REPORT ON LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 90 GUIGUES AVENUE OTTAWA, ONTARIO. Submitted to:

Transcription

1 Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. 180 Wescar Lane R.R. 2 Carp, Ontario K0A 1L0 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) REPORT ON LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 90 GUIGUES AVENUE OTTAWA, ONTARIO Submitted to: Sarah Fulford 390 Guigues Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5H7 DISTRIBUTION: 2 Copies Sarah Fulford 1 Digital Copy Sarah Fulford 1 Copy Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. July 2013 Our Ref: Geotechnical Engineering Hydrogeology Environmental Site Assessment Geotechnical Materials Testing and Inspection

2 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford i Our Ref: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. (HCEL) was retained by Sarah Fulford to conduct a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property at 90 Guigues Avenue in Ottawa, Ontario. The objectives of the limited Phase II ESA were based on a previous Phase I ESA and geotechnical report prepared by HCEL in 2010 and are as follows: Assess the soil on the site for potential contamination from the fill material; and, Assess the groundwater on the site for potential contamination. The field investigation consisted of advancing two (2) test pits, and sampling from an existing monitoring well. Groundwater samples were not obtained due to insufficient water in the monitoring well. Soil samples were collected from the test pits and submitted to Paracel Laboratories Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario for laboratory analysis. The results of the Phase II ESA are summarized below: Data collected during the borehole drilling indicate that the site is generally underlain by a surficial layer of granular material, followed by fill material consisting of dark brown sandy silt with some gravel and cobbles, and ash, concrete pieces and ceramic pieces. Glacial till was encountered below the fill material in test pit 131. Test pit 131 was terminated on bedrock at a depth of approximately 1.6 m bgs. The MOE site condition standards selected for this site are the MOE Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition and Residential Property Use as outlined in the MOE, Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (MOE, April 15, 2011). The analytical results of the soil samples submitted from the test pits exceed the MOE Table 7 site condition standards for one or more parameters tested. The soil sample submitted from TP131 exceeds the site condition standards for sodium absorption ratio, conductivity, barium and lead. The soil sample submitted from TP132 exceeds the site condition standards for mercury, lead, acenapthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, debenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene. Based on the results of the current investigation, some or all of the fill material on the site does not meet MOE Table 7 requirements. As part of the development, the existing fill material should be removed and disposed of at a licensed landfill. Delineation of soil exceeding the site Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

3 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford ii Our Ref: condition standards could be performed in order to determine the amount of material required to be disposed of at a licensed landfill facility. At the time of the investigation, groundwater conditions could not be assessed due to insufficient groundwater. Based on the chemical testing during the previous geotechnical investigation, there is potential for contaminants in the groundwater. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

4 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford iii Our Ref: TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Table of Contents Section i iii Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION Site Description and Background Objectives and Scope of Work SITE INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY Borehole Drilling and Soil Sampling Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION Site Geology Site Restoration Standards Soil Sample Results Quality Assurance/Quality Control SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY REFERENCES...13 In order following Page 13: LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 Key Plan Test Pit Location Plan Grain Size Distribution LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 Soil Analytical Results Petroleum Parameters Soil Analytical Results Metal Parameters Soil Analytical Results Volatile Organic Compounds Soil Analytical Results Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B Record of Borehole Sheets Laboratory Certificate of Analysis Soil Samples Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

5 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford iv Our Ref: APPENDIX C Letter from Dr. Martha Fulford Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

6 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 1 Our Ref: INTRODUCTION Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. (HCEL) was retained by Sarah Fulford to conduct a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property at 90 Guigues Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario (hereafter referred as the site ). This report documents the methodology and results of the Phase II ESA conducted at the site. 1.1 Site Description and Background The site is owned by Sarah Fulford and is located on the south side of Guigues Avenue, approximately 50 metres east of the intersection of Parent Street and Guigues Avenue (refer to Key Plan, Figure 1). The site has a total area of approximately 0.16 hectares and is partially occupied by a multistorey apartment building located along the western property boundary. The remainder of the site is occupied by a parking area and grassed/landscaped area. Surrounding land use is residential. A Phase I ESA and a geotechnical investigation were previously conducted for the site by HCEL. The results of the Phase I ESA were provided in our report titled: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 90 Guigues Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario dated January The results of the geotechnical investigation were provided in our report titled: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 90 Guigues Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario dated February A review of the reports identified the following environmental issues: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) sampling completed in the geotechnical investigation The concentration of benzene in the groundwater sample taken on January 11, 2010 exceeds the current applicable MOE Table 7 site condition standard (0.7 µg/l versus standard of 0.5 µg/l). The concentration of chloroform in the groundwater sample exceeds the current applicable MOE Table 7 site condition standard (13.4 µg/l versus standard of 2 µg/l). Fill material identified in the geotechnical investigation The amended Ontario Regulation 153/04 identifies fill material as a potentially contaminating activity that requires investigation if located on the subject property. The geotechnical investigation by HCEL in August 2012 indicates that fill materials exists on the site. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

7 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 2 Our Ref: Objectives and Scope of Work The objectives of the Phase II ESA are listed below: Assess the soil on the site for potential contamination from the fill material; and, Assess the groundwater on the site for potential contamination. To address these objectives, HCEL proposed a work program that includes: Advancing two (2) test pits at two (2) locations using a rubber tire backhoe; Collecting soil samples recovered from the test pits; Collecting groundwater samples from the monitoring well; and, Submitting soil and groundwater samples to Paracel Laboratories Ltd., an acreditted analytical laboratory in Ottawa, Ontario, for laboratory analyses of selected chemical parameters. Prior to the field investigation, the public and private underground utilities were located and the test pit locations were cleared by Safe to Dig, a private services locating contractor based in Ottawa, Ontario. The locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

