municipality of the district of lunenburg page 1 of 2 ...€¦ · 1.3 references .1 bulk sample...

Municipality of the District of Lunenburg of 2 Tender 2020‐05‐002 Addendum No. 1 June 3, 2020 Riverport School – Demolition & Site Remediation

1. Instructions to .1 This addendum must be read, signed and dated by the Proponents Proponent and included with the Tender submitted by the Proponent

on or before the Tender closing date and time. Failure to include this addendum with the Tender submitted will

result in Tender rejection. .2 Attachments to this addendum 1. Section 02 41 16 (Structure Demolition), Riverport School –

Demolition & Site Remediation, Tender 2020‐05‐002 2. Addendum No. .1 Changes. Changes/Additions/ 1. N/A. Deletions .2 Additions.

1. Addition of Section 02 41 16 (Structure Demolition) to the body of the Tender, which has been attached to this addendum.

.3 Deletions.

1. N/A. 3. Schedule .1 All bidders are invited to a voluntary Bidders Meeting, to be held at

the Riverport School site on June 9, 2020, at 10:00 AM. 4. Clarifications Question 1 N/A. Response 1 N/A. 5. Acknowledgement .1 The Proponent acknowledges receipt of this addendum and

understands its content and the respective changes/additions/deletions and clarifications to the Tender.

Municipality of the District of Lunenburg of 2 Tender 2020‐05‐002 Addendum No. 1 June 3, 2020 Riverport School – Demolition & Site Remediation

6. Signature and Date Proponent’s Signature Date

Riverport School – Demolition & Site Remediation SECTION 02 41 16 Tender 2020-05-002 May 29, 2020 Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Page 1 of 5

STRUCTURE DEMOLITION

Part 1 - General

1.1 SECTION INCLUDES

This section specifies requirements and procedures for demolition of structures and parts of structures.

1.2 RELATED SECTIONS

.1 Section 01 10 00 – General Requirements

.2 Section 01 57 00 - Environmental Protection

.3 Section 02 41 13 - Selective Site Demolition

.4 Section 02 81 01 – Hazardous Materials

.5 Section 02 82 00.01 - Asbestos Abatement – Minimum Precautions

.6 Section 02 82 00.02 - Asbestos Abatement – Intermediate Precautions

.7 Section 02 83 10 - Lead Base Paint Abatement – Minimum Precautions

1.3 REFERENCES

.1 Bulk Sample Analysis for Riverport School #231 01-1578, Southwestern Regional School Board; Pinchin LeBlanc Environmental Ltd., June22, 1999

.2 Southwest Regional School Board Building Condition Study – Riverport District Consolidated Elementary School; MacDonnell Group Consulting Limited, Project No. 1022, October 2003.

.3 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS; Strum Consulting, November 24, 2014

.4 Phase III Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS; Strum Consulting, October 1, 2015

.5 Tier II Human Health Risk Assessment, Former Riverport Consolidated Elementary School, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS; Strum Consulting, November 5, 2015

.6 Regulated Materials Survey and Building Condition Assessment, Former Riverport District Consolidated Elementary School, Bayport, Lunenburg County, NS; Fracflow Consultants, June 26, 2015

.7 Supplementary Comments on Historical Asbestos Build Sampling and Building Condition Study; Fracflow Consultants, June 30, 2015

.8 Asbestos Bulk Materials Assessment – Concrete Floor and Mastic Riverport School, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS; Strum Consulting, May 8, 2020

.9 Information received from Nova Scotia Environment under FOIPOP Application Number 2013-090 for all records related to sewer, septic, environmental issues, orders, approvals, permits pertaining to Riverport Elementary School, PID 60456506 and PID 60193802, 3175 Hwy 332, Bay Port, Riverport

.10 CSA S350-M1980, Code of Practice of Safety in Demolition of Structures.



.11 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Department of Justice Canada, 1999.

.12 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook for Construction Sites, Nova Scotia Department of Environment, 1988

.13 NBCC 2010 Code, Part 8 - Safety Measures at Construction and Demolition Sites.

.14 Occupational Safety General Regulations, Section 82 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, March 29, 2000, effective June 12, 2013, regulations amended by N.S. Reg. 5/3/2013

.15 Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1996, and Amendments.

1.4 SUBMITTALS

.1 Submit Demolition Permit from municipal authority having jurisdiction (if

applicable).

1.5 WORKER SAFETY

.1 The Hazardous Materials Surveys conducted identified the presence of the following: asbestos containing flooring adhesive mastic, pipe elbows and exterior transite board; lead containing paint, PCB and mercury containing light ballasts and lightubes; and mold throughout the building on drywall, ceilings, and floors.

.2 The contractor is responsible to inform his work force of the presence of any hazardous materials within the building and to ensure they employ appropriate work practices to the level of the hazard.

.3 Prior to the demolition of the building, the contractor will be responsible for the application of a “lockdown” adhesive binding agent over the surface of the concrete floor throughout the main portion of the building (1,200 m2), to protect the surface layer of flooring mastic from further degradation.

1.6 EXISTING CONDITIONS

.1 The former Riverport Elementary School building is a single storey structure with concrete slab-on-grade floor and frost walls, which was constructed in the late 1960s and used as a school until June 2011. The main portion of the building, including space for 10 classrooms, gymnasium, and offices, has a footprint of approximately 1,200 m2, with a boiler room extension that has a footprint of 54 m2. The wood framed structure has a flat roof surfaced with asphalt and is clad with



brick. The windows are boarded over with plywood. Interior walls consist mainly of drywall with wood paneling on the lower portions of the walls and plaster over mesh on the upper portions of the wall. The wall finishes have been removed from the gym, exposing the wall cavities and pink fibreglass insulation. The drop ceiling tiles formerly located in the central portion of the structure have been predominately removed, exposing wood framing and planking. Vinyl floor tiles have been removed throughout the majority of the building exposing the remaining mastic adhesive. Vinyl floor tiles and terrazzo flooring remains in one classroom and the entrance ways. The structure is currently unheated, however; the fuel storage tank and boiler remain on site. Lighting in the building is provided by incandescent and fluorescent fixtures.

.2 Take over areas of building to be demolished based on their condition on date that tender is accepted. Areas of building to be demolished are shown on demolition plans.

.3 Review Hazardous Materials report and take precautions to protect the environment.

.4 Should material resembling any designated substance listed as hazardous be encountered during demolition, take preventative measures, and notify the owner immediately. Do not proceed until written instructions have been received from the owner.

.5 Notify the owner before disrupting building access or services.

.6 The Contractor is responsible to locate and protect all salvageable items.

.7 All contents of the building become the responsibility/property of the Contractor at the time he takes possession of the structure. No guarantees are given nor implied that salvageable items are of any true value.

.8 Inspect adjacent Work to ensure that its condition and stability is recorded in a manner suitable for evaluation of possible damage caused by Work of this Section.

1.7 REGULATORY REQUIRMENTS

.1 Perform work in accordance with requirements of the Nova Scotia Construction Safety Act and Regulations and as otherwise required by jurisdictional authorities.

Part 2 - Products

2.1 EQUIPMENT

.1 Equipment and machinery shall only be kept running while in use, except in cases of extreme temperatures which prohibit shutting down.

.2 Contractor shall ensure that machinery and tools are used in such a manner which allows for the salvage of materials as efficiently as possible.



Part 3 - Execution

3.1 PREPARATION

.1 Complete work in accordance with applicable Provincial Health and Safety Requirements

.2 Locate and protect existing utilities. Post warning signs on electrical lines and equipment which are required to remain in service during demolition.

.3 Disconnect and cap mechanical services in accordance with authority having jurisdiction. Remove and dispose as directed in accordance with drawings and specifications

3.2 PROTECTION

.1 Prevent movement, settlement or damage of adjacent buildings or property. Provide bracing, shoring and underpinning as required. Make good damage caused by demolition.

.2 Take precautions to support affected structures and, if safety of building being demolished or services appears to be endangered, cease operations and notify Owner.

.3 Prevent debris from blocking surface drainage systems, foundation drainage systems, elevators, mechanical and electrical systems which may need to remain in operation.

.4 Protect persons and property throughout the progress of the Work. Proceed with Work in such manner to minimize the spread of dust and flying particles and to provide safe working conditions for personnel.

3.3 DEMOLITION

.1 Remove existing equipment, services and obstacles where required for refinishing or making good of existing surfaces and replace as work progresses.

.2 At end of each day’s work, leave work in safe condition so that no part is in danger of toppling or falling.

.3 Demolish to minimize dusting.

.4 Demolish walls in pieces not larger than 48” x 48”.

.5 Do not sell or burn materials on site.

.6 All demolition work is to be carried out to the extent that surfaces or finishes are completely ready for the work of subcontractors which follow.

.7 During demolition, ensure occupied sections of building are secure from unlawful or unauthorized entry during times of no/or limited supervision.

3.4 STOCKPILING

.1 Label stockpiles with indication of material type and quantity



.2 Ensure appropriate security to prevent vandalism, damage and theft.

.3 Locate stockpiles in convenient locations for new construction. Avoid double handling of materials where possible.

3.5 REMOVAL FROM SITE

.1 Transport material for alternative disposal by approved haulers to Provincially approved facilities.

.2 Dispose of materials not designated for alternate disposal in accordance with applicable provincial & municipal regulations.

3.6 CLEANING AND RESTORATION

.1 Site shall be kept clean and organized throughout demolition process.

.2 Upon completion of demolition, reinstate areas affected by work to match surrounding undisturbed areas in accordance with the drawings and project documents.

____________________________________END__________________________________

Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Page 1 of 4 Tender 2020‐05‐002 Addendum No. 2 June 17, 2020 Riverport School – Demolition & Site Remediation

1. Instructions to .1 This addendum must be read, signed, and dated by the Proponents Proponent and included with the Tender submitted by the Proponent

on or before the Tender closing date and time. Failure to include this addendum with the Tender submitted will

result in Tender rejection. .2 Attachments to this addendum 1. Phase III Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332,

Riverport, NS; October 1, 2015, Strum Consulting 2. Addendum No. .1 Changes. Changes/Additions/ 1. Change to Section 00 21 00 (Information to Tenderers), Subsection

24.1. This subsection shall read, “The Contractor shall submit a proposed preliminary Schedule of the Performance of the Work. The work shall start within fourteen (14) calendar days of award which is expected to be July 14, 2020.

Deletions .2 Additions.

1. N/A .3 Deletions.

1. N/A. 3. Schedule .1 N/A 4. Clarifications Question 1 Are there any ACM samples taken from the boiler unit (gaskets,

insulation)? There is commonly ACM in these units but does not appear any ACM samples were taken from the boiler itself.

Response 1

There have not been any samples (gaskets, insulation, etc.) collected from within the boiler to confirm the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM); however, based on the anticipated age of the boiler, it is considered highly probable that ACM does exist within the boiler. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to sufficiently dismantle the boiler to ensure that any suspect ACM has been safely


removed and properly disposed of, as per all applicable provincial standards and regulations.

Question 2

Can you confirm or clarify loose and flakey paint will not have to be

removed before structure demolition? Response 2

There will be no requirement to remove loose and flaking paint from painted substrates prior to the structure demolition.

Question 3 Are there any geotechnical investigation reports associated with this

project that can be provided? Response 3

There are no geotechnical investigation reports associated with this project that can be provided. Borehole information associated with environmental site assessment (ESA) activities completed at the site can be found in the Phase III ESA which has been attached to this addendum.

Question 4 Please clarify that the contaminated soils volume indicated on the

drawing does not include rock excavation. Response 4

Confirmed. The contaminated soils volume indicated on the drawing does not include rock excavation.

Question 5 Please clarify that the contaminated soils removal unit pricing does

not include rock excavation.


Response 5

Confirmed. The contaminated soils removal unit pricing does not include rock excavation. It is not anticipated that any rock excavation which would require heavy machinery or rock breaking equipment will be necessary as part of site activities.

Question 6 There are no quantities or expected requirements for importing Type

1 & 2 gravels. Please confirm no credits will be requested by the owner if gravels are not imported to site.

Response 6

Confirmed. No credits will be requested by the owner if gravels are not imported to site. Please provide a unit rate for gravels as requested in the bid form, to be used in the event that there should be any later additions to the awarded contract.

Question 6 On the site drawing for the Riverport School Demolition it shows the

topsoil and seeding stopping inside the property lines in the two driveway entrances. Is the intent for that to be the limit of asphalt removal as well or is the asphalt being removed to the edge of Hwy 332?

Response 6

It is the intent that all asphalt be removed to within the “Limit of Site Demolition (Topsoil and Hydroseed)” as illustrated on the site drawing. Any remaining asphalt between the limits and Hwy 332 will be left to remain in place.

5. Acknowledgement .1 The Proponent acknowledges receipt of this addendum and

understands its content and the respective changes/additions/deletions and clarifications to the Tender.


6. Signature and Date Proponent’s Signature Date

PHASE III ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 3176 HIGHWAY 332

RIVERPORT, NS

October 1, 2015

Head Office Railside, 1355 Bedford Hwy. Bedford, NS B4A 1C5 t. 902.835.5560 (24/7) f. 902.835.5574

Antigonish Office 3-A Vincent’s Way Antigonish, NS B2G 2X3 t. 902.863.1465 (24/7) f. 902.863.1389

Deer Lake Office 101 Nicholsville Road Deer Lake, NL A8A 1V5 t. 1.855.770.5560 (24/7) f. 902.835.5574

Engineering ● Surveying ● Environmental

www.strum.com [email protected]

Moncton Office 45 Price Street Moncton, NB E1A 3R1 t. 1.855.770.5560 (24/7) f. 902.835.5574

October 1, 2015 Ms. Satu Peori The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg 210 Aberdeen Road PO Box 200 Bridgewater, NS B4V 4G8 Dear Ms. Peori, Re: Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)

3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS

Attached is the Phase Iii Environmental Site Assessment report prepared for 3176 Highway 332 in Riverport, NS. This report documents our observations, findings, and recommendations. We trust this report to be satisfactory at this time. Once you have had an opportunity to review this correspondence, please contact us to address any questions you may have. Thank you, Edwin Hiscott, P.Eng. Environmental Engineer [email protected]

Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) October 1, 2015 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Ms. Satu Peori Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Project # 14-4990

Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In May 2015, Strum Consulting was retained by the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (MODL) to complete a Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for a commercial site identified by the civic address 3176 Highway 332 in Riverport, Nova Scotia. This work was conducted to further investigate evidence of fuel oil contamination that was previously identified. The site and existing building are currently vacant, but were previously occupied by the Riverport District Consolidated Elementary School. Land use at the site is currently commercial and is expected to remain commercial. Groundwater usage on the site and surrounding developed properties (residential) is potable. Main Findings & Recommendations Based on the results of the Phase III ESA, the following conclusions are presented:

Site observations, utility locate information, and information provided by former site staff indicate that a former bus refueling area pump island and associated underground storage tank (UST) were located adjacent to the north side of the parking area that is present to the east of the site building. A test pit investigation completed in that area encountered debris material attributed to the former pump island and UST; however, no UST was located. Based on the test pit observations, it is expected that the UST was removed from that area in the past. No evidence of hydrocarbon contamination was reported in that area, and all soil samples from that area reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations.

