Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited - Caledon · PDF fileCanadian Tire Real Estate Limited ....

Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited Hydrogeological Assessment

Type of Document Final Project Name 13074, 13218, 13226, 13240, 13262 and 13304 Coleraine Drive, Bolton ON

Project Number BRM-00011787-A0

Prepared By:

exp 1595 Clark Boulevard Brampton, ON L6T 4V1 Canada

Date: October 18, 2012

Hydrogeological Assessment - Final BRM-00011787-A0

October 18, 2012

i

Table of Contents Table of Contents i

List of Figures ii

List of Tables ii

List of Appendices ii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Study Objective ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Previous Studies ................................................................................................................. 2

2 Background 5

2.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Site Setting .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.1 Physiography ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2 Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology .................................................................... 6 2.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology ............................................................................ 6

2.2.4.1 Site Geology ........................................................................................ 6 2.2.4.2 Site Hydrogeology ........................................................................... 7

3. Methodology 9

3.1 Installation of Monitoring Wells ........................................................................................... 9

3.2 Groundwater Level Monitoring .......................................................................................... 10

3.3 Well Testing and Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil formations.............................................. 10

3.4 Existing Water Well Survey ............................................................................................... 11

3.5 Door-to-Door Residential Well Survey .............................................................................. 11

3.6 Groundwater Chemistry .................................................................................................... 12

3.7 On-site Drainage Features ................................................................................................ 13

4. Impact Assessment 14

4.1 Impact on Existing Water Users ........................................................................................ 14

4.2 Response to TRCA Comments ......................................................................................... 14

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 15

5.1 Summary of Impact Assessment ...................................................................................... 15

6. Limitations 16


October 18, 2012

ii

List of Figures Figure 1 Site Location Plan

Figure 1A Overall Proposed Site Plan

Figure 2 MOE Water Well Location Map

Figure 3 & 3A Borehole/Monitoring Well Location Plan

Figure 4 Groundwater Contour Map

Figure 5 Cross Section A-A‟

Figure 6 Cross Section B-B‟

Figure 7 Cross Section C-C‟

List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Monitoring Well Details

Table 2: Summary of SWR results

Table 3: Summary of Surface Water Flow Measurements

List of Appendices Appendix A: MOE Water Well Records

Appendix B: Borehole Logs

Appendix C: Groundwater Level Monitoring & Water Flow Measurements

Appendix D: SWRT Procedures

Appendix E: SWRT Analysis

Appendix F: Residential Well Inventory

Appendix G: Residential Well Survey Documentation

Appendix H: Laboratory Certificates of Analysis


October 18, 2012

1

1 Introduction Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited (CTRE) retained exp Services Inc (exp), the new identity of Trow Associates Inc. to conduct a Hydrogeological Assessment in support of a Town of Caledon Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment application required to proceed with proposed development at 13074, 13218, 13226, 13240, 13262 and 13304 Coleraine Drive in Bolton, Town of Caledon, Ontario, hereinafter referred to as the „Site‟.

The study area is bound by Coleraine Drive to the north, Healey Road to the southeast, agricultural land to the south and industrial development to the northwest. The Site consists of six properties (13074, 13218, 13226, 13240, 13262 and 13304 Coleraine Drive). The total land area is approximately 73.14 ha as shown on Figure 1. The proposed site plan is provided on Figure 1A.

1.1 Study Objective

The current Hydrogeological Assessment was conducted in support of a Town of Caledon Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment application required to proceed with proposed development of the Site.

The objectives of the Hydrogeological Assessment are to confirm:

that the development will not cause groundwater quality deterioration which may affect the potability of the groundwater resources;

that the development will not impact the quantity of groundwater or lower groundwater levels such that unacceptable impacts on the local groundwater table and groundwater availability in existing wells occur; and

that appropriate measures are in place to eliminate any potential impacts on the water supply aquifer system and water supply wells in the vicinity of the development.

1.2 Scope of Work

The scope of work for the Hydrogeological Assessment includes the following:

Collecting and review available information including geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological information for the Site. Information reviewed included data from the Ontario Geological Survey, Ministry of the Environment Water Well records, existing geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological reports in the project area, and information on existing on-site monitoring wells;

Installing three shallow piezometer nest and surface water gauging stations at a selected location to quantify and assess the groundwater / surface water interaction at the Site;

Completing an elevation survey of the monitoring points installed at the Site; Conducting two rounds of water level monitoring at the Site, including any existing groundwater monitoring

wells; Conducting Single Well Response Tests (SWRT) on five (5) monitoring wells to characterize the local

groundwater flow system at the Site; and, Collecting a set of groundwater samples from a selected monitoring well and analyze at a accredited chemical

laboratory.


October 18, 2012

2

1.3 Previous Studies

The following reports pertaining to the Site were prepared prior to the current Hydrogeological Assessment:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 13304 Coleraine Drive property (V. A. Woods Associates Limited, 2007)

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 13074 Colerain Drive property (Trow Associates Inc., 2008) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Distribution Centre, 13074 & 13304 Coleraine Drive,

Bolton, Ontario (Malroz Engineering Inc., December, 2010) Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Distribution Centre, 13074 & 13304 Coleraine Drive,

Bolton, Ontario (Malroz Engineering Inc., December, 2010) Geotechnical Investigation,13304 Coleraine Drive property (V. A. Woods Associates Limited, 2007) Geotechnical Investigation, 13074 Colerain Drive property (V. A. Woods Associates Limited, 2008) Bolton,

Ontario (Malroz Engineering Inc., November, 2010) Comprehensive Environmental Impact Study and Management Plan for the South Albion – Bolton Community

Plan, Phase 3 Report (Aquafor Beach Limited, 21 June, 2012)

A summary of the findings from the reports are provided below:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (V. A. Woods Associates Limited, 2007)

The Phase I ESA was conducted for a 26 hectare section of the Site. A century old stone house was documented at the property and the rest of the site was occupied by an open field.

Following potential environmental impacts at the Site were identified:

an aboveground heating oil storage tank identified in the basement of the house that was reportedly in poor condition;

asbestos suspected to be present in the hot water insulation of the house, and potentially present in old tiles floors; and

lead based paint potentially present in the house.

This report recommended that that the septic system used by the house should be decommissioned during development of the property.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Trow Associates Inc., 2008)

The Phase I ESA was conducted for a 46.6 hectare section of Site. During the study, a house, two agricultural buildings and a commercial building were documented. The land use was identified as commercial and agricultural.

Following potential environmental impacts at the Site were identified:

a stockpile of fill that was reportedly clean fill imported from various locations over time; surficial staining on the ground surface in the vicinity of the garage; an aboveground heating oil storage tank identified in the basement of the house that was reportedly in good

condition; and building materials that could possibly contain designated substances such as mercury, lead, asbestos, etc.


October 18, 2012

3

Geotechnical Investigation (V. A. Woods Associates Limited, 2007)

The geotechnical investigation was conducted for a proposed industrial development 26 ha section of the Site.

Twenty six (26) boreholes were drilled and soil samples were collected for testing. The dominant soil types encountered during drilling are clay and silt mixed topsoil with organics and clayey silt till. The water table was documented at 3.2 m below grade in most locations. The hydraulic conductivity of the site was estimated between 1x10-5 cm/s and 1x10-6 cm/s.

