a potential source of human health risk based upon its ubiquitous environmental nature and essential nutritional value. 2.3 MAGNESIUM Magnesium is expected to be present in its ionic form in groundwater (CRC, 2004). Magnesium is an essential mineral for living organisms; the average adult human body contains about 25 g of magnesium (IOM, 1997). It is a required cofactor for various enzymes, and plays a role in both anaerobic and aerobic energy generation in the body, as part of the glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation processes (IOM, 1997). It is also a fundamental component of chlorophyll in green plants (CRC, 2004). It makes up an average of 23 300 mg/kg of the Earth's crust, and can be found in seawater at an average concentration of 1290 mg/L. Because it is essential for life, and because it occurs commonly, magnesium is not expected to pose any excess health risk, and a quantitative evaluation is thus not necessary. Page 5 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec 2.4 PHOSPHORUS APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles Making up an average of 1050 mg/kg of the Earth's crust, phosphorus in nature is most commonly found as phosphate (P043-) (CRC, 2004), and is therefore assumed to be present in this form in the overburden groundwater. Phosphorus, as phosphate, is an essential constituent of plant and animal tissues, where it plays several roles, including pH maintenance, catalytic protein activation, and energy transfer and temporary storage (IOM, 1997). Phosphorus itself makes up 0.65% to ].I% of adult human body weight (IOM, 1997). Given its essentiality to life, and its relative abundance in the Earth's crust, phosphorus in the soil, surface water, or groundwater is not expected to pose any excess risk to receptors, and a quantitative evaluation for phosphorus is therefore considered unnecessary 2.5 POTASSIUM Potassium is expected to be present in its ionic form in groundwater (CRC, 2004). Potassium ions are required for plant growth (CRC, 2004), and for normal cellular function in both plants and animals (IOM, 2004). Potassium is also abundant in the Earth's crust, making up 2.4% of the crust by weight, at an average concentration of 29 000 mg/kg (CRC, 2004), and is present in seawater at a concentration of 399 mg/L (CRC, 2004). Given its ubiquity and its essentiality to life, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that potassium is not expected to result in excess risk to human receptors, and a quantitative evaluation of this COPC is therefore considered unnecessary. 2.6 SODIUM This element is expected to be present in its ionic form in groundwater (CRC, 2004). Sodium ions are essential to life, as they are required in living organisms to maintain extracellular fluid volume and serum osmolality (IOM, 2004). Given that sodium also makes up 2.6% of the Earth's crust, at an average concentration of 23 600 mg/kg (CRC, 2004), and exists in seawater at a concentration of 10 800 mg/L, combined with its essentiality to life, it is not expected that sodium in groundwater will pose excess risk to human health, and a quantitative assessment of sodium is therefore considered unnecessary. 2.7 REFERENCES CRC (David R. Lide, ed.). 2004. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Internet Version 2004 (85th Edition), Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL. FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology). 1974. Evaluation of the health aspects of certain ammonium salts as food ingredients. NTIS PPB -254-532. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Springfield, VA. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1997. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1994. Dietary Reference Intakes: Water, Potassium, Sodium, Chloride, and Sulfate. WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. Iron supplementation of young children in regions where malaria transmission is intense and infectious disease highly prevalent. Page 6 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec 3.0 Benzene APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles Benzene is a colourless liquid with a sweet odour. It is highly flammable, evaporates into air very quickly, and dissolves into water slightly. Benzene is commonly found in the environment and enters the environment mainly through industrial processes, such as burning coal and oil, motor vehicle exhaust, evaporation from gas service stations and in the manufacturing of rubbers, lubricants, dyes, detergents and pesticides (ATSDR, 2007). Natural emissions are discharged from volcanic gases, forest fires and present in crude oil and gasoline (ATSDR, 2007). The health effects of benzene depend on the route, dose, and duration of exposure. Acute inhalation of high levels of benzene can lead to drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headache, tremors, confusion, unconsciousness, and at very high levels, death (ATSDR, 2007). Ingestion of high levels of benzene can lead to vomiting, stomach irritation, dizziness, sleepiness, convulsions, rapid heart rate, and possible death (ATSDR, 2007). Chronic effects of benzene exposure can harm the bone marrow and cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive bleeding, and disturb immune function, increasing susceptibility to infection (ATSDR, 2007). In some women, chronic exposure to benzene has lead to irregular menstrual periods and a decrease in ovary size; however this evidence is inconclusive (ATSDR, 2007). Benzene's effects on fertility in men are unknown (ATSDR, 2007). 3.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY Benzene is a known human carcinogen (Category A, USEPA, 2003) and is listed as a Group 1 carcinogen by IARC (2006). Health Canada (1996; CEPA, 1993) has also classified benzene as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). For this assessment, benzene is being assessed for both non -carcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints. 3.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS Individuals expressing certain genetic polymorphisms, such as mutations in alleles responsible for the enzymes NQO1 and CYP2E1, may be at greater risk of benzene poisoning than those not expressing these polymorphisms (ATSDR, 2007). Also at risk for increased benzene toxicity include individuals with reduced bone marrow function or decreased levels of certain blood factors, and individuals who consume alcohol (ATSDR, 2007). No definitive human data were discovered on the effects of gender, or age at exposure, on rate or extent of benzene metabolism, although theories have been advanced on these subjects (ATSDR, 2007). Page 7 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX D Stantec Human Health Toxicity Profiles 3.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES Numerous sources were consulted in order to obtain toxicological and benchmark values for COPCs. A summary of the reviewed studies, and the rationale for the selection of the TRVs used in the HHRH, are outlined below. 3.3.1 Oral Exposure The USEPA (2003) derived a RfD based on route -to -route extrapolation of the results of benchmark dose (BMD) modeling of the absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) data from the occupational epidemiologic study by Rothman et al. (1996), in which workers were exposed to benzene by inhalation. A comparison analysis based on BMD modeling of data from the National Toxicology Program's (NTP's) experimental animal gavage study (NTP, 1986) was also conducted. Comparison analyses using the lowest -observed -adverse -effect levels (LOAELs) from the Rothman et al. (1996) and NTP (1986) studies were performed. The results of these studies indicated a statistically significant decrease in lymphocyte count; an uncertainty factor of 300 was applied for the BCML-oral-equivalent value from the Rothman et al. (1996) study. From these results USEPA (2003) derived a RfD of 4.0x10-3 mg/kg -d. This RfD was used in the HHRA. 3.3.2 Inhalation Exposure The inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC) is analogous to the oral RfD derived by USEPA (2003) and is likewise based on the assumption that thresholds exist for certain toxic effects such as cellular necrosis. The inhalation RfC considers toxic effects for both the respiratory system (portal -of -entry) and for effects peripheral to the respiratory system (extrarespiratory effects). The RfC is based on BMD modeling of the ALC data from the occupational epidemiologic study of Rothman et al. (1996), in which workers were exposed to benzene by inhalation. A comparison analysis based on BMD modeling of hematological data from the Ward et al. (1985) subchronic experimental animal inhalation study was also conducted. In addition, comparison analyses using the LOAEL from the Rothman et al. (1996) study and the NOAEL from the Ward et al. (1985) study were performed. From these results USEPA (2003) derived a RfC of 3.0x10-2 mg/m3; this RfC was used in the HHRA. 3.4 SELECTION OF CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES Numerous sources were consulted in order to obtain toxicological and benchmark values for COPCs. A summary of the reviewed studies, and the rationale for the selection of the TRVs used in the HHRA, are outlined below. 3.4.1 Oral Exposure The Health Canada (2010) oral slope factor of 0.0834 (mg/kg -d)-1 was selected for evaluation of carcinogenic oral exposures in this assessment. Page 8 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. 51 Stantec 3.4.2 Inhalation Exposure APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles A TC05 of 15,000 pg/M3 was developed by Health Canada (CEPA 1993; Health Canada 1996) and corresponds to the inhalation UR of 3.3 x 10-3 (dig/m3)-' (Health Canada, 2010). This value was derived from three epidemiological studies of humans following occupational exposure (Bond et al., 1986; Wong, 1987a,b; Rinsky et al., 1987). In each study workers with occupational exposure to sources of benzene were followed and evaluated by researchers for varying time periods. The results of each study indicated a statistically significant increase in the incidence of leukemia following occupational exposure to benzene. From these results Health Canada (2010) derived a UR of 3.3 x 10-3 (pg/m3)-l. The USEPA (2000) gives a unit risk range of 2.2 x 10-6 (pg/m3)-' to 7.8 x 10-6 (dig/m3)-' based on five human occupational studies (Rinsky et al., 1981; 1987; Paustenbach et al., 1993; Crump and Allen, 1984; Crump, 1994; USEPA, 1998). In each study workers were exposed occupationally to various concentrations of benzene in the air. In each case researchers noted a statistically significant increase in the incidence of leukemia following occupational exposure to benzene. The extrapolation method employed was low-dose linearity utilizing maximum likelihood estimates (Crump, 1994) to arrive at a unit risk range of 2.2 x 10-6 (dig/m3)-' to 7.8 x 10-6 (dig/m3)-l. The Health Canada (2010) inhalation unit risk 0.0033 (mg/m3)-' (SF=0.0145 (mg/kg -d)-') was selected for evaluation of carcinogenic inhalation exposures in this assessment. 3.5 BIOAVAILABILITY For this assessment, the oral bioavailability factor for soil can be conservatively assumed to be 1.0, the dermal bioavailability is 0.03, and the inhalation bioavailability factor can be assumed to be 1.0, in accordance with guidance from Health Canada (2010). 3.6 SUMMARY For benzene, Table 1 summarizes the selected toxicity reference values and Table 2 summarizes the selected relative bioavailabilities. Table 1 Selected Toxicity Reference Values for Benzene Route of Exposure Non -Cancer Effects Ingestion 4.0x10-3 mg/kg -d RfD USEPA, 2003 Inhalation 3.0x10-2 mg/m3 RfC USEPA, 2003 Cancer Effects Ingestion 0.0834 (mg/kg -d)-' Oral SF Health Canada, 2010 Inhalation 0.0033 (mg/m3)-' Inhalation UR Health Canada, 2010 0.0145 (mg/kg -d)-1 Inhalation SF Health Canada, 2010 Page 9 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. c APPENDIX D 1 Sta nte�c Human Health Toxicity Profiles Table 2 Selected Relative Bioavailabilities for Benzene Route of Exposure W Relative Bloavallabilityer, Reference Ingestion 1.0 Assumed (HC, 2010) Dermal 0.03 Health Canada, 2010 Inhalation 1.0 Assumed (HC, 2010) 3.7 REFERENCES ACGIH (American Conference of Industrial Hygienists). 2007. TLVs and BEls Book. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 2007. Toxicological profile for Benzene. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), 2008. Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances (MRLs). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta, Georgia. December, 2008. Bond, G.G., E.A. McLaren, C.L. Baldwin and R.R. Cook. 1986. An update of mortality among chemical workers exposed to benzene. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 43: 685-691 CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act), 1993. Benzene. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Environment Canada and Health Canada, Ottawa. Government of Canada. Crump, KS, 1994. Risk of benzene -induced leukemia: a sensitivity analysis of the Pliofilm cohort with additional follow-up and new exposure estimates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 42:219-242. In: USEPA, 2000. Crump, K.S. and Allen, B.C, 1984. Quantitative estimates of risk of leukemia from occupational exposure to benzene. Prepared for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration by Science Research Systems, Inc., Ruston, LA. Unpublished. In: USEPA, 2000. Health Canada, 2010. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical -Specific Factors, Version 2.0. September 2010. Health Canada, 1996. Health based Tolerable daily intakes/concentrations and tumorigenic doses/concentrations for priority substances. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. Health Canada, 1987. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Benzene. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/doc-sup- appui/benzene/benzene_e.pdf. Updated October 1987. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 2006. Complete List of Agents evaluated and their classification. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php. Lan Q, Zhang L, Li G, et al. 2004. Hematotoxicity in workers exposed to low levels of benzene. Science 306:1774-1776. Lee, J -S, 2009. Personal Communication, Jong -Song Lee, Ph.D., Toxicology Section, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 2005. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. NIOSH Publication 2005-149. NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1986. Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Benzene (CAS No. 71- 43-2) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies). NTP, Research Triangle Park, NC Page:to of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. c APPENDIX D Sta ntec Human Health Toxicity Profiles OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1988. Permissible Exposure Limits http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pel88/npelnome.html Paustenbach, D., Bass, R., Price, P, 1993. Benzene toxicity and risk assessment 1972-1992: implications for future regulation. Environmental Health Perspectives 101 (Suppl 6): 177-200. In: USEPA, 2000. Rinsky, R.A., Young, R.J., and Smith, A,B. 1981. Leukemia in benzene workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2: 217-245. In: USEPA, 2000. Rinsky, R.A., A.B. Smith, R. Hornung, T.G. Filloon, R.J. Young, A.H. Okun and P.J. Landrigan. 1987. Benzene and leukemia - An epidemiologic risk assessment. New England Journal of Medicine. 316: 1044- 1050. Rothman, N., Li, G.L., Dosemeci, M., Bechtold, W.E., Marti, G.E., Wang, Y.Z., Linet, M., Xi, L.Q., Lu, W., Smith, M.T., Titenko-Holland, N., Zhang, L.P., Blot, W., Yin, S.N., and Hayes, R.B., 1996. Hematotoxicity among Chinese workers heavily exposed to benzene. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 29: 236-246. In: USEPA IRIS 2003a. Rozen, M.G., Snyder, C.A., Albert, R.E., 1984. Depressions in B- and Tlymphocyte mitogen -induced blastogenesis in mice exposed to low concentrations of benzene. Toxicology Letters. 20, 343-349. TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), Updated 2008. Effects Screening Level Lists. Available at: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/tox/esl/list_main.html USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2003. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database, Benzene (CASRN 71-43-2). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0276.htm USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2000. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database, Benzene (CASRN 71-43-2) (Carcinogenicity Assessment). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/su bst/0276.htm USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1998. Carcinogenic effects of benzene: an update. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Prepared by the National Center for Environmental Health, Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC. EPA/600/P-97/001 F. In: USEPA, 2000. Wong, O. 1987a. An industry wide mortality study of chemical workers occupational exposed to benzene. I - General results. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 44: 365-381. Wong, O. 1987b. An industry wide mortality study of chemical workers occupational exposed to benzene. II - Dose response analyses. British Journal of Industrial Medicine. 44: 382-395 4.0 Ethylbenzene Ethylbenzene is a clear, colourless flammable liquid that smells like gasoline. It evaporates quickly at room temperature and burns easily; it occurs naturally in coal tar and petroleum and can be found in many products, including paints, inks and insecticides (ATSDR, 1999). Ethylbenzene is commonly used as a solvent, chemical intermediate in the manufacture of styrene and synthetic rubber and as an additive in fuels (ATSDR, 1999). The effects of ethylbenzene on human health are dependent on the dose and the duration of contact. Acute (short term) inhalation of high doses of ethylbenzene can cause eye and throat irritation. Acute exposure to higher doses can result in dizziness (ATSDR, 2007). Inhalation of low doses of ethylbenzene over several days to weeks has been shown to cause irreversible Page ii of ig Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX D Stantec Human Health Toxicity Profiles damage to the inner ear and the auditory system in animal studies. Inhalation exposure to low doses of ethylbenzene over several months to years has been shown to cause kidney damage in animals (ATSDR 2007). 4.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY The US EPA (1991) identifies ethylbenzene as classification D, "Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen." The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2006) classifies ethylbenzene as 213, "Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans. As such, in this risk assessment, ethylbenzene is not being evaluated as a carcinogen. 4.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS Individuals with impaired pulmonary function or liver or kidney disease may be susceptible to the toxic effects of ethylbenzene (ATSDR, 1999). In addition, young children, fetuses, pregnant women, and individuals taking hepatotoxic medications or drugs may also be more susceptible to ethylbenzene toxicity than other members of the population (ATSDR, 1999). 4.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES Numerous sources were consulted in order to obtain toxicological and benchmark values for COPCs. A summary of the reviewed studies, and the rationale for the selection of the TRVs used in the HHRA, are outlined below. 4.3.1 Oral Exposure The Health Canada (2010) oral TRV of 0.100 mg/kg -d was selected for evaluation of non - carcinogenic oral exposures in this assessment. 4.3.2 Inhalation Exposure The Health Canada (2010) inhalation TRV of 1.0 mg/m3 was selected for evaluation of non - carcinogenic inhalation exposures in this assessment. 4.4 BIOAVAILABILITY For this assessment, the oral bioavailability factor for soil can be conservatively assumed to be 1.0, the dermal bioavailability is 0.03, and the inhalation bioavailability factor can be assumed to be 1.0, in accordance with guidance from Health Canada (2010). 4.5 SUMMARY For ethylbenzene, Table 3 summarizes the selected toxicity reference values and Table 4 summarizes the selected relative bioavailabilities. Page 12 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. (3� Stantec Table 3 Selected Toxicity Reference Values for Ethylbenzene APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles Table 4 Selected Relative Bioavailabilities for Ethylenzene Ingestion 1.0 Assumed (HC, 2010) Dermal 0.03 Health Canada, 2010 Inhalation 1.0 Assumed (HC, 2010) 4.6 REFERENCES AENV (Alberta Environment). 2007. Alberta Ambient Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. Available at http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/5726.pdf. Andrew, F.D., Buschbom, R.L., Cannon, W.C., et al. 1981. Teratologic assessment of ethyl -benzene and 2- ethoxyethanol. Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. P1383-208074. 108. Cited In: ATSDR 1999; MOE 2001. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Ethylbenzene. Agency. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. 1999. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2007. ToxFAQs for Ethylbenzene. September 2007. Hardin, B.D., Bond, G.P., Sikov, M.R. et al. 1981. Testing of selected workplace chemicals for teratogenic potential. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health. (Suppl .4): 66-75. Cited In: ATSDR 1999. IARC. 2006. Complete List of Agents evaluated and their classification. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Last updated January, 2006. Available at: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php. MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment). 2008. Summary of O. Reg. 419/05 - Standards and Point of Impingement Guidelines & Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQCs). Standards Development Branch. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. PIBS # 6570e. February, 2008. NTP. 1999. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of ethylbenzene in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (inhalation studies). Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NTP TR 466. Szakolcai, A. 2009. Personal Communication, Akos Szakolcai. Coordinator, Air Standards Risk Management - Human Toxicology and Air Standards Section. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency.). 1991. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database, Ethylbenzene (CASRN 100-41-4). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/. Page 13 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec 5.0 Toluene APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles Toluene is a clear, colourless liquid with a distinctive smell. It is a by-product in the manufacturing of styrene and is produced in the process of making gasoline and other fuels from crude oil (ATSDR, 2000). A good solvent, toluene is used in making paints, paint thinners, fingernail polish, lacquers, adhesives, rubbers and in printing and some leather tanning processes (ATSDR, 2000). The inhalation of toluene can cause nervous system effects (ATSDR, 2001). Acute inhalation of low to moderate levels of toluene can lead to tiredness, confusion, weakness, memory loss, nausea, loss of appetite, loss of hearing, and loss of colour vision. These symptoms are usually limited to the period of exposure (ATSDR, 2001). Acute inhalation of high levels of toluene can lead to feelings of lightheadedness, dizziness, sleepiness, unconsciousness and possible death (ATSDR, 2001). High levels of toluene have also been shown to affect kidney function (ATSDR, 2001) . 5.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY The US EPA (2005) has not categorized toluene according to carcinogenicity because of inadequate data for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential. IARC (1999) classifies toluene as Group 3, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity. Health Canada classifies toluene as Group IV -C, probably not carcinogenic to humans (CEPA, 1992; Health Canada, 1996). Accordingly, toluene was assessed as a non -carcinogen in this assessment. 5.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS Chronic users of alcohol or those taking medications that interfere with the pathways of toluene metabolism would be more susceptible to toluene toxicity, including toluene -induced hearing loss, than other members of the population (ATSDR, 2000). Nutritional status, including malnourishment, may also affect an individual's susceptibility to the toxic effects of toluene (ATSDR, 2000). Other individuals who may be more susceptible to these effects are those with pre-existing defects in heart rhythm, those with asthma or other respiratory difficulties, and those with a genetic predisposition to hearing loss (ATSDR, 2000). 5.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES Numerous sources were consulted in order to obtain toxicological and benchmark values for COPCs. A summary of the reviewed studies, and the rationale for the selection of the TRVs used in the HHRA, is outlined below. Page 14 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. 51 Stantec 5.3.1 Oral Exposure APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles The Health Canada (2010) oral TRV of 0.22 mg/kg -d was selected for evaluation of non - carcinogenic oral exposures in this assessment. 5.3.2 Inhalation Exposure The Health Canada (2010) inhalation TRV of 3.75 mg/m3 was selected for evaluation of non - carcinogenic inhalation exposures in this assessment. 5.4 BIOAVAILABILITY For this assessment, the oral bioavailability factor for soil can be conservatively assumed to be 1.0, the dermal bioavailability is 0.03, and the inhalation bioavailability factor can be assumed to be 1.0, in accordance with guidance from Health Canada (2010). 5.5 SUMMARY For toluene, Table 5 summarizes the selected toxicity reference values and Table 6 summarizes the selected relative bioavailabilities. Table 5 Selected Toxicity Reference Values for Toluene Table 6 Selected Relative Bioavailabilities for Toluene 5.6 REFERENCES Abbate, C., Giorgianni, C., Munao, F., et al. 1993. Neurotoxicity induced by exposure to toluene: an electrophysiologic study. International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health, 64: 389-392. Cited In: US EPA IRIS 2005. Andersen, M.D., Lundqvist, G.R., Molhave, L., Pedersen, O.F., Proctor, D.F., Vaeth, M., et al. 1983. Human response to controlled levels of toluene in six -hour exposures. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environmental & Health, 9: 405-418. Page 15 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. c APPENDIX D Sta ntec Human Health Toxicity Profiles ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2000. Toxicological Profile for Toluene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2001. ToxFAQs for Ethylbenzene. February 2001. Boey, K.W., Foo, S.C., and Jeyaratnam, J. 1997. Effects of occupational exposure to toluene: a neuropsychological study on workers in Singapore. Annals of Academics and Medicine Singapore, 26: 84-7. Cited In: US EPA IRIS 2005. Cavalleri, A., Gobba, F., Nicali, E., et al. 2000. Dose-related color vision impairment in tolueneexposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health, 55: 399-404. Cited In: US EPA IRIS 2005. California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA). 2008a. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Technical Support Document for the Derivation of Noncancer Reference Exposure Levels. Appendix D.2 - Acute RELs and toxicity summaries using the previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines (OEHHA, 1999). Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2-final.pdf California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA). 2008b. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Technical Support Document for the Derivation of Noncancer Reference Exposure Levels. Appendix D.3 - Chronic RELs and toxicity summaries using the previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines (OEHHA, 1999). Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 1992. Toluene. Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Priority substances list assessment report No. 4, Environment Canada and Health and Welfare Canada. Government of Canada. Eller, N., Netterstrom, B., and Laursen, P. 1999. Risk of chronic effects on the central nervous system at low toluene exposure. Occupational Medicine, 49(6): 389-395. Cited In: US EPA IRIS 2005. Foo, S.C, Jeyaratnam, J., and Koh, D. 1990. Chronic neurobehavioral effects of toluene. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 47: 480-484. Cited In: Baars et al. 2001; US EPA IRIS 2005. Health Canada, 1996. Health -Based Tolerable Daily Intakes/Concentrations and Tumorigenic Doses/ Concentrations for Priority Substances. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Health Canada. 2004. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values. Environmental Health Assessment Services, Safe Environments Programme Hillefors-Berglund, M, Liu, Y, and von Euler, G. 1995. Persistent, specific and dose-dependent effects of toluene exposure on dopamine D2 agonist binding in the rat caudate -putamen. Toxicology, 100:185-94. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1999. 'Toluene". IARC Monographs, VOL.: 71 (1999) (p. 829). Murata, K., Araki, S., Yokoyama, K., et al. 1993. Cardiac autonomic dysfunction in rotogravure printers exposed to toluene in relation to peripheral nerve conduction. Industrial Health, 31: 79-90. Cited In: US EPA IRIS 2005. Nakatsuka, H., Watanabe, T., Takeuchi, Y., et al. 1992. Absence of blue -yellow color vision loss among workers exposed to toluene or tetrachloroethylene, mostly at levels below exposure limits. International Archives of Occupational Environmental Health, 64:1 13-1 17. Neubert, D., Gericke, C., Hanke, B., et al. 2001. Multicenter field trial on possible health effects of toluene. II. Cross-sectional evaluation of acute low-level exposure. Toxicology, 168: 139-183. Cited In: US EPA IRIS 2005. Page 16 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec 6.0 Xylenes (Total) APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles Xylene occurs in three forms, or isomers, which are named according to the positions of the two methyl groups on the benzene ring. These isomers are ortho-xylene (methyl groups in positions 1 and 2), meta -xylene (positions 1 and 3), and para -xylene (positions 1 and 4). Although xylene is primarily a synthetic chemical and is produced by chemical industries from petroleum, it also occurs naturally in petroleum and coal tar and is formed during forest fires, to a small extent (ATSDR, 2005). It is a colourless flammable liquid with a sweet odour. Xylene is one of the top 30 chemicals produced in the United States and is primarily used as a solvent in printing, rubber and leather industries (ATSDR, 2005). There are no documented health effects from exposure to low levels of xylene (ATSDR, 2007). Acute (short term) exposure to high levels of xylene an lead to skin, eye, nose and throat irritation; lung problems and breathing difficulties; delayed reaction time, memory problems, stomach pain, and possible effects in the liver and kidneys. At very high levels it can lead to unconsciousness and death (ATSDR, 2007). Both chronic and acute exposure to high levels of xylene can cause headache, confusion, lack of muscle coordination, dizziness, and problems with balance (ATSDR, 2007). 6.1 ASSESSMENT OF CARCINOGENICITY The USEPA (2003) IRIS database reports that available data are inadequate to assess the carcinogenicity of xylenes. Health Canada (1996) list xylenes as Group IV, "Probably Not Carcinogenic to Humans." The IARC (1999) lists xylene as Group 3, "Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity." For this risk assessment, xylenes are not evaluated as carcinogens. 6.2 SUSCEPTIBLE POPULATIONS Studies indicate that pregnant women, fetuses and young children may be at greater risk of toxic effects from exposure to xylenes than other segments of the population (ATSDR, 2005). Ingestion of aspirin by a pregnant mother may also potentiate the xylenes' toxic effects to herself and her fetus (ATSDR, 2005). Other segments of the population who may be more susceptible to adverse effects from exposure to xylenes include those with subclinical or clinical epilepsy, those who consume alcohol, those with subclinical or clinical renal, hepatic, or cardiac disease, and those with respiratory conditions such as asthma (ATSDR, 2005). 6.3 SELECTION OF NON -CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES Numerous sources were consulted in order to obtain toxicological and benchmark values for COPCs. A summary of the reviewed studies and the TRVs selected for use in the HHRA are outlined below. Page 17 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. 51 Stantec 6.3.1 Oral Exposure APPENDIX D Human Health Toxicity Profiles The Health Canada (2010) oral TRV of 1.5 mg/kg -d was selected for evaluation of non - carcinogenic oral exposures in this assessment. 6.3.2 Inhalation Exposure The Health Canada (2010) inhalation TRV of 0.18 mg/m3 was selected for evaluation of non - carcinogenic inhalation exposures in this assessment. 6.4 BIOAVAILABILITY For this assessment, the oral bioavailability factor for soil can be conservatively assumed to be 1.0, the dermal bioavailability is 0.03, and the inhalation bioavailability factor can be assumed to be 1.0, in accordance with guidance from Health Canada (2010). 6.5 SUMMARY For total xylenes, Table 7 summarizes the selected toxicity reference values and Table 8 summarizes the selected relative bioavailabilities. Table 7 Selected Toxicity Reference Values for Xylenes Table 8 Selected Relative Bioavailabilities for Xylenes 6.6 REFERENCES ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2005. Draft Toxicological Profile for Xylenes (update). US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2007. Toxicological Profile for Xylene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. August. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7l.html Page 18 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. c APPENDIX D Sta ntec Human Health Toxicity Profiles ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2007. ToxFAQs for Xylenes. August 2007. Cal EPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 1999a. Xylenes. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part I: The Determination of Acute Reference Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section. Cal EPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), 1999b. Xylenes. Chronic Toxicity Summary. Determination of Non -Cancer Reference Exposure Levels: SRP Draft. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section. May 14, 2007. