Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 1055 St. Laurent Boulevard Ottawa, Ontario

Transcription

1 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard Ottawa, Ontario RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Yonge Street Suite, P.O. Box 8 Toronto, ON MP E Attention: Mr. Stefan Wisniowski November Pinchin File: 88. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. LEGGET DRIVE, SUITE, TOWER A, KATA, ONTARIO KK X PHONE: () 987 FAX: () 9897 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY MAGEMENT SERVICES FROM OFFICES ACRO CADA

2 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pinchin Environmental Ltd. ( Pinchin ) was retained on October 8, through an Authorization to Proceed signed by Mr. Stefan Wisniowski of RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. ( Client ) to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ( ESA ) of the property located at St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario (hereafter referred to as the Site ). The irregularshaped Site is developed with a singlestorey multitenant commercial building and a singlestorey commercial building occupied by Boston Pizza. Pinchin was advised by the Client that the purpose of the Phase II ESA was to assess potential issues of environmental concern in relation to the environmental due diligence of the Site. Pinchin was previously retained by the Client to conduct a Phase I ESA at the Site in 8. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the following potential environmental concerns were identified for the Site: Retail fuel outlets ( RFOs ) (Giguerre Service Station and John s Service Station) were listed at the Site in 9 and 97. based on a review of the analytical results of the confirmatory soil sampling completed at the south site excavation, PHC impacted soil above the former Ministry of the Environment ( MOE ), March 9,, Table (nonpotable groundwater conditions) Standards potentially remains at the Site; Based on a review of the 9 Fire Insurance Plan ( FIP ) for the Site, the southeast portion of the Site was occupied by a light industrial building labelled, Amyot & Son Sash & Door Factory with associated buildings labelled lumber ; A dry cleaning facility (Cleanorama Dry Cleaning and One Stop Dry Cleaners) was listed at the Site in the 97s and later in the 99s ; and An RFO (Sunoco), currently Petro Canada, has been listed at 7 St. Laurent Boulevard since 97. This property is located adjacent to the west elevation of the Site and is inferred to be hydraulically down/transgradient to the Site. Based on the abovementioned findings, Pinchin recommended that a Phase II ESA be conducted at the Site in order to assess for the presence of environmental impacts. The Phase II ESA was completed at the Site by Pinchin between October and October,, and consisted of the advancement of thirteen boreholes, six of which were completed as groundwater monitoring wells. Select worst case soil samples collected during the borehole drilling program were submitted for laboratory analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons ( PHCs ) (F to F) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes ( BTEX ), and volatile organic compound ( VOC ) parameters. Groundwater samples collected from the newly installed monitoring wells were submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs (FF), BTEX and VOCs. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

3 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. Based on Site specific information, the soil and groundwater quality was assessed based on the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ( MOE ) Table Standards for industrial/commercial/community land use and finetextured soil. All reported concentrations of PHCs (FF), VOCs and BTEX in the soil samples submitted for analysis met the applicable MOE Table Standards, with the exception of soil samples collected at boreholes MW, BH, BH, MW and MW which had concentrations of PHCs (F) and PHCs (F) and benzene, ethylbenzene and xylene parameters that exceeded the Table Standards. All reported concentrations in the groundwater samples submitted for analysis of PHCs (FF), VOCs and BTEX satisfied their respective Table Standards, with the exception of the groundwater sample collected at monitoring well MW, which had concentrations of PHCs (F) and (F) and benzene that exceeded the Table Standard and the groundwater sample collected at monitoring well MW which had concentrations of PHCs (F) that exceeded the Table Standards. Based on the work completed as part of this Phase II ESA, the results of the laboratory analyses indicated that soil and groundwater impacts exceeding the applicable MOE Table Standards are present at the Site. It is Pinchin s opinion that the impacts identified have likely migrated from the adjacent RFO to the northwest of the Site. Section 9() of the Environmental Protection Act ( EPA ) states that the owner of a pollutant and the person having control of a pollutant that is spilled and that causes an adverse effect shall forthwith do everything practicable to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect and to restore the natural environment. Based on this information, it is Pinchin s opinion that the Client should initiate discussions with the owner of the adjacent RFO as well as the MOE in order to ascertain a proper course of action to manage the identified impacts. Further delineation would be required in order to confirm the extent of the onsite impacts identified to date. This Executive Summary is subject to the same standard limitations as contained in the report and must be read in conjunction with the entire report. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

4 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. TABLE OF CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION.... Background.... Scope of Work.... METHODOLOGY.... Borehole Investigation.... Monitoring Well Installation.... Groundwater Monitoring and Elevation Survey.... Sampling and Laboratory Analysis..... Soil..... Groundwater..... Analytical Laboratory.... QA/QC Protocols.... Ontario Water Well Records....7 Site Condition Standards.... RESULTS.... Site Geology and Hydrogeology.... Soil Vapour Concentrations.... Field Observations.... Analytical Soil Groundwater...7. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...7. DISCLAIMER...8. SIGTURE PAGE... APPENDICES Appendix I Figures Appendix II Borehole Logs Appendix III Summary Tables Appendix IV Laboratory Certificate of Analysis FIGURES Figure Key Map Figure Generalized Borehole and Monitoring Well Location Plan TABLES Table PHC (F to F), VOC and BTEX Analysis for Soil Table PHC (F to F), VOC and BTEX Analysis for Groundwater Table Groundwater Elevation Data Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

5 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88.. INTRODUCTION Pinchin Environmental Ltd. ( Pinchin ) was retained on October 8, through an Authorization to Proceed signed by Mr. Stefan Wisniowski of RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. ( Client ) to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ( ESA ) of the property located at St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario (hereafter referred to as the Site ). The irregularshaped Site is developed with a singlestorey multitenant commercial building and a singlestorey commercial building occupied by Boston Pizza. Pinchin was advised by the Client that the purpose of the Phase II ESA was to assess potential issues of environmental concern in relation to the environmental due diligence of the Site. This Phase II ESA was completed in general accordance with the Canadian Standards Association document entitled Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, CSA Standard Z79 (R8), dated and reaffirmed in 8.. Background Pinchin was previously retained by the Client to conduct a Phase I ESA at the Site in 8. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the following potential environmental concerns were identified for the Site: Retail fuel outlets ( RFOs ) (Giguerre Service Station and John s Service Station) were listed at the Site in 9 and 97. based on a review of the analytical results of the confirmatory soil sampling completed at the south site excavation, PHC impacted soil above the former Ministry of the Environment ( MOE ), March 9,, Table (nonpotable groundwater conditions) Standards potentially remains at the Site; Based on a review of the 9 Fire Insurance Plan ( FIP ) for the Site, the southeast portion of the Site was occupied by a light industrial building labelled, Amyot & Son Sash & Door Factory with associated buildings labelled lumber ; A dry cleaning facility (Cleanorama Dry Cleaning and One Stop Dry Cleaners) was listed at the Site in the 97s and later in the 99s ; and An RFO (Sunoco), currently Petro Canada, has been listed at 7 St. Laurent Boulevard since 97. This property is located adjacent to the west elevation of the Site and is inferred to be hydraulically down/transgradient to the Site. Based on the abovementioned findings, Pinchin recommended that a Phase II ESA be conducted at the Site in order to assess for the presence of environmental impacts. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

