Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - City of Hamilton

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario Phase Two Conceptual Site Model

June 2017 – 16-3774

i

Table of Contents

2.0

1.0

Introduction

1.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2

Site Location / Property Information ........................................................................................ 1

1.3

Site History .............................................................................................................................. 2

Contaminant Summary

1

2

2.1

Applicable Site Condition Standards......................................................................................... 2

2.2

Potentially Contaminating Activities (PCAs).............................................................................. 2

2.3

Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APECs) .................................................................. 6 2.3.1

APEC 20a, 20b, 20c – Impacted Fill; Port Activities and Maintenance of Marine Vehicles ................................................................................................................. 10

2.3.2

APEC 21 – Historical Bulk Fertilizer Storage ............................................................ 13

2.3.3

APEC 22 – Transformer Area .................................................................................. 14

2.3.4

APEC 23 – Shed 6 Former Heating Oil UST South Side............................................. 14

2.3.5

APEC 24 – Marine Vehicle Maintenance NE Corner of Shed 6 ................................. 15

2.3.6

APEC 25 – Shed 6 Former Heating Oil UST NE Corner ............................................. 16

2.3.7

APEC 26 – Shed 6 Former Bulk Oil Drum Storage .................................................... 17

2.3.8

APEC 27 – Shed 7 Former Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fuel UST .................................. 18

2.3.9

APEC 28 – Shed 7 ................................................................................................... 19

2.3.10

APEC 29 – Bermingham Foundation Solutions Yard ................................................ 20

2.3.11

APEC 30 – Shed 4 Yard and Brewer Area ................................................................ 20

2.3.12

APEC 31 – Shed 4 Building ...................................................................................... 20

2.3.13

APEC 32 – Former Canadian Coast Guard Building and Yard ................................... 22

2.3.14

APEC 33 – Former Truck Terminal USTs and Associated Fuelling Infrastructure ...... 23

2.3.15

APEC 34 – Former Airplane Hanger ........................................................................ 24

2.3.16

APEC 35a – Brewers Marine Building...................................................................... 24

2.3.17

APEC 35b – Brewers Marine Building ..................................................................... 25

2.3.18

APEC 36 – Navy League General Area ..................................................................... 26

2.3.19

APEC 37 – Navy League Building Former Heating Oil AST........................................ 26

2.3.20

APEC 38 – Navy League Workshop ......................................................................... 27

2.3.21

APEC 39 – Fill From Former Federal Lands .............................................................. 27

2.3.22

APEC 40 – Oil Pipelines........................................................................................... 27

2.3.23

APEC 41 – Off-site Impacts from Adjacent Pier 8 Lands .......................................... 28

2.3.24

APEC 42 – Pier 7 ..................................................................................................... 28

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

ii

2.4 3.0

4.0

APEC 43 – Off-site Impacts from Adjacent former Machine Shop ........................... 29

2.3.26

APEC 44 – Off-site Impacts from Impacted Fill on Guise Street ............................... 30

2.3.27

APEC 45 – Off-site Impacts from Lands South and East of Site ................................ 30

2.3.28

Off-Site Impacts ..................................................................................................... 31

Utilities and Subsurface Structures ........................................................................................ 31

Physical Setting

31

3.1

Stratigraphy ........................................................................................................................... 31

3.2

Hydrogeological Setting ......................................................................................................... 35 3.2.1

Groundwater Elevations and Flow Directions ......................................................... 35

3.2.2

Groundwater Gradients ......................................................................................... 36

3.2.3

Hydraulic Conductivity ........................................................................................... 38

3.3

Bedrock ................................................................................................................................. 41

3.4

Water Table ........................................................................................................................... 41

3.5

Sensitive Site ......................................................................................................................... 41

Soil Importation 4.1

5.0

2.3.25

42

Buildings and Structures ........................................................................................................ 42

Contaminant Distribution

42

5.1

Contaminated Area................................................................................................................ 42

5.2

Contaminants & Contaminated Media ................................................................................... 43 5.2.1

5.2.2

5.2.3

Soil Contaminants of Concern ................................................................................ 43 5.2.1.1

Background Soil Parameters Exceeding Table 1 SCS ............................. 43

5.2.1.2

Excluded Data ..................................................................................... 47

5.2.1.3

Contaminants of Concern .................................................................... 47

Groundwater Contaminants of Concern ................................................................. 52 5.2.2.1

Background Parameter Concentration Exceeding Table 1 SCS.............. 53

5.2.2.2

Excluded Data ..................................................................................... 59

5.2.2.3

Contaminants of Concern .................................................................... 60

Summary of Contaminants by APEC ....................................................................... 64

5.3

Contaminant Understanding.................................................................................................. 65

5.4

Contaminant Distribution Figures .......................................................................................... 65

5.5

Contaminant Understanding.................................................................................................. 66

5.6

Migration Pathways ............................................................................................................... 66 5.6.1

PAHs, Metals and PCBs .......................................................................................... 66

5.6.2

LNAPL .................................................................................................................... 66

5.6.3

Impacted Water (Dissolved Impacts) ...................................................................... 67

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

iii 5.7

Climatic Conditions Influencing Contaminant Distribution ..................................................... 70

5.8

Soil Vapour Intrusion ............................................................................................................. 70

6.0

Lateral and Vertical Delineation

71

7.0

Conceptual Site Exposure Model

72

8.0

Summary and Conclusions

72

9.0

Limitations

73

Figures (Provided in Risk Assessment Report) Figure 1:

Project Location and Study Areas

Figure 2:

Potentially Contaminating Activities and Areas of Potential Environmental Concern

Figure 3:

Site Plan and Sampling Locations

Figure 4.1:

Water Table Elevations - December 2014

Figure 4.2:

Water Table Elevations - February 2016

Figure 5.1a:

Soil Quality (Metals)

Figure 5.1b:

Soil Quality (Inorganics)

Figure 5.2:

Soil Quality (PHC and BTEX)

Figure 5.3:

Soil Quality (PAH)

Figure 5.4:

Soil Quality (VOC)

Figure 5.5:

Soil Quality (PCB)

Figure 6.1a:

Groundwater Quality (Metals)

Figure 6.1b:

Groundwater Quality (Inorganics)

Figure 6.2:

Groundwater Quality (PHC and BTEX)

Figure 6.3:

Groundwater Quality (PAH)

Figure 6.4:

Groundwater Quality (VOC)

Figure 6.5:

Groundwater Quality (PCB)

Figure 7.1a.1:

Soil Quality (Metals) - Sections A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 7.1a.2:

Soil Quality (Metals) - Sections D-D', E-E'

Figure 7.1b.1:

Soil Quality (Inorganics) - Sections A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 7.1b.2:

Soil Quality (Inorganics) - Sections D-D', E-E'

Figure 7.2.1:

Soil Quality (PHC and BTEX) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 7.2.2:

Soil Quality (PHC and BTEX) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

iv Figure 7.3.1:

Soil Quality (PAH) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 7.3.2:

Soil Quality (PAH) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 7.4.1:

Soil Quality (VOC) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 7.4.2:

Soil Quality (VOC) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 7.5.1:

Soil Quality (PCB) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 7.5.2:

Soil Quality (PCB) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 8.1a.1:

Groundwater Quality (Metals) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 8.1a.2:

Groundwater Quality (Metals) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 8.1b.1:

Groundwater Quality (Inorganics) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 8.1b.2:

Groundwater Quality (Inorganics) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 8.2.1:

Groundwater Quality (PHC and BTEX) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 8.2.2:

Groundwater Quality (PHC and BTEX) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 8.3.1:

Groundwater Quality (PAH) - Sec ons A-A'. B-B', C-C'

Figure 8.3.2:

Groundwater Quality (PAH) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 8.4.1:

Groundwater Quality (VOC) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 8.4.2:

Groundwater Quality (VOC) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 8.5.1:

Groundwater Quality (PCB) - Sec ons A-A', B-B', C-C'

Figure 8.5.2:

Groundwater Quality (PCB) - Sec ons D-D', E-E'

Figure 9.1:

Conceptual Site Model for on-Site Human Receptors, no Risk Management Measures

Figure 9.2:

Conceptual Site Model for on-Site Human Receptors, with Risk Management Measures

Figure 9.3:

Conceptual Site Model for Terrestrial Ecological Receptors, no Risk Management Measures

Figure 9.4:

Conceptual Site Model for Terrestrial Ecological Receptors, with Risk Management Measures

Figure 9.5:

Conceptual Site Model for oﬀ-Site Aqua c Ecological Receptors, no Risk Management Measures

Figure 9.6:

Conceptual Site Model for oﬀ-Site Aqua c Ecological Receptors, with Risk Management Measures

Tables (Provided in Appendix B.3 of Risk Assessment Report) Table 1:

Monitoring Well Installation Information

Table 2:

Water Level Information

Table 3:

LNAPL Information

Table 4.1:

Soil Analytical Results Historical Data – Metals and Inorganics

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

v Table 4.2:

Soil Analytical Results Historical Data– BTEX, PHC and PAH

Table 4.3:

Soil Analytical Results Summary– Metals and Inorganics

Table 4.4:

Soil Analytical Results Summary – BTEX and PHC

Table 4.5:

Soil Analytical Results Summary– PAH

Table 4.6:

Soil Analytical Results Summary – VOC

Table 4.7:

Soil Analy cal Results Summary – PCB

Table 4.8:

Soil Analy cal Results Summary – Organic Carbon

Table 5.1:

Groundwater Analytical Results Historical Data – Metals and Inorganics

Table 5.2:

Groundwater Analytical Results Historical Data– BTEX, PHC and PAH

Table 5.3:

Groundwater Analytical Results Summary– Metals and Inorganics

Table 5.4:

Groundwater Analytical Results Summary – BTEX and PHC

Table 5.5:

Groundwater Analytical Results Summary– PAH

Table 5.6:

Groundwater Analytical Results Summary – VOC

Table 5.7:

Groundwater Analytical Results Summary – PCB

Table 6.1:

Soil Maximum Concentra ons

Table 6.2:

Groundwater Maximum Concentra ons

References

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

1

1.0 1.1

Introduction Introduction This sec on presents the Phase Two Conceptual Site Model (P2CSM) for the Site, per the requirements of the Ontario Regula on 153/04 – Records of Site Condi on (Regula on). These requirements are deﬁned in Schedule E, Sec on 43 and Table 1 Item 6(x) of the Regula on. Requirements 6(x)i. to 6(x)v. of Table 1 of Schedule E of O.Reg. 153/04 are presented in italic and bold text, below the relevant sec on of this document. This sec on has been structured to follow the order of the P2CSM requirements as laid out in the Regula on. This P2CSM describes the current understanding of the property including informa on collected during site inves ga on ac vi es between November, 2014 and April 2017. A number of ﬁgures and tables are referenced in the P2CSM report text. The ﬁgures are presented following the P2CSM report text (Appendix B.2 of the Risk Assessment Report), while the tables are provided in Appendix B.3.

1.2

Site Location / Property Information The Site is located north of the intersec on of Guise Street East and John Street North, comprising the majority of Pier 8, along the west side of the Hamilton Harbour in Hamilton, Ontario. The Site is iden ﬁed by property iden ﬁca on numbers (PINS) 175790061 and 175790072. The Site is currently owned by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, The Corpora on of the City of Hamilton. Figure 1 presents the site loca on and study area. The Site occupies an area of approximately 10.48 hectares (ha) and is located near the west side of the Hamilton Harbour, in an area of predominantly residen al and commercial land use. Land use east and south of the site is primarily residen al and ins tu onal. Land use west of Pier 8 is predominantly commercial, consis ng of Piers 5 through 7. The P2ESA Property is par ally surrounded on the north, east and west sides by Hamilton Harbour (Lake Ontario). A steel pile wall is located along the sides of the P2ESA property that are bounded by the Harbour. The Site is currently used as a construc on equipment yard, commercial area (boat maintenance and boat equipment hardware supply) and community use (sea cadets). Por ons of the site were formerly used for ferry and ship docking, large-scale cargo storage and shipping. The proposed future land uses of the site has yet to be determined, but is expected to include a mixture of residen al, commercial and recrea onal/community proper es. As a result of the poten al change in land use to a more sensi ve condi on, an RSC will be required as per sec on 168.3.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

2 1.3

Site History The Site has a long history of industrial and commercial land uses related to port ac vi es. Records indicate that the area encompassing the Site was ﬁrst developed in the mid-1800s. Numerous stages of land reclama on ac vi es have occurred, culmina ng in the construc on of Pier 8 in the 1960s. Historical records show that the early use of the wharves was for warehousing, storage and a brewery. Later ac vi es involved boat storage and maintenance associated with the marina and yacht club, a ferry terminal, aircra hangar, trucking terminal and con nued use of the land for warehousing and shipyard. The west por on of Pier 8 (excluded from the Site) has been redeveloped for commercial and recrea onal use following the comple ng of a risk assessment and implementa on of risk management measures.

2.0 2.1

Contaminant Summary Applicable Site Condition Standards The applicable Site Condi on Standards (SCS) for the P2ESA Property are the Table 1 Full Depth Background Site Condi on Standards (Table 1 SCS) for use in a Residen al/ Parkland/ Ins tu onal/ Industrial/ Commercial/ Community Property Use land use se ng. Coarse soil texture condi ons are considered to be applicable to the Site.

2.2

Potentially Contaminating Activities (PCAs) 6(x )i. “a descrip on and assessment of, A: areas where poten ally contamina ng ac vity has occurred” This sec on presents a descrip on of former and current land uses that are iden ﬁed as either on-site or oﬀ-site Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vi es (PCA). The P2ESA Property was ﬁrst developed in the mid-1800s and later expanded in the 1960s by land reclama on. The P2ESA property was historically used for break-bulk port ac vi es, including staging areas for on and oﬀ-loading cargo ships, warehousing and bulk storage of materials including fer lizer. Other historical ac vi es that have occurred on the property include a brewery in the 1800s located at the foot of Hughson Street and residen al proper es fron ng onto Guise Street (circa 1800s to early 1900s). The former Hamilton Harbour Commission operated a maintenance shop on the east side of the property (Shed 7). In the 1960’s, the property was expanded to its current boundaries via land reclama on. At this me, several other buildings were constructed including Shed 4, Shed 6, and the Canadian Coast Guard Building. Other buildings were present, but have since been removed. In the 1970’s a trucking ﬁrm (Laidlaw) used a por on of the property (Shed 4 and current Brewers Marine Supply building) as a truck terminal. A sea cadet club operates the Navy League facility in the southeastern corner of the property. Other ac vi es associated with the P2ESA Property include

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

3 underground petroleum fuel storage tanks associated with the former truck terminal, and above and below ground hea ng fuel storage tanks associated with several of the buildings. Un l 2016, large por ons of the site were used by Harbour Marina West for winter boat storage. A marine equipment supply company (Brewers Marine Supply) uses a por on of the site for truck access to their adjacent warehouse. Oﬀ-site PCAs are associated with the current and historical land uses east, west and south of the P2ESA property. The adjacent land to the west (Pier 7) is built of ﬁll and was used for port ac vi es, and is iden ﬁed as an oﬀ-site PCA. East of the P2ESA Property is a naval base (HMCS Star). Further south of the site are several PCAs including a former landﬁll, former machine shop and impacted roadbed material below Guise Street. A summary of the PCAs considered as a poten al source of contamina on to the P2ESA property is summarized in the following table. The loca on of these PCAs is presented in Figure 2. Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vi es Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity Descrip on ON-SITE POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATING ACTIVITIES Air Strips and Hangar Opera ons (#3) Two small structures were located just west of the Brewer property and were used to house ﬂoat planes prior to the 1950s. Commercial and Trucking Terminal (#11) Shed 4 and the Brewers Marine Supply building, and surrounding yards were once used as a Truck Terminal (Laidlaw) between the 1970s and the 1990s. Crude Oil Reﬁning, Processing and Bulk Esso and Sun Canadian each own oil transmission Storage (#14) infrastructure that crosses the property. In total there are 3 pipelines, with one of the pipelines abandoned. Former Bulk Fer lizer Storage (#22) Bulk fer lizer was stored from 1963 to 1987 in a covered area in the northwest corner of Pier 8. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Several Loca ons were used as garages or Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Avia on maintenance facili es, including: Vehicles (#27) · Shed 7 was once used by the former Hamilton Harbour Commission as their maintenance shop prior to reloca on to Pier 8. · Small Building located north of former Shed 4 was used as a Canadian Coast Guard Sta on, and later by a marine equipment maintenance company.

·

·

Various loca ons throughout Pier 8 where maintenance ac vi es on boat pleasure cra may have occurred while boats were in storage Small engine repair/boat maintenance

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

4 Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vi es Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity Descrip on Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks (#28)

Importa on of Fill Material of Unknown Quality (#30)

associated with Navy League workshop Petroleum fuel storage occurred at several loca ons on the P2ESA Property including: · Four 22,730L USTs (installed in 1971) associated with petroleum refuelling for the former truck terminal · One 1,890L UST associated with hea ng oil storage for Shed 6 (south side) · One 1,890L UST associated with hea ng oil storage for Shed 6 (north east side) · One UST (volume unknown) associated with petroleum refuelling at Shed 7 · One 900L AST associated with hea ng oil storage for the Navy League Building Fill material is located in several areas of Pier 6, including · Fill material (containing foundry sand, bricks, mortar, slag, coal, concrete as well as lake bed dredgings) was used to construct Pier 8 (1960’s). Fill material has also been placed in the northwest corner of the site (former federal lands) as part of redevelopment of the adjacent lands to the west. · Fill material (late 1800’s to early 1900’s) used in the vicinity of the Navy League complex · Fill material placed during development of former federal lands in northwest corner of property (currently in the vicinity of parking lot east of HWT Centre). · Fill material under Guise Street/Catharine Street (por on of P2 Property extends over municipal streets in southeast corner). Age of gill is an cipated to be late 1800s to early 1900s.)

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

5 Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vi es Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity Descrip on Paint Manufacturing, Processing and Bulk Storage (#39) Port Ac vi es, including Opera on and Maintenance of Wharves and Docks (#44)

Brewers Marine Supply located at south end of Site used as a distribu on warehouse for marine supplies including storage of paint and other chemicals. Pier 8 has been historically used for port ac vi es (break-bulk oversees shipping, with por ons of the Pier being used as a wharf since the early 1800’s). Materials handled include steel, machinery, oil and bagged goods. Oil was reportedly used as a surface treatment for dust control on gravel surfaces. Transformer area immediately west of Shed 6

Transformer Processing, Manufacturing and Use (#55) Storage of Construc on Equipment (PCA Founda on contractor stored steel founda on Other #1) caissons at the P2ESA property. Bulk storage of oil drums in Shed 6 (PCA Former storage of bulk oil drums in Shed 6 associated Other #2) with shipping warehousing. OFF-SITE POTENTIAL CONTAMINATING ACTIVITIES* Garages and Maintenance and Repair of East of Site, HMCS Star -Department of Na onal Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Avia on Defence base. It is conserva vely assumed that Vehicles (#27) maintenance of vehicles occurs at this property. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage A poten al historical fuel storage tank (circa 1950s) in Fixed Tanks (#28) was located near the western boundary of the P2ESA Property, and was associated with a former Marine Garage in this area. Importa on of Fill of Unknown Quality South and west of Site, impacted ﬁll used below road (#30) bed of Guise Street; impacted ﬁll present at northwest corner of Pier 8, and at Pier 7 Metal Fabrica on (#34) South of Site, former machine shop located south of the Site along Brock Street. Port Ac vi es, including Opera on and Former ac vi es associated with west of Site (Pier 7) Maintenance of Wharves and Docks (#44) and northwest corner of Pier 8. Waste Disposal and Waste Management Southeast of Site, historical landﬁll (Eastwood Park (#58) Dump) located east of Mary Street (Anderson directories, MOECC reference 0032, dump ac ve in the 1920s). * Only PCA ac vi es that are deemed to pose an environmental contaminant risk to the P2ESA Property are listed; however, for reference purposes, all PCAs within 250 m are shown in Figure 2. The listed PCAs are deemed to be poten ally hydraulically upgradient of the P2ESA Property.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

6 2.3

Areas of Potential Environmental Concern (APECs) 6(x) i.B: “areas of poten al environmental concern” Areas of Poten al Environmental Concern (APEC) are summarized in the following table. A total of 29 APECs were iden ﬁed during the P1ESA. Following the comple on of the P2ESA, 19 of the APECs were closed, with 10 APECs remaining open (closed refers to APECs where the data indicates that there are no impacts above SCS as a result of the underlying PCA, and therefore, no further considera on of the APEC is required; open refers to APECs where impacts above SCS associated with the underlying PCA are either conﬁrmed or suspected, and the APEC is carried forward in the assessment process). APECs were closed if the P2ESA results met the Table 1 SCS in both soil and groundwater for the tested parameters. APECs were also closed if the observed impacts could not be a ributed to the PCA associated with the APEC in ques on, but instead impacts were deemed to be associated with another overlapping APEC. APEC and PCA loca ons are depicted in Figure 2, and summarized in the following table. Descrip ons of each of the APECs (both open and closed) and the results of P2ESA inves ga ons are provided in the following subsec ons. Phase Two ESA APECs Area of Poten al Concern

Loca on of APEC on Phase One Property

Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity

Loca on of PCA (on-site or of-site)

APEC 20a (open)

Entire Pier 8 Area

30. Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC, Soil, groundwater PCB

APEC 20b (closed)

Entire Pier 8 Area

44. Port Activities, including operation and maintenance of Docks and Wharves

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC, Soil, groundwater PCB

APEC 20c (closed)

Entire Pier 8 Area

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, Soil, groundwater PHC/BTEX, VOC, PAH

APEC 21 (closed)

NW Corner of Pier 8, Former Fertilizer Storage

22. Fertilizer Manufacturing, Processing and Storage

On-site

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Contaminants of Poten al Concern