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/pdf/xylensREL.pdf Carpenter CP, Kinkead ER, Geary DJ Jr, Sullivan LJ, King JM. 1975. Petroleum hydrocarbon toxicity studies: V. Animal and human response to vapors of mixed xylenes. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 33:543-558. Hastings, L., Cooper, G.P., and Burg, W. 1984. Human sensory response to selected petroleum hydrocarbons. In: MacFarland, H.N., Holdsworth, C.E., MacGregor, J.A., Call, R.W., and Lane, M.L., (Eds.). Advances in Modern Environmental Toxicology. Volume VI. Applied Toxicology of Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Scientific Publishers, Inc.,. p. 255-270. In: Cal EPA 1999a. Health Canada, 1996. Health -Based Tolerable Daily Intakes/Concentrations and Tumorigenic Doses/ Concentrations for Priority Substances. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. Health Canada, 2010. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical -Specific Factors, Version 2.0. September 2010. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1999. "Xylenes". Monographs. Vol.: 71 (1999) (p. 1189). World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Korsak, Z, Wisniewska-Knypl, J, and Swiercz, R. 1994. Toxic effects of subchronic combinedexposure to n - butyl alcohol and m -xylene in rats. International Journal of Occupational Medicine & Environmental Health 7: 155-166. In: USEPA IRIS 2003. MOE (Ministry of the Environment), 2008. Summary of O. Reg. 419/05 - Standards and Point of Impingement Guidelines & Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQCs). Standards Development Branch. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. PIBS # 6570e. February 2008 Nelson KW, Ege JF, Ross M, Woodman LE, Silverman L. 1943. Sensory response to certain industrial solvent vapors. Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 25(7):282-285. Uchida, Y., Nakatsuka, H., Ukai, H., Watanabe, T., Liu, Y.T., Huang, M.Y., et al. 1993. Symptoms and signs in workers exposed predominantly to xylenes. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 64: 597-605. In: Cal EPA 1999b. Ungvary, G., Tatrai, E, 1985. On the embryotoxic effects of benzene and its alkyl derivatives in mice, rats, and rabbits. Archives of Toxicology Supplement 8:425-430. In: Cal EPA 1999. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database, Xylenes (CASRN 1330-20-7). Available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/ Page i9 of 19 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix E HHRA Inputs and Calculations September 11, 2015 A nnendix t HHRA Inputs and Calculations ® Stantec E.1 Stantec Table of Contents APPENDIX E Example Human Health Calculation 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 2 2.0 NON -CARCINOGENIC EXPOSURE TO BENZENE IN SOIL.................3 2.1 ESTIMATION OF DAILY DOSE FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR ................................................... 3 2.2 ESTIMATION OF HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR ...................................... 4 3.0 CARCINOGENIC EXPOSURE TO BENZENE IN SOIL ..........................5 3.1 ESTIMATION OF AVERAGE DAILY DOSE FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR ................................ 5 3.2 ESTIMATION OF CANCER RISK FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR ................................................ 6 4.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................7 Page 1 of 5 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation 1.0 Introduction The first part of this Appendix serves to assist the reader in understanding how the quantitative HHRA was conducted by providing example calculations using data from the Site. This worked example will progress from the exposure assessment through to the risk characterization stage. This example calculation focuses on non -carcinogenic Remediation exposure to benzene. Receptor characteristics were obtained from Health Canada (2010a), unless otherwise noted. These characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Although exposure times and durations are usually based on Health Canada guidance (2010a) or Site specific information, as noted in this HHRA, exposure was conservatively assumed to be 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, over the course of one year for the current land use. Table 1 Human Receptor Characteristics Notes: a Human receptor characteristics obtained from Health Canada (2010a). The dust or airborne particulate concentrations used in the HHRA were calculated using the soil EPC multiplied by the average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter. An average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter was assumed to be 0.76 pg/m3 (Health Canada 2010a). Page 2 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Age years >_ 20 yr. Age Group Duration years 60 Body Weight kg 70.7 Soil Ingestion Rate kg/d 0.00002 Inhalation Rate m3/d 16.6 Skin Surface Area Hands Arms (upper and lower) Legs (upper and lower) Body (arms+legs) Total Body cm2 890 2,500 5,720 8,220 17,640 Soil Loading to skin Hands Other kg/cm2/event 1 E-07 1 E-08 Hours per day on Site hours/ day 1.5 Days per week on Site days/ week 7 Weeks per year on Site weeks/ year 39 Total Years Exposed years 60 Life Expectancy years 80 Notes: a Human receptor characteristics obtained from Health Canada (2010a). The dust or airborne particulate concentrations used in the HHRA were calculated using the soil EPC multiplied by the average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter. An average airborne concentration of respirable particulate matter was assumed to be 0.76 pg/m3 (Health Canada 2010a). Page 2 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation 2.0 Non -Carcinogenic Exposure to Benzene in Soil 2.1 ESTIMATION OF DAILY DOSE FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR To quantify the potential risk to an Adult Site Visitor as a result of exposure to benzene concentrations in soil (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, particulate inhalation), an estimated daily dose from each applicable exposure pathway was estimated as defined below: Where: And: Where: And: Where: Oral Dose = (Csoii x AFgut x SIRsoii x D2 x Ds) / BW Dermal Dose = (Cso1 X AFskin x SDRsoii x D2 x D3) / BW Outdoor Particulate Inhalation Dose = (Csoii X AFung X IRsol X Di X D2 X D3) / BW Csoll Exposure Point Concentration of COPC in soil (mg/kg) AF Relative absorption factor for gut, skin, or lungs (unitless) SlRsoii Soil Ingestion Rate (kg/day) SDRsoii Soil Dermal Contact Rate (kg/day) IRsoii Soil Inhalation Rate (kg/day) Di Hours per day exposed / 24 hours D2 Days per week exposed / 7 days Ds Weeks per year exposed / 52 weeks BW Body Weight (kg) SDRsoil = ((SAhands x SI -hands) + (SAbody x SLbody)) SAhands Skin surface area of hands (cm2) SAbody Skin surface area of body (cm2) SLhands Soil loading (adherence factor) for hands (kg/cm2) SLbody Soil loading (adherence factor) for body (kg/cm2) IRsoii = CRP x IRair CRP Concentration of respirable particles (kg/m3) IRair Inhalation rate (m3/day) Other factors used in the calculations are shown in Table 2. Page 3 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation Table 2 Other Factors Used in Direct Contact Exposure Calculations Symbol Characteristic Units Exposure to Benzene Csoil Concentration of COC in soil mg/kg 3.3 AFgur Absorption factor for the gut unitless 1 AFskin Absorption factor for the skin unitless 0.03 AFiung Absorption factor for the lungs unitless 1 ETing Exposure term for soil ingestion unitless 0.75 (D2 x D3) (24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 39 weeks/year) ETderm Exposure term for soil dermal contact unitless 0.75 (Dz x D3) (24 hours/day, 7 days/week, 39 weeks/year) ETinh Exposure term for soil inhalation unitless 0.047 (Di x Dz x D3) (1 .5 hours/day, 7 days/week, 39 weeks/year) Calculation of benzene doses for all direct contact exposure pathways applicable to the Adult Site Visitor are shown below: Oral Dose = (C,oii x AFgur x SIRsoii x ETing) / BW Oral Dose = (3.3 x I x 0.00002 x (24/24) x (7/7) x (39/52)) / 70.7 Oral Dose = 7.00E-07 mg/kg-bw-day Dermal Dose = (Csoii x AFskin x SDRsoii x ETderm) / BW Dermal Dose = (3.3 x 0.03 x ((890 x 1 E-07) + (8220 x 1 E-08)) x (24/24) x (7/7) x (39/52)) / 70.7 Dermal Dose = 1.80E-07 mg/kg-bw-day Inhalation Dose = (Csoi x AFiu„g x Rsoii x ETinh) / BW Inhalation Dose = (3.3 x 1 x (7.6E-10 x 16.6) x (1.5/24) x (7/7) x (52/52)) / 70.7 Inhalation Dose = 2.76E-1 1 mg/kg-bw-day 2.2 ESTIMATION OF HAZARD QUOTIENT FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR In the final step of risk characterization, the daily doses are compared to the selected TRVs for benzene to estimate the Hazard Quotients (HQs). In this assessment, an oral TRV of 4.0x10-3 mg/kg -day was utilized as directed by USEPA (2003), to determine the oral+dermal HQ. The TRV used for inhalation was 0.03 mg/m3, as recommended by USEPA (2003). Page 4 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec APPENDIX E Example Human Health Calculation Estimation of the Oral+Dermal HQ for the Adult Site Visitor exposed to benzene in soil is thus: Oral+Dermal HQ = Oral+Dermal Dose / Oral TRV Oral+Dermal HQ = (7.00E-07 + 1.80E-07) mg/kg-bw-day / 4.0x10-3 mg/kg-bw-day Oral+Dermal HQ = 2.20E-04 Estimation of the Inhalation HQ for the Adult Site Visitor exposed to benzene in soil is thus: Inhalation HQ = Inhalation Dose / Oral TRV Inhalation HQ = (2.76E-1 1 mg/kg-bw-day) / ( (0.03 mg/m3 x 16.6 m3/d) / 70.7 kg) Inhalation HQ = 3.92E-09 3.0 Carcinogenic Exposure to Benzene in Soil 3.1 ESTIMATION OF AVERAGE DAILY DOSE FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR To quantify the potential cancer risk to an Adult Site Visitor as a result of exposure to benzene concentrations in soil (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, particulate inhalation), an estimated average daily dose from each applicable exposure pathway was estimated as defined below: Oral Dose = (C,oii x AFgut x SIRsoii x D2 x D3 x D4) / BW x LE Dermal Dose = (Csoi x AFskin x SDRsoii x D2 x D3 x D4) / BW x LE Outdoor Particulate Inhalation Dose = (Csoii x AFung x IRs.ii x Di x D2 x D3 x D4) / BW x LE Where: Csoii Exposure Point Concentration of COPC in soil (mg/kg) AF Relative absorption factor for gut, skin, or lungs (unitless) SIRsoii Soil Ingestion Rate (kg/day) SDRsoii Soil Dermal Contact Rate (kg/day) IRsoii Soil Inhalation Rate (kg/day) Di Hours per day exposed / 24 hours D2 Days per week exposed / 7 days D3 Weeks per year exposed / 52 weeks D4 Total Yeas Exposed to Site BW Body Weight (kg) LE Life Expectancy Page 5 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec APPENDIX E Example Human Health Calculation Other factors used in the calculations are shown in Table 2, and in Section 2.1 above. Calculation of benzene doses for all direct contact exposure pathways applicable to Adult Site Visitor are shown below: Oral Dose = (Csoii x AFgut x SIRsoii x ETing) / BW x LE Oral Dose = (3.3 x 1 x 0.00002 x (24/24) x (7/7) x (39/52) x 60) / 70.7 x 60 Oral Dose = 7.00E-07 mg/kg-bw-day Dermal Dose = (Csoii x AFskin x SDRsoii x ETderm) / BW Dermal Dose = (3.3 x 0.03 x ((890 x 1 E-07) + (8220 x 1 E-08)) x (24/24) x (7/7) x (39/52)x 60) / 70.7x 60 Dermal Dose = 1.80E-07 mg/kg-bw-day Inhalation Dose = (Csoii x AFiung x IRsoii x ETinh) / BW Inhalation Dose = (3.3 x 1 x (7.6E-10 x 16.6) x (1.5/24) x (7/7) x (52/52) x 60) / (70.7 x 60) Inhalation Dose = 2.76E-1 1 mg/kg-bw-day 3.2 ESTIMATION OF CANCER RISK FOR ADULT SITE VISITOR In this assessment, an oral carcinogenic slope factor (SF) of 0.0834 (mg/kg -day) -1 and an inhalation SF of 0.0145 (mg/kg -day)-', was utilized as directed by Health Canada (2010). Estimation of the Oral+Dermal CR for the Adult Site Visitor exposed to benzene in soil is thus: Oral+Dermal HQ = Oral+Dermal Dose x Oral SF Oral+Dermal HQ = (7.00E-07 + 1.80E-07) mg/kg-bw-day x 0.0834 (mg/kg-bw-day)-1 Oral+Dermal HQ = 7.34E-08 Estimation of the Inhalation CR for the Adult Site Visitor exposed to benzene in soil is thus: Inhalation HQ = Inhalation HQ = Inhalation HQ = Inhalation Dose x Inhalation SF 2.76E-1 1 mg/kg-bw-day x 0.0145 (mg/kg -day)-' 4.00E-13 Page 6 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec 4.0 References APPENDIX E Example Human Health Calculation Health Canada, 2010a. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA). September 2010. Revised 2012. Health Canada, 2010b. Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part II: Health Canada Toxicological Reference Values (TRVs) and Chemical -Specific Factors. September 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Benzene. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Accessed March 2015 at http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0276.htm. Last updated April 2003. Page 7 of 7 Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation PORT BURWELL TODDLER SITE VISITOR Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Direct Contact Toddler Site Visitor Receptor: Health Canada Toddler Commerical CS X AFg�,t X SI Rsoil X ETing CS X AFskin X SDRsoil X ETderm CS X AFlung X I Rsoil X ETinh Oral Dose = BW x LE (carc only)=d Dermal Dose = BW x LE (carc only) Inhalation Dose = BW x LE (carc only) Time on site: Hours per day (inhalation) Days per Week Weeks per Year *Inhalation TRVs converted from mg/m 3 to mg/kg/d **Manganese TRV varies by age group; 0. 136 for toddler, 0.156 for adult. Parameter Definition (units) 1.5 7 39 TDI = reference dose (mg/kg bw-day) SF = slope factor (mg/kg bw-day)-1 C s = concentration in soil (mg/kg) SAF = soil allocation factor (unitless) BW = body weight (kg) BSC = and soil concentration (ingestion/dermal contact always assumed 24 hours per day) Default Value chemical specific chemical specific Reference site specific calculated Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) chemical specific 16.5 Health Canada (2010) -Toddler chemical specific Health Canada (2010) - Toddler AF gut= absorption factor for gut (unitless) chemical specific Assumed AF iung = absorption factor for lung (unitless) chemical specific Assumed AF skin = absorption factor skin (unitless) chemical specific Health Canada (2010) SIR,.,, = soil ingestion rate (kg/day) 0.00008 Health Canada (2010) -Toddler IRsa„= soil inhalation rate (kg/day) = CRP (kg/m3) x IRa;r (m3/day) 6.3E-09 calculated SDR ..,,= soil dermal contact rate (kg/day) = (SA holdsx M hands) + (SA badyx M bady) x 1 E-6 (kg/mg) 0.0000688 calculated ET i„ g = exposure term for soil ingestion pathway (unitless) 0.7500 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] ETi„ h = exposure term for soil inhalation pathway (unitless) 0.0469 Site Specific [ 1.5 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] ET def,„= exposure term for soil dermal contact pathway (unitless) 0.7500 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] CRP = concentration of respirable particles (kg/m3) 7.60E-10 Health Canada (2010) - Default IRa,r= daily inhalation rate (M3 /day) 8.3 Health Canada (2010) -Toddler SA hands = skin surface area - hands (CM2 /day) 430 Health Canada (2010) -Toddler SA bady = skin surface area - arms and legs (cm`/day) 2580 Health Canada (2010) -Toddler M hands = soil to skin adherence factor - hands (mg/cm2) 0.1 Health Canada (2010) - Toddler M body = soil to skin adherence factor - arms and legs (mg/cm2) 0.01 Health Canada (2010) -Toddler APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation PORT BURWELL ADULT SITE VISITOR Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Direct Contact Adult Site Visitor Receptor: Health Canada Adult Commerical Cs X AFgut X SI Rsoil X ETing Cs X AFskin X SDRsoil X ETderm Cs X AFlung X I Rsoil X ETinh Oral Dose = BW x LE (carc only) j Dermal Dose = BW x LE (carc only) d Inhalation Dose = BW x LE (carc only) Time on site: Hours per day (inhalation) Days per Week Weeks per Year Lifetime Exposure *Inhalation TRVs converted from mg/m 3 to mg/kg/d Parameter Definition (units 1.5 7 39 60 TDI = reference dose (mg/kg bw-day) SF = slope factor (mg/kg bw-day)-1 C S = concentration in soil (mg/kg) (ingestion/dermal contact always assumed 24 hours per day) Default Value Reference chemical specific chemical specific site specific calculated Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) SAF = soil allocation factor (unitless) chemical specific BW = body weight (kg) 70.7 Health Canada (2010) -Adult BSC = background soil concentration (mg/kg) chemical specific Health Canada (2010) - Adult AF gut = AF lung = AF skin = absorption factor for gut (unitless) absorption factor for lung (unitless) absorption factor skin (unitless) SIR Soil = soil ingestion rate (kg/day) IR Soil = soil inhalation rate (kg/day) = CRP (kg/m3) x IR air (m3/day) SDR Soil= soil dermal contact rate (kg/day) _ (SA hands M hands) + (SA body M body) x 1 E-6 (kg/mg) chemical specific Assumed chemical specific Assumed chemical specific Health Canada (2010) 0.00002 Health Canada (2010) -Adult 1.3E-08 calculated 0.0001712 calculated ET ing = exposure term for soil ingestion pathway (unitless) 0.7500 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] ET inh = exposure term for soil inhalation pathway (unitless) 0.0469 Site Specific [ 1.5 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] ET der. = exposure term for soil dermal contact pathway (unitless) 0.7500 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 7 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] CRP = concentration of respirable particles (kg/m3) 7.60E-10 Health Canada (2010) - Default IR air= daily inhalation rate (M3 /day) 16.6 Health Canada (2010) -Adult SA hands= skin surface area - hands (CM2 /day) 890 Health Canada (2010) -Adult SA body = skin surface area - arms and legs (cm`/day) 8220 Health Canada (2010) -Adult M hands = soil to skin adherence factor - hands (mg/cm2) 0.1 Health Canada (2010) - Adult M body = soil to skin adherence factor - arms and legs (mg/cm2) 0.01 Health Canada (2010) -Adult APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation PORT BURWELL LANDSCAPE WORKER Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Direct Contact Landscape Worker Receptor: Health Canada Construction Wor Commerical Cs X AFgut X SI Rsoil X ETing Cs X AFskin X SDRsoil X ETderm Cs X AFlung X I Rsoil X ETinh Oral Dose = BW x LE (carc only) j Dermal Dose = BW x LE (carc only) d Inhalation Dose = BW x LE (carc only) Time on site: Hours per day (inhalation) Days per Week Weeks per Year Lifetime Exposure *Inhalation TRVs converted from mg/m 3 to mg/kg/d **Manganese TRV varies by age group; 0.136 for toddler, 0.156 for adult. Parameter Definition (units) 4 39 35 TDI = reference dose (mg/kg bw-day) SF = slope factor (mg/kg bw-day)-1 C S = concentration in soil (mg/kg) SAF = BW = BSC = AF gut = AF lung = AF skin = (ingestion/dermal contact always assumed 24 hours per day) Default Value Reference chemical specific chemical specific site specific calculated Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) soil allocation factor (unitless) chemical specific body weight (kg) 70.7 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker background soil concentration (mg/kg) chemical specific Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker absorption factor for gut (unitless) chemical specific Assumed absorption factor for lung (unitless) absorption factor skin (unitless) SIR so;; = soil ingestion rate (kg/day) IR so;; = soil inhalation rate (kg/day) = CRP (kg/m3) x IR air (m3/day) SDR soil= soil dermal contact rate (kg/day) _ (SA hands x M hands) + (SA body x M body) x 1 E-6 (kg/mg) chemical specific Assumed chemical specific Health Canada (2010) 0.0001 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker 8.4E-06 calculated 0.001712 calculated ET ;ng = exposure term for soil ingestion pathway (unitless) 0.1071 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 1 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] ET;nh = exposure term for soil inhalation pathway (unitless) 0.0179 Site Specific [ 4 Hours per Day, 1 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] ET derm = CRP = R air = exposure term for soil dermal contact pathway (unitless) concentration of respirable particles (kg/m3) daily inhalation rate (M3 /day) 0.1071 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 1 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] 2.50E-07 Health Canada (2010) - Default 33.6 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker SA hands= skin surface area - hands (cm`/day) 890 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker SA body = skin surface area - arms and legs (CM2 /day) 8220 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker M hands = soil to skin adherence factor - hands (mg/cm2) 1 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker M body = soil to skin adherence factor - arms and legs (mg/cm2) 0.1 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker APPENDIX E Stantec Example Human Health Calculation PORT BURWELL CONSTRUCTION WORKER Design with community in mind Stantec Consulting Ltd. Human Health Risk Assessment Soil Direct Contact Construction Worker Receptor: Health Canada Construction Wor Commerical CS X AFg�,t X SI Rsoil X ETing CS X AFskin X SDRsoil X ETderm CS X AFlung X I Rsoil X ETinh Oral Dose = BW x LE (carc only)=d Dermal Dose = BW x LE (carc only) Inhalation Dose = BW x LE (carc only) Time on site: Hours per day (inhalation) 10 Days per Week 5 Weeks per Year 39 Lifetime Exposure 1 *Inhalation TRVs converted from mg/m 3 to mg/kg/d "Manganese TRV varies by age group; 0. 136 for toddler, 0.156 for adult. Parameter Definition (units (ingestion/dermal contact always assumed 24 hours per day) Default Value Reference TDI = _ SF = C s = SAF = BW = reference dose (mg/kg low -day) slope factor (mg/kg bw-day)-1 concentration in soil (mg/kg) soil allocation factor (unitless) body weight (kg) chemical specific chemical specific site specific calculated Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) chemical specific 70.7 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker BSC = background soil concentration (mg/kg) chemical specific Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker AF gut absorption factor for gut (unitless) chemical specific Assumed AF lung = absorption factor for lung (unitless) chemical specific Assumed AFswn = absorption factor skin (unitless) chemical specific Health Canada (2010) SIR soil = soil ingestion rate (kg/day) 0.0001 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker IRsoil= soil inhalation rate (kg/day) = CRP (kg/m3) x IR air (m3/day) 8.4E-06 calculated SDR soil= ET i„g = ETinh = ET Berm = CRP = soil dermal contact rate (kg/day) _ (SAhandsx M hands) + (SAbadyx M bady) x 1 E-6 (kg/mg) exposure term for soil ingestion pathway (unitless) exposure term for soil inhalation pathway (unitless) exposure term for soil dermal contact pathway (unitless) concentration of respirable particles (kg/m3) 0.001712 calculated 0.5357 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 5 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] 0.2232 Site Specific [ 10 Hours per Day, 5 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] 0.5357 Site Specific [ 24 Hours per Day, 5 Days per Week, 39 Weeks per Year] 2.50E-07 Health Canada (2010) - Default IRair = daily inhalation rate (M3 /day) 33.6 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker SA hands= skin surface area - hands (CM2 /day) 890 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker SA body = skin surface area - arms and legs (CM2 /day) 8220 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker M hands = soil to skin adherence factor - hands (mg/cm2) 1 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker M body = soil to skin adherence factor - arms and legs (mg/cm) 0.1 Health Canada (2010) - Construction Worker PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix F Ecological Health Screening September 11, 2015 Appendix Ecological Health Screening ® Stantec F.1 Table F-1 Ecological Health Screening of Soil Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Surface Soil Federal Ecological MOECC Ecological NumberSamplesSamples Number of b Samples Exceeding Exceeding Carried al Parameter Maximum - Federal . Forward? IL AW (mg/kg) duplicates) Guideline Guideline Hydrocarbons + BTEX PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) 210 320 a2 NG 15 13 0 NA N PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX 170 NG 25 8 6 NA 1 N2 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) 41 (<50) 260 a2 10 15 8 0 6 N PHC F3 (>C 16-C34 range) 130 1700 a2 240 15 13 0 0 N PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) <50 3300 a2 120 15 15 0 0 N Benzene 3.3 1 0.02 15 12 1 Y Toluene 12 0.10 0.2 15 11 2 Y Ethylbenzene 2.5 50 0.05 15 12 0 2 N Xylene, m & p- 12 NG NG 8 5 NA NA N* Xylene, o- 7.8 NG NG 8 5 NA NA N* Xylenes, Total 19 37 0.05 15 12 0 3 N Metals pH 7.07-7.99 6-8 5-9 29 0 0 0 N Antimony 0.64 NG 1.3 29 21 NA 0 N Arsenic 16 26 18 29 4 0 0 N Barium 210 2000 a3 220 29 0 0 0 N Beryllium 0.94 8 a3 2.5 29 24 0 0 N Bismuth <1 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N3 Boron (total) 13 NG 36 22 13 NA 0 N Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.31 NG 1.5 11 3 NA 0 N Cadmium 0.49 22 1.2 29 21 0 0 N Calcium 76000 NG NG 4 0 NA NA N** Chromium 11 87 70 29 0 0 0 N Chromium (VI) <0.2 1.4 q4 0.66 11 11 0 0 N Cobalt 5.5 NG 22 29 0 NA 0 N Copper 29 91 92 29 0 0 0 N Iron 5600 NG NG 4 0 NA NA N** Lead 100 600 120 29 0 0 0 N Magnesium 9900 NG NG 4 0 NA NA N** Manganese 210 220a NG 4 0 0 NA N Mercury <0.05 50 0.27 11 11 0 0 N Molybdenum 2.5 NG 2 29 22 NA 2 Y Nickel 15 50 82 29 0 0 0 N Phosphorus 520 NG NG 4 0 NA NA N** Potassium <200 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N** Selenium 1.3 2.9 1.5 29 25 0 0 N Silver <0.2 NG 0.5 29 29 NA 0 N Sodium <100 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N3 Strontium 95 NG NG 4 0 NA NA N4 Sulphur 380 NG NG 11 0 NA NA N** Thallium 0.36 3.6 1 29 22 0 0 N Tin <5 300d NG 29 29 0 NA N Tungsten <1 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N3 Uranium 0.89 2000 2.5 29 0 0 0 N Vanadium 23 130 86 29 1 0 0 N Zinc 160 320 290 29 0 0 0 N Zirconium 1 NG NG 4 1 NA NA N3 Non -Carcinogenic PAHs Acenaphthene 0.1 0.28 0.072 22 16 0 1 N Acenaphthylene 0.037 320 0.093 22 17 0 0 N Anthracene 0.048 32 0.22 22 13 0 0 N Fluorene 0.077 0.25 0.19 22 15 0 0 N Methylnaphthalene, 1- 2.3 NG 0.59 22 11 NA 6 Y Methylnaphthalene, 2- 2.7 NG 0.59 22 10 NA 7 Y Methylnaphthalene (Total) 1.5 NG 0.59 18 10 NA 4 Y Naphthalene 1.3 0.013 0.09 22 13 9 8 Y Pyrene 0.27 100 a3 1 22 7 0 0 N Carinogenic PAHs Benz(a)anthracene 0.23 10 a3 0.36 22 10 0 0 N Benzo(a)pyrene 0.08 72 0.3 22 9 0 0 N Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene 0.12 10 a3 0.47 22 9 0 0 N Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.057 NG 0.68 22 9 NA 0 N Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.021 10 a3 0.48 22 12 0 0 N Chrysene 0.32 NG 2.8 22 9 NA 0 N Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.017 10 a3 0.1 22 16 0 0 N Fluoranthene 0.22 180 0.69 22 9 0 0 N Ind eno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.028 10a3 0.23 22 10 0 0 N Phenanthrene 1 1.8 1 0.046 1 0.69 1 22 1 7 1 8 1 3 1 Y 5i Sta ntec 122511 0 Pagee 1 1 of of 4 Table F-1 Ecological Health Screening of Soil Analytical Results PQRA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Notes < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available NA = not applicable; no guideline available for comparison °'CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; lowest applicable ecological commercial land -use guideline; coarse-grained surface soils. a2CCME Canada -Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil; lowest applicable ecological commercial land -use guideline; coarse-grained surface soils. a3CCME SQG for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; Interim soil quality criteria (CCME 1991). g4CCME SQG for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; provisional SAGE. bMOECC Site Condition Standards. Table 9 - Soil Components for Within 30m of a Water Body; lesser of applicable guideline for ecological health. cIn the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Level was used for screening puposes; the lesser of plants, soil invertebrates, avian and mammalian values. dIn the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the Alberta Tier I Soil Remediation Guideline for commercial land use was used for screening puposes. *Considered to be accounted in the assessment of the total contaminant. **These parameters were not carried forward as they are considered ubiquitous. Please refer to the report text. 'Presented for information purposes only. However, if there is no applicable federal guideline, the MOECC guideline has been used to screen the parameter. 2Although the maximum concentration exceeds the MOECC guideline, the parameter was not carried forward as total F1 was less than the federal guideline. 3All samples at or below detection limits and no federal or MOECC guidelines exist. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the parameter poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carried forward in the ERA. I4Calcium:strontium ratio > 1. Therefore, it is not anticipated that strontium poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carriend forward in the ERA. Grey highlighting indicates chemical exceeds the applicable guideline and is carried forward in ERA. Sta ntec 122511 0 Pagee 2 2 of of 4 Surface Soil Federal Ecological MOECC Ecological NumberSamplesSamples Number of Parameter IL Md Maximum b Samples al t Exceeding Exceeding Carried - Federal . Forward? (mg/kg) duplicates) Guideline Guideline Biphenyls Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) <0.015 33 0.3 4 4 0 0 N Aroclor 1242 <0.015 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Aroclor 1248 <0.015 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Aroclor 1254 <0.015 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Aroclor 1260 <0.015 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Organochlorine Pesticides Aldrin <0.002 NG 0.05 4 4 NA 0 N Chlordane, a- <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Chlordane, g- <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Chlordane (total) <0.002 NG 0.05 4 4 NA 0 N Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, o,p'- <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* (o,p'-DDD) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane, p,p'- 0.003 NG NG 4 2 NA NA N* (p,p'-DDD) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (total) 0.003 NG 0.05 4 2 NA 0 N (o,p'- + p,p' -DDD) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, o,p'- <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* (o,p' -DDE) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, p,p'- 0.018 NG NG 4 1 NA NA N* (p,p' -DDE) Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (total) 0.018 NG 0.05 4 1 NA 0 N (o,p'- + p,p' -DDE) Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, o,p'- <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* (o, p' -DDT) * Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, p,p'- 0.016 NG NG 4 2 NA NA N* (p, p' -DDT) * Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (total) 0.016 0.1 1.4 4 2 0 0 N (o,p'- + p,p'-DDT) Dieldrin <0.002 NG 0.05 4 4 NA 0 N Endosulfan I (alpha) <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Endosulfan II (beta) <0.002 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Endosulfan sulphate <0.005 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N* Endosulfan (total) <0.002 NG 0.04 4 4 NA 0 N Endrin <0.002 NG 0.04 4 4 NA 0 N Heptachlor <0.002 NG 0.05 4 4 NA 0 N Heptachlor epoxide <0.002 NG 0.05 4 4 NA 0 N Hexachlorobenzene <0.002 NG 0.02 4 4 NA 0 N Hexachlorobutadiene <0.005 NG 0.01 4 4 NA 0 N Hexachloroethane <0.005 NG 0.01 4 4 NA 0 N Lindane (gamma -BHC; <0.002 NG 0.01 4 4 NA 0 N Hexachlorocyclohexane) Methoxychlor <0.005 NG 0.05 4 4 NA 0 N Notes < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available NA = not applicable; no guideline available for comparison °'CCME Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; lowest applicable ecological commercial land -use guideline; coarse-grained surface soils. a2CCME Canada -Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil; lowest applicable ecological commercial land -use guideline; coarse-grained surface soils. a3CCME SQG for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; Interim soil quality criteria (CCME 1991). g4CCME SQG for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health; provisional SAGE. bMOECC Site Condition Standards. Table 9 - Soil Components for Within 30m of a Water Body; lesser of applicable guideline for ecological health. cIn the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the USEPA Ecological Soil Screening Level was used for screening puposes; the lesser of plants, soil invertebrates, avian and mammalian values. dIn the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the Alberta Tier I Soil Remediation Guideline for commercial land use was used for screening puposes. *Considered to be accounted in the assessment of the total contaminant. **These parameters were not carried forward as they are considered ubiquitous. Please refer to the report text. 'Presented for information purposes only. However, if there is no applicable federal guideline, the MOECC guideline has been used to screen the parameter. 2Although the maximum concentration exceeds the MOECC guideline, the parameter was not carried forward as total F1 was less than the federal guideline. 3All samples at or below detection limits and no federal or MOECC guidelines exist. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the parameter poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carried forward in the ERA. I4Calcium:strontium ratio > 1. Therefore, it is not anticipated that strontium poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carriend forward in the ERA. Grey highlighting indicates chemical exceeds the applicable guideline and is carried forward in ERA. Sta ntec 122511 0 Pagee 2 2 of of 4 Table F-2 Ecological Health Screening of Groundwater Analytical Results PARA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell 5i Sta ntec 122511 0 Pagee 3 3 of of 4 Maximu 'I Federal MOECC Number of Number of Samples Samples Parameter [Concentration IL ?.rA (ug/L) I Ecological Ecological Samples Exceedin Exceeding Carried Guideline Guideline b (including Non -Detect Federal MOECC Forward? Hydrocarbons (ug/L) (ug/L) duplicates) .