Borehole locations illustrated on Figure 3A.

Geotechnical Investigation (V. A. Woods Associates Limited, 2008)

This geotechnical investigation was conducted for a proposed industrial development on a 46 hectare section of the Site. Buildings identified at the Site included a warehouse and a derelict barn.

Eighty one (81) boreholes were drilled and soil samples were collected for testing. The dominant soil types encountered during drilling are top soil, silty clay, and glacial till. The groundwater table was considered to be approximately 3 metres below grade.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Distribution Centre, 13074 & 13304 Coleraine Drive, Bolton, Ontario (Malroz Engineering Inc., 2010)

Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz) conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of two adjacent properties, located at 13074 and 13304 Coleraine Drive in Bolton, Ontario. A garage associated with International Paving and Contracting Co. Ltd. was observed on a portion of the east lot. Storage of fill materials and debris were observed in the areas surrounding the garage.

Based on the observation of debris, a heating oil AST in poor condition, fill of unknown source and condition, and the presence of a garage on the subject site a Phase II ESA is recommended. The purpose of the concurrent Phase II ESA is to address these concerns.

Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Distribution Centre, 13074 & 13304 Coleraine Drive, Bolton, Ontario (Malroz Engineering Inc., 2010)

Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz) conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) program on behalf of Zelinka Priamo Ltd (Zelinka) at the proposed location of a distribution centre consisting of two properties located at 13074 and 13304 Coleraine Drive in Bolton, Ontario.

Borehole and monitoring well locations are illustrated on Figure 3.

At the time of the investigation, the site comprised of a house and an open field on the west lot (13304 Coleraine Drive) and a garage and an open field on the east lot (13074 Coleraine Drive).

Geology observed by Malroz consisted of 0.2 to 0.9 metres of fill or topsoil, underlain by a fine-grained till generally consisting of a poorly sorted clay and silt diamicton (till).


October 18, 2012

4

The Malroz Phase II ESA documents soil conditions at the Site that exceed the referenced Ontario Site Condition Standards. Exceedances were not documented in groundwater samples.

Conclusions and recommendations:

consideration should be given to additional investigation and/or remediation of the areas where soil exceedances were identified;

the debris areas identified at the site also pose potential environmental liabilities and should be removed; and deeper monitoring wells be installed to assess the shallow groundwater aquifer in order to further establish

baseline environmental conditions and evaluate for potential on-site contamination from off-site sources. Comprehensive Environmental Impact Study and Management Plan for the South Albion – Bolton Community Plan, Phase 3 Report (Aquafor Beach Limited); 21 June, 2012

The Phase 3 report reviews the results of the Phase 1 and 2 reports and develops implementation recommendations to guide future work by the Town of Caledon and development proponents. A portion of the study area for this report includes properties studied under the current hydrogeological investigation.

The report identifies that surface soils in the area are tight with thickness being more than 15 m, regionally. The hydraulic conductivity is in the order of 10-8 m/s for the Halton Till, and, as such, no significant groundwater recharge is expected.

The report mentions an observation of an upward groundwater gradient at one piezometer near the southernmost Clarkway Tributary, suggesting some groundwater discharge at Mayfield Road.

The results of the water balance analysis carried out by Aquafor Beach suggest that, “almost 70% of annual precipitation is lost as evapo-transpiration. The remainder (249 mm/y) is partitioned as 80 mm/y infiltration in the employment lands and 100 mm/year infiltration in the north hill area. Runoff depth is approximately double that of infiltration.”

For the 5 mm retention of stormwater runoff, the report suggests a combination of infiltration; re-use of evapo-transpiration and runoff, with reference to the Low Impact development (LID) Stormwater management Planning and Design Guide.


October 18, 2012

5

2 Background

2.1 Project Description

The proposed development will include a single industrial building and several other buildings, grading, paving and storm water management facilities (Figure 1 A).

2.2 Site Setting

2.2.1 Physiography

The Bolton area is located in the physiographic region known as the South Slope, which extends from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges Moraine. The South slope includes the southern slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine and it occupies a part south of the Peel plains (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The area is characterized by undulating tracts of land faintly drumlinized. The South Slope deposits typically consist of and silt and clay and are primarily surficial soils.

The Site is located within the Humber River Watershed. The Humber River is located approximately 1.5 kilometers north of the Site (Figure 1). The Site slopes to the southeast. The eastern portion of the Site near the Coleraine Drive and Healey Road intersection slopes to south, towards the creek.

The Site is undulating and generally has a gentle downward slope to the east, with localized drainage toward the two creeks that run within the Site. The elevation of the Site ranges between 250 m and 260 m above sea level. The slope of the Site is generally less than 1 percent.

2.2.2 Surface Water Resources

Surface water is delivered to the subject lands by two drainage features:

Westerly Drainage Feature: obtain water from a 12" culvert draining a SWM facility and a 48" culvert which appears to convey water under the parking surface from lands further north (Figures 2 and 3).

Easterly Drainage Feature: Flows from the east are delivered a road side ditch on the west side of Coleraine Drive and two outlets which drain lands east of Coleraine Drive (Figures 2 and 3).

The northerly inlet of the eastern drainage feature drains the east road side ditch and overland flow from a small SWM pond. The southerly inlet drains from the SWM pond and possibly other drainage from the developed lands to the east.

These two drainage features converge on the southeast side of the Site just before crossing Healey Road.

Both drainage features reports for the Clarkway Tributary, which is a tributary of the Humber River Watershed. Chanel sections within the site, both of these drainage channels are seasonal. Downstream of Healey Road appeared to be a permanent stream.

Water flow measurements were taken as part of the Water Resources Study Program.


October 18, 2012

6

There are drainage features running along Healey Road as well as Coleraine Drive. These drainage features are dry in general and water is available only during and after rain events.

The Humber River is located approximately 1.5 km north of the Site.

2.2.3 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology

The Bolton area lies approximately 2.0 km south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). ORM sediments occur as channel deposits within the Newmarket or Northern Till.

The silty sand/sandy silt layers located within the subject area are influenced by an aquifer system known as the Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer Complex (ORAC). The sediments in the ORAC aquifer generally consist of silty fine sand and fine sand and can occur at various depths.

The upper till layer (Halton till) acts as a weak to moderate confining layer in the area.

The overburden soil strata are underlain by bedrock belonging to the Upper Ordovician Georgian Bay Formation. The bedrock consists of shale with inter-bedded limestone. Based on the data collected from the MOE Water Well records in the adjacent areas, the bedrock surface is expected to be located at depths greater than 50 mbgs (Appendix A).

The sand layers found below approximately 50 m can be considered to be part of the deeper aquifer system in the area.

Based on the Site topography and the measured groundwater levels, the anticipated regional groundwater flow direction across the Site is to southeast, towards Lake Ontario.

2.2.4 Site Geology and Hydrogeology

2.2.4.1 Site Geology

The Ontario Division of Mines (1976) has historically differentiated a localized area around the Site as silt-rich Wildfield Till, which is similar in composition, and is considered by some researchers to be part of the Halton Till unit (OGS, 2009).