8 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 3 Our Ref: SITE INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY 2.1 Test Pits and Soil Sampling Two (2) test pits (131 and 132) were advanced on June 19, 2013, at the locations shown on Figure 2. The test pits were advanced using a rubber tire backhoe supplies by Ken White Construction 2000 Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of 1.6 metres below ground surface (m bgs). Soil samples were recovered from the fill material on the sidewalls of the test pits. The soil samples were collected following the Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (the MOE, 1996). Clean gloves were worn and changed between each sample. The soil samples were inspected in the field for visual and tactile evidence of impact. Headspace combustible gas concentrations were measured in the field using a portable combustible gas detector manufactured by RKI Instruments (Eagle series) calibrated to a known hexane gas standard and operated in methane elimination mode. The headspace combustible gas concentration readings for the soil samples are provided on the Record of Test Pit sheets in Appendix A. One (1) soil sample from each test pit and a duplicate soil sample from test pit 131 were submitted to Paracel Laboratories Ltd. for chemical analyses of selected parameters. samples were selected based on the presence of fill material, combustible headspace gas readings and visual and tactile evidence of impact. selected parameters analysed are summarized in the following table: Borehole Sample Depth Interval (metres below ground surface) TP131 SA2 1.0 TP132 SA1 0.5 TP133 5 SA1 1.0 Soil The soil samples submitted and the Parameters Analysed PHCs F1 to F4 1 BTEX 2 VOCs 3 PAHs 4 Metals and Inorganics PHCs F1 to F4 BTEX VOCs PAHs Metals and Inorganics PHCs F1 to F4 BTEX VOCs Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

9 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 4 Our Ref: Notes: Borehole Sample Depth Interval (metres below ground surface) Parameters Analysed PAHs Metals and Inorganics 1. PHCs F1 to F4 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractions in the F1 to F4 ranges. 2. BTEX Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes. 3. VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds. 4. PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. 5. TP133 is a duplicate of TP131. Additional details on the soil samples recovered can be found in the Record of Test Pit sheets provided in Appendix A. 2.2 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling The static groundwater level was measured in the monitoring well installed in borehole BH1 during the geotechnical investigation by HCEL in The static ground water level was measured at 3.8 m bgs on June 19, 2013 using a Heron Instruments oil/water interface meter. No groundwater sample was obtained on June 19, 2013 due to insufficient water present in the monitoring well as the well immediately went dry when purging and no recovery was observed within two (2) hours of monitoring the groundwater level. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

10 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 5 Our Ref: RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION 3.1 Site Geology The subsurface conditions identified in test pits TP131 and TP132 are given on the Record of Test Pit sheets in Appendix A following the text of this report. The Record of Test Pit sheets indicate the subsurface conditions at the specific test locations only. Boundaries between zones on the logs are often not distinct, but rather are transitional and have been interpreted. The precision with which subsurface conditions are indicated depends on the method of excavation, the frequency and recovery of samples, the method of sampling, and the uniformity of the subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions at other than the test locations may vary from the conditions encountered in the test pits. In addition to soil variability, fill material of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The soil descriptions in this report are based on commonly accepted methods of classification and identification employed in geotechnical practice. Classification and identification of soil involves judgement and HCEL does not guarantee descriptions as exact, but infers accuracy to the extent that is common in current practice. The following presents a simplified overview of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits advanced during this investigation. It should be noted that bones were found during the advancement of test pit 132. Photographs were sent to Dr. Martha Fulford by the owner Sarah Fulford. A letter by Dr. Martha Fulford indicating that the bones in the photographs were determined to be animal bones is provided in Appendix C. Asphaltic Concrete / Granular Material Test pits 131 and 132 encountered granular material from ground surface with a thickness of approximately 0.1 metres. Test pit 132 encountered a 0.1 metre thick asphaltic concrete layer below the granular material. Fill Material Fill material was encountered below the granular / asphaltic concrete layer in test pits 131 and 132. The thickness of the fill material in test pit 131 is approximately 0.9 metres. The extent of the fill material in test pit 132 was not determined due to the presence of bones in the test pit Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

11 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 6 Our Ref: which halted the advancement. The fill material is composed of dark brown silty sand with some gravel and cobbles. The fill material also contained ash, concrete pieces and ceramic pieces. Glacial Till A deposit of glacial till was encountered in test pit 131 beneath the fill material. The glacial till is composed of grey brown silty sand and gravel with trace clay. Cobbles and boulders should also be expected in the glacial till, but were not observed in the test pit. Bedrock Test pit 131 was terminated on bedrock at a depth of 1.6 m bgs. Detailed descriptions of the soil conditions can be found on the Record of Test Pit sheets in Appendix A 3.2 Site Restoration Standards Site restoration standards were selected for this site in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 153/04, Records of Site Condition Part XV.1 of The Environmental Protection Act (O. Reg. 153/04, MOE, October 31, 2011). The following information was considered in selecting the site condition standards: The site and neighbouring properties are serviced by the City of Ottawa s municipal drinking water system; The site is considered residential property since the site is currently occupied by a multiresidential building and the surrounding land use is also residential; The overburden thickness encountered during borehole drilling was less than 2 metres. The ph of the soil samples, as shown in Table 1, is between 5 and 9, and therefore the site is not considered an environmentally sensitive area as defined by O. Reg. 153/04 s. 41(1). A grain size analysis performed an a sample of the glacial till was determined to have greater than 50 percent of particles larger than 75 µm in diameter and therefore is considered a coarse textured site. The results of the grain size analysis are provided on Figure 3. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

12 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 7 Our Ref: Based on the above information, the current MOE Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition and Residential Property Use as outlined in the MOE, Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (MOE, April 15, 2011) was selected for this site. 3.3 Soil Sample Results Analytical results for the soil samples submitted for analysis from test pits 131, 132, and the selected MOE site condition standards are presented on Tables 2 to 5. The laboratory Certificates of Analysis for soil samples are provided in Appendix B. The analytical results of the laboratory testing exceed the site condition standards of one or more parameters for both soil samples. The exceedances are summarized in the following tables: TP131 SA2 Parameter Laboratory Result (µg/g) Site Condition Standard (µg/g) Barium Lead Sodium Absorption Ratio 7.71 (unitless) 5 (unitless) Conductivity 1990 (µs/cm) 700 (µs/cm) TP 132 SA1 Parameter Laboratory Result (µg/g) Site Condition Standard (µg/g) Mercury Lead Acenaphthylene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene Quality Assurance/Quality Control A quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program was implemented to minimize and quantify impacts introduced during sample collection, handling, shipping and analysis. As part of the QA/QC program, sampling protocols included: submitting duplicate samples, minimizing sample handling, using dedicated noncontaminated sampling equipment, using sample specific identification and labelling procedures and using chain of custody records. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

