2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In November 2011, KMB Consulting Inc. was contracted by Mr. Jeremy Douglas of the
Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) of the London Psychiatric Hospital property at 850 Highbury Avenue in London,
Ontario.
This Phase II ESA investigates areas of potential environmental concern (APEC) related to
petroleum contamination on the subject property. The APECs at the property were two
above ground storage tanks (AST) at the tractor shed and three underground storage tanks
(UST) at the power house. Surface soil, subsurface soil and groundwater samples were
collected and analyzed for contaminants associated with petroleum.
The objective of this investigation is to delineate potential sources of petroleum
contamination, and as such, sampling focused on areas around the ASTs and USTs. Surface
and subsurface soil samples and groundwater samples were collected from the subject
property on November 24 2011. Soil samples collected from around the same tank at the
same depth were made into composites to represent conditions at a distinct stratum. The soil
surrounding each APEC was considered to have two strata. One stratum is closer to the
tank, i.e. surface soil samples at the ASTs, or samples at the five metre depth at the USTs.
The other stratum is farther from the tank, i.e. at 0.5 meter depth at the ASTs, or six metre
depth at the USTs. Only the composite samples representative of the strata closest to the
tanks were submitted for analysis (first phase). Composite samples representative of the
deeper strata were preserved, only to be analyzed if initial results showed levels above
criteria.
Samples were analyzed for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene (BTEX) as well as
fractions 1-4 petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC). Levels were compared against
Parkland/Commercial and Institutional land use of Table 3 of the standard under Part XV.1
of the Environmental Protection Act. The composite sample from the northwest side of
UST B had levels of benzene exceeding specified limits. The composite samples deeper (6m)
and farther (1.5m) from the USTs were submitted for analysis (second phase). The
composite made of soil samples from the southeast side of UST C had exceeded the limits
of Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene and petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil samples from
deeper and farther from UST C were found to be below limits (third phase).
Results of these Phase II investigations indicate that petroleum contamination is present, but
limited to soil around the power house USTs at the extreme east side of the property. This is
a relatively small area of the property (approximately 133 square meters) at a depth sloping
from six to eight meters. The condition of the soil and the value of the property would
3. benefit from remediation. Remediation is necessary to meet the environmental criteria
required of land to be used for residential, institutional or parkland purposes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................2
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................................3
1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Scope of Work.......................................................................................................................................................5
1.2 Objectives..............................................................................................................................................................5
2.0 General Description..................................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Property Description.............................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Topography and Geology of the property............................................................................................................6
2.3 Property History and Land Use.............................................................................................................................7
2.4 Property History....................................................................................................................................................7
2.5 Property land use .................................................................................................................................................8
2.6 Adjacent Land Use.................................................................................................................................................8
2.7 Previous Reports...................................................................................................................................................9
3.0 FIELD PROGRAM......................................................................................................................................................10
3.1 Areas of potential Environmental Concern........................................................................................................10
3.2 Selecting the appropriate criteria.......................................................................................................................11
3.2 Soil Sampling Methodology................................................................................................................................11
3.3 Groundwater Sampling.......................................................................................................................................12
3.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program......................................................................................................13
3.5 Soil and GROUNDWATER Analysis......................................................................................................................14
4.0 Deviations FROM CSA METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................14
5.0 Findings...................................................................................................................................................................15
5.1 Chemical Analysis................................................................................................................................................15
5.2 Sampling Analysis................................................................................................................................................15
4. 5.3 Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylene ...................................................................................................15
5.4 PETROLEUM Hydrocarbons.................................................................................................................................16
5.5 Groundwater Analysis.........................................................................................................................................17
6.0 EVALUATION OF FINDINGS.....................................................................................................................................17
Summary of Results..................................................................................................................................................18
7.0 CONCLUSION AND Recommendation ...........................................................................................................19
8.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ASSESSORS ....................................................................................................................19
9.0 references...............................................................................................................................................................20
appendix a: maps..........................................................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX B: LAB RESULTS............................................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX C: SAMPLING PLAN......................................................................................................................................21
5. 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In November 2011, KMB Consulting Ltd was engaged by Ontario Realty Corporation
(hereafter referred to as the client) to conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) for London Psychiatrist Hospital located at 850 Highbury Avenue London, Ontario
(hereafter referred to as the “property” or “site” in this report).
A Phase I ESA performed by SNC Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc. (February, 2003)
on the subject property, identified several areas of environmental concern, having a potential
to contaminate the soil or groundwater in or under the subject property. Several Above and
Underground Storage Tanks (ASTs and USTs) were identified.