All soil samples collected from boreholes completed during the current Phase III ESA work reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations, with the exception of one sample collected from borehole BH406 located on the northwest side of the building.

Hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater exceeding applicable commercial criteria were reported in two of the newly-installed monitoring wells (MW402 and MW405), and in three of the previously-installed monitoring wells (MW2, MW101, and MW202) during the current Phase III ESA work.

Sub-floor air samples collected in the site building reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations. Additionally, a groundwater sample collected from the domestic drilled well located to the north of the site building also reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations.

Based on the results of all soil samples collected at the site by Strum to date, delineation of the residual hydrocarbon impacts in soil has been achieved. It has been conservatively estimated that a total of approximately 384 m3 of soil impacted with hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I commercial criteria is located underneath and adjacent to the north and northwest sides of the site building, and in the driveway area east of the site building.


Page ii

Based on the results of groundwater samples collected by Strum at the site to date, delineation of the residual hydrocarbon impacts in groundwater has been achieved. It has been conservatively estimated that a total surface area of approximately 1,600 m2 of groundwater impacted with hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I commercial criteria is located adjacent to the north and northwest sides of the site building, underneath the site building footprint, and to the east of the site building in the driveway and parking area.

There were no other significant ecological concerns identified based on the site soil and groundwater results reported to date.

It is expected that regulatory closure can be achieved for the site via either completion of a remediation program or via a risk-managed approach. Remediation would likely result in subsequently achieving unconditional regulatory closure, while implementation of a risk-managed approach would result in achieving closure that is conditional on continued long-term implementation of risk management protocols.

Based on the above-noted conclusions, the following recommendations are forwarded:

1. Additional sub-floor air monitoring should be completed during the winter season with the building’s heating system in operation to confirm acceptable conditions. Further testing of the potable water supply at the site is also recommended prior to building re-occupancy to confirm acceptable conditions.

2. If remediation is the preferred option for achieving regulatory site closure, it is recommended that a Remedial Action Plan be completed prior to commencement of any remedial activities. If a risk-managed approach is the preferred option, it is recommended that a Qualitative/Quantitative Risk Assessment be completed with subsequent development of a Risk Management Plan. A copy of the report should be forwarded to Nova Scotia Environment for their records.

3. A copy of this report should be forwarded to Nova Scotia Environment for their records. This Executive Summary provides a brief overview of the main conclusions and recommendations of the Phase II ESA. Complete details are provided in the report and the attached Appendices. The statements made in this Executive Summary are subject to the same limitations as described in Section 9.0.


Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Site Buildings/Structures & Utilities ............................................................................................. 2 2.3 Site Topography and Drainage ................................................................................................... 2 2.4 Adjoining Properties .................................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Previous Assessments ................................................................................................................ 3 2.6 Site Classification ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.7 Contaminants of Concern ........................................................................................................... 5 2.8 Reference Guidelines .................................................................................................................. 5

3.0 INVESTIGATION SCOPE & OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 6

4.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................... 7

4.1 Surficial Soil Sampling................................................................................................................. 7 4.2 Borehole Drilling & Monitoring Well Installation .......................................................................... 7 4.3 Former Bus Refueling Area Investigation ................................................................................... 8 4.4 Soil Testing .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.5 Groundwater Sampling ............................................................................................................... 9 4.6 Sub-Floor Air Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 10

5.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 10

5.1 Site Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 10 5.1.1 Site Geology ........................................................................................................................... 10

5.1.2 Former Bus Refueling Area Investigation ...................................................................... 10 5.1.3 Groundwater Hydrogeology ........................................................................................... 11

5.3 Soil Analytical Results ............................................................................................................... 11 5.3.1 Surficial Soil Sample ...................................................................................................... 12 5.3.2 Borehole Soil Samples .................................................................................................. 12 5.3.3 Test Pit Soil Samples ..................................................................................................... 12

5.4 Groundwater Analytical Results ................................................................................................ 12 5.4.1 Monitoring Wells ............................................................................................................ 13 5.4.2 Domestic Drilled Well ..................................................................................................... 13

5.5 Sub-floor Air Analytical Results ................................................................................................. 13 5.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................................................ 14 5.7 Ecological Receptor Screening ................................................................................................. 14

6.0 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 16

6.1 Inferred Extent of Hydrocarbon Impacts in Soil ........................................................................ 16 6.2 Inferred Extent of Hydrocarbon Impacts in Groundwater .......................................................... 17 6.3 Sub-Floor Air Quality ................................................................................................................. 17 6.4 Regulatory Closure Options ...................................................................................................... 17

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 19

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 20

9.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................... 21

10.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 23


Page iv

LIST OF TABLES Table A: Summary of Property Information .......................................................................................... 1 Table B: Borehole/Monitoring Well Summary ...................................................................................... 7 Table C: Test Pit Investigation Summary ............................................................................................. 9 APPENDICES Appendix A: Site Diagrams Appendix B: Site Assessment and Tier I/II Table Checklist Appendix C: Field Investigation Methodology Appendix D: Test Pit & Borehole/Monitoring Well Logs Appendix E: Water Statics Measurements Appendix F: Analytical Results Appendix G: Laboratory Reports Appendix H: Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening

Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) October 1 2015 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Ms. Satu Peori Municipality of the District of Lunenburg Project # 14-4990

Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION In May 2015, Strum Consulting was retained by the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (MODL) to complete a Phase III Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) at the vacant Riverport District Consolidated Elementary School, located at 3176 Highway 332 in Riverport, NS. The Phase III ESA was completed following previous environmental assessment work that was completed at the property. This report documents the Phase III ESA activities completed between June and July 2015 and provides a summary of the environmental status of the site based on the work completed by Strum to date. Further details on the previous environmental work are provided under separate cover. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Site Description The subject property, or “site”, is a vacant commercial property formerly operated as the Riverport District Consolidated Elementary School. The site is located on the west side of Highway 332 in Riverport, NS, and consists of two adjoining parcels of land [Property Identification Numbers (PIDs): 60456506 and 60193802] with a combined area of approximately 33,500 m2 (8.28 acres). A site plan (Drawing 1) is provided in Appendix A. A summary of the property information is provided in Table A, below. Table A: Summary of Property Information

Property Information

PIDs 60456506 and 60193802

Civic Address 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS

Property Owner Municipality of the District of Lunenburg

Land Use Commercial – currently vacant, but previously a school.

Property Area 33,500 m2 (8.28 acres)

Buildings and Structures

30 m X 40 m one storey school building with a 6 m X 9 m extension (boiler room).

Sewer and Water On-site cistern and septic system.


Page 2

2.2 Site Buildings/Structures & Utilities A vacant one-storey wood-framed building, formerly utilized as a school, is located on the central portion of the two land parcels that make up the site. The site building has a slab-on-grade concrete foundation including a frost wall with a footing. The building has a footprint of approximately 1,200 m2, with a boiler room extension on the west side of the building that has a footprint of approximately 54 m2. The building was previously heated by an oil-fired boiler located in the boiler room extension on the west side of the building. The boiler remains present in the building; however, it is not currently operational and the building is not presently heated. When it was operational, fuel oil was supplied to the furnace via a 4,555-litre steel aboveground storage tank (AST) that remains present on the site exterior to the northwest of the site building. Prior to installation of the AST, fuel oil was reportedly supplied to the boiler via a 2,270-litre underground storage tank (UST) that was previously located on the north exterior side of the building. It is also understood that a pump island and UST used for refuelling buses were present in the past adjacent to the north side of the parking area located to the east of the site building. The dates which the pump island/UST were installed and removed are unknown. Domestic water was previously provided to the building via a cistern located to the north of the building. The cistern is not currently being utilized. Additionally, two recently-installed drilled wells are located on the site; one to the north of the site building, and one to the southwest of the site building. It is understood that neither of the new drilled wells have yet been connected to the building’s water system. Sanitary services are provided by an on-site septic system located approximately 50 m north of the building. Underground power and communication lines are provided to the site building from a utility pole located on the east side of the site. The underground lines extend under the central portion of the building to the electrical panel within the building. The approximate locations of site utilities, former tanks, and the suspected bus refueling area are shown on Drawing 2 (Appendix A). 2.3 Site Topography and Drainage This area of Riverport has an overall down-gradient trend from west to east. Topographic mapping of the region indicates that regional drainage flows towards the Atlantic Ocean, which is located approximately 460 m east of the subject site. The Atlantic Ocean is the primary aquatic receptor in the region. Overall, topography on the subject site has a down-gradient trend from west to east. Surface water drainage on the site is controlled primarily by site topography and stormwater management elements, such as curbs and gutters, which direct surface water flow away from the site toward the municipal drainage ditches located along Highway 332.


Page 3

An up-gradient watercourse is located to the west of the site. The watercourse drains to a man-made ditch which directs the flow to the south along the western property boundary. It should be noted that, as recently determined during the current Phase III ESA work, the watercourse also drains into a culvert located to the northwest of the site building, and then through a buried diversion pipe that crosses the site north of the site building. It is understood that the buried diversion pipe discharges the surface water from the up-gradient watercourse across Highway 332 to the east of the site. The location of the buried diversion pipe is shown on Drawing 2 (Appendix A). 2.4 Adjoining Properties Residential properties with on-site potable water wells and on-site septic systems adjoin the site to the north and south, as well as across Highway 332 to the southeast. Forested (resource) land is also located west/northwest (up-gradient) of the site, and to the east (down-gradient) across Highway 332. Due to the presence of adjoining residential properties, all analytical data have also been compared to applicable criteria for residential land-use, in addition to the commercial criteria comparison relevant to the subject site itself. Further details are provided in Section 5. 2.5 Previous Assessments Previous assessments were completed on the site by LVM / Maritime Testing and Strum, as detailed in the following reports:

Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Civic No. 3175 Highway 332, Bayport, NS. Prepared by LVM / Maritime Testing, dated March 14, 2014.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS. Prepared by Strum Consulting, dated April 29, 2014.

Additional Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS. Prepared by Strum Consulting, dated June 4, 2014.

Groundwater Monitoring Report, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS. Prepared by Strum Consulting, dated June 27, 2014.

Additional (July 2014) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS. Prepared by Strum Consulting, dated August 1, 2014.

Additional (October 2014) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS. Prepared by Strum Consulting, dated November 13, 2014.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS. Prepared by Strum Consulting, dated November 24, 2014.


Page 4

As documented in the above-noted reports, the LVM / Maritime Testing Modified Phase I ESA report identified evidence of fuel oil contamination at the site in a test pit completed on the northwest side of the site building. LVM / Maritime Testing also completed a test pit on the north side of the eastern parking area to assess the reported location of a former bus refueling pump island and associated UST; however, no impacts or infrastructure were identified in that area. Following the LVM / Maritime Testing work, Strum was retained to complete Phase II ESA work between March 2014 and October 2014, which included a total of 14 test pits, eight interior test holes, 18 drilled boreholes and installation of 16 monitoring wells in the boreholes to assess soil and groundwater conditions. Sub-floor air monitoring for petroleum hydrocarbons utilizing two sampling probes was also completed in the site building. The Phase II ESA activities were completed in several stages, each of which was reported under separate cover. However, the November 24, 2014 Strum Phase II ESA report noted above summarizes all of the Phase II ESA activities completed at the site between March and October 2014. A summary of the findings of the November 2014 Strum Phase II ESA is provided below:

An unknown amount of hydrocarbon, potentially from multiple sources, was lost at the site in the past. The potential sources that were identified include a fuel oil AST located on the northwest side of the site building, a former fuel oil UST that was reportedly located on the north side of the site building, and a former bus refueling pump island and associated UST that was reportedly present adjacent to the north side of the parking area located to the east of the site building in the past.

Hydrocarbon-impacted soil exceeding applicable soil quality criteria was identified adjacent to and underneath the site building, and in the driveway area to the east of the site building. Based on the soil investigation results, it was concluded that hydrocarbon impacted soils are confined to the vicinity of the site building and driveway area to the east of the building. As such, off-site investigation was not warranted; however, further delineation of hydrocarbon impacts in soil in the driveway area east of the site building was recommended.

Hydrocarbon impacted groundwater exceeding applicable criteria was identified adjacent

to the north, northwest, and east sides of the site building. Additional groundwater monitoring was recommended to further assess the variation in groundwater hydrocarbon concentrations over time. Further assessment indicated that groundwater hydrocarbon impacts are confined to the above-noted areas of the site.

Sub-floor air sample results collected within the site building reported hydrocarbon concentrations that comply with applicable Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) commercial target concentrations.


Page 5

Based on the completion of an Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Assessment, no significant ecological concerns were identified in relation to the residual hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater identified during the Phase II ESA activities.

Additional details on the previous assessments completed at the site are available in the reports outlined above. Based on the findings of the Strum Phase II ESA activities, it was recommended that additional investigation activities (i.e. a Phase III ESA) be completed to further delineate hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater identified in the driveway area adjacent to the east side of the site building. The Phase III ESA work is the focus of this report, and is detailed in the following sections. 2.6 Site Classification Land use at the site is designated as commercial. Future land use on this property is expected to remain commercial. Groundwater usage on the site is potable. Therefore, for environmental assessment purposes, the site is classified as a commercial, potable site. 2.7 Contaminants of Concern Petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater have been evaluated as the contaminants of concern for the current investigation. The potential sources of petroleum hydrocarbons include a fuel oil AST located to the northwest of the site building, a former fuel oil UST that was located on the north side of the site building in the past, and a former pump island and associated UST for refuelling buses that was reportedly located adjacent to the north side of the parking area that is present to the east of the site building. 2.8 Reference Guidelines Based on the site classification and contaminants of concern, the Atlantic RBCA Tier I Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) and the Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Protocol [Atlantic RBCA V.3, August 2012] were used to evaluate the analytical test results. It should be noted that the Atlantic RBCA Tier I RBSLs have been utilized in place of the Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) Tier I Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) for the current assessment. This has been done as a proactive approach, as the RBCA Tier I RBSLs (which the Tier I EQS are based off of) were recently updated in January 2015, and the Tier I EQS have not yet been updated to reflect the changes to the RBCA Tier I RBSLs. It is anticipated that the Tier I EQS will be updated with the new Tier I RBSL values by the end of 2015. In order to confirm compliance with Atlantic RBCA Tier I criteria, the Site Assessment Tier I/II Table Checklist was completed and is included as Appendix B. The Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening has also been completed and is discussed in Section 5.7.


Page 6

3.0 INVESTIGATION SCOPE & OBJECTIVES The Phase III ESA was completed to further delineate hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater identified at the site as documented in the Strum Phase II ESA report, dated November 24, 2014. The scope of work for the Phase III ESA consisted of the following:

Perform a review of site background information, check site utilities, and complete a test pit program in order to identify the location of the previous bus refueling pump island and associated UST.

Drill an additional borehole on the northwest exterior side of the building in the area of the most significant hydrocarbon impacts to obtain data necessary to determine Site Specific Target Levels (SSTLs) for the property at a later date, if applicable.

Drill an additional 10 boreholes with monitoring wells installed in eight of them to fully

delineate hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater to the east of the site building.