13 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 8 Our Ref: Laboratory QA/QC results are included with the laboratory Certificates of Analysis provided in Appendix B. Sample holding times were met. All laboratory quality control blanks, duplicates and spikes met applicable industry criteria with the exception of the quality control duplicate for fluoranthene, which was high; however, the sample result is less than ten times the method detection limit. The reporting limit for free cyanide for the sample TP132 SA1 and the duplicate sample were elevated due to matrix interference. There are large differences between the original sample TP131 SA2 and the duplicate for a number of parameters including lead and barium which exceed the MOE site condition standards in sample TP131 SA2 but do not in the duplicate sample. The large differences in the sample results could be due to the heterogeneous nature of the fill material that was encountered on site. Based on the measures discussed above, sample collection and handling protocols are considered acceptable. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

14 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 9 Our Ref: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. (HCEL) was retained by Sarah Fulford to conduct a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property at 90 Guigues Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario. The objectives of the limited Phase II ESA were based on a previous Phase I ESA and geotechnical report prepared by HCEL in 2010 and are as follows: Assess the soil on the site for potential contamination from the fill material; and, Assess the groundwater on the site for potential contamination. The field investigation consisted of advancing two (2) test pits, and sampling from an existing monitoring well. Groundwater samples were not obtained due to insufficient water in the monitoring well. Soil samples were collected from the test pits and submitted to Paracel Laboratories Ltd. of Ottawa, Ontario for laboratory analysis. The results of the Phase II ESA are summarized below. The data collected during the borehole drilling indicate that the site is generally underlain by a surficial layer of granular material, followed by fill material consisting of dark brown sandy silt with some gravel and cobbles, and ash, concrete pieces and ceramic pieces. Glacial till was encountered below the fill material in test pit 131. Test pit 131 was terminated on bedrock at a depth of approximately 1.6 m bgs. The MOE site condition standards selected for this site are the MOE Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition and Residential Property Use as outlined in the MOE, Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (MOE, April 15, 2011). The analytical results of the soil samples submitted from the soil samples submitted from the test pits exceed the MOE Table 7 site condition standards for one or more parameters tested. The soil sample submitted from TP131 exceeds the site condition standards for sodium absorption ratio, conductivity, barium and lead. The soil sample submitted from TP132 exceeds the site condition standards for mercury, lead, acenaphthylene, benzo(a)anthracene, Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

15 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 10 Our Ref: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, fluoranthene and indeno(1,2,3 cd)pyrene. Based on the results of the current investigation, some or all of the fill material on the site does not meet MOE Table 7 requirements. As part of the development, the existing fill material should be removed and disposed of at a licensed landfill. Delineation of soil exceeding the site condition standards could be performed in order to determine the amount of material required to be disposed of at a licensed landfill facility. At the time of the investigation, groundwater conditions could not be assessed due to insufficient groundwater. Based on the chemical testing during the previous geotechnical investigation, there is potential for contaminants in the groundwater. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

16 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 11 Our Ref: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY This report was prepared for and the work referred to within it has been undertaken by Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. (HCEL) for Sarah Fulford. It is intended for the exclusive use of Sarah Fulford. This report may not be relied upon by any other person or entity without the express written consent of HCEL and Sarah Fulford. Nothing in this report is intended to provide a legal opinion. The investigation undertaken by HCEL with respect to this report and any conclusions or recommendations made in this report reflect the best judgments of HCEL based on the site conditions observed during the investigations undertaken at the date(s) identified in the report and on the information available at the time the report was prepared. This report has been prepared for the application noted and it is based, in part, on visual observations made at the site, subsurface investigations at discrete locations and depths and laboratory analyses of specific chemical parameters and material during a specific time interval, all as described in the report. Unless otherwise stated, the findings contained in this report cannot be extrapolated or extended to previous or future site conditions, portions of the site that were unavailable for direct investigation, subsurface locations on the site that were not investigated directly, or chemical parameters, materials or analysis which were not addressed. Chemical parameters other than those addressed by the investigation described in this report may exist in soil and groundwater elsewhere on the site, the chemical parameters addressed in the report may exist in soil and groundwater at other locations at the site that were not investigated and concentrations of the chemical parameters addressed which are different than those reported may exist at other locations on the site than those from where the samples were taken. Should new information become available during future work, including excavations, borings or other studies, HCEL should be requested to review the information and, if necessary, reassess the conclusions presented herein. Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

17

18 Report to: July 2013 Sarah Fulford 13 Our Ref: REFERENCES Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 90 Guigues Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario (January, 2010) Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd., Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, 90 Guigues Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario (February, 2010) Ontario Ministry of Environment, Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (December 1996) Ontario Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Regulation 153/04, Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Act (October 31, 2011) Ontario Ministry of Environment, Soil Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. (April 15, 2011) Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

19 z BOTELER ST SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX DR DR DR DR DR EXANDRA BR SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX DR DR DR DR DR PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE BOLTON ST BOTELER ST CATHCART ST 81 BRUYERE ST 15 SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX DR DR DR DR DR PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE 26 MURRAY ST SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX DR DR DR DR DR KEY PLAN 11 0 BOLTON ST ST. ANDREW ST SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX SUSSEX DR DR DR DR DR ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. PATRICK PATRICK PATRICK PATRICK PATRICK ST ST ST ST ST CATHCART ST 42 4 PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE RAY ST BRUYERE ST PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE BOLTON ST DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST BRUYERE ST DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST ST. PATRICK ST DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST ST. ANDREW ST PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE SITE N.T.S CATHCART ST GUIGUES AVE GUIGUES AVE GUIGUES AVE PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST ST. ANDREW ST ST. PATRICK ST PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT PARENT AVE AVE AVE AVE AVE BRUYERE ST MURRAY ST MURRAY ST DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST CLARENCE ST DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST 24 0 MURRAY ST CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND ST ST ST ST ST WILLIAM WILLIAM WILLIAM WILLIAM WILLIAM S GUIGUES AVE FIGURE BRUYERE ST CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND CUMBERLAND ST ST ST ST ST ST. PATRICK ST DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST CLARENCE ST 29 9 DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE DALHOUSIE ST ST ST ST ST K K ST MURRAY ST GUIGUES AVE CLARENCE ST DALHO DALHO DALHO DALHO BRUYERE KING KING KING KING KING EDWARD EDWARD EDWARD EDWARD EDWARD AV AVE GUIGUES AVE YORK ST 24 0 ST. PATRICK ST KING KING KING KING KING EDWARD EDWARD EDWARD EDWARD ST. PATRICK ST MURRAY YORK YORK YORK YORK YORK ST Date: July 2013 Project: 13186