As part of a Phase II ESA completed by Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz, December 17, 2010), nineteen (19) boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from approximately 6.1 m to 12.2 m below ground surface (mbgs). Nine (9) of the boreholes were instrumented with groundwater monitoring wells. The borehole/monitoring well locations are shown on Figure 3. The main overburden soil type encountered during drilling was clay and silt till.

A layer of fill material was encountered at four locations (BH101, BH103, BH104 and BH108) from the surface to a maximum depth of 0.91 mbgs. Topsoil was documented at fourteen locations (BH102, BH105, BH106, BH107, BH108, BH109, BH110, BH111, BH112, BH113, BH116, BH117, BH118 and BH119) from the surface to approximately 0.76 mbgs (Figures 3 and 3A).


October 18, 2012

7

No bedrock was encountered during borehole investigation carried out at the Site. Based on the data collected from the MOE Water Well records in the adjacent areas, the bedrock surface is expected to be located at depths greater than 50 mbgs (Appendix A).

2.2.4.2 Site Hydrogeology

There are three water-bearing units across the Site.

Shallow water-bearing unit: This overburden water bearing unit extends to approximately 10 mbgs Intermediate overburden water-bearing unit: this overburden unit is encountered at depths deeper than

approximately 15 m to 20 m below ground surface and extends to a depth of approximately 50 mbgs Deep Aquifer Unit: Bedrock and deep overburden water bearing unit found at depths deeper than

approximately 50 mbgs Shallow Water Bearing Unit: The discontinuous thin sandy/gravelly beds within the till formation form the shallow groundwater unit in the area. This shallow overburden unit extends to depths approximately 10 meters below the ground surface.

During the monitoring period, the water level (SWL) at the shallow piezometers at the creek banks varied between 0.5 m and 1.05 m below ground surface. These water levels are subjected to short term fluctuations due to rain events and long term changes due seasonal groundwater level variations. The measured static water levels can be considered as representative of the SWL of time of measurement.

All nine (9) on-site groundwater monitoring wells are installed in the shallow water bearing units (clay and silt till layers). Based on the water level monitoring carried out at the on-Site monitoring wells, the static water level across the Site varies from 1.3 to 5.3 mbgs.

Single Well Response Testing (SWRT) results carried out at the Site show that the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the clayey silt to silty clay formation (to a depth of 6 m below grade) varies between 3 x 10 -7 m/s to 4 x 10-8 m/s. The variation of the K value is expected to be reflective of the varying amounts of thin sand and gravel layers within the till formation. The mean (Geometric) hydraulic conductivity of the till formation to a depth of 6 m below grade of the entire Site can be estimated at 8.6 x 10-8 m/s.

The shallow groundwater flow direction across the Site varies from southeast to southwest as indicated on the Groundwater Contour Map (Figure 4). The groundwater gradient close to the northwest boundary of the Site is greater than the groundwater gradient towards the south west part of the Site.

The average gradient of the shallow overburden unit was estimated between 0.01 and 0.03. Assuming the effective porosity of the till formation 0.35, the ground water flow rate across the Site was estimated between 1 to 3 meters a year.

The shallow over bearing unit represents the local groundwater flow system in the area.


October 18, 2012

8

Intermediate Water-Bearing Unit: This intermediate overburden aquifer consists of sand and gravel formations. This aquifer is found at depths deeper than approximately 15 to 20 m from the existing ground surface and extends to depths of approximately 50 mbgs. This aquifer unit is used as the main water supply aquifer in the local residential water wells.

Given the low conductive clay and silty clay/clayey silt at shallow depths (as indicated on the Cross Sections on Figure 5, 6 and 7), no hydraulic connection is expected between the shallow water-bearing unit and overburden or bedrock aquifer system in the area.

Deep Water-Bearing Unit: There is a bedrock aquifer consisting of fractured/weathered shale. Several wells in the area are screened in this formation. These wells are generally deeper than 50 m. These wells draw water within approximately 5 m to 10 m from the bedrock surface. The bedrock aquifer behaves as a confined aquifer due to the effect of the thick clay or clayey silt to silty clay till layer.

The sand layers found below approximately 50 m can also be considered to be a part of the deeper aquifer unit in the area. The information provided in the MOE water well records indicate that deeper aquifer unit is under confined conditions. Due to the presence of low to moderately conductive clay and silty clay at various depths between 10 m and 50 m below ground surface, no hydraulic connection is expected between shallow/intermediate and deep aquifers in the study area.

The anticipated regional groundwater flow direction across the Site is to southeast, towards Lake Ontario.


October 18, 2012

9

3. Methodology

3.1 Installation of Monitoring Wells

As a part of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment completed by Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz, December 17, 2010), nineteen (19) boreholes (BH101 – BH119) were advanced between November 2 and November 9, 2010. Nine (9) of the boreholes were equipped with monitoring wells within the Site. Details on the monitoring wells are provided on the borehole logs in Appendix B.

In addition to the monitoring wells installed as part of the Malroz scope of work, exp installed six (6) shallow piezometers (P-101 to P-106). The piezometers were hand-augured between depths of 0.63 and 1.50 mbgs in order to assess the surface water conditions. Three (3) locations were chosen and two (2) piezometers were installed in each location as indicated on Figure 3.

A summary of the monitoring well details is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of Monitoring Well Details

Well No. MW Depth

(mbgs) Diameter

(mm) Screen Interval

(mbgs) Screened Formation/Remarks

MW101 6.00 100 3.0-6.0 Clay and Silt Till/shallow water bearing unit









P-101 1.05 30 0.9-1.05 Clay and Silt Till/shallow water bearing unit







October 18, 2012

10

3.2 Groundwater Level Monitoring

As a part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment completed by Malroz Engineering Inc. (Malroz, December 17, 2010), water levels were measured on completion of borehole drilling/installation of monitoring wells. Two additional rounds of groundwater level monitoring were carried out during exp’s Hydrogeological Assessment. The first round of water levels was measured prior to conducting single-well response tests (SWRTs) on March 8 and 9, 2011. The second round of water level monitoring was conducted on March 28, 2011.

Exp completed an elevation survey of the piezometers and correlated the values to a previous elevation survey completed for the existing monitoring wells (during the Phase II ESA by Malroz). The results of the groundwater level monitoring activities and survey are provided in Table C-1 (Appendix C). Figure 4 shows the groundwater elevations as well as groundwater contours across the Site.

3.3 Well Testing and Hydraulic Conductivity of Soil formations

On March 8 and 9, 2011 Single Well Response Tests (SWRT) were performed on five (5) monitoring wells: MW105, MW108, MW114, MW115 and MW117 to estimate the hydraulic conductivity of the soil formations.

The static water levels of the wells were measured prior to the start of the test. At the start of the test, a „slug‟ was introduced into the well instantaneously. Groundwater level monitoring began immediately after introducing the slug into the well, and continued until the water level had dropped by at least 90%. Water levels were initially recorded at approximately 30 second intervals during the first minute of the test and measured at increasing intervals after one minute. A complete description of exp‟s SWRT procedures is included in Appendix D.