Inspect groundwater conditions and collect groundwater samples from all on-site monitoring wells. Also collect a groundwater sample from the on-site drilled well to the north of the site building that is located in close proximity to the area of identified hydrocarbon impacts.

Submit select soil and groundwater samples to Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Bedford, NS for

analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons.

Submit one soil sample from the northwest side of the building for hydrocarbon fractionation analysis to support future development of SSTLs.

Install two additional sub-floor air sampling ports in the central and eastern portions of

the site building, and collect sub-floor air samples from the two new and two existing sampling ports for analysis of hydrocarbons in air.

The objective of the Phase III ESA was to further investigate subsurface and groundwater conditions at the site in order to provide the necessary level of information required to determine the scope for remediation or to complete a risk assessment for the property and develop a risk management plan. It is understood that the overall goal of the current work is to achieve regulatory closure ahead of anticipated future sale of the property.


Page 7

4.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES The Phase III ESA investigation activities are described in the following sections. Additional details of the field investigation methodologies are provided in Appendix C. 4.1 Surficial Soil Sampling On June 16, 2015, water was observed to be leaking from the wellhead of the domestic drilled well located north of the site building. The domestic drilled well is located in close proximity to previously-identified hydrocarbon impacts in subsurface soil and groundwater, and it is assumed that the well is artesian as indicated by the leaking that was observed. As such, one surficial soil sample labelled S1(JN16) was collected in the vicinity of the domestic drilled well to document surficial soil conditions around the wellhead where water leakage had been observed. The location of sample S1(JN16) is shown on Drawing 3 (Appendix A). The analytical results of the surficial soil sample are discussed in Sections 5.3.1. 4.2 Borehole Drilling & Monitoring Well Installation Between June and July, 2015, a total of 11 boreholes (BH401-BH411) were drilled at the site by Q-Drilling and Remediation of Fall River, NS, with monitoring wells installed in eight of the boreholes. The monitoring wells were identified as MW401-MW403, MW405, and MW408-MW411 (monitoring well IDs corresponded with the borehole IDs in which they were installed). Boreholes without monitoring wells installed were identified as BH404, BH406, and BH407. The borehole/monitoring well locations are shown on Drawing 3 (Appendix A). Further details on the field investigation methodology related to borehole drilling, monitoring well installation and surveying are provided in Appendix C. The Borehole Logs and well construction details are provided in Appendix D, and the analytical results of the borehole/monitoring well soil and groundwater samples are discussed in Sections 5.2.3 and 5.4.1, respectively. A groundwater sample was also collected from the domestic drilled well located north of the site building, and the analytical results for that sampling are discussed in Section 5.4.2. A summary of the borehole/monitoring well details is provided in Table B, below. Table B: Borehole/Monitoring Well Summary

ID Drill Date

(yy/mm/dd)

Total Depth

(m)

Depth to GW

(mbTOC)

Evidence of Hydrocarbon

Contamination Notes

No. of SoilSamples

Submitted for Analysis

BH/MW401 15/06/16 5.1 1.19 No - 1

BH/MW402 15/06/16 5.1 2.55 No - 1

BH/MW403 15/06/16 5.1 2.49 No - 1


Page 8

ID Drill Date

(yy/mm/dd)

Total Depth

(m)

Depth to GW

(mbTOC)


Contamination Notes

No. of SoilSamples


BH404 15/06/16 0.6 - No Obstruction at 0.6 m -

BH/MW405 15/06/16 5.1 3.33 Yes

Strong HC odours in soil from 1.8 m to

bedrock.

1

BH406 15/06/16 0.5 - Yes

Strong HC odours detected

on soil throughout.

1

BH407 15/06/16 1.0 - No Obstruction at

1.0 m. 1

BH/MW408 15/07/13 5.1 2.42 No - 1

BH/MW409 15/07/13 5.1 2.21 No - 1

BH/MW410 15/07/13 5.1 2.51 No - 1

BH/MW411 15/07/13 5.1 2.14 No - 1

Notes: Groundwater depth measurements collected from MW401-MW405 on June 18, 2015. Groundwater depth measurements collected from MW408-MW411 on July 14, 2014. All groundwater depth measurements measured in metres below top of well casing (mbTOC). GW: Groundwater HC: Hydrocarbon

4.3 Former Bus Refueling Area Investigation On June 16, 2015, a disconnected power connection for the former bus refueling pump island was identified in the building’s electrical panel. Cornell Video Inspection traced the wire connection, which was observed to exit the east side of the building in the same location as the underground power supply lines to the building. The wire then extended toward the north side of the eastern parking area and ended. A subsequent check with a metal detector indicated that a metallic object or objects were also located in that area adjacent to the end of the former wire connection. The approximate location of the traced wire is shown on Drawing 2 (Appendix A). The above-noted location where the electrical wire ended is consistent with the location of the former bus refueling pump island that was reported by former site staff. It should be noted that a review of aerial photographs for the site did not indicate the location of the former pump island. On July 13, 2015, four test pits (TP101 – TP104) were completed to the north of the parking lot located on the east side of the site building using a back-hoe operated by Q-Drilling and Remediation of Fall River, NS. The test pits were completed in that area to investigate the suspected location of the former bus refueling pump island and UST. All test pits were excavated to inferred bedrock at depths ranging from 2.3 to 2.4 m below grade.


Page 9

Test pit locations are shown on Drawing 3 (Appendix A). Further details on the field investigation methodology related to test pit excavation and soil sampling are provided in Appendix C, and further details on the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits are provided in the attached Test Pit Logs (Appendix D). A test pit investigation summary is provided in Table C, below, and the analytical results for test pit soil samples are discussed in Section 5.3.3. Table C: Test Pit Investigation Summary

ID Total

Depth1 (m)

Depth Water Seepage

Encountered1 (m)


Contamination Notes

No. ofSamples


TP101 2.4 - No Metal pipes observed at 0.6 and 1.2 mbg. Wire observed at 1.8 mbg.

1

TP102 2.4 - No - 1

TP103 2.3 - No Metal pipe observed at 1.3 mbg. 1

TP104 2.3 - No - 1 Notes:

1. Total depth and depth to encountering water seepage are measured in metres below surface grade. 2. mbg = metres below surface grade.

4.4 Soil Testing All collected soil samples were screened for the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by measuring sample headspace concentrations (see screening methodology, Appendix C). Based on the headspace screening results and field observations, representative samples were selected and submitted to Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Bedford, NS for analysis. 4.5 Groundwater Sampling Groundwater samples were collected from the on-site monitoring wells on the following dates:

Monitoring wells MW1 to MW8, MW101 to MW103, MW201 to 203, MW301 to MW303, and MW401 to MW405 were sampled June 18, 2015.

Monitoring wells MW408 to MW411 were sampled on July 14, 2015.

One groundwater sample, labelled DW1, was also collected from the domestic drilled well located north of the site building on June 18, 2015. Further details on the field investigation methodology related to groundwater sampling are provided in Appendix C. Analytical results for groundwater samples collected during the Phase II ESA are discussed in Section 5.4.


Page 10

4.6 Sub-Floor Air Monitoring In June 2015, two samples (identified as SF1 and SF2) were collected from sub-floor air sampling probes previously installed during the Phase II ESA activities within the northwest portion of the structure. In July 2015, two additional sub-floor air sampling probes (identified as SF3 and SF4) were installed through the concrete floor slab in the east and central portions of the site building. A sample was then collected from each of the two new probes. Sub-floor air sampling locations are shown on Drawing 3 (Appendix A). The analytical results of the sub-floor air testing are discussed in Section 5.5. Further details on the field investigation methodology related to sub-floor air testing are provided in Appendix C. 5.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS The results of the Phase III ESA are outlined in the following sections. 5.1 Site Conditions 5.1.1 Site Geology On-site field observations indicated that site soils generally consist of approximately 0.3 m to 2.4 m of brown silty sand with slate clasts overlying fractured slate bedrock. Keppie (2000)1 has mapped the bedrock in this area as the Meguma Group, Halifax Formation, primarily comprised of slate, siltstone, and minor sandstone. As such, field observations were consistent with the bedrock geology mapping. Petroleum hydrocarbon free product was not observed at any of the test locations during the Phase III ESA; however, olfactory evidence of hydrocarbon impacts was noted in soil in boreholes BH405 and BH406. 5.1.2 Former Bus Refueling Area Investigation Remnant metal vent/fill pipes and wires attributed to the former bus refueling pump island and associated UST were observed in TP101 and TP103 on the north side of the eastern parking area. However, no UST was located, and there was no evidence of hydrocarbon contamination in that area. Based on the field observations of subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits, it is expected that the former refueling pump island and UST were located in the area that was investigated, but were previously removed from the site. No other site information has indicated that the UST would be located elsewhere on the site.

1 Keppie, J.D. 2000. DP ME 43, Version 2, 2006, Digital Version of Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Map ME 2000-1, Geological Map of the Province of Nova Scotia, scale 1:500,000. Digital product compiled by B.E. Fisher. (Formerly DP ME D00-01).


Page 11

5.1.3 Groundwater Hydrogeology Static water level measurements were collected from each available well on June 17, 2015. Additional static water level measurements were collected from monitoring wells MW408 to MW411 on July 14, 2015 (refer to Appendix E for water statics measurements). Petroleum hydrocarbon free product was not observed in any of the site monitoring wells during the current Phase III ESA or previous site investigations completed by Strum. However, olfactory evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons was noted in MW202 and MW405 during the June-July 2015 investigation work. Based on groundwater static measurements recorded on June 17, 2015, the depth to water from grade ranged from 0.4 m in MW1 to a maximum depth of 3.5 m in MW101. As shown in Drawing 4 (Appendix A), contoured groundwater elevations for the June 17, 2015 data indicate that the approximate groundwater flow direction is towards the east-southeast with an average horizontal groundwater gradient of approximately 5%. Hydraulic conductivity was previously evaluated in monitoring well MW8 on April 11, 2014, by completing a drawdown test and evaluating the data using the Hvorslev method. The resultant hydraulic conductivity was calculated to be approximately 1.8x10–6 cm/sec. 5.3 Soil Analytical Results Analytical soil results for the Phase III ESA activities are detailed in the following sections and are presented in tabular form in Table 1 (Appendix F). Analytical soil results from the previous Phase II ESA activities are presented in tabular form in Table 2 (Appendix F). Copies of the laboratory reports for the recent test results are attached as Appendix G. All analytical soil results were compared to the Atlantic RBCA Tier I Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSLs) for a commercial site with potable groundwater usage and coarse-grained soils. As residential properties adjoin the site, all soil analytical results have also been compared to the Atlantic RBCA Tier I RBSLs for a residential site with potable groundwater usage and coarse-grained soils. This comparison was utilized to determine if further investigation at the property lines with the adjoining residential properties would be required. As noted previously, the Atlantic RBCA Tier I RBSLs have been utilized in place of the NSE Tier I EQS for the current assessment. This has been done as a proactive approach, as the RBCA Tier I RBSLs (which the Tier I EQS are based off of) were recently updated in January 2015, and the Tier I EQS have not yet been updated to reflect the changes to the RBCA Tier I RBSLs. It is anticipated that the Tier I EQS will be updated with the new Tier I RBSL values by the end of 2015.


Page 12

5.3.1 Surficial Soil Sample One surficial soil sample [S1(JN16)] was collected in the vicinity of the domestic drilled well located north of the site building. As presented in Table 1 (Appendix F), sample S1(JN16) reported hydrocarbon concentrations that comply with the applicable residential/commercial Tier I RBSL criteria. 5.3.2 Borehole Soil Samples Ten borehole soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of hydrocarbons. As presented in Table 1 (Appendix F), one soil sample (BH406-S1) reported a Modified TPH concentration of 2,200 mg/kg, which exceeds both the residential Tier I RBSL of 270 mg/kg and commercial Tier I RBSL of 1,800 mg/kg for impacts resembling diesel/fuel oil. All other results from the Phase III ESA complied with the applicable residential/commercial Tier I RBSLs. Hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I RBSLs were also reported during the previous Phase II ESA. These exceedences are shown in Table 2 (Appendix F). In addition to the hydrocarbon analysis noted above, soil sample BH406-S1 was analyzed for hydrocarbon fractionation. This analysis was completed to support future risk assessment activities, if completed. The results of the hydrocarbon fractionation analysis are summarized in Table 3 (Appendix F). During the previous Phase II ESA work, a soil sample (TP6-S1) was also analyzed for fraction of organic carbon (foc) to support future risk assessment, if completed. The results of the previous foc analysis are included in Table 4 (Appendix F). 5.3.3 Test Pit Soil Samples Four test pit soil samples (one from each test pit) were submitted for laboratory analysis of hydrocarbons. As presented in Table 1 (Appendix F), all four test pit samples reported hydrocarbon concentrations that comply with the applicable residential/commercial Tier I RBSLs. 5.4 Groundwater Analytical Results Analytical results for groundwater samples collected during the recent Phase III ESA are detailed below and are presented in tabular form in Table 5 (Appendix F). Analytical results from the previous Phase II ESA activities are also presented in tabular form in Table 4. Copies of the laboratory reports for the recent test results are attached as Appendix G. All analytical results have been compared with the Atlantic RBCA Tier I RBSLs for a commercial site with potable groundwater usage and coarse-grained soils. As residential sites adjoin the property, the results have also been compared to the Atlantic RBCA Tier I RBSLs for residential land use with potable groundwater usage and coarse-grained soils.


Page 13

5.4.1 Monitoring Wells As shown in Table 5, hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I RBSLs for commercial and residential land use were reported on different dates in a number of monitoring wells. These include the following:

In MW2 in June 2015, with a reported ethylbenzene concentration of 0.013 mg/L, as compared to the residential/commercial Tier I RBSL of 0.0016 mg/L.

In MW101 in June 2015, with a reported ethylbenzene concentration of 0.0035 mg/L, as

compared to the residential/commercial Tier I RBSL of 0.0016 mg/L.

In MW202 in June 2015, with a reported ethylbenzene concentration of 0.045 mg/L and Modified TPH concentration of 4.9 mg/L, as compared to the Tier I RBSLs of 0.0016 mg/L and 3.2 mg/L (for diesel/fuel oil), respectively.

In MW402 in June and July 2015, with reported ethylbenzene concentrations of 0.0022 mg/L and 0.033 mg/L respectively, as compared to the residential/commercial Tier I RBSL of 0.0016 mg/L.

In MW405 in June 2015, with a reported ethylbenzene concentration of 0.082 mg/L and

Modified TPH concentration of 3.6 mg/L, as compared to the respective residential/commercial RBSLs of 0.0016 mg/L and 3.2 mg/L (for diesel/fuel oil).

Hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I RBSLs were also reported during the previous Phase II ESA in monitoring wells MW2, MW5, MW7, MW8, MW101, and MW202. Those exceedences are also shown in Table 5 (Appendix E).