20 GUIGUES AVENUE BH 1 TP131 BH 2 TP132 LEGEND TP 131 BH 1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION IN PLAN, CURRENT INVESTIGATION BY HOULE CHEVRIER ENGINEERING LTD. APPROXIMATE BOREHOLE LOCATION IN PLAN, PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION BY HOULE CHEVRIER ENGINEERING LTD. REFERENCE: PLAN PREPARED USING SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY FARLEY, SMITH & DENIS SURVEYING LTD. Client Drawn by D.J.R Ms. SARAH FULFORD Approved by A.F.C. Title Date Location 90 GUIGUES AVENUE OTTAWA, ON Project No. Scale : 250 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN July 2013 Revision 0 FIGURE 2

21 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE Sieve Size, mm % Passing MOE ENVIRONMENTAL GRAIN SIZE GRAPH TEST PITS 12.GPJ HOULE CHEVRIER FEB GDT 9/7/13 Test pit 131 Coarse Textured when > 50% of particles by mass are 75 µm or larger in diameter Sample SA3 Grain Size, mm Environmental Protection Act O. Reg. 153/04 Depth (m) % > 75 µm 84.3 Medium and Fine Textured when > 50% of particles by mass are smaller than 75 µm in diameter Legend Date: July 2013 Project: 13186

22 July 2013 TABLE 1 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS PETROLEUM PARAMETERS Our ref: Sample ID: TP 131 SA2 TP 132 SA1 TP 133 SA1 7 Date Sampled: 06/19/ /19/ /19/2013 PARAMETER UNITS MDL MOE Standard* Benzene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.21 Ethylbenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 2 Toluene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 2.3 m/pxylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS oxylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS Total Xylene** µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 3.1 F1 PHC's (C6C10) µg/g dry 7 ND (7) ND (7) ND (7) 55 F2 PHC's (C10C16) µg/g dry 4 ND (4) ND (4) ND (4) 98 F3 PHC's (C16C34) µg/g dry 8 ND (8) ND (8) ND (8) 300 F4 PHC's (C34C50) µg/g dry 6 ND (6) ND (6) ND (6) 2800 Notes: 1 MDL Method Detection Limit 2 NS No Standard 3 ND Not Detected 4 N/A Not Analysed * Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition 4 (Residential Property Use) found in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011) 5 ** Total Xylene is calculated using the sum of m/pxylen and oxylene 6 Bold Exceeds Selected MOE Standard 7 Duplicate Sample of TP131 SA2 Page 1 of 1

23 July 2013 TABLE 2 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS METAL AND INORGANIC PARAMETERS Our ref: Sample ID: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 6 Date Sampled: 06/19/ /19/ /19/2013 PARAMETER UNITS MDL MOE Standard* Sodium Absorption Ratio N/A Conductivity µs/cm Cyanide, free µg/g dry 0.03 ND (0.03) ND (0.30) ND (0.30) ph ph Units Boron, available µg/g dry Chromium (VI) µg/g dry ND (0.2) 8 Mercury µg/g dry 0.1 ND (0.1) 1.4 ND (0.1) 0.27 Antimony µg/g dry 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 7.5 Arsenic µg/g dry ND (1.0) 18 Barium µg/g dry Beryllium µg/g dry 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 4 Boron µg/g dry Cadmium µg/g dry 0.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 1.2 Chromium µg/g dry Cobalt µg/g dry Copper µg/g dry Lead µg/g dry Molybdenum µg/g dry ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 6.9 Nickel µg/g dry Selenium µg/g dry 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 2.4 Silver µg/g dry 0.5 ND (0.5) ND (0.5) ND (0.5) 20 Thallium µg/g dry 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 1 Uranium µg/g dry 1 ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) 23 Vanadium µg/g dry Zinc µg/g dry Notes: 1 MDL Method Detection Limit 2 NS No Standard 3 ND Not Detected 4 * Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition (Residential Property Use) found in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011) 5 Bold Exceeds Selected MOE Standard 6 Duplicate Sample of TP131 SA2 Page 1 of 1

24 July 2013 TABLE 3 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Our ref: Sample ID: Date Sampled: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 6 06/19/ /19/ /19/2013 PARAMETER UNITS MDL MOE Standard* Acetone µg/g dry 0.5 ND (0.50) ND (0.50) ND (0.50) 16 Benzene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.21 Bromodichloromethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 13 Bromoform µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.27 Bromomethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 Carbon Tetrachloride µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 Chlorobenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 2.4 Chloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS Chloroform µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 Chloromethane µg/g dry 0.2 ND (0.20) ND (0.20) ND (0.20) NS Dibromochloromethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 9.4 Dichlorodifluoromethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 16 1,2Dibromoethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,2Dichlorobenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 3.4 1,3Dichlorobenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 4.8 1,4Dichlorobenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,1Dichloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 3.5 1,2Dichloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,1Dichloroethylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 cis1,2dichloroethylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 3.4 trans1,2dichloroethylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,2Dichloroethylene, total µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS 1,2Dichloropropane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 cis1,3dichloropropylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS trans1,3dichloropropylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS 1,3Dichloropropene, total µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 Ethylbenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 2 Hexane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 2.8 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2Butanone) µg/g dry 0.5 ND (0.50) ND (0.50) ND (0.50) 16 Methyl Butyl Ketone (2Hexanone) µg/g dry 2 ND (2.00) ND (2.00) ND (2.00) NS Methyl Isobutyl Ketone µg/g dry 0.5 ND (0.50) ND (0.50) ND (0.50) 1.7 Methyl tertbutyl ether µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.75 Methylene Chloride µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.1 Styrene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.7 1,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 Tetrachloroethylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.28 Toluene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 2.3 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,1,1Trichloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ,1,2Trichloroethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 0.05 Trichloroethylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) Trichlorofluoromethane µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 4 1,3,5Trimethylbenzene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS Vinyl Chloride µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.02 m/pxylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS oxylene µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) NS Xylenes, total µg/g dry 0.05 ND (0.05) ND (0.05) ND (0.05) 3.1 Notes: 1 MDL Method Detection Limit 2 NS No Standard 3 ND Not Detected * Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition (Residential 4 Property Use) found in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011) 5 Bold Exceeds Selected MOE Standard 6 Duplicate Sample of TP131 SA2 Page 1 of 1