Ontario Realty Corporation requires a Phase II ESA to be performed on the subject
property to delineate and confirm the extent of contamination (if any) on the subject
property and ascertain whether or not clean-up would be required or if contamination levels
fall within applicable land use guidelines. A Property Valuation is also scheduled to be
executed on the subject property; hence ascertaining the presence or absence and extent of
contamination on the subject property would facilitate and ensure a seamless valuation
process.
This Phase II ESA has been performed in accordance with the Canadian Standards
Association’s (CSA) Standard CSAZ769 and in compliance with Ontario Regulations 153/03
which provides guidelines for conducting Phase I and Phase II ESAs.
1.1 SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for this project includes determining the location and concentration of
petroleum (hydrocarbons) contamination on the subject property. It also includes planning,
conducting a site investigation, interpreting and evaluating the information gathered from
the investigation as well as preparing a written report to be submitted to the client upon
completion.
At a minimum, soil and groundwater sampling and analysis for the presence of petroleum
related contaminants such as Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene, Xylene and total petroleum
hydrocarbons would be done, to facilitate proper delineation and confirm the concentration
of the aforementioned contaminants on the subject property.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this Phase II ESA include the following;
6. • To delineate any sources of potential petroleum contamination on the subject
property based on the identified areas of potential environmental concern in the
Phase I ESA conducted by SNC Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc.
• To determine the concentration of petroleum related contaminants such as benzene,
toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylene and total petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil or
groundwater within delineated areas.
• To determine the extent of migration or spatial distribution of the abovementioned
contaminants in the soil or groundwater under the property.
• To develop a basic understanding of the site’s geology and hydrogeology, to help in
achieving the aforementioned goals.
2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The London Psychiatric Hospital is Located on a physical address of 850 Highbury Avenue,
London Ontario, in a residential, commercial/industrial and institutional land use area. The
subject property is located on the east side of Highbury Avenue bounded with Oxford Street
on the North and Dundas Street on the South, with the Canadian Pacific Rail line crossing
the subject property at approximately ¾ of the way south of the northern part. The
property can be accessed from two different points; from the west side of the property from
Highbury Avenue and an entrance from Dundas Street.
The majority of the buildings including the main hospital building are located at the west
part of the property. The main hospital building is comprised of buildings on the northern
and southern part of the property with each having four wings. A power house is located at
the southeast of the property and tractor shed on the northwest of the property. There is
also a portion of land at the southwest side, with part of it owned by the Ministry of
National Defense and the south part owned by the Governing Council of the Salvation
Army.
The legal description of the property is described in the Land Registry Office as; Part of lot
8, concession 1 and Part of lots 6 and 7, concession 2, Township of London (North and
South of CP Rail Tracks).
2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY OF THE PROPERTY
The property is relatively flat with irregular shape. The topography as indicated by
Topographic Map 40p/3 that was published in 1998 by Natural Resources Canada mapped
7. out that the vicinity of the subject property slopes southeast toward Pottersburg Creek at a
distance of approximately 100m from the south part of the property.
The property is situated in Southern Ontario as indicated by Geological Survey Map P2715,
shows that the property is situated in an area of sand plain.
2.3 PROPERTY HISTORY AND LAND USE
The information on the property history and usage are based on;
• Aerial photography
• Site plan
• Interviews of Site personnel
• Site reconnaissance
• Review of previous Phase 1 report prepared by SNC Lavalin Engineers &
Constructors Inc. February,2003
2.4 PROPERTY HISTORY
According to interviews of on-site personnel and the review of the phase 1 report prepared
by SNC Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc:
• The property has been occupied by the Psychiatric Hospital since the mid to late
1800s
• The property is described in the Land registry Office as part of Lot 8, Concession 1,
and Part of Lots 6 & 7, Concession 2, Township of London (North and South of CP
Rail Tracks
• The land North of CP Rail are owned by Her Majesty the Queen under deeds
LX10368 (1869), LX10369 (1869), and LX 10370 (1869) under P.I.N 08106-147. The
lands north of CP Rail are subject to two easements in favour of the Union Gas Ltd.