In addition to the hydrocarbon analysis noted above, a groundwater sample collected from MW5 was analyzed for hydrocarbon fractionation during the previous Phase II ESA work. This analysis was completed to support future risk assessment activities, if completed. The results of the hydrocarbon fractionation are summarized in Table 6 (Appendix F). 5.4.2 Domestic Drilled Well One groundwater sample (DW1) was collected from the domestic drilled well located north of the site building and submitted for laboratory analysis of hydrocarbons. As presented in Table 5 (Appendix F), DW1 reported non-detectable hydrocarbon concentrations and therefore comply with the applicable residential/commercial RBSLs. 5.5 Sub-floor Air Analytical Results Analytical results for sub-floor air samples are detailed in the following sections and are presented in tabular form in Table 7 (Appendix F). Copies of the laboratory reports are attached as Appendix G. All results were compared to the Atlantic RBCA sub-floor air target concentrations for a commercial site, as stipulated in the Atlantic RBCA User Guidance.


Page 14

As shown on Table 7, all sub-floor air samples (SF1, SF2, SF3, and SF4) reported petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations that comply with the Atlantic RBCA commercial target concentrations. Additional testing would be required to confirm hydrocarbon concentrations in sub-floor air when the building is being heated and the ventilation system is operational. 5.6 Quality Assurance/Quality Control To assess field sampling and laboratory testing protocols, two field duplicate groundwater samples (both identified as FD1) were collected during the June 2015 and July 2015 sampling events from monitoring wells MW401 and MW409, respectively. Several laboratory duplicate analyses of the submitted soil and groundwater samples were also completed by Maxxam as part of their own QA/QC protocols. All field and lab duplicate sample results were reported to be generally consistent with those of the original samples. All field and laboratory duplicate sample results from the current investigation and previous Phase II ESA work are provided in the attached analytical summary tables (Appendix F). 5.7 Ecological Receptor Screening In accordance with Atlantic RBCA requirements, the site has been evaluated to determine if petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations at the site present a potential concern to environmental receptors, and if potentially sensitive ecological habitat and/or receptors exist on the property, or within 200 m of the site. The results of the ecological receptor screening are discussed below and presented in the summary table in Appendix H. The screening protocol includes comparing hydrocarbon data for shallow soil samples (i.e. < 1.5 m depth) and groundwater data to screening criteria limits applicable to the site land-use and soil type, as well as identifying potential ecological receptors and if any potential contaminant pathways to ecological receptors are present. The hydrocarbon data reported in shallow soil and groundwater from the current investigation (Tables 1 and 5, Appendix F) were compared to the Atlantic RBCA Ecological Screening Levels. This comparison indicated the following:

Shallow soil samples collected from BH406 reported hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the Ecological Screening Level criteria protective of plants and soil invertebrates in direct contact with shallow soils.

All reported hydrocarbon concentrations in shallow soils complied with the Ecological Screening Level criteria protective of wildlife and/or livestock via soil and/or food ingestion.

The groundwater sample collected from monitoring well MW202 in June 2015 reported hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the commercial Ecological Screening Level


Page 15

criteria protective of plants and soil invertebrates in direct contact with shallow groundwater. The groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW202 and MW405 in June 2015 also reported hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the residential/parkland Ecological Screening Level criteria protective of plants and soil invertebrates in direct contact with shallow groundwater.

Groundwater samples collected from monitoring wells MW202, MW402, and MW405 reported hydrocarbon concentrations that exceed the Ecological Screening Level criteria for groundwater that are protective of freshwater and marine aquatic life (via groundwater discharge to surface water).

As ecological screening criteria exceedances have been identified in shallow soil and shallow groundwater on the site, a qualitative assessment of potential ecological receptors and contaminant exposure pathways has been completed. This assessment indicated the following:

Forested habitat is present on the site and adjoining properties at approximate minimum distances of 15 m to the west (up-gradient) and 30 m to the east (down-gradient) of any of the above-mentioned investigation locations that exceed Ecological Screening Levels.

An up-gradient watercourse is directed across the site through a culvert and buried surface water diversion pipe. This drain pipe directs the watercourse flow across Highway 332 where it discharges to the east.

Based on the above assessment, there is potential that vegetation and soil invertebrates present in the areas of the residual hydrocarbon impacts (see Drawings 5 and 6, Appendix A) may come into contact with elevated hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and groundwater; however, no stressed vegetation was observed on the site during the site visit, and due to the current commercial development of the site and anticipated continued commercial usage of the site, the vegetation and soil invertebrates in the areas of the hydrocarbon impacts are not considered sensitive ecological receptors in a suitable habitat. Additionally, based on the reported sample results and locations where those samples were collected, it is not expected that the residual hydrocarbon concentrations in soil and groundwater on the site would represent a concern for vegetation and soil invertebrates present in nearby undeveloped/forested areas. Additionally, although a buried surface water diversion pipe is present on the site in relatively close proximity to the inferred plume of residual hydrocarbon impacts in groundwater (see Drawing 6, Appendix A), this is not expected to represent a significant ecological risk to down-gradient surface water receptors due to the following:

Hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater that comply with applicable ecological screening criteria were reported in monitoring wells located in closest proximity to the buried surface water diversion pipe (i.e. MW4, MW8, MW102, MW103 and MW401). Although initially elevated above applicable ecological screening criteria in MW5 in April


Page 16

2014, recent hydrocarbon sample results in MW5 have also complied with applicable ecological screening criteria for groundwater discharge to surface water.

The surface water flow is enclosed in the buried pipe structure, and the volume of flow through the pipe is significant in comparison to the groundwater flow rate calculated for the site. As such, any groundwater infiltration into the pipe would be expected to be significantly diluted.

The groundwater flow direction on the site has been determined to flow in an east-southeast direction, where the buried diversion pipe flows in a more east-northeasterly direction away from the residual hydrocarbon plume in groundwater.

No other significant ecological concerns were identified based on completion of the ecological receptor screening. 6.0 DISCUSSION 6.1 Inferred Extent of Hydrocarbon Impacts in Soil Based on the results of all soil samples collected by Strum at the site between March 2014 and July 2015 (Tables 1 and 2, Appendix F), the inferred extent of residual hydrocarbon concentrations in soil exceeding applicable commercial Tier I RBSL criteria is shown on Drawing 5 (Appendix A). As residential properties adjoin the site, the inferred extent of residual hydrocarbon concentrations in soil exceeding residential Tier I RBSL criteria is also shown on Drawing 5. As shown on Drawing 5, hydrocarbon concentrations in soil exceeding commercial Tier I RBSL criteria have been conservatively estimated to cover a total area of approximately 384 m2, and have been delineated to the areas under and adjacent to the northwest and north sides of the site building, and in the area of BH/MW202 in the driveway area east of the site building. Based on an average inferred impacted zone thickness of approximately 1.0 m, it is estimated that approximately 384 m3 of soil at the site contains elevated hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I commercial criteria. No residual hydrocarbon impacts were identified in the former bus refueling area. As none of the identified residential Tier I RBSL exceedences were reported in close proximity to the site property lines, it is not expected that the elevated residual hydrocarbon concentrations in soil on the site represent a concern for the adjoining residential properties. As noted previously, it is not expected that the residual hydrocarbon impacts in soil identified on the site represent a significant ecological concern.


Page 17

6.2 Inferred Extent of Hydrocarbon Impacts in Groundwater Based on the summarized results of all groundwater samples collected by Strum at the site between April 2014 and July 2015 (Table 5, Appendix F), the inferred zone of residual hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater exceeding applicable commercial Tier I RBSL criteria are shown on Drawing 6 (Appendix A). As the site and surrounding properties have potable groundwater usage, the commercial Tier I RBSLs for groundwater are the same as residential Tier I RBSLs applicable for the adjoining residential properties. As shown on Drawing 6, hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater exceeding applicable Tier I RBSL criteria have been conservatively estimated to cover a total surface area of approximately 1,600 m2, delineated to the area of the northwest and north sides of the site building, underneath the site building, and within the driveway and parking area east of the site building. It should be noted that elevated hydrocarbon concentrations were not consistently reported in all of the wells located within the impacted zone; however, it is expected that this is the result of the fractured nature of the slate bedrock at the site. To be conservative, it has been assumed that any wells that reported elevated hydrocarbon concentrations during the April 2014 to July 2015 monitoring period are located within the plume of residual hydrocarbon impacts. As noted previously, a groundwater sample collected from the on-site drilled well located north of the site building in June 2015 reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations. Further sampling of the site potable water supply would be recommended prior to the building being reoccupied. As none of the identified Tier I RBSL criteria exceedences in groundwater were reported to be located in wells closest to the property lines, it is not expected that the residual hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater would represent a concern for adjoining properties. As noted previously, it is not expected that the residual hydrocarbon impacts in groundwater identified on the site represent a significant ecological concern. 6.3 Sub-Floor Air Quality All sub-floor air samples collected within the site building by Strum to date have reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations; however, no samples have yet been collected during the winter season with the building heating system in operation when hydrocarbon concentrations in sub-floor air would be expected to be at their maximum. Additional sub-floor air sampling during the winter months and with the building’s heating system operational would be required to confirm acceptable conditions. 6.4 Regulatory Closure Options Considering the inferred extents of residual hydrocarbon impacts on the site, it is expected that regulatory closure could be achieved following either implementation of a remedial program or implementation of a risk-managed approach.


Page 18

Completion of a remedial program would likely be more expensive, but would likely result in achieving unconditional regulatory closure for the site with no long-term site management or monitoring requirements. The implementation of a risk-managed approach will likely result in achieving conditional closure for the site, with requirements for some level of on-going site management and monitoring (e.g. not disturbing site soils, long-term groundwater and drinking water monitoring, reassessment if site conditions change, etc.). It should be noted that implementation of a remedial program would require input by a structural engineer to determine structural requirements for soil removal within the footprint of the site building. Also, due to the fractured nature of site bedrock, it is likely that some form of groundwater remediation (e.g. purging, chemical injections, etc.) would be required following impacted soil removal, as natural attenuation of hydrocarbons in groundwater may be delayed. If remediation is the preferred option, it is recommended that a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and costing be developed and reviewed prior to commencement of any remedial activities. If a risk-managed approach is the preferred option, it is recommended that the current site data be utilized to complete a Qualitative/Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) with subsequent development of a Risk Management Plan.


Page 19

7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the assessment activities completed to date, the following conclusions are presented:

Site observations, utility locate information, and information provided by former site staff indicate that a former bus refueling area pump island and associated underground storage tank (UST) were located adjacent to the north side of the parking area that is present to the east of the site building. A test pit investigation completed in that area encountered debris material attributed to the former pump island and UST; however, no UST was located. Based on the test pit observations, it is expected that the UST was removed from that area in the past. No evidence of hydrocarbon contamination was reported in that area, and all soil samples from that area reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations.

All soil samples collected from boreholes completed during the current Phase III ESA

work reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations, with the exception of one sample collected from borehole BH406 located on the northwest side of the building.

Hydrocarbon concentrations in groundwater exceeding applicable commercial criteria

were reported in two of the newly-installed monitoring wells (MW402 and MW405), and in three of the previously-installed monitoring wells (MW2, MW101, and MW202) during the current Phase III ESA work.

Sub-floor air samples collected in the site building reported acceptable hydrocarbon

concentrations. Additionally, a groundwater sample collected from the domestic drilled well located to the north of the site building also reported acceptable hydrocarbon concentrations.

Based on the results of all soil samples collected at the site by Strum to date, delineation

of the residual hydrocarbon impacts in soil has been achieved. It has been conservatively estimated that a total of approximately 384 m3 of soil impacted with hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I commercial criteria is located underneath and adjacent to the north and northwest sides of the site building, and in the driveway area east of the site building.

Based on the results of groundwater samples collected by Strum at the site to date,

delineation of the residual hydrocarbon impacts in groundwater has been achieved. It has been conservatively estimated that a total surface area of approximately 1,600 m2 of groundwater impacted with hydrocarbon concentrations exceeding applicable Tier I commercial criteria is located adjacent to the north and northwest sides of the site building, underneath the site building footprint, and to the east of the site building in the driveway and parking area.


Page 20

There were no significant ecological concerns identified based on the site soil and groundwater results reported to date.

It is expected that regulatory closure can be achieved for the site via either completion of

a remediation program or via a risk-managed approach. Remediation would likely result in subsequently achieving unconditional regulatory closure, while implementation of a risk-managed approach would result in achieving closure that is conditional on continued long-term implementation of risk management protocols.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above-noted conclusions, the following recommendations are forwarded:

1. Additional sub-floor air monitoring should be completed during the winter season with the building’s heating system in operation to confirm acceptable conditions. Further testing of the potable water supply at the site is also recommended prior to building re-occupancy to confirm acceptable conditions.

2. If remediation is the preferred option for achieving regulatory site closure, it is recommended that a Remedial Action Plan be completed prior to commencement of any remedial activities. If a risk-managed approach is the preferred option, it is recommended that a Qualitative/Quantitative Risk Assessment be completed with subsequent development of a Risk Management Plan. A copy of the report should be forwarded to Nova Scotia Environment for their records.

3. A copy of this report should be forwarded to Nova Scotia Environment for their records.


Page 21

9.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS This Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by Strum Environmental (“Consultant”) for the benefit of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between Consultant and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations, and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):

is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”)

represents Consultant’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports

may be based on information provided to Consultant which has not been independently verified

has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued

must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement in the case of subsurface, environmental, or geotechnical conditions, may be based on

limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time

Consultant shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided and has no obligation to update such information. Consultant accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental, or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. Consultant agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but Consultant makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. The Report is to be treated as confidential and may not be used or relied upon by third parties, except:

as agreed in writing by Consultant and Client as required by law for use by governmental reviewing agencies


Page 22

Consultant accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss, or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of Consultant to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any damages arising from improper use of the Report or parts thereof shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. Should additional information become available, Strum requests that this information be brought to our attention immediately so that we can re-assess the conclusions presented in this report. This report was prepared by James Foley, MIT, Environmental Specialist, and was reviewed by Edwin Hiscott, P. Eng., Environmental Engineer.


Page 23

10.0 REFERENCES Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) July 2006 (with July 2012 Updates) - User Guidance document for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments. Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA), 2012. User Guidance – Version 3.0. Updated January 2015. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard Zt69-00 for Conducting Phase II Environmental Site Assessments. July 2002 (reaffirmed 2013). Keppie, J.D. 2000. DP ME 43, Version 2, 2006, Digital Version of Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources Map ME 2000-1, Geological Map of the Province of Nova Scotia, scale 1:500,000. Digital product compiled by B.E. Fisher. (Formerly DP ME D00-01). LVM / Maritime Testing, March 14, 2014. Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Civic No. 3175 Highway 322, Bayport, NS. Project No. 18233. Nova Scotia Environment, July 2013. Contaminated Sites Regulations. Strum Consulting, November 24, 2014. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS.