25 July 2013 TABLE 4 SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS Our ref: Sample ID: Date Sampled: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 6 06/19/ /19/ /19/2013 PARAMETER UNITS MDL MOE Standard* Acenaphthene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 7.9 Acenaphthylene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.18 ND (0.02) 0.15 Anthracene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.16 ND (0.02) 0.67 Benzo[a]anthracene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.89 ND (0.02) 0.5 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 1.09 ND (0.02) 0.3 Benzo[b]fluoranthene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 1.54 ND (0.02) 0.78 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.92 ND (0.02) 6.6 Benzo[k]fluoranthene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.74 ND (0.02) ,1Biphenyl µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 0.31 Chrysene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 1.11 ND (0.02) 7 Dibenzo[a,h]anthracene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.18 ND (0.02) 0.1 Fluoranthene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 1.37 ND (0.02) 0.69 Fluorene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) 62 Indeno[1,2,3cd]pyrene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.83 ND (0.02) Methylnaphthalene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) ND (0.02) ND (0.02) Methylnaphthalene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.99 Methylnaphthalene (1&2) µg/g dry 0.04 ND (0.04) ND (0.04) ND (0.04) 0.99 Naphthalene µg/g dry 0.01 ND (0.01) 0.19 ND (0.01) 0.6 Phenanthrene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 0.39 ND (0.02) 6.2 Pyrene µg/g dry 0.02 ND (0.02) 1.38 ND (0.02) 78 Notes: 1 MDL Method Detection Limit 2 NS No Standard 3 ND Not Detected * Table 7 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Coarse Grained Soils in a NonPotable Ground Water Condition (Residential 4 Property Use) found in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (April 15, 2011) 5 Bold Exceeds Selected MOE Standard 6 Duplicate Sample of TP131 SA2 Page 1 of 1

26 July 2013 Our Ref: APPENDIX A RECORD OF TEST PIT SHEETS Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

27 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Test Pit Location Plan, Figure 2 DATE OF EXCAVATION: June 19, 2013 RECORD OF TEST PIT 131 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: TYPE OF EXCAVATOR: Rubber tire backhoe DEPTH SCALE METRES DESCRIPTION SOIL PROFILE STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLE NUMBER ADDITIONAL LABORATORY TESTING COMBUSTIBLE VAPOUR READINGS ON SAMPLE HEADSPACE (PARTS PER MILLION) WATER LEVEL IN OPEN TEST PIT OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Ground Surface Crushed SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt Dark brown silty sand, some gravel, with ceramic pieces, concrete and ash (FILL MATERIAL) Backfilled with excavated material 1 Grey brown silty sand and gravel, trace clay (GLACIAL TILL) PHCs, VOCs, PAHs, Metals & Inorganics 0 Test pit terminated due to hydraulic bucket refusal on bedrock Grain size distribution (Figure 3) 0 Test pit dry upon completion DEPTH SCALE 1 to 20 Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. LOGGED: A.N. CHECKED:

28 PROJECT: LOCATION: See Test Pit Location Plan, Figure 2 DATE OF EXCAVATION: June 19, 2013 RECORD OF TEST PIT 132 SHEET 1 OF 1 DATUM: TYPE OF EXCAVATOR: Rubber tire backhoe DEPTH SCALE METRES DESCRIPTION SOIL PROFILE STRATA PLOT ELEV. DEPTH (m) SAMPLE NUMBER ADDITIONAL LABORATORY TESTING COMBUSTIBLE VAPOUR READINGS ON SAMPLE HEADSPACE (PARTS PER MILLION) WATER LEVEL IN OPEN TEST PIT OR STANDPIPE INSTALLATION 0 Ground Surface Crushed SAND and GRAVEL, trace silt ASPHALTIC CONCRETE 0.08 Dark brown silty sand, some gravel and cobbles, with glass, concrete, ceramic pieces and ash (FILL MATERIAL) PHCs, VOCs, PAHs, Metals & Inorganics 0 Backfilled with excavated material 1 Test pit terminated due to presence of bones in test pit 0.91 Test pit dry upon completion DEPTH SCALE 1 to 20 Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd. LOGGED: A.N. CHECKED:

29 July 2013 Our Ref: APPENDIX B LABORATORY CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS SOIL SAMPLES Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

30 Certificate of Analysis Houle Chevrier 180 Wescar Lane Ottawa, ON K0A1L0 Attn: Brett Painter Phone: (613) Fax: (613) Client PO: Project: Custody: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date: 19Jun2013 This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted: Paracel ID Client ID TP131 SA TP132 SA TP133 SA1 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 1 of 13