6 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88.. Scope of Work The scope of work completed by Pinchin, as outlined in the Pinchin work plan entitled Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Work plan and Cost Estimate submitted to the Client on October,, included the following: Advancement of nine boreholes following the clearance of underground services, with select boreholes to be instrumented with a monitoring well; Submission of select worst case soil samples for laboratory analysis of ( PHCs ) (F to F) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes ( BTEX ), and volatile organic compound ( VOC ) parameters; Collection of groundwater samples from each of the newly installed monitoring wells following well development and purging, for laboratory analysis of PHCs (F to F), VOC and/or BTEX parameters; Completion of an elevation survey and depth to groundwater measurements for the newly installed monitoring wells; Comparison of the soil and groundwater laboratory analytical results to the applicable regulatory criteria; and Preparation of a factual report (this report) detailing the findings of the Phase II ESA and recommendations. The scope of work described in the Pinchin work plan initially included the advancement of nine boreholes. However, based on observations made during borehole advancement, Pinchin recommended additional delineative drilling be completed at the Site. As such, a change order was prepared on October, for the advancement of four to six additional boreholes with two to three of the boreholes being completed as groundwater monitoring wells.. METHODOLOGY The investigation methodology was conducted in general accordance with the MOE document entitled Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario dated December 99 ( MOE Sampling Guideline ).. Borehole Investigation Pinchin retained Strata Soil Sampling Inc. ( Strata ) to complete the borehole drilling program at the Site on October and,, following the clearance of underground services in the vicinity of the work area by public utility locators and a private utility locator retained by Pinchin. Strata is licensed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ( MOE ) in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9 (as amended) to undertake borehole drilling/well installation activities. The boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of 7. mbgs using a GeoMachine direct push drill rig. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

7 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. Soil samples were collected at continuous intervals using a.8 centimetre diameter ( cm ) direct push soil sampler. Discrete soil samples were collected from the singleuse liners and containerized in laboratory supplied glass sampling jars. Subsurface soil conditions were logged on Site by Pinchin personnel at the time of drilling. Soil samples were visually classified and were analyzed in the field for VOCderived vapour concentrations using a photoionization detector ( PID ). The locations of the boreholes are shown on Figure of Appendix I and a description of the subsurface stratigraphy encountered during the drilling program is documented in the borehole logs included in Appendix II.. Monitoring Well Installation Six groundwater monitoring wells were installed in to enable groundwater monitoring and sampling. The monitoring wells were constructed with.8 cm inner diameter ( ID ) flushthreaded schedule PVC risers, followed by a length of.8 cm ID No. slot PVC screen that traversed the water table. Screens were sealed using threaded caps and each riser was sealed with a lockable Jplug cap. Silica sand was placed around and above the screened interval to form a filter pack around the well screen. A layer of bentonite was placed above the silica sand and was extended to the ground surface. A protective flushmount cover was installed over the riser pipe at the ground surface and cemented in place. The location of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure of Appendix I and the monitoring well construction details are shown on the borehole logs included in Appendix II.. Groundwater Monitoring and Elevation Survey The water levels within the monitoring wells were measured on October, using an interface probe. The presence/absence of nonaqueous phase liquid ( PL ) was also assessed during groundwater monitoring using the interface probe and dedicated bailers. Pinchin completed a relative elevation survey of the newly installed groundwater monitoring wells on October,, using a Leica rotating laser level and laser sensor. A temporary benchmark was used to determine the relative elevation of the top of the monitoring well casings and the ground surface at each well location, and the ground surface elevation at each borehole location. The temporary benchmark used was a property sign approximately to m southsouthwest of MW, which was arbitrarily assigned the elevation of. m above sea level. These elevation measurements represent a relative (not a geodetic) elevation. A summary of the elevation data is presented in Table. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

8 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88.. Sampling and Laboratory Analysis.. Soil All soil samples were screened for petroleum and solventderived vapour concentrations using a PID. Organic vapour concentrations measured in the soil samples during the drilling investigation are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix II. One most apparent worst case soil sample based on vapour concentrations as well as visual and/or olfactory considerations was recovered from the boreholes and submitted for laboratory chemical analysis of PHCs (F F ), VOCs and BTEX. The borehole locations are shown on Figure. Table provides a summary of the soil samples submitted for laboratory analysis... Groundwater On October,, groundwater samples were recovered from the installed monitoring wells and submitted for laboratory analysis of PHCs (F to F), VOCs and BTEX parameters. The groundwater samples were placed into laboratoryprepared sample bottles and stored on ice in coolers. All monitoring well development activities were conducted using dedicated inertial pumps comprised of Waterra TM polyethylene tubing and foot valves and/or dedicated, disposable PVC bailers. The location of the monitoring wells is shown on Figure of Appendix I... Analytical Laboratory All collected soil and groundwater samples were delivered to Paracel Laboratories ( Paracel ) in Ottawa, Ontario. Paracel is an independent laboratory accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation. Formal chain of custody records of the sample submissions were maintained between Pinchin and the staff at Paracel.. QA/QC Protocols Various quality assurance/quality control ( QA/QC ) protocols were followed during the Phase II ESA to ensure that representative samples were obtained and that representative analytical data were reported by the laboratory. Field QA/QC protocols that were employed by Pinchin included the following: Soil samples were extracted from the interior of the sampling device (where possible), rather than from areas in contact with the sampler walls to minimize the potential for crosscontamination; Soil and groundwater samples were placed in laboratorysupplied glass sample jars; Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

9 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. The monitoring wells were developed following installation and were purged to remove stagnant water prior to sample collection so that representative groundwater samples could be obtained. Dedicated purging and sampling equipment was used for monitoring well development, purging and sampling to minimize the potential for crosscontamination; All soil and groundwater samples were placed in coolers on ice immediately upon collection, with appropriate sample temperatures maintained prior submission to the laboratory; Dedicated and disposable Nitrile gloves were used for all sample handling; and Sample collection and handling procedures were performed in general accordance with the MOE Sampling Guideline. Paracel s internal laboratory QA/QC consisted of the analysis of laboratory duplicate, method blank, matrix spike and spiked blank samples, an evaluation of relative percent difference calculations for laboratory duplicate samples, and an evaluation of surrogate recoveries for the method blank, matrix spike and spiked blank samples.. Ontario Water Well Records Ontario Regulation 9 (as amended) requires that all wells installed to depths greater than. mbgs have a water well record completed by a licensed well technician. The owner of the monitoring well must keep the water well record on file for a period of two years and the monitoring wells must be decommissioned as per Ontario Regulation 9 (as amended) if monitoring wells are no longer in use. Strata is a licensed well driller under Ontario Regulation 9 (as amended), and submitted a water well record to the MOE and the Client to fulfill the requirements of Ontario Regulation 9 (as amended)..7 Site Condition Standards The Site is a commercial property located in Ottawa, Ontario. It is Pinchin s understanding that potable water for the Site and surrounding area is supplied by municipal services with Ottawa River serving as the water source. Ontario Regulation / (as amended) states that a Site is classified as an environmentally sensitive area if the ph of the surface soil (less than. mbgs) is less than or greater than 9, the ph of the subsurface soil (greater than. mbgs) is less than or greater than, or if the Site is an area of natural significance or is adjacent to or contains land within metres of an area of natural significance. Two representative soil samples collected from the boreholes advanced at the Site were submitted for ph analysis. The ph values measured in the submitted soil samples were within the limits for nonsensitive sites. The Site is also not an area of natural significance and it is not adjacent to, nor does it contain land within m of an area of natural significance. As such, the Site is not an environmentally sensitive area. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