Inorganics

Media Poten ally Impacted

Soil, Groundwater

7 Phase Two ESA APECs Area of Poten al Concern

Loca on of APEC on Phase One Property

Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity

APEC 22 (closed)

Transformer Area West of Shed 6

55. Transformer Manufacturing, Processing and Use

On-site

APEC 23 (open)

Shed 6 Heating oil UST S side

28. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks

On-site

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, groundwater

APEC 24 (closed)

Shed 6 Boat (Tug Boat) Maintenance

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation vehicles

On-site

PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, Groundwater

APEC 25 (open)

Shed 6 Heating oil UST NE

28. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks

On-site;

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, groundwater

APEC 26 (open)

Shed 6 Bulk Storage of Oil Drums

28. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks

On-site;

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, groundwater

APEC 27 (open)

Fuel UST at NW corner of Shed 7

28. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks

On-site

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, Groundwater

APEC 28 (closed)

Shed 7 and surrounding area

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, Groundwater

APEC 29 (closed)

Bermingham Foundations, outdoor equipment storage

PCA other 1. Construction Equipment Storage

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX,VOC

Soil, groundwater

Loca on of PCA (on-site or of-site)

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Contaminants of Poten al Concern

Media Poten ally Impacted

Metals, PHC, PAH, PCB Soil, groundwater

8 Phase Two ESA APECs Area of Poten al Concern

Loca on of APEC on Phase One Property

Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity

Loca on of PCA (on-site or of-site)

Contaminants of Poten al Concern

Media Poten ally Impacted

APEC 30 (closed)

Former Trucking Terminal Yard Area

11. Commercial Trucking and Container Terminals;

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, groundwater

APEC 31 (open)

Former Trucking Terminal Maintenance Garage

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles;

On-site

PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, groundwater

APEC 32 (open)

Former Canadian Coast Guard Building/Marine Garage

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles;

On-site

PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, groundwater

APEC 33 (open)

Former UST Location near Brewers Marine

28. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks

On-site

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, Groundwater

On-Site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, Groundwater

APEC 34 (closed)

APEC 35a (open)

Former Hangar Area West of Brewers Marine

Former operation of a truck maintenance garage

APEC 35b (closed)

Current use of building as distribution warehouse

APEC 36 (closed)

Navy League General Area

3. Airstrips and Hangars Operations

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles 39. Paint Manufacturing, Processing and Bulk Storage 30. Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality

On-site

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, VOC

Soil, Groundwater

On-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC, PAH, VOC, PCB

Soil, Groundwater

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC, Soil, Groundwater PCB

9 Phase Two ESA APECs Area of Poten al Concern

Loca on of APEC on Phase One Property

APEC 37 (open)

former heating oil AST south of Navy League Building

Navy League Workshop

APEC 38 (closed)

APEC 39 (closed)

APEC 40 (closed)

APEC 41 (closed)

APEC 42 (closed)

APEC 43 (closed)

Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity

Loca on of PCA (on-site or of-site)

Contaminants of Poten al Concern

Media Poten ally Impacted

28. Gasoline and Associated Products Storage in Fixed Tanks

On-site

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, Groundwater

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles

On-site

PHC/BTEX, VOC

Soil, Groundwater

Former Federal 30. Importation of Fill Lands NW Material of corner of Pier 8 Unknown Quality

Oil Pipeline

Pi er8

Pier 7

Former Machine Shop on Brock Street

14. Crude oil refining, Processing and Bulk Storage 30. Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality 30. Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality 44. Port Ac vi es, including opera on and maintenance of Docks and Wharves 27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Avia on Vehicles

34. Metal Fabrication

On-site

On-site

PHC/BTEX, PAH

Soil, groundwater

Off-site (Former Federal Lands);

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC

Groundwater

Off-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC

Groundwater

PHC/BTEX, VOC

Groundwater

Off-site

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC, Soil, Groundwater PCB

10 Phase Two ESA APECs Area of Poten al Concern

Loca on of APEC on Phase One Property

Poten ally Contamina ng Ac vity

Loca on of PCA (on-site or of-site)

Contaminants of Poten al Concern

Media Poten ally Impacted

APEC44 (closed)

Fill on Guise Street

30. Importation of Fill Material of Unknown Quality

Off-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC/BTEX

Groundwater

58. Waste Disposal and Waste Management, including thermal treatment, Former Landfill landfilling and transfer of waste, other than use of biosoils as soil conditioners.

Off-site

PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC

Groundwater

27. Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Aviation Vehicles

Off-site

Metals, Inorganics, PHC, VOC

Groundwater

APEC 45 (closed)

Department of Defence Base

2.3.1

APEC

a,

b,

c – Impacted Fill; Port Ac vi es and Maintenance of Marine Vehicles

These three APECs extend over the same area and have similar contaminants of concern (COC) in both groundwater and soil, and therefore have been assessed together. APEC 20a – Impacted Fill This APEC is related to PCA #30 (importa on of ﬁll materials of unknown quality) associated with Pier 8. The en re area of the P2ESA property consists of either: a) original land that has been covered with ﬁll (southern ¼ of Pier 8); or b) land reclaimed from the Hamilton Harbour (northern ¾ of Pier 8). In both cases, the origin of the ﬁll is unknown, but P2ESA results have iden ﬁed bricks, metal, concrete, cinders and slag mixed within the clay, silt, sand and gravel ﬁll matrix. Harbour dredgings have also been reported to have been used in the land reclama on process to build Pier 8. The APEC has the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC and PCBs to be present in the soil and groundwater at the Site. Based on-site inves ga ons, COC impacts in soil and groundwater are widespread within the ﬁll material; however, in general the older ﬁll material found in the southern por on of Pier 8 is of be er quality than the ﬁll used to extend Pier 8 in the 1960s.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

11 APEC 20b – Port Ac vi es This APEC is related to the former port ac vi es (PCA #44) that were conducted on the Pier 8 lands between the mid-1800s to 2016. Ac vi es that could contribute to discharges of chemicals to the ground surface include the storage/handling of chemicals and fuels, spillage of chemicals, metal impacts to ground surface from paint weathering and the applica on of dust control chemicals. The APEC has the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC and PCBs to be present in the soil and groundwater at the Site. The aerial extent of this APEC is the same as APEC 20a (Pier 8 Impacted Fill). In general, dis nguishing between contaminant impacts a ributed to either APEC 20a, APEC 20b or APEC 20c is not possible, and therefore APEC 20b is considered closed. However, it is expected that impacts associated with APEC 20b (former port ac vi es), would likely be more surﬁcial in nature, with the excep on where chemicals or fuels have been spilled. APEC 20c – Marine Vehicle Maintenance APEC 20c is associated with PCA #27 (Garages and Maintenance and Repair of Railcars, Marine Vehicles and Avia on Vehicles) as a result of the Site being used for boat maintenance ac vi es both historically (under the opera on of the Hamilton Harbour Commission), and recently (under the opera on of Harbour West Marina). Associated with this historical ac vity would have been the poten al use of lubricants, solvents and paints for boat maintenance. Considering that the majority of the Site has been used for boat storage, this APEC extends over the en re Site. The concern would be the release of chemicals to the ground surface as a result of spillage. The APEC has the poten al for: PHC/BTEX and PAH to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on); and VOC impacts to soil (not limited to water table depth). Inorganic impacts from dust control/road deicing (SAR and EC impacts to soil; chloride impacts to groundwater) are possible. Metals impacts to soil are also possible as a result of poten al paint spillage. Based on-site inves ga ons, COC impacts to soil and groundwater are considered widespread at the Site. The aerial extent of this APEC is the same as APEC 20a (Pier 8 Impacted Fill). In general, dis nguishing between contaminant impacts a ributed to either APEC 20a, APEC 20b or APEC 20c is not possible, and therefore APEC 20c is considered closed.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

12 Soil Impacts Analy cal tes ng has iden ﬁed metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX and PAH at various loca ons within the Site exceeding Table 1 SCS. Considering that the PCA extends across the en re Site, for conserva veness, it is assumed that the en re Site has been impacted with these parameters. VOC impacts in soil that are a ributed to this APEC have a more limited extent in the west, south and east por ons of the Site. PCB impacts in the soil are limited to four areas near the central por on of the Site. Based on tes ng results, the ver cal extent of soil impacts exceeding Table 1 SCS generally consists of the ﬁll, and underlying na ve sand and silt, and interbedded silt and clay layers, for a maximum depth of impacts up to 16m (based on depth of samples where the analy cal chemistry meets Table 1 and the Table 1 exceedances are not a ributed to natural background condi ons). Depth of impacts increase towards the north por on of the P2ESA Property where ﬁll thickness is greatest. For all COCs, loca ons where soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

Metals Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH VOC PCB

Figure 5.1a Figure 5.1b Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5

Figure 7.1a.1, Figure 7.1a.2 Figure 7.1b.1, Figure 7.1b.2 Figure 7.2.1, Figure 7.2.2 Figure 7.3.1, Figure 7.3.2 Figure 7.4.1, Figure 7.4.2 Figure 7.5.1, Figure 7.5.2

Groundwater Impacts Groundwater tes ng has iden ﬁed metals and inorganics at various loca ons within the Site exceeding Table 1 SCS. Considering that the PCA extends across the en re Site, for conserva veness, it is assumed that the en re Site has been impacted. Based on tes ng results (ie., depth of sample where Table 1 SCS was met), the maximum ver cal extent of impacts for metals and inorganics is within the silt and clay unit (~16m depth) for metals and inorganics (chloride). No groundwater impacts associated with this APEC for PHC/BTEX, PAH or PCBs were detected. Groundwater impacts for VOC were detected at MW60 in the southern por on of Pier 6, with the maximum depth of impacts es mated to be 4.3 mbgs (non-detect sample at MW61). Loca ons where groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows:

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

13 COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

Metals Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH VOC PCB

Figure 6.1a Figure 6.1b Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5

Figure 8.1a.1, Figure 8.1a.2 Figure 8.1b.1, Figure 8.1b.2 Figure 8.2.1, Figure 8.2.2 Figure 8.3.1, Figure 8.3.2 Figure 8.4.1, Figure 8.4.2 Figure 8.5.1, Figure 8.5.2

Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, APEC 20a remains open based on the P2ESA evidence that inorganics, metals, PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOC impacts are associated with this APEC. 2.3.2

APEC

– Historical Bulk Fer lizer Storage

This APEC is associated with the historical above grade storage of fer lizer in the northwest corner of Pier 8. This APEC had the poten al for the nutrients potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus to be present in the soil and groundwater from surface to depth at the Site. As iden ﬁed in Sec on 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Soil samples (total of 10) obtained from within the footprint of the APEC at borehole loca ons MW109, MW131, and MW132 contained potassium concentra ons ranging from 830 ug/g to 3540 ug/g and phosphorus concentra ons ranging from 531 ug/g and 886 ug/g. The Ontario Typical Range (98 th percen le) for potassium and phosphorus are 5000 ug/g and 1200 ug/g, respec vely (MOE, 1993). Therefore, the observed concentra ons of these parameters in soil at this APEC are deemed typical of background concentra ons. Groundwater samples from monitoring wells MW131, MW132, and MW133, all screened across or near the water table in the ﬁll, and MW180, screened in the lower interbedded silt and clay, were tested for potassium and total phosphorus. Phosphorus concentra ons ranged from <0.05 mg/L (at MW131) to 0.425 mg/L (at MW180). Potassium concentra ons ranged from 4.04 mg/L (at MW133) to 56.7 mg/L (at MW131). As presented in the document Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for use at the Contaminated Sites in Ontario, MOECC, 2011, the 99th percen le for potassium and phosphorus in groundwater is 37.5 mg/L and 36.2 mg/L, respec vely. Based on this comparison, the total phosphorus concentra ons within the samples were within typical background ranges. The potassium concentra on in MW131 exceeded the 99th percen le concentra on of 37.5 mg/L, but was lower than the maximum value (80.6 mg/L) provided in the MOECC, 2011 background assessment. A groundwater sample from MW175 was analyzed for nitrogen (nitrates and nitrate), and the detected concentra ons (nitrate – 0.063 mg/L; nitrite – 0.029 mg/L) were well below the 95th percen le of the Ontario background groundwater concentra on data (MOECC, 2011) of 7.12 mg/L and 0.059 mg/L, respec vely.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

14 Based on the review of the soil and groundwater data for parameters that are deemed to be poten ally associated with the former bulk storage of fer lizer at the Site, there is no indica on of fer lizer impacts to the environment. Therefore, APEC 21 has been closed. 2.3.3

APEC

– Transformer Area

This APEC is associated with a transformer area that services the Shed 6 building. This APEC had the poten al for metals, PHC, PAH and PCB to be present in the soil from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in the groundwater at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with APEC 20a, APEC 20b or APEC 20c that encompass the same area. While PHC and PAH impacts were present in soil and/or groundwater in samples collected from some of the inves ga ve loca ons, no correla on was observed between impact concentra ons/ distribu on and the APEC. PCB impacts in soil and groundwater were also not observed. Therefore, APEC 22 has been closed, and assessment of observed impacts at tes ng loca ons is assessed as part of APEC 20a, APEC20b and APEC 20c. 2.3.4

APEC

– Shed Former Hea ng Oil UST South Side

This APEC is related to the former presence of a 500 gallon (1,890 L) underground hea ng oil UST that was located along the south side of Shed 6. The status of the tank was inves gated during the P2ESA and test pi ng indicated that it has been removed. Informa on provided by the Hamilton Port Authority suggests that the last use of the tanks was in 1992 when natural gas was brought to Pier 8 (Bill Fitzgerald, Hamilton Port Authority, personnel communica on). The APEC has the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH, to be present in the soil (from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on), and groundwater at the Site. PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts were observed in the soil and groundwater near the former loca on of the tank, extending underneath the ﬂoor of Shed 6. The PHC/BTEX impacts in soil were typically present from approximately 1.5 to 4 mbgs, but extended up to 8 mbgs in some loca ons. LNAPL product was observed in several loca ons, with the maximum thickness measuring 0.43 m. PAH compounds were also detected in soil and groundwater, which are normal components of fuel products; however, these parameters may also be a ributed in part to overlapping APEC 20a. Based on data collected during remedia on ac vi es in this area, the PHC/BTEX impacts overlap with impacts associated with APEC 26 (Shed 6 - Bulk storage of oil drums). Inves ga ons, including analy cal tes ng on recovered LNAPL product, iden ﬁed two dis nct free-product hydrocarbon layers in monitoring wells used to inves gate this APEC; a lighter coloured diesel fuel (consistent chemical composi on to hea ng oil fuel, and therefore a ributed to leaks from the former hea ng oil tank), and a darker and more viscous oil (a ributed to spills from former bulk oil storage in Shed 6). Overall, the pa ern of PHC/BTEX and PAH contamina on is consistent with historical releases from the former fuel storage with ver cal migra on

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

15 downwards from these areas, and lateral dispersal at depth at the water table surface. At depth, soil impacts associated with this APEC occur within the zone aﬀected by the seasonal ﬂuctua on of the water table. No VOCs (with the excep on of hexane) associated with this APEC were detected in soil; however, laboratory RDLs were raised in some cases to allow quan ta on of PHCs. PHC/BTEX and PAH were detected in groundwater above Table 1 SCS associated with this APEC. VOCs were not detected above Table 1 SCS. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOC soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH VOC

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4

Figure 7.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 7.3.2 (D-D’) Figure 7.4.2 (D-D’)

Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and PAH groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH VOC

Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Meets Table 1 SCS

Figure 8.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 8.3.2 (D-D’) Meets Table 1 SCS

Groundwater impacts above Table 1 SCS that are a ributed to this APEC are mapped to extend northwards and eastwards towards the north and east property boundary with Hamilton Harbour. Groundwater impact pa erns are consistent with the interpreted groundwater ﬂow direc on in this part of the P2ESA property. 2.3.5

APEC

– Marine Vehicle Maintenance NE Corner of Shed

This APEC is associated with the former opera ons of a marine vehicle maintenance shop (most recently operated by Ocean Group Inc.) within the northeast corner of Shed 6. The P1ESA iden ﬁed the storage of lube oils and solvents/ lubrica on chemicals associated with the mechanical upkeep of tugboats. This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX and VOC to be present in the soil from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on, and in the groundwater at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with APEC 20a, APEC 25 or APEC 26 that

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

16 encompasses the same area. While PHC/BTEX impacts were present in soil and/or groundwater in samples collected from some of the inves ga ve loca ons, no correla on was observed between impact concentra ons/ distribu on and the APEC. VOCs were not detected above Table 1 SCS in either the soil or groundwater samples. Therefore, APEC 24 has been closed, and assessment of observed impacts at tes ng loca ons is assessed as part of APEC 20a, APEC 25 and APEC 26. 2.3.6

APEC

– Shed Former Hea ng Oil UST NE Corner

This APEC is related to the former 500 gallon (1,890 L) hea ng oil UST that was located exterior to the northeastern part of Shed 6. The tank was removed in November, 2015; however, the P1ESA indicates that it has not been in use for at least 20 years based on natural gas being brought to Pier 8 in 1992 (Bill Fitzgerald, Hamilton Port Authority, personnel communica on). There is the poten al for the past release of petroleum fuel to the surface as a result of historical leakage and/or spillage. The APEC has the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in groundwater. Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, including data from soil samples taken from the walls and ﬂoor of the excava on during removal of the tank in 2015, PHC/BTEX impacts in the soil have been detected above Table 1 SCS. VOCs were not detected; however, laboratory RDLs were elevated above Table 1 SCS (but below Table 9 SCS) because of sample dilu on requirements to quan fy PHC concentra ons. PAH levels above Table 1 SCS were not detected in the analyzed soil samples from the adjacent borehole. Groundwater impacts above Table 1 SCS were observed at the water table slightly above Table 1 SCS for benzene, toluene and xylenes (but well within Table 9 SCS). PAH was present above Table 1 SCS. VOC concentra ons in groundwater met Table 1 SCS. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOC soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH VOC (not detected, RDLs elevated above SCS.)

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4

Figure 7.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 7.3.2 (D-D’) Figure 7.4.2 (D-D’)

Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and PAH groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH VOCs

Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Table 1 SCS met

Figure 8.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 8.3.2 (D-D’) Table 1 SCS met

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

17 PHC (F1 to F4) frac ons were not detected in the groundwater at this APEC. Furthermore, LNAPL was not detected in the monitoring wells using the interface probe or visually observed in the soil samples. Therefore, there is no evidence that LNAPL is associated with this APEC. No dis nguishable groundwater plume can be mapped that is associated with this APEC; however, groundwater ﬂow gradient mapping (see Figure 4.1, 4.2) indicates that groundwater ﬂow is expected to be directed northeast towards Hamilton Harbour from this APEC. Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, APEC 25 (8b) remains open based on the P2ESA evidence that PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts have been detected above Table 1 SCS and have at least a par al origin associated with this APEC. 2.3.7

APEC

– Shed Former Bulk Oil Drum Storage

This APEC relates to the interior of Shed 6 where bulk oil had been stored in steel drums during the former opera on of the warehouse. There is the poten al for the past release of petroleum fuel to the surface as a result of historical leakage and/or spillage. The APEC has the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in groundwater. Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, and informa on obtained during the 2017 free-product recovery eﬀorts conducted in Shed 6, PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts in the soil and groundwater have been detected above Table 1 SCS. This APEC overlaps with both APEC 23 (Hea ng oil UST along south side of Shed 6), and data indicates that soil and groundwater in this area has been impacted by both historical fuel oil leaks from the former UST, as well as PHC spillage from. The PHC/BTEX impacts in soil were typically present from approximately 1.5 to 4 mbgs, but extended up to 8 mbgs in some loca ons. LNAPL product was observed in several loca ons, with the maximum thickness measuring 0.43 m. Inves ga ons and analy cal tes ng iden ﬁed two dis nct free-product hydrocarbon layers in monitoring wells used to inves gate this APEC; a lighter coloured diesel fuel (a ributed to leaks from the former hea ng oil tank – APEC 23), and a darker coloured oil (a ributed to spills from former bulk oil storage in Shed 6 – this APEC). The spa al distribu on of the LNAPL is presented in Figure 5.2. Overall, the pa ern of PHC/BTEX and PAH contamina on is consistent with historical PHC releases/spills within Shed 6 with ver cal migra on downwards from these areas, and lateral dispersal at depth at the water table surface. At depth, soil impacts associated with this APEC occur within the zone aﬀected by the seasonal ﬂuctua on of the water table. No VOCs (with the excep on of hexane) associated with this APEC were detected in soil; however, laboratory RDLs were raised in some cases to allow quan ta on of PHCs. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOC soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows:

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

18 COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3

Figure 7.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 7.3.2 (D-D’)

Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and PAH groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3

Figure 8.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 8.3.2 (D-D’)

Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, APEC 26 remains open based on the P2ESA evidence that PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts have been detected above Table 1 SCS and LNAPL is present, with the source of these impacts par ally associated with this APEC. 2.3.8

APEC

– Shed Former Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fuel UST

This APEC is related to the former petroleum fuel oil UST (volume not known) that was located exterior to the northwest corner of Shed 7. The date of opera on of the tank is not known; however, inves ga ons conducted in the P2ESA conﬁrmed that the tank had been removed. There is the poten al for the past release of petroleum fuel to the surface as a result of historical leakage and/or spillage. The APEC had the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in groundwater. PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts in the soil have been detected above Table 1 SCS. VOCs (tested in same areas as part of APEC 28 inves ga ons) were not detected; however, laboratory RDLs were elevated above Table 1 SCS in some samples because of sample dilu on requirements to quan fy PHC concentra ons. PHC groundwater impacts above Table 1 SCS were observed at the water table, but met the SCS in a deeper (11.58 – 13.11 mbgs screen) monitoring well (MW177). PAH concentra ons met Table 1 SCS. Trichloroethylene was detected in the groundwater above Table 1 SCS (and slightly above Table 9); however this chemical is not associated with the underlying PCA, and therefore the impact is considered to be associated with APEC 20a. The VOC impacts are not associated with APEC 27 (Shed 7), as the loca on is not hydraulically downgradient of the Shed, and VOCs were not detected in any of the three monitoring wells installed within Shed 7. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX, and PAH soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows:

