Dec.

12, 2015

Trameasc
Inc. Phase II
ESA
89 Avenue Road, Toronto,
Ontario

Travis Bico, Scott Todd & Meagan Tungate

1.0 Executive Summary

This Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) report will cover the site location of 89
Avenue Road, Toronto, Ontario and its levels of contamination for PHCs, BTEX, and VOCs.
The site has two matrices to evaluate for the criteria of this report. Soil, being the main concern,
is tested in several areas around an underground storage tank (UST), which is located in the
basement of the site. This tank was formerly filled with furnace fuel, but had been emptied and
cleaned by Decommissioning Consulting Services Limited (DCS). The testing is to identify if
any leaks had occurred from the tank, because three perforations were identified by DCS during
the USTs decommission. Groundwater will also be tested from five monitoring wells ranging
from the north-west to the south-east of a 250m radius. Refer to Appendix B for all site maps.

Methodology used for the soil sampling was done by accessing the interior of the UST and
sampling the soil by drilling new perforations and collecting the soil samples with a trier probe.
This ensured minimal interference with the soil and allowed for future samples to be taken if
needed. Groundwater sampling was completed by utilizing the tube and foot valve pumping
method. Upon completion of the sampling, the soil and groundwater samples were sent to an
accredited lab where results were generated and sent back to Trameasc Inc. Refer to Appendix A
for the lab results which will be under their respective sampling plan.

i
 Table of Contents
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Site Description................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Property Ownership ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.3 Current and Proposed Future Uses...................................................................................................... 1
2.4 Applicable Site Condition Standard .................................................................................................... 1
2.5 General Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 2
3.0 Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Past Investigations .............................................................................................................................. 2
4.0 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................................ 2
4.1 Overview of the Site Investigation...................................................................................................... 2
4.2 Media Investigated .............................................................................................................................. 3
4.3 Deviations from Sampling and Analysis Plan .................................................................................... 3
4.4 Impediments / Limitations .................................................................................................................. 3
5.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3
5.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 3
5.2 Soil: Sampling..................................................................................................................................... 4
5.3 Field Screening Measurements ........................................................................................................... 4
5.4 Groundwater: Field Measurement of Water Quality Parameters ........................................................ 5
5.5 Groundwater: Sampling ...................................................................................................................... 5
5.6 Analytical Testing ............................................................................................................................... 6
5.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures .............................................................................. 6
6.0 Findings................................................................................................................................................... 6
6.0.1 Soil ............................................................................................................................................... 6
6.0.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 7
6.1 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern......................................................................................... 7
6.2 Subsurface Structures and Utilities ..................................................................................................... 7
6.3 Contaminates Found on Site ............................................................................................................... 7
6.4 Migration of Contaminates ................................................................................................................. 7
7.0 Review and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 8
7.1 Geology ............................................................................................................................................... 8
7.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................................... 8

ii
 7.3 Soil ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
7.4 QA/QC ................................................................................................................................................ 9
7.4.1 Soil Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 9
7.4.2 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................ 9
7.5 Recommendations for Concerns ......................................................................................................... 9
7.6 Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 10
7.6.1 Sampling Plan & Analysis ......................................................................................................... 10
7.6.2 QA/QC ....................................................................................................................................... 10
8.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 10
9.0 References ............................................................................................................................................. 11
10.0 Appendices.......................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A: Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................ 12
First Sampling Plan ............................................................................................................................. 12
Second Sampling Plan ........................................................................................................................ 14
APPENDIX B: Maps .............................................................................................................................. 20
Map of Site Location .......................................................................................................................... 20
Map of Nearby Storage Tanks Found Through ERIS ......................................................................... 21
APPENDIX C: Hazard Assessment of Field Work Activities (Health and Safety Plan) ....................... 22
APPENDIX D: Chain of Custody.......................................................................................................... 28

iii
2.0 Introduction

The purpose of this Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) report is to address the level of
contamination of soil located underneath the basement of the site within the vicinity of an
underground storage tank (UST), and to address the level of contamination of groundwater
within a predetermined area of the site in question. Also, removal of the UST or other
recommendations, such as filling the UST with sand, will be discussed in section 7.5 of this
report.

2.1 Site Description

The site being addressed in this Phase II ESA report is located at 89 Avenue Road in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada. The site is an eight storey building, with one basement level, and is
approximately 0.11 hectares in size. It is currently operated as a Howard Johnson Hotel. The
hotel is made of standard materials (concrete, asphalt, glass, etc.) and has expected infrastructure
such as a potable water supply, heating and cooling systems, natural gas, sewer line, electricity
lines, and telephone lines. Located in the basement of the site under a concrete slab lies the UST
that will be the main purpose of this Phase II ESA report.