10 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. One representative soil sample collected from the boreholes advanced at the Site was submitted for 7 micron singlesieve grain size analysis. Based on the results of this analysis, the soil at the Site is interpreted to be medium/finetextured for the purposes of selecting the appropriate MOE Standards. Based on the above, the appropriate Site Condition Standards for the Site are: Table : Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards for Use in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition, provided in the MOE Standards ( Table Standards ) for: o Medium/finetextured soils; and o Industrial/commercial/community property use. As such, all analytical results have been compared to these Table Standards.. RESULTS. Site Geology and Hydrogeology Data collected during the borehole drilling program indicates that the soil stratigraphy at the Site below the asphalt surface generally consists of sandy gravel fill material to a maximum depth of. mbgs. Native subsurface material underlying the fill material was observed to generally consist of silty clay and clay to a maximum depth of. mbgs. Bedrock was encountered at all boreholes at a maximum depth of. mbgs in MW9. A description of the subsurface stratigraphy encountered during borehole advancement is documented in the borehole logs located in Appendix II. The water table elevations calculated using the water level measurements made on October, show that groundwater flow at the Site is inferred to be towards the eastsoutheast; however, Pinchin notes that groundwater conditions may not have been at equilibrium at the time of the water level measurements.. Soil Vapour Concentrations Vapour concentrations measured in the soil samples collected during the drilling investigation are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix II and ranged from. parts per million by volume ( ppm v ) to a maximum of, ppm v in soil sample collected at a depth of. to. mbgs in borehole MW.. Field Observations No odours or staining were observed in the soil samples collected during the borehole drilling program, with the exception of soil samples collected at boreholes MW, BH, BH, MW, Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

11 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. BH, BH and MW at depths ranging from approximately. mbgs to.9 mbgs which exhibited PHClike odours and staining. No odours or evidence of PL were observed during groundwater monitoring and sampling, with the exception of the groundwater at monitoring well MW and MW which exhibited a PHClike odour and which had a visible PHClike sheen.. Analytical.. Soil The summary of the soil analytical results for PHCs (F F ), VOCs and BTEX, along with the applicable Table (nonpotable groundwater condition) Standards, can be found in Table, within Appendix III. The laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix IV. All measured concentrations in soil samples submitted for analysis satisfied their respective Table Standards with the exception of soil samples collected at boreholes MW, BH, BH, MW and MW which had concentrations of PHCs (F) and PHCs (F) and benzene, ethylbenzene and xylene parameters that exceeded the Table Standards... Groundwater The summary of the groundwater analytical results for PHCs (F F ), VOCs and BTEX along with the applicable Table (nonpotable groundwater condition) Standards can be found in Table within Appendix III. The laboratory Certificates of Analysis are provided in Appendix IV. All measured concentrations in groundwater samples submitted for analysis satisfied their respective Table Standards, with the exception of the groundwater sample collected at monitoring well MW, which had concentrations of PHCs (F) and (F) and benzene that exceeded the Table Standard and the groundwater sample collected at monitoring well MW which had concentrations of PHCs (F) that exceeded the Table Standards.. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the work completed, the following is a summary of the activities and findings of this Phase II ESA: Pinchin retained Strata Soil Sampling Inc. to advance thirteen boreholes on October and,. Six boreholes were completed as a groundwater monitoring wells to enable groundwater sampling at the Site. The boreholes were advanced to a maximum depth of.9 mbgs using a GeoMachine direct push drill rig; Data collected during the borehole drilling program indicates that the soil stratigraphy at the Site below the asphalt surface generally consists of sandy gravel fill material to a maximum depth of. mbgs. Native subsurface material underlying the fill material was Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 7

12 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. observed to generally consist of silty clay and clay to a maximum depth of. mbgs. Bedrock was encountered at all boreholes to a maximum depth of. mbgs in MW9; Based on Site specific information, the soil and groundwater quality was assessed based on the MOE Table Standards for industrial/commercial/community land use and medium/finetextured soils; All reported concentrations of PHCs (FF), VOCs and BTEX in the soil samples submitted for analysis met the applicable MOE Table Standards, with the exception of soil samples collected at boreholes MW, BH, BH, MW and MW which had concentrations of PHCs (F) and PHCs (F) and benzene, ethylbenzene and xylene parameters that exceeded the Table Standards; and All reported concentrations in the groundwater samples submitted for analysis of PHCs (FF), VOCs and BTEX satisfied their respective Table Standards, with the exception of the groundwater sample collected at monitoring well MW, which had concentrations of PHCs (F) and (F) and benzene that exceeded the Table Standard and the groundwater sample collected at monitoring well MW which had concentrations of PHCs (F) that exceeded the Table Standards. Based on the work completed as part of this Phase II ESA, the results of the laboratory analyses indicated that soil and groundwater impacts exceeding the applicable MOE Table Standards are present at the Site. It is Pinchin s opinion that the impacts identified have likely migrated from the adjacent RFO to the northwest of the Site. Section 9() of the Environmental Protection Act ( EPA ) states that the owner of a pollutant and the person having control of a pollutant that is spilled and that causes an adverse effect shall forthwith do everything practicable to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect and to restore the natural environment. Based on this information, it is Pinchin s opinion that the Client should initiate discussions with the owner of the adjacent RFO as well as the MOE in order to ascertain a proper course of action to manage the identified impacts. Further delineation would be required in order to confirm the extent of the onsite impacts identified to date.. DISCLAIMER This Phase II ESA was performed for RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. ( Client ) in order to investigate potential environmental impacts at St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario ( Site ). The term recognized environmental condition means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material threat of a release of a hazardous substance into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 8

13 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88. property. This Phase II ESA does not quantify the extent of the current and/or recognized environmental condition or the cost of any remediation. Conclusions derived are specific to the immediate area of study and cannot be extrapolated extensively away from sample locations. Samples have been analyzed for a limited number of contaminants that are expected to be present at the Site, and the absence of information relating to a specific contaminant does not indicate that it is not present. No environmental site assessment can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions on a property. Performance of this Phase II ESA to the standards established by Pinchin is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions on the Site, and recognizes reasonable limits on time and cost. This Phase II ESA was performed in general compliance with currently acceptable practices for environmental site investigations, and specific Client requests, as applicable to this Site. The scope of work completed by Pinchin, as part of this Phase II ESA, is not sufficient (in and of itself) to meet the reporting requirements for the submission of a Record of Site Condition ( RSC ) in accordance with Ontario Regulation / (as amended). If an RSC is an intended end product of work conducted at the Site, further consultation and/or work will be required. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the Client, subject to the conditions and limitations contained within the duly authorized work plan. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of the third parties. If additional parties require reliance on this report, written authorization from Pinchin will be required. Pinchin disclaims responsibility of consequential financial effects on transactions or property values, or requirements for followup actions and costs. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Furthermore, this report should not be construed as legal advice. Pinchin will not be responsible for any consequential or indirect damages. Pinchin will only be held liable for damages resulting from the negligence of Pinchin. Pinchin will not be liable for any losses or damage if the Client has failed, within a period of two years following the date upon which the claim is discovered within the meaning of the ations Act, (Ontario), to commence legal proceedings against Pinchin to recover such losses or damage. Pinchin makes no other representations whatsoever, including those concerning the legal significance of its findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including, but not limited to, ownership of any property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance issues, regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and these interpretations may change over time. Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page 9