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

19 COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3

Figure 7.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 7.3.2 (D-D’)

Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and PAH groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3

Figure 8.2.2 (D-D’) Figure 8.3.2 (D-D’)

The concentra ons of PHC (F2) in groundwater at MW126 were measured at 0.45 and 0.51 mg/L, which are less than half the solubility limit of PHC(F2) (2.5 mg/L: source MGRA V2). PHC (F1) was not detected above Table 1 SCS. Furthermore, LNAPL was not measured in the monitoring well using the interface probe, and no visual indica ons of LNAPL were observed in the borehole soil samples, or test pits samples. Therefore, there is no evidence that LNAPL is associated with this APEC. No dis nguishable groundwater plume can be mapped that is associated with this APEC; however, groundwater ﬂow gradient mapping (see Figure 4.1, 4.2) indicates that groundwater ﬂow is expected to be directed northeast to east towards Hamilton Harbour from this APEC. APEC 27 remains open based on the P2ESA evidence that PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts have been detected above Table 1 SCS in the soil and groundwater. 2.3.9

APEC

– Shed

This APEC is associated with the former opera ons of Shed 7 for marine vehicle maintenance, prior to reloca on of marine maintenance opera ons to the current facility on Pier 6 in the 1940s. This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX and VOCs to be present in the soil from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on, and in the groundwater at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with APEC 20a, 20b, 20c and/or APEC 27 (Shed 7 Former Petroleum Fuel UST) that encompasses por ons of the same area. While PHC/BTEX impacts were present in soil and/or groundwater in samples collected from some of the inves ga ve loca ons, no correla on was observed between impact concentra ons/ distribu on and the APEC. VOCs were not detected above Table 1 SCS in either the soil or groundwater samples. Therefore, APEC 28 has been closed, and assessment of observed impacts at tes ng loca ons is assessed as part of APEC 20a, 20b, 20c and APEC 27.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

20 2.3.10

APEC

– Bermingham Founda on Solu ons Yard

This APEC is associated with the use of the area for temporary storage of construc on equipment (primarily steel caissons, and truck ﬂatbeds associated with a founda on construc on business). This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOCs to be present in the soil and groundwater as a result of the poten al for spillage to surface or leaching of metal surfaces. PHC/BTEX impacts in soil would be expected to be from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on, while metal/inorganics and VOC impacts would not be dependent on the water table eleva on. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with other APECs that encompass the same geographic area (APEC 20a). While it is possible that surface contamina on from the PCA COCs may occur, the nature of the PCA is deemed to be similar to the Port Ac vi es PCA, which comprises APEC 20a. Therefore, APEC 20 has been closed, and the assessment of impacts observed in this area is included in APEC 20a. 2.3.11

APEC

– Shed Yard and Brewer Area

This APEC includes PCAs associated with the historical use of the area (including Shed 4 building and surrounding yard, and Brewer building and surrounding yard) as a truck terminal in the 1970s by Laidlaw. This APEC had the poten al for PHC/BTEX and VOCs to be present in the soil from surface to the maximum depth of ﬁll (2 to 6 mbgs) and in the groundwater at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with APEC 31 and APEC 20a that encompass the same area. While PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts were present in soil and groundwater samples collected from some of the inves ga ve loca ons, the distribu on of contaminants did not suggest a surface spillage origin, as would be expected from the PCAs that apply to this APEC. Therefore, APEC 30 has been closed, and assessment of observed impacts at tes ng loca ons is assessed as part of APEC 31, APEC 20a, APEC 20b and APEC 20c. 2.3.12

APEC

– Shed Building

This APEC is related to the former use of Shed 4 as a maintenance garage associated with a former trucking terminal (operated by Laidlaw in the 1970s). The building was used for the storage and maintenance of trucks, and therefore spillage or release of petroleum fuel and solvents to the surface is a concern. The APEC has the poten al for: PHC/BTEX to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in groundwater at the Site; and VOC impacts to soil and groundwater (not limited to water table depth).

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

21 The P2ESA iden ﬁed PHC/BTEX impacts in the soil and groundwater. The PHC/BTEX impacts in soil were typically present from approximately surface to 4 mbgs. This depth of impact encompasses the water table (1 to 2 mbgs) and the 1 m range of its seasonal ﬂuctua on. Surface staining was observed near the north end of the building corresponding with the area where it is believed that most vehicle maintenance occurred. PHC/BTEX impacts in the soil up to 10.7 m deep were observed beyond the maximum depth of the water table ﬂuctua on in one test loca on. Based on the depth, these impacts are a ributed to APEC 20a, as surface releases of petroleum hydrocarbons associated with past APEC 31 opera ons would be unlikely to extend this deep. Detectable levels of VOCs (dichloromethane, hexane and 4-methyl-2-pentanone (methyl isobutyl ketone)) were observed in the top 1 to 3 m of the soil. The source of these impacts is a ributed to either use of solvents associated with the former truck terminal, or may be associated with the ﬁll used to building Pier 8 (APEC 20a). VOCs were not detected above Table 1 SCS in groundwater at the loca ons used to inves gate APEC 31. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX soil impacts occur at concentra on exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX VOC

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.4

Figure 7.2.1 (C-C’) Figure 7.4.1 (C-C’)

Loca ons where PHC/BTEX groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Section View

PHC/BTEX VOCs

Figure 6.2 Not detected

Figure 8.2.1 (C-C’) Not detected

The concentra ons of PHC in groundwater were well below half the PHC MGRA V2 solubility limits. Furthermore, LNAPL was not detected in the monitoring wells using the interface probe or visually observed in the soil samples. Therefore, there is no evidence that LNAPL is associated with this APEC. No dis nguishable groundwater plume can be mapped that is associated with this APEC; however, groundwater ﬂow hydraulic gradient mapping (see Figure 4.1, 4.2) indicates that groundwater ﬂow is expected to be directed southwest from this APEC. Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, this APEC remains open based on the presence of PHC/BTEX, and VOC impacts that are a ributed to the associated PCA.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

22 2.3.13

APEC

– Former Canadian Coast Guard Building and Yard

This APEC is related to the former use of this building, and immediate surrounding area, by the Canadian Coast Guard and its later use as a marine vehicle maintenance facility. As a result of these past uses, there is the poten al for the past release of petroleum fuel and solvents to the surface. The APEC has the poten al for: PHC/BTEX to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on); and, VOC impacts to soil (not limited to water table depth). The poten al also exists for groundwater impacts to extend to depth based on the observed downward groundwater hydraulic gradients. Based on-site inves ga ons, PHC/BTEX impacts were observed in the soil and PHC/BTEX were observed in the groundwater. Heavier PHCs (F3 and F4) frac ons were observed in the top 6.5 metres of the soil, decreasing in concentra on downwards, sugges ng a surface origin; however, the fact that PHC impacts extended approximately 5 m below the water table (and lower than seasonal water table ﬂuctua ons) indicates an impacted ﬁll origin (APEC 8a). No VOCs were detected in the soil above Table 1 SCS. Groundwater impacts above Table 1 SCS were observed at both the water table, and at depth (9 mbgs) slightly above Table 1 SCS for benzene only (but well within Table 9 SCS). VOC was not detected in groundwater. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and VOC soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Section View

PHC/BTEX VOC

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.4

Figure 7.2.1 (C-C’) Figure 7.4.1 (C-C’)

Loca ons where PHC/BTEX groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Section View

PHC/BTEX VOCs

Figure 6.2 Not detected

Figure 8.2.1 (C-C’) Not detected

PHC (F1 to F4) frac ons were not detected in the groundwater at this APEC. Furthermore, LNAPL was not detected in the monitoring wells using the interface probe or visually observed in the soil samples. Therefore, there is no evidence that LNAPL is associated with this APEC. No dis nguishable groundwater plume can be mapped that is associated with this APEC; however, groundwater ﬂow gradient mapping (see Figure 4.1, 4.2) indicate that groundwater ﬂow is expected to be directed southwest from this APEC.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

23 Based on the P2ESA inves ga ons, APEC 32 remains open based on the P2ESA evidence that PHC/BTEX impacts have a par al origin associated with this APEC; however, observed impacts are also likely associated with the contaminated ﬁll used to build Pier 8 (APEC 20a). 2.3.14

APEC

– Former Truck Terminal USTs and Associated Fuelling Infrastructure

This APEC is related to the former presence of underground petroleum fuel storage tanks and associated fuelling infrastructure associated with the past use of the property (currently occupied by Brewers Marine Supply) as a truck terminal. P1ESA records indicate that four tanks each with a capacity of 22,730L were installed in 1971. Records of the previous loca on of these tanks were not available; however a geophysical survey conducted during the P2ESA iden ﬁed a poten al former tank nest area immediately west of the concrete fuelling apron that is present on-site. The geophysical survey report is presented in Appendix F, of the P2ESA (Dillon, 2016). Test pi ng of the suspected tank nest conﬁrmed that the geophysical anomaly was the former tank nest (based on the presence of ﬁll and concrete/metal debris associated with tank infrastructure), and that the tanks and associated buried fuelling piping had been removed. The APEC has the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH, to be present in the soil (from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on), and groundwater at the Site. Based on-site inves ga ons, PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts were observed in the soil and groundwater. Note that VOC impacts were also iden ﬁed in both soil and groundwater; however, these impacts are a ributed to APEC 20a and APEC 20b (Pier 8 impacted ﬁll and port ac vi es) which overlaps with APEC 33, and is therefore not discussed further in this sec on. The PHC/BTEX impacts in soil were typically present from approximately 1.5 to 4 mbgs which encompasses the 1 to 2 m range of the seasonal water table ﬂuctua on. Shallower impacts (<1 m) were observed near the former fueling area which is consistent with historical fuel spillage at surface. Note that PHC/BTEX impacts up to 6.7 mbgs were iden ﬁed downgradient of the former tank area in the soil; however, these PHC/BTEX impacts are a ributed to overlapping APEC 20a and APEC 20b. PAH compounds were also detected in soil and groundwater, which are normal components of fuel products; however, these parameters may also be a ributed in part to overlapping APEC 20a and APEC 20b. Overall, the pa ern of contamina on is consistent with historical releases from the former fuel storage and dispensing equipment with ver cal migra on downwards from these areas, and lateral dispersal at depth at the water table surface. At depth, soil impacts associated with this APEC occur within the zone aﬀected by the seasonal ﬂuctua on of the water table. Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and PAH soil impacts occur at concentra on exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Section View

PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3

Figure 7.2.1 (A-A’) Figure 7.3.1 (A-A’)

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

24 Loca ons where PHC/BTEX and PAH groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3

Figure 8.2.1 (A-A’) Figure 8.3.1 (A-A’)

The concentra ons of PHC (F2) in groundwater at MW74 were measured at 3.07 mg/L and 4.34 mg/L, which are greater than the solubility limit of PHC(F2) (2.5 mg/L: source MGRA V2); however, no measureable thickness of LNAPL was observed using an interface probe on the monitoring wells used to assess this APEC. Groundwater impacts above Table 1 SCS that are a ributed to this APEC are mapped to extend westwards towards the western property boundary with Hamilton Harbour. Groundwater impact pa erns are consistent with the interpreted westward groundwater ﬂow direc on in this part of the P2ESA property. 2.3.15

APEC

– Former Airplane Hanger

This APEC is related to poten al impacts from the former opera on of two small airplane hangars that were once located west of the current day Brewers Marine compound. These hangars supported small ﬂoat plane opera ons that occurred in the area up un l the 1950s. The hangars were located along the former shoreline in this area, prior to land reclama on ac vi es to construct Pier 8. This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHCs, PAH and VOCs to be present in groundwater and soil at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater that are a ributed to this APEC (and associated oﬀ-site PCAs) could be determined. While soil and groundwater impacts of PHC/BTEX, VOC, PAH were iden ﬁed, these impacts are a ributed to APEC 20a (8a) and APEC 20b (Pier 8 impacted ﬁll and port ac vi es) which encompasses this area of the property. Based on this ra onale, APEC 34 has been closed. 2.3.16

APEC

a – Brewers Marine Building

This APEC is associated with the former use of the building as a vehicle repair garage as part of a trucking terminal complex (Laidlaw) that operated in the 1970s. This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAHs, PCBs and VOCs to be present in the soil (from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on), and in groundwater at the Site. Based on site inves ga ons, inorganics, metals, PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOC impacts were observed in the soil and PHC/BTEX, PAH impacts were observed in groundwater.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

25 The PHC/BTEX impacts in soil were typically present from approximately 0.6 to 4 mbgs which corresponds with the maximum depth of the watertable, and the 1 to 2 m range of the seasonal water table ﬂuctua on. Shallow impacts (<1 m) were also observed below the building ﬂoor, which is consistent with historical fuel or lubrica ng oil spillage at surface. PAH compounds were also detected in soil and groundwater, which are normal components of fuel products; however, these parameters may also be a ributed in part to overlapping APEC 20a, which is associated with impacted ﬁll used to develop Pier 8. Similarly, the presence of metal and inorganic impacts in the soil are a ributed to impacted ﬁll (APEC 20a) used to construct the Pier 8 area. VOC impacts (hexane at MW211, 11.3 ug/g) were iden ﬁed in soil in the north end of the building complex, just south of the former petroleum refueling area (APEC 33). The observed impacts are a ributed to the former adjacent petroleum refueling area, rather than the current APEC. Loca ons where metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOCs and PAH soil impacts occur at concentra on exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Section View

Inorganics Metals PHC/BTEX PAH VOC

Figure 5.1a Figure 5.1b Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Loca ons where inorganics, PHC/BTEX and PAH groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted as follows: COC

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH

Figure 6.1b Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3

n/a n/a n/a

PHC Frac ons F1, F2, F3 and F4 concentra ons were either not detected, or were detected at concentra ons below the SCS at all four monitoring wells. No measureable thickness of LNAPL was observed using an interface probe on the monitoring wells used to assess this APEC. 2.3.17

APEC

b – Brewers Marine Building

This APEC includes the PCA #39 associated with the current use of the building for the Brewers Marine Supply warehouse and retail opera ons for paints and other chemicals used by marine equipment retailers.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

26 This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, and VOCs to be present in the soil (from surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on), and groundwater at the Site, associated with poten al spillage of chemicals/paints present at the Site. Based on the P2ESA, inorganics, metals, PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOC impacts were observed in the soil and PHC/BTEX, PAH impacts were observed in groundwater at concentra ons exceeding Table 1 SCS. None of the iden ﬁed contamina on is deemed to be associated with the warehouse opera ons, but is a ributed to former use of the building for vehicle maintenance ac vi es (APEC 35a) and/or impacted ﬁll used to construct this por on of Pier 8 (APEC 20a). Therefore, based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with other APECs that encompass the same geographic area. Therefore, APEC 35b has been closed. 2.3.18

APEC

– Navy League General Area

This APEC is associated with the historical placement of ﬁll in the area encompassed by the current Navy League grounds in the southeast corner of the P2ESA Property. This area was designated in the P1ESA as a separate APEC from the rest of the Pier 8 area, because of its diﬀerent development history. Development of the land pre-dates the expansion of Pier 8 in the 1960s, and therefore the ﬁll material found at this APEC has an earlier and diﬀerent origin. In addi on, post 1960’s port ac vi es which occurred on the expanded Pier 8 areas did not occur at this APEC. This APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC and PCB to be present in the soil (below and above the water table) and in the groundwater at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could not be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with APEC 20a; other than the soil and groundwater quality is generally be er than APEC 20a. However, considering the similar COCs, and the similarity in PCA (albeit diﬀerent ﬁll sources), APEC 36 has now been combined with APEC 20a for assessment purposes. Therefore, APEC 36 has been closed, and assessment of observed impacts at tes ng loca ons is evaluated as part of APEC 20a. 2.3.19

APEC

– Navy League Building Former Hea ng Oil AST

This APEC is associated with the former loca on of a 900 L above ground storage tank that was used for the storage of hea ng oil to heat the Navy League building. There is the poten al for the past release of petroleum fuel to the surface as a result of historical leakage and/or spillage. The APEC has the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in groundwater. No visual indica ons of impacts were observed; however, a shallow (0 – 0.61) soil sample contained PHC/BTEX and hexane at concentra ons above Table 1 SCS. Samples collected below this depth at 1.8 to 3 m met Table 1 SCS for these parameters. No soil samples were analyzed for PAH; however, PAH is

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

27 usually a co-contaminant associated with PHC, and therefore may be present. Groundwater samples analyzed for PHC/BTEX and PAH met the Table 1 SCS. Based on the detec on of PHC/BTEX and hexane in the surface soils at this loca on, this APEC remains open. 2.3.20

APEC

– Navy League Workshop

This APEC is associated with the Navy League workshop building used for minor marine vehicle maintenance and storage of small quan es of fuels in jerry cans used by the Navy League for their boa ng opera ons. There is the poten al for the past release of petroleum fuels and solvents to the surface as a result of historical leakage and/or spillage. The APEC has the poten al for PHC/BTEX and VOCs to be present in the soil (from ground surface to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on) and in groundwater. None of the COCs were detected in either soil or groundwater at the tested loca ons and, therefore, this APEC is closed. 2.3.21

APEC

– Fill From Former Federal Lands

This APEC is associated with ﬁll that was placed over the northwestern por on of the P2ESA during construc on of the adjacent and oﬀ-site Discovery Center in 2003. Since the reported source of the material is from excava on of the founda ons of the former Discovery Centre (now HWT Centre), the material is poten ally impacted ﬁll associated with Pier 8. This APEC has the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC and PCB to be present in the soil (below and above the water table) and in the groundwater at the Site. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater from this APEC could be dis nguished between soil and groundwater impacts associated with APEC 20a that encompass the same area. While one or more COC parameters were detected in samples collected from some of the inves ga ve loca ons, no correla on was observed between impact concentra ons/ distribu on and the APEC. Therefore, APEC 39 has been closed, and assessment of observed impacts at tes ng loca ons is performed as part of APEC 20a. 2.3.22

APEC

– Oil Pipelines

This APEC is associated with two former and one current oil pipelines (PCA 14) that bisect the P2ESA property within the same easement, entering the site at the east end of Guise Street, extending west towards Discovery Drive, and then north where it leaves the P2ESA property near the current oﬀ-site restaurant. The diameter of the pipelines is reportedly 0.15 m. Based on informa on provided to Dillon from the pipeline companies, the piped liquids were reﬁned petroleum hydrocarbons (i.e. diesel fuel). The depth of the pipelines is reportedly between 1.2 and 2.1 mbgs. Note that the Imperial Oil pipelines have been decommissioned.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

28 This APEC had the poten al for PHC/BTEX and PAH to be present in the soil (from depth of pipe (~2 to 3 m) to the water table and within the range of water table ﬂuctua on), and groundwater at the Site as a result of poten al leaks. Based on the results of the P2ESA (which included soil and groundwater sampling, and dayligh ng of pipeline), no impacts to soil and groundwater associated with this APEC were observed. While PHC/BTEX and PAH impacts were present in soil and groundwater samples collected from inves ga ve loca ons used to assess this APEC, the observed concentra ons and distribu on (i.e., no correla on between impact concentra ons and extents, and the pipeline alignment) indicated that the impacts were associated with other APECS (APEC 33, APEC 20a). In addi on, the P1ESA reported that the owners of the pipelines (Imperial Oil, Sun-Canadian), indicated that the pipelines (those in opera on) are tested regularly and have no records of any leaks/spills associated with the pipelines. Based on this informa on, APEC 40 has been closed. 2.3.23

APEC

– Oﬀ-site Impacts from Adjacent Pier

Lands

This APEC is related to poten al impacts to the P2ESA Property from oﬀ-site PCAs on Pier 8, west of the P2ESA property. PCAs are associated with the presence of impacted ﬁll used to build Pier 8, and the use of the land for port ac vi es. Based on the oﬀ-site PCAs, this APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX and VOCs to be present in groundwater at the Site. The concern is that spillage or releases of chemicals at these oﬀ-property loca ons may poten ally extend to depths that may reach the water table and migrate on-site following the direc on of groundwater ﬂow as dissolved impacts. Experience shows that PAH and heavier PHCs have limited subsurface mobility and thus only VOC and lighter end PHCs (including BTEX) were iden ﬁed as COCs. Some metal/inorganic parameters are poten ally mobile in groundwater, and are iden ﬁed as COCs in groundwater because of the presence of impacted ﬁll used to construct Pier 8. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater that are a ributed to this APEC (and associated oﬀ-site PCAs) could be determined. While soil and/or groundwater impacts of PHC/BTEX, VOC, PAH were iden ﬁed, these impacts are a ributed to (APEC 20a – impacted ﬁll and APEC 20b - port ac vi es) which encompasses this area of the property. Furthermore, P2ESA ac vi es iden fy this APEC to be primarily downgradient of the P2ESA property, therefore impacted groundwater from oﬀ-site would not likely migrate onto the P2ESA property. Based on these ra onales, APEC 41 has been closed and descrip ons of the analy cal results from tes ng loca ons in this area are presented as APEC 20a and APEC 20b. 2.3.24

APEC

– Pier

This APEC is related to poten al impacts from oﬀ-site PCAs on Pier 7, which includes a former marine garage, historical port ac vi es, former presence of underground petroleum fuel storage tank and the presence of contaminated ﬁll. Based on these oﬀ-site PCAs, this APEC had the poten al for metals, inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH and VOCs to be present in groundwater at the Site. The concern is that