Hydraulic conductivity values were calculated from the SWRT data as per the Hvorslev‟s solution included in the Aquifer Test V.4 software package. Field data collected during the SWRT and semi-log plots for drawdown versus time are included in Appendix E.

A summary of the hydraulic conductivity values estimated from the SWRTs is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Summary of SWRT Results

Monitoring Well No

Well Depth (mbgs)

Screened Interval (mbgs)

Formation Screened Hydraulic

Conductivity (m/s)

MW105 6.10 3.0-6.1 Clay and Silt Till 7.59 x 10-7





As shown in Table 2, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity estimated for clay and silt till is between 3.20 x 10 -8 m/s and 7.59 x 10-7 m/s. The average (geometric) hydraulic conductivity for the Site is 1.4 x 10-7 m/s.


October 18, 2012

11

The SWRTs provide an estimate of the hydraulic conductivity of the geological formation in the immediate area around the well screens.

3.4 Existing Water Well Survey

MOE Water Well records of the existing water wells in the area were collected during the Hydrogeological Assessment. Twenty-two (22) residential water wells were identified within 500 m of the Site in the MOE Water Well database (Appendix A).

All the wells within 500 m of the Site draw water from overburden aquifers at depths ranging between 15.2 mbgs and 134 mbgs. The approximate well locations are shown on Figure 2.

The reported “water found” depths during drilling of these wells vary from 6.1 m to 71.9 mbgs. Tables A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A provide details of the water wells located within 500 m of the Site.

3.5 Door-to-Door Residential Well Survey

As part of the Region of Peel Guidelines for Hydrogeologic Assessment and Reporting Requirements, a private well survey is required within the greater of:

1. Estimated zone of influence (ZOI) of the development; or,

2. Within 500 meters of the development boundaries.

For the purposes of this survey, residential homes within 500 meters of the development boundary were solicited. On April 7, 2011 a representative of exp conducted a well survey at 20 residences. Authorization to view each well was granted via a conversation with the owner of each home. The purpose of the survey was to obtain information regarding the wells such as well construction details, historical water quality or quantity issues, the presence of any water treatment apparatus, and the use of water filters or softeners.

The residents were presented with the following:

a letter outlining the details of the water well monitoring program;

a brief description of exp’s field procedure for well monitoring; and

contact information for exp personnel involved in the well monitoring program.

In cases where the resident was not available, a package including the documentation mentioned above was left in the resident‟s mailbox. Of the twenty (20) homes visited, packages were left at ten (10) homes.

A table summarizing the details of the remaining 10 homes visited is attached to the report as Table F-1 (Appendix F). The documents included in the package are provided in Appendix G.

Of these, two (2) homes are currently serviced by groundwater wells.


October 18, 2012

12

3.6 Groundwater Chemistry

On March 14, 2011, a groundwater sample was collected from monitoring well MW114, which is screened in the clay and silt till. The objective of the sampling was to determine the general groundwater quality of the project area. The analysis will assist in determining if a detailed groundwater sampling program should be undertaken during the detailed design stage of the project. Groundwater quality results obtained from this single sample should not be considered representative of the whole Site.

Prior to collecting the sample, three well volumes were purged from monitoring well BH10 to remove stagnant water in the well. Well volume is defined the volume of water above the top of the well screen. Well volume was calculated from the static water level and the elevation of the top of the well screen. Collected groundwater samples were temporarily stored in a cooler, and transported to the laboratory on the same day under chain of custody documentation.

The collected water samples were tested for parameters included in the Region of Peel Storm Sewer Use By-Law 53-2010 analysis package to determine water quality, should dewatering be required to complete the proposed construction of the project.

The groundwater results for Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) and Total Suspended Solids were detected at levels above their respective Sewer Use By-Law criteria guidelines.

A value of 7 mg/L was reported for TKN and a value of 1,100 mg/L for TSS which is above the Peel Storm Sewer Use By-Law guidelines of 1 mg/L and 15 mg/L, respectively. All of the remaining analyzed parameters were below their respective Limit for Sanitary Sewer Discharge.

Laboratory certificates of analysis are included in Appendix H.


October 18, 2012

13

3.7 On-site Drainage Features

There are two drainage features on-Site that converge at the southeast portion of the Site before crossing Healey Road. On March 28 and April 7, 2011 surface water flow measurements were taken at various locations.

Table 3 shows the flow measurement details.

Table 3: Summary of Surface Water Flow Measurements

Date Measured

P101/P102 P103/P104 P105/P106 Total Inflow

Total Out-flow Remarks

m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h m3/h

28-Mar-11 30.74 1.3

(partially frozen)

frozen na 30.4 High flow rates at out let (P101/102) is due to snow melting

7-Apr-11 12.3 9.8 4.0 13.8 12.5

6-May-11 16.4 5.8 6.5 12.3 12.5 Raining, direct surface water inflow to the tributaries expected

Both channels are between 0.05 m and 0.11 m deep. Given that a thick clay bed is present at depths greater than approximately 10 mbgs it is expected that these two drainage features are recharged by shallow water bearing unit during shorter periods of time. The main water supply aquifer in the area does not discharge into these two drainage features.

Surface flow due to snow melting and precipitation was observed during measurements on March 28 th and May 6th appears to have caused higher surface water flows at downstream location. On-site drainage features demonstrate short term gaining features based on the variations of surface water inflow to the drainage features.

Depending on the locations and design of the underground services at the Site, during the construction phase of the project, there can be a temporary impact on the water budget of the two drainage features. Given that the expected construction dewatering rates are low to moderate, the temporary effects on the drainage feature water budget is expected to be minor.

More details on surface water resources are included in the exp „Water Resources Study Report‟ (November 27, 2011).


October 18, 2012

14

4. Impact Assessment

4.1 Impact on Existing Water Users

Detailed drawings of the proposed structures are not available at this stage. However, based on the information provided in the existing reports, the proposed development consists of a single industrial building and several other buildings, grading, paving and storm water management facilities. The underground services and excavations are not expected to exceed a depth of 5 meters below existing grade.

Given that the hydraulic conductivity of the near surface geologic material is low to moderate and the required groundwater level decrease and is around 4 meters, the temporary dewatering requirements are expected to be low to moderate.

Approximately twenty two (22) wells are located within 500 m of the proposed Site (Figure 2). Thirteen of these wells are screened in the overburden and depths ranges between 15.2 m and 67.1 m below ground surface. The remaining six (9) wells are screened in shale or limestone bedrock. Depth of the bedrock wells range from approximately 45 to 134 m.

Well details provided in the MOE Water Well Database suggest that, the main overburden aquifer in the area is sand and gravel aquifer present at depths more than 20 m below grade, which is identified as the intermediate water bearing unit in this report. Thick clay bed is present above the intermediate water bearing unit separates the main water supply aquifer (intermediate water bearing unit) from the shallow (near surface) water bearing unit.

Potential construction dewatering activities at the Site will be in the near surface water bearing formation. The fractured bedrock aquifer (deep water bearing unit) is located at depths more than 50 m below ground surface. The bedrock aquifer is expected to be independent of shallow water bearing unit. Therefore no significant effect is expected during project construction on intermediate or deep water bearing units.