14 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario November RioKim Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c/o RioCan Management Inc. Pinchin File: 88.. SIGTURE PAGE We trust that the foregoing information is satisfactory for your present requirements. Should you have any questions about the report or require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, PINCHIN ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. per: Mike Kosiw, B.Sc. Project Technologist Environmental Due Diligence & Remediation per: Scott Mather, P. Eng. Manager National Capital Region Environmental Due Diligence & Remediation per: Larry Backman, B.Sc.S. Senior Vice President, National Accounts Environmental Due Diligence & Remediation 88. Phase II ESA St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario.docx Pinchin Environmental Ltd. Page

15 APPENDIX I FIGURES

16 PROJECT ME CLIENT ME PROJECT LOCATION DRAWING ME PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE AEMENT RIOCAN MAGEMENT INC. ST. LAURENT BOULEVARD, OTTAWA, ONTARIO KEY MAP SCALE PROJECT NO. DATE NTS 88. NOVEMBER DRAWING NO. FIG.

17

18 APPENDIX II BOREHOLE LOGS

19 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, no odour.. N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L I N S T A L L E D 7 End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

20 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, no odour.. N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock. 8 8 I N S T A L L E D Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

21 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, PHC like odour throughout N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L No odour End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock.9 7 I N S T A L L E D Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

22 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, PHC like odour throughout N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L 8 No odour End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock. I N S T A L L E D Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

23 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, PHC like odour throughout.. N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L 8 No odour End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock. I N S T A L L E D Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

24 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH7 Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, no odour.. N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock. 7 7 I N S T A L L E D Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

25 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: BH8 Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, no odour.. N O M O N I T O R I N G W E L L I N S T A L L E D 7 End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

26 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: MW Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SANDY CLAY Brown, moist, no odour, gravel throughout SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, no odour. Turing wet 7 Gravel throughout End of Borehole No Refusal Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

27 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: MW Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour. 9 SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, PHC like odour throughout Turning wet > 8 9 No odour End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

28 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: MW Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour. 7 SAND FILL Brown, moist, no odour. 8 9 SILTY CLAY Grey, wet, PHC like odour throughout. End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

29 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: MW Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour. 7 SILTY CLAY Grey, wet, PHC like odour throughout No odour SHALE Fractured, wet, no odour AU End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock 7. Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

30 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: MW Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour. 9 SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, PHC like odour throughout Turning wet No odour End of Borehole Refusal on Inferred Bedrock Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

31 Stratigraphic and Instrumentation Log: MW9 Depth Pinchin Environmental Legget Drive, Suite Kanata, Ontario Symbol SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description Project No.: 88. Project: Phase II ESA Client: RioKim c/o RioCan Location: St. Laurent Blvd, Ottawa, ON Depth (m) Number SAMPLE Type Sample NValue Recovery (%) Logged By: MK Entered By: RL Project Manager: MR Drill Date: October, Well Completion Details Vapour Data (% LEL) 8 (ppm) 7 ft m Ground Surface SANDY GRAVEL FILL Brown, moist, no odour SILTY SAND Brown, moist, no odour, gravel throughout SILTY CLAY Grey, moist, no odour. 7 Turing wet Gravel throughout End of Borehole No Refusal. 7 7 Drilled By: Strata Soil Sampling Inc Drill Method: Geomachine Vapour Instrument: PhotoIonization Detector Well Casing Size: 8mm Datum: Local Casing Elevation: Ground Elevation: Sheet: of

32 APPENDIX III SUMMARY TABLES

33 Parameter Units MDL Regulation MW MW MW MW MW Sample Date (m/d/y) Reg / () Table Industrial, fine // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Physical Characteristics % Solids % by Wt. N/A N/A >.7 mm %.. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <.7 mm % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Texture %. Med/Fine N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A General Inorganics ph ph Units N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Volatiles Acetone ug/g dry. 8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Benzene ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Bromodichloromethane ug/g dry. 8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Bromoform ug/g dry..7 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Bromomethane ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Carbon Tetrachloride ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Chlorobenzene ug/g dry..7 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Chloroethane ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Chloroform ug/g dry..8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Chloromethane ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Dibromochloromethane ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dibromoethane ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichlorobenzene ug/g dry. 8. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichlorobenzene ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichlorobenzene ug/g dry..8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethane ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethane ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethylene ug/g dry..8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A cis, Dichloroethylene ug/g dry. 7 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A trans, Dichloroethylene ug/g dry. 9. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethylene, total ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichloropropane ug/g dry..8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A cis, Dichloropropylene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A trans, Dichloropropylene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A, Dichloropropene, total ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Ethylbenzene ug/g dry. 9 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Hexane ug/g dry. 88 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Methyl Ethyl Ketone ( Butanone) ug/g dry. 88 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Methyl Butyl Ketone ( Hexanone) ug/g dry NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Methyl tert butyl ether ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Methylene Chloride ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Styrene ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A,,, Tetrachloroethane ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A,,, Tetrachloroethane ug/g dry..9 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Tetrachloroethylene ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Toluene ug/g dry. 78 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A,, Trichlorobenzene ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A,, Trichloroethane ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A,, Trichloroethane ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Trichloroethylene ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Trichlorofluoromethane ug/g dry..8 ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A,, Trimethylbenzene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Vinyl Chloride ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A m/p Xylene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A o Xylene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Xylenes, total ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A Benzene ug/g dry.. ug/g dry N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A ND (.).. Ethylbenzene ug/g dry. 9 ug/g dry N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A ND (.). 8.7 Toluene ug/g dry. 78 ug/g dry N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) N/A N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.).9 m/p Xylene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.)..9 9 ND (.) N/A N/A N/A ND (.). 9.7 o Xylene ug/g dry. NV N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.).9... ND (.) N/A N/A N/A ND (.).8. Xylenes, total ug/g dry. ug/g dry N/A N/A ND (.) ND (.).9. 7 ND (.) N/A N/A N/A ND (.).8 9. Hydrocarbons F PHCs (C C) ug/g dry 7 ug/g dry N/A N/A ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) N/A ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) F PHCs (C C) ug/g dry ug/g dry N/A N/A ND () ND () ND () 8 ND () N/A ND () ND () ND () 9 F PHCs (C C) ug/g dry 8 ug/g dry N/A N/A ND (8) ND (8) ND (8) ND (8) ND (8) ND (8) 8 ND (8) N/A ND (8) ND (8) ND (8) F PHCs (C C) ug/g dry ug/g dry N/A N/A ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () N/A ND () ND () ND () Notes: All units in µg/l (parts per billion) EPA Standards = Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV. of the Environmental Protection Act (April, ); ND (.) = Reported Concentration Below Method Detection (NonDetect) na = Parameter not analyzed NV = No published value Parameter Concentration Exceeds EPA OReg Table Criterion for NonPotable Groundwater Use for Medium/fine Grained Soil TABLE PHC (F to F), VOC and BTEX Analysis for Soil PROJECT: 88. St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario BH BH 7 Sample MW 8 BH 7 9 BH 8 MW 9 BH BH BH MW