The legal site name is as follows: Park Lot 2, East Side of Avenue Road, PL 289 Toronto, Part 3,
63R1581. The property identification number (PIN) is as follows: 21196-0100 (LT)

Global positioning system (GPS) coordinates are 43.672301, -79.395633 and the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates are NAD83 17-4836737 N 623966 E.

2.2 Property Ownership

During the Phase II ESA activities, the property ownership was listed as such:

Company Name: 89 Avenue Road GP Ltd., Toronto (Currently Howard Johnson Hotels)
Company Address: 552 Wellington Street West Suite 1500, Toronto
Company Contact: David Delaney (416) 781-5699 / david@freeddevelopments.com

2.3 Current and Proposed Future Uses

The current use of the site is a hotel operated by Howard Johnson. There does not appear to be
any future deviations from the current land use.

2.4 Applicable Site Condition Standard

The site was determined not to be in or around an area of natural significance by accessing the
Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Natural Heritage website. Other site conditions were its
proximity to a water body, which is several kilometres away (Lake Ontario), and its potable or
non-potable water conditions which was determined to be non-potable because the groundwater
wells within 250m of the site were only meant for monitoring and not for drinking.

1
2.5 General Objectives

The objectives of this Phase II ESA are to determine the source and concentration of BTEX,
PHCs, and VOCs in the soil beneath the Phase II property, and groundwater within a 250m
radius from the UST.

3.0 Background Information

The building which is currently a hotel owned by Howard Johnson, was originally used as
residential dwelling in the early 1900s and redeveloped in 1945 as an apartment building. The
tank to be investigated for contamination is located underneath the building in the basement
under a slab of cement.

3.1 Past Investigations

A Phase I was conducted which discovered the presence of an abandoned underground storage
tank. The 150L tank historically contained bunker heating oil was abandoned in 1994 and has
since been emptied by an outside company; Decommissioning Consulting Service Limited
(DCS). This tank was identified as an area of concern with possible contaminates being
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) and Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (BTEX). These
contaminants in the soil have the potential to leach into the groundwater table, thus testing at
monitoring wells was done as well.

4.0 Scope of Work

Scope of the investigation shall include:

a) Examination of soil and hydrological maps to determine the direction of flow of contaminates
b) Creation of a sampling plan
c) Acquisition of sampling equipment
d) Creating QA/QC control measures
e) Filling out a chain of custody for an appropriate lab (CALA)
f) Conclude on whether a Phase III should be carried out

4.1 Overview of the Site Investigation

The investigation shall begin with the removal of the concrete slab in the basement and create an
opening in the tank in which perforations will be made. Three groundwater samples will be
collected from existing wells. Eleven soil samples will be collected through these perforations
and sent to the lab for analysis. Additional soil samples were required to properly delineate the
contamination.

2
4.2 Media Investigated

Soil
Groundwater

4.3 Deviations from Sampling and Analysis Plan

Following the initial results from the lab, it was determined that further soil samples were
required to delineate the contamination. During the second round of sampling, volatile organic
compounds were not submitted as a parameter for testing by the lab because of acquisition of a
VOC field measuring tool.

4.4 Impediments/Limitations

The main impediments were the location and accessibility of the tank. To decrease cost and
disturbance to the site, sampling was done from within the tank through perforations. Ideally,
boreholes would have been done surrounding the tank but the constraints of working in a tight
underground basement, dismissed the possibility of using such a large piece of equipment. A
limitation was that the owners did not want to remove the tank, so a number of were collected
from within the emptied tank. The contamination did not behave as predicted, and additional
samples were required which increased the costs.

5.0 Methodology

Before any sampling or onsite activities were conducted, a health and safety plan (HASP) for the
sampling activities was created to address any potential health and safety concerns that may be
present during the time of sampling, including travel. A fully developed HASP can be found in
Appendix C detailing all potential hazards that could cause injury, or hinder the intended tasks
for the day.