Based on the proposed development, site geology and hydrogeology documented at the Site, the potential for regional groundwater quality impacts which may affect the potability of the groundwater resources is insignificant.

4.2 Response to TRCA Comments

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) reviewed the Draft Hydrogeological Assessment Report and provided some comments that are addressed in the final report (This report). Responses to the TRCA comments on the draft hydrogeological assessment report have been incorporated throughout this report.


October 18, 2012

15

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of Impact Assessment

Based on the findings of the Hydrogeological Assessment, the following is a summary of the conclusions and recommendations provided in the report:

The Bolton area is located in the physiographic region known as the South Slope, which is characterized by undulating tracts of faintly drumlinized land.

The Bolton area is approximately 2.0 km south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM). The silty sand/sandy silt layers documented at the Site subject area are known to be influenced by an aquifer system known as the Oak Ridges Moraine Aquifer Complex (ORAC).

There are three water-bearing units across the Site.

o Shallow water-bearing unit: This overburden water bearing unit extends to approximately 10 mbgs o Intermediate overburden water-bearing unit: this overburden unit is encountered at depths deeper

than approximately 15 m to 20 m below ground surface and extends to a depth of approximately 50 mbgs

o Deep Aquifer Unit: Bedrock and deep overburden water bearing unit found at depths deeper than approximately 50 mbgs

Given the low conductive clay and silty clay/clayey silt at shallow depths (as indicated on the Cross Sections on Figure 5 and 6), no hydraulic connection is expected between the shallow water-bearing unit and overburden or bedrock aquifer system in the area.

The measured hydraulic conductivity of the clay and silt till material documented at the Site ranges between 3.2 x 10-8 and 7.6 x 10-7 m/sec.

Two drainage features flow southeast across the Site from the north and west. The two drainage features converge on the southeast side of the Site just before crossing Healey Road.

Approximately 22 water wells are located within 500 m of the Site. Thirteen of these wells within 500 m of the Site are screened in overburden material.

Ten well owners were available to solicit for well monitoring. Out of these, two (2) homes are currently serviced by groundwater supply wells.

Given that the hydraulic conductivities of the site geologic formations are low to moderate and the expected moderate groundwater level decrease (maximum decrease of 4 m) construction dewatering requirements are expected to be low to moderate.

Given that the expected construction dewatering rates are low to moderate, no dewatering related impacts are expected on water supply aquifers or surface water features.

Based on the proposed development, site geology and hydrogeology documented at the Site, the potential for regional groundwater quality impacts which may affect the potability of the groundwater resources is insignificant.


October 18, 2012

16

6. Limitations The information presented in this letter report is based on a limited investigation designed to provide information to support an assessment of the current hydrogeological conditions within the study area. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report reflect Site conditions existing at the time of the assessment.

Our undertaking at exp, therefore, is to perform our work within limits prescribed by our clients, with the usual thoroughness and competence of the geoscience/engineering profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in this report.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of exp, or used or relied upon in whole or in part by other parties for any purposes whatsoever. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any part thereof, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Exp accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.


October 18, 2012

Figures

SITE

DWN.:PROJECT NO.:

t: +1.905.796.3200 | f: +1.905.793.5533

56 Queen Street East, Suite 301

Brampton, ON L6V 4M8

Canada

www.exp.com

exp Services Inc.

BUILDINGS EARTH & ENVIRONMENT ENERGY

INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINABILITY

DWN.:SCALE:

DWG. No.:DATE:

PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION:

HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

SITE LOCATION PLAN

13074 AND 13304 COLERAINE DRIVE

BOLTON, ONTARIO

BRM-00011787-A0 AZ

NTS JM/JS/GO

OCTOBER 2012 1

6

15m CORRIDOR

48

45

42

40

38

35

33

28

26

24

22

18

16

29

73

30

50 T

RA

ILE

R P

OS

ITIO

NS

162 TRAILER POSITIONS

50 V

ALE

T TR

AIL

ER

PO

SIT

ION

S

20

56

48

25

15

84 CHASSI POSITIONS

84 CHASSI POSITIONS

84 CHASSI POSITIONS

80 CHASSI POSITIONS


66 T

RA

ILE

R P

OS

ITIO

NS

74 T

RA

ILE

R P

OS

ITIO

NS

33 T

RA

ILE

R P

OS

ITIO

NS

HO

LL

AN

D

D

RIV

E

COLERAINE DRIVE

20 B

UR

RIE

D P

OS

.





68

20

T

/

W

+

1

.

5

m

T

/

C

+

.

2

5

m

T

/

W

+

0

.

5

m

T

/

W

+

1

.

8

m

168 CHASSI POSITIONS60 TRAILER POSITIONS



30 52 52 52 30

26 267 26

21

30

12

7




16

17

12

621

SECURITY DRIVE LANE

AIRPORT ROAD

HEALEY

ROAD

COLERAINE DRIVE

GORE ROAD

HW

Y #50

RUTHERFO

RD ROAD

HWY #407

QUEEN ST.

E.

TOWN OF CALEDON NOTES

LOADING STATISTICS

PARKING STATISTICS

SITE STATISTICS

SURVEY INFORMATION

2010-04

NOTES LEGEND

SamarakkodyJ

Typewritten Text

FIGURE No. 1-A

C'

C

c c' Cross Section

LEGEND:

APPROXIMATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY

EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BUILDING FOOTPRINT

FENCE

CREEK

0 15 30

APPROXIMATE SCALE

(METRES)

x x x

BH116

MW111

P-105

P-102

P-101

P-106

P-105

P-104

P-103

BOREHOLE AND MONITORING WELL INSTALLED FOR PHASE 2 ESA (MALROZ 2010)

PIEZOMETERS INSTALLED BY exp (MARCH, 2011)

BH116

MW111

P-105

H

E

A

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

C

O

L

E

R

A

I

N

E

D

R

I

V

E

CROSS-SECTION

A

A'

B

B'

A A'

DWN.:PROJECT NO.:

t: +1.905.796.3200 | f: +1.905.793.5533



Canada

www.exp.com

exp Services Inc.



DWN.:SCALE:

DWG. No.:DATE:



BOREHOLE/MONITORING WELL LOCATION PLAN


BOLTON, ONTARIO

BRM-00011787-A0 AZ

AS NOTED JM/JS/GO

OCTOBER 2012 3

LEGEND:



FENCE

CREEK

0 15 30

APPROXIMATE SCALE

(METRES)

x x x

BH116

MW111

P-105

P-102

P-101

P-106

P-105

P-104

P-103



BH116

MW111

P-105

H

E

A

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

C

O

L

E

R

A

I

N

E

D

R

I

V

E

CROSS-SECTION

A

A'

B

B'

A A'

BOREHOLES INSTALLED BY V.A.WOODS (2006)

BH177

BH173

BH174

BH172

BH175

BH171

BH155

BH170

BH176

BH177

BH168

BH169

BH178

BH179

BH180

BH166

BH167

BH181

BH165

BH164

BH163

BH162

BH147

BH146

BH161

BH160

BH159

BH150

BH149

BH148

BH142

BH143

BH144

BH145

BH128

BH129

BH126

BH130

BH131

BH141

BH132

BH133

BH140

BH139

BH151

BH152

BH158

BH157

BH156

BH154

BH153

BH137

BH138

BH136

BH135

BH119

BH120

BH134

BH121

BH118

BH117

BH101

BH102

BH116

BH115

BH103

BH104

BH123

BH124

BH114

BH105

BH113

BH125

BH112

BH111

BH127

BH110

BH109

BH108

BH107

BH106

BH122

DWN.:PROJECT NO.:

t: +1.905.796.3200 | f: +1.905.793.5533



Canada

www.exp.com

exp Services Inc.