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

29 spillage or releases of chemicals at these oﬀ-property loca ons may poten ally extend to depths that may reach the water table and to migrate on-site following the direc on of groundwater ﬂow as dissolved impacts. PAH, PCBs and heavier PHC have limited subsurface mobility and thus only VOC and lighter end PHCs (including BTEX) were iden ﬁed as poten al COCs. Some metal/inorganic parameters are poten ally mobile in groundwater, and are iden ﬁed as poten al COCs in groundwater because of the presence of impacted ﬁll used to construct Pier 7. Environmental inves ga ons conducted by Dillon in 2015 - 2016 on the adjacent Pier 7 property iden ﬁed BTEX/VOCs in groundwater at concentra ons exceeding Table 1 SCS. BTEX/VOC concentra ons in the oﬀ-site monitoring wells MW169 and MW173D located on Pier 7 immediately west of the Pier 8 property boundary met Table 1 SCS. VOC impacts were detected at oﬀ-site monitoring well MW75S and MW75D (and BTEX at MW75D); however, these monitoring wells are at a transgradient posi on rela ve to the Pier 8 P2ESA Property (see Figure 4.2, water table eleva on). Overall, the inves ga on results indicated that the VOC impacts on the adjacent Pier 7 do not extend onto Pier 8. However, for conserva veness, VOC impacts in groundwater for the P2ESA property (Figure 6.4) has been mapped to extend to the Pier 7 and Pier 8 property boundary. This is a result of the conserva ve approach of delinea ng the impacted area based on the nearest loca ons of impacted/non-impacted water samples using data from both on-site and oﬀ-site sources, regardless of hydraulic gradients. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater that are a ributed to this APEC (and associated oﬀ-site PCAs) could be determined. While soil and groundwater impacts of PHC/BTEX, PAH were iden ﬁed, these impacts are a ributed to APEC 20a (Pier 8 impacted ﬁll and port ac vi es) which encompasses this area of the property. Furthermore, P2ESA ac vi es iden fy this APEC to be primarily trans-gradient of the P2ESA property, therefore impacted groundwater from Pier 7 would not migrate onto the P2ESA property. Based on these ra onales, APEC 42 has been closed. 2.3.25

APEC

– Oﬀ-site Impacts from Adjacent former Machine Shop

This APEC is related to poten al impacts from an oﬀ-site PCAs (former machine shop) on Brock Street. Poten al COCs are PHC/BTEX, and VOC to be present in groundwater at the Site as a result of this PCA being located hydraulically up-gradient of the P2ESA Property. The concern is that spillage or releases of chemicals at this oﬀ-property loca on may poten ally extend to depths that may reach the water table and migrate on-site following the direc on of groundwater ﬂow as dissolved impacts. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to groundwater were iden ﬁed that are a ributed to this APEC (and associated oﬀ-site PCAs) as measured at on-site monitoring wells MW173S, MW173D and TPBH4/MW that are located hydraulically downgradient of the oﬀ-site PCA.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

30 While groundwater impacts of metals and inorganics were iden ﬁed in on-site monitoring wells located hydraulically downgradient of the oﬀ-site PCA, these impacts are a ributed to (APEC 20a – impacted ﬁll) which encompasses this area of the property. Therefore, APEC 43 has been closed. 2.3.26

APEC

– Oﬀ-site Impacts from Impacted Fill on Guise Street

This APEC is related to poten al impacts from an oﬀ-site PCA (importa on of ﬁll present below Guise Street) that was used during its original construc on (da ng back to the mid-1800s). Based on this oﬀsite PCA, there is the poten al that chemicals within the impacted ﬁll may have leached to the watertable, and migrated northward on-site in the direc on of the local groundwater ﬂow gradient. Experience shows that PAH and heavier PHC have limited subsurface mobility and thus only lighter end PHCs (including BTEX) were iden ﬁed as poten al COCs. Some metal/inorganic parameters are poten ally mobile in groundwater, and are iden ﬁed as poten al COCs in groundwater. Based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater that are a ributed to this APEC (and associated oﬀ-site PCA) could be determined. While soil and/or groundwater impacts of metals and inorganics, and PAH were iden ﬁed in some loca ons, these impacts are a ributed to (APEC 20a – impacted ﬁll) which encompasses this area of the property. Therefore, APEC 44 has been closed. 2.3.27

APEC

– Oﬀ-site Impacts from Lands South and East of Site

This APEC is related to poten al impacts to the P2ESA Property from oﬀ-site PCAs including equipment maintenance at the Department of Defence base (HMCS Star) west of Catharine Street North and a former historical landﬁll (Eastwood Park dump) located to the southeast. Based on these oﬀ-site PCAs, APEC 45 had the poten al for PAH, PHC/BTEX, and VOC to be present in groundwater at the Site as a result of the oﬀ-site PCAs being located hydraulically upgradient of the P2ESA Property. The concern is that spillage or releases of chemicals at these oﬀ-site loca ons may poten ally extend to depths that may reach the water table and migrate on-site following the direc on of groundwater ﬂow as dissolved impacts. Experience shows that PAH and heavier PHC have limited subsurface mobility and thus only VOC and lighter end PHCs (including BTEX) were iden ﬁed as COCs. None of the tested groundwater parameters (with the excep on of chloride and sodium) exceeded the Table 1 SCS. Therefore, based on the results of the P2ESA, no impacts to soil and groundwater that are a ributed to this APEC (and associated oﬀ-site PCAs) could be determined. While elevated chloride and sodium were observed, these parameters are a ributed to road sal ng ac vi es from Guise Street and/or Catharine Street North. Road sal ng ac vi es conducted by a municipality for ice control are not considered by O.Reg. 153/04 as a poten al contamina ng ac vity, and any resul ng impacts associated with road sal ng are not considered impacts. The elevated chloride and sodium concentra ons are not a ributed to the historical landﬁll, as these parameters were the only parameters that exceeded Table 1 SCS. Furthermore, poten ometric surface mapping (Figure 4.1, 4.2), indicates that the P2ESA property is trans-gradient from the landﬁll (not down-gradient), therefore migra on of any leachate plume from the landﬁll is unlikely. Based on the results of the P2ESA, this APEC is closed.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

31 2.3.28

Oﬀ-Site Impacts No known oﬀ-site impacts from the on-site APECs have been suspected, reported or conﬁrmed. With the excep on of the adjacent property at the northwest corner of Pier 8 and the HMCS Star property to the east, all of the adjacent land proper es are either up-gradient or trans-gradient, and therefore the poten al for impac ng adjacent lands is considered low. The adjacent property at the northwest corner of Pier 8 has a similar history of construc on, ﬁll placement and historical use as the P2ESA Property, and therefore, determining oﬀ-site impacts to this property is uncertain. The western por on of the HMCS Star property east of the P2ESA site is poten ally downgradient of the Site. Groundwater tes ng results at monitoring wells MW130 (which is located upgradient of the HMCS Star property) met Table 1 SCS for the tested parameters. Therefore, there is no indica on of oﬀ-site impacts to the adjacent property.

2.4

Utilities and Subsurface Structures 6(x) i.C:

“any subsurface structures and u li es on, in or under the phase two property that may aﬀect contaminant distribu on and transport”

The loca on of buried u li es is presented in Figure 3, and in the ﬁgures showing the soil and groundwater quality results (Figures 7.1.1 through 7.5.2; Figures 8.1.1 through 8.5.2). Informa on on the u lity loca ons was obtained from Hamilton Waterfront Trust, Hamilton Port Authority and the City of Hamilton. Below grade u li es include sanitary and storm sewers, potable water, ﬁre suppression water, and natural gas lines. Sun-Canadian and Esso both own buried oil pipeline infrastructure that bisect the southern of the P2ESA property. Buried u li es and subsurface structures can act as preferen al pathways for contaminant migra on in some situa ons; however, for the P2ESA property, the risk is considered low. The ﬁll material that comprises Pier 8 is very coarse grained, and therefore the permeability contrasts between the u lity bedding and the surrounding materials will be low. As a result, the u li es are not deemed to act as preferen al pathways aﬀec ng contaminant migra on.

3.0

Physical Setting 6(x) ii: “a descrip on of and, as appropriate, ﬁgures illustra ng, the physical se ng of the phase two property and any areas under it”

3.1

Stratigraphy 6(x) ii.A:

“stra graphy from ground surface to the deepest aquifer or aquitard inves gated”

Pier 8 is located on the south shore of Hamilton Harbour (Lake Ontario). The eleva on of the P2ESA Property is between 75.8 and 80.3 masl (Ontario Base Mapping, 2010, City of Hamilton Survey, 20152016). The southern boundary of the P2ESA Property is generally aligned with the top of a small

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

32 escarpment (maximum eleva on of 80.3 masl) that runs parallel to Guise Street between Hughson Street and Catharine Street North. Below the escarpment, the P2ESA Property is ﬂat with a slight northward downward slope towards Hamilton Harbour, with land eleva ons ranging from 77.3 masl at the base of the escarpment to approximately 75.8 masl along the north, east and west sides of Pier 8. The long term average surface water eleva on of Hamilton Harbour is approximately 74.9 masl. The ground surface at the centre of Pier 8 is slightly mounded with the land eleva on rising gradually between 77 and 77.5 masl between the Shed 4 area and the HWT Centre parking lot in the northwest. Along the northeast and southeast por ons of Pier 8 occupied by the Navy League complex, Shed 7 and land on the south side of Shed 6, the land eleva on is slightly lower, ranging between 75.9 and 76.7 masl. The P2ESA property is situated at the edge of the Lake Iroquois Physiographic Region (Chapman and Putnam, 1984), which represents the lowland area bordering Lake Ontario. The majority of the Site falls within this area and is reclaimed land built into the harbour since the early 1800s. An excep on is the southern edge of the P2ESA property (including the Navy League complex, and the por on of the P2ESA property immediately north of Guise Street) that falls within the natural land por on of the predevelopment Lake Ontario shoreline; however this area has also been covered with a thin layer of ﬁll. The regional quaternary geology of the P2ESA Property and surrounding areas has been mapped by the Ontario Geological Survey (Karrow, 1987). Mapping depicts the surﬁcial geology as stream deposits of sand, gravel, silt and clay. Karrow describes these deposits as being placed within the lower reaches of streams that had ﬂowed into Lake Ontario, but have since been ﬂooded by the lake. Below these materials are stra ﬁed Lake Iroquois deposits of buﬀ colour sand and reddish silty layers. Underling the lacustrine deposits are silty lls (Halton Till) which has been mapped to be present throughout the region overlying the bedrock. The thickness of the overburden at the P2ESA Property, as measured from three boreholes (MW215, MW216 and MW217, see Figure 3 for borehole loca on) that were constructed in 2017 ranged from 32.31 to 33.5 m. Given that the Site is reclaimed land, the soils at the surface of the P2ESA Property are primarily ﬁll materials. As described in the Phase One ESA (Dillon, 2016), the ﬁll materials at the P2ESA Property were placed at diﬀerent mes. Fill material along the southern por on of the site in the vicinity of Brewers Marine Supply, Navy League and Shed 7 were placed in the 19th to early 20th centuries during ini al development of the shoreline. The northern two thirds of the P2ESA Property was reclaimed land constructed in the early 1960s as part of the centennial pier project. The ﬁll material consists of a mixture of sand, silt and gravel, mixed with bricks, concrete and foundry slag. In some areas other debris such as metal and coal fragments has been observed. Some of the ﬁll also contains lake bed dredgings. Borehole drilling indicates that the top por on of the underlying interbedded silt deposits contain some ﬁll, likely a result of the manner in which the ﬁll was placed (dumping), which would cause some of the ﬁll to be imbedded into the so er lake sediments. The Ontario Division of Mines Map 2336 “Hamilton, Paleozoic Geology”, indicates that bedrock geology in the area is composed of the Upper Ordovician-Richmondian aged Queenston Forma on composed of

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

33 red shale. This unit forms the bedrock in the major por on of the area east of the Escarpment and in the Dundas Valley. It is dominantly red, hema c, ﬁssile and micaceous calcareous shale. Reduc on zones having a green coloura on occur parallel and discordant to bedding. A minimum thickness of this forma on is 100 m (Ontario Division of Mines, 1976). The presence of shale bedrock underlying the site was conﬁrmed by Terraprobe (2016) based on core barrel samples taken from BH28, and from drill cu ngs from the Dillon bedrock drilling program in 2017. The measured bedrock eleva on below the P2ESA Property ranges 45.67 to 49.32 masl based on the results of bedrock drilling program conducted by Dillon in 2017 (borehole loca ons MW215, MW216 and MW217), that were drilled in the northeast, south and northwest por ons of the Site. Soil stra graphy within the P2ESA Property consists mainly of ﬁll of variable composi on (e.g., varying from clay to sand and gravel, including brick, slag etc.) overlying na ve lacustrine sands, silts and clays, which in turn overlays glacial clay and silt ll (Halton Till). The ll in turn is situated on top of shale bedrock. Geological cross-sec ons through the Site depic ng the generalized geology are shown as Figures 7.1.1 to 7.1.2. Sec on loca ons are shown on Figure 3. Sec on E-E’ (Figure 7.1.2) (oriented southeast to northwest) shows the general overburden geology of the P2ESA property from the former shoreline to the maximum northern (basinward) limit of the Pier. Note that the stra graphic units are based on physical observa ons made in the ﬁeld during borehole drilling, and that diﬀeren a on between the top of the basal ll unit, and overlying lacustrine clay beds could not also be determined; however, in general, clay content and cohesiveness increased with depth, and the amount of interbedding decreased. Therefore, the bo om unit (clay and silt) shown in the cross-sec ons should be considered to represent a combina on of ll and overlying clay beds, where the amount of interlayering is reduced compared with the overlying silt, clay and sand unit. The deepest borehole at the site (BH-2, depth of 27.46 m) is located near the northwestern corner of the P2ESA Property and is depicted in this sec on. In general, the soil stra graphy (from southeast to northwest) consists of a thickening wedge of ﬁll overlying na ve lacustrine deposits. Fill is thinnest in the southern por on of the P2ESA Property near Guise street (1 to 2 m) and in the area encompassed by the Navy League and area immediately west of Shed 7 (<1 m - as this area is part of the original shoreline and less ﬁll was placed in this area to build Pier 8). The maximum thickness of ﬁll (12.2 m) was observed at monitoring well MW131 at the northwestern edge of Pier 8. This loca on is considered to be in an area farthest away from the original shoreline. The ﬁll materials are underlain by na ve lacustrine deposits as well as deposits mapped by Karrow, 1987 as stream deposits that have been ﬂooded by the lake. Closer towards the southern part of the P2ESA Property, ﬁne to medium grained sand with some silt is found, poten ally associated with a former nearshore environment. In many of the boreholes in the southern por on of the P2ESA property, the sand deposits contain reddish brown layers, likely indica ng source material from the reddish

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

34 Queenston shale. Fine grained sand was also observed underlying the ﬁll at sporadic loca ons throughout the P2ESA Property, but in general became more interbedded with silts and clays further to the north, and with depth. The interbedded layers of silt, sand and clay are deﬁned as a separate generalized layer in the cross-sec ons. The silty sand to sandy silt unit was described as grey-brown with trace clay, shells, organics and gravel, and was reported to be approximately 10 m thick (Golder, 2000). Underlying these deposits is s ﬀ to hard grey-brown silty clay containing trace sand and gravel, which extends to approximately 27 mbgs, where bedrock was reportedly encountered (Golder, 2000). This material is considered to be the Halton glacial ll which has been documented (Karrow, 1987) to be present in the area. This unit is deemed to form an important aquitard that underlies the en re P2ESA Property. The main geologic units encountered during the borehole drilling program at the P2ESA Property are summarized below. Top and bo om eleva ons of units were variable across the area of inves ga on.

Geologic Unit

Fill

Sand to Silty Sand

Interbedded Silt, Sand and Clay Silt and Clay (combina on of lacustrine clay and ll)

Shale Bedrock (Queenston Forma on)

Thickness Range of Unit (m)

Pier 8 Approx. Top of Unit Encountered (masl)

Approx. Bo om of Unit Encountered (masl)

0.5 – 12

75.8 – 80.3

65 to 75

0–4

70 - 76

70 - 75

4 - 10

65 –75

58 - 69

9.3 or greater

58 - 69

49.5

n/a

45.67 – 49.32

n/a

Notes: (masl): metres above sea level

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Speciﬁc Observa ons - Variable texture (from clay to sand and gravel) - Slag, cinder, brick, etc. - Sandy, silty sand - Reddish brown coloura on towards south - So , contains shells and organics - Decrease in the amount of silt and interbedding from above unit - Till contains trace gravel and sand, ﬁrm, and is s ﬀ to hard - Shale, reddish brown calcareous shale with interbedded argillaceous limestone.

35 3.2

Hydrogeological Setting The site hydrogeology consists of an unconﬁned water table aquifer in the ﬁll and shallow sand deposits, underlain by lacustrine interbedded silt, clay and ﬁnd grained sand, and silty clay Halton ll (regional aquitard). The underlying bedrock (Queenston Forma on) consists of shale is considered an artesian aquifer (sta c water level is higher than top of aquifer) that is conﬁned by the overlying Halton Till. A summary of the hydrostra graphic proper es of the geological units and horizontal and ver cal groundwater ﬂow gradients at the P2ESA Property are presented in the sec ons below.

3.2.1

Groundwater Eleva ons and Flow Direc ons Monitoring wells were screened at intervals appropriate to intercept the expected water table, as well as at deeper intervals for the purpose of delinea ng groundwater impacts. The water table monitoring wells were screened at various depths which were dependent on the local soil condi ons and interpreted water table at the me of monitoring well installa on. Groundwater eleva ons (for monitoring wells that existed at that me) measured between December 8 and 11, 2014 ranged between 74.5 and 76.18 masl on the P2ESA Property. In general, the depth to the water table from ground surface ranged from 0.5 to 2.9 mbgs, with depths between 1.0 and 2.0 mbgs being the most common. Subsequent groundwater eleva on measurements taken on October 30, 2015 showed water eleva on ranges between 74.7 and 76.4 masl and measurements taken on March 10, 11, 2016 showed water level ranges between 75.01 and 76.25. A Site wide round of water levels were obtained from monitoring wells on November 23, 2016, and showed generally similar eleva ons to the October 30, 2015 results. Groundwater eleva on data for all survey dates are summarized in Table 2. Following construc on of the three bedrock monitoring wells (MW215, MW216 and MW217, water level measurements were taken at these wells. While sta c water level measurements were obtained at MW215 and MW216, water levels at MW217 had not fully recovered. Water levels at MW215 and MW216 were 0.16 mbgs (76.06 masl) and 0.98 mbgs (76.16 masl), indica ng artesian condi ons in the bedrock unit. The measured water levels in the bedrock were higher than the water levels in Hamilton Harbour, indica ng site-wide upward hydraulic gradients. For comparison purposes, the long term average water level of the adjacent Hamilton Harbour is 74.88 masl (1918 – 2015), with a recorded minimum eleva on of 73.81 masl (January, 1935) and recorded maximum eleva on of 75.76 masl (June, 1952) [Source, NOAA, 2016]. Therefore, the measured sta c water levels in the bedrock unit are above the long term average water level of Hamilton Harbour A map of the eleva on of the water table, and the es mated shallow groundwater ﬂow direc ons are presented as Figure 4.1 for the December, 2014 survey event and Figure 4.2 for the March, 2016 survey event. Both maps show similar lateral water level eleva on and gradient pa erns. Water table isocontours show a northwest to southeast oriented groundwater divide extending from the northwest corner of Pier 8 to the Navy League area near Catharine and Guise Streets. Shallow groundwater is inferred to ﬂow laterally outwards from this divide towards the sides of Pier 8. The shape of the water

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

36 table surface in Pier 8 is largely controlled by the shape of the pier and correlates generally with the ground eleva on. In the southwest por on of the P2ESA Property (Brewers Marine area), the water table isocontours show shallow groundwater ﬂow to be directed northwards. Directly north of the Brewers Marine area, the water table isocontours indicate an eastward direc on of shallow groundwater ﬂow. In the vicinity of the Navy League complex, shallow groundwater ﬂow is interpreted to ﬂow northeastwards towards the northwestern corner of the oﬀ-site Na onal Defence compound (HMCS Star). Subsurface u li es iden ﬁed on-site include telecommunica ons, municipal services (potable water ﬁre control water, natural gas, hydro, and sanitary/storm sewers) and oil pipelines (Imperial Oil and Sun Canadian). While the u li es are considered to be buried below the water table in many areas of the P2ESA property, the u li es are not an cipated to signiﬁcantly aﬀect contamina on distribu on as the ﬁll material in which they are buried within is very permeable. Therefore, the u li es, and the u lity trenches that were constructed for their burial, are not expected to act as a hydraulic preferen al pathway for groundwater ﬂow or contaminant migra on. 3.2.2

Groundwater Gradients The es mated horizontal groundwater ﬂow gradients at the water table (within the ﬁll aquifer) are measured to be between 0.003 to 0.06, depending upon loca on, with the highest gradients being along the south side of the P2ESA property in the area of the escarpment. The lowest gradients were measured north of the Brewers Marine building in the area of the former fuel USTs (APEC 4B) and in the Shed 6 area (APEC 8C). Ver cal gradients were measured at 20 nested monitoring wells geographically distributed across the P2ESA Property. In general, the nested monitoring wells included one well screened at the water table within the ﬁll unit, and a deeper monitoring well screened in either the silt and sand unit or the underlying silty clay unit. In two loca ons, water levels from monitoring wells screened in the underlying bedrock unit were used. Ver cal gradients are calculated based on the distance between the water levels in each monitoring well divided by the diﬀerence between the eleva on of well screen mid-point. A summary of the ver cal gradient analysis is tabulated below.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