5.1 General

The two matrices that were sampled were soil and groundwater. Soil was sampled because of the
potential for the USTs contents (furnace fuel) to leach into the surrounding soil. Groundwater
was sampled because it is a mandatory matrix to test, and because of the potential for the
contaminant(s) to enter the groundwater table. Surface water and sediment were not part of the
sampling plan since the site is not near any surface water bodies, and sediment is not likely to be
of concern as the contamination is fairly localized. Sediment was not addressed in the Phase I
report. Two rounds of sampling were conducted at the site in order to create an accurate results
table. The first round of samples tested consisted of soil and groundwater, while the second
round focused just on soil. Refer to Appendix A for the sampling plans and corresponding
results tables. A third sampling test was also sent, but no concerns were found.

For the soil sampling, a trier was used to allow for the narrow environment that prevents a drill
rig from being brought into the hotel basement. This method of using a trier would be the least
intrusive and allow for further sampling as it does not disturb the soil too much to prevent further

3
sampling. An outside contracting team, Fall-In Soil Contractors Ltd., was used to perform the
removal of the basement concrete slab over the UST, create new perforations in the UST for soil
sampling.

For the groundwater sampling, a foot pump and tubing method was used to collect and sample
the groundwater at three locations. This method of groundwater sampling is physically
strenuous, but is the least complicated method of groundwater collection. No additional
monitoring wells were installed at any time during the Phase I ESA or the Phase II ESA. The
investigation shall begin with the removal of the concrete slab in the basement and create an
opening in the tank in which perforations will be made. Five groundwater samples will be
collected from existing wells. Eleven soil samples will be collected through these perforations
and sent to the lab for analysis. Additional soil samples were required to properly delineate the
contamination.

Based on the location of the UST, and having a monitoring well within the vicinity of the site, it
was determined that soil would be the most affected by the contaminant. With the soil type being
a silty clay, which was determined in the Phase I, it was likely the contaminant would have
pooled within the soil and not entered the groundwater table in any amount that would be
detectable.

5.2 Soil: Sampling

The native soil and bedrock is a silty clay soil type with bedrock being a grey weathered shale
with limestone interbeds. The soil samples retrieved were done so from accessing the top of the
UST, and samples will be taken using a trier. The trier will be used because of the narrow
corridors of the hotel and small framed doors in the basement area that prevent a drill rig from
being brought into the hotel basement to drill beside the UST. This method would be the least
intrusive and allow for further sampling if more need to be taken. In Figure 1, additional
samples outlined in red will available to send for further sampling if the samples taken do not
adequately delineate the area of contamination.

For the first round of sampling, a total of 18 samples will be taken and 11 will be submitted for
lab analysis. The other seven will be kept as additional samples if needed, and if not, they will be
disposed of properly. For the second round of sampling, a total of six samples will be taken and
will be submitted for lab analysis. Refer to Appendix A for sampling plans outlined in Figure 1
and Figure 2.

Contamination levels were accessed according to Table 3 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment
Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

5.3 Field Screening Measurements

The equipment that was used during the groundwater sampling:

10L bucket
Solinst Water Level Meter Model 101

4
 Waterra Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) tubing with inside diameter
Waterra D-25 standard flow foot valve (E-476-D-25)
HACH Multimeter HQ40d (pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature)
Thermo Scientific Turbidity Meter Orion AQ 3010
100mL sampling containers
Cooler with ice pack to keep samples cool during transportation
De-ionized water (DI water)

No preservatives or chemicals were needed for groundwater sampling. All equipment had been
calibrated before groundwater sampling by Trameasc Inc. technicians. The multimeter has a
precision range of +/- 0.1, and the turbidity meter has a precision range +/- 3%. No new
monitoring wells were installed at the site or surrounding area at the time of the Phase I ESA and
Phase II ESA activities.

5.4 Groundwater: Field Measurement of Water Quality Parameters

The water quality parameters tested at each of the five groundwater monitoring wells were pH,
conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and turbidity. A HACH Multimeter HQ40d
was used to test for pH, conductivity, DO, and temperature, while a Thermo Scientific Turbidity
Meter Orion AQ 3010 was used to measure turbidity.

With the multimeter, all calibrations were completed at the Trameasc Inc. office before sampling
took place. Each parameter measuring probe was rinsed three times before conducting the
sampling, and each probe was kept separate from each other to avoid cross contamination.

5.5 Groundwater: Sampling

No new groundwater monitoring wells were installed for groundwater sampling. Based on the
Phase I report, it was indicated that there were three monitoring wells within the vicinity of the
site, but two of them were dry. The monitoring well that had water in it at the time of the Phase
II was used during the Phase II ESA to be tested for contaminant(s) and if they had leached into
the groundwater table and water was found and tested in the previously dry wells.