DWN.:SCALE:

DWG. No.:DATE:



BOREHOLE/MONITORING WELL LOCATION PLAN


BOLTON, ONTARIO

BRM-00011787-A0 AZ

AS NOTED JM/JS/GO

OCTOBER 2012 3A

LEGEND:



FENCE

CREEK

0 15 30

APPROXIMATE SCALE

(METRES)

x x x

P-102

P-101

P-106

P-105

P-104

P-103



GROUNDWATER CONTOURS AND FLOW DIRECTION

BH116

MW111

P-105

[241.79]

[241.82]

[246.36]

[243.83]

[252.80]

[252.79]

[256.28]

[249.35]

[254.05]

[249.30]

[246.42]

[246.46]

245

250

255

H

E

A

L

E

Y

R

O

A

D

C

O

L

E

R

A

I

N

E

D

R

I

V

E

250

DWN.:PROJECT NO.:

t: +1.905.796.3200 | f: +1.905.793.5533



Canada

www.exp.com

exp Services Inc.



DWN.:SCALE:

DWG. No.:DATE:



GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP


BOLTON, ONTARIO

BRM-00010787-A0 AZ

AS NOTED JM/JS/GO

OCTOBER 2012 4

FIG NO.:

256.28

249.35

241.82241.79

Static Water Level (March 28, 2010)

OCTOBER 2012

FIG No.:OCTOBER 2012

FIG NO.:OCTOBER 2012


October 18, 2012

Appendix A – MOE Water Well Records

No WELL_ID X Y Well Type Well Depth (m) Water Found Depth (m) Final_Status Well Use1 Well Use2

1 4900257 601223.6 4856103 Overburden 39.6 39.6 Water Supply Domestic2 4900261 601833.6 4856480 Bedrock 53.3 51.2 Water Supply Livestock Domestic3 4900263 601537.6 4857086 Overburden 24.4 24.4 Water Supply Domestic4 4900265 600992.6 4857721 Overburden 25.9 12.2 Water Supply Domestic5 4900266 600985.6 4857704 Overburden 28.0 24.4 Abandoned-Supply6 4903037 601784.6 4857073 Overburden 47.2 45.7 Water Supply Domestic7 4903038 601614.6 4857273 Overburden 56.4 54.9 Water Supply Domestic8 4903043 601984.6 4856723 Bedrock 61.0 59.4 Water Supply Domestic9 4903330 601394.6 4856283 Overburden 15.2 6.1 Water Supply Domestic

10 4903356 601624.6 4857403 Bedrock 56.7 N/A Abandoned-Supply11 4903453 600364.6 4856573 Bedrock 57.3 57.3 Water Supply Domestic12 4903720 601114.6 4857543 Overburden 29.0 12.2 Water Supply Domestic13 4903824 601194.6 4857553 Overburden 29.0 29.0 Water Supply Domestic14 4904240 600664.6 4856423 Overburden 67.1 N/A Abandoned-Supply15 4904431 600290.6 4856733 Bedrock 76.8 71.9 Water Supply Domestic16 4904676 601798.6 4857046 Bedrock 58.5 57.0 Water Supply Domestic17 4905421 601914.6 4857223 Overburden 16.5 9.8 Water Supply Domestic18 4906653 601176.6 4856653 Bedrock 52.4 51.8 Water Supply Domestic19 4907247 602054.6 4856768 Overburden 27.7 27.4 Water Supply Domestic20 4907815 601629.6 4856207 Overburden 18.3 9.1 Water Supply Domestic21 4908481 600760 4858002 Bedrock 134.1 N/A Abandoned-Supply22 4909105 602006 4857711 Bedrock 44.8 40.5 Water Supply Domestic

N/A Not Available

Appendix ATable A-1

Water Well Details

WELL_ID Material Material2 Material3 Depth_m

CLAY 21.3SILT CLAY 38.4COARSE SAND GRAVEL 39.6CLAY 11.0CLAY SILT 47.2HARDPAN 52.4SHALE 53.3TOPSOIL 3.7CLAY STONES 23.8MEDIUM SAND 24.4TOPSOIL 4.6CLAY 10.7MEDIUM SAND 12.2COARSE SAND 14.0CLAY 24.4GRAVEL 24.7CLAY 25.9TOPSOIL 0.9CLAY 28.3HARDPAN 39.0MEDIUM SAND GRAVEL 40.5CLAY MEDIUM SAND 45.1COARSE SAND 47.2TOPSOIL 0.9CLAY 28.3HARDPAN 39.9MEDIUM SAND GRAVEL 41.8CLAY MEDIUM SAND 46.0MEDIUM SAND 50.9FINE SAND CLAY 54.3COARSE SAND 56.4TOPSOIL 0.3CLAY 4.9CLAY 54.9CLAY MEDIUM SAND 56.7SHALE 61.0CLAY 6.1CLAY STONES 15.2CLAY 4.9CLAY 7.9SILT 23.8GRAVEL CLAY 55.8SHALE 57.3

4900263

4900265

Appendix ATable A-2

Geologic Formations

4900257

4900261

4903037

4903038

4903043

4903330

4903453

WELL_ID Material Material2 Material3 Depth_m

Appendix ATable A-2

Geologic Formations

CLAY 3.7CLAY 12.2MEDIUM SAND 12.8CLAY 29.0TOPSOIL 3.7CLAY 13.1SAND 13.7CLAY 28.3COARSE SAND 29.0PREV. DRILLED 66.1SAND GRAVEL CLAY 71.9GRAVEL 72.2SHALE 72.8SHALE 76.8PREVIOUSLY DUG 13.7CLAY GRAVEL 21.6CLAY 45.7CLAY SILT 50.3HARDPAN SHALE 57.0SHALE 58.5CLAY SAND 4.3CLAY SAND 8.5SILT 9.8SILT CLAY STONES 16.5UNKNOWN TYPE 5.5SAND GRAVEL 18.3GRAVEL BOULDERS 29.0CLAY GRAVEL 29.0CLAY GRAVEL BOULDERS 41.8LIMESTONE 52.4TOPSOIL HARD 0.3CLAY HARD 6.1CLAY HARD 27.4SAND LOOSE 27.7TOPSOIL HARD 0.3CLAY HARD 12.2SAND LOOSE 18.3GRAVEL FILL 0.3CLAY SAND 3.7CLAY SAND 23.2CLAY 31.1GRAVEL SILTY 34.1GRAVEL CLAY 34.4SHALE 44.8

4909105

4903720

4903824

4904431

4904676

4905421

4906653

4907247

4907815


October 18, 2012

Appendix B – Borehole Logs


October 18, 2012

Appendix C – Groundwater Level Monitoring


October 18, 2012

Appendix D – SWRT Procedures

1 of 3 Initials ___

A Single Well Response Test (SWRT), also known as a bail test or a slug test, is conducted in order to determine the hydraulic conductivity (k) of an aquifer. The method of the SWRT is to characterize the change of groundwater level in a well or borehole over time.