34 Parameter Units MDL Regulation TABLE PHC (F to F), VOC and BTEX Analysis for Groundwater PROJECT: 88. St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario MW 9 7 MW 7 MW 7 MW 7 MW 7 MW 7 Sample Date (m/d/y) Reg / () Table Non Potable Groundwater, f // // // // // // Volatiles Acetone ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzene ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bromodichloromethane ug/l. 8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bromoform ug/l. 77 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bromomethane ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Carbon Tetrachloride ug/l. 8. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chlorobenzene ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chloroethane ug/l NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chloroform ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Chloromethane ug/l NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dibromochloromethane ug/l. 8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dibromoethane ug/l..8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichlorobenzene ug/l. 9 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichlorobenzene ug/l. 9 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichlorobenzene ug/l. 7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethane ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethane ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethylene ug/l. 7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A cis, Dichloroethylene ug/l. 7 ug/l. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A trans, Dichloroethylene ug/l. 7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichloroethylene, total ug/l. NV. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichloropropane ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A cis, Dichloropropylene ug/l. NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A trans, Dichloropropylene ug/l. NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A, Dichloropropene, total ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ethylbenzene ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hexane ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Methyl Ethyl Ketone ( Butanone) ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Methyl Butyl Ketone ( Hexanone) ug/l NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ug/l 8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Methyl tert butyl ether ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Methylene Chloride ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Styrene ug/l. 9 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A,,, Tetrachloroethane ug/l. 8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A,,, Tetrachloroethane ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tetrachloroethylene ug/l. 7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Toluene ug/l. 8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A,, Trichlorobenzene ug/l. 8 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A,, Trichloroethane ug/l. 7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A,, Trichloroethane ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Trichloroethylene ug/l. 7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Trichlorofluoromethane ug/l ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A,, Trimethylbenzene ug/l. NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vinyl Chloride ug/l..7 ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A m/p Xylene ug/l. NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o Xylene ug/l. NV ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Xylenes, total ug/l. ug/l ND (.) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Benzene ug/l. ug/l N/A ND (.).8 ND (.) Ethylbenzene ug/l. ug/l N/A ND (.)..8 Toluene ug/l. 8 ug/l N/A ND (.) ND (.) m/p Xylene ug/l. NV N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) 8 o Xylene ug/l. NV N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) 79. Xylenes, total ug/l. ug/l N/A ND (.) ND (.) ND (.) Hydrocarbons F PHCs (C C) ug/l 7 ug/l N/A ND () ND () ND () F PHCs (C C) ug/l ug/l N/A ND () ND () ND () ND () F PHCs (C C) ug/l ug/l N/A ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () F PHCs (C C) ug/l ug/l N/A ND () ND () ND () ND () ND () Notes: All units in µg/l (parts per billion) EPA Standards = Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV. of the Environmental Protection Act (April, ); ND (.) = Reported Concentration Below Method Detection (NonDetect) na = Parameter not analyzed NV = No published value Parameter Concentration Exceeds EPA OReg Table Criterion for NonPotable Groundwater Use for Medium/fine Grained Soil Sample

35 TABLE. Groundwater Elevation Data St. Laurent Boulevard, Ottawa, Ontario Project #88. Height of Relative Ground Relative Casing Depth to Relative Groundwater Well Instrument Elevation Elevation Water (m) Elevation MW MW MW MW MW Notes: All elevation measurements in metressurvey conducted November,. Benchmark was established on the top of the property sign located on the west portion of the Site and was assigned an arbitrary elevation of metres above sea level ("masl").

36 APPENDIX IV LABORATORY CERTIFICATES OF ALYSIS

37 Certificate of Analysis Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (Ottawa) Legget Dr., Suite, Tower A Ottawa, ON KK X Attn: Michael Kosiw Phone: () 987 Fax: () 9897 Client PO: St.Laurent Project: 88. Custody: 9/9 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID MW MW MW MW MW BH 7 BH 8 MW 9 BH7 BH8 MW9 BH BH BH MW Order #: Approved By: Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BSc Laboratory Director Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work Page of

38 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Analysis Summary Table Order #: Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date BTEX EPA 8 P&T GCMS Nov Nov CCME PHC F CWS Tier P&T GCFID Nov Nov CCME PHC F F CWS Tier GCFID, extraction Oct Oct ph EPA. ph C, CaCl buffered ext. Oct Oct Solids, % Gravimetric, calculation Oct Oct Texture Coarse Med/Fine Based on ASTM D87 Nov Nov VOCs EPA 8 P&T GCMS Nov Nov Page of

39 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: MW MW MW MW Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Soil Physical Characteristics % Solids. % by Wt >7 um. %. <7 um. % 89.9 Texture. % Med/Fine General Inorganics ph. ph Units Volatiles Benzene. ug/g dry <. <. Ethylbenzene. ug/g dry <. <. Toluene. ug/g dry <. <. m,pxylenes. ug/g dry <. <. oxylene. ug/g dry <. <. Xylenes, total. ug/g dry <. <. Toluened8 Surrogate % 8% Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/g dry <7 <7 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < F PHCs (CC) 8 ug/g dry <8 <8 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < Page of

40 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: MW BH BH MW Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: 7 8 MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Soil Physical Characteristics % Solids. % by Wt Volatiles Benzene. ug/g dry Ethylbenzene. ug/g dry Toluene. ug/g dry m,pxylenes. ug/g dry..9 9 oxylene. ug/g dry.9... Xylenes, total. ug/g dry.9. 7 Toluened8 Surrogate % % 7% % Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/g dry F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < 8 F PHCs (CC) 8 ug/g dry <8 <8 <8 <8 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < < < Page of

41 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: BH7 BH8 MW9 BH Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: 9 MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Soil Physical Characteristics % Solids. % by Wt Volatiles Acetone. ug/g dry <. <. <. Benzene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Bromodichloromethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Bromoform. ug/g dry <. <. <. Bromomethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Carbon Tetrachloride. ug/g dry <. <. <. Chlorobenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Chloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Chloroform. ug/g dry <. <. <. Chloromethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Dibromochloromethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Dichlorodifluoromethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dibromoethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichlorobenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichlorobenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichlorobenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichloroethylene. ug/g dry <. <. <. cis,dichloroethylene. ug/g dry <. <. <. trans,dichloroethylene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichloroethylene, total. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichloropropane. ug/g dry <. <. <. cis,dichloropropylene. ug/g dry <. <. <. trans,dichloropropylene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,Dichloropropene, total. ug/g dry <. <. <. Ethylbenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Hexane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone). ug/g dry <. <. <. Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone). ug/g dry <. <. <. Methyl Isobutyl Ketone. ug/g dry <. <. <. Page of