A foot pump and tubing method is to be used to extract the groundwater from the five
monitoring wells, which only three are known to have water in them. It is unknown the recharge
rates of the wells, so three purges will be completed first, one hour apart from each other at each
well allowing for an adequate amount of water to re-enter the well before the final purge can be
collected as the sample which will be sent to the lab. This purge water is to be collected in a 10L
bucket and disposed of properly.

The final purge pumped from the groundwater monitoring wells was collected in two 100mL
sampling containers at each monitoring well so no cross-contamination occurred. Two sampling
containers are needed at each monitoring well, with the exception of the blank, as one is sent to
the lab to be tested for BTEX, and PHCs, while the duplicates are kept with Trameasc Inc.
personnel if additional testing is needed. No preservative was needed in the sampling container,
and they were kept in a cooler during transportation to the lab to ensure temperature would not

5
affect the results from the lab. A total of five wells were tested for contamination with one of the
wells acting as the blank. Refer to Appendix B for a map of the monitoring wells that were
sampled from.

Contamination levels were accessed according to Table 3 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment
Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.

5.6 Analytical Testing

For the results to be accurate, an accredited CALA lab was used to determine the results of the
soil and groundwater contaminations if any were present, and in what concentration if
applicable. Niagara College Labs was used to generate the results.

5.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures

In order to assure proper quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) are being met, for both
soil and groundwater, several criteria are being addressed:

A reputable contracting company was contacted to create new perforations in the UST
All equipment needed on site was rinsed before use in field
A cooler was used for groundwater samples during transportation to lab
A HASP was created
All sampling equipment was fully charged and properly calibrated
Ensured an appropriate amount of sampling containers were available
Assuring no cross contamination would happen
All additional samples kept cooled until needed to be used for additional testing
All personnel are well trained
Nitrile gloves worn while collecting water samples
All necessary PPE worn
Sample jars were labelled before sampling began
Chain of Custody completed
An accredited CALA lab was used for the soil and groundwater testing

6.0 Findings

6.0.1 Soil

By taking horizontal soil samples, areas of contamination around the UST were explored.
Samples closer to the tank within the first 15cm showed signs of contamination, while the 15-
30cm samples did not. The first identified area of contamination (BTEX, PHC, and VOCs) was
found at the perforation first identified in the Phase I report, when the UST was
decommissioned, on the east side of the tank. Contamination was not found beyond the 15cm
sample, delineating the horizontal plane of the plume to within 15cm of the tank. Contaminant
concentrations appear to travel down vertically and to the south to the edge of the storage tank.
Further delineation was completed through a second set of sampling. The concentration of

6
contamination can be found in Table 1 for the first round of sampling. Of the samples taken at
the bottom of the storage tank, the analysis did not find any contamination.

In the second round of samples, it was discovered that the contamination (BTEX, PHC, and
VOCs) from the first perforation halted at the corner of the tank and reappeared on the south side
of the tank. The contamination had a higher concentration closer to the top of the tank and
decreased as it migrated downward. The amount of contamination can be found in Table 2.

In the third round of sampling, the contamination on the south side of the tank was delineated to
the area found in the second round and did not plume further south or to the west.

6.0.2 Groundwater

From the five groundwater samples that were sampled and analyzed at a laboratory, all had a
result of less than the minimum detection limit (<mdl).

6.1 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern

Based on the soil sample results, there are two APECs found surrounding the UST. The first
APEC is from the initial perforation on the east side of the tank where previously, the soil tested
was below standards when the UST was decommissioned. The second APEC was found on the
south side of the tank and was separate from the first APEC.

6.2 Subsurface Structures and Utilities

Utilities were found in the Phase I ESA report for the site which included: potable water (north
side of building), natural gas (north and south side of building), sewer (north side of building),
electricity (north side of building), and telephone (pole on east side of building).

6.3 Contaminates Found on Site

The contaminants on site include:

BTEX (Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene)

PHCs (fraction 1-4)
VOCs

6.4 Migration of Contaminates

From the sampling results the contamination from the first APEC appeared to migrate in a
southeast direction towards the south side of the tank. The second APEC appeared to migrate
from the top of the tank and down the south side of the tank. Due to the sampling method, the
exact vertical axis of contamination was not able to be determined.