In order to ensure consistency and repeatability, all exp. employees are to follow the procedure outlined in this document when conducting SWRTs.

The figure below depicts a schematic of a slug and bail test and the respective water level changes.

Slug Test Procedure

Equipment Required • Water level meter • Slug • Garbage bag • De-ionized water

2 of 3 Initials ___

• Latex gloves • Field sheets/log book • Methanol • Pails for washing • Stop watch or watch with seconds • Bailer and rope • Lab grade soap

Testing Procedure 1. Remove cap from well and collect static water level 2. Remove waterra tubing/bailer and place in garbage bag. Record static water level measurement again. 3. Lower the slug into the well and record the dynamic water level. 4. Record the drawdown (for the slug test) at set five (5) second intervals for the first five (5) minutes, then

reduce to every one (1) minute. 5. Continue recording the drawdown until 95% recovery is reached. To calculate this value: Find the difference

between the dynamic water level and the static water level, then multiply by 95% (.95). Add the resulting value to the dynamic water level.

(Static Water Level – Dynamic Water Level).95 + Static Water Level = 95% Recovery Value 6. Once complete, replace the waterra tubing/bailer and re-secure the well cap.

Note: If the well is deep, more than one slug may be inserted by attaching the slugs to a series.

Slugs must be washed with methanol, then lab grade soap, and then rinsed with de-ionized water after each use.

Based on the recorded observations, the hydraulic conductivity (in m/s) of the aquifer will be determined. In order to determine the hydraulic conductivity; the well diameter, radius of the borehole and length of the screen will also be required.

Bail Test Procedure

Equipment Required • 20 L (5 gal) Graduated pail • Stop watch or watch with seconds • Garbage bags • Water level meter • Field sheets/log book • Latex Gloves • Bailer and Rope

Procedure 1. Remove cap from well and collect static water level. 2. If using a bailer:

a. Affix the rope to the bailer. b. Remove the waterra tubing and place in garbage bag c. Record static water level measurement again. d. Record how much water was removed by either counting the number of full bailers or emptying

removed water into a container. e. Quickly lower the bailer into the well and remove. f. Continue this process until the water level will reduce no further.

3 of 3 Initials ___

g. Record the dynamic water level. 3. If using waterra to bail the water:

a. Pump the water into graduated bucked until the water level will reduce no further. b. Record how much water has been removed. c. Record the dynamic water level.

4. Record the recovery at set five (5) second intervals for the first give (5) minutes, then reduce to every one (1) minute.

5. Continue recording the drawdown/recovery until 95% recovery is reached. 6. Once complete, replace any waterra tubing that may have been removed from the well and re-secure the

well cap.


October 18, 2012

Appendix E – SWRT Analysis


October 18, 2012

Appendix F – Residential Well Inventory


October 18, 2012

Appendix G – Residential Well Survey Documentation


October 18, 2012

Appendix H – Laboratory Certificates of Analysis

Your Project #: BRM-00011787-A0 Your C.O.C. #: 25146201, 251462-01-01

Attention: Jay SamarakkodyTrow Associates Inc1595 Clark BlvdBrampton, ONL6T 4V1

Report Date: 2011/03/21

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B133785Received: 2011/03/14, 14:57

Sample Matrix: Water# Samples Received: 1

Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceABN Compounds in Water by GC/MS 1 2011/03/16 2011/03/16 CAM SOP-00301 EPA 8270 (modified) Carbonaceous BOD 1 N/A 2011/03/21 CAM SOP-00427 APHA 5210B Total Cyanide 1 2011/03/16 2011/03/16 CAM SOP-00457 EPA 335.3 Mercury in Water by CVAA 1 2011/03/16 2011/03/16 CAM SOP-00453 EPA 7470 Total Metals Analysis by ICPMS 1 N/A 2011/03/17 CAM SOP-00447 EPA 6020 E.coli, (CFU/100mL) 1 N/A 2011/03/14 CAM SOP-00552 MOE LSB E3371 Polychlorinated Biphenyl in Water 1 2011/03/15 2011/03/16 CAM SOP-00309 SW846 8082 pH 1 N/A 2011/03/15 CAM SOP-00448 SM 4500H Phenols (4AAP) 1 N/A 2011/03/16 CAM SOP-00444 MOE ROPHEN-E3179 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen in Water 1 2011/03/16 2011/03/17 CAM SOP-00454 EPA 351.2 Rev 2 Total Suspended Solids 1 N/A 2011/03/16 CAM SOP-00428 SM 2540D Volatile Organic Compounds in Water 1 N/A 2011/03/17 CAM SOP-00226 EPA 8260 modified

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.* Results relate only to the items tested.

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

SARA SAROOP, Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (905) 817-5700 Ext:5821

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 1

Maxxam Analytics International Corporation o/a Maxxam Analytics Mississauga Env: 6740 Campobello Road L5N 2L8 Telephone(905) 817-5700 FAX(905) 817-5777

Page 1 of 7

Trow Associates IncMaxxam Job #: B133785 Client Project #: BRM-00011787-A0Report Date: 2011/03/21

PEEL STORM SEWER USE BYLAW (53-2010)

Maxxam ID IW9504 IW9504Sampling Date 2011/03/14 2011/03/14

Units MW114 MW114 Lab-Dup RDL QC BatchInorganicsTotal Carbonaceous BOD mg/L <2 2 2431377Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) mg/L 7 5 2431650pH pH 7.89 2430306Phenols-4AAP mg/L <0.001 0.001 2431877Total Suspended Solids mg/L 1100 20 2431233Total Cyanide (CN) mg/L <0.005 0.005 2431325MetalsMercury (Hg) mg/L <0.0001 0.0001 2431296Total Arsenic (As) ug/L <1 1 2432645Total Cadmium (Cd) ug/L <0.1 0.1 2432645Total Chromium (Cr) ug/L <5 5 2432645Total Copper (Cu) ug/L 3 1 2432645Total Lead (Pb) ug/L <0.5 0.5 2432645Total Manganese (Mn) ug/L 82 2 2432645Total Nickel (Ni) ug/L 1 1 2432645Total Phosphorus (P) ug/L <100 100 2432645Total Selenium (Se) ug/L <2 2 2432645Total Silver (Ag) ug/L <0.1 0.1 2432645Total Zinc (Zn) ug/L 17 5 2432645Semivolatile OrganicsBis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/L <2 <2 2 2431241Di-N-butyl phthalate ug/L <2 <2 2 2431241Surrogate Recovery (%)2,4,6-Tribromophenol % 78 82 24312412-Fluorobiphenyl % 83 89 24312412-Fluorophenol % 33 39 2431241D14-Terphenyl % 94 100 2431241D5-Nitrobenzene % 76 84 2431241D5-Phenol % 24 28 2431241