- - Guideline PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) <25 NG 420 13 13 NA 0 N PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) <100 NG 170 13 13 NA 0 N PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) <200 NG NG 13 13 NA NA N2 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) <200 NG NG 13 13 NA NA N2 Benzene <0.2 370 4600 13 13 0 0 N Toluene 0.58 2 14000 13 10 0 0 N Ethyl benzene <0.2 90 1800 13 13 0 0 N Xylene, m & p- <0.4 NG NG 5 5 NA NA N* Xylene, o- <0.2 NG NG 5 5 NA NA N* Xylenes, Total <0.4 NG 3300 13 13 NA 0 N General Chemistry pH [S.U.] 6.89-7.60 6.5-9.0 NG 9 0 0 NA N Hardness (as CaCO3) [mg/L] 541 (average) NG NG 9 0 NA NA NA Metals Aluminum 4.3 100 NG 9 2 0 NA N Antimony <0.6 NG 16000 13 13 NA 0 N Arsenic 8.9 W 5 1500 13 0 5 0 Barium 170 NG 23000 13 0 NA 0 N Beryllium <1 NG 53 9 9 NA 0 N Bismuth <5 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N2 Boron 82 1500 36000 13 3 0 0 N Cadmium <0.02 0.09 2.1 13 13 0 0 N Calcium 210000 NG NG 9 0 NA NA N** Chromium (total) <1 8.9 640 13 13 0 0 N Chromium, hexavalent <0.5 1 110 9 9 0 0 N Cobalt 2.1 NG 52 13 0 NA 0 N Copper 1.1 4 69 13 5 0 0 N Iron 37000 350` NG 9 0 9 NA _Y Lead <0.2 7 20 13 13 0 0 N Lithium <20 NG NG 9 9 NA NA N2 Magnesium 29000 NG NG 9 0 NA NA N** Manganese 3500 2985` NG 9 0 1 NA Y Mercury <0.01 0.026 7.7 9 9 0 0 N Molybdenum 8.1 73 7300 13 0 0 0 N Nickel 4 150 390 13 3 0 0 N Phosphorus 1600 NG NG 9 4 NA NA N** Potassium 5200 NG NG 9 0 NA NA N** Selenium 0.44 1 50 13 7 0 0 N Silicon 12000 NG NG 9 0 NA NA N** Silver <0.1 0.1 1.2 13 13 0 0 N Sodium 57000 NG 1800000 13 0 NA 0 N Strontium 720 1500' NG 9 0 0 NA N Sulphur 79000 NG NG 9 0 NA NA N** Thallium <0.2 0.8 400 13 13 0 0 N Tin <1 73c NG 13 13 0 NA N Titanium 1.4 NG NG 9 8 NA NA N3 Tungsten <10 NG NG 4 4 NA NA N2 Uranium 0.75 15 330 13 1 0 0 N Vanadium 1.1 NG 200 13 11 NA 0 N Zinc 3.8 30 890 13 11 0 0 N Zirconium <3 17' NG 4 4 0 NA N 5i Sta ntec 122511 0 Pagee 3 3 of of 4 Table F-2 Ecological Health Screening of Groundwater Analytical Results PQRA/SLERA of Soil and GW - Port Burwell Notes < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available NA = not applicable; no guideline available for comparison "CCME Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) for the Protection of Aquatic Life; freshwater guideline. Groundwater sampled within 10 m of a waterbody. b MOECC Groundwater Components within 30 m of a Water Body (Table 9); l Ox Aquatic Protection Value. `In the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life were used for screening puposes For manganese, guideline value calculated based on average hardness value. dIn the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the USEPA freshwater screening benchmark was used for screening puposes. *Considered to be accounted in the assessment of the total contaminant. **These parameters were not carried forward as they are considered ubiquitous. Please refer to the report text. 'Presented for information purposes only. However, if there is no applicable federal guideline, the MOECC guideline has been used to screen the parameter. 2All samples at or below detection limits and no federal or MOECC guidelines exist. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the parameter poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carried forward in the ERA. 3All samples below the detection limit with the exception of one field duplicate slightly above (1.4 ug/L vs 1.0 ug/L) and no federal or MOECC guidelines exist. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the parameter poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carried forward in the ERA. Grey highlighting indicates chemical exceeds the applicable guideline and is carried forward in ERA. Sta ntec 122511 0 Oji Pagee 4 4 of of 4 Maximu Federal MOECC Number of Number of Samples Samples Parameter Z Concentra (ug/L) L Ecological Guideline 1( (ug/L) Ecological Guideline (ug/L) Samples (including duplicates) Non -Detect .- Exceedin Federal .- Exceeding MOECC Guideline' Carried Forward? Non -Carcinogenic PAHs Acenaphthene 0.067(<0.1) 5.8 5200 13 12 0 0 N Acenaphthylene 0.31 NG 1.4 13 11 NA 0 N Acridine <0.032 4.4 NG 4 4 0 NA N Anthracene 0.012 13 10 <0.05 Benzo[c]phenanthrene NG NG 4 4 NA NA N2 Benzo[e]pyrene <0.05 NG NG 9 9 NA NA N2 Fluoranthene M 0.04 73 13 7 3 OMU_ Y 0.29 Fluorene 3 290 13 9 0 0 N Methylnapthalene, 1- 0.25 NG 1500 13 9 NA 0 N Methylnapthalene, 2- 0.36 NG 1500 13 9 NA 0 N Methylnapthalene, 1- & 2- (total) <0.1 NG 1500 4 4 NA 0 N Napthalene 0.21 1.1 6200 13 7 0 0 N Perylene (Dibenz[de,kl]anthracene) 0.018 (<0.05) NG NG 9 7 NA NA N2 Pyrene 1 0.025 13 7 4 1 0 1 Y Carinogenic PAHs Benz(a)anthracene 1.5 0.018 1.8 13 8 2 0 Y Benzo(a)pyrene 1.3 0.015 2.1 13 9 3 0 Y Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1.7 NG 4.2 8 4 NA 0 N Benzo(b)pyridine (Quinoline) <0.2 3.4 NG 4 4 0 NA N Benzo(b/j)fluoranthrene 0.014 NG 4.2 5 4 NA 0 N Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.69 NG 0.2 13 11 NA 0 Y Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.67 NG 1.4 13 11 NA 0 N Biphenyl, 1,1'- (Biphenyl) <0.01 NG 1700 5 5 NA 0 N Chrysene 1.1 NG 0.7 13 8 NA 1 Y Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.23 NG 0.4 13 12 NA 0 N Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.79 NG 1.4 13 12 NA 0 N Phenanthrene 2.1 0.4380 T 13_] 1 0 Y Notes < = reported detection limit NG = no guideline available NA = not applicable; no guideline available for comparison "CCME Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (WQG) for the Protection of Aquatic Life; freshwater guideline. Groundwater sampled within 10 m of a waterbody. b MOECC Groundwater Components within 30 m of a Water Body (Table 9); l Ox Aquatic Protection Value. `In the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the BC Approved Water Quality Guidelines for the protection of aquatic life were used for screening puposes For manganese, guideline value calculated based on average hardness value. dIn the absence of applicable federal or MOECC guidelines, the USEPA freshwater screening benchmark was used for screening puposes. *Considered to be accounted in the assessment of the total contaminant. **These parameters were not carried forward as they are considered ubiquitous. Please refer to the report text. 'Presented for information purposes only. However, if there is no applicable federal guideline, the MOECC guideline has been used to screen the parameter. 2All samples at or below detection limits and no federal or MOECC guidelines exist. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the parameter poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carried forward in the ERA. 3All samples below the detection limit with the exception of one field duplicate slightly above (1.4 ug/L vs 1.0 ug/L) and no federal or MOECC guidelines exist. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the parameter poses a risk to ecological receptors and it is not carried forward in the ERA. Grey highlighting indicates chemical exceeds the applicable guideline and is carried forward in ERA. Sta ntec 122511 0 Oji Pagee 4 4 of of 4 PRELIMINARY QUANTITATIVE HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF SOIL AND GROUNDWATER AT PORT BURWELL Appendix G Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA September 11, 2015 Appendix Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA ® Stantec G.1 Limited Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour C�Stantec Prepared for: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 1331 Clyde Ave., Suite 400 Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 FINAL Project No. 122511076.200 September 11, 2015 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................1.1 3.1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 1.1 1.2.1 Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use ........................................... 1.1 1.2.2 Previous Reports........................................................................................... 1.2 1.3 PHYSICAL SETTING.......................................................................................................... 1.5 3.2 1.3.1 Regional Stratigraphy................................................................................. 1.5 1.3.2 Topography and Drainage........................................................................ 1.5 1.3.3 Site Services.................................................................................................. 1.5 1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.......................................................................................... 1.6 1.5 SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................................................... 1.7 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION..................................................................................................2.1 2.1 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2.1 2.2 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PROGRAM.......................................................................2.2 3.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................................3.1 3.1 SOIL.................................................................................................................................. 3.1 3.1.1 Stratigraphy..................................................................................................3.1 3.1.2 Combustible Soil Vapour Concentrations ............................................... 3.1 3.1.3 Soil Analytical Results.................................................................................. 3.1 3.1.4 Waste Classification Results........................................................................ 3.2 3.2 GROUNDWATER............................................................................................................. 3.3 3.2.1 Groundwater Monitoring............................................................................ 3.3 3.2.2 Groundwater Analytical Results................................................................ 3.3 3.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS................................................................................................3.4 3.3.1 Soil..................................................................................................................3.4 3.3.2 Groundwater................................................................................................3.5 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL.................................................................. 3.5 4.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................4.1 5.0 SIGNATURES................................................................................................................5.2 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Soil VOC Exceedances............................................................. Table 3-2: On -Site Monitoring Summary February 3, 2015 ..................... Table 3-3: Groundwater Metal and General Inorganic Exceedances ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx ........................... 3.2 ........................... 3.3 ........................... 3.4 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A FIGURES.....................................................................................................A.1 APPENDIX B FIELD METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. B.1 APPENDIX C MONITORING WELL LOGS........................................................................C.1 APPENDIX D SUMMARY ANALYTICAL TABLES............................................................... D.1 APPENDIX E LABORATORY CERTIFICATES OF ANALYSES..............................................E.1 ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\re ports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwell_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to conduct a preliminary quantitative human health risk assessment (PQRA) and screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) of soil and groundwater, with remedial and/or risk management option analysis and development of a remedial action plan, at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario. A limited supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted at the Site in support of the PQRA/SLERA. The Site is currently owned by DFO and is used as a recreational and commercial fishing access point, community wharf and harbour of refuge. There is one vacant Canadian Coast Guard automation building on the Site, located southwest of the harbour. In February 2015 Stantec completed a limited supplemental Phase II ESA to collect additional soil and groundwater data to delineate (if possible) and support a detailed and more accurate assessment of the human and ecological risks at the Site. The applicable soil guidelines/standards for the Site are: • CCME, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, on-line summary accessed in February 2015. • Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment (CCME), Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil, January 2008. The applicable groundwater guidelines/standards for the Site are: • CCME, Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites, March 2014. The scope of work for the Phase II ESA consisted of advancing six boreholes (surface/subsurface) to delineate chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) found during previous investigations and in support of the PQRA/SLERA, and complete one of the boreholes as a groundwater monitoring well (MW 15-1). Soil samples were collected from each of the boreholes and submitted for laboratory analysis of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), petroleum hydrocarbon fractions F1 to F4 (PHCs F1 to F4), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals and general inorganics, and pH. Subsurface soil samples from three of the boreholes were submitted for laboratory analysis of BTEX, and PHCs F1 to F4. Two blind duplicate samples for soil were submitted. One composite soil sample was collected for waste characterization for potential future soil management. Representative groundwater samples were collected from three existing and one newly installed groundwater monitoring wells and submitted for laboratory analysis of BTEX, PHCs Fl to F4, PAHs, metals and general inorganics, and pH. One blind duplicate sample was submitted for groundwater. Trip and field blanks were submitted for laboratory analysis of BTEX and PHCs F1 -F4. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_ferrestrial_esa_fnl.docx LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 The overburden in terrestrial portions of the Site generally consisted of a thin layer of topsoil underlain by sand to silty sand. Bedrock was not encountered during the Phase II ESA investigation. In total, eleven soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the contaminants of concern (including two field duplicate soils sample collected from MW15-1-1 and BH 15-3-6 (called MW15-1-2 and BH 15-3-20, respectively). Combustible soil vapour concentrations were measured in each of the soil samples (where possible) collected during the Phase II ESA. Combustible soil vapour concentrations ranged from 5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in various borehole samples to 90 ppmv in one sample at BH 15-3. The measured concentrations of the contaminants of concern were below the applicable guidelines/standards in all of the soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis, with the exception of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and naphthalene in SS15-5-1, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene in SSI 5-6-1, which exceeded CCME guidelines. In total, five groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the contaminants of concern (including one field duplicate groundwater sample collected from MW 15-1 (MW 15-20)). Groundwater vapour concentrations measured on February 3, 2015, ranged from 20 ppmv at MW103 and MW15-1 to 45 ppmv in MW102. No measureable thickness of free product or sheen was observed in any of the on-site monitoring wells. The measured concentrations of the contaminants of concern were below the applicable guidelines/standards in the five groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis, with the exception of arsenic and iron in MW 15-1 (and duplicate MW 15-20) and MW 101; arsenic, iron, fluoride, and sulfate in MW102; and iron and fluoride in MW103. These soil and groundwater results are further assessed in the PARA/SLERA. The statements made in this Executive Summary text are subject to the limitations included in Section 4 and are to be read in conjunction with the remainder of this report. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 1.1 GENERAL Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) to conduct a preliminary quantitative human health risk assessment (PQRA) and screening level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) of soil and groundwater, with remedial and/or risk management option analysis and development of a remedial action plan, at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (SCH) (the "Site") in Port Burwell, Ontario. A limited supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted at the Site in support of the PQRA/SLERA. A key plan illustrating the Site location is provided on Figure No. 1 (Appendix A). The Site is currently owned by DFO and is used as a recreational and commercial fishing access point, community wharf and harbour of refuge. There is one vacant Canadian Coast Guard automation building on the Site, located southwest of the harbour. In February 2015 Stantec completed a limited supplemental Phase II ESA to collect additional soil and groundwater data to delineate (if possible) and support a detailed and more accurate assessment of the human and ecological risks at the Site. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 1.2.1 Subject Propeay and Surrounding Land Use The Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour (SCH) is located at the confluence of Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie in Port Burwell, Ontario (see Figure 1, Appendix A). The Site encompasses an area of approximately 78 hectares (ha) and includes land and waterlots in Big Otter Creek and Lake Erie. Owing to the absence of residential structures, the fact that the area is open to unrestricted public access, and historical uses, the land use for the Site is commercial. The Site is currently used as a recreational and commercial fishing access point, community wharf and harbour of refuge. From the early 1900s to the mid 1970s, the Site was used as a small fishing wharf. In the 1970s, it was expanded to accommodate shipment of commodities including coal, potash, fuel oil and fertilizer. Bulk materials were stored on both sides of the harbour. Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) tracks served the dock for the rail car ferry/bulk carrier Ashtabula on the east side of the harbour, and a 2.7 million litre capacity bulk fuel tank that received product by boat was located on the west side of the harbour. By 1973, commercial harbour traffic had ceased with transfer of bulk goods service to nearby Port Stanley, leaving just the west side bulk fuel oil tank. Since then, it has operated as a recreational and commercial vessel harbour. There is currently one vacant Canadian Coast Guard building on the Site, located southwest of the harbour. This building has been classified as a Contaminated Site, and is currently being assessed by SNC. Per historical reports, the building was assessed (Terrapex, 2013) and it was concluded that no further action was required. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1 . 1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 The Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory (FCSI) identified two contaminated sites at Port Burwell SCH; FCSI 00012785 and 00012786. FCSI 00012785 identified sediment sampled 1 1 m east of the west wharf (east of Talisman Energy aboveground storage tanks) that is contaminated with metals and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). FCSI 00012786 identified sediment sampled 26 m west of the concrete pier (north corner) that is also contaminated with OCPs. These contaminated sites are associated with the water lots of the Port Burwell SCH property. Lands to the east and west include private and publically-owned properties, including Port Burwell Provincial Park to the west, which includes a campground and sandy beach for recreation and swimming. Big Otter Creek extends to the north and Lake Erie extends to the south. A key plan, illustrating the east and west locations, is provided on Figure No. 1, Appendix A. A more detailed plan is provided on Figure No. 2, Appendix A. Previous assessments conducted at the Site include the following, which are summarized below. • Enhanced Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No. 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2001, completed by MacViro Consultants Inc. • Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, report dated March 2012, completed by Stantec Consulting Ltd. • Phase 1/11 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated July 10, 2013, completed by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. • Supplemental Phase II/ Phase III Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Automation Building at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2015, completed by SNC-Lavalin Inc. Enhanced Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Site No. 4766, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2001, completed by MacViro Consultants Inc. MacViro Consultants Inc. (MacViro) was retained by the Ontario Region of Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), on behalf of DFO, to carry out an Enhanced Phase I ESA of the Port Burwell SCH in the Village of Port Burwell, Ontario. The Enhanced Phase I ESA consisted of a site reconnaissance visit, historical records review and analytical testing of sediment and soil samples. Observations made during the Enhanced Phase I ESA revealed minor concerns. One soil sample taken from the beach property revealed concentrations of metals that were below the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines. However, four of six sediment samples revealed concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals, and OCPs that exceeded the CCME Interim Freshwater Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQGs) and the MOECC Guidelines for the Protection and Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario (PSQGs; August 1993) Lowest Effect Level (LEL). Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_ferrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1.2 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 The Enhanced Phase I ESA indicated areas on the property where concentrations of metals, nutrients, pesticides, and PAHs in sediment exceeded the LELs in the PSQGs and/or the ISQGs in the CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines (CEQGs). Such contamination poses potential problems for future activities on the property, such as dredging. It was recommended that concentrations of contaminants in the sediment be compared to background sediment concentrations on the SCH property and that the extent of the sediment concentration exceedances be delineated. Assessment of Environmental Risks for Municipality of Bayham at Port Burwell, report dated March 2012, completed by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Stantec Consulting Ltd. was retained in 2011 by the Municipality of Bayham (that includes Port Burwell) to assess environmental risks associated with the property, in advance of the potential property transfer of federal lands at the harbour to the municipality. This assessment was based upon a review of background information and reports readily available from the Municipality and other sources. This study was not intended to meet the requirements of a Phase I ESA under CAN/CSAZ768-01 or Ontario Regulation 153/04, and was intended to be an historical review. Gaps in critical information were identified within the available information, leading Stantec to recommend a Phase I and a Phase II ESA to assess soil, groundwater and sediment quality to close the information gaps. It was determined that an assessment of environmental risks must take into consideration risks to the Municipality in assuming the federal lands based on known environmental impacts from currently available documents, and from unknown environmental impacts that might be identified during a Phase I and Phase II ESA. However, a full risk assessment could not be completed until the gaps in critical information were closed. Phase 1/11 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated July 10, 2013, completed by Terrapex Environmental Ltd. Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex) was retained by PWGSC on behalf of DFO to conduct a Phase 1/11 ESA at the DFO Port Burwell SCH located in Port Burwell, Ontario. The Phase I ESA identified three Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APECs) and chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) at each APEC including petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs), metals/inorganics, nutrients, PAHs, OCPs, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and soil pH issues. As part of the Phase II ESA, three borehole sampling locations were drilled at APEC 1 and monitoring wells were installed to assess near -surface and subsurface conditions in APEC 1. Potential impacts at the Site associated with sources of potential contamination identified in APEC 2 and APEC 3 were also investigated. Additionally, three surficial sediment cores were advanced in Big Otter Creek to collect surficial and subsurface sediment samples. Three additional surficial sediment cores were collected adjacent to APEC 1, as well as from outside the study area to determine background sediment conditions at the Site. COPCs in APEC 1 included PHC F2 to F4, select PAHs, metals/inorganics and OCPs. COPCs exceeded the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines, CCME ISQGs, CCME Probable Effect Level, Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Aquatic Life Freshwater, MOECC Lowest Effect Level , and the Canadian Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guideline. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1.3 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 Terrapex recommended that a Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PARA) and Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) be conducted to further assess the COPCs in contaminated soil and groundwater on the land. They also recommended that a Detailed Level Risk Assessment (DLRA), benthic invertebrate survey and toxicological assessment of the impacted sediment be conducted in the inner harbour of the Port Burwell SCH. Supplemental Phase 11/ Phase 111 Environmental Site Assessment, Port Burwell Automation Building at the Port Burwell Small Craft Harbour, Port Burwell, Ontario, report dated March 2015, completed by SNC-Lavalin Inc. SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SNC) was retained by PWGSC on behalf of DFO to conduct a Phase II/III ESA at the Automation Building, which is located on the terrestrial portion of at the DFO Port Burwell SCH located in Port Burwell, Ontario. In addition, SNC completed a pre -demolition Designated Substance and Hazardous Materials Survey (DSHMS). As part of the Phase II/III ESA, five borehole sampling locations were drilled, three of which were completed as monitoring wells. A total of 19 soil samples were collected and submitted for laboratory analysis. Three samples were collected from each borehole, one at surface and two samples at depth, and submitted for laboratory analysis of metals, pH, PAHs, BTEX, and PHC Fl to F4. Two field duplicate samples were collected for QA/QC. In addition, two shallow soil samples were collected in proximity of the site, and submitted for laboratory analysis of metals and pH. In total, four groundwater samples were collected from the three new monitoring wells, including one field duplicate sample for QA/QC. COPCs in soil at the Site included arsenic, 1- and 2 -methylnaphthalene, naphthalene, and phenanthrene. COPCs in groundwater at the Site included anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene and pyrene. COPCs exceeded the CCME Soil Quality Guidelines (SQG) for residential/parkland land use, and the Canadian Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines (FIGQG), respectively in soil and groundwater. It should be noted that significant amounts of sediment were present in the groundwater samples. As part of the pre -demolition DSHMS, a visual inspection of the Automation Building was completed. The survey included a visual inspection for asbestos containing materials, lead paint, PCBs, and other designated substances. The inspection identified light bulbs that may contain mercury, two ballasts that may contain PCBs, concrete likely containing silica, and likely lead- based paints. SNC recommended additional sampling of the three new monitoring wells to further assess PAH impacts in groundwater at the Site. This was recommended as part of a larger assessment of the Port Burwell SCH property. It was also recommended that the Site be considered for closure following demolition of the Automation Building. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1.4 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 1.3 PHYSICAL SETTING 11 Regional Stratigraphy Surficial soils in the general area are till and glaciolacustrine deposits consisting predominantly of silt and clay and minor sand, which include basin and quiet water deposits (MacViro, 2001). Bedrock in the vicinity of the Site is described as being of the Middle Devonian Era, specifically the Dundee Formation which consists of limestone, dolostone, and shale. 1. iopograpny unu on., As described in the Enhanced Phase I ESA conducted by MacViro (2001), the topography of the land portion of the Site is as follows: • Relatively flat with a slight slope towards Lake Erie. The Site is predominantly a water lot. • General direction of groundwater flow is assumed to be towards Big Otter Creek, while groundwater flow at the southern portion of the Site is expected to be to the south, towards Lake Erie. 1.3.3 Site Servic, The Site is serviced with drinking water by the Municipality of Bayham (Terrapex, 2013). Therefore, Site groundwater was categorized as being non -potable. According to the 2012 Assessment of Environmental Risks Report prepared by Stantec, the harbour provides privately operated dockage and marina services to recreational and commercial fishing vessels, and is also a possible harbour of refuge for vessels in danger on Lake Erie. The turning basin has filled in along the west pier wall since the routine or scheduled dredging of the accumulating sediment load from Big Otter Creek has ceased. The CPR locomotive turn table at the foot of Wellington Street in the east harbour, and the bulk fuel tank site near the end of Chatham Street in the west harbour remain visible today. Although these features are not on the Subject Lands, they are in close proximity. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1.5 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 1.4 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The Site is currently federal property (owned by Department of Fisheries and Oceans) with the future intent of divestment of the Site to the Municipality of Bayham. However, at this time federal guidelines would apply in evaluating the extent of impacted soil and groundwater. The regulatory framework used to evaluate and compare the soil quality data were: • Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment (CCME), Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC), January 2008. • CCME, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, on-line summary accessed in February 2015. The regulatory frameworks used to evaluate and compare the water quality data were: • CCME, Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites, March 2014. 1.4.1 Federal The CCME Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines provide limits for contaminants in soil 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. 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 1 exposure pathway specific guidelines was used for comparison (considering freshwater life, inhalation, and soil organisms direct contact pathways). Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1.6 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Introduction September 11, 2015 1.5 SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of work for the supplemental soil and groundwater sampling program was presented in Stantec's Proposal No. FP802-140287 to DFO dated December 5, 2014. The scope is generally based on the requirements of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (A National Standard of Canada (reaffirmed 2008)), CAN/CSA- Z769-00, March 2000. The program was completed also in accordance with the MOE Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (December 1996). The Phase II ESA program included the following scope of work: • Complete private and public utility locates in the area of the proposed drilling. • Advance three boreholes to a depth of approximately 6 metres below ground surface (bgs), to delineate COPCs found during previous investigations, and complete one of the boreholes as a groundwater monitoring well. • Advance three shallow boreholes to a maximum depth of 0.3 metres below surface (bgs) to collect surface soil samples to delineate COPCs found during previous site investigations, and in support of the PARA/SLERA. • Collect surface samples (<1.5 metres) from each borehole and submit for laboratory analysis of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), petroleum hydrocarbon fractions F1 to F4 (PHCs F1 to F4), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), metals and general inorganics, and pH. • Collect and submit three subsurface soil samples from three of the boreholes and submit for laboratory analysis of BTEX, and PHCs F1 to F4 • Collect four groundwater samples from three existing and one newly installed groundwater monitoring wells and submit groundwater samples for laboratory analysis of BTEX, PHCs F1 to F4, PAHs, metals and general inorganics, and pH. • Collect one soil sample for landfill disposal characterization analyses. • Submit two blind duplicate samples for soil and one blind duplicate sample for groundwater. • Submit trip and field blanks for laboratory analysis of BTEX, and PHCs F1 to F4 on each day of groundwater sampling. • Provide a written report summarizing the sampling work program undertaken, results obtained and conclusions/recommendations (this report). ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 1.7 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Field Investigation September 11, 2015 2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 2.1 METHODOLOGY Prior to commencing any field activities, borehole locations were cleared of underground services through consultation with a private utility locate company as well as public utility locate services. Three deep boreholes and three shallow boreholes were drilled by Strata Drilling Group (Strata) using a Geoprobe 7822DT track -mounted drill rig equipped with sampling equipment to assess the soil conditions. Soil samples were collected from the boreholes at regular depth intervals using a hollow stem auger equipped with dual tube sampling sleeves. Stantec personnel visually classified and logged the subsurface conditions encountered within each of the boreholes at the time of the field work. Collected soil samples were analyzed in the field for combustible vapour concentrations using an RKI Eagle 2 Sample Draw Gas Monitor calibrated to hexane and operated in methane elimination mode. One groundwater monitoring well was installed and comprised of 51 mm inside diameter PVC. The newly installed monitoring well and three existing wells were monitored to determine the depth to the groundwater table, presence/absence of free phase product within the monitoring wells, and subsurface vapour concentrations. Prior to sampling, the newly installed monitoring well was developed to remove any water added during installation and any fine grained material from around the screened interval, by purging up to ten (10) well casing volumes of groundwater using Waterra tubing and a footvalve. Low flow groundwater techniques allow for the collection of samples that are representative by minimizing drawdown of groundwater and minimizing mixing/disturbance of the standing water within the well. Field measurements were also made using a flow-through multi -meter cell, and low flow purging of each monitoring well location continued until the water quality field parameters stabilized at each monitoring well location. A groundwater sample was collected from each well once three (3) successive measurements of temperature, pH and specific conductance indicated stability (i.e., measurements are within ± 10% of the previous measurement) were recorded. The soil and groundwater samples were collected in accordance with the protocols established by the Canadian Standards Association's Guideline Z769-00 Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and standard industry practices to ensure that all data collected is of high quality and is representative of site conditions. The UTM co-ordinates of all sampling locations were obtained using a GPS unit accurate horizontally to 10 cm. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 2.1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Field Investigation September 11, 2015 The soil and groundwater laboratory results were then compared against the applicable federal guidelines. The method for this scope of work is further detailed in Appendix B. 2.2 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL PROGRAM The soil and groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis to Maxxam Analytics in Mississauga, Ontario. Maxxam is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, the International Quality Standard for laboratories for the required analytical methods, and employs in-house quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) programs to govern sample analysis, including the analyses of method blanks, spiked blanks, and the analyses of duplicates (10%) for each sample batch. In total, 11 soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis. Seven surface soil samples were analyzed for BTEX, PHCs F1 to F4, PAHs, metals/inorganics, and pH, and four subsurface soil samples were analyzed for BTEX and PHCs F1 -F4. One soil sample was submitted for analysis of inorganics, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), bulk polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and ignitability in either bulk soil or the leachate. Two of the twelve samples submitted, MW 15-1-2 and BH 15-3-20, were field duplicate soil samples collected concurrently with parent samples MW 15-1-1 and BH 15-3-6, respectively. In total, seven groundwater samples were collected from the Site and submitted for laboratory analysis of BTEX, PHCs F1 to F4, PAHs, metals/inorganics, pH and hardness. One of the seven groundwater samples (MW 15-20) was afield duplicate sample collected from MW 15-1. One trip blank and one field blank were also requested from the laboratory that accompanied the groundwater samples to the Site and back to the lab. The trip blank and field blank were analysed for BTEX and PHCs F1 to F4. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 2.2 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Results September 11, 2015 3.1 SOIL 3.1.1 Stratigraphy The overburden at the Site generally consisted of topsoil and sand underlain by silty sand. One borehole location (BH 15-3) consisted of medium to fine sand underlain by coarse sand. A layer of crushed coal was observed in SS 15-4 to SS 15-6. Bedrock was not encountered during the Phase II ESA investigation. Detailed descriptions of stratigraphy observed are provided on the Borehole Records in Appendix C. 3.1.1 f'ombustible Soil Vapour Concentrations The combustible soil vapour concentrations measured during the Phase II ESA are documented on the borehole logs and presented in Appendix C for reference. Petroleum odours were not detected in any of the collected soil samples. Combustible soil vapour concentrations ranged from 5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in various borehole samples to 90 ppmv in one sample at BH 15-3. There are no regulatory criteria for soil vapours; however, elevated vapour concentrations are generally indicative of the presence of volatile parameters. Concentrations vary with parameter type, concentration and age, and it should be noted that the readings are only intended to be used as a field screening tool to provide a qualitative measure of hydrocarbon levels within the subsurface. The readings do not provide a quantitative measure of analytical soil results. 3.1.3 Soil Analytical Results The analytical results collected from the on-site soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis of the contaminants of concern were compared to the CCME, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, for commercial land use and coarse- grained soil (on-line summary table viewed on February 20, 2015), and the Canada Wide Standards for PHC in Soil. Summary analytical results are presented in Table D-1 in Appendix D. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix E. 3.1.3.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons (F1 to F4) Measured concentrations of the PHCs analysed in the eleven soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Results September 11, 2015 3.1.3.2 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) Measured concentrations of BTEX analysed in the 1 1 soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards, with the exception of concentrations of parameters in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1: Soil VOC Exceedances 3.1.3.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Measured concentrations of the PAHs analysed in the eleven soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards, with the exception of concentrations of naphthalene in SS15-5-1, and naphthalene and phenanthrene in SS15-6-1, which exceeded CCME guidelines. 3.1.3.4 Metals and General Inorganics Measured concentrations of the metal and general inorganics parameters analysed in the eleven soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards. 3.1.4 Waste Classification Results A composite soil sample was collected for laboratory analysis of waste classification parameters. Waste classification analyses of the composite soil sample was completed in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, Regulation 347, General - Waste Management, as amended, and compared to the leachate criteria provided in Schedule 4 of the regulation. The analysis indicated that the soil is not leachate toxic (i.e., it is non -hazardous) and therefore can be disposed at a local MOE-approved non -hazardous solid waste landfill. The waste classification results are presented in Table 3 in Appendix D. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix E. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.2 Parameter SS 15-5-1 Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes (total) SS 15-6-1 Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene 3.1.3.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Measured concentrations of the PAHs analysed in the eleven soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards, with the exception of concentrations of naphthalene in SS15-5-1, and naphthalene and phenanthrene in SS15-6-1, which exceeded CCME guidelines. 3.1.3.4 Metals and General Inorganics Measured concentrations of the metal and general inorganics parameters analysed in the eleven soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards. 3.1.4 Waste Classification Results A composite soil sample was collected for laboratory analysis of waste classification parameters. Waste classification analyses of the composite soil sample was completed in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, Regulation 347, General - Waste Management, as amended, and compared to the leachate criteria provided in Schedule 4 of the regulation. The analysis indicated that the soil is not leachate toxic (i.e., it is non -hazardous) and therefore can be disposed at a local MOE-approved non -hazardous solid waste landfill. The waste classification results are presented in Table 3 in Appendix D. Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix E. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.2 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Results September 11, 2015 3.2 GROUNDWATER Groundwater Monitoring Depth to groundwater, vapour concentrations, and measurements of free product, if applicable, were measured from the three existing and one newly -installed on-site monitoring wells on February 3, 2015. Groundwater elevations were calculated in all on-site monitoring wells to determine the local shallow groundwater flow direction. Table 3-2 below summarizes the monitoring results. Table 3-2: On -Site Monitoring Summary February 3, 2015 Top of casing Groundwater Depth Location elevation (m AMSL) (m btoc) Groundwater Elevation Combustible Vapour (m ASL) (ppmv) MW101 175.717 1.530 174.187 25 MWI02 176.328 1.615 174.713 45 176.635 1.602175.0330 MWI 5-1 175.912 1.265 174.647 20 Notes: m AMSL metres above mean sea level m btoc metres below top of casing ppmv parts per million by volume The shallow groundwater flow cannot be calculated as the wells were installed in a straight line parallel to the creek. Groundwater vapour concentrations measured on February 3, 2015, ranged from 20 ppmv at MW 103 and MW 15-1 to 45 ppmv in MW 102, and no measureable thickness of free product or sheen was observed in any of the on-site monitoring wells. 3.2.2 Groundwater Analytical Results The analytical results collected from the on-site groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis were compared to the Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines, revised March 5, 2014, Table 3 Generic Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial land use, coarse-textured soil, Tier 1 (lowest value of all applicable exposure pathway guidelines (excluding marine life)) criteria. Summary analytical results are presented in Table D-2 in Appendix D and the Laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix E. 3.2.2.1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons (F1 to F4) Measured concentrations of the PHCs analysed in the five groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards. 4 Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.3 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Results September 11, 2015 3.2.2.2 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) Measured concentrations of BTEX analysed in the five groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards. 3.2.2.3 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Measured concentrations of the PAHs analysed in the five groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards. 3.2.2.4 Metals and General Inorganics Measured concentrations of the metal and general inorganics parameters analysed in the five groundwater samples submitted for laboratory analysis were less than the applicable guidelines/standards, with the exception of the parameters presented in the following table. Table 3-3: Groundwater Metal and General Inorganic Exceedances 3.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 3.3.1 Soil As noted in Section 3.1, concentration of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes in SSI 5-5-1, and concentrations of benzene, toluene and ethylbenzene in SS15-6-1 exceeded the CCME, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, for commercial land use and coarse-grained soil (Table D-1 in Appendix D). These exceedances in soil are assessed as part of the PQRA/SLERA. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.4 - I t., - MW15-1 M W 15-20 MW101 Arsenic Iron M W 102 Arsenic Iron Fluoride Sulfate MW103 Iron Fluoride 3.3 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 3.3.1 Soil As noted in Section 3.1, concentration of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes in SSI 5-5-1, and concentrations of benzene, toluene and ethylbenzene in SS15-6-1 exceeded the CCME, Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, for commercial land use and coarse-grained soil (Table D-1 in Appendix D). These exceedances in soil are assessed as part of the PQRA/SLERA. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.4 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Results September 11, 2015 3.3.2 Groundwater As noted in Section 3.2, concentrations of several parameters in the shallow groundwater samples exceeded Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites (Table D-2 in Appendix D). These exceedances in groundwater are assessed as part of the PQRA/SLERA. 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL Blind duplicates are submitted for laboratory analysis to evaluate both laboratory precision and the implemented field sampling and handling procedures, in addition to the sample homogeneity. The relative percent difference (RPD) is defined as the absolute value of the variation between a sample and its duplicate, when compared to the average concentration of the original and the duplicate. It is used to assess the validity of the field and laboratory analytical procedures. Trip blanks are laboratory prepared samples that are transported to the site in the same shipping containers used for the transport of the collected groundwater samples. The analysis of trip blanks is completed to determine if sample shipping or storage procedures have possibly influenced the analytical results. Field blanks are samples prepared in the field to evaluate the potential impact of ambient site conditions on the analytical results. Laboratory containers were filled with laboratory supplied organic free water on-site to determine if any ambient site conditions would impact the laboratory results. The relative percent difference (RPD) is used to evaluate sample result variability for duplicate samples and is calculated by the following equation: RPD = rISI — S211 x 100 where: RPD = relative percent difference S1 =original sample concentration S2 = duplicate sample concentration S3 = average concentration = (S1 + S2)/2 RPD values are not used to evaluate those compounds that are present at concentrations less than five times the reportable detection limit (RDL). There are no firm guidelines for the degree of correlation expected between duplicates due to natural heterogeneity in soil type (e.g. grain size, clay fraction) and contaminant distribution. However, the laboratory data is considered to indicate an acceptable duplicate correlation. Acceptable Relative Percent Difference (RPD) limits are considered to be 100% for soil (all parameters), 50% for metals in water, and 80% for organics in water. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.5 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Results September 11, 2015 Soil Based on the Maxxam Analytics Inc. QA/QC Interpretation Guide, a blind field duplicate has limited use for samples that cannot be homogenized (i.e., VOCs in soils). Also, the RPD calculation is only applicable when concentrations in the sample and its field duplicate are greater than five times the laboratory reportable detection limit (RDL). Finally, the QA/QC Interpretation Guide specifies that the recommended RPD values for samples and their duplicates should be less than or equal to 100% RPD to ensure consistencies in laboratory and field procedures, and sample homogeneity. Two blind field duplicate soil samples were recovered, one from MW15-1-1 (called MW15-1-2) submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs F1 to F4, BTEX, PAHs, and metals and inorganics, and one from BH 15-3-6 (called BH15-3-20) submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs F1 to F4, and BTEX. The RPD values calculated for MW 15-1-1 and duplicate MW 15-1-2 ranged from 0 to 116%. However, as only one parameter, phenanthrene, exceeded the acceptable limit of 100%, the calculated RPDs for this soil sample pairing does not suggest inconsistencies in the field collection, the laboratory analysis methods, or the sample homogeneity. For sample BH 15-3-6 and duplicate BH 15-3-20, RPD values could not be calculated between the original and duplicate sample for the parameters that both samples were analyzed for as both sample concentrations were below the laboratory RDL for these parameters. Groundwater RPDs were calculated for the groundwater samples recovered from MW 15-1 and its duplicate MW 15-20. The samples were recovered simultaneously from the monitoring well. Several of the RPD values could not be calculated between the original and duplicate samples as the concentrations in the original sample and its duplicate were not both greater than five times the laboratory detection limit in order to calculate the RPD, or parameters were below the laboratory RDL. The RPD values calculated for this duplicate groundwater sample pairing ranged from 0 to 46.8% which does not suggest inconsistencies in the field collection, the laboratory analysis methods, or the sample homogeneity. Groundwater Trip and Field Blanks The concentrations of BTEX and PHCs F1 to F4.parameters were less than the laboratory detection limit in the trip blank and field blank samples. Therefore, the results are considered reliable. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 3.6 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Limitations September 11, 2015 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 use 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. Conditions observed on-site at the time of the 2015 field work. 2. Regulatory criteria in effect at the time the assessment was completed. 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. 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 Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwe II_ferrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 4.1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Signatures September 11, 2015 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. 5.0 SIGNATURES This document entitled Limited Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, was prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. ("Stantec") for the account of Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (the "Client"). This document was prepared by Ceryne Staples, B.Sc., and reviewed by Jane Yaraskavitch, M.Eng., P.Eng. Prepared by (A- IF,Z (signature) Ceryne Staples, B.Sc. Reviewed by (signature) Jane Yaraskavitch, M.Eng., P.Eng. This Phase II ESA was conducted in general accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (A National Standard of Canada (reaffirmed 2013)), CAN/CSA-Z769-00, March 2000. Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx 5.2 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix A Figures September 11, 2015 ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwell_ terrestrial_esa_fnl.dou A.1 Huron 0 nt-a•r--1,O I KEY WP / Lake Erie Port Stanley Ontario 1:3,000,000 a m SI Vienna \da Port Burwell �Stree, Cake Shore 41/�e D o u ouu I,VVV m �a 1:50,000 515000 520000 March 2015 Project # 122511076 Legend Client/Project p Project Area Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sta ntec Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA Small Crafts Harbour, Port Bunnell, ON Notes Figure No. I. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Title Printer for Ontario, 2013. Key Plan o"C' 2015 Project No 12251 1 076 Legend Client/Project Sta ntec = Building Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Road Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA (N Small Crafts Harbour, Port Burwell, ON Notes Figure No. 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 2 2. Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2008. Title 3. Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2013. 4. Property Boundary: Kim Husted Surveying Ltd. (1998). Plan 11 R-6760, Site Plan Project 97-45621, Reference HF 1, February 17, 1998. Tillsonburg, ON. MW 15-1 ISS15-4 MW101 BH15-2 0 15-5 MW102 SS15-6 • BH15-3 •=MW103 i tl rI i — I _- WAPERLO.00 S1T � v' 0 50 100 150 m 1:3,000 ry MW 15-1 ISS15-4 MW101 BH15-2 0 15-5 MW102 SS15-6 • BH15-3 •=MW103 i tl rI i — I _- WAPERLO.00 S1T � v' 0 50 100 150 m 1:3,000 March 2015 Project N c. 12251 1076 Legend Client/Project Sampling Location O Property Boundary Stantec ® Borehole, Stantec Approximate Terrestrial Site Boundaries Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA Monitoring Well, Stantec Road Small Crafts Harbour, Port Burwell, ON Monitoring Well, Terrapex I Fence --- Figure No. Notes Surface Soil Sample, Stantec 3 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Title 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. Sampling Locations LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix B Field Methodology September 11, 2015 Appendix B FIELD METHODOLOGY ® Stantec v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\ra\final\app_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwell_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx B. 1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix B Field Methodology September 11, 2015 FIELD METHODOLOGY 1.0 PRE -DRILLING SITE INVESTIGATIONS 1.1 Service and Utility Locates The locations of services and utilities were established prior to the drilling and sampling phase of the investigation. The sampling locations were cleared of underground utilities by a private utility locator. 2.0 DRILLING INVESTIGATION 2.1 Drilling Six new boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 6.09 m below ground surface using a track mounted Geoprobe 7822DT with hollow auger sampling and dual tube liners by Strata Drilling Group (Strata). Soil samples were collected continuously from each location with the use of dual tube sampling sleeves. Stantec personnel logged the characteristics of the materials and conducted field monitoring of petroleum hydrocarbon vapours. 2.2 Borehole Logging Materials retrieved from the drilling operation were logged by Stantec personnel. The texture and composition of materials and the presence of combustible and volatile vapours or other indications of contamination were recorded. 2.3 Soil Sampling Soil samples were collected continuously from the dual tube sampling sleeves. One half of the sample was field tested for vapours and the other half was placed in laboratory supplied containers for potential laboratory analyses. 2.4 Monitoring Wells A 51 -mm diameter PVC monitoring well was installed in one of the advanced boreholes. Bentonite sealant was placed around the top of the well to prevent vertical migration of water or contaminants from the surface, or between layers in the subsurface. The monitoring well was fitted with a cap and flushmount well casing to protect it from accidental damage and accidental or intentional contamination. Completion details for the well are included in the Borehole/Monitoring Well Records provided in Appendix C. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx B.2 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix B Field Methodology September 11, 2015 3.0 BOREHOLE AND WELL SURVEY 3.1 Horizontal and Vertical Survey The locations and elevations of the newly installed monitoring wells were measured with Trimble Geo XH 6000 -series global positioning system (GPS). The GPS has a 10 cm horizontal accuracy. The vertical elevations of the monitoring wells were measured using conventional level and rod survey equipment. The well survey was referenced to a local benchmark taken as a shipping cleat located between MW 15-1 and MW101 which was assigned an elevation of 100 metres. 3.2 Establish Static Elevations and Gradients The elevations of water were determined under conditions where no pumping or other activity, which would influence water levels, was being conducted. These measurements are necessary for the establishment of potential gradients, which are used in establishing the pattern of contaminant migration. Water levels were measured using an interface probe. The interface probe was rinsed between monitoring wells using distilled water. 4.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING The newly installed monitoring well was developed using dedicated Waterra tubing. The purpose of well development is to remove drilling fluids, solids or other particulates that may have been introduced during drilling. Development restores the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer material surrounding the well to as close to pre -boring conditions as possible. Where possible, at least ten well volumes of water were removed from each well for development purposes or when three consecutive measurements of pH, temperature and conductivity were within 10%. The new and existing monitoring wells were sampled using low -flow sampling techniques where the drawdown of the water column during sampling was less than 10 cm. 5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL All samples were collected following strict Stantec sampling procedures. Samples were uniquely labeled and control was maintained through use of chain of custody forms. All samples were collected in laboratory supplied containers and preserved in insulated coolers. Appropriate sampling QA/QC procedures were adhered to at all times. ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_ port _burwe II_terrestrial_esa_fnl.docx B.3 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix C Monitoring Well Logs September 11, 2015 ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwell_ terrestrial_esa_fnl.dou C.1 Monitoring Well: MW15-1 Project: Port Burwell Risk Assessment Drilling method: Direct push Client: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Date started/completed: 02 -Feb -2015 Location: Port Burwell, Ontario Ground surface elevation: n/a Number: 122511076 Top of casing elevation: n/a Field investigator: Trent Irwin Easting: 515665 Contractor: Strata Drilling Group Northing: 4721356 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DETAILS INSTALLATION DETAILS %LEL Comb Zi 4i 6i w Depth Graphic Lo 9 Lithologic Description Depth a E E E a Lab Analyses 2 Description (m BGS) m z m Ppm comb 0 • o m Ground Surface Tov 200 400 600 800 0 < 0 Topsoil, rootlets, moist, bare ground. 0.00 Flushmount protective 1Metals and 15 I I I cover with concrete Brown, medium to fine sand, some silt, flowing sand, wet. 0.31 1 DP inorganics, PAI -Is' 0 seal 0.5 BTEX, PHC 2 F1 -F4, pH 50 mm ID PVC pipe No recovery. 0.76 3 with bentonite backfill to 4 2 DP - Groundwater Level: 1.15 m BGS 5 1.5 3 -Feb -15 Brown, silty sand, trace clay, soft, wet. 1.52 5 1 I I I 6 2.0 3 DIP 7 IIII 8 2.5 101 I I I 9 4 DP I I I I 10 3.0 251 I I I 50 mm ID slotted PVC pipe with silica sand Brownish/grey, silty sand, trace clay, wet. 3.05 11 5 DP BTEX, PHC • backfill 3.5 F1 -F4 I I I 12 IIII 13 4.0 101 I I I 1a 6 DP • I I I 15 4.5 -. 16 15 s.o 7 DP I I I n IIII Bentonite backfill. 18 5.5 0o • 19 8 DP 6.0 20 End of Borehole 6.10 21 6.5 22 23--7.0 24 7.5 25- 26— 8.0 27 28--8.5 29 9.0 30-- 31 9.5 32 Screen Interval: 1.52 - 4.57 m BGS Notes: Sand Pack Interval: 1.22 - 4.57 m BGS m AMSL - metres above mean sea level Well Seal Interval: 0.15 - 1.22 m BGS m BGS - metres below ground surface DP - direct push sample ppm -Parts per million by volume S a me c n/a - not available Drawn By/Checked By: Jonathan Urban Sheet 1 of 1 Borehole: BH15-2 Project: Port Burwell Risk Assessment Drilling method: Direct push Client: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Date started/completed: 02 -Feb -2015 Location: Port Burwell, Ontario Ground surface elevation: n/a Number: 122511076 Top of casing elevation: n/a Field investigator: Trent Irwin Easting: 515678 Contractor: Strata Drilling Group Northing: 4721221 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DETAILS INSTALLATION DETAILS %LEL Comb Zi 4i bi w Depth Graphic Lo 9 Lithologic Description Depth a E E E a Lab Analyses 2 Description (m BGS) m z m Ppm comb o o • m Ground Surface rov 200 400 800 800 ° 1 1 Topsoil, rootlets, moist. 0.00 1 101 I I 1 Brown, medium to fine ???? sand, trace gravel, moist. 0.10 0.5 1 DP 2 3 Brownish/grey, fine, silty sand, trace gravel, moist to wet. 0.76 1,0 Metals and 151 I I 1 2 DP inorganics, PAHs, • q BTEX, PHC F1 -F4, pH 5 1.5 5 1 6 2.0 wet. 3 DP • 7 8-- Brownish/grey, fine, silty sand, trace clay, wet. 2.29 2.5 101 I I 1 9 4 DIP • I I I I 10 3.0 Bentonite backfill 251 I I 1 11 5 DP BTEX, PHC • 3.5 F1 -F4 12 IIII 13 4.0 151 I I 1 • 1a 6 DP I I I 15 4.5 1s 151 • s.o 7 DP I I I 17 18 5.5 101 • 19 8 DP 6.0 20 End of Borehole 6.10 21 6.5 22 23--7.0 24 7.5 25- 26— 8.0 27 28--8.5 29 9.0 30-- 31 9.5 32 Notes: m AMSL - metres above mean sea level m BGS - metres below ground surface DP - direct push sample ppm -Parts per million by volume �r to me c `4`] n/a - not available Drawn By/Checked By: Jonathan Urban Sheet 1 of 1 Borehole: BH15-3 Project: Port Burwell Risk Assessment Drilling method: Direct push Client: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Date started/completed: 02 -Feb -2015 Location: Port Burwell, Ontario Ground surface elevation: n/a Number: 122511076 Top of casing elevation: n/a Field investigator: Trent Irwin Easting: 515750 Contractor: Strata Drilling Group Northing: 4720844 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DETAILS INSTALLATION DETAILS %LEL Comb Zi 4i bi w Depth Graphic Log Lo Lithologic Description Depth a E E E a Lab Analyses 2 Description (m BGS) m z m Ppm comb o 0 • (ft) (m) Ground Surface Tov 200 400 800 800 Topsoil, rootlets, with sand and gravel, moist. 0.00 1 Metals and 101 I I I Brown, sand, trace gravel, moist. 0.08 1 DP inorganics, PAHs, • 0.5 BTEX, PHC 2 F1 -F4, pH 3 Brown, some grey, medium to fine sand. 0.76 1.0 5 q 2 DP I I 5 1.5 I I 5 1 6 2.0 3 DP 0 7 8 I I I Brown, some grey, medium to fine sand, trace silt, wet. 2.29 2.5 25 9 4 DP 0 I I I 10 3.0 20 Bentonite backfill Brownish/grey, medium to coarse sand, trace silt, wet. 3.05 11 • 3.5 5 DP I I I I 12 13 4.0 90 6 DP BTFXFP4HC • 1 14 15 4.5 Greyish/brown, coarse sand, wet. 4.57 16 00 5.0 7 DP 17 18 5.5 101 19 8 DP 6.0 20 End of Borehole 6.10 21 6.5 22 23--7.0 24 7.5 25- 26— 8.0 27 28--8.5 29 9.0 30-- 31 9.5 32 Notes: m AMSL - metres above mean sea level m BGS - metres below ground surface DP - direct push sample ppm -Parts per million by volume �r to me c `4`] n/a - not available Drawn By/Checked By: Jonathan Urben Sheet 1 of 1 Borehole: SS15-4 Project: Port Burwell Risk Assessment Drilling method: Direct push Client: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Date started/completed: 02 -Feb -2015 Location: Port Burwell, Ontario Ground surface elevation: n/a Number: 122511076 Top of casing elevation: n/a Field investigator: Trent Irwin Easting: 515665 Contractor: Strata Drilling Group Northing: 4721285 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DETAILS INSTALLATION DETAILS %LEL Comb Zi 4i bi w Depth Graphic Lo Log Lithologic Description Depth a E E E a Lab Analyses 2 Description (m BGS) m z m Ppm comb o o • m Ground Surface rov 200 400 800 800 0 < 0 Topsoil, roots. 0.00 Crushed coal. 0.10 0.5 Brown sand, trace sift, moist. 0.15 Metals and 101 1 1 1 DP inoBTEXsPHCHs • Bentonite backfill 0 2 F1 -F4 End of Borehole 0.38 0.4 1.5- 0.6 2.0- .02.50.8 2.5- 0.8 3.0 Notes: m AMSL - metres above mean sea level m BGS - metres below ground surface DP - direct push sample ppm -Parts per million by volume S a me c n/a - not available Drawn By/Checked By: Jonathan Urban Sheet 1 of 1 Borehole: SS15-5 Project: Port Burwell Risk Assessment Drilling method: Direct push Client: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Date started/completed: 02 -Feb -2015 Location: Port Burwell, Ontario Ground surface elevation: n/a Number: 122511076 Top of casing elevation: n/a Field investigator: Trent Irwin Easting: 515730 Contractor: Strata Drilling Group Northing: 4721019 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DETAILS INSTALLATION DETAILS %LEL Comb Zi 4i bi w Depth Graphic Log Lo Lithologic Description Depth a E E E a Lab Analyses 2 Description (m BGS) m z m Ppm comb o 0 • m Ground Surface rov 200 400 800 800 0 < 0 Topsoil. 0.00 0 1 Crushed coal. 0.05 Metals and 1 1 10 1 0.5 1 DP inorganics, PAHs, • Bentonite backfill BTEX, PHC F1 -F4 02 Brown sand, trace silt, trace gravel. 0.20 - 1.0 End of Borehole 0.30 0.4 1.5- 0.6 2.0- .02.50.8 2.5- 0.8 3.0 Notes: m AMSL - metres above mean sea level m BGS - metres below ground surface DP - direct push sample ppm -Parts per million by volume S a me c n/a - not available Drawn By/Checked By: Jonathan Urban Sheet 1 of 1 Borehole: SS15-6 Project: Port Burwell Risk Assessment Drilling method: Direct push Client: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Date started/completed: 02 -Feb -2015 Location: Port Burwell, Ontario Ground surface elevation: n/a Number: 122511076 Top of casing elevation: n/a Field investigator: Trent Irwin Easting: 515780 Contractor: Strata Drilling Group Northing: 4706133 SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE DETAILS INSTALLATION DETAILS %LEL Comb Zi 4i bi w Depth Graphic Lo Log Lithologic Description Depth a E E E a Lab Analyses 2 Description (m BGS) m z m Ppm comb o o • m Ground Surface rov 200 400 800 800 0 < 0 Topsoil, roots. 0.00 ;T. Crushed coal. 0.08 Brown sand, trace silt, moist. 