7
7.0 Review and Evaluation

7.1 Geology

In the Phase I report, the soil was outlined to be Young Tills and consists of clayey silt and sandy
silt. It is part of the Georgian Bay Formation with grey shale and limestone interbeds. The Don
Valley River and Lake Ontario would be the main recipients of contamination through
groundwater.

7.2 Groundwater

Since the groundwater was not found to be contaminated and the soils are low permeability soils,
it is unlikely that the contamination will migrate into the groundwater if it has not already. The
tested wells found no contamination in the northwest direction which feds under the site or in the
southeast that came from underneath the site. With no contamination being found in the
groundwater and the concentrations of the contamination in the soil being high, it is likely the
contamination is being contained by the soil.

7.3 Soil

On both the east side and the south side of the tank two APECs were identified within the soil.
The area of the contamination (BTEX, PHC and VOCs) was contained within the first 15-30cm
of the soil away from the storage tank. With the nature of the soil and the contamination
penetrating very shallowly away from the storage tank, most of the migration is downward. With
the sampling technique it was difficult to assess how far down the contamination migrated on the
east side of the tank, however, it would likely be beyond the bottom of the storage tank, but not
far enough to affect the groundwater. Due to the high levels of contaminates found, it is likely
the tank had leaked extensively when it was operational.

Since there was no contamination found at the bottom of the storage tank, the contaminate did
not migrate along the outside of the storage tank and pool at the bottom via gravity. With the
contamination from the east side of the tank halted at the southeast corner of the tank, the
contamination has the potential to have migrated further east away from the UST.

For the south side contamination, contamination levels near the bottom of the tank had
significantly decreased from the levels found further up from the tank, with toluene and fraction
4 of PHCs below standards. For that reason, it is likely the contamination on the south side of the
tank did not penetrate much further down into the soil because of the low permeability nature of
the soil. The contamination in this area is likely due, not from a perforation, but from a spill that
may have occurred during the use of the storage tank in the past and will pose little to no danger
to the groundwater and its migration further into the soil is unlikely. A full representation of the
delineated contamination plumes can be seen in Figure 3.

8
7.4 QA/QC

7.4.1 Soil Sampling

For the QA/QC outlined in Section 5.7, appropriate measures were taken to provide quality
results that delineated the area of contamination for the UST in the Howard Johnson hotel
basement. Under no supervised time did contractors contravene the safety protocols that were set
in place to prevent cross-contamination and safety concerns before, during and after the
extraction of the soil cores. Cleaning of the trier was completed after every extraction and every
sample cut from the trier was done with a cleaned soil knife. The cleaning solution was collected
in a bucket to avoid cross-contamination and proper waste management.

7.4.2 Groundwater

Proper QA/QC measures were used for testing the groundwater as outlined within the QA/QC in
Section 5.7. Purging allowed for groundwater samples to be representative of the normal state of
the groundwater. Since none of the wells were found to have contamination, it is likely that the
QA/QC procedures were adequate enough to give accurate results.

7.5 Recommendations for Concerns

Given the findings, there are no concerns for the groundwater contamination since none were
found. As for soil, the silty clay media appears to have contained the contamination throughout
the 11 years the UST was decommissioned for and the unknown interval of time for when the
perforations in the tank first formed. The soil media appears to hold the contaminates well and if
the property wishes to be transferred to a different use, either of the three recommendations
could be followed:

Careful excavation of the soil to remove contaminated soils while being careful not to
compromise the structural integrity of the building
A risk assessment and application for a certificate of property use (CPU), where the tank
would be filled with sand and sub-slab depressurization system could be added to the top
area of the tank and allow for the VOCs to be released from the soil.
Applying for a CPU, capping the entire area and filling the tank with a concrete slurry.
This option is the least desirable, as long-term issues may arise if no remedial measures
are put into place.

Of the three recommendations, the risk assessment with the sub-slab depressurization system
would be most beneficial for long-term use of the property staying in the commercial field.
Otherwise, the excavation of contaminated soils would be most beneficial if the property wishes
to be changed to a different use. Due to the nature of the site, an extensive and diligent plan for
soil removal would have to be established before attempting an excavation.