37 Ver cal Gradient Measurement Monitoring Well Pair

Screen Depth Interval (masl)

Geological Unit

Gradient across top of ll and water table MW13D 67.71 – 70.75 Intbd Silt & Clay MW13S 72.91 – 75.96 Fill (water table) MW13D 67.71 – 70.75 Intbd Silt & Clay MW13S 72.91 – 75.96 Fill (water table) MW13D 67.71 – 70.75 Intbd Silt & Clay MW13S 72.91 – 75.96 Fill (water table) MW180 58.96 – 62.01 Intbd Silt & Clay MW131 73.31 – 76.36 Fill (watertable) MW180 58.96 – 62.01 Intbd Silt & Clay MW131 73.31 – 76.36 Fill (water table) Intbd Silt & Clay MW140D 61.97 – 63.49 Fill (water table) MW140S 73.23 – 76.28 Intbd Silt & Clay MW140D 61.97 – 63.49 Fill (water table) MW140S 73.23 – 76.28 Intbd Silt & Clay MW151D 57.14 – 60.19 Fill (water table) MW151S 72.98 – 76.03 MW187 59.21 – 62.26 Clay and Silt Till MW81 72.26 – 75.31 Fill (water table) MW187 59.21 – 62.26 Clay and Silt Till MW81 72.26 – 75.31 Fill (water table) Intbd Silt & Clay MW181 62.52 – 65.57 Fill (water table) MW137 73.77 – 76.82 Intbd Silt & Clay MW181 62.52 – 65.57 Fill (water table) MW137 73.77 – 76.82 MW175 61.94 - 63.46 Intbd Silt & Clay MW109 73.23 – 76.28 Fill (water table) MW175 61.94 - 63.46 Intbd Silt & Clay MW109 73.23 – 76.28 Fill (water table) Silt & Clay Till MW173D 59.96 – 63.04 Silt MW173S 73.49 – 75.01 Silt & Clay Till MW173D 59.96 – 63.04 Silt MW173S 73.49 – 75.01 Intbd Silt & Clay MW177 62.94 – 64.47 Fill (water table) MW126 72.29 – 75.34 Intbd Silt & Clay MW177 62.94 – 64.47 Fill (water table) MW126 72.29 – 75.34 Gradient across top of bedrock and water table MW215 43.53 – 45.06 Shale Bedrock MW30 72.43 – 74.58 Fill (water table) MW216 43.86 – 46.91 Shale Bedrock 74.04 – 75.98 MW211 Fill (water table)

Water Level Eleva on (masl)

Dec 1, 2014

0.086 (down)

Mar 11, 2016

0.042 (down)

75.48 75.93 75.61 75.83 74.14 75.75 75.02 75.00 74.56 74.53 75.07 75.50 74.82 75.35

Nov 23, 2016

0.309 (down)

March 11, 2016

-0.001 (up)

Nov 23, 2016

-0.002 (up)

March 11, 2016

0.036 (down)

Nov 23, 2016

0.044 (down)

72.53 74.82

March 11, 2016

0.145 (down)

March 11, 2016

0.084 (down)

Nov 23, 2016

-0.031 (up)

March 11, 2016

0.045 (down)

Nov 23, 2016

0.034 (down)

March 11, 2016

0.061 (down)

Nov 23, 2016

0.099 (down)

March 11, 2016

0.151 (down)

Nov 23, 2016

-0.014 (up)

March 11, 2016

0.006 (down)

Nov 23, 2016

0.014 (down)

May 23, 2017

0.006 (down)

May 23, 2017

-0.026 (up)

74.27 75.36 75.47 75.06 75.04 75.55 74.80 75.18 75.28 76.01 74.14 75.33 74.61 76.54 76.11 75.93 74.97 75.03 74.43 74.57 75.79 75.96 76.72 75.96

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Measurement Date

Ver cal Gradient/ Direc on of groundwater ﬂow

38 The ver cal gradient measurements show a general downward oriented groundwater ﬂow direc on across the top por on of the overburden (between the water table and top of silty clay ll) with a ver cal hydraulic gradient ranging from -001 to 0.309, averaging 0.062. Conversely, an upward gradient is observed between the top of the bedrock/base of ll and the water table at MW216/MW211 (upward gradient of 0.03), but a weak downward to ﬂat gradient at MW215/MW30. Ver cal gradient informa on is not available for the third deep bedrock monitoring well loca ons (MW17), as the monitoring well is screened in a low yielding layer, and water levels are not considered to have reached sta c condi ons at the me of the water level measurement. Typically an upward hydraulic gradient would be expected near the edges of Lake Ontario, which is considered to be in a regional discharge (upward groundwater ﬂow) condi ons. The predominance of downward gradients across the top por on of the overburden is a ributed to the rela vely large size of Pier 8, and the presence of rela vely coarse ﬁll material at surface, which would promote inﬁltra on of rela vely high volumes of precipita on/runoﬀ, causing a water table mounding eﬀect. Based on the observed data, the eﬀects of this mounding are expected to dissipate with depth, and not extend through the low permeability silty and clay ll found below the shallower ﬁll and underlying lacustrine deposits. Water level data from wells screened in the top por on of the bedrock (and base of the ll) at the southern por on of the Study Area, show water levels higher than the water table in the same loca on, which indicates upward gradients across the base of the overburden. The presence of upward gradients at depth is expected considering that the site is located in a regional groundwater discharge zone, typical of the shoreline area of Lake Ontario. The presence of a weak downward gradient, as measured in the northeast corner of the Study Area (MW216/MW211), is poten ally a result of the high amount of precipita on that occurred in the April/May, 2017 period, causing a transient addi onal mounding eﬀect in the shallow ﬁll. 3.2.3

Hydraulic Conduc vity The hydraulic conduc vity of the overburden was es mated based on evalua ons of both grain size curves and in-situ falling and rising head tests conducted at select monitoring wells. The monitoring wells selected for tes ng were screened in material (primarily ﬁll) deemed representa ve of the more permeable materials found at the property and considered as the aquifer ﬁrst encountered from ground surface. Tes ng was also performed in wells screened in the underlying silt and clay aquitard, as this aquitard extends across the en re Site and separates the impacted ﬁll from the bedrock aquifer. Hydraulic conduc vity es mates from grain size tes ng results were based on the Hazen approxima on, while in-situ falling/rising head tests were evaluated using the Hvorslev method. Grain size curves and in-situ hydraulic conduc vity evalua on results are presented in Appendix H of the P2ESA (Dillon, 2016) and in the P2ESA Addendum report (Dillon, 2017). A summary of the calculated hydraulic conduc vity is tabulated below:

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

39 Hydraulic Conduc vity Es mates Grain Size Analysis Geologic Unit

Aquifer?

Sampling Loca on

Sample Interval (mbgs)

D10 (mm)

Es mated Hydraulic Conduc vity (m/s)

MW12 MW30 BH-2 MW174

0 – 0.6 0.8 – 1.2 3.8 – 4.4 1.37 – 1.52

0.0764 0.0846 0.0016 0.0022

6 x 10-5 7 x 10-5 3 x 10-8 -8 7 x 10

MW3*

4 – 4.6

0.001

1 x 10-8

Fill

Yes

Silty Sand

Yes

Interbedded Silt and Sand

No

BH-2 MW16

12.2 – 12.8 9.14 – 9.53

0.009 0.009

1 x 10-6 -6 1 x 10

Silty Clay Till

No

MW190

16.7 – 17.4

0.0002

6 x 10-10

Notes: (mbgs): metres below ground surface * sample taken from tes ng loca on on Pier 5 located outside P2ESA Property, but deemed representa ve of P2ESA Property condi ons as loca on has same geological history and hydrogeological se ng as the study area

Hydraulic Conduc vity Es mates In-situ Hydraulic Conduc vity Analysis Es mated Hydraulic Conduc vity (m/s)

Aquifer?

Tes ng Loca on

Sample Interval (mbgs)

Fill

Yes

MW28 MW74 MW134 MW147 MW131 TP-BH11/MW

0.6 – 3.7 2.1 – 5.2 0.8 – 3.8 0.9 – 4.0 0.91 – 3.96 3.0 – 6.0

1 x 10-5 3 x 10-6 2 x 10-7 1 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-5 1.9 x 10-6

Silty Sand

Yes

MW10

0.8 – 3.8

4 x 10-6

Interbedded Silt and Sand

No

MW180

15-24 – 18.29

1.1 x 10

No

TP-BH10/MW MW173D MW174

23.0 – 24.5 15.2 – 18.29 15.24 – 18.29

3.6 x 10 -9 1.1 x 10 -10 6.4 x 10

Geologic Unit

Silty Clay Till

Notes: Evalua on based on Hvorslev analysis of falling and rising head tests

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

-7

-10

40 The hydraulic conduc vity of the shale bedrock at the Site will depend upon localized condi ons, including frequency and connec vity of fractures. Borehole drilling in 2017 revealed considerable varia on in monitoring well “produc vity” based on loca on. For example, water sta c water levels recovered quickly at MW215 and MW216; however, water levels had not recovered at MW217 even a er one month from the day of drilling. For the purposes of the P2CSM, the hydraulic conduc vity of the shale bedrock is based on es mates provided in Freeze and Cherry (1979) for shale (10 -13 to 10-9 m/s) and limestone (10-10 to 10-6 m/s). Considering that the Queenston Forma on contains limestone interbeds, the es mated limestone K values are likely more representa ve of P2ESA Property condi ons. Clay and Silt Aquitard Characteris cs Grain size analyses were conducted on several samples of the silty clay ll, which is considered a regional aquitard; however, not all samples could be used for Hazen approxima on as the D 10 size interval was not determined. Golder, 2000 conducted grain size analysis on a soil sample from a depth of 19.3 to 18.9 mbgs (BH-2), and the material contained approximately 50% silt, and 45% clay. A sample of the silty clay taken during the current study at MW27 (depth of 6.1 to 8.23 mbgs) contained 55% silt, and 35% clay, with the balance being sand. Borehole drilling conducted during the current and previous studies indicate that the thickness of the clay and silt ll layer is 9.3m at the northern boundary of the P2ESA Property. Hydraulic conduc vity of the Halton Till in the Burlington area has been es mated by others to range from 10-10 to 10-9 m/s (Gartner Lee, 1983; Holysh, 1997). This unit, combined with the overlying clay and silt lacustrine deposits is measured up to 18.5 m thick in some areas of the P2ESA Property. Overall, the hydraulic conduc vity of these materials are expected to be low, and the combined ll and overlying lacustrine clay and silt deposits are considered an aquitard underlying the study area that will hydraulically separate the overlying ﬁll material from the underlying bedrock aquifer. This aquitard is deemed to form the underlying maximum depth limit of dissolved phase contaminants from the P2ESA property. In-situ hydraulic conduc vity tes ng was conducted in April, 2017 on three monitoring wells (TPBH10/MW, MW173D and MW174) screened within the clay and silt aquitard. Tes ng results indicated hydraulic conduc vity values ranging from 3.6 x 10 -10 m/s to 1.1 x 10 -9 m/s, which is consistent with values for Halton Till provided in Gartner Lee, 1983 and Holysh, 1997. Based on the low hydraulic conduc vity values of the clay and silt aquitard (10 -9 to 10-10 m/s, signiﬁcant thickness at the Site (between 7 to 23 m), and the presence of upward ver cal gradients (upward groundwater ﬂow) across the aquitard (gradient of 0.03) in some loca ons (e.g., MW216/MW211), the silty and clay unit is considered to be an eﬀec ve barrier preven ng the ver cal migra on of contaminated groundwater from the shallow overburden from ge ng into the bedrock or deep overburden. This important conclusion is also used by the QP to assess whether the observed low concentra ons of select parameters found in the groundwater within the bedrock, or clay and silt ll represents natural background condi ons.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

41 3.3

Bedrock 6(x)ii.C:

“approximate depth to bedrock”

The Ontario Division of Mines Map 2336 “Hamilton, Paleozoic Geology”, indicates that the bedrock geology in the area is composed of the Upper Ordovician-Richmondian aged Queenston Forma on composed of red shale. A minimum thickness of this forma on is 100 m (Ontario Division of Mines, 1976). The measured bedrock depth below the P2ESA Property ranges from 28.07 to 33.07 masl based on the results of bedrock drilling program conducted by Dillon in 2017 (borehole loca ons MW215, MW216 and MW217), that were drilled in the northeast, south and northwest por ons of the Site. 3.4

Water Table 6(x)ii.D:

“approximate depth to water table”

Water table eleva ons have been monitored at the P2ESA Property since 2014. Water table depths have ranged from 0.5 m to 3m depending upon loca on, with greater depths measured along the south side of the Site. Water table depths between 1.0 and 2.0 mbgs are most common. Groundwater eleva ons where available from monitoring events in 2014 and 2016 are shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. 3.5

Sensitive Site 6(x)ii.E:

“any respect in which section 41 or 43.1 of the regulation applies to the property”

Sec on 41 or 43.1 of the Regula on applies to the property, as circumstances that would require the Site to be considered Environmentally Sensi ve are applicable to the Site, namely: Sec on 41: • The Site includes an area of natural signiﬁcance (poten al Barn Swallow nes ng habitat and Li le Brown Myo s habitat), and • Soil pH at the site is higher than the range of 5 to 9 in some loca ons. Sec on 43.1 • The site is not a shallow soil property, • The Site is adjacent to a water body (Lake Ontario), and includes land that is within 30 metres of a water body.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

42

4.0

Soil Importation 6(x) ii.F:

“areas where soil has been brought from another property and placed on, in or under the phase two property”

Historically, ﬁll materials were used in development of the Site. The southern por on of the P2ESA Property was built up with ﬁll in the 1800s, while the northern two-thirds of the Site was built up with ﬁll in the 1960s. As noted in Sec on 3.1, ﬁll material is present across the en re Site from ground surface. The ﬁll consists of clay, silt, sand and gravel matrix containing slag, cinder, bricks, concrete and coal fragments. Its thickness ranged from <1 m along the southern por ons of the Site to 12 m in the northwest corner of the property. In 2015 – 2016, site improvements have occurred along the west side of the P2ESA study area (west of Discovery Drive) associated with reconstruc on of approximately 100m of the shoreline retaining wall. As part of the construc on, imported clean granular ﬁll sourced from a local pit was used as backﬁll. This ﬁll is not considered soil, and therefore MOECC SCSs are not applicable. 4.1

Buildings and Structures 6(x) ii.G: “approximate locations, if known, of any proposed buildings and other structures” Currently there are several buildings on the property; and these buildings will be removed prior to site development. Future residen al/commercial buildings are expected to be constructed on the Site, but the footprints and loca ons of these is currently unknown.

5.0 5.1

Contaminant Distribution Contaminated Area 6(x) iii: A:

“where a contaminant is present on, in or under the phase two property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition standard, identification of, each area where a contaminant is present on, in or under the phase two property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition standard”

As noted in Sec on 1.2.3, APECs 20a, 23, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35a, and 37 have iden ﬁed contaminants above the applicable Table 1 SCS. The loca ons of the APECs are provided in Figure 2. A summary of inves ga on loca ons (i.e., boreholes and monitoring wells) are presented in Figure 3. Approximate boundaries of each contaminant group, as well as tabulated analy cal results for those loca ons where Table 1 SCS were not met are further presented on Figure 7.1.1 through Figure 7.5.2 for soil and in Figure 8.1.1 through Figure 8.5.2 for groundwater.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

43 5.2

Contaminants & Contaminated Media 6(x) iii.B: “the contaminants associated with each of the areas referred to in subparagraph A, and C: each medium in which a contaminant associated with an area referred to in subparagraph A is present”

5.2.1

Soil Contaminants of Concern The APECs/PCAs iden ﬁed in the P1CSM were inves gated with borehole drilling, test pi ng, and soil sampling. Sampling loca ons are shown in Figure 3, and soil sampling depths shown on the borehole logs in Appendix B (Dillon, P2ESA, 2016). The results of the soil laboratory analysis compared to the Table 1 SCSs are shown graphically on Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.5 (plan view), and tabulated in Table 4.1 to Table 4.8. The associated APECs that were inves gated, and the depth of analyzed soil sample, are described in both these ﬁgures and tables. For reference purposes, historical soil analy cal data from previous inves ga ons that were conducted at the site are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Laboratory Cer ﬁcates of Analysis for the sampling conducted by Dillon are presented in Appendix C (Dillon, P2ESA, 2016). Frac on and total organic carbon (FOC and TOC) concentra ons in select analyzed soil samples are presented in Table 4.8. FOC and TOC data was collected for input into future assessments of the property, and are not discussed in this report.

5.2.1.1

Background Soil Parameters Exceeding Table SCS Petroleum Hydrocarbons Petroleum Hydrocarbons (F2 range) were iden ﬁed as both a COC in the soil associated with one or more APECs, as well as being associated with naturally elevated hydrocarbons in the na ve soil. As a result, elevated PHC-F2 at depth is not considered to represent a contaminant at all loca ons. Further informa on on the observed PHC-F2 concentra ons at the P2ESA Property are described below. A full dataset for petroleum hydrocarbons concentra on in soil is presented in Table 4.4. At the P2ESA Property, PHC concentra ons in the F2 range at levels marginally above Table 1 SCS were observed in deep soil samples from loca ons MW81, BH94, MW108, BH127, MW187, TP-BH5/MW and TP-BH6/MW. The sampled depths were signiﬁcantly below the impacted ﬁll and anthropogenically disturbed sediments below the ﬁll (i.e., material below the ﬁll that may have been disturbed during ﬁll placement or subject to inﬂuences from harbour ac vi es preda ng the placement of ﬁll). At several of the sampling loca ons where PHC are observed at depth several metres of non-impacted soils (i.e., PHC concentra ons below laboratory reportable detec on limits) separated the shallower impacted soils from the detected PHC concentra ons at depth. It was noted that where elevated PHC concentra ons were seen at depth, the underlying material was usually the clay and silt layer (associated strata that is interpreted to represent Halton Till). There were no sand lenses, or more permeable strata observed during borehole drilling that may connect the shallow impacted layers to the layers where deeper low level PHCs were detected. Addi onally, there were no permeable strata (e.g., sand or silt lenses) sugges ng the poten al for preferred lateral pathways for PHC contaminants from other sources.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

44 An evalua on of the source of these low level PHC concentra ons was conducted using PHC results from both the P2ESA Property, and the adjacent Pier 5, Pier 6 and Pier 7 proper es which are undergoing a concurrent P2ESA (Dillon, 2015, 2017). Both the P2ESA Property, and the adjacent Pier 5, Pier 6 and Pier 7 proper es, have similar deposi onal, and land use histories and therefore inclusion of informa on from the adjacent lands is deemed relevant. Low-level hydrocarbon impacts were detected above laboratory reportable detec on limits at three dis nct eleva ons: 66 masl (MW39D, MW54, MW61, MW75D, MW172D), 60 masl (MW108, MW187), and 56-57 masl (MW183, MW185, MW190), indica ng some degree of discon nuous stra graphy containing elevated organic ma er at the site. Detected concentra ons were close to the detec on limit in each case (e.g., 11 to 12 ug/g, compared to repor ng detec on limit of 10 ug/g). The ﬁeld duplicate samples at MW185 and MW190 measured nondetectable amounts of PHCs in soil; however, these results do not mean that low-level PHCs are not present. The chromatograms provided by the laboratory conﬁrm this conclusion in that a peak signature registered in a similar pa ern to the parent sample; however, the overall concentra ons were not quan ﬁable by the laboratory. The signature pa ern is observed in some, but not all borehole loca ons, and with increasing depth when approaching the above deﬁned eleva ons. Considering the depth and nature of undisturbed lower permeability clay and silt material, there is the poten al for the observed impacts to be associated with decomposing organic ma er within the clay, and based on the quan ﬁable data, and observa ons from chromatograms, these detected impacts can be found throughout the Site in a thin lateral stra graphy at depths ranging from 10 to 20 mbgs as shown for MW190 in the following graphic. The depth of the sample taken, and increasing signal with depth when approaching dis nct eleva ons such as 56, 60, and 66 masl (see MW39D in the following graphic), and the similarity of the pa ern across the region at that depth, suggests that the elevated PHCs are from organic ma er layers deposited naturally within the silt and clay.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

45 MW 190 (12.19 – 12.8 mbgs) ~64 masl F2 =11 mg/kg, F3 <50 mg/kg

MW 190 (15.24 – 15.85 mbgs) ~60 masl F2 <10 mg/kg, F3 <50 mg/kg

MW 190 (18.29 – 18.9 mbgs) ~57 masl F2 =12 mg/kg, F3 <50 mg/kg

MW 39 (3.05 – 3.51 mbgs) ~76 masl F2 <10 mg/kg, F3 <50 mg/kg

MW 39D (5.49 – 6.1 mbgs) ~74 masl F2 <10 mg/kg, F3 <50 mg/kg

MW 39D (18.29 – 18.9 mbgs) ~67 masl F2 =11 mg/kg, F3 <50 (61*)mg/kg

Chromatograms of PHC impacts in soil at MW39D and MW190 at three ver cal intervals * PHC Frac on F3 concentra on in soil reduced to below laboratory reportable detec on limits a er silica cleanup.