42 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: BH7 BH8 MW9 BH Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: 9 MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Soil Methyl tertbutyl ether. ug/g dry <. <. <. Methylene Chloride. ug/g dry <. <. <. Styrene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,,,Tetrachloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,,,Tetrachloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Tetrachloroethylene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Toluene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,,Trichlorobenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <.,,Trichloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,,Trichloroethane. ug/g dry <. <. <. Trichloroethylene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Trichlorofluoromethane. ug/g dry <. <. <.,,Trimethylbenzene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Vinyl chloride. ug/g dry <. <. <. m,pxylenes. ug/g dry <. <. <. oxylene. ug/g dry <. <. <. Xylenes, total. ug/g dry <. <. <. Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate 8% % 7% Dibromofluoromethane Surrogate 9.8% 9.% 98.% Toluened8 Surrogate % % % Benzene. ug/g dry <. Ethylbenzene. ug/g dry <. Toluene. ug/g dry <. m,pxylenes. ug/g dry <. oxylene. ug/g dry <. Xylenes, total. ug/g dry <. Toluened8 Surrogate % Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/g dry <7 <7 <7 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < F PHCs (CC) 8 ug/g dry 8 <8 <8 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < < Page of

43 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: BH BH MW Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Physical Characteristics % Solids. % by Wt Volatiles Benzene. ug/g dry <... Ethylbenzene. ug/g dry < Toluene. ug/g dry <. <..9 m,pxylenes. ug/g dry < oxylene. ug/g dry <..8. Xylenes, total. ug/g dry < Toluened8 Surrogate % % % Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/g dry <7 <7 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < 9 F PHCs (CC) 8 ug/g dry <8 <8 F PHCs (CC) ug/g dry < < Page 7 of

44 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result Reporting Units Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) ND 7 ug/g F PHCs (CC) ND ug/g F PHCs (CC) ND 8 ug/g F PHCs (CC) ND ug/g Volatiles Acetone ND. ug/g Benzene ND. ug/g Bromodichloromethane ND. ug/g Bromoform ND. ug/g Bromomethane ND. ug/g Carbon Tetrachloride ND. ug/g Chlorobenzene ND. ug/g Chloroethane ND. ug/g Chloroform ND. ug/g Chloromethane ND. ug/g Dibromochloromethane ND. ug/g Dichlorodifluoromethane ND. ug/g,dibromoethane ND. ug/g,dichlorobenzene ND. ug/g,dichlorobenzene ND. ug/g,dichlorobenzene ND. ug/g,dichloroethane ND. ug/g,dichloroethane ND. ug/g,dichloroethylene ND. ug/g cis,dichloroethylene ND. ug/g trans,dichloroethylene ND. ug/g,dichloroethylene, total ND. ug/g,dichloropropane ND. ug/g cis,dichloropropylene ND. ug/g trans,dichloropropylene ND. ug/g,dichloropropene, total ND. ug/g Ethylbenzene ND. ug/g Hexane ND. ug/g Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone) ND. ug/g Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone) ND. ug/g Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND. ug/g Methyl tertbutyl ether ND. ug/g Methylene Chloride ND. ug/g Styrene ND. ug/g,,,tetrachloroethane ND. ug/g,,,tetrachloroethane ND. ug/g Tetrachloroethylene ND. ug/g Toluene ND. ug/g,,trichlorobenzene ND. ug/g,,trichloroethane ND. ug/g,,trichloroethane ND. ug/g Trichloroethylene ND. ug/g Trichlorofluoromethane ND. ug/g,,trimethylbenzene ND. ug/g Vinyl chloride ND. ug/g m,pxylenes ND. ug/g oxylene ND. ug/g Source Result %REC %REC Xylenes, total ND. ug/g Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 9.7 ug/g Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 7.9 ug/g 9. Surrogate: Toluened8 9. ug/g 9 Order #: Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Page 8 of

45 Order #: Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Benzene ND. ug/g Ethylbenzene ND. ug/g Toluene ND. ug/g m,pxylenes ND. ug/g oxylene ND. ug/g Xylenes, total ND. ug/g Surrogate: Toluened8 9. ug/g 7 Page 9 of

46 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result General Inorganics ph 7.. ph Units 7.. Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) ND 7 ug/g dry ND F PHCs (CC) ND ug/g dry ND F PHCs (CC) ND 8 ug/g dry ND F PHCs (CC) ND ug/g dry ND Physical Characteristics % Solids 8.9. % by Wt Volatiles Acetone ND. ug/g dry ND Benzene ND. ug/g dry ND Bromodichloromethane ND. ug/g dry ND Bromoform ND. ug/g dry ND Bromomethane ND. ug/g dry ND Carbon Tetrachloride ND. ug/g dry ND Chlorobenzene ND. ug/g dry ND Chloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND Chloroform ND. ug/g dry ND Chloromethane ND. ug/g dry ND Dibromochloromethane ND. ug/g dry ND Dichlorodifluoromethane ND. ug/g dry ND,Dibromoethane ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichlorobenzene ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichlorobenzene ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichlorobenzene ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichloroethylene ND. ug/g dry ND cis,dichloroethylene ND. ug/g dry ND trans,dichloroethylene ND. ug/g dry ND,Dichloropropane ND. ug/g dry ND cis,dichloropropylene ND. ug/g dry ND trans,dichloropropylene ND. ug/g dry ND Ethylbenzene ND. ug/g dry ND Hexane ND. ug/g dry ND Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone) ND. ug/g dry ND Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone) ND. ug/g dry ND Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND. ug/g dry ND Methyl tertbutyl ether ND. ug/g dry ND Methylene Chloride ND. ug/g dry ND Styrene ND. ug/g dry ND,,,Tetrachloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND,,,Tetrachloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND Tetrachloroethylene ND. ug/g dry ND Toluene ND. ug/g dry ND,,Trichlorobenzene ND. ug/g dry ND,,Trichloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND,,Trichloroethane ND. ug/g dry ND Trichloroethylene ND. ug/g dry ND Trichlorofluoromethane ND. ug/g dry ND,,Trimethylbenzene ND. ug/g dry ND Vinyl chloride ND. ug/g dry ND m,pxylenes ND. ug/g dry ND oxylene ND. ug/g dry ND %REC %REC RPD Order #: Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD Notes Page of

47 Order #: Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC RPD Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD Notes Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene.8 ug/g dry ND Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane. ug/g dry ND 9. Surrogate: Toluened8. ug/g dry ND Benzene ND. ug/g dry ND Ethylbenzene ND. ug/g dry ND Toluene ND. ug/g dry ND m,pxylenes ND. ug/g dry ND oxylene ND. ug/g dry ND Surrogate: Toluened8. ug/g dry ND Page of