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 2 of 7


PEEL STORM SEWER USE BYLAW (53-2010)

Maxxam ID IW9504 IW9504Sampling Date 2011/03/14 2011/03/14

Units MW114 MW114 Lab-Dup RDL QC BatchVolatile OrganicsBenzene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336Chloroform ug/L <0.1 0.1 24313361,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.2 0.2 24313361,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2431336cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2431336Ethylbenzene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane) ug/L <0.5 0.5 24313361,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/L <0.2 0.2 2431336Tetrachloroethylene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336Toluene ug/L <0.2 0.2 2431336Trichloroethylene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336p+m-Xylene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336o-Xylene ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336Xylene (Total) ug/L <0.1 0.1 2431336Surrogate Recovery (%)4-Bromofluorobenzene % 96 2431336D4-1,2-Dichloroethane % 108 2431336D8-Toluene % 101 2431336PCBsTotal PCB ug/L <0.05 0.05 2430483Surrogate Recovery (%)2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene % 69 2430483Decachlorobiphenyl % 95 2430483MicrobiologicalEscherichia coli CFU/100mL <10 10 2429871

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 3 of 7


Package 1 3.7°CEach temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt

GENERAL COMMENTS

Page 4 of 7


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT

Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits2430483 2,4,5,6-Tetrachloro-m-xylene 2011/03/15 87 40 - 130 57 40 - 130 67 %2430483 Decachlorobiphenyl 2011/03/15 90 40 - 130 68 40 - 130 78 %2430483 Total PCB 2011/03/15 90 30 - 130 70 30 - 130 <0.05 ug/L NC 402431233 Total Suspended Solids 2011/03/16 <10 mg/L NC 25 101 85 - 1152431241 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 2011/03/16 101 10 - 130 104 10 - 130 86 %2431241 2-Fluorobiphenyl 2011/03/16 91 30 - 130 90 30 - 130 97 %2431241 2-Fluorophenol 2011/03/16 52 10 - 130 52 10 - 130 53 %2431241 D14-Terphenyl 2011/03/16 101 30 - 130 98 30 - 130 107 %2431241 D5-Nitrobenzene 2011/03/16 90 30 - 130 91 30 - 130 97 %2431241 D5-Phenol 2011/03/16 34 10 - 130 34 10 - 130 33 %2431241 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2011/03/16 115 30 - 130 119 30 - 130 <2 ug/L NC 402431241 Di-N-butyl phthalate 2011/03/16 114 30 - 130 117 30 - 130 <2 ug/L NC 402431296 Mercury (Hg) 2011/03/16 101 75 - 125 102 80 - 120 <0.0001 mg/L NC 252431325 Total Cyanide (CN) 2011/03/16 105 80 - 120 102 80 - 120 <0.005 mg/L NC 252431336 4-Bromofluorobenzene 2011/03/17 106 70 - 130 106 70 - 130 98 %2431336 D4-1,2-Dichloroethane 2011/03/17 98 70 - 130 107 70 - 130 110 %2431336 D8-Toluene 2011/03/17 104 70 - 130 99 70 - 130 100 %2431336 Benzene 2011/03/17 110 70 - 130 110 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431336 Chloroform 2011/03/17 105 70 - 130 110 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431336 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2011/03/17 96 70 - 130 102 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402431336 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2011/03/17 99 70 - 130 102 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402431336 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 2011/03/17 104 70 - 130 108 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431336 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 2011/03/17 106 70 - 130 107 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402431336 Ethylbenzene 2011/03/17 115 70 - 130 111 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431336 Methylene Chloride(Dichloromethane) 2011/03/17 96 70 - 130 101 70 - 130 <0.5 ug/L NC 402431336 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2011/03/17 96 70 - 130 104 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402431336 Tetrachloroethylene 2011/03/17 103 70 - 130 98 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L 3.3 402431336 Toluene 2011/03/17 113 70 - 130 106 70 - 130 <0.2 ug/L NC 402431336 Trichloroethylene 2011/03/17 111 70 - 130 109 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L 5.5 402431336 p+m-Xylene 2011/03/17 117 70 - 130 114 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431336 o-Xylene 2011/03/17 114 70 - 130 111 70 - 130 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431336 Xylene (Total) 2011/03/17 <0.1 ug/L NC 402431377 Total Carbonaceous BOD 2011/03/21 <2 mg/L 0 25 104 75 - 1252431650 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 2011/03/18 NC 80 - 120 92 85 - 115 0.2, RDL=0.1 mg/L NC 20 95 85 - 1152431877 Phenols-4AAP 2011/03/16 99 75 - 125 97 75 - 125 <0.001 mg/L 4.9 252432645 Total Arsenic (As) 2011/03/17 104 80 - 120 102 85 - 115 <1 ug/L NC 252432645 Total Cadmium (Cd) 2011/03/17 105 80 - 120 101 85 - 116 <0.1 ug/L NC 252432645 Total Chromium (Cr) 2011/03/17 100 80 - 120 100 85 - 115 <5 ug/L NC 252432645 Total Copper (Cu) 2011/03/17 99 80 - 120 100 85 - 115 <1 ug/L 4.5 252432645 Total Lead (Pb) 2011/03/17 98 80 - 120 98 85 - 115 <0.5 ug/L 2.4 25

Page 5 of 7


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT

Matrix Spike Spiked Blank Method Blank RPD QC StandardQC Batch Parameter Date % Recovery QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits Value Units Value (%) QC Limits % Recovery QC Limits2432645 Total Manganese (Mn) 2011/03/17 98 80 - 120 98 85 - 115 <2 ug/L 5.3 252432645 Total Nickel (Ni) 2011/03/17 97 80 - 120 99 85 - 115 <1 ug/L 5.5 252432645 Total Phosphorus (P) 2011/03/17 104 80 - 120 103 85 - 115 <100 ug/L NC 252432645 Total Selenium (Se) 2011/03/17 101 80 - 120 101 85 - 115 <2 ug/L NC 252432645 Total Silver (Ag) 2011/03/17 97 80 - 120 95 85 - 115 <0.1 ug/L NC 252432645 Total Zinc (Zn) 2011/03/17 98 80 - 120 99 85 - 115 <5 ug/L 3.7 25

N/A = Not ApplicableRDL = Reportable Detection LimitRPD = Relative Percent DifferenceDuplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.QC Standard: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Spiked Blank: A blank matrix to which a known amount of the analyte has been added. Used to evaluate analyte recovery.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.Surrogate: A pure or isotopically labeled compound whose behavior mirrors the analytes of interest. Used to evaluate extraction efficiency.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and the spiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recoverycalculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable calculation.

Page 6 of 7

Validation Signature Page

Maxxam Job #: B133785

The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).

CHARLES ANCKER, B.Sc., M.Sc., C.Chem, Senior Analyst

CRISTINA CARRIERE, Scientific Services

FLOYD MAYEDE, Senior Analyst

THARMINI SIVALINGAM, Team Leader

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 7 of 7

Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited - Caledon · PDF fileCanadian Tire Real Estate Limited ....

Documents

Transcript of Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited - Caledon · PDF fileCanadian Tire Real Estate Limited ....