9
7.6 Learning

7.6.1 Sampling Plan & Analysis

In the sampling plan, the amount of monitoring wells seemed to be enough to dictate if the
groundwater was contaminated and if the contamination was from the site or run off from other
properties. As for the soil, more could have been done to delineate the plume of contamination.
The trier method was beneficial for its low cost, however, assessing the vertical axis of
contamination at depths below the bottom of the storage tank was difficult. After finding the
horizontal distance of the plume, it would have been beneficial to drill boreholes to find how
deep the contamination sank. Though the contamination is not leaching into the groundwater, if
it was known how close it was to the water table, it would help in the decision of choosing a risk
assessment over remediation. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the contamination flowed
east after it met the southeast corner of the tank. It would have been beneficial to send the 15-
30cm additional sample that was taken in the first set of samples to determine if the contaminate
only sank vertically from that point, or extended more eastward. The potential areas for further
sampling are outlined in brown in Figure 3.

7.6.2 QA/QC

Under the QA/QC measures that were taken, sampling occurred safely and without trouble. The
only improvement would be bringing a VOC-detecting device on site during the first sampling
set, so there would be no extra cost or need to measure them through lab analysis.

8.0 Conclusion

For the site of 89 Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, soil contamination for BTEX and PHCs were found
to be above levels described in Table 3 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for
Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. With the given results, it is
recommended that a risk assessment be completed and consideration be given to establishing a
ventilation system for off-gassing VOCs and filling the storage with sand to maintain structural
integrity while allowing the VOCs to be vented.

10
9.0 References

Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario. (2013). Report template for phase two
environmental site assessment conducted in accordance with Ontario regulation 153/04, as
amended. Retrieved 11 December, 2015, from
https://www.apgo.net/files/APGO_Phase_II_ESATemplatef.pdf

Exp. (2012). Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment - Final. Retrieved 11 December, 2015,
from
https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/city_planning/community_planning/files/pdf/89_avenu
e_phase1_esa.pdf

Fondriest. (2009). Thermo Scientific Orion AQUAfast AQ3010 Turbidity Meter User Guide.
Retrieved 8 December, 2015, from http://www.fondriest.com/pdf/thermo_aq3010_manual.pdf

11
10.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Figures and Tables

First Sampling Plan

Figure 1: Soil sampling locations from the inside of the UST, with samples outlined in black,
additional samples in red, and the blank sample in blue. The top figure represents a cross section
of the storage tank facing it lengthwise and the bottom figure represent a bird's-eye view of the
UST and samples.

12
Table 1: The concentrations of contaminates in the tested soil and groundwater. The columns of
Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-Benzene, and Xylene make up the BTEX readings, Fractions 1-4 are
for PHCs, and VOCs are at the end.

Sample ID Benzene Toluene Ethyl- Xylene Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction VOCs
benzene 1 2 3 4

MDL .0029 .44 .024 .15 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 .5

(ug/g)

SB-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl
(Blank)

1.1-A .2583 .4586 .0721 26.88 22.8 4.8 1122.8 4.1 3.9

1.1-B .4068 .4306 .0644 22.68 32.7 5.9 2502.3 5.4 8.6

2.1-A .0037 .1502 .0245 .1587 15.3 3.7 80.9 .0037 2.7

2.1-B .2932 .3997 .0982 25.58 25.8 5.4 1527.8 4.6 3.9

2.2-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

2.3-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

3.1-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

3.1-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

4.1-C <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

A083909 <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl
(Blank)

MW103-1 <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

MW103-2 <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

(Duplicate)

A137403-1 <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

A137403-2 <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl
(Duplicate)

13
 Second Sampling Plan

Figure 2: Soil sampling locations from the inside of the UST. The top figure represents a cross
section of the storage tank facing it lengthwise and the bottom figure represent a bird's-eye view
of the UST and samples.

14
Table 2: The concentrations of contaminates in the tested soil. The columns of Benzene,
Toluene, Ethyl-Benzene, and Xylene make up the BTEX readings, Fractions 1-4 are for PHCs,
and VOCs are at the end.

Sample Benzen Toluene Ethyl- Xylene Fraction Fraction Fraction Fraction VOCs
ID e benzen 1 2 3 4
e

MDL .0029 .44 .024 .15 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 .5

(ug/g)

4.1-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

4.1-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

4.2-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

4.2-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

5.1-A .2574 .3321 .0654 .824 25.8 14.5 91.9 .1869 5.7

5.2-B .0150 .2300 .0513 .952 15.3 3.5 81.7 .0567 3.7

6.1-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

6.1-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

6.2-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

6.2-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

7.1-A <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

7.1-B <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl <mdl

15
 N

Underground
Storage Tank

Legend
High Area of
Contamination
Mild Area of
Contamination
Potential Area of Further
Contamination
Unexpected contaminate
free area

Figure 3: An illustration of the UST and the areas of contamination that were identified during
the Phase II ESA.