31 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Analysis Summary Table Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date Boron, available MOE (HWE), EPA ICPOES 21Jun13 21Jun13 Chromium, hexavalent MOE E3056 Extraction, colourimetric 20Jun13 25Jun13 Conductivity MOE E3138 C, water ext 21Jun13 21Jun13 Cyanide, free MOE E3015 Auto Colour, water extraction 20Jun13 25Jun13 Mercury EPA 7471A CVAA, digestion 21Jun13 21Jun13 MOE Metals by ICPOES, soil Reg 153 based on MOE E3470, ICPOES 21Jun13 21Jun13 PAHs by GCMS EPA 8270 GCMS, extraction 20Jun13 22Jun13 ph EPA ph 25 C, CaCl buffered ext. 20Jun13 20Jun13 PHC F1 CWS Tier 1 P&T GCFID 20Jun13 25Jun13 PHC F2 F4 CWS Tier 1 GCFID, extraction 20Jun13 22Jun13 SAR Calculation 24Jun13 24Jun13 Solids, % Gravimetric, calculation 21Jun13 21Jun13 VOCs by P&T GCMS EPA 8260 P&T GCMS 20Jun13 25Jun13 Page 2 of 13

32 Certificate of Analysis Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Client: Houle Chevrier Order Date:19Jun2013 Client PO: Project Description: Client ID: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 Sample Date: 19Jun13 19Jun13 19Jun13 Sample ID: MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Physical Characteristics % Solids 0.1 % by Wt General Inorganics SAR 0.01 N/A Conductivity 5 us/cm Cyanide, free 0.03 ug/g dry <0.03 <0.30 [1] <0.30 [1] ph 0.05 ph Units Metals Antimony 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Arsenic 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 Barium 1.0 ug/g dry Beryllium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Boron 1.0 ug/g dry Boron, available 0.5 ug/g dry Cadmium 0.5 ug/g dry <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Chromium 1.0 ug/g dry Chromium (VI) 0.2 ug/g dry <0.2 Cobalt 1.0 ug/g dry Copper 1.0 ug/g dry Lead 1.0 ug/g dry Mercury 0.1 ug/g dry < <0.1 Molybdenum 1.0 ug/g dry 2.2 <1.0 <1.0 Nickel 1.0 ug/g dry Selenium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Silver 0.5 ug/g dry <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Thallium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Uranium 1.0 ug/g dry <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Vanadium 1.0 ug/g dry Zinc 1.0 ug/g dry Volatiles Acetone 0.50 ug/g dry <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Benzene 0.02 ug/g dry Bromodichloromethane 0.05 ug/g dry Bromoform 0.05 ug/g dry Bromomethane 0.05 ug/g dry Page 3 of 13

33 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 Client ID: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 Sample Date: 19Jun13 19Jun13 19Jun13 Sample ID: MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Carbon Tetrachloride 0.05 ug/g dry Chlorobenzene 0.05 ug/g dry Chloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry Chloroform 0.05 ug/g dry Chloromethane 0.20 ug/g dry <0.20 <0.20 <0.20 Dibromochloromethane 0.05 ug/g dry Dichlorodifluoromethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,2Dibromoethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,2Dichlorobenzene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,3Dichlorobenzene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,4Dichlorobenzene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,1Dichloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,2Dichloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,1Dichloroethylene 0.05 ug/g dry cis1,2dichloroethylene 0.05 ug/g dry trans1,2dichloroethylene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,2Dichloroethylene, total 0.05 ug/g dry 1,2Dichloropropane 0.05 ug/g dry cis1,3dichloropropylene 0.05 ug/g dry trans1,3dichloropropylene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,3Dichloropropene, total 0.05 ug/g dry Ethylbenzene 0.05 ug/g dry Hexane 0.05 ug/g dry Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2Butanone) 0.50 ug/g dry <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Methyl Butyl Ketone (2Hexanone) 2.00 ug/g dry <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 0.50 ug/g dry <0.50 <0.50 <0.50 Methyl tertbutyl ether 0.05 ug/g dry Methylene Chloride 0.05 ug/g dry Styrene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry Tetrachloroethylene 0.05 ug/g dry Toluene 0.05 ug/g dry 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene 0.05 ug/g dry Page 4 of 13

34 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 Client ID: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 Sample Date: 19Jun13 19Jun13 19Jun13 Sample ID: MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil 1,1,1Trichloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,1,2Trichloroethane 0.05 ug/g dry Trichloroethylene 0.05 ug/g dry Trichlorofluoromethane 0.05 ug/g dry 1,3,5Trimethylbenzene 0.05 ug/g dry Vinyl chloride 0.02 ug/g dry m,pxylenes 0.05 ug/g dry oxylene 0.05 ug/g dry Xylenes, total 0.05 ug/g dry 4Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate 96.4% 98.3% 99.8% Dibromofluoromethane Surrogate 111% 113% 116% Toluened8 Surrogate 99.3% 103% 102% Hydrocarbons F1 PHCs (C6C10) 7 ug/g dry <7 <7 <7 F2 PHCs (C10C16) 4 ug/g dry <4 <4 <4 F3 PHCs (C16C34) 8 ug/g dry <8 <8 <8 F4 PHCs (C34C50) 6 ug/g dry <6 <6 <6 SemiVolatiles Acenaphthene 0.02 ug/g dry Acenaphthylene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.18 Anthracene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.16 Benzo [a] anthracene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.89 Benzo [a] pyrene 0.02 ug/g dry 1.09 Benzo [b] fluoranthene 0.02 ug/g dry 1.54 Benzo [g,h,i] perylene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.92 Benzo [k] fluoranthene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.74 Biphenyl 0.02 ug/g dry Chrysene 0.02 ug/g dry 1.11 Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.18 Fluoranthene 0.02 ug/g dry 1.37 Fluorene 0.02 ug/g dry Indeno [1,2,3cd] pyrene 0.02 ug/g dry Methylnaphthalene 0.02 ug/g dry 2Methylnaphthalene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.02 Methylnaphthalene (1&2) 0.04 ug/g dry <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 Page 5 of 13

35 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 Client ID: TP131 SA2 TP132 SA1 TP133 SA1 Sample Date: 19Jun13 19Jun13 19Jun13 Sample ID: MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Naphthalene 0.01 ug/g dry < <0.01 Phenanthrene 0.02 ug/g dry 0.39 Pyrene 0.02 ug/g dry Fluorobiphenyl Surrogate 65.5% 61.6% 54.5% Terphenyld14 Surrogate 71.9% 68.0% 70.5% Page 6 of 13