48 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Hydrocarbons Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC F PHCs (CC) 8 7 ug/g ND F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/g ND 7. F PHCs (CC) 8 8 ug/g ND 88. F PHCs (CC) ug/g ND 97. Volatiles Acetone.8. ug/g ND 8 Benzene.. ug/g ND 9. Bromodichloromethane.. ug/g ND 8.8 Bromoform.7. ug/g ND 7 Bromomethane.7. ug/g ND 9. Carbon Tetrachloride.. ug/g ND 87. Chlorobenzene.. ug/g ND Chloroethane.9. ug/g ND 98. Chloroform.. ug/g ND 88.7 Chloromethane.. ug/g ND Dibromochloromethane.7. ug/g ND Dichlorodifluoromethane.8. ug/g ND,Dibromoethane.7. ug/g ND 8,Dichlorobenzene.9. ug/g ND,Dichlorobenzene.. ug/g ND 8.,Dichlorobenzene.88. ug/g ND,Dichloroethane.8. ug/g ND 9.,Dichloroethane.7. ug/g ND 9.,Dichloroethylene.7. ug/g ND 7.7 cis,dichloroethylene.8. ug/g ND 9.7 trans,dichloroethylene.7. ug/g ND 9.,Dichloropropane.7. ug/g ND 9.8 cis,dichloropropylene.9. ug/g ND 98. trans,dichloropropylene.9. ug/g ND 98. Ethylbenzene.89. ug/g ND Hexane.9. ug/g ND Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone) 8.9. ug/g ND 8.9 Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone).7. ug/g ND 7 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone.. ug/g ND Methyl tertbutyl ether.. ug/g ND Methylene Chloride.7. ug/g ND 9.8 Styrene.. ug/g ND 8,,,Tetrachloroethane.. ug/g ND,,,Tetrachloroethane.. ug/g ND Tetrachloroethylene.7. ug/g ND Toluene.. ug/g ND 88.,,Trichlorobenzene.8. ug/g ND 9.9,,Trichloroethane.7. ug/g ND 9.,,Trichloroethane.. ug/g ND 88. Trichloroethylene.9. ug/g ND 7. Trichlorofluoromethane.97. ug/g ND 99.,,Trimethylbenzene.77. ug/g ND 9 Vinyl chloride.7. ug/g ND 9.9 m,pxylenes 7.. ug/g ND 9. Order #: Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Page of

49 Order #: Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes oxylene.. ug/g ND Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 7. ug/g 9. Benzene.. ug/g ND 9. Ethylbenzene.89. ug/g ND Toluene.. ug/g ND 88. m,pxylenes 7.. ug/g ND 9. oxylene.. ug/g ND Page of

50 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Order #: Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct Qualifier Notes : Sample Qualifiers : Sample Data Revisions None Work Order Revisions / Comments : None Other Report Notes : n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference. Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'. Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons. CCME PHC additional information: The method for the analysis of PHCs complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory. All prescribed quality criteria identified in the method has been met. F range corrected for BTEX. F to F ranges corrected for appropriate PAHs where available. The gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons (FG) are not to be added to C to C hydrocarbons. In the case where F and FG are both reported, the greater of the two results is to be used for comparison to CWS PHC criteria. Page of

51

52

53 Certificate of Analysis Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (Ottawa) Legget Dr., Suite, Tower A Ottawa, ON KK X Attn: Michael Kosiw Phone: () 987 Fax: () 9897 Client PO: St.Laurent Project: 88. Custody: 9 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID 7 MW9 7 MW 7 MW 7 MW 7 MW 7 MW Order #: 7 Approved By: Mark Foto, M.Sc. For Dale Robertson, BSc Laboratory Director Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising shall be limited to the amount paid by you for this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work Page of

54 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Analysis Summary Table Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date BTEX EPA P&T GCMS Nov Nov CCME PHC F CWS Tier P&T GCFID Nov Nov CCME PHC F F CWS Tier GCFID, extraction Oct Oct VOCs EPA P&T GCMS Nov Nov Page of

55 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: MW9 MW MW MW Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: MDL/Units Water Water Water Water Volatiles Acetone. ug/l <. Benzene. ug/l <. Bromodichloromethane. ug/l <. Bromoform. ug/l <. Bromomethane. ug/l <. Carbon Tetrachloride. ug/l <. Chlorobenzene. ug/l <. Chloroethane. ug/l <. Chloroform. ug/l <. Chloromethane. ug/l <. Dibromochloromethane. ug/l <. Dichlorodifluoromethane. ug/l <.,Dibromoethane. ug/l <.,Dichlorobenzene. ug/l <.,Dichlorobenzene. ug/l <.,Dichlorobenzene. ug/l <.,Dichloroethane. ug/l <.,Dichloroethane. ug/l <.,Dichloroethylene. ug/l <. cis,dichloroethylene. ug/l. trans,dichloroethylene. ug/l <.,Dichloroethylene, total. ug/l.,dichloropropane. ug/l <. cis,dichloropropylene. ug/l <. trans,dichloropropylene. ug/l <.,Dichloropropene, total. ug/l <. Ethylbenzene. ug/l <. Hexane. ug/l <. Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone). ug/l <. Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone). ug/l <. Methyl Isobutyl Ketone. ug/l <. Methyl tertbutyl ether. ug/l <. Methylene Chloride. ug/l <. Page of

56 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: MW9 MW MW MW Sample Date: Oct Oct Oct Oct Sample ID: MDL/Units Water Water Water Water Styrene. ug/l <.,,,Tetrachloroethane. ug/l <.,,,Tetrachloroethane. ug/l <. Tetrachloroethylene. ug/l <. Toluene. ug/l <.,,Trichlorobenzene. ug/l <.,,Trichloroethane. ug/l <.,,Trichloroethane. ug/l <. Trichloroethylene. ug/l <. Trichlorofluoromethane. ug/l <.,,Trimethylbenzene. ug/l <. Vinyl chloride. ug/l <. m,pxylenes. ug/l <. oxylene. ug/l <. Xylenes, total. ug/l <. Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate % Dibromofluoromethane Surrogate 7.% Toluened8 Surrogate % Benzene. ug/l <..8 <. Ethylbenzene. ug/l <...8 Toluene. ug/l <. <..8 m,pxylenes. ug/l <. <. <. oxylene. ug/l <. <. <. Xylenes, total. ug/l <. <. <. Toluened8 Surrogate % % % Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) ug/l < < < F PHCs (CC) ug/l < < < F PHCs (CC) ug/l < < < F PHCs (CC) ug/l < < < F + F PHCs ug/l < < < F + F PHCs ug/l < < < Page of

57 Cer ficate of Analysis Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Order Date: Oct Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Client ID: MW MW Sample Date: Oct Oct Sample ID: 7 7 MDL/Units Water Water Volatiles Benzene. ug/l Ethylbenzene. ug/l Toluene. ug/l 9.. m,pxylenes. ug/l 8 oxylene. ug/l 79. Xylenes, total. ug/l Toluened8 Surrogate 9.8% % Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) ug/l F PHCs (CC) ug/l < F PHCs (CC) ug/l < < F PHCs (CC) ug/l < < F + F PHCs ug/l F + F PHCs ug/l < < Page of