APPENDIX A SITE DIAGRAMS

PID 60456506

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE

DISTRICT OF LUNENBURG

PID 60193802

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


CIVIC NO. 3182

CIVIC NO. 3179

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

3

2

A

T

L

A

N

T

I

C

S

E

A

S

I

D

E

R

O

A

D

RIVERPORT DISTRICT

CONSOLIDATED

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CIVIC NO. 3176

DRAINAGE DITCH

BOILER ROOM

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

SITE LOCATION:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING #:

PROJECT #:

PROJECT:

S:\S

tru

m P

ro

je

ct F

ile

s\2

01

4 F

ile

s\1

4-4

99

0\D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

D

ra

win

gs\P

H III E

SA

\D

ra

win

g 1

- S

ite

P

la

n - 4

99

0.d

wg

JULY 2015 14-4990

1:1500

H. SERHAN

C. STRONG

1

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


PHASE III ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE ASSESSMENT

3176 HIGHWAY 332

RIVERPORT, NOVA SCOTIA

SITE PLAN

NOTES:

KEY MAP:

Scale 1:75,000

1. REFERENCE: NOVA SCOTIA PROPERTY

RECORDS. GOOGLE SATELLITE IMAGERY.

2. PROJECTION: NAD83, UTM ZONE 20 NORTH.

SITE

0 10 20 30 40 50 metres

Scale 1:1500

F

e

ltz

e

n

S

o

u

th

R

d O

v

e

n

s

R

d

Atlantic Seaside Rd

N

LEGEND:

PROPERTY BOUNDARY ..............................

ADJACENT PROPERTIES ............................

TREE LINE .....................................................

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

PID 60456506

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


PID 60193802

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


RIVERPORT DISTRICT

CONSOLIDATED

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CIVIC NO. 3176

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

3

2

D

R

A

I

N

A

G

E

D

I

T

C

H

FOREST AREA

B

O

I

L

E

R

R

O

O

M

G

R

A

V

E

L

G

R

A

V

E

L

3 COPPER OIL LINES

BURIED OIL LINE

DISCONNECTED POWER

LINE TO FORMER BUS

REFUELING AREA

B

U

R

I

E

D

D

I

V

E

R

S

I

O

N

P

I

P

E

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

SUSPECTED AREA OF FORMER

BUS REFUELING PUMP ISLAND

AND UNDERGROUND TANK

D

I

T

C

H

SEPTIC

SYSTEM

CISTERN

(APPX.)

FORMER UST

LOCATION (APPX.)

S

A

N

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

AST

X

X

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

SITE LOCATION:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING #:

PROJECT #:

PROJECT:

S:\S

tru

m P

ro

je

ct F

ile

s\2

01

4 F

ile

s\1

4-4

99

0\D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

D

ra

win

gs\P

H III E

SA

\D

ra

win

g 2

- S

ite

L

ayo

ut a

nd

U

tility L

oca

tio

ns - 4

99

0.d

wg

JULY 2015 14-4990

1:500

H. SERHAN

C. STRONG

2

MUNICIPALITY OF THE



SITE ASSESSMENT

3176 HIGHWAY 332


SITE LAYOUT AND

UTILITY LOCATIONS

NOTES:



2. PROJECTION: NAD83(CSRS), UTM ZONE 20

NORTH.

3. ALL SITE FEATURES & UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE

APPROXIMATE.

5 10 15 200 25 metres

Scale 1:750

N

AST

LEGEND:


SEWER LINE ................................................. SAN

FENCE LINE .................................................. X

TREE LINE .....................................................

ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK ..............

DOMESTIC WATER WELL ...........................

UNDERGROUND POWER LINE ................... UPL

UTILITY POLE ...............................................

CBCATCH BASIN ...............................................

W

X

X

A

S

T

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

PID 60456506

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


PID 60193802

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


RIVERPORT DISTRICT

CONSOLIDATED

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CIVIC NO. 3176

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

3

2

D

R

A

I

N

A

G

E

D

I

T

C

H

FOREST AREA

BOILER

ROOM

TP3TP4

TP5

TP2

TP1

TP7

TP8

TP6

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

TP9

TP11

TH2

TH3

TH8

TP10

TP12

TP13

TH4

TH1

TH7

TH6

TP14

BH6

BH9

FORMER UST LOCATION (APPX.)

3 COPPER

OIL LINES

TH5

BURIED OIL LINE

BH/MW1

BH/MW3

BH/MW7

BH/MW8

BH/MW5

BH/MW4

BH/MW2

BH/MW103

BH/MW102

BH/MW101

SF2

SF1

BH/MW202

BH/MW201

B

H

/

M

W

2

0

3

DISCONNECTED POWER

LINE TO FORMER BUS

REFUELING AREA

BH/MW301

BH/MW302

BH/MW303

BH406

B

H

/

M

W

4

0

5

BH404

BH407

BH/MW402

BH/MW401

B

U

R

I

E

D

D

I

V

E

R

S

I

O

N

P

I

P

E

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

BH/MW403

BH/MW408

BH/MW409

BH/MW411

BH/MW410

TP102

TP103

TP104

T

P

1

0

1

SF4

SF3

SUSPECTED AREA OF

FORMER BUS REFUELING

PUMP ISLAND AND

UNDERGROUND

TANK

D

I

T

C

H

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

SEPTIC

SYSTEM

CISTERN

(APPX.)

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

S1(JN16)

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

SITE LOCATION:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING #:

PROJECT #:

PROJECT:

S:\S

tru

m P

ro

je

ct F

ile

s\2

01

4 F

ile

s\1

4-4

99

0\D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

D

ra

win

gs\P

H III E

SA

\D

ra

win

g 3

- In

ve

stig

atio

n L

oca

tio

ns - 4

99

0.d

wg

JULY 2015 14-4990

1:500

H. SERHAN

C. STRONG

3

MUNICIPALITY OF THE



SITE ASSESSMENT

3176 HIGHWAY 332


INVESTIGATION

LOCATIONS

NOTES:




NORTH.

5 10 15 200 25 metres

Scale 1:500

N

AST

LEGEND:


SEWER LINE ................................................. SAN

FENCE LINE .................................................. X

TREE LINE .....................................................



TEST HOLE ...................................................

BOREHOLE ...................................................

BOREHOLE/MONITORING WELL ................

TEST PIT .......................................................

SUB-FLOOR AIR SAMPLING PORT .............


UTILITY POLE ...............................................

CATCH BASIN ...............................................CB

W

SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLE ............................

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

PID 60456506

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


PID 60193802

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


RIVERPORT DISTRICT

CONSOLIDATED

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CIVIC NO. 3176

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

3

2

D

R

A

I

N

A

G

E

D

I

T

C

H

FOREST AREA

BOILER

ROOM

BURIED

OIL LINE

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

3 COPPER

OIL LINES

MW1

MW3

MW7

MW8

MW5

MW4

MW2

MW103

MW102

MW101

MW202

MW201

MW203

APPROXIMATE

LOCATION

MW405

MW402

MW401

MW302

MW303

MW301

MW403

MW408

MW409

MW411

MW410

SUSPECTED AREA OF


PUMP ISLAND AND

UNDERGROUND

TANK

DISCONNECTED POWER

LINE TO FORMER BUS

REFUELING AREA

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

A

S

T

B

U

R

I

E

D

D

I

V

E

R

S

I

O

N

P

I

P

E

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

SEPTIC

SYSTEM

CISTERN

(APPX.)

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

9

8

.

5

0

9

8

.

0

0

9

7

.

5

0

9

9

.

0

0

9

7

.

0

0

9

9

.

5

0

9

6

.

0

0

9

6

.

5

0

X

X

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

SITE LOCATION:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING #:

PROJECT #:

PROJECT:

S:\S

tru

m P

ro

je

ct F

ile

s\2

01

4 F

ile

s\1

4-4

99

0\D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

D

ra

win

gs\P

H III E

SA

\D

ra

win

g 4

- G

W F

lo

w - 4

99

0.d

wg

JULY 2015 14-4990

1:500

H. SERHAN

C. STRONG

4

MUNICIPALITY OF THE



SITE ASSESSMENT

3176 HIGHWAY 332


GROUNDWATER FLOW

DIRECTION

NOTES:




NORTH.

3. GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND FLOW ARE

BASED ON DATA COLLECTED ON JUN. 17, 2015,

AND ARE APPROXIMATE.

5 10 15 200 25 metres

Scale 1:500

N

UST

AST

LEGEND:


SEWER LINE ................................................. SAN

FENCE LINE .................................................. X

TREE LINE .....................................................



MONITORING WELL .....................................


GROUNDWATER CONTOUR (m) .................

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION ..........

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK .............

(REMOVED)

0.00

W

UTILITY POLE ...............................................

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

A

S

T

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

PID 60456506

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


PID 60193802

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


RIVERPORT DISTRICT

CONSOLIDATED

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CIVIC NO. 3176

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

3

2

D

R

A

I

N

A

G

E

D

I

T

C

H

FOREST AREA

BOILER

ROOM

TP3TP4

TP5

TP2

TP1

TP7

TP8

TP6

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

TP9

TP11

TH2

TH3

TH8

TP10

TP12

TP13

TH4

TH1

TH7

TH6

TP14

BH6

FORMER UST LOCATION (APPX.)

3 COPPER

OIL LINES

TH5

BURIED OIL LINE

BH/MW1

BH/MW3

BH/MW7

BH/MW8

BH

/M

W5

BH/MW4

BH/MW2

BH/MW103

BH/MW102

BH/MW101

SF2

SF1

BH/MW201

B

H

/

M

W

2

0

3

BH9

BH/MW202

INFERRED EXTENT OF HYDROCARBON IMPACTS

IN SOIL > RESIDENTIAL TIER I RBSL CRITERIA

(AREA = ±51m²)

INFERRED EXTENT OF HYDROCARBON IMPACTS

IN SOIL > COMMERCIAL TIER I RBSL CRITERIA

(AREA = ±266m²)

BH/MW301

BH/MW302

BH/MW303

B

H

/

M

W

4

0

5

BH/MW402

BH/MW401

BH406

BH404

BH407

BH/MW403

BH/MW408

BH/MW409

BH/MW411

BH/MW410

B

U

R

I

E

D

D

I

V

E

R

S

I

O

N

P

I

P

E

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

D

I

T

C

H

DISCONNECTED POWER

LINE TO FORMER BUS

REFUELING AREA

SUSPECTED AREA OF


PUMP ISLAND AND

UNDERGROUND TANK

CATCH

BASIN

TP102

TP103

TP104

T

P

1

0

1

SEPTIC

SYSTEM

CISTERN

(APPX.)

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

INFERRED EXTENT OF HYDROCARBON

IMPACTS IN SOIL > COMMERCIAL

TIER I RBSL CRITERIA (AREA = ±118m²)

X

X

S1(JN16)

SF4

SF3

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

SITE LOCATION:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING #:

PROJECT #:

PROJECT:

S:\S

tru

m P

ro

je

ct F

ile

s\2

01

4 F

ile

s\1

4-4

99

0\D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

D

ra

win

gs\P

H III E

SA

\D

ra

win

g 5

- In

fe

rre

d P

H in

S

oil - 4

99

0.d

wg

JULY 2015 14-4990

1:500

H. SERHAN

C. STRONG

5

MUNICIPALITY OF THE



SITE ASSESSMENT

3176 HIGHWAY 332


INFERRED EXTENT OF

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON

IMPACTS IN SOIL

NOTES:




NORTH.

3. INFERRED EXTENTS OF IMPACTS ARE

APPROXIMATE.

5 10 15 200 25 metres

Scale 1:500

N

AST

LEGEND:


SEWER LINE ................................................. SAN

FENCE LINE .................................................. X

TREE LINE .....................................................



TEST HOLE ...................................................

BOREHOLE ...................................................

BOREHOLE/MONITORING WELL ................

TEST PIT .......................................................

SUB-FLOOR AIR SAMPLING PORT .............


UTILITY POLE ...............................................

W

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

U

P

L

A

S

T

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

S

A

N

PID 60456506

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


PID 60193802

LANDS OF

MUNICIPALITY OF THE


R

I

V

E

R

P

O

R

T

D

I

S

T

R

I

C

T

C

O

N

S

O

L

I

D

A

T

E

D

E

L

E

M

E

N

T

A

R

Y

S

C

H

O

O

L

C

I

V

I

C

N

O

.

3

1

7

6

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

3

3

2

D

R

A

I

N

A

G

E

D

I

T

C

H

FOREST AREA

BOILER

ROOM

GRAVEL

GRAVEL

FORMER UST LOCATION

(APPX.)

3 COPPER

OIL LINES

BURIED OIL LINE

MW1

MW3

MW7

MW8

MW5

MW4

MW2

MW103

MW102

MW101

MW201

MW203

MW202

MW301

MW302

MW303

MW405

MW402

MW401

MW403

MW408

MW409

MW411

MW410

INFERRED EXTENT OF HYDROCARBON

IMPACTS IN GROUNDWATER EXCEEDING

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TIER I RBSL

GUIDELINES (AREA ± 1600m²)

DISCONNECTED POWER

LINE TO FORMER BUS

REFUELING AREA

B

U

R

I

E

D

D

I

V

E

R

S

I

O

N

P

I

P

E

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

SUSPECTED AREA OF


PUMP ISLAND AND

UNDERGROUND TANK

D

I

T

C

H

SEPTIC

SYSTEM

CISTERN (APPX.)

(

A

P

P

X

.

)

X

X

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

SITE LOCATION:

SCALE:

CHECKED BY:

DRAWING TITLE:

CLIENT:

DRAWING #:

PROJECT #:

PROJECT:

S:\S

tru

m P

ro

je

ct F

ile

s\2

01

4 F

ile

s\1

4-4

99

0\D

ra

win

gs\C

AD

D

ra

win

gs\P

H III E

SA

\D

ra

win

g 6

- In

fe

rre

d P

H in

G

W - 4

99

0.d

wg

JULY 2015 14-4990

1:500

H. SERHAN

C. STRONG

6

MUNICIPALITY OF THE



SITE ASSESSMENT

3176 HIGHWAY 332


INFERRED EXTENT OF

PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON

IMPACTS IN GROUNDWATER

NOTES:




NORTH.

5 10 15 200 25 metres

Scale 1:500

N

AST

LEGEND:


SEWER LINE ................................................. SAN

FENCE LINE .................................................. X

TREE LINE .....................................................



MONITORING WELL .....................................


UTILITY POLE ...............................................

NOTE:

RED MONITORING WELL SYMBOLS INDICATE

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TIER I RBSL

EXCEEDENCES IN GROUNDWATER.