36 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result Reporting Limit Units General Inorganics Conductivity ND 5 us/cm Cyanide, free ND 0.03 ug/g Hydrocarbons F1 PHCs (C6C10) ND 7 ug/g F2 PHCs (C10C16) ND 4 ug/g F3 PHCs (C16C34) ND 8 ug/g F4 PHCs (C34C50) ND 6 ug/g Metals Antimony ND 1.0 ug/g Arsenic ND 1.0 ug/g Barium ND 1.0 ug/g Beryllium ND 1.0 ug/g Boron, available ND 0.5 ug/g Boron ND 1.0 ug/g Cadmium ND 0.5 ug/g Chromium ND 1.0 ug/g Cobalt ND 1.0 ug/g Copper ND 1.0 ug/g Lead ND 1.0 ug/g Mercury ND 0.1 ug/g Molybdenum ND 1.0 ug/g Nickel ND 1.0 ug/g Selenium ND 1.0 ug/g Silver ND 0.5 ug/g Thallium ND 1.0 ug/g Uranium ND 1.0 ug/g Vanadium ND 1.0 ug/g Zinc ND 1.0 ug/g SemiVolatiles Acenaphthene ND 0.02 ug/g Acenaphthylene ND 0.02 ug/g Anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g Benzo [a] anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g Benzo [a] pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g Benzo [b] fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g Benzo [g,h,i] perylene ND 0.02 ug/g Benzo [k] fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g Biphenyl ND 0.02 ug/g Chrysene ND 0.02 ug/g Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g Fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g Fluorene ND 0.02 ug/g Indeno [1,2,3cd] pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g 1Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g 2Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g Methylnaphthalene (1&2) ND 0.04 ug/g Naphthalene ND 0.01 ug/g Phenanthrene ND 0.02 ug/g Source Result %REC %REC Limit Pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g Surrogate: 2Fluorobiphenyl ug/g Surrogate: Terphenyld ug/g Volatiles Acetone ND 0.50 ug/g Benzene ND 0.02 ug/g Bromodichloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 RPD RPD Limit Notes Page 7 of 13

37 Order #: Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Method Quality Control: Blank Analyte Result Reporting Limit Units Source Result %REC %REC Limit Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 RPD RPD Limit Notes Bromoform ND 0.05 ug/g Bromomethane ND 0.05 ug/g Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.05 ug/g Chlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g Chloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g Chloroform ND 0.05 ug/g Chloromethane ND 0.20 ug/g Dibromochloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,2Dibromoethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,2Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,3Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,4Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,1Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,2Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,1Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g cis1,2dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g trans1,2dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,2Dichloroethylene, total ND 0.05 ug/g 1,2Dichloropropane ND 0.05 ug/g cis1,3dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g trans1,3dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,3Dichloropropene, total ND 0.05 ug/g Ethylbenzene ND 0.05 ug/g Hexane ND 0.05 ug/g Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2Butanone) ND 0.50 ug/g Methyl Butyl Ketone (2Hexanone) ND 2.00 ug/g Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND 0.50 ug/g Methyl tertbutyl ether ND 0.05 ug/g Methylene Chloride ND 0.05 ug/g Styrene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g Tetrachloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g Toluene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g 1,1,1Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,1,2Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g Trichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g 1,3,5Trimethylbenzene ND 0.05 ug/g Vinyl chloride ND 0.02 ug/g m,pxylenes ND 0.05 ug/g oxylene ND 0.05 ug/g Xylenes, total ND 0.05 ug/g Surrogate: 4Bromofluorobenzene 8.78 ug/g Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 8.37 ug/g Surrogate: Toluened ug/g Page 8 of 13

38 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte General Inorganics Result Reporting Limit Units Source Result Conductivity us/cm %REC %REC Limit Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 Cyanide, free ND 0.30 ug/g dry ND 35 GEN02 ph ph Units Hydrocarbons F1 PHCs (C6C10) ND 7 ug/g dry ND 40 F2 PHCs (C10C16) ND 4 ug/g dry ND 30 F3 PHCs (C16C34) ND 8 ug/g dry ND 30 F4 PHCs (C34C50) ND 6 ug/g dry ND 30 Metals Antimony ug/g dry ND Arsenic ug/g dry Barium ug/g dry Beryllium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND Boron, available ug/g dry Boron ug/g dry Cadmium ug/g dry ND Chromium ug/g dry Cobalt ug/g dry Copper ug/g dry Lead ug/g dry Mercury ND 0.1 ug/g dry ND Molybdenum ug/g dry Nickel ug/g dry Selenium ug/g dry ND Silver ND 0.5 ug/g dry ND 30 Thallium ug/g dry ND Uranium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 30 Vanadium ug/g dry Zinc ug/g dry Physical Characteristics % Solids % by Wt SemiVolatiles Acenaphthene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Acenaphthylene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND Benzo [a] anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g dry Benzo [a] pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Benzo [b] fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Benzo [g,h,i] perylene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Benzo [k] fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Biphenyl ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Chrysene ug/g dry Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Fluoranthene ug/g dry QR01 Fluorene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Indeno [1,2,3cd] pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 1Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 2Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Naphthalene ND 0.01 ug/g dry ND 40 Phenanthrene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40 Pyrene ug/g dry Surrogate: 2Fluorobiphenyl 1.09 ug/g dry ND Surrogate: Terphenyld ug/g dry ND RPD RPD Limit Notes Page 9 of 13

39 Order #: Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Method Quality Control: Duplicate Analyte Result Reporting Limit Units Source Result %REC %REC Limit Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 RPD RPD Limit Notes Volatiles Acetone ND 0.50 ug/g dry ND 50 Benzene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 50 Bromodichloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Bromoform ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Bromomethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Chlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Chloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Chloroform ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Chloromethane ND 0.20 ug/g dry ND 50 Dibromochloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,2Dibromoethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,2Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,3Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,4Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,1Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,2Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,1Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 cis1,2dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 trans1,2dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,2Dichloropropane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 cis1,3dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 trans1,3dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Ethylbenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Hexane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2Butanone) ND 0.50 ug/g dry ND 50 Methyl Butyl Ketone (2Hexanone) ND 2.00 ug/g dry ND 50 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND 0.50 ug/g dry ND 50 Methyl tertbutyl ether ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Methylene Chloride ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Styrene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Tetrachloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Toluene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,2,4Trichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,1,1Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,1,2Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Trichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 1,3,5Trimethylbenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Vinyl chloride ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 50 m,pxylenes ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 oxylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50 Surrogate: 4Bromofluorobenzene 9.16 ug/g dry ND Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 11.2 ug/g dry ND Surrogate: Toluened ug/g dry ND Page 10 of 13