16
Figure 4: Location of monitoring wells used for sampling (green) in reference to the site
location of 89 Avenue. A083909 is being used as the blank, and MW103 and A137403 are being
used as samples to test.

17
Table 3: The total number of samples collected for the two different matrices and where they
were collected. Samples listed as (Additionals) are kept by the sampling crew and will only be
submitted to lab depending on results generated. Samples listed as (Duplicates) will be sent to
lab as a part of quality control.

SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION GROUNDWATER LOCATION

CODES SAMPLE CODES

SB-A (Blank) Basement of A083909 (Blank) 143 Avenue Rd &

Site Davenport Rd

1.1-A Basement of MW103-1 89 Avenue Rd

Site

1.1-B Basement of MW103-2 89 Avenue Rd

Site (Duplicate)

1.2-A (Additional) Basement of A137403-1 131 Hazelton Avenue

Site

1.2-B (Additional) Basement of A137403-2 (Duplicate) 131 Hazelton Avenue

Site

2.1-A Basement of
Site

2.1-B Basement of
Site

2.2-A (Additional) Basement of

Site

2.2-B Basement of
Site

2.3-B Basement of
Site

2.4-B (Additional) Basement of

Site

3.1-A Basement of
Site

3.1-B Basement of
Site

18
3.2-A (Additional) Basement of
Site

3.2-B (Additional) Basement of

Site

4.1-C Basement of
Site

4.2-C Basement of
Site

4.3-C (Additional) Basement of

Site

5.1-A Basement of
Site

5.1-B Basement of
Site

5.2-A Basement of
Site

5.2-B Basement of
Site

6.1-A Basement of
Site

6.1-B Basement of
Site

19
APPENDIX B: Maps

Map of Site Location

20
Map of Nearby Storage Tanks Found Through ERIS

21
 APPENDIX C: Hazard Assessment of Field Work Activities (Health and Safety Plan)

On November 20th, soil samples will be taken between 8:00am - 2:00pm inside the
decommissioned underground storage tank at the Howard Johnson Hotel on 89 Avenue, Toronto.
The samples will be taken using a trier when the designated area of the tank is cut away to
expose the soil. From 3:00 - 5:00pm groundwater samples will be taken from three wells as
illustrated in the maps.

Field Location: 89 Avenue Rd. Date: Nov. 20/15

Toronto, Ontario

Crew: Scott Todd, Travis Bico, Cell Phone: (416) 933-0987

Meagan Tungate

Coordinator/Supervisor: Trameasc Emergency: 911

Inc. Ambulance: 905-688-2191
Name and Number: (416) 933-0011
ext. 1234

Alternate Contact: Travis Bico First Aid Kit packed? Yes

(416) 933-0321

Activity Hazards and Controls Personal Protective

Conditions Equipment

Soil Sampling Overhead - Carry a cell phone and - Hard hat

Dangers battery charger - Safety vest
- Work with a partner
- Be aware of your
surroundings and height of
tank to your head
- Carry a first aid kit
- Use equipment properly
and safely
- Transport equipment
safely in the tight working
conditions of the basement

Tripping and - Carry a cell phone and - Wear appropriate footwear

Falling Hazards battery charger
- Work with a partner
- Be aware of your
surroundings
- Carry a first aid kit
-Be careful when on/near
slopes and loose ground

22
 Punctures and - Carry a cell phone and - Wear appropriate clothing
Abrasions battery charger and footwear
- Work with a partner - Long pants to avoid
- Be aware of your scratches from sharp objects
surroundings or rusted metal
- Carry a first aid kit - Wear gloves

Chemical - Carry a cell phone and - Wear appropriate

Hazards battery charger clothing/footwear
- Work with a partner - Wear gloves
- Be aware of your - Wear respirator
surroundings and coming
into contact with
contamination (breathing
and through contact)
- Breathing of particulate
material (dust, soil
particles)
- Carry a first aid kit

Equipment - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Hazards surroundings
- Equipment - Prevent equipment from
brought by blocking walking paths
contractors

Groundwater Adverse - Bring a warm drink - Dress appropriately for the

Sampling Weather - Carry a cell phone and weather conditions
Conditions battery charger - Wear a warm Coat
- Wind burn - Work with a partner - Hat
- Carry a first aid kit - Gloves
- Limit exposed skin