CATCH BASIN ...............................................CB

W

APPENDIX B SITE ASSESSMENT AND TIER I/II TABLE CHECKLIST

Appendix 6 - Atlantic RBCA Version 3SITE ASSESSMENT & TIER I/II CHECKLIST

Page 1

SITE ASSESSMENT & TIER I/II TABLE CHECKLISTMethod Used

Site Location: Tier I RBSLSite Professional: Tier II PSSLDate: Tier II SSTLMinimum Site Assessment Requirements Other

Issue Yes or No* CommentPID, owner, location identifiedCurrent and anticipated future land use identifiedReview of underground services as conduitsHistorical review completedLocal groundwater use identifiedAdjacent land uses and receptors identifiedEcological screening completedSoil and groundwater samples from all source areas obtainedSoil and groundwater impacts delineated to Tier I RBSLs for potential receptor (adjacent property receptor may be lower Tier I RBSLs)Groundwater flow direction and gradient establishedCombination of surface and sub-surface soil samples analysed

Free product observations made in soil and groundwater

Low lab detection level for benzene in soil if potable water area

Grain size and organic carbon analysis completed on soil

TPH fractionation done on soil and water if calculating Tier II SSTL

Scaled site plan showing all relevant site featuresReceptor building characteristics obtained (storys, floor condition, ceiling height, etc)Mandatory Conditions

Issue Yes or No* CommentNon-aqueous phase liquids not present in groundwaterPotable water free of objectionable taste and odourSoils do not contain liquid and/or free petroleum productResidual hydrocarbons do not create objectionable odours or explosive conditions in indoor or outdoor airSurface soils are not stainedNo dirt basement floors, sumps with dirt bottoms, etc.Confirmed that correct TPH type selected in RBSL or PSSL TableConfirmed that correct soil type selected in RBSL or PSSL TableDefault Site Characteristics and Exposure Scenarios

Issue Yes or No* CommentDepth to groundwater approximately 3.0 metresImpacted soil thickness is less than 3.0 metresDefault foundation crack fraction is appropriateDefault foundation thickness is appropriateTwo floors exist if using a residential scenarioHydrocarbon impacts above RBSL or PSSL Table soil values are not within 0.3 m of foundation walls or floor slabConfirmed that RBSL or PSSL Table values is correct for adjacent property receptors (i.e. use residential at property line if adjacent property is residential)Where exposure pathways have been eliminated at Tier II, detailed explanation provided in report explain why pathways are not relevantWhere PSSLs tables are used based on elimination or control of a pathway that could be reopened by changes in site use, this condition is specified as a limitation in the reportWhere Tier II SSTLs have been calculated by changing default values, the report includes the parameter changed, the default value, the site-specific value used, and the rationale and/or detailed written justification* If No, indicate in comment section if and where in report the issue is addressed. Consult the Best Management Practices (Appendix 2) for additional details.

3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NSEdwin HiscottAugust 12, 2015

✔

YesYesYesYesYesYesYesYesYes

YesYesNo Free product not observed.Yes

No/Yes Assumed coarse-grained.YesYes

Yes

Yes Not present.YesYes None observed.

YesYesYesYesYes

No 0.3-3.5 mYesYesYesN/A Commercial.

No See Ph II/III ESA reports.

Yes

N/A Not using Tier II at this time.



APPENDIX C FIELD INVESTIGATION METHODOLOGY

Appendix C – Field Investigation Methodology

C-1 Utility Clearance Prior to conducting the 2015 intrusive investigation work at the site, subsurface and overhead utilities were reviewed in accordance with Strum’s occupational health and safety program. The utilities were located on June 16, 2015 by Cornell Video Inspections Ltd. The utility locations had previously been confirmed with the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg during the 2014 site activities. C-2 Borehole Drilling Q-Drilling and Remediation of Fall River, NS, drilled a total of seven boreholes (BH401-BH407) on the site on June 16, 2015, and an additional four boreholes (BH408-BH411) on the site on July 14, 2015. All boreholes were drilled with solid-stem augers using a truck-mounted geotechnical drill rig. Representative soil samples were collected on a continuous basis (where possible), in accordance with industry-standard protocols, using split-spoon samplers. Where bedrock was encountered, advancement into bedrock was achieved using an air-hammer device. Bedrock core samples were not collected. Drilling was completed under the supervision of a Strum field technician. Monitoring Well Installation Upon completion of the borehole drilling, 50 mm diameter schedule 40 PVC monitoring wells were installed in all of the above-noted boreholes with the exception of BH404, BH406, and BH407. The monitoring wells IDs correspond with the borehole IDs in which they were installed, and include MW401-MW403, MW405, and MW408-MW411. All monitoring wells consisted of a well point installed at the base of the borehole, followed by a section of slotted well screen, following by a length of solid pipe that extends to the surface. The solid pipe was sealed with a fitted plug/cap. A bentonite plug was installed in each monitoring well above the screened interval to prevent surface water from entering each well borehole. A steel flush-mount monitoring well cover was installed at the surface of each monitoring well to protect the wellhead. Monitoring Well Development Each well was developed by purging a minimum of five casing volumes (or to dryness) using a decontaminated submersible pump to develop the filter pack around the well screen, and to minimize the amount of sediment in water samples subsequently collected from the wells. Proposed Well Abandonment Details Upon completion of the required monitoring and approval from Nova Scotia Environment (NSE), all on-site monitoring wells must be decommissioned. The protective cover and any equipment including tubing and other obstructions will be removed from the well. Each well will be cut to at least 0.3 m below grade prior to grouting. The monitoring well will then be filled entirely with bentonite by slow placement. This process will prevent vertical movement of water throughout the well and will prevent surface run-off from contaminating the aquifer.


The surface at the location of the former monitoring wells will be covered with appropriate topsoil, paving, or gravel and mounded to eliminate surface water ponding. C-3 Bus Refueling Area Underground Tank Investigation Q-Drilling and Remediation of Fall River, NS, excavated a total of four test pits on the site on July 13, 2015, in the area of the reported former bus refueling station pump island and underground storage tank (UST). Information from previous site staff and the utility clearance results indicated that the location investigated was the former location of the pump island and UST.

The four test pits were identified as TP101-TP104. All four test pits were excavated to the depth of inferred bedrock, and subsurface conditions in each test pit were logged in detail by a Strum field technician. C-4 Sub-floor Air Testing On June 17, 2015 and July 14, 2015, sub-floor air quality monitoring of petroleum hydrocarbons was carried out at the site. This was done in accordance with the most recent version (2012 update) of the Atlantic Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) “User Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments”. The June 17, 2015 sampling event included two previously-installed sub-floor air sampling ports located inside the northwest portion of the site building (identified as SF1 and SF2). The July 15, 2015 sampling event included two additional sub-floor air sampling ports installed in the east and central portions of the building on July 14, 2015 (identified as SF3 and SF4, respectively). For the new and previously-installed sampling ports, a pilot hole was drilled through the concrete floor slab into the underlying material, and a sampling probe was installed in the concrete floor slab at each location. Each probe was constructed of non-reactive copper flex pipe with brass fittings and was installed to a depth of approximately 5 cm above the base of the concrete slab. The sampling probes can be used to monitor for sub-floor soil vapours that may be accumulating as a result of contamination remaining under the concrete floor slab of the structure. Sub-floor air samples were collected using calibrated low-flow air pumps. Prior to sample collection, all sampling probes were purged of one volume of air to ensure samples would be representative of the soil vapours at the site. Once the probes had been purged, the pumps were equipped with charcoal tubes and allowed to run for a four hour minimum time period. The charcoal tubes were then submitted to Maxxam Analytics in Bedford, NS, for petroleum hydrocarbon analysis. C-5 Elevation Survey Ground surface (grade point) and well casing (or “measure point) elevations were surveyed at each of the newly-installed monitoring well locations following their installations. The wells were located in the field relative to structures and surveyed in place for vertical control.


Elevations were measured relative to an assumed datum of 100 m. The datum was referenced as the top of the stainless steel cistern cover located north of the site building. Groundwater levels were measured in each monitoring well on various dates, as shown in Appendix E. All groundwater levels were measured using a decontaminated electronic interface probe. C-6 Sampling Soil Sample Collection and Screening All collected soil samples were placed in sealed glass containers provided by the laboratory (one 60 mL and one 250 mL container for each sample). Sample headspace in the 250 mL jars was aspirated for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) using an RKI Eagle portable gas monitor. VOC measurements were reported in ppm (parts per million) or %LEL (percent of lower explosive limit). The VOC measurements for each sample are provided in the Borehole Logs (Appendix D). Based on the headspace screening results and field observations, representative soil samples were selected for analysis. All soil samples were placed in cool storage pending transport to Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Bedford, NS for analysis. Groundwater Sampling Following installation, groundwater samples were collected from the newly-installed monitoring wells using dedicated bailers for each well. Prior to collection of the samples, each well was purged of at least three well volumes (or to dryness) to remove any standing water from the well, and to ensure that the samples were representative of the surrounding groundwater. All collected groundwater samples were placed in laboratory-prepared glass containers (two 250 mL and three 40 mL containers for each sample). All water samples were kept in cool storage pending transport to Maxxam Analytics Inc. in Bedford, Nova Scotia for analysis. C-7 Quality Assurance & Quality Control (QA/QC) All soil and groundwater samples were placed in sealed laboratory-supplied containers and kept in cool storage pending submission to Maxxam Analytics for analysis. Several field duplicate samples (all labelled FD1) were collected from various sampling locations and submitted for analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons to assess field sampling QA/QC. Maxxam also completed analysis of several laboratory duplicates for submitted soil and groundwater samples to assess laboratory QA/QC; the results are discussed further in the Results section of this report.

APPENDIX D TEST PIT & BOREHOLE/MONITORING WELL LOGS

PROJECT:

ELEVATION DATUM:

DEP

TH (m

)

ELEV

. SOIL DESCRIPTION STRATA

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

TYPE

AN

ALY

SIS

DATE:

(m)

VOC

(ppm

)

TEST PIT LOG

DRILLING SUPERVISOR

LOGGED BY: PROJECT NUMBER:

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

TP101

3176 Highway 332, Riverport, Nova Scotia

July 13, 2015 Assumed

-

14-4990Corey Strong

Topsoil/Rootmat

Reworked Till: Medium brown silty sand with slate clasts.- Metal pipe observed at 0.6 mbg.- Metal vent pipe observed at 1.2 mbg.- Wire observed at 1.8 mbg.- Refusal on inferred bedrock at approximately 2.4 mbg.

End of test pit at approximately 2.4 m.

S1 GS TPH/BTEX0

PROJECT:

ELEVATION DATUM:

DEP

TH (m

)

ELEV


SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

TYPE

AN

ALY

SIS

DATE:

(m)

VOC

(ppm

)

TEST PIT LOG

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

TP102



-

14-4990Corey Strong

Topsoil/Rootmat

Medium brown silty sand with slate clasts.- Refusal on inferred bedrock at approximately 2.4 mbg.


S1 GS TPH/BTEX20

PROJECT:

ELEVATION DATUM:

DEP

TH (m

)

ELEV


SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

TYPE

AN

ALY

SIS

DATE:

(m)

VOC

(ppm

)

TEST PIT LOG

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

TP103



-

14-4990Corey Strong

Topsoil/Rootmat

Medium brown silty sand with slate clasts.- Metal pipe observed at 1.3 mbg.- Refusal on inferred bedrock at approximately 2.3 mbg.


S1 GS TPH/BTEX15

PROJECT:

ELEVATION DATUM:

DEP

TH (m

)

ELEV


SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

TYPE

AN

ALY

SIS

DATE:

(m)

VOC

(ppm

)

TEST PIT LOG

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

TP104



-

14-4990Corey Strong

Topsoil/Rootmat

Medium brown silty sand with slate clasts.- Refusal on inferred bedrock at approximately 2.3 mbg.


S1 GS TPH/BTEX15

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:

WATER LEVEL DATE:DRILLING METHOD:ELEVATION DATUM:

SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO

DRILLER: DRILL TYPE:

WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW401

3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NSJune 16, 2015

June 17, 2015Auger/Air HammerAssumed

97.760

Q-Drilling CME 45

1.95

Corey Strong 14-4990

SS

SS

SS

95.96

92.66

Topsoil/Rootmat

Till: Medium brown silty sand with slate clasts.- Water seepage noted at approximately 1.6mbg during drilling.

Bedrock: Fractured slate.

End of borehole at 5.1 m.

8

10

55/279mm

370

0

400

-

-

TPH/BTEX

2" PVC casingwith a stainlesssteel flushmount.

Bentonite seal

2" PVC slottedscreen withsand backfill

10

-

10

S1

S2

S3

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW402



97.930

Q-Drilling CME 45

2.60


SS

SS

SS

SS

97.63

95.73

92.83

Asphalt / Base Gravel.

Till: Medium to dark brown silty sand with slateclasts.- Water seepage noted at approximately 1.6mbg during drilling.



9

35

39

50/51mm

420

440

460

90

-

-

TPH/BTEX

-


Bentonite seal


10

10

10

-

S1

S2

S3

S4

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW403



98.07

Q-Drilling CME 45

2.63


SS

SS

SS

97.77

96.29

92.97


Till: Medium brown to dark grey silty sand withslate clasts.- Water seepage encountered atapproximately 1.6 mbg during drilling.



29

36

50/127mm

500

600

-

-

-

TPH/BTEX


Bentonite seal


10

10

10

S1

S2

S3

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH404


-Auger/Air HammerAssumed

Q-Drilling CME 45

-


SS


Till: Medium brown to grey silty sand with rockclasts.-Encountered obstruction at approximately 0.6mbg.


91/279mm230 -10S1

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW405



99.92

Q-Drilling CME 45

3.41


SS

SS

SS

SS

99.62

97.85

94.82


Till: Dark to medium brown silty sand withslate clasts.- Water seepage noted at approximately 0.75mbg during drilling.- Strong hydrocarbon odours noted from 1.8mbg to the top of inferred bedrock.



8

35

19

50/127mm

330

270

400

180

-

-

-

TPH/BTEX


Bentonite seal


5

10

10

15

S1

S2

S3

S4

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH406



Q-Drilling CME 45

-


SSTill: Medium brown silty sand with slate clasts.- Strong hydrocarbon odours.-Inferred bedrock at approximately 0.5 m.


46430 BTEX/TPH/Frac70S1

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH407



Q-Drilling CME 45

-


SS

SS

Till: Dark to medium brown silty sand withslate clasts.-Encountered obstruction at 1.0 mbg.


17

40

590

370

-

TPH/BTEX

15

10

S1

S2

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW408

3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NSJuly 13, 2015

July 14, 2015Auger/Air HammerAssumed

99.86

Q-Drilling CME 45

2.49

Drew Wagner 14-4990

SS

SS

SS

99.56

97.96

94.76

Asphalt / Base Gravel

Till: Medium to dark brown silty sand with slateclasts.



36

42

90/229mm

520

520

480

-

-

TPH/BTEX


Bentonite seal


0

0

0

S1

S2

S3

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW409


July 14, 2015Auger/Air HammerAssumed

98.13

Q-Drilling CME 45

2.40

Drew Wagner 14-4990

SS

SS

SS

SS

97.83

95.73

93.03

Asphalt / Base Gravel

Till: Dark brown to black silty sand with slateclasts.



9

27

44

50/25mm

500

520

600

140

-

-

-

TPH/BTEX


Bentonite seal


0

0

0

0

S1

S2

S3

S4

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW410


July 14, 2015Auger / Air HammerAssumed

96.6

Q-Drilling CME 45

2.60

Drew Wagner 14-4990

SS

SS

SS

SS

94.2

91.5

Topsoil/Rootmat

Till: Dark brown silty sand with slate clasts.