0.13 0.5 Metals and 101 1 1 1 DP inoBTEXsPHCHs • Bentonite backfill —0.2 F1 -F4 End of Borehole 0.38 0.4 1.5- 0.6 2.0- .02.50.8 2.5- 0.8 3.0 Notes: m AMSL - metres above mean sea level m BGS - metres below ground surface DP - direct push sample ppm -Parts per million by volume S a me c n/a - not available Drawn By/Checked By: Jonathan Urban Sheet 1 of 1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix D Summary Analytical Tables September 11, 2015 ® Stantec v:\01225\active\ 12251 1076\reports\ra\final\a pp_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwell_ terrestrial_esa_fnl.dou D.1 Table D-1 Summary of Soil Analytical Results Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sample Depth Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type General Chemistry Units I CCME SSI 5-4 BH15-2 MW15-1 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 MW15-1-1 MW15-1-1LR MW15-1-2 MW15-1-2LR MW15-1-5 MW15-1-5LR 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 3.05-3.05m 3.05-3.81 m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0486 ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0487 ZL0488 ZL0488 7.30 - 7.69 Field Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) I none 12A 0.32 0.32 Lab Replicate 0.27 - Lab Replicate 0.30 Lab Replicate 0.26 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) Duplicate 320' <10 <10 <10 - <10 SSI 5-4 BH15-2 SSI 5-6 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 BH15-2-2 BH15-2-2LR 111-115-2-5 0.76-1.52m 0.76-1.52m 3.05-3.81m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0489 ZL0489 ZL0490 B521696 Lab Replicate B521696 SSI 5-4 BH15-3 SSI 5-6 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 BH15-3-1 BH15-3-1LR BH15-3-20 BH15-3-6 0-0.76m 0-0.76m 3.81-4.57m 3.81-4.57m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0491 ZL0491 ZL0493 ZL0492 % Lab Replicate 22 22 - 27 25 SSI 5-4 SS15-5 SSI 5-6 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 2 -Feb -15 SS15-4-1 SS15-4-1LR SS15-5-1 SS15-6-1 0-0.38m 0-0.38m 0-0.31 m 0-0.38m STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX B521696 B521696 B521696 B521696 ZL0494 ZL0494 ZL0495 ZL0496 Lab Replicate <5 <5 - <5 - - - Cyanide (Free) ug/g 8A 0.01 0.02 - 0.01 <0.01 - 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Electrical Conductivity, Lab ms/cm 4A 0.26 0.24 - 0.18 - 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 Fluoride Ng/g 2000A <5 <5 - - <5 <5 - <5 - - - <5 - <5 11 Moisture Content % n/v 22 22 - 27 25 21 - 24 11 18 15 17 17 7.0 8.8 pH S. U. 6-8A 7.33 7.46 - - 7.07 7.09 - 7.46 - - 7.30 - 7.69 7.65 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) I none 12A 0.32 0.32 0.27 - 0.29 0.30 0.28 0.26 BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene Ng/g 0.03A <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 3.3A 0.084A Toluene Ng/g 0.37A 0.05 0.04 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 12A 0.53A Ethylbenzene Pg/g 0.082A 0.02 0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.5A 0.17A Xylene, m & p- ug/g n/v <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.05 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 12 0.96 Xylene, o- Ng/g n/v <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 7.8 0.69 Xylenes, Total Ng/g 1 1 A <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.09 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 19A 1.7 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) Ng/g 320' <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 210 18 PHC Fl (C6 -C1 Orange) minus BTEX Ng/g 320' <10 <10 <10 - <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 170 16 PHC F2 (>CIO -C16 range) Pg/g 260' <10 - <10 - 15 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 24 41 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) ug/g 1700' <50 <50 - 52 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 80 130 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) Ng/g 3300' <50 <50 - <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none n/v YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Metals Antimony Pg/g 40A <0.20 <0.20 - - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Arsenic Pg/g 12A 1.1 <1.0 - - <1.0 1.3 <1.0 2.1 1.9 Barium Ng/g 2000A 14 9.0 - 9.3 13 12 16 13 Beryllium Ng/g 8A <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Boron (Available) Ng/g n/v 0.31 0.20 0.21 - 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 Cadmium Ng/g 22A <O.10 <O.10 - - <O.10 - <O.10 <O.10 <O.10 <O.10 Chromium (Hexavalent) Pg/g 1.4A <0.2 <0.2 - <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 Chromium (Total) Pg/g 87A 5.3 5.1 - - 4.3 - 4.2 4.7 3.9 3.9 Cobalt Pg/g 300A 2.2 1.8 - - 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.3 Copper Ng/g 91A 4.7 3.6 - - 3.4 4.2 3.7 4.0 3.3 Lead ug/g 260A 3.9 3.2 - - 2.8 4.6 3.3 4.3 4.0 Mercury Pg/g 24A <0.050 <0.050 - - <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 Molybdenum Pg/g 40A <0.50 <0.50 - - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Nickel Pg/g 50A 4.0 2.9 - - 2.6 4.0 3.1 4.1 4.0 Selenium Ng/g 2.9A <0.50 <0.50 - - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Silver Ng/g 40A <0.20 <0.20 - - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Sulfur Ng/g n/v 310 380 - - 240 170 110 250 250 Thallium Pg/g 1 A <0.050 <0.050 - - <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.052 Tin hg/g 300A <5.0 <5.0 - - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Uranium ug/g 33A 0.29 0.30 - - 0.25 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.30 Vanadium Ng/g 130A 10 11 - - 9.1 8.5 8.6 7.8 8.3 Zinc I Ng/g I 360A 20 18 - - 15 19 17 15 15 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene Pg/g 0.28' <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.0052 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.018 Acenaphthylene ug/g 320' <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 Anthracene ug/g 32DFH <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.0078 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.020 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/g LODE <0.0050 0.015 - - 0.011 0.028 0.0058 <0.0050 0.054 Benzo(a)pyrene Ng/g 72DFH 8800' 0.0074 0.014 - - 0.012 0.024 0.0063 <0.0050 0.029 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene ug/g 10 DE 0.010 0.020 - - 0.019 0.036 0.011 <0.0050 0.054 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Pg/g n/v 0.0055 0.0095 - - 0.0097 0.017 0.0058 <0.0050 0.031 Benzo(k)fluoranthene Pg/g LODE <0.0050 0.0066 - - 0.0065 0.011 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.010 Chrysene Ng/g n/v 0.0068 0.012 - - 0.014 0.023 0.0063 <0.0050 0.066 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Ng/g LODE <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0070 Fluoranthene Ng/g 180DFH 0.013 0.037 - - 0.028 0.064 0.016 <0.0050 0.062 Fluorene Ng/g 0.25' <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.020 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyre ne Pg/g IODE 0.0074 0.013 - - 0.011 0.018 0.0063 <0.0050 0.014 Methylnaphthalene (Total) Pg/g n/v <0.0071 <0.0071 - - <0.0071 0.023 <0.0071 0.036 1.5 Methylnaphthalene, 1- Ng/g n/v <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.011 <0.0050 0.016 0.66 Methylnaphthalene, 2- Ng/g n/v <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 0.012 0.0052 0.020 0.83 Naphthalene Ng/g 0.013eDG 22E <0.0050 <0.0050 - - <0.0050 <0.010 MI <0.0050 0.015DG 0.50DG Phenanthrene Ng/g 0.046 'DG 50' 0.0055 0.021 - - 0.013 0.036 0.0058 0.011 0,39DG Pyrene Pg/g IOODE 0.011 0.030 - - 0.024 0.051 0.013 <0.0050 0.067 Benzo(a)pyrene Total Potency Equivalents pg/g 5.3 ' 0.0123 0.0222 0.0195 0.0362 0.0115 0.00605 0.0502 See notes on last page /11 Stantec 122511076 Page 1 of 2 Summary of Soil Analytical Results Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA - Port Burwell March 31, 2015 Notes: CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality 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 B 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 Quality 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) " 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) 6.5A , 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. a,b,c SQG based on an incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) of 1 in 100,000 (10e-5). B[a]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). MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. Stantec 122511076 Page 2 of 2 Table D-2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA - Port Burwell Sample Location Sample Date Sample ID Sampling Company Laboratory Laboratory Work Order Laboratory Sample ID Sample Type General Chemistry Units I FIGQG I MW103 MW15-1 Trip Blank MW101 MW102 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 MW15-1 MW15-1 LR MW15-20 MW101 MW102 MW102LR STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX 8521799/ LQ9643 B521799/ 8521799/ B521799/ Field Blank Trip Blank 6521799 Ng/L n/v 620000 6521799 B510567 580000 8510567 B510567 B510567 <0.40 ZL0821/ Nitrate (as N) ZL0824/ ZL0820/ ZL0819/ - <100 ZL0821 <100 - <100 <0.20 ZL0819 LQ9646 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) LQ9647 LQ9645 LQ9644 - <100 <100 Field <100 - <0.40 <0.40 Lab Replicate Ng/L 60A <10 Lab Replicate <10 <10 Duplicate <10 <25 - MW103 Field Blank Trip Blank 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 3 -Feb -15 MW103 MW103LR BH100 TRIP BLANK STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC STANTEC MAXX MAXX MAXX MAXX 8521799/ - <1.0 8521799 B521799 B521799 B510567 <0.20 ZL0818/ pg/L 120`' ZL0818 ZL0822 ZL0823 LQ9643 860" - 240° Lab Replicate Field Blank Trip Blank Chloride Ng/L 120000A 94000 94000 93000 4000 16000 14000 <0.20 - <0.20 Cyanide (Weak Acid Dissociable) Ng/L n/v <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <0.20 Fluoride pg/L 120`' 110 - 110 120 860" - 240° <0.20 - <0.20 Hardness (as CaCO3) Ng/L n/v 620000 - 620000 580000 500000 - 370000 <0.40 <0.40 - Nitrate (as N) Ng/L 3000512A <100 - <100 <100 <100 - <100 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) pg/L. n/v <100 - <100 <100 <100 - <100 - <0.40 <0.40 Nitrite (as N) Ng/L 60A <10 - <10 <10 <10 - <10 <25 - <25 pH S.U. 6.5-9A 7.34 - 7.35 7.18 7.60 - 7.52 9100A <25 - Sulfate ug/L I 100000" 1 <5000 MI 1 <5000 1 <1000 1 <1000 220000A 23000 - - <100 BTEX and Petroleum Hydrocarbons Benzene Ng/L 690A <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 Toluene pg/L. 83A <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Ethylbenzene Ng/L 11000A <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 Barium <0.20 <0.20 Xylene, m & p- Ng/L 18000s1A <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 - <0.40 Ng/L <0.40 <0.40 Xylene, o- ug/L 1800051A <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 Xylenes, Total Ng/L 18000A <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 - <0.40 - <0.40 <0.40 PHC F1 (C6 -C10 range) Ng/L 9100A <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 PHC Fl (C6 -C10 range) minus BTEX pg/L. 9100A <25 - <25 <25 <25 - <25 - <25 <25 PHC F2 (>C10 -C16 range) Ng/L 1300A <100 - <100 <100 <100 - <100 - <100 <100 PHC F3 (>C16 -C34 range) Ng/L n/v <200 - <200 <200 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 PHC F4 (>C34-050 range) ug/L n/v <200 - <200 <200 <200 - <200 - <200 <200 Chromatogram to baseline at nC50 none n/v YES - I YES YES YES - I YES - I YES YES Metals Aluminum pg/L e 4.2 - 3.9 4.3 <3.0 - <3.0 <0.010 - Antimony Ng/L 2000A <0.60 - <0.60 <0.60 <0.60 - <0.60 <0.010 - Arsenic Ng/L 5A - 5.8A 7.2A - - 3.2 <0.010 - <0.010 Barium pg/L 500A 130 - 130 120 170 - 110 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Beryllium Ng/L 5.3A <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Boron Ng/L 5000A 28 - 27 28 62 - 44 - 0.014 <0.010 Cadmium pg/L. 0.017A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 - <0.010 Calcium Ng/L n/v 210000 - 210000 190000 180000 - 120000 0.179A - - Chromium (Hexavalent) Ng/L n/v <0.50 - <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 - <0.50 Ng/L 0.48gA <0.010 Chromium (Total) pg/L. 8.9A <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 - Ng/L n/v Cobalt Ng/L n/v 0.73 - 0.72 0.67 0.83 - 0.71 Chrysene pg/L. Copper Ng/L e <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 0.37 - 0.51 - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Iron pg/L 300A 15000A - 15000A 37000A 8400A - <0.010 Fluoranthene Lead Ng/L e <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - Lithium Ng/L n/v <20 - <20 <20 <20 - <20 <0.010 Magnesium ug/L n/v 23000 - 23000 27000 13000 - 14000 <0.010 <0.010 Manganese Ng/L n/v 1600 - 1600 3500 750 - 860 - <0.010 <0.010 Mercury Ng/L e <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 - <0.01 <0.01 <0.010 <0.010 Molybdenum pg/L 73A 0.41 - 0.40 0.24 4.0 - 2.6 - <0.010 <0.010 Nickel Ng/L e 0.63 - 0.60 <0.50 1.1 - 1.2 - 0.018 <0.010 Phosphorus Ng/L n/v 260 - 240 1600 <100 - <100 0.013 - 0.020 Potassium pg/L. n/v 2500 - 2400 4200 3700 - 1500 1 0.025A 0.014 - Selenium Ng/L 1 A <0.20 - <0.20 0.40 <0.20 - <0.20 Silicon Ng/L n/v 6100 - 6100 11000 5600 - 4900 Silver pg/L 0.1 A <0.10 - <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 - <0.10 - Sodium Ng/L n/v 57000 - 57000 3300 11000 - 16000 - Strontium Ng/L n/v 570 - 570 630 600 - 270 - Sulfur pg/L n/v 1100 - 1100 1700 65000 - 6000 - Thallium Ng/L 0.8A <0.20 - <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 - <0.20 - Tin Ng/L n/v <1.0 - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 - Titanium pg/L 100A <1.0 - 1.4 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 - Uranium Ng/L 15A 0.56 - 0.55 <0.10 0.27 - 0.47 - Vanadium Ng/L n/v 1.0 - 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 - <1.0 - Zinc pg/L. 1 O <3.0 - <3.0 1 <3.0 1 <3.0 - <3.0 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene Ng/L 5.8A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Acenaphthylene pg/L. 46A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Anthracene Ng/L 0.012A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(a)anthracene Ng/L 0.0189A <0.010 - 0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L 0.0159A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene Ng/L 0.489A <0.010 - 0.014 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - Benzo(e)pyrene Ng/L n/v <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - Benzo(g,h,i)perylene pg/L. 0.179A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - Benzo(k)fluoranthene Ng/L 0.48gA <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Biphenyl, 1,1'- (Biphenyl) Ng/L n/v <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Chrysene pg/L. 1.49A <0.010 - 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 - Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Ng/L 0.26gA <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Fluoranthene Ng/L 0.04A 0.018 - 0.029 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Fluorene pg/L 3A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Ng/L 0.219A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Methylnaphthalene, 1- Ng/L 180s3A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Methylnaphthalene, 2- pg/L 180s3A <0.010 - <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Naphthalene Ng/L .,A 0.011 - 0.011 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Perylene Ng/L n/v 0.018 - 0.018 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Phenanthrene pg/L 0.4A 0.013 - 0.020 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 Pyrene I Ng/L 1 0.025A 0.014 - 1 0.022 1 <0.010 1 <0.010 1 <0.010 1 <0.010 See notes on last page ® Stantec 122511076 Page 1 of 2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA - Port Burwell March 31, 2015 Notes: FIGQG Guidance Document on Federal Interim Groundwater Quality Guidelines for Federal Contaminated Sites (Government of Canada, November 2012) A Table 3 Federal Interim Groundwater Guidelines - Generic Guidelines for Commercial and Industrial Land Use - (Tier 1) Lowest Guideline - Coarse 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. e The freshwater aquatic life guidelines vary depending on water pH, hardness etc. Therefore, see Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME 1999) to determine the appropriate water quality guideline applicable to the site and calculate the groundwater guidelines using formulas provided in Appendix B.Guideline is the lowest of all applicable pathways. 9 For ecological receptors only. 51 The criterion is applicable to total xylenes, and m & p -xylenes and o -xylenes should be summed for comparison. s3 The criterion is for methyl naphthalenes, therefore the sum of 1 -methylnaphthalene and 2 -methylnaphthalene must be calculated for comparison. s12 Added for Nitrate -N as guideline only present for Nitrate. Divided the Nitrate guideline by 4.4. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. ® Stantec 122511076 Page 2 of 2 Table D-3 Summary of TCLP Analytical Results Limited Supplemental Phase II ESA - Port Burwell Sample Location TCLP Sample Date 2 -Feb -15 Sample ID TCLP Sampling Company STANTEC Laboratory MARX Laboratory Work Order 8521714 Laboratory Sample ID Units ZLO548 Moisture Content % 24 General Chemistry - TCLP Fluoride pg/L 130 Cyanide (Free) pg/L <10 MI Nitrite (as N) pg/L <100 Nitrate (as N) pg/L <1000 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) pg/L <1000 Leachate Preparation Amount Extracted (Wet Weight) none 25 pH Final S.U. 6.12 pH Initial S.U. 9.21 Total Solids % 100 Extraction Fluid none FLUID 1 Ignitability Ignitability none NF/NI Metals - TCLP Arsenic pg/L <200 Barium pg/L 390 Boron pg/L <100 Cadmium pg/L <50 Chromium (Total) pg/L <100 Lead pg/L <100 Mercury pg/L <1.0 Selenium pg/L <100 Silver pg/L <10 Uranium pg/L <10 Semi -Volatile Organics - TCLP Benzo(a)pyrene pg/L <0.10 Cresol (All Isomers) pg/L <2.5 Cresol, m & p- (Methylphenol, 3&4-) pg/L <2.5 Cresol, o- (Methylphenol, 2-) pg/L <2.5 Dichlorophenol, 2,4- pg/L <2.5 Dinitrotoluene, 2,4- pg/L <10 Hexachlorobenzene pg/L <10 Hexachlorobutadiene (Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene) pg/L <10 Hexachloroethane pg/L <10 Nitrobenzene pg/L <10 Pentachlorophenol pg/L <2.5 Pyridine pg/L <10 Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- pg/L <2.5 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5- pg/L <0.50 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6- pg/L <2.5 Volatile Organic Compounds - TCLP Benzene pg/L <20 Carbon Tetrachloride (Tetrachloromethane) pg/L <20 Chlorobenzene (Monochlorobenzene) pg/L <20 Chloroform (T(chloromethane) pg/L <20 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- pg/L <50 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- pg/L <50 Dichloroethane, 1,2- pg/L <50 Dichloroethene, 1,1- pg/L <20 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) pg/L <1000 Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane) pg/L <200 Tetrachloroethene (PCE) pg/L <20 Trichloroethene (TCE) pg/L <20 Vinyl chloride pg/L <20 Aroclor 1016 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1221 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1232 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1242 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1248 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1254 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1260 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1262 Ng/g <0.010 Aroclor 1268 Ng/g <0.010 Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCBs Ng/g <0.010 Notes: 15.2 Concentration was detected. <0.03 Analyte was not detected at a concentration greater than the laboratory reportable detection limit. - Parameter not analyzed / not available. MI Detection limit was raised due to matrix interferences. NF/NI Non Flammable and Non Ignitable scan c \\cdl004-f01\01221\active\122140012_data_base_mgmt\Databases\122511076 - DFO Port Burwell\Reports\20150220-122511076-TCLP data -CL - REV JE.xlsx 122511076 Page 1 of 1 LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Appendix E Laboratory Certificates of Analyses September 11, 2015 ® Stantec v:\01225\active\122511076\reports\ra\final\app_g_phase_ii_esa\rpt_port_burwell_ terrestrial_esa_fnl.dou E. 1 M-a ��-a ■ n Success Through Science® A Bureau Veritas Group company • / Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Your Project #: 122511076.200 Your C.O.C. #: 501577-01-01. 498229-04-01 Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Stantec Consulting Ltd 1331 Clyde Avenue Suite 400 Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B521696 Received: 2015/02/05, 16:30 Sample Matrix: Soil # Samples Received: 11 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Report #: R3328696 Version: 1 Remarks: Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025 and the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. All methodologies comply with this document and are validated for use in the laboratory. The methods and techniques employed in this analysis conform to the performance criteria (detection limits, accuracy and precision) as outlined in the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the 'Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods'. Documentation is available upon request. Maxxam has made the following improvements to the CWS-PHC reference benchmark method: (i) Headspace for F1; and, (ii) Mechanical extraction for F2 -F4. Note: F4G cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. The extraction date for samples field preserved with methanol for F1 and Volatile Organic Compounds is considered to be the date sampled. Maxxam Analytics is accredited for all specific parameters as required by Ontario Regulation 153/04. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Samples will be retained at Maxxam Analytics for three weeks from receipt of data or as per contract. Reference Method suffix "m" indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. " RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. Results relate only to the items tested. Page 1 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Date Date Method Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference Methylnaphthalene Sum 2 N/A 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00301 EPA 8270D m Methylnaphthalene Sum 5 N/A 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00301 EPA 8270D m Hot Water Extractable Boron 7 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00408 R153 Ana. Prot. 2011 Free (WAD) Cyanide 7 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00457 OMOE E3015 m Conductivity 7 N/A 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00414 OMOE E3138 v2 m Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC (1) 7 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00436 EPA 3060/7199 m Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil 11 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00315 CCME PHC-CWS m Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil 11 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00316 CCME CWS m Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil 7 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00449 SM 22 4500 F C m Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS 7 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00447 EPA 6020A m Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP 7 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00408 EPA 6010C m Moisture 11 N/A 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00445 Carter 2nd ed 51.2 m PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS (SIM) 7 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00318 EPA 8270D m pH CaC12 EXTRACT 7 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00413 EPA 9045 D m Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) 7 2015/02/05 2015/02/12 CAM SOP -00102 EPA 6010 Remarks: Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025 and the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. All methodologies comply with this document and are validated for use in the laboratory. The methods and techniques employed in this analysis conform to the performance criteria (detection limits, accuracy and precision) as outlined in the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the 'Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods'. Documentation is available upon request. Maxxam has made the following improvements to the CWS-PHC reference benchmark method: (i) Headspace for F1; and, (ii) Mechanical extraction for F2 -F4. Note: F4G cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. The extraction date for samples field preserved with methanol for F1 and Volatile Organic Compounds is considered to be the date sampled. Maxxam Analytics is accredited for all specific parameters as required by Ontario Regulation 153/04. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Samples will be retained at Maxxam Analytics for three weeks from receipt of data or as per contract. Reference Method suffix "m" indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. " RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. Results relate only to the items tested. Page 1 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca (1) Soils are reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise specified. Encryption Key Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Parnian Baber, Project Manager Email: pbaber@maxxam.ca Phone# (905) 817-5700 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Total cover pages: 1 Page 2 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca NA-a`lm A Bureau Veritas Graup Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SOIL Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Maxxam ID ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0492 ZL0488 ZL0489 ZL0495 ZL0490 Sampling Date Sampling Date 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 Units I MW15-1-1 MW15-1-2 I QC Batch I MW15-1-5 IQCBatch I BH15-2-2 I QC Batch I BH15-2-5 I RDL QC Batch Calculated Parameters I RDL I QC Batch Calculated Parameters Sodium Adsorption Ratio N/A 0.32 0.32 3909790 N/A 0.27 3909790 Inorganics 0.28 0.26 3909790 Inorganics Chromium VI Ug/g <0.2 <0.2 3912494 <0.2 3912494 <0.2 0.2 Conductivity ms/cm 0.26 0.24 3914313 0.2 0.18 3914313 ms/cm 0.002 Fluoride F- Ug/gUg/g <5 <5 3914895 0.16 <5 3914895 Fluoride F- 5 Free Cyanide Ug/g Ug/g 0.01 0.02 3912442 <5 0.01 3912442 3914895 0.01 Moisture % 22 22 3913373 27 3913419 21 3913373 24 1.0 3913419 Available CaC12 H pH 7.33 7.46 3912530 18 7.07 3912530 8.8 1.0 Maxxam ID ZL0491 ZL0492 ZL0493 ZL0494 ZL0495 ZL0496 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 Units I BH15-3-1 IQCBatch I BH15-3-6 I BH15-3-20 IQCBatch I SS15-4-1 I SS15-5-1 I SS15-6-1 I RDL I QC Batch Calculated Parameters Sodium Adsorption Ratio N/A 0.29 3909790 0.30 0.28 0.26 3909790 Inorganics Chromium VI ug/g <0.2 3912494 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 0.2 3912494 Conductivity ms/cm 0.14 3914313 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.002 3914313 Fluoride F- ug/gug/g <5 3914895 <5 <5 11 5 3914895 Free Cyanide ug/g <0.01 3912442 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 3912442 Moisture % 11 3913373 15 18 3913419 17 7.0 8.8 1.0 3913373 Available CaC12 H pH 7.46 3912530 7.30 7.69 7.65 3912530 N/A = Not Applicable RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 3 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca NA-a`lm A Bureau Veritas Graup Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 ELEMENTS BY ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY (SOIL) Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Maxxam ID ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0489 ZL0491 ZL0494 ZL0495 ZL0496 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 Units MW15-1-1 MW15-1-2 BH15-2-2 BH15-3-1 SS15-4-1 SS15-5-1 SS15-6-1 I RDL I QC Batch Metals Hot Water Ext. Boron B ug/gug/g 0.31 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.050 3914179 Acid Extractable Sulphur S ug/gug/g 310 380 240 170 110 250 250 50 3914873 Acid Extractable Antimony Sb Ug/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3914912 Acid Extractable Arsenic As ug/gug/g 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 1.3 <1.0 2.1 1.9 1.0 3914912 Acid Extractable Barium Ba ug/gug/g 14 9.0 9.3 13 12 16 13 0.50 3914912 Acid Extractable Beryllium Be ug/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3914912 Acid Extractable Cadmium Cd Ug/g <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.10 3914912 Acid Extractable Chromium Cr ug/gug/g 5.3 5.1 4.3 4.2 4.7 3.9 3.9 1.0 3914912 Acid Extractable Cobalt Co ug/gug/g 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.9 2.3 0.10 3914912 Acid Extractable Copper Cu ug/gug/g 4.7 3.6 3.4 4.2 3.7 4.0 3.3 0.50 3914912 Acid Extractable Lead Pb Ug/gUg/g 3.9 3.2 2.8 4.6 3.3 4.3 4.0 1.0 3914912 Acid Extractable Molybdenum Mo ug/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.50 3914912 Acid Extractable Nickel Ni ug/gug/g 4.0 2.9 2.6 4.0 3.1 4.1 4.0 0.50 3914912 Acid Extractable Selenium Se ug/g <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.50 3914912 Acid Extractable Silver A Ug/g <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3914912 Acid Extractable Thallium TI ug/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.052 0.050 3914912 Acid Extractable Tin (Sn) ug/g <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 5.0 3914912 Acid Extractable Uranium U ug/gug/g 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.050 3914912 Acid Extractable Vanadium V Ug/gUg/g 10 11 9.1 8.5 8.6 7.8 8.3 5.0 3914912 Acid Extractable Zinc Zn ug/gug/g 20 18 15 19 17 15 15 5.0 3914912 Acid Extractable Mercury H ug/g <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.050 3914912 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 4 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 SEMI -VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC -MS (SOIL) Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Maxxam ID ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0489 ZL0491 ZL0494 ZL0495 ZL0496 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 1 2015/02/02 1 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 1 2015/02/02 1 2015/02/02 Units I MW15-1-1 1 MW15-1-2 I BH15-2-2 I RDL I BH15-3-1 I RDL I SS15-4-1 I SS15-5-1 I SS15-6-1 I RDL I QC Batch Calculated Parameters Meth Ina hthalene,2-1- u/q <0.0071 <0.0071 1 <0.0071 10.0071 1 0.023 10.0071 1 <0.0071 1 0.036 1 1.5 10.0071 1 3909394 Pol aromatic Hydrocarbons Acenaphthene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 0.0052 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.018 0.0050 3911992 Acenaphthylene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 3911992 Anthracene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 0.0078 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.020 0.0050 3911992 Benzo a anthracene u/q <0.0050 0.015 0.011 0.0050 0.028 0.0050 0.0058 <0.0050 0.054 0.0050 3911992 Benzo(a)pyrene uq/q u/q 0.0074 0.014 0.012 0.0050 0.024 0.0050 0.0063 <0.0050 0.029 0.0050 3911992 Benzo b/ fluoranthene uq/q u/q 0.010 0.020 0.019 0.0050 0.036 0.0050 0.011 <0.0050 0.054 0.0050 3911992 Benzo ,h,i a lene uq/q u/q 0.0055 0.0095 0.0097 0.0050 0.017 0.0050 0.0058 <0.0050 0.031 0.0050 3911992 Benzo k fluoranthene u/q <0.0050 0.0066 0.0065 0.0050 0.011 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.010 0.0050 3911992 Ch Bene uq/q u/q 0.0068 0.012 0.014 0.0050 0.023 0.0050 0.0063 <0.0050 0.066 0.0050 3911992 Dibenz a,h anthracene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0070 0.0050 3911992 Fluoranthene ug/g ug/g 0.013 0.037 0.028 0.0050 0.064 0.0050 0.016 <0.0050 0.062 0.0050 3911992 Fluorene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.020 0.0050 3911992 Indeno 1,2,3 -cd rene uq/q u/q 0.0074 0.013 0.011 0.0050 0.018 0.0050 0.0063 <0.0050 0.014 0.0050 3911992 1 -Methylnaphthalene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 0.011 0.0050 <0.0050 0.016 0.66 0.0050 3911992 2 -Methyl nahthalene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 0.012 0.0050 0.0052 0.020 0.83 0.0050 3911992 Naphthalene u/q <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.0050 <0.010 0.010 <0.0050 0.015 0.50 0.0050 3911992 Phenanthrene uq/q u/q 0.0055 1 0.021 1 0.013 10.0050 0.036 10.0050 1 0.0058 1 0.011 0.39 10.0050 1 3911992 Pyrene ug/g ug/g 0.011 1 0.030 1 0.024 10.0050 0.051 10.0050 1 0.013 1 <0.0050 0.067 10.0050 1 3911992 Surrogate Recovery D10 -Anthracene % 91 96 92 94 92 91 85 3911992 D14 -Ter hen I FS % 86 86 85 82 87 81 78 3911992 D8 -Acenaphthylene % 87 90 87 88 91 88 83 3911992 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch (1) - DL was raised due to matrix interference. Page 5 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca NA-a`lm A Bureau Veritas Graup Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (CCME) Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Maxxam ID ZL0486 ZL0487 ZL0488 ZL0489 ZL0490 ZL0491 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 Units I MW15-1-1 MW15-1-2 MW15-1-5 I BH15-2-2 BH15-2-5 I BH15-3-1 I RDL I QC Batch BTEX & F1 Hydrocarbons Benzene u/q <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.009 0.005 3912718 Toluene ug/g ug/g 0.05 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 0.02 3912718 Eth (benzene ug/g ug/g 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 3912718 o -X lene Ug/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.04 0.02 3912718 +m -X Iene ug/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.05 0.04 3912718 Total Xylenes ug/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 0.09 0.04 3912718 F1 C6 -C10 ug/gug/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 3912718 F1 C6 -C10 -BTEX Ug/g Ug/g <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 3912718 F2 -F4 Hydrocarbons F2 C10 -C16 Hydrocarbons) u/quq/q <10 <10 15 <10 <10 <10 10 3912642 F3 C16 -C34 Hydrocarbons) ug/gug/g <50 <50 52 <50 <50 <50 50 3912642 F4 C34-050 Hydrocarbons) ug/gug/g <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 50 3912642 Reached Baseline at C50 ug/g ug/g YES YES YES YES YES YES 3912642 Surrogate Recover 1,4-Difluorobenzene % 86 88 88 88 87 88 3912718 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 99 99 99 98 98 99 3912718 D10-Eth (benzene % 115 112 102 104 108 102 3912718 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 96 97 98 97 96 97 3912718 o -Ter hen I % 85 85 87 85 85 85 3912642 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 6 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a KAaxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca NA-a`lm A Bureau Veritas Graup Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (CCME) Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Maxxam ID ZL0492 ZL0493 ZL0494 ZL0495 ZL0496 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 2015/02/02 Units I BH15-3-6 I BH15-3-20 I SS15-4-1 SS15-5-1 SS15-6-1 I RDL QC Batch BTEX & F1 Hydrocarbons Benzene ug/g <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 3.3 0.084 0.005 3912718 Toluene Ug/q Ug/q <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 12 0.53 0.02 3912718 Eth (benzene ug/g <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.5 0.17 0.01 3912718 o -X lene ug/g <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 7.8 0.69 0.02 3912718 +m -X lene ug/g <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 12 0.96 0.04 3912718 Total Xylenes Ug/q <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 19 1.7 0.04 3912718 F1 C6 -C10 ug/gug/g <10 <10 <10 210 18 10 3912718 F1 C6 -C10 -BTEX ug/g ug/g <10 <10 <10 170 16 10 3912718 F2 -F4 Hydrocarbons F2 C10 -C16 Hydrocarbons) Ug/qUg/q <10 <10 <10 24 41 10 3912642 F3 C16 -C34 Hydrocarbons) ug/gug/g <50 <50 <50 80 130 50 3912642 F4 C34-050 Hydrocarbons) ug/gug/g <50 <50 <50 <50 <50 50 3912642 Reached Baseline at C50 ug/g ug/g YES YES YES YES YES 3912642 Surrogate Recover 1,4-Difluorobenzene % 88 87 87 86 88 3912718 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 98 99 98 99 98 3912718 D10-Eth (benzene % 95 93 102 96 98 