In examining the chromatographs provided by the laboratory for PHCs, the pa ern signatures are diﬀerent between the known PHC impacts associated with the APECs (e.g., ﬁll, near fuel storage tanks etc.), and with the pa ern signatures being observed at depth – in general, the two detected areas of hydrocarbons (ﬁll and at depth) are not from the same source, or type of hydrocarbon. In evalua ng whether the sample results are na ve to the underlying geology or derived from anthropogenic sources, a silica gel cleanup analysis of the soil sample extract was performed and then re-analyzed. The silica gel cleanup was used during laboratory analysis to separate analytes from interfering compounds of diﬀering polarity. The majority of “fresh” or non-biodegraded petroleum hydrocarbons were considered to be non-polar compounds, whereas the majority of biogenic compounds tend to be polar, or semi-polar in nature. The silica gel cleanup procedure preferen ally

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

46 removes polar and semi-polar compounds. Given that mass recovery remains constant, the diﬀerence before and a er silica gel cleanup is a ributable to the presence of biogenic interferences. One diﬃculty with this method is that the amount of silica gel used may not eﬀec vely remove all the biogenic material when it is present in large amounts in a sample. The laboratory provided two sets of results: before and a er silica gel cleanup to evaluate whether biogenic material is present in the sample. A signiﬁcant clean-up was noted in measured PHC Frac on F3, indica ng that some biogenic PHCs are present in that frac on (F16-F34). A comparison of the before and a er silica clean-up of a sample taken at an eleva on of 66 masl (approximately 12 mbgs), and surﬁcial impacts are shown below in the following table. The results indicate that biogenic organic ma er is present at depth. The percentage of non-polar compounds remaining suggests that the observed hydrocarbon impacts at depth are a mixture of petrogenic and biogenic hydrocarbons, which is not unusual to ﬁnd at depth in glacial lls. Previous excava ons nearby in Hamilton, Ontario (City Hall, Desjardins Canal) have unveiled plant ma er, mammoth tusks, fossiliferous layers, and wood buried at depth (Karrow, 1987).

Soil Sample

PHC Concentration Before and After Silica Clean-Up of a Surface and a Depth Sample PHC Fraction F3 PHC Fraction F3 Polar and Semi-Polar (prior to silica (after silica clean Compounds clean up up) Removed (%)

MW39D (11.73 – 12.19 mbgs) (Offsite - Pier 5) MW108 (0.6 – 1.02 mbgs)

61

<50

18*

495

470

5

Addi onal informa on to support that the detected PHCs at concentra on slightly exceeding Table 1 SCS is background includes the very low permeability of the silt and clay unit, based on in-situ hydraulic conduc vity tes ng and ver cal hydraulic gradient informa on. As presented in Sec on 3.2.3, the clay and silt unit has being tested to show a very low hydraulic conduc vity 10 -10 to 10-9 m/s, which is typical of Halton Till K values in literature. Ver cal hydraulic gradient informa on presented in Sec on 3.2.2 based on water levels at nested monitoring well pairs (e.g., MW216/MW211) screened below and above the clay and silty unit show an upward gradient; however, a weak downward gradient is observed at monitoring well pairs MW215/MW30, but the gradient measurements may be inﬂuence by excessive precipita on at the me. Overall, based on the hydraulic conduc vity values and hydraulic gradient informa on, the clay and silt unit is interpreted to act as an aquitard underlying the P2ESA Property. In conclusion, given the depth at which the PHC (F2) have been observed, the low hydraulic conduc vity of the clay and silt unit and the lack of a connec ng transport pathways, the separa on from shallower based APECs (ﬁll, fuel tanks), the diﬀerence in signature pa erns from other APEC sources, and the widespread, similar biogenic/petrogenic signatures at depth across the Site, the detected PHCs at depth

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

47 are interpreted to be background. For the purposes of the P2ESA, sample results that are interpreted to represent background condi ons have been iden ﬁed on both sec on and in plan view by the “^” symbol beside the sample loca on. 5.2.1.2

Excluded Data Available soil quality data per nent to the site was reviewed and assessed as to data quality and applicability to the P2ESA. Data that was excluded from the P2ESA consisted of the following:

5.2.1.3

•

VOC data with elevated detec on limits above Table 1 SCS were excluded if the detec on limits were elevated due to dilu on for the purpose of BTEX quan ta on or due to other analy cal limita ons, if there was an adequate dataset for this parameter where the detec on limits were not elevated, and if the chemical(s) in ques on (i.e., those with detec on limits elevated above the Table 1 SCS) would be very unlikely to cons tute COCs at the Site. VOC parameters that were detected in either groundwater or soil at the P2ESA Property were not excluded. VOC parameters that were never quan ﬁed above detec on limits and were excluded included: 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,3-dichlorobenzene, 1,3-dichloropropane, bromodichloromethane, bromomethane, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chlorodibromomethane, dichlorodiﬂuoromethane, methyl ethyl ketone, and MTBE.

•

PCB data with elevated detec on limits above Table 1 SCS associated with APEC 23 (Shed 6 Hea ng Oil Tank) where PCB was not detected in soil or groundwater samples was excluded, as PCBs are not iden ﬁed as a COC at this APEC.

·

PHC data that was deemed to be representa ve of background condi ons rather than contamina on associated with anthropogenic ac vi es (e.g, PCAs). This data was associated with soil samples obtained from the na ve silty clay unit where PHC (F2 and F3) range hydrocarbons were observed at concentra ons marginally exceeding Table 1 SCS. Data included the following samples: MW108_15.24_15.85 (PHC-F2 at 11 ug/g), MW187_15.24-15.85 (PHC-F2 at 11 ug/g), MW75D_9.14_9.75 (PHC-F2 at 12, duplicate sample at 11 ug/g), MW81_13.72_14.33 (PHC-F2 at 13 ug/g, duplicate < 10 ug/g), TP-BH5/MW_18.3-18.9 (PHC-F2 at 11 ug/g) and TP-BH6/MW_18.3-18.9 (PHC-F2 at 15 ug/g).

Contaminants of Concern The soil COCs were iden ﬁed as those chemicals having reported measured maximum concentra ons in soil that exceed the Table 1 SCS. The contaminants of concern iden ﬁed considered the following: 1. Any contaminants detected on, in or under the property that exceed the applicable site condi on standard (O.Reg. 153/04 Table 1); and

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

48 2. Further considera on of substances detected but, without applicable standards. For those parameters that did not have a Table 1 SCSs, the following condi ons were used to iden fy whether the parameters could be excluded from the ﬁnal list of COCs: 1. 2.

3. 4.

The maximum observed concentra on was within the range of 98th percen le of the Ontario Typical Range (OTR-98); The parameter was not found at concentra ons above the laboratory Reported Detec on Limit (RDL), or the detec on limit was elevated from the applica on of laboratory dilu on factors to allow for quan ﬁca on of other parameters, and the parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the site; The parameter was recognized as having low toxicity because it was an essen al nutrient; or The parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the site.

Based on this evalua on, no addi onal substances were iden ﬁed as a COC. The full dataset is provided in Tables 4.3 to 4.7. All parameters that were detected above Table 1 SCS and parameters where RDLs > Table 1 SCS are presented on summary tables on the ﬁgures that show tes ng results (both plan views and cross-sec ons). For transparency purposes, excluded data is also shown and highlighted, but is not used in the evalua on. Based on the data presented and the assump ons listed above, the following soil COCs have been iden ﬁed for the P2ESA Property. For parameters where the maximum concentra on was assigned as the raised detec on limit (applicable for some VOC parameters, where sample dilu on was required for BTEX quan ﬁca on), informa on is also provided in italics on the maximum detected concentra on. Soil Contaminants of Concern Soil COC

Maximum Concentra on

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs)

APEC

METALS AND INORGANICS Electrical Conduc vity Sodium Adsorp on Ra o

3.52 mS/cm 68.9

An mony

8.5 ug/g

Arsenic

36.4 ug/g

Barium

361 ug/g

Beryllium

6.08 ug/g

MW84 0.66 to 1.01 MW84 1.52 to 1.82 MW132 3.05 to 3.33 SHED 7 TANK AREA 1.25 to 1.45 MW118 1.75 to 2.18 MW100 0.76 to 1.37

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a, 39 APEC 27 APEC 20a, 29 APEC 20a

49

Soil Contaminants of Concern Soil COC

Maximum Concentra on

Boron

92.2 ug/g

Cadmium

13.2 ug/g

Chromium (VI)

0.74 ug/g

Chromium (total)

164 ug/g

Cobalt

32.5 ug/g

Copper

1140 ug/g

Lead

2480 ug/g

Mercury

4.08 ug/g

Molybdenum

12 ug/g

Selenium

2.2 ug/g

Silver

30.7 ug/g

Zinc

3640 ug/g

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs) MW100 0.76 to 1.37 BH5 SS2* .75 to 1.4 MW120 0.6 to 0.9 BH95 1.83 to 2.03 BH129 0.53 to 1.02 MW98 4.57 to 5.03 Shed 7 Tank Area 1.25 to 1.45 MW133 0.76 to 1.01 MW18 0.86 to 0.99 BHG2* 1.51 to 2.1 MW110 1.52 to 1.98 Shed 7 Tank Area 1.25 to 1.45

APEC APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a, 29 APEC 30, 31, 20a APEC 20a APEC 30, 31, 20a APEC 27 APEC 20a, 39 APEC 20a, 29 APEC 20a APEC 20a, 23 APEC 27

BTEX AND PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Benzene

1.43 ug/g

Toluene

1.4 ug/g

Ethyl benzene

13.1 ug/g

Total Xylenes

39.6 ug/g

PHC(F1)

637 ug/g

PHC(F2)

19,700 ug/g

PHC(F3)

13,700 ug/g

PHC(F4)

44,100 ug/g

TP2 2.0 to 2.3 MW12 2.29 to 2.49 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW144 1.98 to 2.26

APEC 33 APEC 35a, 33 APEC 20a, 23 APEC 20a, 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS Acenaphthene

16.9 ug/g

Acenaphthylene

3.69 ug/g

MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

APEC 23 APEC 23

50

Soil Contaminants of Concern Soil COC

Maximum Concentra on

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs)

8.18 ug/g

MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW18 0.86 to 0.99 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW119 1.12 to 1.42 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW119 1.12 to 1.42

APEC 20a, 29

MW143 1.68 to 2.08 BH107 2.13 to 2.44 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW82 0.18 to 0.48 MW143 1.68 to 2.08

APEC 20a

Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)ﬂuoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)pyrene Benzo(k)ﬂuoranthene Chrysene

25.7 ug/g 17.5 ug/g 24.8 ug/g 8.3 ug/g 8.06 ug/g 25.2 ug/g

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

3.16 ug/g

Fluoranthene

48.2 ug/g

Fluorene

25.2 ug/g

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

9.44 ug/g

Methylnaphthalene, 2-(1-)

440 ug/g

Naphthalene

73.1 ug/g

Phenanthrene

64.7 ug/g

Pyrene

35.1 ug/g

APEC

APEC 20a 29 APEC 20a 29 APEC 20a 29 APEC 20a 29 APEC 20a 29 APEC 20a 29 APEC 20a, 29 APEC 20a, 29 APEC 23 APEC 20a, 29 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 20a, 29

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 1,1-dichloroethane

<0.2 ug/g 0.064 ug/g

1,1-dichloroethene

<0.2 ug/g

1,2-dichlorobenzene

<0.8 ug/g 0.333 ug/g

1,2-dichloroethane

<0.2 ug/g

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 30, 20a APEC 20a

51

Soil Contaminants of Concern Soil COC

1,4-dichlorobenzene

Maximum Concentra on <0.8 ug/g 0.237 ug/g

4-methyl-2-pentanone (methyl isobutyl ketone)

<2 ug/g 1.37 ug/g

Acetone Bromoform

<2 ug/g <0.2 ug/g 0.052 ug/g

Chloroform cis-1,2,dichloroethene

<0.4 ug/g <0.2 ug/g 0.094 ug/g

Dichloromethane

<9 ug/g 0.274 ug/g

Hexane

<3 ug/g 1.46 ug/g

Styrene

<0.2 ug/g

Trichloroethene

0.135 ug/g

Tetrachloroethene

<0.2 ug/g 0.138 ug/g

trans-1,2-dichloroethene

<0.2 ug/g 0.054 ug/g

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs) MW143 1.68 to 2.08 BH105 5.26 to 5.56 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW82 0.18 to 0.48 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW137 12.19 to 12.8 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 BH139 3.05 to 3.66 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 BH105 5.26 to 5.56 BH105 5.26 to 5.56 BH96 0.56 to 0.69 BH105 5.26 to 5.56 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW72 1.52 to 2.08 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 BH105 5.26 to 5.56 MW143 1.68 to 2.08 MW72 1.52 to 2.08

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

APEC APEC 20a APEC 20a, 29 APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a

APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 31 APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 35a, 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a, 29 APEC 20a APEC 35a

52

Soil Contaminants of Concern Soil COC

Vinyl Chloride

Maximum Concentra on <0.08 ug/g 0.079 ug/g

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs) MW143 1.68 to 2.08 BH108 4.97 to 5.56

APEC APEC 20a APEC 20a

PCBs PCBs(total)

3.95 ug/g

MW137 0.76 to 1.09

APEC 20a, 39

* Historical sample

A number of the VOCs iden ﬁed in soil (e.g., TCE, cis-1,2 DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCE, VC and others) can be chemical transforma ons from dechlorina on processes. Poten al soil contamina on that may act as a source of contaminant mass contribu ng to groundwater includes metals/inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC, PAH and PCB impacts in the ﬁll at the Site, as well as areas where petroleum hydrocarbons were stored or handled. These loca ons include all areas iden ﬁed as APECs (see Figure 3 in Risk Assessment Report). The presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) was not suspected based on the measured contaminant concentra ons in the soil. Free phase light non-aqueous phase (LNAPL) liquids were observed in several soil sampling loca ons below Shed 6. These areas are a ributed to historical fuel oil discharge from a hea ng oil tank that was once located at the south side of the Shed 6 building (APEC 23, APEC 26). The es mated extent of the LNAPL based on visual observa ons taken during soil sampling, and chemical analysis results are shown on Figure 5.2. The maximum thickness of LNAPL measured in the monitoring wells was 43 cm measured on March 11, 2016 at monitoring well MW113. Table 3 presents LNAPL levels measured at the site. No other LNAPL product was observed at any other loca on on the P2ESA Property. This conclusion is based on LNAPL thickness measurements taken at all monitoring wells at the Site, and the resul ng absence of detectable LNAPL. 5.2.2

Groundwater Contaminants of Concern APECs and PCAs iden ﬁed in the Phase One CSM were further inves gated through groundwater sampling. Sampling loca ons are shown in Figure 3, and water sampling depths (based on screen loca ons) are shown on the borehole logs in Appendix B of the P2ESA (Dillon, 2016) and in the P2ESA addendum (Dillon, 2017). The results of the groundwater laboratory analysis compared to the Table 1 SCSs are shown graphically on Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.5 (plan view), and tabulated in Table 5.3 to Table 5.7. The associated APECs that were inves gated, and the depth of analyzed groundwater samples, are

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

53 described in both these ﬁgures and tables. Laboratory Cer ﬁcates of Analysis for the sampling conducted by Dillon are presented in Appendix C of the P2ESA (Dillon, 2016) and in the P2ESA addendum (Dillon, 2017). 5.2.2.1

Background Parameter Concentra on Exceeding Table SCS Several inorganic and organic parameters were detected at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCSs, but at levels deemed to be representa ve of background condi ons. The presence of naturally elevated parameter concentra ons above Table 1 SCS has important implica ons when assessing the ver cal extent of contamina on, as required by the regula on. A discussion of the parameters, and the ra onal to support a non-anthropogenic source, is discussed in the following sec ons by parameter. The full dataset is provided in Tables 5.3 to 5.7, with those results considered background having been highlighted. Sodium and Chloride Chloride and sodium were detected in the deep shale bedrock monitoring well MW217 at a concentra on of 2130 mg/L and 1320 mg/L, respec vely, which exceeds the Table 1 SCS of 790 mg/L (chloride) and 490 mg/L (sodium). Elevated chloride (1460 mg/L) and sodium (524 mg/L) concentra ons were also detected in TP-BH10/MW screened in the silty clay ll (screened interval 22.9 to 24.3 mbgs). Sodium was detected at 931 mg/L in bedrock monitoring well MW215. These concentra ons are considered natural based on: a) sodium and chloride concentra ons are much lower at shallower depths (closer to poten al impact sources such as ﬁll or applica on of salt at surface for deicing or dust control) at these loca ons (e.g. MW131 screened at the watertable containing 165 mg/L chloride and 168 mg/L sodium); b) the low permeability of the overlaying silty clay regional aquitard that would restrict ver cal migra on of these parameters into the shale; and, c) increased concentra ons of chloride and sodium are typically found in shale, especially in areas of low bedrock permeability and groundwater ﬂow where salts have dissolved from the aquifer matrix and into the groundwater. Molybdenum Molybdenum was measured at concentra ons in excess of the Table 1 SCS (23 ug/L) in several monitoring wells screened within either the deep silt and clay unit or the underlying bedrock unit, as follows:

Monitoring Well

Depth

Screened Unit

Molybdenum Concentra on (ug/L)

MW151D

16.76-19.81

Silty Clay

50.7

MW173D

15.2-18.29

Silty Clay

28.6

MW187

15.24-18.29

Silty Clay

25.3/25.6

MW215

31.24-32.77

Shale

24.8

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

54

Monitoring Well

Depth

Screened Unit

Molybdenum Concentra on (ug/L)

MW216

30.48-33.53

Silty Clay

24.8

MW217

29.26-32.31

Shale

30.4/30.3

TP-BH10/MW

22.8-24.3

Silty Clay

35

TP-BH5/MW

16.8-18.3

Silty Clay

45

TP-BH6/MW

16.8-18.3

Silty Clay

41.4

The detected concentra ons, while slightly exceeding the Table 1 SCS, were well within the Table 9 SCS of 1,700 ug/L. In the geochemical cycle, molybdenum is o en concentrated in shales, clays and phosphorites; in these rocks, there is a posi ve correla on between the content of molybdenum and the content of organic carbon (King et al., 1973), both of which have been iden ﬁed as source bedrock material for glaciolacustrine sediments (interbedded silt, sand and clay) and glacial ll deposits (silty clay unit) at this Site. Por ons of southwest Ontario are known for having naturally elevated molybdenum in clayey soils (Golder, 2014), which suggests that elevated molybdenum concentra ons in groundwater are possible. Considering that: a) the elevated molybdenum groundwater concentra on in the clay and silt unit are within, or close to, the 99th percen le of Ontario background typical ranges; b) the clay and silt unit has a low hydraulic conduc vity and forms part of a regional aquitard, c) lower concentra ons of molybdenum within Table 1 SCS were detected at eleva ons higher in the soil strata, and d) there are no horizontal pathways for groundwater impact migra on in the silt and clay, the observed molybdenum concentra ons in the silt and clay at depth are considered background and ver cal delinea on is interpreted to have been achieved. Cross-sec ons and plan view maps that show molybdenum concentra ons that are above Table 1 SCS, but deemed to be background, have been highlighted with a “^” symbol. Molybdenum in groundwater remains a COC at the Site based on the presence of elevated concentra ons rela ve to the Table 1 SCS at several loca ons across the Site, and the fact that these parameters are poten ally associated with iron ore foundry slag found within the ﬁll used to construct Pier 8. Vanadium Vanadium was measured at concentra ons in excess of the Table 1 SCS (3.9 ug/L) in a few monitoring wells screened within either the deep silt or and silty clay unit. Vanadium was measured at a concentra on in excess of the Table 1 SCS (3.9 ug/L) at monitoring well MW175 (10.1 ug/L, screened in silt at interval 13.72 – 15.24 mbgs) and MW216 (8.7 ug/L, screened in silty clay at interval 30.48-33.53 mbgs). For comparison, vanadium concentra ons in groundwater samples at shallower intervals in the same loca ons, but closer to the contaminant source (ﬁll) show lower vanadium concentra ons (eg, MW109 near MW175 contained 4.75 ug/L; MW11 near MW216 contained <0.5 ug/L).