as Part 1, plan 33R-5247, instrument #623868 (1982) as Parts 1 to 3, Plan 33R-5676,
Instrument #644506 (1983). The lands are also subject to a right-of-way in favour of
Her majesty the Queen in right of Canada as Part 1, plan 33R-2753 as instrument
#5261553 (1978). They are also subjected to an agreement in form of a lease to CPR
as in Instrument #157643 (1951)
8. • The land south of CP Rail are owned by The Chair of the Management Board of
Cabinet under deed LX10368 (1869), LX10369 (1869), and LX 10370 (1869) under
P.I.N 08106-0147
2.5 PROPERTY LAND USE
The property been occupied by the Psychiatric Hospital has the under listed building on the
property as indicated by Aerial Photography and Site plan;
• The main Hospital buildings
• Resident buildings
• Garages
• Henhouse
• North cottage
• Band stand
• Vegetable storage building
• Arena
• Generator plant building
• Potting shed
• Frame tool house
• Underground screening chamber
• Chapel
2.6 ADJACENT LAND USE
The subject property is situated within a mixed residential, commercial/industrial and
institutional land use area in the City of London Ontario.
The adjoining properties of the subject property are occupied as follows:
9. Location Land use
North Institutional and Residential; John Paul II Secondary
School and residential houses on the north side of
Oxford Street
West (at the north side): Commercial; Oxbury Mall Retail Shopping Centre,
Canada Post Corporation
West (at the south side): CFB London and Salvation Army on the east side of
Highbury Avenue
South (at the east side) Commercial; McMaster Chev Olds Dealership, Dundas
Street and Eastown Plaza
South (at the west side) Commercial; Mufflerman, Oil Guard super center,
McCracken Real Estate and Judy Di’s Hair Salon
East (at the south side):
commercial properties
Commercial; Brinks, Stairmail, NP Novell Polymers,
Apex, Flickling Cartage & Storage
East (at the north side):
residential
Residential; houses on Rushland Avenue, Mardell
Avenue, and Howland Place
2.7 PREVIOUS REPORTS
Previous documents were provided by the Client and City for review. A Phase I ESA report
prepared by SNC Lavalin Engineers & Constructors Inc, 2003 was available for review.
Based on the findings of the previous assessments and documentation, the areas of potential
environmental concern were identified in the Phase I ESA report as follows:
• Location of previous structure including coal bunker, paint and maintenance shops
• A decommissioned well of about a year old with no details of location
10. • An emergency spill containment tank
• Five underground tanks including 90,800L oil tanks and one 9,080L diesel tank at the
power plant and a gasoline tanks
• A 2200L diesel AST with steel containment unit located at the south side of the
tractor shed
• A 2200L diesel AST located on the east side of the tractor shed
• A 2200L diesel AST, wall mounted on a metal bracket above the ceramic tile floor
located in the powerhouse
• Oil storage container of approximately 12-20L in the Powerhouse
• Oil storage container of one -205L drum of oil in the powerhouse
• The storage of water treatment chemicals used for boilers in the powerhouse
• The storage of motor oil in a container of approximately 20-25L in the Mechanics
Shop in the Trades Building
3.0 FIELD PROGRAM
3.1 AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Based review of the Phase I ESA conducted by XX, site reconnaissance and field screening
using a Ground penetrating radar (GPR), the main APECs at the property are two above
ground storage tanks (AST) at the tractor shed and three underground storage tanks (UST)
at the power house.
A ground penetrating radar (GPR) was used to determine that there are no USTs around the
potting shed as was previously suspected. The two pairs of pipes were old steam pipes which
provided heat to the building decades ago. The GPR was also used, with special imaging
software, to create an accurate map of the power house UST locations and depths.
Measurements were made using GPR data and the outlines of the three USTs and their
piping were marked on the surface. A surface visual of UST locations and dimensions helps
prevent an accidental UST puncture caused by sampling implements.
A diesel tank in the pump house was identified as an APEC in the Phase I ESA. After
considering the long length of time this wall mounted AST has been empty, as well as the
11. nature of the tile floor acting as an impervious containment unit, lack of staining and odor,
the empty AST is not considered to be an APEC.
3.2 SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA
The MOE provides criteria for selecting appropriate standards. These criteria can be found
in “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the
Environmental Protection Act. From the aforementioned document, table 3 “Full depth
generic site condition standards in a non-potable ground water condition” was selected by
the project team as a guide for comparing detected contamination in soil and groundwater
samples.
The basis for selecting Table 3 was because full depth soil samples and groundwater samples
would be required in to adequately delineating contamination on the subject property. Table
3 was also selected because it is suitable for the soil type (sandy) on the property and because
the size of the property is relatively huge, reducing the risk of contamination spreading
beyond the property boundary.