3912718 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 98 97 97 93 102 3912718 o -Ter hen I % 87 86 86 86 86 3912642 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 7 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a KAaxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam ID ZL0486 Sample ID MW15-1-1 Matrix Soil Tpst npsrrintinn Test Summary Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Instriimpntntinn Rntrh FYtrartPrl Ang1v7Pd Analvst Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/10 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen H CaCl2 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Maxxam ID ZL0486 Dup Sample ID MW15-1-1 Matrix Soil Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Page 8 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M - `lm A Bureau Veritas C -p Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam ID ZL0487 Sample ID MW15-1-2 Matrix Soil Tpst npsrrintinn Test Summary Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Instriimpntntinn Rntrh FYtrartPrl Ang1v7Pd Analvst Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/10 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen H CaCl2 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Maxxam ID ZL0487 Dup Sample ID MW15-1-2 Matrix Soil Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kanapathippllai Page 9 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Test Summary Maxxam ID ZL0488 Sample ID MW15-1-5 Matrix Soil Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI est Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 'etroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin 'etroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk loisture BAL 3913419 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani Maxxam ID ZL0488 Dup Collected 2015/02/02 Sample ID MW15-1-5 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2015/02/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Moisture BAL 3913419 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani Maxxam ID ZL0489 Collected 2015/02/02 Sample ID BH15-2-2 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2015/02/05 Test npsrrintinn Instriimpntntlnn Rntrh Fytractprl AnBIv7PCI Gnalvst Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/11 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen H CaC12 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Page 10 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Test Summary Maxxam ID ZL0489 Dup Sample ID BH15-2-2 Matrix Soil Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai H CaC12 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Maxxam ID ZL0490 Sample ID BH15-2-5 Matrix Soil Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum H drocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Moisture BAL 3913419 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani Maxxam ID ZL0491 Collected 2015/02/02 Sample ID BH15-3-1 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2015/02/05 Tpct nperrintinn Inctrnmpntntinn Rntrh FYtrartPri AngIV7PCI Analvct Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/11 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen H CaC12 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Page 11 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca NA c� �� Ell r—, Success Through Science® A Bureau Veritas Graup Company Stantec Consulting Ltd Maxxam Job #: B521696 Client Project #: 122511076.200 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Test Summary Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Maxxam ID ZL0491 Dup Collected 2015/02/02 Sample ID BH15-3-1 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2015/02/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst lConductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Maxxam ID ZL0492 Collected 2015/02/02 Sample ID BH15-3-6 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2015/02/05 'est Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 'etroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin 'etroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk loisture BAL 3913419 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani Maxxam ID ZL0493 Collected 2015/02/02 Sample ID BH15-3-20 Shipped Matrix Soil Received 2015/02/05 'est Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst 'etroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin 'etroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk loisture BAL 3913419 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani Page 12 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M - `lm A Bureau Veritas C -p Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam ID ZL0494 Sample ID SS15-4-1 Matrix Soil Tpst npsrrintinn Test Summary Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Instriimpntntinn Rntrh FYtrartPrl Ang1v7Pd Analvst Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/11 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen H CaCl2 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Maxxam ID ZL0494 Dup Sample ID SS15-4-1 Matrix Soil Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Test Description Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani Page 13 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam ID ZL0495 Sample ID SS15-5-1 Matrix Soil Tpst r)Psrrintinn Test Summary Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Instriimpntntinn Rntrh FYtrartPd Ang1v7Pd Analvst Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/11 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manom Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen H CaCl2 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Maxxam ID ZL0496 Sample ID SS15-6-1 Matrix Soil Test Descrintion Collected 2015/02/02 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analvzed Analvst Methyl nahthalene Sum CALC 3909394 N/A 2015/02/11 Automated Statchk Hot Water Extractable Boron ICP 3914179 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Suban Kana athi Ilai Free WAD Cyanide TECH 3912442 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Conductivity COND 3914313 N/A 2015/02/11 Yo esh Patel Hexavalent Chromium in Soil by IC IC/SPEC 3912494 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Manoi Gera Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Soil HSGC/MSFD 3912718 2015/02/06 2015/02/09 Lincoln Ramdahin Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil GC/FID 3912642 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Barbara Wowk Soluble Fluoride analysis in Soil F 3914895 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Surinder Rai Strong Acid Leachable Metals by ICPMS ICP/MS 3914912 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Viviana Canzonieri Acid Extractable Metals Analysis by ICP ICP 3914873 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Azita Fazaeli Moisture BAL 3913373 N/A 2015/02/09 Valentina Kaftani PAH Compounds in Soil by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3911992 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 Lin un Fen Page 14 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M - `lm A Bureau Veritas C -p Company Maxxam Job #: 6521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Test Summary H CaC12 EXTRACT 3912530 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Surinder Rai Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) CALL/MET 3909790 2015/02/12 2015/02/12 Automated Statchk Page 15 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a KAaxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: 6521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 GENERAL COMMENTS Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Sample ZL0489-01: SAR Analysis: Sodium was not detected. To report SAR the sodium detection limit was used in the calculation. This value represents a maximum ratio. Sample ZL0491-01: SAR Analysis: Sodium was not detected. To report SAR the sodium detection limit was used in the calculation. This value represents a maximum ratio. Sample ZL0494-01: SAR Analysis: Sodium was not detected. To report SAR the sodium detection limit was used in the calculation. This value represents a maximum ratio. Sample ZL0495-01: SAR Analysis: Sodium was not detected. To report SAR the sodium detection limit was used in the calculation. This value represents a maximum ratio. Sample ZL0496-01: SAR Analysis: Sodium was not detected. To report SAR the sodium detection limit was used in the calculation. This value represents a maximum ratio. Page 16 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Page 17 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC Standard QC Batch Parameter Date %Recovery QC Limits %Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value % QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits 3911992 D10 -Anthracene 2015/02/09 91 50-130 93 50-130 99 % 3911992 D14 -Ter hen I FS 2015/02/09 83 50-130 84 50-130 86 % 3911992 D8 -Acenaphthylene 2015/02/09 89 50-130 89 50-130 92 % 3911992 Acenaphthene 2015/02/09 90 50-130 83 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 9.4 40 3911992 Acenaphthylene 2015/02/09 89 50-130 89 50-130 <0.0050 uala u/a NC 40 3911992 Anthracene 2015/02/09 88 50-130 86 50-130 <0.0050 ug/q ug/q 8.8 40 3911992 Benzo(a)anthracene 2015/02/09 100 50-130 93 50-130 <0.0050 ug/q ug/q 5.1 40 3911992 Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/09 96 50-130 88 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 1.1 40 3911992 Benzo b/' fluoranthene 2015/02/09 90 50-130 85 50-130 <0.0050 uq1q 5.4 40 3911992 Benzo h e lene 2015/02/09 91 50-130 78 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 2.7 40 3911992 Benzo k fluoranthene 2015/02/09 88 50-130 84 50-130 <0.0050 ua/a u/a 6.2 40 3911992 Chrysene 2015/02/09 111 50-130 91 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 6.3 40 3911992 Dibenz a,h anthracene 2015/02/09 94 50-130 76 50-130 <0.0050 uq1q 1.0 40 3911992 Fluoranthene 2015/02/09 108 50-130 86 50-130 <0.0050 ug/q ug/q 8.7 40 3911992 Fluorene 2015/02/09 100 50-130 91 50-130 <0.0050 u / 3911992 Indeno 1 2 3 -cd rene 2015/02/09 100 50-130 86 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 0.6 40 3911992 1 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/09 86 50-130 87 50-130 <0.0050 uqlq u/q NC 40 3911992 2 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/09 86 50-130 84 50-130 <0.0050 ug/q ug/q NC 40 3911992 Naphthalene 2015/02/09 84 50-130 83 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 16.0 40 3911992 Phenanthrene 2015/02/09 88 50-130 82 50-130 <0.0050 uq/q u/q 5.0 40 3911992 Pyrene 2015/02/09 98 50-130 87 50-130 <0.0050 u / 3912442 Free Cyanide 2015/02/10 103 75-125 105 80-120 <0.01 uq/q u/q NC 35 3912494 Chromium VI 2015/02/10 11 i, z 75-125 99 80-120 <0.2 uq/q u/q NC 35 111 80-120 3912530 Available CaC12 H 2015/02/09 99 97-103 0.4 N/A 3912642 o -Ter hen I 2015/02/09 91 60-130 88 60-130 82 % 3912642 F2 C10 -C16 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 97 50-130 91 80-120 <10 ug/q ug/q NC 30 3912642 F3 C16 -C34 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 100 50-130 96 80-120 <50 uq/q u/q NC 30 3912642 F4 C34-050 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 100 50-130 96 80-120 <50 ug/q ug/q NC 30 3912718 1,4-Difluorobenzene 2015/02/09 88 60-140 93 60-140 85 % 3912718 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/09 99 60-140 97 60-140 100 % 3912718 D10-Eth (benzene 2015/02/09 110 60-140 99 60-140 95 % 3912718 D4-1 2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/09 96 60-140 102 60-140 92 % 3912718 Benzene 2015/02/09 78 60-140 94 60-140 <0.005 uq1q NC 50 3912718 Toluene 2015/02/09 82 60-140 93 60-140 <0.02 ug/q ug/q NC 50 3912718 Eth (benzene 2015/02/09 95 60-140 105 60-140 <0.01 uq/q u/q NC 50 3912718 o -X lene 2015/02/09 97 60-140 103 60-140 <0.02u / NC 50 3912718 +m -X Iene 2015/02/09 88 60-140 94 60-140 <0.04 u / NC 50 3912718 F1 C6 -C10 2015/02/09 74 60-140 99 80-120 <10 u / ENC 50 3912718 Total Xylenes 2015/02/09 1 <0.04 ug/cgl NC 50 Page 17 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Page 18 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC Standard QC Batch Parameter Date %Recovery QC Limits %Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value % QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits 3912718 F1 C6 -C10 - BTEX 2015/02/09 <10 ug/q ug/q NC 50 3913373 Moisture 2015/02/09 0.6 20 3913419 Moisture 2015/02/09 5.7 20 3914179 Hot Water Ext. Boron B 2015/02/10 101 75-125 108 75-125 0.00000 RDL=0.050 ua/a u/a NC 40 3914313 Conductivity 2015/02/11 100 90-110 <0.002 ms/cm 0.07 10 3914873 Acid Extractable Sulphur S 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 103 80-120 <50 u / 3914895 Fluoride F- 2015/02/11 101 80-120 105 80-120 <5 ug/q ug/q NC 25 3914912 Acid Extractable Antimony Sb 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 105 80-120 <0.20 uq/q u/q 8.3 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Arsenic As 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 103 80-120 <1.0 uq1q 10.8 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Barium Ba 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 107 80-120 <0.50 uq/q u/q 0.03 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Beryllium Be 2015/02/11 103 75-125 105 80-120 <0.20 uq/q u/q 4.3 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Cadmium Cd 2015/02/11 100 75-125 108 80-120 <0.10 uq/q u/q 5.7 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Chromium Cr 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 103 80-120 <1.0 uq1q 4.0 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Cobalt Co 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 100 80-120 <0.10 ug/q ug/q 0.7 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Copper Cu 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 101 80-120 <0.50 ug/q ug/q 24.6 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Lead Pb 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 105 80-120 <1.0 uq/q u/q 5.7 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Molybdenum Mo 2015/02/11 103 75-125 108 80-120 <0.50 uala u/a 7.0 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Nickel Ni 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 101 80-120 <0.50 ug/q ug/q 0.3 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Selenium Se 2015/02/11 90 75-125 101 80-120 <0.50 ug/q ug/q NC 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Silver A 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 104 80-120 <0.20 uq/q u/q 27.4 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Thallium TI 2015/02/11 91 75-125 104 80-120 <0.050 uq1q 2.5 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Tin (Sn) 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 106 80-120 <5.0 ug/q ug/q 0.6 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Uranium U 2015/02/11 102 75-125 102 80-120 <0.050 US/95.5 30 3914912 Acid Extractable Vanadium V 2015/02/11 NC 75-125 101 80-120 <5.0 1 u/quq/q 2.7 30 Page 18 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a K/laxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521696 Report Date: 2015/02/12 QC Batch (Parameter QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Date I %Recovery I QC Limits I %Recovery I QC Limits Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Method Blank I RPD QC Standard Value Units I Value (%) I QC Limits % Recovery I QC Limits N/A = Not Applicable RDL = Reportable Detection Limit RPD = Relative Percent Difference Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. QC Standard: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of method accuracy. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency. NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was too small to permit a reliable recovery calculation (matrix spike concentration was less than 2x that of the native sample concentration). NC (Duplicate RPD): The duplicate RPD was not calculated. The concentration in the sample and/or duplicate was too low to permit a reliable RPD calculation (one or both samples < 5x RDL). (1) - Recovery or RPD for this parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria. (2) - The matrix spike recovery was below the lower control limit. This may be due in part to the reducing environment of the sample. The matrix spike was reanalyzed to confirm result. Page 19 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Mem A Bureau Veritas Graup Company Success Through Science® Validation Signature Page Maxxam Job #: B521696 The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s). Brad Newman, Scientt ecialist 111,1'S Medhat Riskallah, Manager, Hydrocarbon Department Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5. 10.2 of ISOJEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Page 20 of 33 K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation ofa KAaxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road. Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca MaM:wam n,a,ytics lmgrnacicnal rn�rol otaMaotram Ana,y;ts ^a SV 5-Peb- i ` 16:30 Ma a m 5740 CamaoCetlo Road, Mississauga Oril CanaGa 12LB Tel (9051817-5700 TolbFree ETJO-5&3�266 F. (WS) 817-5—,j7 K11_� www maaxam ca Ouatat,onq._ PROJECT INFORMATION: 842133 Renata Spena page (a Only: I� I I 1111111111111 I III Bottle Order #: INVOICE INFORMATION: REPORT INFORMATIONAL differs from Invodce): Company Nama. 414741 SlanteC CorkSUlting Ltd Company Name 51fM1t� Coma Name ACCourltsPayable Coned Name _ �M A(:1 Vyra;-Zl1c Tasks 1630OR-20 8521696 lIliIiIIIIII1111II111 Address 835 Paramount Drive. Suite 200 address 077AiwA I Project rt: t 122511076 5V ENV -097 ! A 45l�I!177II 1!! Stoney Creek ON L8J 0134 1(013) -41 hill Profit Centre 1225 Project Manager: Ste# pho<ra (905) 381-3211 xFax. Pho-ra a (905) 385-3534 x Email Stantec.ACCOut Payable.lnyoices@StanleC.COn'I Ercall. � � - Lt:, ' .t'•Ut�1},baG Soglvw By IIIIINAARenataSnna CA'547577 G1 1 •rctANALYSIS NWM REOUESTEO (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC) Tuma Bund Tiro I'r"",Tj Fte air 7aLn],,.g" m Regular IStandardl TAT. Rill 153 (2011) Other Regulations Special Instnrcllons d f�+u�+��VPrusATaTanarpedFad3. I ❑Rc=_;PaM ❑MedmmllME ❑SamEarySewarBylaw y ] nt days []Tablet ❑IrWComm(oCoarse ea ❑slarmSewerBylaw C3 rceltsrmaattea's. lMeeae rroM, Standard IAT Mrcertaia tests aucn as 900 and L4ariaWFurenx ere • S MoeserTATtndrdIATg pTable 3 ❑AgrilO;her ❑ For RSC ❑MISA Munlcrpalrty n ]: dapcvntect ynurPrapc!Mane{lar for dataifa. Reli PWOO ❑ �i c Job SpecMic Rush TAT {K applies to enBre suEmtsslan) r �i 1 t l e I ❑ Other jlt,�lg y a Cate Requhod Tme Requued tncil Criteria on Cemlil0ate ol'Arralysis (Y/NJ7 0 ® H w � RushCenerm®non Number Ica tab far 9) Sample HaercodLabel Semple(LocallijJerrtft9Ii-an D:1�1-e5ainpled Time Sampled Matrix P M " sat Comments 5 ow v 7 d G ' RELINdUISHED BY: {SignatureiTiIj Data: (YYIMMIDD) Time RECEIVED BY; (SlgnaturolPdnl) Data: [WIMMIti Time N lars used and . notsubmitted Laboratory Use On1i - � ©L /} Tema se+rsuroa iemperoture ['CI on I Custody Seal Yes No Prvsar:l 1 - (} L,1 C � '17 IS 'HE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE REI TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY Of THE CHAIN OT CLSTCCYRECORC AN INCOMPLETE CHAIN OF CUSTODY NAr RESULT IN ANAL C;; L TAT Ia e. r While: IYellow: Client tVlaxxam Analytics International Corporation ofa tVlaxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, LSN 21L (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca K/laxxam Analytics International Corporation ofa KAaxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free _ 800-563-6266 Fax (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca �' mmxam Anaiyucs PflIsMallgnal LOrparatlon ota mx[Kam Analytkas M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0486 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: MW15-1-1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram i Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 23 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0487 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: MW15-1-2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 24 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca I �.w T W. i Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 24 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0488 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: MW15-1-5 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 25 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0489 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: BH15-2-2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 26 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca I �.w T W. I i Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 26 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0490 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: BH15-2-5 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 27 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca I �.w T W. i Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 27 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0491 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: BH15-3-1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 28 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca MSuccess Through Scienceo A Bureau Veritas Group Company Stantec Consulting Ltd Report Date: 2015/02/12 Client Project #: 122511076.200 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0492 Client ID: BH15-3-6 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 29 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0493 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: BH15-3-20 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 30 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0494 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: SS15-4-1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 31 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca =� :1 C 10t_10M14 I �.w W. r-- i Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 31 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0495 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: SS15-5-1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram ISM I r�— J I l Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 32 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Report Date: 2015/02/12 Maxxam Job #: B521696 Maxxam Sample: ZL0496 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Client ID: SS15-6-1 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Soil Chromatogram Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Should detailed chemist interpretation or fingerprinting be required, please contact the laboratory. Page 33 of 33 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca MSX- -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Your Project #: 122511076.200 Your C.O.C. #: 501577-02-01 Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Stantec Consulting Ltd 1331 Clyde Avenue Suite 400 Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B521799 Received: 2015/02/05,16:30 Sample Matrix: Water # Samples Received: 7 Success Through Sciences Report Date: 2015/02/20 Report #: R3335056 Version: 1 Remarks: Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025 and the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. All methodologies comply with this document and are validated for use in the laboratory. The methods and techniques employed in this analysis conform to the performance criteria (detection limits, accuracy and precision) as outlined in the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the 'Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods'. Documentation is available upon request. Maxxam has made the following improvements to the CWS-PHC reference benchmark method: (i) Headspace for F1; and, (ii) Mechanical extraction for F2 -F4. Note: F4G cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. The extraction date for samples field preserved with methanol for F1 and Volatile Organic Compounds is considered to be the date sampled. Page 1 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Date Date Method Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed LaboratoryMethod Reference Chloride byAutomated Colou rimetry 5 N/A 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00463 EPA325.2 m Chromium (VI) in Water 5 N/A 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00436 EPA 7199 m Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water 7 N/A 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00315 CCME PHC-CWS m Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water 7 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00316 CCME PHC-CWS m Fluoride 5 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00449 SM 22 4500-F C m Mercury (low level) 5 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00453 EPA7470 m Nitrate (NO3) and Nitrite (NO2) in Water (1) 2 N/A 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00440 SM 22 4500-NO31/NO2B Nitrate (NO3) and Nitrite (NO2) in Water (1) 3 N/A 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00440 SM 22 4500-NO31/NO2B PAH Compounds in Water by GC/MS (SIM) 5 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00318 EPA 8270 m pH 5 N/A 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00413 SM 4500H+ B Sul phatebyAutomated Colou rimetry 5 N/A 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00464 EPA 375.4 m Remarks: Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025 and the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. All methodologies comply with this document and are validated for use in the laboratory. The methods and techniques employed in this analysis conform to the performance criteria (detection limits, accuracy and precision) as outlined in the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the 'Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods'. Documentation is available upon request. Maxxam has made the following improvements to the CWS-PHC reference benchmark method: (i) Headspace for F1; and, (ii) Mechanical extraction for F2 -F4. Note: F4G cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. The extraction date for samples field preserved with methanol for F1 and Volatile Organic Compounds is considered to be the date sampled. Page 1 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca MSX- -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Stantec Consulting Ltd 1331 Clyde Avenue Suite 400 Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Your Project #: 122511076.200 Your C.O.C. #: 501577-02-01 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS -2- Success Through Sciences Report Date: 2015/02/20 Report M R3335056 Version: 1 Maxxam Analytics is accredited for all specific parameters as required by Ontario Regulation 153/04. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Samples will be retained at Maxxam Analytics for three weeks from receipt of data or as per contract. Reference Method suffix "m" indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. * RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. (1) Values for calculated parameters may not appearto add up due to rounding of raw data and significant figures. Encryption Key Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Parnian Baber, ProjectManager Emailpbaber@maxxam.ca Phone#(905)817-5700 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please referto the Validation Signature Page. Total cover pages: 2 Page 2 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M -El -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF WATER axxamlD ZL0818 ZL0819 ZL0820 ZL0821 ZL0821 am lin Date 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 OC Number 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 Units MW103 MW102 QC Batch MW101 RDL MW15-1 MW15-1 RDL QEBatch Lab -Du Inorganics Fluoride(F-) mg/L 0.11 0.10 Fluoride(F-) mg/L 0.24 0.86 3911940 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 3911940 pH pH 7.52 7.60 3911941 7.18 1 7.34 Nitrite (N) 3911941 Dissolved Sulphate(SO4) mg/L 23 220 3911971 <1 1 <5 (1) <5 5 3911971 Dissolved Chloride (CI) mg/L 14 16 3911970 4 1 94 94 1 3911970 Nitrite (N) Img/L I<0.010 I <0.010 13911906 1<0.010 10.010 1 <0.010 1 10.010 13911905 Nitrate (N) mg/L <0.10 I <0.10 3911906 1 <0.10 0.10 1 <0.10 1 0.10 3911905 Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L <0.10 <0.10 3911906 1 <0.10 0.10 1 <0.10 1 0.10 3911905 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch (1 ) Detection Limit was raised due to matrix interferences. Maxxam I D ZLO824 am lin Date 2015/02/03 OC Number 501577-02-01 Units I MW15-20 IRDL 1QC Batch Inorganics Fluoride(F-) mg/L 0.11 0.10 3911940 pH pH 7.35 3911941 Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L <1 1 3911971 Dissolved Chloride (CI) mg/L 93 1 3911970 Nitrite (N) I mg/L I <0.010 0.010 3911906 Nitrate (N) mg/L <0.10 0.10 3911906 Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L <0.10 0.10 3911906 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 3 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ra M-ElX2c-ar" A Bureau Wernas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI ELEMENTS BYATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY (WATER) MaxxamlD ZL0818 ZLO818 ZL0819 ZLO820 ZL0821 ZLO824 Sam lin Date 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 COC Number 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 Units MW103 MW103 Lab -Du MW102 MW101 MW15-1 MW15-20 RDL QC Batch Metals Chromium(VI) ug/L <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 0.50 3912104 Mercury(Hg) ug/L <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 3915074 RDL=Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 4 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M -El -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Success Through Sciences Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI SEMI -VOLATILE ORGANICS BYGC-MS (WATER) amZLO818 ZLO819 ZL0819 ZLO820 ZLO821 ZLO824 lin Date 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 FmaxID Number 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 Units MW103 MW102 MW102 Lab -Du MW101 MW15-1 MW15-20 RDL QC Batch PolyaromaticHydrocarbons Benzo(e)pyrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Biphenyl ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Perylene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.018 0.018 0.010 3913076 Acenaphthene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Acenaphthylene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 I <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Anthracene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Benzo(a)anthracene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 0.010 3913076 Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.014 0.010 3913076 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Chrysene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.011 0.010 3913076 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Fluoranthene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 I <0.010 0.018 0.029 0.010 3913076 Fluorene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 1 -Methylnaphthalene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 2 -Methylnaphthalene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.010 3913076 Naphthalene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.011 0.011 0.010 3913076 Phenanthrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.013 0.020 0.010 3913076 Pyrene ug/L <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.014 0.022 0.010 3913076 Surrogate Recovery (%) D10 -Anthracene % 80 190 189 80 180 181 1 13913076 D14-Terphenyl(FS) % 85 92 92 1 84 1 80 1 82 1 3913076 D8 -Acenaphthylene % 80 85 87 81 1 79 1 81 1 3913076 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 5of16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M-ElX2c-ar" A Bureau Wernas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (CCME) MaxxamlD ZL0818 ZL0819 ZL0820 ZL0821 ZL0822 ZL0823 am lin Date 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 OC Number 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 501577-02-01 �TIRIPBILAINIIK �RDIL Units MW103 MW102 MW101 MW15-1 BH100 CBatch BTEX & F1 Hydrocarbons Benzene ug/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3912490 Toluene ug/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3912490 Ethylbenzene ug/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3912490 o -Xylene ug/L <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 0.20 3912490 p+m-Xylene ug/L <0.40 <0.40 I <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 0.40 3912490 TotalXylenes ug/L <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 0.40 3912490 F1 (C6 -C10) ug/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 25 3912490 F 1 (C6 -C 10) - BTEX ug/L <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 <25 25 3912490 F2 -F4 Hydrocarbons F2(Cl 0-C16Hydrocarbons) ug/L <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 <100 100 3913158 F3(Cl 6-C34Hydrocarbons) ug/L <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 200 3913158 F4 (C34-050 Hydrocarbons) ug/L <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 <200 200 3913158 Reached Baseline at C50 ug/L YES YES YES YES YES YES 3913158 Surrogate Recovery (%) 1,4-Difluorobenzene % 108 107 104 105 104 99 3912490 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 96 98 96 102 98 92 3912490 D10-Ethylbenzene % 104 95 81 97 96 92 3912490 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 92 94 94 197 193 191 3912490 o-Terphenyl % 92 192 92 93 96 91 3913158 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 6 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M-ElX2c-ar" A Bureau Wernas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (CCME) Maxxam I D ZLO824 am lin Date 2015/02/03 OC Number 501577-02-01 Units MW15-20 �RIDIL C Batch BTEX & F1 Hydrocarbons Benzene ug/L <0.20 0.20 3912490 Toluene ug/L <0.20 0.20 3912490 Ethylbenzene ug/L <0.20 0.20 3912490 o -Xylene ug/L <0.20 0.20 3912490 p+m-Xylene ug/L <0.40 0.40 3912490 TotalXylenes ug/L <0.40 0.40 3912490 F1 (C6 -C10) ug/L <25 25 3912490 F1 (C6 -C10) - BTEX ug/L <25 25 3912490 F2 -F4 Hydrocarbons F2(Cl 0-C16Hydrocarbons) ug/L <100 100 3913158 F3(Cl 6-C34Hydrocarbons) ug/L <200 200 3913158 F4 (C34-050 Hydrocarbons) ug/L <200 200 3913158 Reached Baseline at C50 ug/L YES 13913158 Surrogate Recovery (%) 1,4-Difluorobenzene % 104 3912490 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 100 3912490 D10-Ethylbenzene % 93 3912490 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane I% 96 1 13912490 o-Terphenyl I % 1 95 1 3913158 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Page 7 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M -El -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Maxxam ID ZL0818 SamplelD MW103 Matrix Water Tpct npsrrintinn Success Through Sciences Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Test Summary Instrumpntatinn Ratrh Fxtrartpd Analv7pd Collected 2015/02/03 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Analvct Chloride b Automated Colou rimetry AC 3911970 