- Rain - Reduced visibility, be - Dress appropriately for the

aware of surrounding and weather condition
vehicles around roads - Reflective clothing/vest
- Be aware of slippery - Rain boots
rocks especially near - Rain Jacket
slopes
- Carry a cell phone and
battery charger
- Work with a partner
- Change of clothing

- Lightning - Carry a cell phone and - Dress appropriately for the

storms battery charger weather condition
- Work with a partner

23
 - Avoid water bodies
- Keep an eye on the
weather conditions, use
judgement, if unsafe,
reschedule
- If lightning, seek shelter

Overhead - Carry a cell phone and - Hard hat

Dangers battery charger - Safety vest
- Work with a partner
- Be aware of your
surroundings, especially if
it is windy
- Carry a first aid kit
- Use equipment properly
and safely
- Transport equipment
safely

Tripping and - Carry a cell phone and - Wear appropriate footwear

Falling Hazards battery charger
- Work with a partner
- Be aware of your
surroundings
- Carry a first aid kit
- Be careful when on/near
slopes and loose ground

Punctures and - Carry a cell phone and - Wear appropriate clothing

Abrasions battery charger
- Work with a partner
- Be aware of your
surroundings
- Carry a first aid kit
and footwear
- Long pants to avoid
scratches from sharp objects
- Wear gloves

Chemical - Carry a cell phone and - Wear appropriate

Hazards battery charger clothing/footwear, gloves and
- Work with a partner mask to protect from
- Be aware of your breathing possible
surroundings contaminants

Equipment - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Hazards surroundings
- Equipment - Prevent equipment from
brought by blocking walking paths
contractors

24
Travel to Site Tripping & - Be aware of - Steel-toed and bottom shoes
Falling Hazards surroundings
- Potholes in - Wear proper footwear
parking lot - Find alternate paths if
- Obstructions possible
around site - Walk around potholes
- Uneven and and identify hazards
sloped terrain before unloading
- Slippery terrain equipment
if wet - Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone

Traffic - Be aware of - Bright, reflective vests

- Driving to surroundings
location - Make it clear what
- Walking to site direction you are headed
- Check surroundings
before making any change
in direction
- Checking blind-spots
- Be aware of vehicles
leaving parking spaces
- Use a GPS to find the
location, if possible
- Make sure presence is
known in traffic dense
- Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone

Adverse - Check weather patterns No special equipment needed

Weather for the date and time of
Conditions travel
- Heat exposure - Carry rainproof apparel
- Possible rain or - Bring enough water for
thunderstorms hydration
- Sun exposure - Wear clothing to stay at a
- High winds comfortable temperature
- Cold exposure - Be aware of any
overhead hazards if windy
- Be aware of areas that
could pool with water
- Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone
- Have additional dry
clothing if clothing
becomes wet

25
 Equipment - Be aware of No special equipment needed
Hazards surroundings
- Equipment - Prevent equipment from
brought by blocking walking paths
contractors

Overhead - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Hazards surroundings and any
- Office buildings areas on buildings that
look unsafe
- Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone

Punctures and - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Abrasions surroundings
- Foreign objects - Avoid any unknown
around the site materials
- Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone

Travel at Site Tripping & - Be aware of - Steel-toed and bottom shoes

Falling Hazards surroundings
- Obstructions - Wear proper footwear
within basement - Vocalize hazards so they
and hotel are known to everyone, or
- Uneven and mark them with a pylon
sloped terrain - Move any unused
- Stairs to enter equipment away from
basement travel paths
- Entering storage - Travel with partners
tank - Have charged cellphone
- Unused
equipment

Equipment - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Hazards surroundings
- Equipment - Prevent equipment from
brought by blocking walking paths
contractors - Handle any equipment
with care and gloves

Overhead - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Hazards surroundings and any
- Tight spaces areas on buildings that
- Open hole at look unsafe
top of storage - Make others aware if
tank travelling from the top of

26
 the storage tank
- Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone

Punctures and - Be aware of No special equipment needed

Abrasions surroundings
- Foreign objects - Avoid any unknown
around site materials
- Keep waste in a separate
area where others do not
travel
- Travel with partners
- Have charged cellphone

Confined Space - Work with partners Respiratory masks, if fumes

- Working inside - Have all staff at hotel detected
storage tank know where you are and
what you are doing
- Do not use as machines
that produce hazardous
gas
- Have masks ready if
fumes are detected inside
the storage tank
- Take breaks if needed

27
APPENDIX D: Chain of Custody

28
29