58 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result Reporting Units Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) ND ug/l F PHCs (CC) ND ug/l F PHCs (CC) ND ug/l F PHCs (CC) ND ug/l Volatiles Acetone ND. ug/l Benzene ND. ug/l Bromodichloromethane ND. ug/l Bromoform ND. ug/l Bromomethane ND. ug/l Carbon Tetrachloride ND. ug/l Chlorobenzene ND. ug/l Chloroethane ND. ug/l Chloroform ND. ug/l Chloromethane ND. ug/l Dibromochloromethane ND. ug/l Dichlorodifluoromethane ND. ug/l,dibromoethane ND. ug/l,dichlorobenzene ND. ug/l,dichlorobenzene ND. ug/l,dichlorobenzene ND. ug/l,dichloroethane ND. ug/l,dichloroethane ND. ug/l,dichloroethylene ND. ug/l cis,dichloroethylene ND. ug/l trans,dichloroethylene ND. ug/l,dichloroethylene, total ND. ug/l,dichloropropane ND. ug/l cis,dichloropropylene ND. ug/l trans,dichloropropylene ND. ug/l,dichloropropene, total ND. ug/l Ethylbenzene ND. ug/l Hexane ND. ug/l Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone) ND. ug/l Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone) ND. ug/l Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND. ug/l Methyl tertbutyl ether ND. ug/l Methylene Chloride ND. ug/l Styrene ND. ug/l,,,tetrachloroethane ND. ug/l,,,tetrachloroethane ND. ug/l Tetrachloroethylene ND. ug/l Toluene ND. ug/l,,trichlorobenzene ND. ug/l,,trichloroethane ND. ug/l,,trichloroethane ND. ug/l Trichloroethylene ND. ug/l Trichlorofluoromethane ND. ug/l,,trimethylbenzene ND. ug/l Vinyl chloride ND. ug/l m,pxylenes ND. ug/l oxylene ND. ug/l Source Result %REC %REC Xylenes, total ND. ug/l Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene.9 ug/l Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane. ug/l Surrogate: Toluened8. ug/l 79. Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Page of

59 Order #: 7 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Benzene ND. ug/l Ethylbenzene ND. ug/l Toluene ND. ug/l m,pxylenes ND. ug/l oxylene ND. ug/l Xylenes, total ND. ug/l Surrogate: Toluened8. ug/l 79. Page 7 of

60 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result Hydrocarbons F PHCs (CC) ND ug/l ND Volatiles Acetone ND. ug/l ND Benzene ND. ug/l ND Bromodichloromethane ND. ug/l ND Bromoform ND. ug/l ND Bromomethane ND. ug/l ND Carbon Tetrachloride ND. ug/l ND Chlorobenzene ND. ug/l ND Chloroethane ND. ug/l ND Chloroform ND. ug/l ND Chloromethane ND. ug/l ND Dibromochloromethane ND. ug/l ND Dichlorodifluoromethane ND. ug/l ND,Dibromoethane ND. ug/l ND,Dichlorobenzene ND. ug/l ND,Dichlorobenzene ND. ug/l ND,Dichlorobenzene ND. ug/l ND,Dichloroethane ND. ug/l ND,Dichloroethane ND. ug/l ND,Dichloroethylene ND. ug/l ND cis,dichloroethylene ND. ug/l ND trans,dichloroethylene ND. ug/l ND,Dichloropropane ND. ug/l ND cis,dichloropropylene ND. ug/l ND trans,dichloropropylene ND. ug/l ND Ethylbenzene ND. ug/l ND Hexane ND. ug/l ND Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone) ND. ug/l ND Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone) ND. ug/l ND Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND. ug/l ND Methyl tertbutyl ether ND. ug/l ND Methylene Chloride ND. ug/l ND Styrene ND. ug/l ND,,,Tetrachloroethane ND. ug/l ND,,,Tetrachloroethane ND. ug/l ND Tetrachloroethylene ND. ug/l ND Toluene ND. ug/l ND,,Trichlorobenzene ND. ug/l ND,,Trichloroethane ND. ug/l ND,,Trichloroethane ND. ug/l ND Trichloroethylene ND. ug/l ND Trichlorofluoromethane ND. ug/l ND,,Trimethylbenzene ND. ug/l ND Vinyl chloride ND. ug/l ND m,pxylenes ND. ug/l ND oxylene ND. ug/l ND Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene. ug/l ND Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane. ug/l ND Surrogate: Toluened8.8 ug/l ND 8.9 Benzene ND. ug/l ND Ethylbenzene ND. ug/l ND Toluene ND. ug/l ND m,pxylenes ND. ug/l ND oxylene ND. ug/l ND %REC %REC RPD Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD Notes Page 8 of

61 Order #: 7 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC RPD Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD Notes Surrogate: Toluened8.8 ug/l ND 8.9 Page 9 of

62 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Hydrocarbons Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/l ND F PHCs (CC) 8 ug/l ND 8. F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/l ND 9.7 F PHCs (CC) 7 ug/l ND Volatiles Acetone.7. ug/l ND.7 Benzene.8. ug/l ND Bromodichloromethane.. ug/l ND Bromoform 7.9. ug/l ND 9.7 Carbon Tetrachloride 9.8. ug/l ND Chlorobenzene.. ug/l ND 7. Chloroethane.. ug/l ND Chloroform 7.8. ug/l ND 9 Chloromethane 9.7. ug/l ND 7. Dibromochloromethane 8.. ug/l ND 9. Dichlorodifluoromethane.7. ug/l ND,Dibromoethane 8.. ug/l ND 9.9,Dichlorobenzene.7. ug/l ND 8.7,Dichlorobenzene.8. ug/l ND.,Dichlorobenzene.. ug/l ND 7.,Dichloroethane 7.8. ug/l ND,Dichloroethane.8. ug/l ND 9,Dichloroethylene 9.. ug/l ND 97. cis,dichloroethylene.. ug/l ND trans,dichloroethylene.. ug/l ND,Dichloropropane.. ug/l ND 8 cis,dichloropropylene.. ug/l ND trans,dichloropropylene 9.9. ug/l ND Ethylbenzene.. ug/l ND 87. Hexane.. ug/l ND Methyl Ethyl Ketone (Butanone) 9.. ug/l ND 9. Methyl Butyl Ketone (Hexanone) 8.7. ug/l ND 8.7 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 7.. ug/l ND 7. Methyl tertbutyl ether 9. ug/l ND 9 Methylene Chloride.. ug/l ND Styrene.. ug/l ND 8.,,,Tetrachloroethane.. ug/l ND 87.,,,Tetrachloroethane.. ug/l ND 78. Tetrachloroethylene.. ug/l ND 9. Toluene 8.. ug/l ND 9.,,Trichlorobenzene.. ug/l ND 8.,,Trichloroethane 7.. ug/l ND 8,,Trichloroethane.. ug/l ND Trichloroethylene.. ug/l ND 8 Trichlorofluoromethane.7. ug/l ND 7,,Trimethylbenzene.. ug/l ND 7.7 Vinyl chloride.. ug/l ND. m,pxylenes.. ug/l ND 7.8 oxylene.. ug/l ND 78.9 Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Page of

63 Order #: 7 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Result Reporting Units Source Result %REC %REC Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct RPD RPD Notes Surrogate: Bromofluorobenzene 9. ug/l Benzene.8. ug/l ND Ethylbenzene.. ug/l ND 87. Toluene 8.. ug/l ND 9. m,pxylenes.. ug/l ND 7.8 oxylene.. ug/l ND 78.9 Page of

64 Cer ficate of Analysis Client: Pinchin Environmental Ltd. (O awa) Client PO: St.Laurent Project Descrip on: 88. Order #: 7 Report Date: Nov Order Date: Oct Qualifier Notes : None Sample Data Revisions None Work Order Revisions / Comments : None Other Report Notes : n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples %REC: Percent recovery. RPD: Relative percent difference. CCME PHC additional information: The method for the analysis of PHCs complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory. All prescribed quality criteria identified in the method has been met. F range corrected for BTEX. F to F ranges corrected for appropriate PAHs where available. The gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons (FG) are not to be added to C to C hydrocarbons. In the case where F and FG are both reported, the greater of the two results is to be used for comparison to CWS PHC criteria. Page of

65