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

55 As presented in the document Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for use at the Contaminated Sites in Ontario, MOECC, 2011, the 97.5th and 99th percen le for vanadium in background groundwater are 3.87 and 9.24 ug/L, respec vely. Along with molybdenum, the occurrence of vanadium in clays is known, and amounts can vary from chemical trace to about fourteen percent (Callister, 1924; Bourry, J., 1926; Bosazza, 1940). The shales in the region of the Site (e.g., Queenston Forma on) have been well studied for mineraliza on rela ng to industrial uses (e.g., brick). It has been noted that both molybdenum and vanadium sulphates in the Queenston Forma on may contribute to scumming and/or eﬄorescence during brickmaking (Guillet, 1967; Rutka and Vos, 1993). Therefore, considering that: a) the elevated vanadium groundwater concentra on in the clay and silt unit are close to the 99th percen le of Ontario background typical ranges; b) the clay and silt unit has a low hydraulic conduc vity and forms part of a regional aquitard, c) lower concentra ons of vanadium within Table 1 SCS were detected at eleva ons higher in the soil strata closer to the impact source, d) there are no horizontal pathways for groundwater impact migra on in the silt and clay, and d) the mobility of metals, including vanadium is generally low in groundwater, the observed vanadium concentra ons in the silt and clay at depth are considered background and ver cal delinea on is interpreted to have been achieved. Vanadium in groundwater remains a COC at the Site based on the presence of elevated concentra ons rela ve to the Table 1 SCS at several loca ons across the site. An mony An mony was detected at 1.7 ug/L in TP-BH10/MW screened in the silty clay ll at an interval of 22.9 to 24.3 mbgs, which slightly exceeds the Table 1 SCS of 1.5 ug/L, but is well below the Table 9 SCS of 200 ug/L. This concentra ons is considered representa ve of natural background condi ons based on: a) the low permeability of the screened unit which is a regional silty clay ll aquitard that would restrict ver cal migra on of metals from a shallower contaminated source (ﬁll) and, b) the concentra on is within the 99th percen le (5.69 ug/L) of natural background an mony concentra ons, as presented in the document Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for use at the Contaminated Sites in Ontario, MOECC, 2011. Copper Copper was detected at 45 ug/L in TP-BH5/MW screened in the silty clay ll at an interval of 16.8 to 18.3 mbgs. The Table 1 SCS is 5 ug/L. This concentra ons is considered representa ve of natural background condi ons based on: a) copper is not iden ﬁed as a contaminant of concern associated with the APECS in this area and shallow groundwater samples from the ﬁll meet the Table 1 SCS; b) the low permeability of the screened unit which is a regional silty clay ll aquitard, and would restrict ver cal migra on of metals from a shallower contaminated source; c) lower concentra ons of copper in groundwater samples at shallower intervals in the same general loca on, but closer to the contaminant source (ﬁll) (e.g., MW72 contained <2 ug/L); d) the low mobility of this parameter in groundwater, especially in low permeability condi ons; and, e) similar to molybdenum (see preceding discussion), metals can be naturally concentrated within clay, depending upon the source rock.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

56 Lead Lead was detected at 2.5 ug/L in MW216 screened in the silty clay ll at an interval of 30.5 to 33.5 mbgs, which slightly exceeds the Table 1 SCS is 1.9 ug/L, but is well the Table 9 SCS of 20 ug/L. This concentra ons is considered representa ve of natural background condi ons based on: a) lead is not iden ﬁed as a contaminant of concern associated with the APECS in this area and shallow groundwater samples of the ﬁll meet the Table 1 SCS; b) the low permeability of the screened unit which is a regional silty clay ll aquitard, and would restrict ver cal migra on of metals from a shallower contaminated source; c) lower concentra ons of lead in groundwater samples at shallower intervals in the same general loca on, but closer to the contaminant source (ﬁll) (e.g., MW11 contained <0.5 ug/L); d) the low mobility of this parameter in groundwater, especially in low permeability condi ons; and, e) similar to molybdenum (see preceding discussion), metals can be naturally concentrated within clay, depending upon the source rock. Some source rocks in the Hamilton area (dolostones) are known to be naturally elevated in lead (City of Hamilton Health Unit, 2006). In addi on to the above, the detected lead concentra on is below the 99th natural background percen le (6.02 ug/L) as presented in the document Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for use at the Contaminated Sites in Ontario, MOECC, 2011. Selenium Selenium was detected at 5.36 ug/L in TP-BH5/MW screened in the silty clay ll at an interval of 16.8 to 18.3 mbgs, which slightly exceeds the Table 1 SCS of 5 ug/L. This concentra ons is considered representa ve of natural background condi ons based on: a) selenium is not iden ﬁed as a contaminant of concern associated with the APECS in this area and shallow groundwater samples of the ﬁll meet the Table 1 SCS; b) the low permeability of the screened unit which is a regional silty clay ll aquitard, and would restrict ver cal migra on of metals from a shallower contaminated source; c) lower concentra ons of selenium in groundwater samples at shallower intervals in the same general loca on, but closer to the contaminant source (ﬁll) (e.g., MW72 contained <1.14 ug/L); d) the low mobility of this parameter in groundwater, especially in low permeability condi ons; e) similar to molybdenum (see preceding discussion), metals can be naturally concentrated within clay; and, f) the detected selenium concentra on is below the 99th natural background percen le (7 ug/L) as presented in the document Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for use at the Contaminated Sites in Ontario, MOECC, 2011. Boron Boron was detected at 1830 ug/L in MW215 screened within the shale bedrock at an interval of 31.2 to 33.5 mbgs, which slightly exceeds the Table 1 SCS of 1700 ug/L. This concentra ons is considered representa ve of natural background condi ons based on: a) boron is not iden ﬁed as a contaminant of concern associated with the APECS in this area and shallow groundwater samples of the ﬁll meet the Table 1 SCS; b) the low permeability of the regional silty clay ll aquitard overlying the bedrock which would prevent ver cal migra on of metals from a shallower contaminated source; c) lower

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

57 concentra ons of boron in groundwater samples at shallower intervals in the same general loca on, but closer to the contaminant source (ﬁll) (e.g., MW30 contained 280 ug/L); d) the low mobility of this parameter in groundwater, especially in low permeability condi ons; and, e) the detected boron concentra on is below the 99th natural background percen le (2850 ug/L) as presented in the document Ra onale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for use at the Contaminated Sites in Ontario, MOECC, 2011. Petroleum Hydrocarbons Petroleum hydrocarbons were detected at monitoring well MW217, screened in the top por on of the shale bedrock at a screened depth interval of 29.26 to 32.21 mbgs. PHC (F3) was detected ranging from 1160 ug/L to 1690 ug/L, which exceeds the Table 1 SCS of 500 ug/L. In evalua ng whether the sample results are na ve to the underlying geology or derived from anthropogenic sources, a silica gel cleanup analysis of the water sample extract was performed and then re-analyzed. The silica gel cleanup was used during laboratory analysis to separate analytes from interfering compounds of diﬀering polarity. The majority of “fresh” or non-biodegraded petroleum hydrocarbons were considered to be non-polar compounds, whereas the majority of biogenic compounds tend to be polar, or semi-polar in nature. The silica gel cleanup procedure preferen ally removes polar and semi-polar compounds. Given that mass recovery remains constant, the diﬀerence before and a er silica gel cleanup is a ributable to the presence of biogenic interferences. One diﬃculty with this method is that the amount of silica gel used may not eﬀec vely remove all the biogenic material when it is present in large amounts in a sample. The PHC (F3) concentra on in the water sample following silica-gel cleanup was 380 ug/L, which was within the Table 1 SCS. Overall, the detected PHCs are deemed to be reﬂec ve of natural background condi ons for the following reasons. a) Natural background concentra ons of petroleum hydrocarbons in the F3 range have been iden ﬁed in the clay ll that overlies the shale bedrock (See Sec on 4.2.1.1 for discussion). b) Following the removal of polar compounds a ributed to natural PHC sources, the detected PHC (F3) was 380 ug/L, which meets the Table 1 SCS. This analysis indicates that natural hydrocarbons are present in the water sample. c) The screened interval is located within the top por on of the shale bedrock which is overlain by a low permeability regional aquitard (Halton Till, silty clay matrix). Hydraulic conduc vity tes ng of this unit indicates K values in the 10 -10 to 10-9 m/s range, which is typical for Halton ll K values in literature. Water level measurements indicate that the shale is conﬁned artesian aquifer. This hydrogeological regime would prevent the ver cal migra on of anthropogenic hydrocarbons from the nearest source (ﬁll) into the bedrock. d) Chemistry results from MW217 iden fy elevated chloride and sodium (2130 mg/L and 1320 mg/L), which has been iden ﬁed as represen ng background condi ons (see preceding

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

58 discussion of sodium and chloride concentra ons). These elevated concentra ons support the conclusion that the shallow bedrock is hydraulically isolated from shallower impacted horizons (e.g., ﬁll). Based on this ra onale, the detected of PHCs in the groundwater at monitoring well MW217 is considered natural, and is not associated with shallower anthropogenic impacts. Polycyclic Aroma c Hydrocarbons Similar to the detec on of low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons in the deep bedrock groundwater sample at monitoring well MW217 (screened interval 29.26 to 32.31 mbgs), low concentra ons of PAHs were also detected. These concentra ons are deemed to be representa ve of natural condi ons for the following reasons. a) The detected PAHs are a ributed to the presence of natural biogenic organics in the groundwater sample (see preceding discussion). The source of these PAH would be the natural background concentra ons of biogenic organics within the clay ll (See Sec on 4.2.1.1 for discussion). b) The detected PAH parameters benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene and phenanthrene have low solubility/mobility in groundwater, and therefore their presence in the absence of more mobile PAHs supports the conclusion that they are not associated with on-site APECs. c) The screened interval is located within the top por on of the shale bedrock which is overlain by a low permeability regional aquitard (Halton Till, silty clay matrix). Hydraulic conduc vity tes ng of this unit indicates K values in the 10 -10 to 10-9 m/s range, which is typical for Halton ll K values in literature. Water level measurements indicate that the shale is conﬁned artesian aquifer. This hydrogeological regime would prevent the ver cal migra on of anthropogenic hydrocarbons from the nearest source (ﬁll) into the bedrock. d) Chemistry results from MW217 iden fy elevated chloride and sodium (2130 mg/L and 1320 mg/L), which has been iden ﬁed as represen ng background condi ons (see preceding discussion of sodium and chloride concentra ons). These elevated concentra ons support the conclusion that the shallow bedrock is hydraulically isolated from shallower impacted horizons (e.g. ﬁll). It is also possible that the low level of PAHs is a result of turbidity in the water sample. Since the well has very low water yield, well development and purging associated with low ﬂow sampling methods was not able to remove all turbidity. It is then possible that the PAH results are biased high if par culates containing natural petroleum hydrocarbon material from the shale or overlying clay ll were present in the analyzed sample. While not formally included in the data evalua on analysis, tes ng of a ﬁltered sample indicates non-detect PAH condi ons, which suggest that a poten al source of the detected PAH material in the unﬁltered sample is from par culates.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

59 5.2.2.2

Excluded Data Available groundwater quality data per nent to the Site was reviewed and assessed as to data quality and applicability to the P2ESA. Data that was excluded from the P2ESA consisted of the following: •

Metal data for beryllium and silver were excluded where detec on limits were elevated above Table 1 SCS as a result of analy cal limita ons. These parameters have not been quan ﬁed in groundwater at the P2ESA Property and there is considered to be a suﬃcient dataset from loca ons where the detec on limits were not elevated, and therefore are not considered a COC.

•

VOC data with elevated detec on limits above Table 1 SCS were excluded if the detec on limits were elevated due to dilu on for the purpose of BTEX quan ta on or due to other analy cal limita ons and there is considered to be a suﬃcient dataset from loca ons where the detec on limits were not elevated, and if the chemical(s) in ques on (i.e., those with detec on limits elevated above the Table 1 SCS) would be very unlikely to cons tute COCs at the Site. VOC parameters that were detected in either groundwater or soil at the P2ESA Property were not excluded. VOC parameters that were not quan ﬁed above the RDLs in groundwater and were excluded included: 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2dibromo-ethane, and bromodichloromethane.

·

Chloroform was excluded where there was the poten al that the parameter was associated with leaky municipal treated drinking water, and the detected concentra ons were less than Table A of the MOECC guidance. Excluded data is limited to MW134 (2.2 ug/L), MW74 (<2.3 ug/L) and MW187 (1.3 ug/L)

·

Data deemed representa ve of background condi ons at select tes ng loca ons. The ra onal for iden fying these results as representa ve of background loca ons is presented in Sec on 4.2.2.1. o

The inorganic parameters (boron, an mony, copper, lead, selenium, molybdenum, vanadium, sodium and chloride) at select loca ons, where the results are deemed reﬂec ve of natural condi ons.

o

PHC data that was deemed to be representa ve of background condi ons rather than contamina on associated with anthropogenic ac vi es (e.g, PCAs). This data was associated with a groundwater sample from monitoring well MW217 obtained from the shale bedrock at a screened interval depth of 29.26 to 32.31 mbgs where PHC (F3) range hydrocarbons were observed at a concentra on of 1,160 ug/L (duplicate sample 1,690 ug/L) exceeding the Table 1 SCS of 500 ug/L.

o

PAH data from monitoring well MW217, where detected PAH data is a ributed to natural petroleum hydrocarbons in the groundwater.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

60

5.2.2.3

•

PAH data were there is a suspected posi ve bias because of elevated turbidity in the water sample, where the monitoring well screen was posi oned in the low permeability silty clay unit. The ra onale is that the presence of turbidity resulted in soil par cles containing PAH compounds to be incorporated into the water sample thereby ac ng as a source of bias in the quan ﬁca on of dissolved PAHs in the groundwater. The low permeability and ﬁne grain size (silt and clay size par cles) of the screened media limited the ability to remove turbidity even a er well development and low ﬂow sampling methods following Dillon standard well development and sampling protocols were followed. The source of the PAH in the soil par cles is a ributed to either contamina on from higher stra graphic units (such as impacted ﬁll), or from PAHs associated with natural PHCs in the screened strata. Data exclusion only occurred where more mobile COCs associated with the APEC were not detected in the monitoring well (i.e., PAHs with higher solubility and lower K oc), suppor ng the conclusion that the detected PAH levels in the sample were biased high.

•

PCB data for sample MW180 having elevated detec on limits above Table 1 SCS, but below Table 1 SCS in an unﬁltered sample. Ra onale for exclusion is the same as the exclusion explana on for PAH Table 1 SCS exceedances where sample turbidity is an issue. An analy cal result for an ini al sample for PCB at MW131 was also excluded following a resampling event where sample turbidity was reduced via enhanced well purging, and the analy cal results for the repeat sample met Table 1 SCS for PCBs.

Contaminants of Concern The groundwater COCs were iden ﬁed as those chemicals having reported measured maximum concentra ons in groundwater that exceed the Table 1 SCS. The contaminants of concern iden ﬁed considered the following: 1. Any contaminants detected on, in or under the property that exceed the applicable site condi on standard (O.Reg. 153/04 Table 1); and 2. Further considera on of substances detected but, without applicable standards. For those parameters that did not have a Table 1 SCSs, the following condi ons were used to iden fy whether the parameters could be excluded from the ﬁnal list of COCs: 1. The maximum observed concentra on was within the range of 97.5th percen le of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Informa on System (PGMIS) data (MOECC, 2011); 2. The parameter was not found at concentra ons above the laboratory Reported Detec on Limit (RDL), or the detec on limit was elevated from the applica on of laboratory dilu on factors to allow for quan ﬁca on of other parameters and there was a suﬃcient dataset from other loca ons where the detec on limit was not elevated, and the parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the site; 3. The parameter was recognized as having low toxicity because it was an essen al nutrient; or

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

61 4. The parameter was not associated with the historical ac vi es at the site. Based on this evalua on, no addi onal substances were iden ﬁed as a COC. The full dataset is provided in Tables 5.3 to 5.7. All parameters that were detected above Table 1 SCS and parameters where RDLs > Table 1 SCS are presented on summary tables on the ﬁgures that show tes ng results (both plan views and cross-sec ons). For transparency purposes, excluded data is highlighted. Based on the data presented and the assump ons listed above, the following groundwater COCs have been iden ﬁed for the P2ESA Property. For parameters where the maximum concentra on was assigned as the raised detec on limit (applicable for some VOC parameters, where sample dilu on was required for BTEX quan ﬁca on), informa on is also provided in italics on the maximum detected concentra on.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

62

Groundwater Contaminants of Concern Groundwater COC

Maximum Concentra on

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs)

APEC

METALS AND INORGANICS Chloride

1740 mg/L

An mony

6.37 ug/L

Arsenic

44 ug/L

Barium

991 ug/L

Boron

1980 ug/L

Cobalt

4.9 ug/L

Copper

11 ug/L*

Lead

6 ug/L*

Molybdenum

192 ug/L

Nickel

21.5 ug/L

Selenium

13.8 ug/L

Sodium

2290 ug/L

Vanadium

89.8 ug/L

MW84 0.76 to 3.81 MW131 0.91 to 3.96 MW125 0.76 to 3.81 MW89 1.83 to 4.88 MW137 0.91 to 3.96 MW62D 6.1 to 7.62 MW1 (Golder) Interval unknown MW1 (Golder) Interval unknown MW136 0.91 to 3.96 MW110 1.22 to 4.27 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW84 0.76 to 3.81 MW131 0.91 to 3.96

APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a MW20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a

BTEX AND PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Benzene

301 ug/L

Toluene

8.69 ug/L

Ethyl benzene

19 ug/L

PHC(F2)

12 ug/L

PHC(F3)

11.4 ug/L

PHC(F4)

1.7 ug/L

MW145 0.91 to 3.96 MW110 1.22 to 4.27 MW145 0.91 to 3.96 MW25 1.52 to 5.18 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW25 1.52 to 5.18

APEC 20a, 23 APEC 20a APEC 20a, 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS Acenaphthene

146 ug/L

Acenaphthylene

31.9 ug/L

MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

APEC 23 APEC 23

63

Groundwater Contaminants of Concern Groundwater COC

Maximum Concentra on

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs)

3.8 ug/L

MW25 1.52 to 5.18 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96 MW114 0.91 to 3.96

Anthracene Benzo(a)anthracene

73.5 ug/L

Benzo(a)pyrene

52.2 ug/L

Benzo(b)ﬂuoranthene

70.1 ug/L

Benzo(g,h,i)pyrene

25 ug/L

Benzo(k)ﬂuoranthene

29.7 ug/L

Chrysene

64.6 ug/L

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

6.82 ug/L

Fluoranthene

182 ug/L

Fluorene

229 ug/L

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene

29.8 ug/L

Methylnapthalene, 2-(1-)

3070 ug/L

Naphthalene

319 ug/L

Phenanthrene

449 ug/L

Pyrene

204 ug/L

APEC APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23 APEC 23

VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 1,1-dichloroethane

0.66 ug/L

1,2-dichloroethane

0.53 ug/L

Chloroform

<2.3 ug/L 2.2 ug/L

Styrene

1.67 ug/L

Trichloroethene

1.73 ug/L

Vinyl Chloride

1.03 ug/L

MW15 1.52 to 4.57 MW74 2.13 to 5.18 MW74 2.13 to 5.18 MW134 0.76 to 3.81 MW137 0.91 to 3.96 MW16 3.65 to 6.7 MW108 0.91 to 3.96

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

APEC 20a, 30 APEC 35 APEC 35 APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a APEC 20a

64

Groundwater Contaminants of Concern Groundwater COC

Maximum Concentra on

Loca on/Screen Interval (mbgs)

<0.5 ug/L

MW100 1.52 to 4.57

APEC

PCBs PCBs(total)

APEC 20a

* Historical data

Vinyl Chloride and dichloroethene isomers are identified as transformation products present at the Site due to presumed reductive dechlorination of trichloroethene. No other transformation products were noted, or expected based on the COCs identified. 5.2.3

Summary of Contaminants by APEC As noted in Sec on 1.2.3, Contaminants of Concern have been iden ﬁed for each of the APECs. Further to the P2ESA, the following contaminants have been conﬁrmed for each of the remaining open APECs. This informa on is presented along with the media (i.e., soil or groundwater) in the following table. Media Impacted & Identified Contaminants

APEC

20a

Pier 8 Impacted Fill and Port Activities

23

Shed 6 Former Heating Oil UST South Side

25

Shed 6 Former Heating Oil UST NE Corner

26

Shed 6 Former Bulk Storage of Oil Drums

27

Shed 7 Former Petroleum Fuel UST

31

Shed 4 Building

Soil – metals/inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC, PCB Groundwater – metals/inorganics, PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC, PCB Soil – PHC/BTEX, PAH Groundwater – PHC/BTEX, PAH Soil – PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC Groundwater – PHC/BTEX, PAH Soil – PHC/BTEX, PAH Groundwater – PHC/BTEX, PAH Soil – PHC/BTEX, PAH Groundwater – PHC/BTEX Soil – PHC/BTEX, VOC Groundwater – PHC/BTEX

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

65 Media Impacted & Identified Contaminants

APEC

5.3

32

Former Canadian Coast Guard Building and Yard

33

Former Truck Terminal USTs and Associated Fuelling Infrastructure

35a

Brewer Marine - Former operation of a truck maintenance garage

37

Navy League Building Former Heating Oil AST

Soil – PHC/BTEX, VOC Groundwater – PHC/BTEX, PAH, VOC Soil – PHC/BTEX, PAH Groundwater – PHC/BTEX Soil – Inorganics, PHC/BTEX, VOC Groundwater – Inorganics, PHC/BTEX Soil – PHC/BTEX, VOC

Contaminant Understanding 6(x) iii.D: “a description and assessment of what is known about each of the areas referred to in subparagraph A” Please refer to the descrip ons provided in Sec on 1.2.3 for each of the APECs iden ﬁed.

5.4

Contaminant Distribution Figures 6(x) iii.E: “the distribution, in each of the areas referred to in subparagraph A, of each contaminant

present in the area at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition standard, for each medium in which the contaminant is present, together with figures showing the distribution”

Loca ons where COC soil impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted in the a ached ﬁgures as follows: COC / View

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

Metals Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH VOC PCB

Figure 5.1a Figure 5.1b Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5

Figure 7.1a.1, Figure 7.1a.2 Figure 7.1b.1, Figure 7.1b.2 Figure 7.2.1, Figure 7.2.2 Figure 7.3.1, Figure 7.3.2 Figure 7.4.1, Figure 7.4.2 Figure 7.5.1, Figure 7.5.2

Loca ons where PHCs groundwater impacts occur at concentra ons exceeding the Table 1 SCS are depicted in the a ached ﬁgures as follows:

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

66

5.5

COC / View

Plan View

Cross-Sec on View

Metals Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH VOC PCB

Figure 6.1a Figure 6.1b Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5

Figure 8.1a.1, Figure 8.1a.2 Figure 8.1b.1, Figure 8.1b.2 Figure 8.2.1, Figure 8.2.2 Figure 8.3.1, Figure 8.3.2 Figure 8.4.1, Figure 8.4.2 Figure 8.5.1, Figure 8.5.2

Contaminant Understanding 6(x) iii.F: “anything known about the reason for the discharge of the contaminants present on, in or under the phase two property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition standard into the natural environment”

Please refer to Sec on 1.2.2 and Sec on 1.2.3 of this document for a discussion on the historical contaminant releases. 5.6

Migration Pathways 6(x) iii.G: “anything known about migration of the contaminants present on, in or under the phase two property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition standard away from any area of potential” environmental concern, including the identification of any preferential pathways” As noted in Sec on 1.2.4 it is unlikely that contaminant migra on was inﬂuenced by the presence of preferen al pathways related to shallow u li es. It is also noted in Sec on 1.3.2 that seasonally the hydraulic gradient direc ons and magnitude are rela vely consistent, with groundwater ﬂow being directed radially outwards from the center por on of the pier, and the groundwater table ranging in depth from 0.5 to 3 mbgs. Based on this understanding contaminant migra on is described in the following paragraphs.