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Chromium VI in Water IC 3912104 N/A 2015/02/09 Lan Le Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GC/FID 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhi ue Frank Zhu Fluoride F 3911940 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Mercury low level CVAA 3915074 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Ma dalenaCarlos Nitrate NO3 and Nitrite NO2 in Water LACH 3911906 N/A 2015/02/10 ChandraNandlal PAH Compounds in Water by GC/MS SIM GUMS 3913076 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 LingyunFenq H PH 3911941 N/A 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Sul phatebyAutomatedColourimet AC 3911971 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Maxxam ID ZL0818 Dup Collected 2015/02/03 SamplelD MW103 Shipped Matrix Water Received 2015/02/05 TestDescri tion Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Mercury low level CVAA 3915074 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Ma dalenaCarlos Maxxam ID ZL0819 SamplelD MW102 Matrix Water Test Descrintion Instrumentation batch Extracted Analvzed Collected 2015/02/03 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Analvst Chloride b Automated Colou rimetry AC 3911970 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Chromium VI in Water IC 3912104 N/A 2015/02/09 Lan Le Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GC/FID 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhi ue Frank Zhu Fluoride F 3911940 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Mercury low level CVAA 3915074 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Ma dalenaCarlos Nitrate NO3 and Nitrite NO2 in Water LACH 3911906 N/A 2015/02/10 ChandraNandlal PAH Compounds in Water by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3913076 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 LingyunFenq H PH 3911941 N/A 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Sul phatebyAutomatedColourimetr AC 3911971 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Maxxam ID ZL0819 Dup Collected 2015/02/03 SamplelD MW102 Shipped Matrix Water Received 2015/02/05 TestDescri tion Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst PAH Compounds in Water by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3913076 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 LingyunFeng Page 8 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M -El -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Maxxam ID ZL0820 SamplelD MW101 Matrix Water Tacf r)acrrinfinn Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Test Summary Collected 2015/02/03 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Incfriimanfatinn Ratrh FYfrarfarl Analv7arl Analvcf Chloride b Automated Colou rimetry AC 3911970 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Chromium VI in Water IC 3912104 N/A 2015/02/09 Lan Le Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GC/FID 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhi ue Frank Zhu Fluoride F 3911940 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Mercury low level CVAA 3915074 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Ma dalenaCarlos Nitrate NO3 and Nitrite NO2 in Water LACH 3911905 N/A 2015/02/09 ChandraNandlal PAH Compounds in Water by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3913076 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 LingyunFenq H PH 3911941 N/A 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Sul phatebyAutomatedColourimet AC 3911971 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Maxxam ID ZL0821 SamplelD MW15-1 Matrix Water Tact rlacrrintinn Inctriumantatinn Rntrh Frtrnetarl Analv70rl Collected 2015/02/03 Shipped Received 2015/02/05 Analvct Chloride b Automated Colou rimetry AC 3911970 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Chromium VI in Water IC 3912104 N/A 2015/02/09 Lan Le Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GC/FID 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhi ue Frank Zhu Fluoride F 3911940 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Mercury low level CVAA 3915074 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Ma dalenaCarlos Nitrate NO3 and Nitrite NO2 in Water LACH 3911905 N/A 2015/02/09 ChandraNandlal PAH Compounds in Water by GC/MS SIM GC/MS 3913076 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 LinqyunFeng H PH 3911941 N/A 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Sul phatebyAutomatedColourimetr AC 3911971 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Maxxam ID ZL0821 Dup Collected 2015/02/03 SamplelD MW15-1 Shipped Matrix Water Received 2015/02/05 TestDescri tion Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Chloride bvAutomated Colou rimetry AC 3911970 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnanne Maxxam ID ZL0822 Collected 2015/02/03 SamplelD BH100 Shipped Matrix Water Received 2015/02/05 TestDescri tion Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst Petroleum H dro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hvdrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GC/FID 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhivue (Frank)Zhu Page 9 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Wernas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Test Summary Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Maxxam ID ZL0823 Collected 2015/02/03 SamplelD TRIPBLANK Shipped IC Matrix Water Received 2015/02/05 TestDescri tion Instrumentation Batch Extracted Analyzed Analyst N/A Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GURD 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhi ue Frank Zhu 3913158 2015/02/09 Maxxam ID ZL0824 Collected 2015/02/03 SamplelD MW15-20 Shipped SurinderRai Matrix Water Received 2015/02/05 Tpstn,pQrrintinn InOmmpnt;% inn Rntrh FlrtrartPd AnBIv7PrI Analvzt Chloride b Automated Colou rimetry AC 3911970 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Chromium VI in Water IC 3912104 N/A 2015/02/09 Lan Le Petroleum Hydro. CCME F1 & BTEX in Water HSGC/MSFD 3912490 N/A 2015/02/10 AncaGanea Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 -F4 in Water GC/FID 3913158 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Zhi ue Frank Zhu Fluoride F 3911940 2015/02/07 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Mercury low level CVAA 3915074 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Ma dalenaCarlos Nitrate NO3 and Nitrite NO2 in Water LACH 3911906 N/A 2015/02/10 ChandraNandlal PAH Compounds in Water by GUMS SIM GUMS 3913076 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 LinqyunFeng H PH 3911941 N/A 2015/02/09 SurinderRai Sul phatebyAutomatedColourimetr AC 3911971 N/A 2015/02/09 DeonarineRamnarine Page 10 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Wernas Group Company Maxxam Job #: 6521799 Report Date: 2015/02/20 Success Through Scienceo Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Packa e1 2.3°C Packa e2 1.3°C Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt GENERAL COMMENTS Page 11 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M -El -a r" A Bureau Veritas Group company Quality Assurance Report Maxxam Job Number: MB521799 Success Through Science® Stantec Consulting Ltd Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Client Project #: 122511076.200 P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Site Location: QA/QC Batch Num Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed /mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3911905 C_N MatrixSpike Nitrite (N) 2015/02/09 99 % 80-120 Nitrate (N) 2015/02/09 100 % 80-120 Spiked Blank Nitrite (N) 2015/02/09 98 % 80-120 Nitrate (N) 2015/02/09 96 % 80-120 MethodBlank Nitrite (N) 2015/02/09 <0.010 mg/L Nitrate (N) 2015/02/09 <0.10 mg/L RPD Nitrite (N) 2015/02/09 NC % 25 Nitrate (N) 2015/02/09 NC % 25 3911906 C_N MatrixSpike Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 NC % 80-120 Spiked Blank Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 99 % 80-120 Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 MethodBlank Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 <0.010 mg/L Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 <0.10 mg/L RPD Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 NC % 25 Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 0.5 % 25 3911940 SAU MatrixSpike Fluoride (F-) 2015/02/09 97 % 80-120 Spiked Blank Fluoride(F-) 2015/02/09 102 % 80-120 MethodBlank Fluoride(F-) 2015/02/09 <0.10 mg/L RPD Fluoride(F-) 2015/02/09 1.9 % 20 3911941 SAU Spiked Blank pH 2015/02/09 102 % 98-103 RPD pH 2015/02/09 2.6 % N/A 3911970 DRM MatrixSpike [ZL0821-04] Dissolved Chloride (CI) 2015/02/09 NC % 80-120 Spiked Blank Dissolved Chloride (CI) 2015/02/09 104 % 80-120 MethodBlank Dissolved Chloride (CI) 2015/02/09 <1 mg/L RPD [ZL0821-04] Dissolved Chloride (CI) 2015/02/09 0.07 % 20 3911971 DRM MatrixSpike [ZL0821-04] Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2015/02/09 113 % 75-125 Spiked Blank Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2015/02/09 105 % 80-120 MethodBlank Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2015/02/09 <1 mg/L RPD [ZL0821-04] Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2015/02/09 NC % 20 3912104 LLE MatrixSpike Chromium(VI) 2015/02/09 96 % 80-120 Spiked Blank Chromium(VI) 2015/02/09 97 % 80-120 MethodBlank Chromium(VI) 2015/02/09 <0.50 ug/L RPD Chromium(VI) 2015/02/09 NC % 20 3912490 AGA MatrixSpike 1,4-Difluorobenzene 2015/02/10 104 % 70-130 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/10 92 % 70-130 D10 -Ethyl benzene 2015/02/10 91 % 70-130 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 95 % 70-130 Benzene 2015/02/10 108 % 70-130 Toluene 2015/02/10 102 % 70-130 Ethylbenzene 2015/02/10 111 % 70-130 o -Xylene 2015/02/10 108 % 70-130 p+m-Xylene 2015/02/10 98 % 70-130 F1 (C6 -C10) 2015/02/10 85 % 70-130 Spiked Blank 1,4-Difluorobenzene 2015/02/09 101 % 70-130 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/09 96 % 70-130 D10 -Ethyl benzene 2015/02/09 88 % 70-130 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/09 96 % 70-130 Benzene 2015/02/09 103 % 70-130 Toluene 2015/02/09 93 % 70-130 Ethylbenzene 2015/02/09 96 % 70-130 o -Xylene 2015/02/09 98 % 70-130 p+m-Xylene 2015/02/09 90 % 70-130 F1 (C6 -C10) 2015/02/09 115 % 70-130 Page 12 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca MSuccess Through Scienceo A Bureau veritas Group company Stantec Consulting Ltd Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Client Project M 122511076.200 P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Site Location: Quality Assurance Report (Continued) Maxxam Job Number: MB521799 QA/QC Batch Num Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed /mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3912490 AGA MethodBlank 1,4-Difluorobenzene 2015/02/09 99 % 70-130 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/09 97 % 70-130 D10 -Ethyl benzene 2015/02/09 98 % 70-130 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/09 97 % 70-130 Benzene 2015/02/09 <0.20 ug/L Toluene 2015/02/09 <0.20 ug/L Ethylbenzene 2015/02/09 <0.20 ug/L o -Xylene 2015/02/09 <0.20 ug/L p+m-Xylene 2015/02/09 <0.40 ug/L TotalXylenes 2015/02/09 <0.40 ug/L F1 (C6 -C10) 2015/02/09 <25 ug/L F1 (C6 -C10) - BTEX 2015/02/09 <25 ug/L RPD F1 (C6 -C10) 2015/02/10 NC % 30 F1 (C6 -C 10) - BTEX 2015/02/10 NC % 30 3913076 LFE MatrixSpike [ZL0818-03] D10 -Anthracene 2015/02/10 92 % 50-130 D14-Terphenyl(FS) 2015/02/10 96 % 50-130 D8 -Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 91 % 50-130 Benzo(e)pyrene 2015/02/10 103 % 50-130 Biphenyl 2015/02/10 96 % 50-130 Perylene 2015/02/10 85 % 50-130 Acenaphthene 2015/02/10 93 % 50-130 Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 91 % 50-130 Anthracene 2015/02/10 94 % 50-130 Benzo(a)anthracene 2015/02/10 100 % 50-130 Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 99 % 50-130 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 112 % 50-130 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2015/02/10 85 % 50-130 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 103 % 50-130 Chrysene 2015/02/10 100 % 50-130 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2015/02/10 67 % 50-130 Fluoranthene 2015/02/10 97 % 50-130 Fluorene 2015/02/10 96 % 50-130 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2015/02/10 100 % 50-130 1 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 99 % 50-130 2 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 95 % 50-130 Naphthalene 2015/02/10 90 % 50-130 Phenanthrene 2015/02/10 94 % 50-130 Pyrene 2015/02/10 98 % 50-130 Spiked Blank D10 -Anthracene 2015/02/10 87 % 50-130 D14-Terphenyl(FS) 2015/02/10 89 % 50-130 D8 -Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 88 % 50-130 Benzo(e)pyrene 2015/02/10 99 % 50-130 Biphenyl 2015/02/10 97 % 50-130 Perylene 2015/02/10 73 % 50-130 Acenaphthene 2015/02/10 94 % 50-130 Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 89 % 50-130 Anthracene 2015/02/10 89 % 50-130 Benzo(a)anthracene 2015/02/10 100 % 50-130 Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 97 % 50-130 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 91 % 50-130 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2015/02/10 72 % 50-130 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 104 % 50-130 Chrysene 2015/02/10 96 % 50-130 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2015/02/10 54 % 50-130 Fluoranthene 2015/02/10 93 % 50-130 Page 13 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M- a ■ n Success Through Science® A Bureau Veritas Group company Stantec Consulting Ltd Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Client Project #: 122511076.200 P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Site Location: Quality Assurance Report (Continued) Maxxam Job Number: MB521799 QA/QC Batch Num Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed /mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3913076 LFE Spiked Blank Fluorene 2015/02/10 95 % 50-130 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2015/02/10 87 % 50-130 1 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 100 % 50-130 2 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 97 % 50-130 Naphthalene 2015/02/10 93 % 50-130 Phenanthrene 2015/02/10 94 % 50-130 Pyrene 2015/02/10 95 % 50-130 MethodBlank D10 -Anthracene 2015/02/10 88 % 50-130 D14-Terphenyl(FS) 2015/02/10 81 % 50-130 D8 -Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 84 % 50-130 Benzo(e)pyrene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Biphenyl 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Perylene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Acenaphthene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Anthracene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Benzo(a)anthracene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Chrysene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Fluoranthene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Fluorene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L 1 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L 2 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Naphthalene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Phenanthrene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L Pyrene 2015/02/10 <0.010 ug/L RPD [ZL0819-03] Benzo(e)pyrene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Biphenyl 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Perylene 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Acenaphthene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Acenaphthylene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Anthracene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Benzo(a)anthracene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Benzo(b/j)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Chrysene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Fluoranthene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Fluorene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 1 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 2 -Methylnaphthalene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Naphthalene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Phenanthrene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Pyrene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 3913158 ZZ MatrixSpike o-Terphenyl 2015/02/10 95 % 60-130 F2(Cl 0-C16Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 NC % 50-130 F3(Cl 6-C34Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 NC % 50-130 F4 (C34-050 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 103 % 50-130 Page 14 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca M- a ■ n Success Through Sciences A Bureau Veritas Group company Stantec Consulting Ltd Attention: Alicia Wierzbicka Client Project #: 122511076.200 P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Site Location: Quality Assurance Report (Continued) Maxxam Job Number: MB521799 QA/QC Date Batch Analyzed Num Init QC Type Parameter /mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3913158 ZZ Spiked Blank o-Terphenyl 2015/02/10 94 % 60-130 F2(Cl 0-C16Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 96 % 60-130 F3(Cl 6-C34Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 102 % 60-130 F4 (C34-050 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 100 % 60-130 MethodBlank o-Terphenyl 2015/02/10 93 % 60-130 F2(Cl 0-C16Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 <100 ug/L F3(C16-C34Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 <200 ug/L F4 (C34-050 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 <200 ug/L RPD F2(C10-C16Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 41.8(l) % 30 F3(C16-C34Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 32.1 (1) % 30 F4 (C34-050 Hydrocarbons) 2015/02/10 NC % 30 3915074 MC MatrixSpike [ZL0818-05] Mercury(Hg) 2015/02/11 95 % 75-125 Spiked Blank Mercury(Hg) 2015/02/11 99 % 80-120 MethodBlank Mercury(Hg) 2015/02/11 0.02, RDL=0.01 ug/L RPD ZL0818-05 Mercur H 2015/02/11 NC % 20 N/A = Not Applicable Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency. NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was too small to permit a reliable recovery calculation (matrix spike concentration was less than 2x that of the native sample concentration). NC (Duplicate RPD): The duplicate RPD was not calculated. The concentration in the sample and/or duplicate was too low to permit a reliable RPD calculation (one or both samples < 5x RDL). (1 ) Recovery or RPD forthis parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria. Page 15 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ra Mme? �c-ar" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Validation Signature Page Maxxam Job #: 6521799 Success Through Scienceo The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s). C`O(r* CZW�4L Cristina Carriere, Scientific Services Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5. 10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Page 16 of 16 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax_ (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca A Bureau Veritas Group Company Your Project #: MB521799 Site Location: 1225 Your C.O.C. #: B521799 Attention: SUB CONTRACTOR MAXXAM ANALYTICS CAMPOBELLO 6740 CAMPOBELLO ROAD MISSISSAUGA, ON CANADA L5N 21-8 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B510567 Received: 2015/02/10, 08:30 Sample Matrix: Water # Samples Received: 5 Success Through Sciencee Report Date: 2015/02/13 Report #: R1803012 Version: 1 Reference Method suffix "m" indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. * RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. Encryption Key Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Cynny Hagen, Project Manager Assistant Email: CHagen@maxxam.ca Phone# (403) 735-2273 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Total cover pages: 1 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Max— Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone(403) 291-3077 Fax(403) 291-9468 Page 1 of 10 Date Date Analyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Analytical Method Cyanide (weak acid dissociable) 5 N/A 2015/02/12 CAL SOP -00051 EPA 335.4 R1 m Hardness 5 N/A 2015/02/10 AB WI -00065 Auto Calc Elements by ICP - Dissolved 5 N/A 2015/02/10 AB SOP -00042 EPA 200.7 CFR 2012 m Elements by ICPMS - Dissolved 5 N/A 2015/02/10 AB SOP -00043 EPA 200.8 R5.4 m Reference Method suffix "m" indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. * RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. Encryption Key Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Cynny Hagen, Project Manager Assistant Email: CHagen@maxxam.ca Phone# (403) 735-2273 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Total cover pages: 1 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Max— Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone(403) 291-3077 Fax(403) 291-9468 Page 1 of 10 MSX car-" A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B510567 Report Date: 2015/02/13 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Client Project #: MB521799 Site Location: 1225 REGULATED METALS (CCME/AT1) - DISSOLVED Success Through Science® MaxxamID LQ9643 LQ9644 LQ9645 LQ9646 LQ9647 Sampling Date 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 COC Number B521799 B521799 B521799 B521799 B521799 UNITS MW103 ZL0818) MW102 (ZL0819) MW101 (ZL0820) MW15-1 (ZL0821) MW15-20 RDL QC Batch (ZL0824 Elements Dissolved Aluminum (Al) mg/L <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0043 0.0042 0.0039 0.0030 7803828 Dissolved Antimony (Sb) mg/L <0.00060 <0.00060 <0.00060 <0.00060 <0.00060 0.00060 7803828 Dissolved Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.0032 0.0089 0.0072 0.0057 0.0058 0.00020 7803828 Dissolved Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.11 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.010 7803929 Dissolved Beryllium (Be) mg/L <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0010 7803828 Dissolved Boron (B) mg/L 0.044 0.062 0.028 0.028 0.027 0.020 7803929 Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) mg/L <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 <0.000010 0.000010 7803828 Dissolved Calcium (Ca) mg/L 120 180 190 210 210 0.30 7803929 Dissolved Chromium (Cr) mg/L <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0010 7803828 Dissolved Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.00071 0.00083 0.00067 0.00073 0.00072 0.00030 7803828 Dissolved Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.00051 0.00037 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00020 7803828 Dissolved Iron (Fe) mg/L 8.8 8.4 37 15 15 0.060 7803929 Dissolved Lead (Pb) mg/L <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00020 7803828 Dissolved Lithium (Li) mg/L <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 <0.020 0.020 7803929 Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 14 13 27 23 23 0.20 7803929 Dissolved Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.86 0.75 3.5 1.6 1.6 0.0040 7803929 Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.0026 0.0040 0.00024 0.00041 0.00040 0.00020 7803828 Dissolved Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.0012 0.0011 <0.00050 0.00063 0.00060 0.00050 7803828 Dissolved Phosphorus (P) mg/L <0.10 <0.10 1.6 0.26 0.24 0.10 7803929 Dissolved Potassium (K) mg/L 1.5 3.7 4.2 2.5 2.4 0.30 7803929 Dissolved Selenium (Se) mg/L <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00040 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00020 7803828 Dissolved Silicon (Si) mg/L 4.9 5.6 11 6.1 6.1 0.10 7803929 Dissolved Silver (Ag) mg/L <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.00010 7803828 Dissolved Sodium (Na) mg/L 16 11 3.3 57 57 0.50 7803929 Dissolved Strontium (Sr) mg/L 0.27 0.60 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.020 7803929 Dissolved Sulphur (S) mg/L 6.0 65 1.7 1.1 1.1 0.20 7803929 Dissolved Thallium (TI) mg/L <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 0.00020 7803828 Dissolved Tin(Sn) mg/L <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0010 7803828 Dissolved Titanium (Ti) mg/L <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0014 0.0010 7803828 Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/L 0.00047 0.00027 <0.00010 0.00056 0.00055 0.00010 7803828 Dissolved Vanadium (V) mg/L <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 7803828 Dissolved Zinc (Zn) mg/L 1 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 1 0.0030 17803828 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit Page 2 of 10 M -El >62 c� t -Yl A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B510567 Report Date: 2015/02/13 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Client Project #: MB521799 Site Location: 1225 RESULTS OF CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATER Success Through Scienceo Maxxam ID LQ9643 LQ9644 LQ9645 LQ9646 LQ9647 Sampling Date 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 2015/02/03 COC Number B521799 B521799 B521799 B521799 B521799 UNITS MW103 ZL0818) MW102 (ZL0819) MW101 (ZL0820) MW15-1 (ZL0821) MW15-20 RDL QC Batch (ZL0824 Calculated Parameters Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 370 500 580 620 620 0.50 7803448 Misc. Inorganics Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide (CN) mg/L <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0010 7806594 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit Page 3 of 10 A Bureau Veritas Group Company Maxxam Job #: B510567 Report Date: 2015/02/13 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Client Project #: MB521799 Site Location: 1225 Package 1 Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt General Comments Results relate only to the items tested. Page 4 of 10 Success Through Scienceo M A Bureau Veritas Group Company Quality Assurance Report Maxxam Job Number: CB510567 MAXXAM ANALYTICS Attention: SUB CONTRACTOR Client Project #: MB521799 P.O. #: Site Location: 1225 Success Through Scienceo QA/QC Batch Num Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed /mm/dd Value Recovery UNITS QC Limits 7803828 PC5 Matrix Spike Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2015/02/10 110 % 80-120 Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2015/02/10 59(l) % 80-120 Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2015/02/10 105 % 80-120 Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2015/02/10 111 % 80-120 Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/10 107 % 80-120 Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2015/02/10 99 % 80-120 Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2015/02/10 97 % 80-120 Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2015/02/10 98 % 80-120 Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2015/02/10 107 % 80-120 Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2015/02/10 98 % 80-120 Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2015/02/10 105 % 80-120 Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2015/02/10 50(l) % 80-120 Dissolved Thallium (TI) 2015/02/10 97 % 80-120 Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2015/02/10 103 % 80-120 Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 Dissolved Uranium (U) 2015/02/10 100 % 80-120 Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2015/02/10 109 % 80-120 Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2015/02/10 105 % 80-120 Spiked Blank Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2015/02/10 102 % 80-120 Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2015/02/10 96 % 80-120 Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2015/02/10 95 % 80-120 Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2015/02/10 94 % 80-120 Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/10 95 % 80-120 Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/10 93 % 80-120 Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2015/02/10 94 % 80-120 Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2015/02/10 93 % 80-120 Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2015/02/10 94 % 80-120 Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2015/02/10 93 % 80-120 Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2015/02/10 92 % 80-120 Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2015/02/10 96 % 80-120 Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2015/02/10 95 % 80-120 Dissolved Thallium (TI) 2015/02/10 93 % 80-120 Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2015/02/10 99 % 80-120 Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2015/02/10 88 % 80-120 Dissolved Uranium (U) 2015/02/10 92 % 80-120 Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2015/02/10 96 % 80-120 Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2015/02/10 98 % 80-120 Method Blank Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2015/02/10 <0.0030 mg/L Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2015/02/10 0.00067, RDL=0.00060 mg/L Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2015/02/10 <0.00020 mg/L Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2015/02/10 <0.0010 mg/L Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/10 <0.000020 mg/L Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/10 <0.0010 mg/L Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2015/02/10 <0.00030 mg/L Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2015/02/10 <0.00020 mg/L Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2015/02/10 <0.00020 mg/L Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2015/02/10 <0.00020 mg/L Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2015/02/10 <0.00050 mg/L Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2015/02/10 <0.00020 mg/L Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2015/02/10 <0.00010 mg/L Dissolved Thallium (TI) 2015/02/10 <0.00020 mg/L Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2015/02/10 <0.0010 mg/L Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2015/02/10 <0.0010 mg/L Dissolved Uranium (U) 2015/02/10 <0.00010 mg/L Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 61`2 Telephone(403) 291-3077 Fax(403) 291-9468 Page 5 of 10 MSX car-" A Bureau Veritas Group Company MAXXAM ANALYTICS Attention: SUB CONTRACTOR Client Project #: MB521799 P.O. #: Site Location: 1225 Quality Assurance Report (Continued) Maxxam Job Number: CB510567 Success Through Science® QA/QC Batch Num Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed /mm/dd Value Recovery UNITS QC Limits 7803828 PC5 Method Blank Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2015/02/10 <0.0010 mg/L Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2015/02/10 <0.0030 mg/L RPD Dissolved Aluminum (AI) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2015/02/10 6.2 % 20 Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2015/02/10 6.5 % 20 Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Thallium (TI) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Uranium (U) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 7803929 PL Matrix Spike Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2015/02/10 92 % 80-120 Dissolved Boron (B) 2015/02/10 95 % 80-120 Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2015/02/10 NC % 80-120 Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2015/02/10 90 % 80-120 Dissolved Lithium (Li) 2015/02/10 98 % 80-120 Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2015/02/10 96 % 80-120 Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2015/02/10 95 % 80-120 Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2015/02/10 102 % 80-120 Dissolved Potassium (K) 2015/02/10 100 % 80-120 Dissolved Silicon (Si) 2015/02/10 91 % 80-120 Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2015/02/10 NC % 80-120 Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2015/02/10 92 % 80-120 Spiked Blank Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2015/02/10 97 % 80-120 Dissolved Boron (B) 2015/02/10 100 % 80-120 Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2015/02/10 99 % 80-120 Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2015/02/10 98 % 80-120 Dissolved Lithium (Li) 2015/02/10 102 % 80-120 Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2015/02/10 107 % 80-120 Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2015/02/10 102 % 80-120 Dissolved Potassium (K) 2015/02/10 106 % 80-120 Dissolved Silicon (Si) 2015/02/10 99 % 80-120 Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2015/02/10 103 % 80-120 Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2015/02/10 98 % 80-120 Method Blank Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2015/02/10 <0.010 mg/L Dissolved Boron (B) 2015/02/10 <0.020 mg/L Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2015/02/10 <0.30 mg/L Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2015/02/10 <0.060 mg/L Dissolved Lithium (Li) 2015/02/10 <0.020 mg/L Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2015/02/10 <0.20 mg/L Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2015/02/10 <0.0040 mg/L Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2015/02/10 <0.10 mg/L Dissolved Potassium (K) 2015/02/10 <0.30 mg/L Dissolved Silicon (Si) 2015/02/10 <0.10 mg/L Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2015/02/10 <0.50 mg/L Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 6P2 Telephone(403) 291-3077 Fax(403) 291-9468 Page 6 of 10 MSX car-" A Bureau Veritas Group Company MAXXAM ANALYTICS Attention: SUB CONTRACTOR Client Project #: MB521799 P.O. #: Site Location: 1225 Quality Assurance Report (Continued) Maxxam Job Number: CB510567 Success Through Science® QA/QC Batch Num Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed /mm/dd Value Recovery UNITS QC Limits 7803929 PL Method Blank Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2015/02/10 <0.020 mg/L Dissolved Sulphur (S) 2015/02/10 <0.20 mg/L RPD Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2015/02/10 1.1 % 20 Dissolved Boron (B) 2015/02/10 1.6 % 20 Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2015/02/10 1.5 % 20 Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2015/02/10 1.8 % 20 Dissolved Lithium (Li) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2015/02/10 1.2 % 20 Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2015/02/10 0.8 % 20 Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 Dissolved Potassium (K) 2015/02/10 2.2 % 20 Dissolved Silicon (Si) 2015/02/10 0.9 % 20 Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2015/02/10 1.4 % 20 Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2015/02/10 1.0 % 20 Dissolved Sulphur (S) 2015/02/10 NC % 20 7806594 API Matrix Spike Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide (CN) 2015/02/12 53(l) % 80-120 Spiked Blank Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide (CN) 2015/02/12 100 % 80-120 Method Blank Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide (CN) 2015/02/12 <0.0010 mg/L RPD Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide CN 2015/02/12 NC % 20 Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was too small to permit a reliable recovery calculation (matrix spike concentration was less than 2x that of the native sample concentration). NC (Duplicate RPD): The duplicate RPD was not calculated. The concentration in the sample and/or duplicate was too low to permit a reliable RPD calculation (one or both samples < 5x RDL). ( 1 ) Recovery or RPD for this parameter is outside control limits. The overall quality control for this analysis meets acceptability criteria. Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Calgary: 2021 - 41st Avenue N.E. T2E 61`2 Telephone(403) 291-3077 Fax(403) 291-9468 Page 7 of 10 Success Through Scienceo A Bureau Veritas Group Company Validation Signature Page Maxxam Job #: B510567 The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s). Ghayasuddin Khan, M.Sc., B.H., P.Chem, Scientific Specialist I Peng Liang, Senior Analyst Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Page 8 of 10 I17AXXAM ANALYTICS/ Page #: 1 6740 Campobello Road Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 / rY1 Stantec Consulting Ltd - Stoney Phone: (905) 817-5700 ! ■ Creek Fax: (905) 817-5777 . Maxxam PM Renata Spena SUBCONTRACTING REQUEST FORM To: Campo to Calgary Subcontract Job# B521799 -!Yes ) International Sample/BioHazard (if yes, add copy of Movement Cert., heat treat is requh-gid prior to disposal) ❑ Yes No Special Protocol (ifves, Protocol } Sample ID Matrix Test(s) Required Container Date Samnled Date Required ZL0818-07R \ MW 103 W CCME Low Level Free Cyanide in I(CYN) ` 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 Water ZL0818-08R\ MW 103 W CCME Metals (low Level), dissolved 1(DISM) 2015102/03 2015/02/13 ALSO NEED HARDNESS FOR ALL SAMPLES ZLO819-07R \ MW 102 W CCME Low Level Free Cyanide in I (CYN) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 Water ZLO819-08R \ MW 102 W CCME Metals (low Level), dissolved 1(DISM) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 ZL0820-07R \ MW 101 W CCME Low Level Free Cyanide in I(CYN) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 Water ZL0820-08R \ MW 101 W CCME Metals (low Level), dissolved l(DISM) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 ZL0821-07R.\ MW 15-1 W CCME Low Level Free Cyanide in I(CYN) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 Water ZLO821-08+, \ MW 15-1 W CCME Metals (iow Level), dissolved I(DIS14i) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 ZL0824-07R \ MW 15-20 W CCME Low Level Free Cyanide in l(CYN) 2015/02/03 2015/02/13 Water ZLO824-08R \ MW 15-20 W CCME Metals (low Level), dissolved I(DISM- " 2015/02/13 Temp. 1 i .::mp. 2 Temp. 3 Copier # I _ Custod Seal Present NO NO Custody Seal Intact Ice Present Upon Receipt NO a Cooler #2 Custody Seal Present YES NO o = t' Custody Seal Intact YES NO — c.► Ice Present Upon Receipt YES NO o ; Cooler 03 Custody Seal Present IIYES NO CLD Custody Seal Intact YES NO o o Ice Present Upon Receipt _[YES NO — ` CA Receiving Maxxam Location: Campo to Calgary Subcontract JOB # L} rn RelinquislicLd by (Sign) `�.✓�� (Print) Date and Time 6 e5 'Received by(Sign) C' - (Print) Late and Time�2a-/�� of y Subcontract Comments SUBCCMEMED IS FOR CCME DISSOLVED METALS & HARDNF6S Continued... Page 9 of 10 i_ "m q 1 iO NI ci Jl a rn 4�a:u—hasscsr*11+;sf�:.-v •a'c m'a Uncur :: y7v� KLredxaoRY7tdsr> lBesllrLfa llWAOTef4}Sl9^S'STN:rx Fk`aF'S Fnu @1?8' w.ausn.0 Renata Spa vagel� • rNiORMTFA �II Wow&0 BC153 � III J51onl: B121799 BadeQaxf. [4VCeCEWiDX1o;:I" REPORT NF4RlIATgN400"hm0.c0 C nage 113731 S12n'.eCComVFRgLIS Gxxn'hrw STAB TF . Acmu Pap* Cow kerne � ! ' � � � �, � ay f 1630 R•20 H'ti1' F\'1x784 II 836 Paran,ound DR*, $vile 208 �„ O IiAwvA f�' rba r 122511676 so's?1 b%y geek pN 18J 093 - -, 1725 14*1 Wf I amill 1I1,y11a n Ae�ataSpra 605!N, K,•1 � :n Fro- ERW S.3n1eC.P=uni5Puy2�@.Sm?fRS�5l2W$Gwn E—a. F--� L'T 5r t d + f• 11' '1'` 1 1 f' f f Y$cSEQI^Sr€ti%El5€EF S+"£GFaL� - -- �:a,•:. 11 1• ' . a Rfl�uW 15Un4udl TAT: p,,� Rs j ..ry.fN70 {�1b1i:: cow *ft �!(i5 - ��::!'q�M : 1 �7a'Se' �Aes#i1 �Nnxd+cimd QC�IE �SYwa. :nfs Blw � i>AnkrJ tFr=Si XossytrYl�mcglsaa �Tf7ei Orv+,uav �I'ai5d [la�xt �5!¢nsraB�S m ✓�1a91al151rgfNr�,fpur+nnvswns,&70nd+Rar,f,�,neS �fnHe3 �,egr.�l!,r �fa RSG �frBSR trhmP4'M � nt •,xfrlprYWRstle'rP,rdfses ]cf SAetifc XwNi Till le epoks la cnAR surimkWni inchYk Ccaem on CenfitaP Df Analyses j Y.V P q < 0 4� IfeBCatrefuml:rew f as wu Sa °. af4Mlax. 5 02 n:.sa r%owSr�F+n LL Va = < �' i sa faw Cs vnree µ\.0 o3 i,�s �(' loll, 140 1 VL I TQa�I1w V� l� i .1 4 I ' ' 1 Y 'RUI,NcUL%H)D BY+,S�fafl�a q BaIe:1YYl@INal Slue RiC9VEB8YISMgNturei4u,fY D1k:IMYAlwtrogl Tema 91--dnd nN sudmlXsd Ca,maurrNseOde CwrrnM Ssff Ycs Xf o-- Nfle,mkgrgs imurmoo u c4w4w. W al.,,am AR LLGS Page 10 of 10 .. r. Nasurc YNW,s. tl�n+ Max(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company 01.1 Attention:Alicia Wierzbicka Stantec Consulting Ltd 1331 Clyde Avenue Suite 400 Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 MAXXAM JOB #: B521714 Received: 2015/02/05, 16:30 Sample Matrix: Soil # Samples Received: 1 Analyses Success Through Science Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Your Project #: 122511076.200 Your C.O.C. #: 498229-05-01 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Report #: R3327671 Version: 1 - Final CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Date Date Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method Reference Semivolatile Organic Compounds (TCLP) 1 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00301 EPA 8270 m Cyanide (WAD) in Leachates 1 N/A 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00457 OMOE 3015 m Fluoride by ISE in Leachates 1 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00449 SM 22 4500 F C m Mercury (TCLP Leachable) (mg/L) 1 N/A 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00453 EPA 7470 Total Metals in TCLP Leachate by ICPMS 1 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00447 EPA 6020 m Ignitability of a Sample 1 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 CAM SOP -00432 EPA 1030 Moisture 1 N/A 2015/02/06 CAM SOP -00445 Carter 2nd ed 51.2 m Nitrate(NO3) + Nitrite(NO2) in Leachate 1 N/A 2015/02/10 CAM SOP -00440 SM 22 4500-N031/NO2B Polychlorinated Biphenyl in Soil 1 2015/02/06 2015/02/06 CAM SOP -00309 EPA 8082A m TCLP - %Solids 1 2015/02/06 2015/02/07 CAM SOP -00401 EPA 1311 m TCLP - Extraction Fluid 1 N/A 2015/02/07 CAM SOP -00401 EPA 1311 m TCLP - Initial and final pH 1 N/A 2015/02/07 CAM SOP -00401 EPA 1311 m TCLP Zero Headspace Extraction 1 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 CAM SOP -00430 EPA 1311 m VOCs in ZHE Leachates 1 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 CAM SOP 00226 EPA 8260 m Remarks: Maxxam Analytics has performed all analytical testing herein in accordance with ISO 17025 and the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. All methodologies comply with this document and are validated for use in the laboratory. The methods and techniques employed in this analysis conform to the performance criteria (detection limits, accuracy and precision) as outlined in the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. The CWS PHC methods employed by Maxxam conform to all prescribed elements of the reference method and performance based elements have been validated. All modifications have been validated and proven equivalent following the 'Alberta Environment Draft Addenda to the CWS-PHC, Appendix 6, Validation of Alternate Methods'. Documentation is available upon request. Maxxam has made the following improvements to the CWS-PHC reference benchmark method: (i) Headspace for F1; and, (ii) Mechanical extraction for F2 -F4. Note: F4G cannot be added to the C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. The extraction date for samples field preserved with methanol for F1 and Volatile Organic Compounds is considered to be the date sampled. Maxxam Analytics is accredited for all specific parameters as required by Ontario Regulation 153/04. Maxxam Analytics is limited in liability to the actual cost of analysis unless otherwise agreed in writing. There is no other warranty expressed or implied. Samples will be retained at Maxxam Analytics for three weeks from receipt of data or as per contract. Reference Method suffix "m" indicates test methods incorporate validated modifications from specific reference methods to improve performance. * RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference. Page 1 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Max(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company 01.1 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Your Project #: 122511076.200 Your C.O.C. #: 498229-05-01 Attention:Alicia Wierzbicka Stantec Consulting Ltd 1331 Clyde Avenue Suite 400 Ottawa, ON K2C 3G4 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS MAXXAM JOB #: B521714 Received: 2015/02/05, 16:30 Encryption Key Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager. Parnian Baber, Project Manager Email: pbaber@maxxam.ca Phone# (905) 817-5700 Success Through Science Report Date: 2015/02/11 Report #: R3327671 Version: 1 - Final Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Total Cover Pages : 2 Page 2 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 2L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Maaam A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0� Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI O.REG 558 TCLP VOLATILE ORGANICS (SOIL) Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP RDL QC Batch Charge/Prep Analysis Amount Extracted (Wet Weight) (g) N/A 25 N/A 3913315 Volatile Organics Leachable Benzene mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable Carbon Tetrachloride mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable Chlorobenzene mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable Chloroform mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene mg/L ND 0.050 3913564 Leachable 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene mg/L ND 0.050 3913564 Leachable 1,2-Dichloroethane mg/L ND 0.050 3913564 Leachable 1,1-Dichloroethylene mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane) mg/L ND 0.20 3913564 Leachable Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) mg/L ND 1.0 3913564 Leachable Tetrachloroethylene mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable Trichloroethylene mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Leachable Vinyl Chloride mg/L ND 0.020 3913564 Surrogate Recovery (%) Leachable 4-Bromofluorobenzene % 94 3913564 Leachable D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 106 3913564 Leachable D8 -Toluene % 94 3913564 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch N/A = Not Applicable ND = Not detected Success Through Science Page 3 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company "0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI O.REG 558 TCLP INORGANICS PACKAGE (SOIL) Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP RDL QC Batch Inorganics Leachable Fluoride (F-) mg/L 0.13 0.10 3913194 Leachable Free Cyanide mg/L ND (1) 0.010 3913208 Leachable Nitrite (N) mg/L ND 0.10 3913192 Leachable Nitrate (N) mg/L ND 1.0 3913192 Leachable Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L ND 1.0 3913192 Metals Leachable Mercury (Hg) mg/L ND 0.0010 3912532 Leachable Arsenic (As) mg/L ND 0.20 3912698 Leachable Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.39 0.20 3912698 Leachable Boron (B) mg/L ND 0.10 3912698 Leachable Cadmium (Cd) mg/L ND 0.050 3912698 Leachable Chromium (Cr) mg/L ND 0.10 3912698 Leachable Lead (Pb) mg/L ND 0.10 3912698 Leachable Selenium (Se) mg/L ND 0.10 3912698 Leachable Silver (Ag) mg/L ND 0.010 3912698 Leachable Uranium (U) mg/L ND 0.010 3912698 RDL= Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not detected (1) Detection Limit was raised due to matrix interferences. Success Through Science Page 4 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 21L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Maaam A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0� Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI O.REG 558 TCLP LEACHATE PREPARATION (SOIL) Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP RDL QC Batch Inorganics Final pH pH 6.12 3912128 Initial pH pH 9.21 3912128 TCLP - % Solids % 100 0.2 3912126 TCLP Extraction Fluid N/A FLUID 1 3912127 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Success Through Science Page 5 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company "o- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI O.REG 558 TCLP SEMI -VOLATILE ORGANICS (SOIL) Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP RDL QC Batch Semivolatile Organics Leachable Benzo(a)pyrene ug/L ND 0.10 3913097 Leachable m/p-Cresol ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Leachable o -Cresol ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Leachable Cresol Total ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Leachable 2,4-Dichlorophenol ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Leachable 2,4-Dinitrotoluene ug/L ND 10 3913097 Leachable Hexachlorobenzene ug/L ND 10 3913097 Leachable Hexachlorobutadiene ug/L ND 10 3913097 Leachable Hexachloroethane ug/L ND 10 3913097 Leachable Nitrobenzene ug/L ND 10 3913097 Leachable Pentachlorophenol ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Leachable Pyridine ug/L ND 10 3913097 Leachable 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Leachable 2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol ug/L ND 0.50 3913097 Leachable 2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol ug/L ND 2.5 3913097 Surrogate Recovery (%) Leachable 2,4,6-Tribromophenol % 82 3913097 Leachable 2-Fluorobiphenyl n% 71 3913097 Leachable 2-Fluorophenol e% 61 3913097 Leachable D14-Terphenyl (FS) % 75 3913097 Leachable D5 -Nitrobenzene % 80 3913097 Leachable D5 -Phenol % 29 3913097 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not detected Success Through Science Page 6 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 21L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Maaam A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0� Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SOIL Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP RDL QC Batch Inorganics Moisture % 24 1.0 1 3911066 RDL = Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Success Through Science Page 7 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company "0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS BY GC -ECD (SOIL) Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP RDL QC Batch PCBs Aroclor 1016 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1221 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1232 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1242 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1248 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1254 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1260 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1262 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Aroclor 1268 ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Total PCB ug/g ND 0.010 3910790 Surrogate Recovery (%) Decachlorobiphenyl % 81 3910790 RDL= Reportable Detection Limit QC Batch = Quality Control Batch ND = Not detected Success Through Science Page 8 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 21L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Maaam A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0� Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI MISCELLANEOUS (SOIL) Maxxam ID ZL0548 Sampling Date 2015/02/02 COC Number 498229-05-01 Units TCLP QC Batch Inorganics Ignitability N/A NF/NI 3915156 QC Batch = Quality Control Batch Success Through Science Page 9 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Maaam A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0� Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Maxxam ID: ZL0548 Sample ID: TCLP Matrix: Soil Test Description TEST SUMMARY Instrumentation Batch Success Through Science Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Collected: 2015/02/02 Shipped: Received: 2015/02/05 Extracted Date Analyzed Analyst Semivolatile Organic Compounds (TCLP) GC/MS 3913097 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Wendy Zhao Cyanide (WAD) in Leachates SKAL/CN 3913208 N/A 2015/02/10 Xuanhong Qiu Fluoride by ISE in Leachates ISE 3913194 2015/02/09 2015/02/10 Surinder Rai Mercury (TCLP Leachable) (mg/L) CVAA 3912532 N/A 2015/02/10 Magdalena Carlos Total Metals in TCLP Leachate by ICPMS ICP1/MS 3912698 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Cristina Petran Ignitability of a Sample BAL 3915156 2015/02/11 2015/02/11 Chun Yan Moisture BAL 3911066 N/A 2015/02/06 Chun Yan Nitrate(NO3) + Nitrite(NO2) in Leachate LACH 3913192 N/A 2015/02/10 Chandra Nandlal Polychlorinated Biphenyl in Soil GC/ECD 3910790 2015/02/06 2015/02/06 Li Peng TCLP - %Solids BAL 3912126 2015/02/06 2015/02/07 Jian (Ken) Wang TCLP - Extraction Fluid 3912127 N/A 2015/02/07 Jian (Ken) Wang TCLP - Initial and final pH PH 3912128 N/A 2015/02/07 Jian (Ken) Wang TCLP Zero Headspace Extraction 3913315 2015/02/09 2015/02/09 Fozia Tabasum VOCs in ZHE Leachates GC/MS 3913564 2015/02/10 2015/02/10 Rebecca Schultz Page 10 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 21L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Maaam A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0� Maxxam Job #: 6521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 GENERAL COMMENTS Each temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt Package 1 1.3°C Sample ZL0548-01 : NF/N1= Non Flammable and Non Ignitable Results relate only to the items tested. Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI Success Through Science Page 11 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 21-8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT Success Through Science QA/QC Batch Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3910790 LPG Matrix Spike Decachlorobiphenyl 2015/02/06 100 % 60-130 Aroclor 1260 2015/02/06 112 % 60-130 Total PCB 2015/02/06 112 % 60-130 3910790 LPG Spiked Blank Decachlorobiphenyl 2015/02/06 81 % 60-130 Aroclor 1260 2015/02/06 101 % 60-130 Total PCB 2015/02/06 101 % 60-130 3910790 LPG Method Blank Decachlorobiphenyl 2015/02/06 85 % 60-130 Aroclor 1016 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1221 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1232 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1242 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1248 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1254 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1260 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1262 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Aroclor 1268 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 Total PCB 2015/02/06 ND, ug/g RDL=0.010 3910790 LPG RPD Aroclor 1242 2015/02/06 NC % 50 Aroclor 1248 2015/02/06 NC % 50 Aroclor 1254 2015/02/06 NC % 50 Aroclor 1260 2015/02/06 NC % 50 Total PCB 2015/02/06 NC % 50 3911066 BOP RPD Moisture 2015/02/06 1.2 % 20 3912532 MC Matrix Spike Leachable Mercury (Hg) 2015/02/10 111 % 80-120 3912532 MC Leachate Blank Leachable Mercury (Hg) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.0010 3912532 MC Spiked Blank Leachable Mercury (Hg) 2015/02/10 96 % 80-120 3912532 MC Method Blank Leachable Mercury (Hg) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.0010 3912532 MC RPD Leachable Mercury (Hg) 2015/02/10 NC % 25 3912698 CPE Matrix Spike Leachable Arsenic (As) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 Leachable Barium (Ba) 2015/02/09 NC % 75-125 Leachable Boron (B) 2015/02/09 105 % 75-125 Leachable Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/09 99 % 75-125 Leachable Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 Leachable Lead (Pb) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 Leachable Selenium (Se) 2015/02/09 100 % 75-125 Leachable Silver (Ag) 2015/02/09 100 % 75-125 Leachable Uranium (U) 2015/02/09 97 % 75-125 3912698 CPE Leachate Blank Leachable Arsenic (As) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.20 Page 12 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT-D) Success Through Science QA/QC Batch Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits Leachable Barium (Ba) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.20 Leachable Boron (B) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.050 Leachable Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Lead (Pb) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Selenium (Se) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Silver (Ag) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.010 Leachable Uranium (U) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.010 3912698 CPE Spiked Blank Leachable Arsenic (As) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 Leachable Barium (Ba) 2015/02/09 97 % 7S-125 Leachable Boron (B) 2015/02/09 107 % 75-125 Leachable Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 Leachable Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/09 99 % 75-125 Leachable Lead (Pb) 2015/02/09 101 % 75-125 Leachable Selenium (Se) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 Leachable Silver (Ag) 2015/02/09 98 % 7S-125 Leachable Uranium (U) 2015/02/09 98 % 75-125 3912698 CPE Method Blank Leachable Arsenic (As) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.20 Leachable Barium (Ba) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.20 Leachable Boron (B) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.050 Leachable Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Lead (Pb) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Selenium (Se) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Silver (Ag) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.010 Leachable Uranium (U) 2015/02/09 ND, mg/L RDL=0.010 3912698 CPE RPD Leachable Arsenic (As) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Barium (Ba) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Boron (B) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Cadmium (Cd) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Chromium (Cr) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Lead (Pb) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Selenium (Se) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Page 13 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT-D) Success Through Science QA/QC Batch Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits Leachable Silver (Ag) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 Leachable Uranium (U) 2015/02/09 NC % 35 3913097 WZ Matrix Spike [ZL0548-01] Leachable 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 2015/02/10 92 % 10-130 Leachable 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2015/02/10 79 % 30-130 Leachable 2-Fluorophenol 2015/02/10 71 % 10-130 Leachable D14-Terphenyl(FS) 2015/02/10 82 % 30-130 Leachable D5 -Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 90 % 30-130 Leachable D5 -Phenol 2015/02/10 32 % 10-130 Leachable Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 89 % 30-130 Leachable m/p-Cresol 2015/02/10 70 % 10-130 Leachable o -Cresol 2015/02/10 82 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2015/02/10 89 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2015/02/10 87 % 30-130 Leachable Hexachlorobenzene 2015/02/10 93 % 30-130 Leachable Hexachlorobutadiene 2015/02/10 83 % 30-130 Leachable Hexachloroethane 2015/02/10 79 % 30-130 Leachable Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 93 % 30-130 Leachable Pentachlorophenol 2015/02/10 91 % 30-130 Leachable Pyridine 2015/02/10 27 % 10-130 Leachable 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2015/02/10 101 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 90 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 92 % 10-130 3913097 WZ Spiked Blank Leachable 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 2015/02/10 93 % 10-130 Leachable 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2015/02/10 76 % 30-130 Leachable 2-Fluorophenol 2015/02/10 64 % 10-130 Leachable D14-Terphenyl(FS) 2015/02/10 82 % 30-130 Leachable D5 -Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 90 % 30-130 Leachable D5 -Phenol 2015/02/10 33 % 10-130 Leachable Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 89 % 30-130 Leachable m/p-Cresol 2015/02/10 69 % 10-130 Leachable o -Cresol 2015/02/10 83 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2015/02/10 90 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2015/02/10 85 % 30-130 Leachable Hexachlorobenzene 2015/02/10 93 % 30-130 Leachable Hexachlorobutadiene 2015/02/10 82 % 30-130 Leachable Hexachloroethane 2015/02/10 79 % 30-130 Leachable Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 93 % 30-130 Leachable Pentachlorophenol 2015/02/10 92 % 30-130 Leachable Pyridine 2015/02/10 23 % 10-130 Leachable 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2015/02/10 102 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 92 % 10-130 Leachable 2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 92 % 10-130 3913097 WZ Method Blank Leachable 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 2015/02/10 85 % 10-130 Leachable 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2015/02/10 73 % 30-130 Leachable 2-Fluorophenol 2015/02/10 62 % 10-130 Leachable D14-Terphenyl(FS) 2015/02/10 79 % 30-130 Leachable D5 -Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 85 % 30-130 Leachable D5 -Phenol 2015/02/10 30 % 10-130 Leachable Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=0.10 Leachable m/p-Cresol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 Page 14 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT-D) Success Through Science QA/QC Batch Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits Leachable o -Cresol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 Leachable Cresol Total 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 Leachable 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 Leachable 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=10 Leachable Hexachlorobenzene 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=10 Leachable Hexachlorobutadiene 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=10 Leachable Hexachloroethane 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=10 Leachable Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=10 Leachable Pentachlorophenol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 Leachable Pyridine 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=10 Leachable 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 Leachable 2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=0.50 Leachable 2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 ND, ug/L RDL=2.5 3913097 WZ RPD Leachable Benzo(a)pyrene 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable m/p-Cresol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable o -Cresol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Cresol Total 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Hexachlorobenzene 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Hexachlorobutadiene 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Hexachloroethane 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Nitrobenzene 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Pentachlorophenol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable Pyridine 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable 2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 Leachable 2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol 2015/02/10 NC % 40 3913192 C_N Matrix Spike Leachable Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 103 % 80-120 Leachable Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 104 % 80-120 Leachable Nitrate + Nitrite 2015/02/10 104 % 80-120 3913192 C_N Leachate Blank Leachable Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=1.0 Leachable Nitrate + Nitrite 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=1.0 Page 15 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT-D) Success Through Science QA/QC Batch Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3913192 C_N Spiked Blank Leachable Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 Leachable Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 103 % 80-120 Leachable Nitrate + Nitrite 2015/02/10 102 % 80-120 3913192 C_N Method Blank Leachable Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 Leachable Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=1.0 Leachable Nitrate + Nitrite 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=1.0 3913192 C_N RPD Leachable Nitrite (N) 2015/02/10 NC % 25 Leachable Nitrate (N) 2015/02/10 NC % 25 Leachable Nitrate + Nitrite 2015/02/10 NC % 25 3913194 SAL) Matrix Spike Leachable Fluoride (F-) 2015/02/10 90 % 80-120 3913194 SAL) Leachate Blank Leachable Fluoride (F-) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 3913194 SAL) Spiked Blank Leachable Fluoride (F-) 2015/02/10 101 % 80-120 3913194 SAL) Method Blank Leachable Fluoride (F-) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.10 3913194 SAL) RPD Leachable Fluoride (F-) 2015/02/10 NC % 25 3913208 XQI Matrix Spike Leachable Free Cyanide 2015/02/10 102 % 80-120 3913208 XQI Leachate Blank Leachable Free Cyanide 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.010 (1) 3913208 XQI Spiked Blank Leachable Free Cyanide 2015/02/10 100 % 80-120 3913208 XQI Method Blank Leachable Free Cyanide 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.0020 3913208 XQI RPD Leachable Free Cyanide 2015/02/10 NC (1) % 20 3913564 RSC Matrix Spike Leachable 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/10 101 % 70-130 Leachable D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 98 % 70-130 Leachable D8 -Toluene 2015/02/10 103 % 70-130 Leachable Benzene 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable Carbon Tetrachloride 2015/02/10 102 % 70-130 Leachable Chlorobenzene 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable Chloroform 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 2015/02/10 96 % 70-130 Leachable 1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2015/02/10 105 % 70-130 Leachable Methylene Chloride(Dichlorometh 2015/02/10 104 % 70-130 Leachable Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 2015/02/10 102 % 60-140 Leachable Tetrachloroethylene 2015/02/10 105 % 70-130 Leachable Trichloroethylene 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable Vinyl Chloride 2015/02/10 98 % 70-130 3913564 RSC Spiked Blank Leachable 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/10 102 % 70-130 Leachable D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable D8 -Toluene 2015/02/10 103 % 70-130 Leachable Benzene 2015/02/10 102 % 70-130 Leachable Carbon Tetrachloride 2015/02/10 103 % 70-130 Leachable Chlorobenzene 2015/02/10 103 % 70-130 Leachable Chloroform 2015/02/10 103 % 70-130 Leachable 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 2015/02/10 102 % 70-130 Leachable 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 2015/02/10 98 % 70-130 Leachable 1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 106 % 70-130 Page 16 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT-D) Success Through Science QA/QC Batch Init QC Type Parameter Date Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits Leachable 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2015/02/10 107 % 70-130 Leachable Methylene Chloride(Dichlorometh 2015/02/10 109 % 70-130 Leachable Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 2015/02/10 112 % 60-140 Leachable Tetrachloroethylene 2015/02/10 105 % 70-130 Leachable Trichloroethylene 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 Leachable Vinyl Chloride 2015/02/10 100 % 70-130 3913564 RSC Method Blank Leachable 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2015/02/10 94 % 70-130 Leachable D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 103 % 70-130 Leachable D8 -Toluene 2015/02/10 95 % 70-130 Leachable Benzene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable Carbon Tetrachloride 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable Chlorobenzene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable Chloroform 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable 1,2 -Dichlorobenzene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.050 Leachable 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.050 Leachable 1,2-Dichloroethane 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.050 Leachable 1,1-Dichloroethylene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable Methylene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L Chloride(Dichloromethane) RDL=0.20 Leachable Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=1.0 Leachable Tetrachloroethylene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable Trichloroethylene 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Leachable Vinyl Chloride 2015/02/10 ND, mg/L RDL=0.020 Page 17 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Ma)(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company •0- Maxxam Job #: B521714 Report Date: 2015/02/11 Stantec Consulting Ltd Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT(CONT-D) Success Through Science QA/QC Date Batch Init QC Type Parameter Analyzed Value Recovery Units QC Limits 3913564 RSC RPD Leachable Benzene 2015/02/10 NC % 30 Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement. Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference. Leachate Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the leaching procedure. Used to determine any process contamination. Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate method accuracy. Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination. Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency. NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was too small to permit a reliable recovery calculation (matrix spike concentration was less than 2x that of the native sample concentration). NC (Duplicate RPD): The duplicate RPD was not calculated. The concentration in the sample and/or duplicate was too low to permit a reliable RPD calculation (one or both samples < 5x RDL). (1) Detection Limit was raised due to matrix interferences. Page 18 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, -5N 218 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca Max(�"am A Bureau Veritas Group Company ,.0- Maxxam Job #: 6521714 Stantec Consulting Ltd Report Date: 2015/02/11 Client Project #: 122511076.200 Your P.O. #: 1630OR-20 Sampler Initials: TI VALIDATION SIGNATURE PAGE The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s). Cristina Carriere, Scientific Services �� fvaPrarife �• > I Ewa Pranjic, M.Sc., C Cfiem, Scientific Specialist Success Through Science Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page. Page 19 of 19 Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics 6740 Campobello Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5N 21L8 Tel: (905) 817-5700 Toll -Free: 800-563-6266 Fax: (905) 817-5777 www.maxxam.ca