12

24

45

68/203mm

530

600

550

150

-

-

-

TPH/BTEX


Bentonite seal


0

0

0

0

S1

S2

S3

S4

BOREHOLE LOG

DRILLING DATE:


SOIL DESCRIPTION

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

WEL

L

WEL

LM

ATE

RIA

LS

VOC

(ppm

)

WA

TER

LEV

EL

AN

ALY

SIS

N-V

ALU

E/R

QD

(%)

REC

OVE

RY

(mm

)

TYPE

NU

MB

ER

STR

ATADEP

TH (m

)

Elev

atio

n (m

)

SAMPLES WELL INFO


WATER LEVEL (m):

PROJECT:

DRILLING SUPERVISOR


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

BH/MW411


July 14, 2015Auger / Air HammerAssumed

96.49

Q-Drilling CME 45

2.16

Drew Wagner 14-4990

SS

SS

SS

SS94.39

91.39

Topsoil/Rootmat

Till: Dark brown to black silty sand with slateclasts.



14

19

26

50/127mm

450

600

510

350

-

-

-

TPH/BTEX


Bentonite seal


0

0

0

0

S1

S2

S3

S4

APPENDIX E WATER STATICS MEASUREMENTS

Appendix E (page 1 of 2): Water Statics Results - Ph III ESA - 3176 Highway 332 Riverport, NS Project #14-4990

Grade Measured Depth to Static Depth to Static Depth to Static Depth to Static Depth to Static Well Point Point Water Elevation Water Elevation Water Elevation Water Elevation Water Elevation

Number Elevation Elevation 14/04/10 14/04/10 14/04/11 14/04/11 14/05/08 14/05/08 14/05/09 14/05/09 14/06/17 14/06/17(metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres)

MW1 99.99 99.915 0.310 99.605 0.313 99.602 0.326 99.589 0.355 99.560 0.365 99.550MW2 100.02 99.895 0.303 99.592 0.298 99.597 0.321 99.574 0.334 99.561 0.390 99.505MW3 99.945 99.855 0.971 98.884 1.111 98.744 1.208 98.647 1.303 98.552 2.905 96.950MW4 99.845 99.750 1.541 98.209 1.580 98.170 1.647 98.103 1.643 98.107 3.210 96.540MW5 99.735 99.593 1.316 98.277 1.561 98.032 1.677 97.916 1.679 97.914 3.210 96.383MW7 99.87 99.715 2.446 97.269 2.644 97.071 2.824 96.891 2.811 96.904 2.920 96.795MW8 99.700 99.580 1.798 97.782 2.268 97.312 2.382 97.198 2.376 97.204 2.470 97.110

MW101 99.86 99.755 - - - - 3.425 96.330 3.406 96.349 3.430 96.325MW102 99.505 99.41 - - - - 1.745 97.665 2.168 97.242 2.305 97.105MW103 99.767 99.66 - - - - 1.828 97.832 1.787 97.873 1.820 97.840MW201 98.155 98.075 - - - - - - - - - -MW202 98.175 98.105 - - - - - - - - - -MW203 98.145 98.01 - - - - - - - - - -MW301 97.745 97.865 - - - - - - - - - -MW302 97.725 97.835 - - - - - - - - - -MW303 97.82 97.915 - - - - - - - - - -

Measured on indicated dates using electronic interface probeDepth to water measured from Measured Point Elevation on well headAll elevations referenced from a TBM located on the top of the stainless steel cistern cover.

Appendix E (page 2 of 2): Water Statics Results - Ph III ESA - 3176 Highway 332 Riverport, NS Project #14-4990

Grade Measured Depth to Static Depth to Static Depth to Static Depth to Static Depth to Static Well Point Point Water Elevation Water Elevation Water Elevation Water Elevation Water Elevation

Number Elevation Elevation 14/07/17 14/07/17 14/10/08 14/10/08 15/06/17 15/06/17 15/06/18 15/06/18 15/07/14 15/07/14(metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres) (metres)

MW1 99.990 99.915 0.305 99.610 0.361 99.554 0.354 99.561 - - - -MW2 100.020 99.895 0.338 99.557 0.368 99.527 0.411 99.484 - - - -MW3 99.945 99.855 1.361 98.494 1.159 98.696 0.927 98.928 - - - -MW4 99.845 99.750 1.733 98.017 1.685 98.065 1.632 98.118 - - - -MW5 99.735 99.593 1.717 97.876 1.512 98.081 1.524 98.069 - - - -MW7 99.870 99.715 2.988 96.727 2.846 96.869 2.833 96.882 - - - -MW8 99.700 99.580 2.543 97.037 2.414 97.166 2.365 97.215 - - - -

MW101 99.860 99.755 3.484 96.271 3.422 96.333 3.395 96.360 - - - -MW102 99.505 99.410 2.370 97.040 2.270 97.140 2.189 97.221 - - - -MW103 99.767 99.660 1.843 97.817 1.791 97.869 1.782 97.878 - - - -MW201 98.155 98.075 2.37 95.705 2.248 95.827 2.153 95.922 - - - -MW202 98.175 98.105 2.253 95.852 2.162 95.943 2.14 95.965 - - - -MW203 98.145 98.01 2.423 95.587 2.142 95.868 2.03 95.980 - - - -MW301 97.745 97.865 - - 2.684 95.181 2.17 95.695 - - - -MW302 97.725 97.835 - - 2.611 95.224 2.545 95.290 - - - -MW303 97.82 97.915 - - 2.549 95.366 2.355 95.560 - - - -MW401 97.76 97.65 - - - - 1.843 95.807 1.187 96.463 - -MW402 97.93 97.82 - - - - 2.489 95.331 2.554 95.266 2.733 95.087MW403 98.07 97.9 - - - - 2.461 95.439 2.489 95.411 - -MW405 99.92 99.84 - - - - 3.332 96.508 3.339 96.501 - -MW408 99.86 99.79 - - - - - - - - 2.424 97.366MW409 98.13 97.94 - - - - - - - - 2.212 95.728MW410 96.6 96.51 - - - - - - - - 2.505 94.005MW411 96.485 96.465 - - - - - - - - 2.141 94.324

Measured on indicated dates using electronic interface probeDepth to water measured from Measured Point Elevation on well headAll elevations referenced from a TBM located on the top of the stainless steel cistern cover.

APPENDIX F ANALYTICAL RESULTS

TABLE 1: Soil Analytical Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - 2015 Phase III ESA Results - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990

Sample Date Depth VOC Benzene Toluene Ethyl Xylenes Modified Type Comments

ID Benzene C6-C10 C10-C16 C16-C21 C21-C32 TPH

(yy/mm/dd) (m) (ppm) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

S1(JN16) 15/06/16 0 15 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 21 21 LLube oil fraction. Surface sample collected at base of leaking (artesian) drilled potable well.

S1(JN16) Lab-Dup 15/06/16 - 15 nd nd nd nd nd - - - - - Lab duplicate.

BH401-S3 10 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

BH401-S3 Lab-Dup 10 - - - - - nd nd nd - - Lab duplicate.

BH402-S3 15/06/16 1.5-2.1 10 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

BH403-S3 15/06/16 1.5-1.8 10 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 18 18 L Possible lube oil fraction.

BH405-S4 15/06/16 1.9-2.1 15 nd nd nd nd nd nd 60 160 220 F Possible lube oil fraction. Unidentified compound(s) in the fuel/lube range.

BH406-S1 15/06/16 0-0.5 70 nd nd nd 0.15 230.8 1114 650 247 2200 F Fuel oil fraction. TPH Fractionation.


BH408-S3 15/07/13 1.5-1.9 0 nd nd nd nd nd 30 25 160 220 F One product in fuel oil range. Lube oil fraction.




BH411-S4 Lab-Dup 0 nd nd nd nd nd - - - - - Lab duplicate.

TP101-S1 0 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 18 18 L Possible lube oil fraction.

TP101-S1 Lab-Dup 0 - - - - - nd nd nd - - Lab duplicate.

TP102-S1 15/07/13 2.3 20 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -



Laboratory Detection Limit 0.005 0.025 0.01 0.05 2.5 10 10 15 15 -

870 G

Tier I RBSL - Commercial* 0.042 0.35 0.043 0.73 - - - - 1800 F

10000 L

74 G

Tier I RBSL - Residential** 0.042 0.35 0.043 0.73 - - - - 270 F

1100 L

Notes: * - Atlantic RBCA Tier I Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSL), August 2012 (with Jan. 2015 update) - Commercial / Potable / Coarse-grained shading indicates exceedence

* - Atlantic RBCA Tier I Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSL), August 2012 (with Jan. 2015 update) - Residential / Potable / Coarse-grained underlining indicates exceedence

VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds in sample headspace m = metres below grade nd = not detected

TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ppm = parts per million nd( ) = elevated detection limits

mbf = metres below floor mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram " - " indicates no established value

Lab analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS.

Type = hydrocarbon resemblance based on lab comments and/or distribution of hydrocarbon ranges. G = gasoline; F = fuel oil/diesel; L = lube oil

Surficial Soil Samples (Adjacent to Leaking Potable Well Head)

Borehole Samples (June - July 2015)

Test Pit Samples (Underground Tank Investigation)

1.2-1.7

1.8-2.1

2.3

15/06/16

15/07/13

Hydrocarbon Ranges

15/07/13

TABLE 2: Soil Analytical Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - 2014 Phase II ESA Results, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990




TP1-S1 14/03/17 0.3 120 nd nd nd nd 4.4 140 130 64 330 F Fuel oil fraction.

TP2-S1 14/03/17 0.3 120 nd 0.091 0.15 2.7 550 3100 1400 530 5700 F Fuel oil fraction.

TP3-S1 14/03/17 0.3 230 0.034 0.87 3.5 19 1200 2900 1200 300 5500 F Fuel oil fraction.

TP4-S2 14/03/17 0.8 210 0.048 nd 0.61 0.59 120 1000 450 110 1700 F Fuel oil fraction.

TP5-S1 14/03/17 0.6 50 0.008 nd nd nd nd nd nd 24 24 L Lube oil fraction.


TP7-S1 14/03/17 1 150 0.0085 0.059 1 2.7 1100 6800 3000 810 12000 F Fuel oil fraction.


TP9-S1 50 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 21 21 L Lube oil fraction.

TP9-S1 Lab-Dup 50 - - - - - nd nd nd - - Lab duplicate.

TP10-S1 14/04/10 0.6 40 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 27 27 L Lube oil fraction.

TP11-S1 14/04/10 1 150 nd nd nd nd 140 1900 1300 520 4000 F Fuel oil fraction.

TP14-S1 14/04/10 1.8 70 nd nd 0.17 0.83 350 2200 1300 1200 5000 FFuel oil fraction. Unidentified compound(s) in fuel / lube range.

TH1-S1 14/04/10 0.1 - 0.55 mbf 65 nd nd nd nd nd 260 73 220 550 F Weathered fuel oil fraction. Lube oil fraction.

TH2-S2 14/04/10 0.7 - 1.3 mbf 80 nd nd nd 0.11 39 650 330 130 1200 F Fuel oil fraction.

TH3-S2 14/04/10 0.7 - 1.1 mbf 160 0.0069 0.13 1.5 8.8 630 2000 900 270 3800 F Fuel oil fraction.

TH4-S2 14/04/10 0.7 - 1.0 mbf 50 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

TH5-S1 14/04/10 0.1 - 0.7 mbf 110 nd 0.19 0.48 3.5 130 2800 1200 210 4400 F Fuel oil fraction.

TH6-S3 45 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

TH6-S3 Lab-Dup 45 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd - - Lab duplicate.

TH7-S2 14/04/11 0.9 - 1.5 mbf 55 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

TH8-S1 14/04/11 0.1 - 0.5 mbf 60 nd nd nd nd 3.6 120 73 42 230 F Weathered fuel oil fraction.


870 G


10000 L

74 G


1100 L








Hydrocarbon Ranges

14/04/10 0.6

14/04/11 1.2 - 1.9 mbf

Test Pit Samples (March - April 2014)

Test Hole Samples (April 2014)

TABLE 2 (page 2): Soil Analytical Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - 2014 Phase II ESA Results, 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990




BH1-S2 14/04/10 0.6 - 1.0 60 nd nd nd nd nd nd 14 78 92 L Lube oil fraction.

BH2-S1 14/04/10 0 - 0.6 60 nd nd nd nd nd nd 14 35 49 LUnidentified compound(s) in fuel oil range. Lube oil fraction.

BH3-S2 14/04/10 0.6- 0.8 55 nd nd nd nd nd nd 12 73 85 L Lube oil fraction.

BH4-S3 14/04/10 1.2 - 1.5 65 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 20 20 L Possible lube oil fraction.

BH5-S3 14/04/10 1.2 - 1.7 60 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

BH6-S4 14/04/10 1.8 - 2.0 80 nd nd nd nd 38 520 450 110 1100 F Weathered fuel oil fraction.

BH7-S3 14/04/10 1.2-1.4 80 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 61 61 L Lube oil fraction.

BH8-S3 14/04/10 1.2 - 1.8 60 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd -

BH9-S3 14/04/10 1.2 - 1.87 340 nd nd nd 0.091 20 200 110 41 370 F Weathered fuel oil fraction.

BH201-S3 14/07/16 1.5 - 1.9 5 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 23 23 L Lube oil fraction

BH202-S3 65 nd nd 0.092 0.18 110 820 400 150 1500 F Fuel oil fraction

FD1 60 nd nd 0.049 0.12 91 790 410 150 1400 F Fuel oil fraction. Field duplicateof BH202-S3.

BH203-S2 14/07/16 0.9 - 1.4 15 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 25 25 L Lube oil fraction

BH301-S3 14/10/08 1.5 - 1.6 m 35 nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 33 33 L Lube oil fraction.


BH302-S3 Lab-Dup 25 - - - - - nd nd nd - - Lab duplicate.



870 G


10000 L

74 G


1100 L








14/07/16 1.5 - 2.0

14/10/08 1.5 - 1.9 m

Borehole Samples (April - October 2014)

Hydrocarbon Ranges

TABLE 3: Soil Analytical Results - Hydrocarbon Fractionation - Phase III ESA - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project: 14-4990

Parameter Units BH406-S1 BH406-S1 RDLAMD220 Lab-Dup15/06/16 15/06/16

C8-C10 (Aromatic) mg/kg 9.3 - 0.5

C10-C12 (Aromatic) mg/kg 74 67 4




C6-C8 (Aliphatic) mg/kg 1.5 - 1

C8-C10 (Aliphatic) mg/kg 220 - 10

C10-C12 (Aliphatic) mg/kg 300 250 8




Benzene mg/kg nd - 0.025

Toluene mg/kg nd - 0.025

Ethylbenzene mg/kg nd - 0.025

Xylenes mg/kg 0.15 - 0.05

Modified TPH mg/kg 2200 - 15

Comments Fuel oil fraction.

Notes

nd : non-detectable concentrations Modified TPH: Total Hydrocarbon reduced by BTEX.RDL : Reportable Detection Limit Analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS.

Samples collected on dates indicated.