40 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Result Reporting Limit Units Source Result %REC %REC Limit General Inorganics Cyanide, free ug/g ND Hydrocarbons F1 PHCs (C6C10) ug/g ND F2 PHCs (C10C16) 83 4 ug/g ND F3 PHCs (C16C34) ug/g ND F4 PHCs (C34C50) ug/g ND Metals Antimony 313 ug/l ND Arsenic 330 ug/l Barium 251 ug/l ND Beryllium 273 ug/l Boron, available ug/g Boron 433 ug/l Cadmium 304 ug/l ND Chromium 296 ug/l Cobalt 266 ug/l Copper 624 ug/l Lead 254 ug/l ND Mercury ug/g ND Molybdenum 263 ug/l Nickel 367 ug/l Selenium 262 ug/l ND Silver 308 ug/l ND Thallium 256 ug/l ND Uranium 212 ug/l ND Vanadium 391 ug/l Zinc 235 ug/l ND SemiVolatiles Acenaphthene ug/g ND Acenaphthylene ug/g ND Anthracene ug/g ND Benzo [a] anthracene ug/g Benzo [a] pyrene ug/g ND Benzo [b] fluoranthene ug/g ND Benzo [g,h,i] perylene ug/g ND Benzo [k] fluoranthene ug/g ND Biphenyl ug/g ND Chrysene ug/g Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene ug/g ND Fluoranthene ug/g Fluorene ug/g ND Indeno [1,2,3cd] pyrene ug/g ND Methylnaphthalene ug/g ND Methylnaphthalene ug/g ND Naphthalene ug/g ND Phenanthrene ug/g ND Pyrene ug/g Surrogate: 2Fluorobiphenyl ug/g Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 RPD RPD Limit Notes Page 11 of 13

41 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Method Quality Control: Spike Analyte Volatiles Result Reporting Limit Units Source Result %REC %REC Limit Acetone ug/g ND Benzene ug/g ND Bromodichloromethane ug/g ND Bromoform ug/g ND Bromomethane ug/g ND Carbon Tetrachloride ug/g ND Chlorobenzene ug/g ND Chloroethane ug/g ND Chloroform ug/g ND Chloromethane ug/g ND Dibromochloromethane ug/g ND Dichlorodifluoromethane ug/g ND ,2Dibromoethane ug/g ND ,2Dichlorobenzene ug/g ND ,3Dichlorobenzene ug/g ND ,4Dichlorobenzene ug/g ND ,1Dichloroethane ug/g ND ,2Dichloroethane ug/g ND ,1Dichloroethylene ug/g ND cis1,2dichloroethylene ug/g ND trans1,2dichloroethylene ug/g ND ,2Dichloropropane ug/g ND cis1,3dichloropropylene ug/g ND trans1,3dichloropropylene ug/g ND Ethylbenzene ug/g ND Hexane ug/g ND Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2Butanone) ug/g ND Methyl Butyl Ketone (2Hexanone) ug/g ND Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ug/g ND Methyl tertbutyl ether ug/g ND Methylene Chloride ug/g ND Styrene ug/g ND ,1,1,2Tetrachloroethane ug/g ND ,1,2,2Tetrachloroethane ug/g ND Tetrachloroethylene ug/g ND Toluene ug/g ND ,2,4Trichlorobenzene ug/g ND ,1,1Trichloroethane ug/g ND ,1,2Trichloroethane ug/g ND Trichloroethylene ug/g ND Trichlorofluoromethane ug/g ND ,3,5Trimethylbenzene ug/g ND Vinyl chloride ug/g ND m,pxylenes ug/g ND oxylene ug/g ND Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 RPD RPD Limit Notes Page 12 of 13

42 Certificate of Analysis Client: Houle Chevrier Client PO: Project Description: Order #: Report Date: 25Jun2013 Order Date:19Jun2013 Qualifier Notes : Sample Qualifiers : 1 : Elevated Reporting Limit due to matrix interference. QC Qualifiers : QR01 : Sample Data Revisions None Duplicate RPD is high, however, the sample result is less than 10x the MDL. Work Order Revisions / Comments : None Other Report Notes : n/a: not applicable ND: Not Detected MDL: Method Detection Limit 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. F1 range corrected for BTEX. F2 to F3 ranges corrected for appropriate PAHs where available. The gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons (F4G) are not to be added to C6 to C50 hydrocarbons. In the case where F4 and F4G are both reported, the greater of the two results is to be used for comparison to CWS PHC criteria. Page 13 of 13

43

44 July 2013 Our Ref: APPENDIX C LETTER BY DR. MARTHA FULFORD Houle Chevrier Engineering Ltd.

45 Martha Fulford, MD, MA, FRCP(C) Division of Infectious Diseases Department of Medicine McMaster University Medical Centre 1200 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5 Telephone: (905) Extension: Fax: Sarah Fulford 90 Guigues Avenue Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5H7 June 20, 2013 Dear Sarah: Re: Bones found at 90 Guigues Avenue After reviewing the two photographs you sent, I would determine that the bones are animal bones. The appearance is not consistent with human bones. The one feature that particularly suggests animal bones is the bifid condyle. I showed the two photographs to orthopedic surgeon colleagues of mine (Drs. Mah and Burrow) who concurred that the bones in the photographs are animal bones. Regards, Martha Fulford Affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University C H E D O K E C H I L D R E N S G E N E R A L H E N D E R S O N M c M A S T E R

46 Affiliated with the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University C H E D O K E C H I L D R E N S G E N E R A L H E N D E R S O N M c M A S T E R