5.6.1

PAHs, Metals and PCBs Impacts related to the ﬁll at the site (APEC 20a, 20b) (e.g., high molecular weight PHCs, PAHs, PCBs and metals) have low solubility and are not typically mobile under normal circumstances. Migra on of these impacts would be related to the physical reloca on or movement of the ﬁll material.

5.6.2

LNAPL LNAPL is present in the subsurface associated with the former loca on of a buried hea ng oil tank at Shed 6 (APEC 27). The depth of the tank was unknown; however, considering the shallow depth (0.5 to 1.5 m) of groundwater at this APEC, it is an cipated that the tank was par ally submerged below the water table. As such, leaks in the tank or associated piping may have migrated ver cally upwards or downwards to the water table (depending on water table posi on over me and loca on of leak), with some horizontal dispersion during migra on. LNAPL reaching the water table would displace a por on of the groundwater and intermix with the groundwater in the pore space below the water table. In doing

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

67 this, the LNAPL would ‘pancake’ and move radially outwards from the loca on(s) where it reached the water table. Where suﬃcient LNAPL reached the water table, a layer of higher LNAPL satura on would be present. Migra on of LNAPL would then follow the slope of the water table. Water level measurements from the site (Dec, 2014; Oct 2015, March, 2016; November, 2016) show the water table in the vicinity of Shed 6 ﬂuctua ng by approximately 0.5 with hydraulic gradients (i.e., direc on of ﬂow) generally remaining the same. Where LNAPL is present, the ﬂuctua on in the water table creates a “smear zone” where higher satura ons of LNAPL become smeared (crea ng lower satura ons) across the range of depths over which the water table ﬂuctuates, thus further immobilizes a por on of the LNAPL. A shown in Figure 6.2, the area where LNAPL was encountered is “boot” shaped, with the LNAPL extending north from the former tank loca on, and then east parallel to the long axis of Shed 6. This pa ern suggests that LNAPL movement is inﬂuenced by either a change in hydraulic conduc vity of the subsurface material, changes in slope of the water table surface or both. Water table eleva on mapping (Figure 4.2) indicates that the water table surface is not totally ﬂat under Shed 6, as a local depression (eleva on of 74.75 masl) is noted at MW114, which corresponds with the thickest measurement of LNAPL (0.43 m). Borehole records indicate that the LNAPL is within the coarse ﬁll layer containing concrete and large stone, below which is ﬁner grained silt, sand and clay ﬁll. Borehole records to the north of the LNAPL zone show somewhat increased amount of ﬁnes within the ﬁll. These observa ons support the premise that the LNAPL has travelled preferen ally along areas of coarse grained ﬁll. The depression in the water table near MW114 may also be a result of the coarser grained material at the water table level, causing preferen al drainage. 5.6.3

Impacted Water (Dissolved Impacts) The site has a combina on of gravel, sodded and paved surfaces. In paved areas, drainage is controlled by overland ﬂow and the storm sewer system; however, inﬁltra ng precipita on and/or snow melt will migrate through cracks in the paving and leaks in the sewers. Inﬁltra on in gravel and sodded areas will be more direct. Water inﬁltra ng from the surface would percolate downwards un l it reaches the water table which is fairly shallow at the site (0.5 to 2 mbgs, depending upon loca on). Inﬁltrated water coming into contact with impacted soils would in turn become impacted as contaminants in the impacted soil will par ally dissolve into the water depending upon their solubility. Movement of the dissolved phase contaminants will follow the horizontal and ver cal groundwater ﬂow hydraulic gradients. Mapping of these horizontal gradients is shown in Figures 4.1 and Figure 4.2, indica ng a radial outward pa ern from the central NW-SE oriented axis of Pier 8, as well as a northwards hydraulic gradient in the southeast and southwest part of the P2ESA Property. Water levels taken at nested monitoring well loca ons indicate a predominant downward horizontal gradient across the depth of inves ga on (10 to 20 m).

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

68 For this site it is our opinion that suﬃcient data has been collected to a degree suﬃcient to support a risk assessment for the site to conclude that migra on of either dissolved impacts or LNAPL impacts are at a steady state. Further discussion on the ra onale for this opinion is presented below by remaining APEC: ·

APEC 20a (ﬁll – Pier 8 General Area): Impacted ﬁll material in place for over 55 years (north part of Pier 8 constructed in 1960; and ﬁll placed to construct the south part of Pier 8 in the 1800s. Chemical equilibrium between ﬁll contaminants and groundwater would have been reached, and dispersion/advec on processes ac ve during the last 55 years would have allowed the groundwater impacts to reach steady state condi ons. Based on the concentra on levels of contaminants in groundwater (no indica ons of concentra ons greatly higher than solubility limits), no LNAPL/DNAPL sources of either VOC or PHC related contaminants are believed to be present in the ﬁll, other than that associated with APEC 23/26, therefore the source of the contaminants to groundwater would be limited to contaminants adsorbed onto the ﬁll material. Suppor ng the opinion that chemical equilibrium has been reached in the ﬁll, a comparison of water quality results at MW11 and MW16, between the 2014 and 2016 sampling events show similar results.

•

APEC 23 and 26 (LNAPL): Last known use of the source of release (500 gallon hea ng oil UST) is assumed to have been in the early 1990’s at which me the Shed 6 building is believed to have been supplied with natural gas, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that oil release is older than 20 years, and area of LNAPL has stabilized (e.g., not suﬃciently mobile so that it would migrate to areas beyond APEC and/or area of delinea on). Furthermore, LNAPL product recover eﬀorts have occurred in 2016 to the extent prac cal (see Appendix B.4, Risk Assessment for further product recovery details).

·

APEC 25 (Shed 6 Former Hea ng Oil UST NE Corner): It is es mated that tank has not been in use since the 1980s (City of Hamilton, personal communica on). Extrac on of tank in 2015 iden ﬁed it to be extremely corroded sugges ng that any contents would have been discharged years ago, and therefore any releases to the subsurface would not have been recent. Furthermore, no LNAPL was observed, and only residual impacts in soils remain. Groundwater quality samples taken at this APEC indicate only slight exceedances of Table 1 SCS for benzene, ethyl benzene and xylenes, and well within Table 9 SCS, indica ng that only a small and dilute groundwater plume has developed.

•

APEC 27 (Shed 7 Former Petroleum Fuel UST): The tank has been removed (date unknown), and inves ga ons indicated that no LNAPL was present in the subsurface. Therefore, the source of the observed PHC/PAHs in groundwater would be from dissolu on of contaminants that have been adsorbed to the soil matrix. Considering the rela vely low levels of PHC/PAH contaminant in groundwater (Table 1 SCS exceeded, but Table 9 SCS met), the dissolved phase contamina on is deemed to be at steady state condi ons.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

69 •

APEC 31 (Shed 4 Building): Records indicate that the building was last used for a truck terminal in the mid-1990s, and therefore any releases of chemical to the subsurface would have been over 20 years ago. Impacts to groundwater include PHC compounds, however, detected concentra ons are low (marginally above Table 1 SCS and below Table 9 SCS), and therefore the groundwater plume is dilute. Furthermore, soil tests, indicate that the source of the impacts (that are a ributed to this APEC, and not the ﬁll) is shallow and generally within the unsaturated zone (source would be surface spillage during vehicle maintenance), and therefore the contact of the source with groundwater will be limited. Overall, in considera on of these factors, no expansion of the dissolved phase impacts is expected.

•

APEC 32 (Former Canadian Coast Guard Building and Yard): P2ESA results iden ﬁed heavier PHCs (F3 and F4) in shallow soils above the water table (benzene and xylenes were also detected at depth, but are a ributed to the ﬁll, rather than APEC 7). Dilute benzene was detected in the groundwater slightly exceeding Table 1 SCS, but well within Table 9 SCS. No VOCs were detected in either soil or groundwater associated with this APEC. Based on the low levels of PHCs found in the soil and groundwater at this site, no signiﬁcant groundwater plume is deemed to be present, and therefore no expansion of the groundwater plume is expected.

·

APEC 33 (Former Truck Terminal USTs and Associated Fuelling Infrastructure): It is es mated that the tanks were removed when the former truck company vacated the site in the mid1990s, and therefore, the source of the release is at least 20 years old. Ground water hydraulic gradients are deemed to be stable in this area as Pier 8 was expanded 55 years ago, and prior to the construc on of the tanks in 1971. The coarse grained nature of the ﬁll at the posi on of the water table in the area of the tanks would support rela vely high groundwater ﬂuxes that would permit rapid plume stabiliza on once the source of the leaks has been removed. Furthermore, no LNAPL was observed in this area; therefore, all source contaminants to the groundwater would exist as residual adsorbed PHC/PAH to the soil medium, suppor ng a more rapid stabiliza on between contaminants in the soil and groundwater.

·

APEC 35a (Brewer Supply Warehouse - Former Opera on of a Truck Maintenance Garage): This building was once used as a maintenance garage for trucks; however, this ac vity stopped in the mid-1990s. Therefore, the source of the release is at least 20 years old. Ground water hydraulic gradients are deemed to be stable in this area as Pier 8 was expanded 55 years ago, and prior to the opera on of the truck maintenance garage in 1971. The coarse grained nature of the ﬁll at the posi on of the water table in this area would support rela vely high groundwater ﬂuxes that would permit rapid plume stabiliza on. Furthermore, no LNAPL was observed in this area; therefore, all source contaminants to the groundwater would exist as residual adsorbed PHC/PAH to the soil medium, suppor ng a more rapid stabiliza on between contaminants in the soil and groundwater.

•

APEC 37 (Former Hea ng Fuel UST by Navy League Building): The tank has been removed (date unknown), and inves ga ons indicated that no LNAPL was present in the subsurface.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

70 Furthermore, no detectable PHCs were present in the groundwater, and therefore no groundwater plume is evident. Some COC impacts at the site may poten ally be impacted by elevated pH condi ons at some loca ons, as this may aﬀect mobiliza on of some metals species. This is not considered to be a signiﬁcant concern however, since the elevated pH condi ons are likely endemic to the ﬁll and hence do not represent a recent condi on. As such, chemical equilibrium between ﬁll contaminants and groundwater would have been reached, and dispersion/advec on processes ac ve during the last 55 or more years would have allowed any related groundwater impacts to reach steady state condi ons. Further it is noted that elevated pH condi ons in soil only occur sporadically across the Site and average soil pH levels were not elevated. 5.7

Climatic Conditions Influencing Contaminant Distribution 6(x) iii.H: “climatic or meteorological conditions that may have influenced distribution and migration of the contaminants, such as temporal fluctuations in ground water levels” Seasonal ﬂuctua ons of the water table (that occur on a regional level) can also inﬂuence the migra on of dissolved impacts in groundwater; however, based on our observa ons the hydraulic gradients and ﬂow direc ons remain generally consistent during seasonal changes in the depth to groundwater. This conclusion is based on the comparison of water levels taken in December 2014, October, 2015, March, 2016 and November, 2016 showing similar hydraulic gradient direc ons and magnitude.

5.8

Soil Vapour Intrusion 6(x) iii.I:

“if applicable, information concerning soil vapour intrusion of the contaminants into buildings including, 1. relevant construction features of a building, such as a basement or crawl space, 2. building heating, ventilating and air conditioning design and operation, and 3. subsurface utilities”

Currently there are several buildings on the property; and these buildings will be removed prior to development. In order to evaluate if the iden ﬁed impacted soil and groundwater on the Site pose a poten al vapour intrusion concern to occupants of any future buildings (i.e., poten al health concern due to vapour intrusion to indoor air), Dillon conducted a soil vapour assessment program on the Site between December 2016 and January 2017. The soil vapour assessment program included the installa on of 10 vapour probes and three interior vapour pins, and analysis of the collected soil vapour samples for one or more of VOCs, PHC F1-F2 alipha c and aroma c hydrocarbon sub-frac ons, naphthalene, and mercury. The results of the soil vapour sampling program indicated that the measured vapour concentra ons in some areas of the Site may pose unacceptable risks to the residents of the future on-site buildings via vapour intrusion to indoor air. These results were documented in a report en tled ”Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment, Piers 6 to 8, Hamilton, Ontario”, provided in Appendix D of the risk assessment.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

71

6.0

Lateral and Vertical Delineation 6(x) iv. “where contaminants on, in or under the phase two property are present at concentrations greater than the applicable site condition standard, one or more cross-sections showing, A: the lateral and vertical distribution of a contaminant in each area where the contaminants is present at concentrations greater than the applicable site condition standard in soil, ground water and sediment, B: approximate depth to water table in each area referred to in subparagraph A, C: stratigraphy from ground surface to the deepest aquifer or aquitard investigated, and D: any subsurface structures and utilities that may affect contaminant distribution and transport in each area referred to in subparagraph A” The lateral and ver cal delinea on of soil impacts are presented in the a ached ﬁgures as follows. Also presented in the cross-sec on ﬁgures is the relevant stra graphical and hydrogeological informa on. Further informa on is provided in the preceding sec ons. COC / View

Plan View

Cross-Section View

Metals Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH VOC PCB

Figure 5.1a Figure 5.1b Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5

Figure 7.1a.1, Figure 7.1a.2 Figure 7.1b.1, Figure 7.1b.2 Figure 7.2.1, Figure 7.2.2 Figure 7.3.1, Figure 7.3.2 Figure 7.4.1, Figure 7.4.2 Figure 7.5.1, Figure 7.5.2

The lateral and ver cal delinea on of groundwater impacts are presented in the a ached ﬁgures as follows. Also presented in the cross-sec on ﬁgures is the relevant stra graphical and hydrogeological informa on. Further informa on is provided in the preceding sec ons. COC / View

Plan View

Cross-Section View

Metals Inorganics PHC/BTEX PAH VOC PCB

Figure 6.1a Figure 6.1b Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 6.5

Figure 8.1a.1, Figure 8.1a.2 Figure 8.1b.1, Figure 8.1b.2 Figure 8.2.1, Figure 8.2.2 Figure 8.3.1, Figure 8.3.2 Figure 8.4.1, Figure 8.4.2 Figure 8.5.1, Figure 8.5.2

As noted in Sec on 1.2.4 it is unlikely that contaminant migra on was inﬂuenced by the presence of preferen al pathways related to shallow u li es in the unsaturated zone. For transparency and for visualiza on, the loca ons of the u li es are shown in plan view in Figures 6.1 to 6.5 and in crosssec on (Figures B.1a.1 to B.5.2). We have conserva vely assumed, based on the available data, that all ﬁll soil is impacted, and that the underlying aquitard (Halton Till overlying bedrock) is not impacted.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

72

7.0

Conceptual Site Exposure Model 6(x) v. A: B: C: D: E:

“for each areas where a contaminant is present on, in or under the property at a concentration greater than the applicable site condition standard for the contaminant, a diagram identifying, with narrative explanatory notes, the release mechanisms, contaminant transport pathway, the human and ecological receptors located on, in or under the phase two property, receptor exposure points, and routes of exposure.

Diagrams depic ng the Conceptual Site Exposure Model (CSEM) for the Site are provided in the a ached ﬁgures as follows: • • • • • ·

8.0

Figure 9.1 (human receptors – without risk management), Figure 9.2 (human receptors – with risk management), Figure 9.3 (terrestrial ecological receptors – without risk management), Figure 9.4 (terrestrial ecological receptors – with risk management), Figure 9.5 (aqua c ecological receptors – without risk management), and Figure 9.6 (aqua c ecological receptors – with risk management).

Summary and Conclusions This appendix has presented the P2CSM for the Site, per the requirements of Sec on 43 of Schedule E of the Regula on, and also in accordance with Item 6(x) of Table 1 of Schedule E of the Regula on. Addi onal details used to prepare this P2CSM are available in the companion documents as listed in the references (Sec on 9) and as cited throughout the text.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

73

9.0

Limitations This report was prepared exclusively for the purposes, project and site loca on(s) outlined in the report. The report is based on informa on provided to, or obtained by Dillon Consul ng Limited ("Dillon") as indicated in the report, and applies solely to site condi ons exis ng at the me of the site inves ga on. Although Dillon conducted a reasonable inves ga on, the inves ga on was by no means exhaus ve and cannot be construed as a cer ﬁca on of the absence of any contaminants from the site. Rather, Dillon's report represents a reasonable review of available informa on within an agreed work scope, schedule and budget. It is therefore possible that currently unrecognized contamina on or poten ally hazardous materials may exist at the site, and that the levels of contamina on or hazardous materials may vary across the site. Further review and upda ng of the report may be required as local and site condi ons, and the regulatory and planning frameworks, change over me. This report was prepared by Dillon for the sole beneﬁt of our client, Hamilton Waterfront Trust and the City of Hamilton. The material in the report reﬂects Dillon's judgment in light of the informa on available to Dillon at the me of prepara on. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibili es of such third par es. Dillon accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suﬀered by any third party as a result of decisions made based on this report. Respec ully submi ed, DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED

Darin Burr, M.Sc., P.Geo. Qualiﬁed Person (Environmental Site Assessment)

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

References Bosazza, V.L., 1940. Occurrence of Vanadium and Molybdenum in clays. Nature, 146:746. Bourry, J., 1926. A Trea se on the Ceramic Industry. Callister, R. C., 1924. Bulle n 27, Inst. Sci. Ind. Australia. Chapman and Putnam, 1984, The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edi on, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2013, Records Review, Hamilton West Harbour, Piers 5 to 8, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report, June 2013 Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2015, Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, Piers 5 to 8 and Bayview Park, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report, 2015 Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2015, Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Piers 5 to 8 and Bayview Park, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report, 2015 Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2016, Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario, Final Report, April, 2016. Dillon Consul ng Limited, 2017, Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment Addendum Report, Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario, May, 2017. Ecoplans Ltd., 2002. Contaminant Inves ga on, Guise Street and Harbour Patrol Access Road, Hamilton, ON. November, 2002. Fisher Archaeological Consul ng, 2013, West Harbour Piers 5 to 8, Pumping Sta on and Forcemain(s), Environmental Assessment, City of Hamilton, Ontario, Stage 1 Background Study, Final Report, November 22, 2013. G2S Environmental Consul ng Inc. 2010. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, ON. July 10, 2000. Golder Associates Ltd. 2000. Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment and Geotechnical Inves ga on, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Hamilton, ON. June, 2000.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

ii Golder, 2014. Geological Controls on Geochemistry and Disposal of Excess Soil from Construc on, CSCE, 2014 Presenta on Guillet, G.R., 1967. The clay products industry of Ontario. Ontario Department of Mines. Industrial Mineral Report 22. Karrow, 1987, Quaternary Geology of the Hamilton Area, Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Map 2509, Quaternary Geology Series, scale 1:50,000. King, R.U., Shawe, D.R., MacKeve Jr. E.M., 1973. United States Mineral Resources Molybdenum. Department of the Interior. Geological Survey Professional Paper Issue 820. MHBC, 2013, Heritage Impact Assessment, West Harbour Pumping Sta on, Hamilton, Ontario, December, 2013. Ministry of Environment (MOE, 2011). Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protec on Act, PIBS #7382e01, May 15, 2011. Ministry of Environment (MOE, 2011). Ra onal for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario, PIBS #7386e01, April 15, 2011. Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE, 1993). Ontario Typical Range of Chemical Parameters in Soil, Vegeta on, Moss Bags and Snow, December, 1993. Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR, 2013). Natural Heritage Informa on Centre, Biodiversity Explorer from h p://nhic.mnr.gov.on.ca, retrieved on May 31, 2013. Na onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra on – Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory from h p://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/wlevels/#observa ons Natural Resources Canada, 1989. Centre for Topographic Resources Canada, Na onal Topographic System, Series A751, Map 30/M5, Edi on 10 MCE, 1989. Ontario Division of Mines, 1964. Map 2034, Hamilton Area, Bedrock Topography, 1964. Ontario Division of Mines, 1976. Map 2336, Hamilton, Paleozoic Geology 1976. Ontario Geologic Survey (OGS, 1987). Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Map 2509 (revised), Hamilton Area, 1987.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

iii Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1993. Geo-Environmental Inves ga on, Baseline Geo-Environmental Assessment, Pier 8, Hamilton, ON. May, 1993. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1995. Geo-Environmental Inves ga on, Pier 8, Baseline Environmental Assessment, Hamilton, ON. July, 1995. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 1996. Geo-Environmental Reassessment, Pier 8 – West Por on, Hamilton, ON. July, 1996. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 2009a. Geotechnical Inves ga on, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Discovery Drive, Hamilton, ON. April, 2009. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 2009b. GeoEnvironmental Inves ga on, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, 47 Discovery Drive, Hamilton, ON. April, 2009. Peto MacCallum Ltd. 2009c. GeoEnvironmental Consulta ons, Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, 47 Discovery Drive, Hamilton, ON. August, 2009. Rutka, M.A. and Vos, M.A. 1993. The clay products industry and shale resources in Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5842, 66p. Terraprobe, 2001. Subsurface Inves ga on, Pier 8 – Discovery Centre, Hamilton, ON. December 10, 2001. Terraprobe, 2016. Geotechnical Inves ga on, West Harbour Pumping Sta on and Associated Works, Hamilton, Ontario, Dra Report. November 11, 2016. Thurber Engineering Ltd., 2002. Geotechnical Inves ga on, Proposed Watermain and Sewer Installa on, Harbour Patrol Access (Pier 8) Road, Hamilton, Ontario. November, 2002. XCG, 2003. Site-Speciﬁc Risk Assessment (Revised Final), Pier 8, Hamilton Harbour, Hamilton, Ontario. February 14, 2003. XCG, 2009. Groundwater Sampling Results for Parks Canada Discovery Centre, 57 Discovery Drive, Hamilton, Ontario. September 29, 2009.

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - Phase Two Conceptual Site Model June 2017 – 16-3774

Pier 8, Hamilton, Ontario - City of Hamilton

Recommend Documents