TABLE 4: Fraction of Organic Carbon Analysis - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990

Parameter Units TP6-S1

VF7496

14/03/17

Total Carbon g/kg - -

Total Organic Carbon g/kg 3.8 0.5

Total Inorganic Carbon g/kg - -

Fraction of Organic Carbon g/g 0.0038 0.0002

Notes

Analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS

RDL

TABLE 5: Water Analytical Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - April 2014 to July 2015 Results - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990

Date Sample Benzene Toluene Ethyl Xylenes Modified

Type Benzene C6-C10 C10-C16 C16-C21 C21-C32 TPH

(yy/mm/dd) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Groundwater Samples (April 2014 - July 2015)nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd- - - - - nd nd nd -

14/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.076 0.13 0.2

nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

nd nd nd nd nd - - - -nd nd 0.0036 0.0025 0.026 0.096 nd nd 0.12

nd nd 0.0037 0.0025 0.041 0.095 nd nd 0.14

nd nd nd nd nd 0.069 0.054 nd 0.012

nd nd nd nd nd 0.073 0.061 nd 0.13

nd nd 0.0012 nd nd nd 0.093 0.15 0.24

- - - - - nd nd nd -

15/06/18 GW nd nd 0.013 0.0035 0.044 0.45 0.088 nd 0.59

14/04/11 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

14/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.086 0.14 0.22





14/04/11 GW nd nd 0.0031 0.02 0.32 2.4 0.78 0.27 3.8

14/06/18 GW nd 0.0016 0.0054 0.017 0.072 0.11 0.066 nd 0.25


Tier I RBSL - Commercial* 0.005 0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - - - 3.2Tier I RBSL - Residential** 0.005 0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - - - 3.2Laboratory Detection Limit 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1

Notes: * - Atlantic RBCA Tier I Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSL), August 2012 (with Jan. 2015 update) - Commercial / Potable / Coarse-grained

Shading indicates exceedence of Tier I RBSL - Commercial guidelines.

* - Atlantic RBCA Tier I Risk Based Screening Levels (RBSL), August 2012 (with Jan. 2015 update) - Residential / Potable / Coarse-grained

Underlining indicates exceedence of Tier I RBSL - Residential guidelines.

TPH = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons gw = groundwater nd = not detected

Lab analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS. - = no established value/no analysis performed nd( ) = elevated detection limits

14/05/09 GW

14/06/18 GW

14/04/11 GW

15/06/18 GW

14/04/11 GW

Hydrocarbon Ranges

Weathered fuel oil fraction.

Field duplicate of MW2. Weathered fuel oil fraction.

Unidentified compound(s) in fuel / lube range.

Lab duplicate.

MW1

MW1 Lab-DupMW2

FD1

Lab duplicate.

One product in the gas/fuel oil range.

Field duplicate of MW2. One product in the gas/fuel oil range.

Sample

Identification

Weathered fuel oil fraction

One product in the fuel oil range. Unidentified compounds(s) in fuel oil range.

Comments

MW1

(Diesel/#2)(Diesel/#2)

-

Lab duplicate.

Unidentified compound(s) in fuel / lube range.

Unidentified compound(s) in the fuel / lube range.

One product in fuel oil range.

MW1 Lab-Dup

MW3

MW3

MW1

MW2

FD1

MW2

MW2 Lab-Dup

MW2

MW3

MW4

MW5

MW4

MW4

MW5

MW5

TABLE 5 (page 2): Water Analytical Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - April 2014 to July 2015 Results - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990




14/04/11 GW nd nd 0.025 0.01 0.36 1.5 0.23 nd 2.1

14/06/18 GW nd nd 0.0023 nd 0.045 0.22 0.073 nd 0.34

15/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd14/04/11 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

14/06/18 GW nd nd 0.0019 nd nd nd nd nd nd

15/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd 0.061 nd nd ndnd nd 0.0033 0.0039 0.047 0.22 nd nd 0.27- - - - - 0.22 nd nd -

14/06/18 GW nd nd 0.0061 0.0059 0.093 0.32 0.074 nd 0.49

15/06/18 GW nd nd 0.0035 nd 0.012 0.28 nd nd 0.29


nd nd nd nd nd nd 0.068 0.12 0.19






14/07/17 GW nd nd 0.0014 0.0024 0.023 0.13 nd nd 0.15

15/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd 0.053 nd nd nd

0.0022 0.0025 0.09 0.11 1.1 3.3 0.34 0.14 4.9

0.0023 0.0025 0.091 0.11 1.1 3.6 0.45 0.18 5.3

15/06/18 GW nd nd 0.046 0.0077 0.348 3.18 1.05 0.36 4.9








Sample Hydrocarbon Ranges Comments

Identification

MW7 Weathered fuel oil fraction.

MW7 One product in fuel oil range. Unidentified compound(s) in fuel oil range.

MW7MW8

MW8

MW8MW101 Unidentified compound(s) in fuel oil range.

MW101 Lab-Dup Lab duplicate.

MW101 One product in fuel oil range. Unidentified compound(s) in fuel oil range.

MW101 One product in fuel oil range.

14/05/09 GW

MW102

MW102 Unidentified compound(s) in fuel / lube range.

FD1 Field duplicate of MW102.14/06/18 GW

MW102

MW103

MW103

MW103

MW201 One product in gas/fuel oil range.

MW201

MW202 One product in gas/fuel oil range.

FD1 Field duplicate of MW202. One product in gas/fuel oil range.

MW202 Fuel oil fraction. TPH Fractionation analysis completed (see Table 6).

14/07/17 GW

(Diesel/#2)-

(Diesel/#2)





14/07/17 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd15/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd



nd nd nd nd nd - - - -15/06/18 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd14/10/09 GW nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd




nd nd nd nd nd - - - -



15/06/18 GW nd nd 0.022 0.0041 0.13 0.77 0.061 nd 0.96

15/07/14 GW nd nd 0.033 0.0042 0.18 1.7 0.086 nd 1.9


nd nd 0.082 nd 0.33 3 0.29 nd 3.6

- - - - - 2.9 0.34 nd -














Identification

MW203MW203MW301

FD1 Field duplicate of MW301.

FD1 Lab-Dup Lab duplicate.

MW301

14/10/09 GW

MW302

MW302

MW303

MW303

MW303 Lab-Dup

MW401

15/06/18 GW

FD1 Field duplicate of MW401.

MW402 One product in the gas/fuel oil range.

MW402 One product in fuel oil range.

15/06/18 GW

MW403

MW405 One product in the gas/fuel oil range.

MW405 Lab-Dup Lab duplicate.15/06/18 GW

MW408

MW409

FD1 Field duplicate of MW409.15/07/14 GW

(Diesel/#2)-

MW410

MW411

(Diesel/#2)





nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd- - - - - nd nd nd -

Tier I RBSL - Commercial* 0.005 0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - - - 3.2Tier I RBSL - Residential** 0.005 0.024 0.0016 0.02 - - - - 3.2Laboratory Detection Limit 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.01 0.05 0.1 0.1






DW = drinking water sample - = no established value/no analysis performed nd( ) = elevated detection limits


DW1


Identification

Drinking Water Sample

DW1 Lab-Dup Lab duplicate.

(Diesel/#2)-

15/06/18 DW

(Diesel/#2)

TABLE 6: Water Analytical Results - Hydrocarbon Fractionation - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990

Parameter Units MW5 MW5 Lab-Dup RDLVO0483 VO048314/04/15 14/04/15

C8-C10 (Aromatic) mg/L 0.035 - 0.01

C10-C12 (Aromatic) mg/L 0.12 0.084 0.01

C12-C16 (Aromatic) mg/L 0.22 0.14 0.05

C16-C21 (Aromatic) mg/L 0.18 0.091 0.05

C21-C32 (Aromatic) mg/L nd nd 0.1

C6-C8 (Aliphatic) mg/L nd - 0.01

C8-C10 (Aliphatic) mg/L 0.024 - 0.01

C10-C12 (Aliphatic) mg/L 0.089 0.043 0.01

C12-C16 (Aliphatic) mg/L 0.15 0.071 0.05

C16-C21 (Aliphatic) mg/L 0.17 0.079 0.05

C21-C32 (Aliphatic) mg/L nd nd 0.1

Benzene mg/L nd - 0.001

Toluene mg/L nd - 0.001

Ethylbenzene mg/L 0.0021 - 0.001

Xylenes mg/L 0.012 - 0.002

Modified TPH mg/L 0.98 - 0.1

Comments Fuel oil fraction.

Notes

nd : non detected Modified TPH: Total Hydrocarbon reduced by BTEX.RDL : Reportable Detection Limit Analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS.

Samples collected on dates indicated.

TABLE 7: Air Analytical Test Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Phase III ESA - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990

Sample Sample Benzene Toluene Ethyl Xylenes C6-C10 C10-C16 TPH Comments

ID Date Benzene

(yy/mm/dd) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)

0.011 13.9 3.6 0.66 - - 0.7 Land Use = Commercial

SF1 14/05/09 nd nd nd nd 1.300 1.500 2.80

SF1 15/06/17 nd nd 0.013 0.040 0.110 0.310 0.47

SF2 14/05/09 nd nd nd nd 0.690 0.280 0.97

SF2 15/06/17 nd nd nd nd 0.130 1.700 1.83

0.547 693.4 182.5 32.8 - - 36.5 Dilution Factor = 50

Shading indicates exceedence of target concentration (Commercial Land Use)

* reference: Atlantic RBCA Version 3.0 User Guidance: Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments. July 2012.

TPH = Total Petroleum Compounds = (C6-C10) + (C10-C16) + BTEX Analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS

BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes "-" indicates data not available

C6-C10 range reported by lab does not include BTEX compounds " < " indicates below laboratory detection limit

Dilution Factor = ratio of sub-floor to indoor air target concentrations.

Indoor Air Samples

Sub-floor Air Samples (<1 m below floor)

Target Concentrations*

48

No Indoor Air Samples Collected

Sample

Volume

(L)


48

49

48

TABLE 7 (page 2): Air Analytical Test Results - Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Phase III ESA - 3176 Highway 332, Riverport, NS Project # 14-4990

Sample Sample Benzene Toluene Ethyl Xylenes C6-C10 C10-C16 TPH Comments

ID Date Benzene

(yy/mm/dd) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (mg/m3)

0.011 13.9 3.6 0.66 - - 0.7 Land Use = Commercial

SF3 15/07/14 nd 0.018 nd 0.019 0.53 0.35 0.917

SF4 15/07/14 nd 0.013 nd nd 0.08 nd 0.093

0.547 693.4 182.5 32.8 - - 36.5 Dilution Factor = 50

Shading indicates exceedence of target concentration (Commercial Land Use)

* reference: Atlantic RBCA Version 3.0 User Guidance: Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments. July 2012.

TPH = Total Petroleum Compounds = (C6-C10) + (C10-C16) + BTEX Analysis by Maxxam Analytics Inc., Bedford, NS

BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes "-" indicates data not available

C6-C10 range reported by lab does not include BTEX compounds " < " indicates below laboratory detection limit

Dilution Factor = ratio of sub-floor to indoor air target concentrations.


48


Sub-floor Air Samples (<1 m below floor)

48

(L)

Indoor Air Samples

No Indoor Air Samples Collected

Sample

Volume

APPENDIX G LABORATORY REPORTS

APPENDIX H ATLANTIC RBCA ECOLOGICAL SCREENING

SUMMARY TABLE - RESULTS OF ECOLOGICAL SCREENING PROTOCOL FOR PETROLEUM IMPACTED SITES

Instructions to Practitioners: This table is intended to summarize the results of the Ecological Screening Protocol and must be completed in consultation with guidance provided in the protocol. Users should include this completed table in their Environmental Assessment or Closure Report. Details and explanations are to be provided in the body of the Report.

Ecological Screening Component Yes or No

Report name and location of details and explanations

Part I - Identification of petroleum hydrocarbons in media 1. Do site characterization data indicate the presence of PHC in site surface soil (depth < 1.5 m) above the appropriate screening levels in Tables 1a and 1b? Yes Phase III ESA, Section 5.7

2. Do site characterization data indicate the presence of PHC in shallow site groundwater (depth < 3.0 m) above appropriate ecological screening levels that were derived for the protection of terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates in contact with site groundwater in Table 2?

Yes Phase III ESA, Section 5.7

3. Do existing site characterization data indicate the presence of PHC in site groundwater above appropriate ecological screening levels derived for the protection of aquatic receptors in Table 3a/3b?


4. Do site characterization data indicate the presence of PHC in site surface water above the appropriate screening levels in Table 3? N/A No surface water present

5. Does site characterization indicate the presence of PHC in on-site or adjacent sediments above the appropriate screening levels in Table 4? N/A

No sediment present.

IF ALL ANSWERS IN PART I ARE"NO" THEN NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED

Part II - Identification of habitat and ecological receptors 1. Are the following habitat types or conditions present on the site or proximate to site within a

minimum of 200 metres? wetland habitats aquatic habitats forested habitats grassland habitats provincial/national parks or ecological reserves known rare, threatened or endangered species other known critical or sensitive habitat other local or regional receptor or habitat concerns


2a. Are there visible indications of stressed vegetation on the site? No Phase III ESA, Section 5.7

Appendix 2 - Atlantic RBCA Version 3

ECOLOGICAL SCREENING PROTOCOL FOR PETROLEUM IMPACTED SITES IN ATLANTIC CANADA

Page 23

Ecological Screening Component Yes or No

Report name and location of details and explanations

2b. Is there evidence that the site vegetation community differs from what would be expected? No 2c. Are there indications that the site soil cannot support a soil invertebrate community? No 3. Is there evidence that terrestrial plants in the habitats above are likely to be in root contact with

site groundwater above screening levels? No

4. Would wildlife receptors be expected to forage on or near the contaminated areas of the site? No

Part III - Identification of exposure pathways for ecological receptors

1a. Is it reasonable to conclude that site hydrocarbons in surface soil with concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels, will come into contact with terrestrial plants and invertebrates in a suitable habitat?

No Not suitable habitat. Phase III ESA, Section 5.7

1b. Is it reasonable to conclude that site hydrocarbons in surface soil with concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels, will come into contact with mammalian, avian or herptile terrestrial receptors within an agricultural land use in a suitable habitat?


2. Is it reasonable to conclude that dissolved hydrocarbons in site groundwater with concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels will come into contact with plants or soil invertebrates in a suitable habitat?


3. Is it reasonable to conclude that dissolved hydrocarbons in site groundwater with concentrations exceeding applicable screening levels will come into contact with aquatic receptors or aquatic receptor habitat?

No Hydrocarbon plume delineated to site limits. Phase III ESA, Section 5.7

4. Is it reasonable to conclude that site petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could impact aquaticreceptors or aquatic habitat in surface water bodies via the following:

a. surface runoff (e.g. erosion, windblown contaminants) b. groundwater flow c. preferential overland flow pathways (e.g. drainage ditch, slope, swale) d. preferential subsurface flow pathways (e.g. culvert, trench, sewer line, pipelines,

swales) such that aqueous media concentrations would potentially exceed surface water and/or sedimentquality screening levels?

No Not expected to represent a concern based on site data. See Phase III ESA, Section 5.7.

Are there site specific conditions present, which were not considered in any section above thatshould require further ecological assessment? No

IF ALL ANSWERS IN PART III ARE"NO" THEN NO FURTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED

Appendix 2 - Atlantic RBCA Version 3

municipality of the district of lunenburg page 1 of 2 ...€¦ · 1.3 references .1 bulk sample...

Documents