3.2 SOIL SAMPLING METHODOLOGY
Surface and subsurface soil as well as groundwater investigation was completed between
November 24, 2011 and December 8, 2011. Soil and groundwater sample collection, storage
and submission were in accordance with the QA/QC recommendations of the laboratory
used for the chemical analysis of the samples. Sample collection and analysis was done in
three phases to allow proper delineation of the contaminants in the identified APECS.
Manual sampling equipments such as shovels and soil probes were used for surface soil
samples collected around the AST areas at a depth of 0.5m while a truck mounted split
spoon sampler was used for sample collection at the UST areas for depths ranging between
4m to 9m. The health and safety protocols specified in the Health and safety plan (HASP)
for the project was strictly adhered to by project members and was mandatory for all
contractors, to ensure safe and efficient operation of equipment and heavy machinery
installed on site.
The designated laboratory engaged for the chemical analysis of samples collected was
Niagara Laboratories. Soil samples were collected, stored and transported to Niagara
Laboratories in accordance with the Lab’s requirements for soil samples requiring BTEX
and PHC analysis. Please see table below.
Table 1: Niagara College Laboratories’ requirement for subsurface soil sample collection and
preservation for BTEX and PHC analysis
12. Subsurface soil
Parameter Sample Mass Sample Container Preservation Holding Time
BTEX /VOCs 250 g
Amber Glass Jar, Teflon
Lined Lid, No Headspace
Cool to 4ºC 14 days
Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbon
250 g
Amber Glass Jar, Teflon
Lined Lid, No Headspace
Cool to 4ºC 14 days
Soil sampling equipment including soil probes, shovels, coolers, and amber glass jars were
supplied by the lab for the sample collection. Also, all samples were collected in accordance
with environmental sampling protocols to minimize loss of volatile organics and screened in
the field for gross evidence of negative environmental impact. This screening facilitated
sample selections for laboratory analysis. All sampling equipment that came in direct contact
with the soil samples was decontaminated prior to each sampling activity. Cleaning
procedure consisted of washing the equipment by anionic soap (e.g., Liquonox®) and
phosphate free detergent supplied by the laboratory, and rinsing it using de-ionized distilled
water.
3.3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
Five groundwater monitoring wells were installed between November 21, 2011 and
November 23, 2011 to facilitate the collection of groundwater samples for laboratory
analysis and to determine the presence of (if any) and concentration of specified petroleum
contaminants (BTEX and PHC) in the groundwater under the property based on identified
APECs. A bailer was used for the groundwater sample collection and collected samples were
preserved and delivered to the Niagara Laboratory for analysis in accordance with the Lab’s
prescribed requirements for groundwater samples requiring BTEX and PHC analysis, as
shown in the table below.
Table 2: Niagara College Laboratories’ requirement for groundwater sample collection and
preservation for BTEX and PHC analysis
13. 3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM
To ensure quality and representative data which adequately reflects the actual site conditions,
a QA/QC program was developed and maintained throughout the work. The following
components were considered in the field QA/QC program:
• Appropriate personnel protective equipment (PPE) must be used.
• All sampling activities and sampling handling practices to must be documented properly.
• All sampling equipment must be cleaned appropriately prior to each sample collection, to
prevent cross contamination.
• Duplicate samples must be collected and submitted for analysis to ensure the validity of
the results received from the laboratory.
• Sample collection must be carried out by field technicians trained and certified on sample
collection, preservation, handling, laboratory procedures and transportation techniques.
• Samples must be collected using containers provided by Niagara Laboratories and stored
at the recommend temperatures prior to delivery to the lab.
• Collected samples must be named appropriately, in order to avoid contamination or
confusion.
• Appropriate documentation of the chain of custody and appropriate use of field
logbooks to be strictly adhered to by all field staff.
• Use of Canadian Association for Environmental and Analytical Laboratories’ (CAEAL)
accreditation and KMB Consulting’s experience as the basis for laboratory selection to
ensure samples are analyzed in accordance with good laboratory practices.
• Use of travel/field blanks to help detect possible sample contamination that can occur
during field operation or during shipment.
• Collection of control samples
Ground Water
Parameter
Sample
Volume
Sample Container Preservation Holding Time
BTEX & PHC
3 x 40 ml Amber 40 ml Glass
Bottle, No Headspace
Cool to 4ºC
7 days
14. 3.5 SOIL AND GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS
To delineate the source of contamination on the subject property and in line with adaptive
data management practices, samples were collected and analyzed in phases/rounds. A cost
effective approach which also ensures quality results was used. The yardstick for the number
of samples collected and submitted to the lab for analysis, taking into account budget
allocation for the project. The first round of samples collected and sent to the lab for
analysis were composite samples of several grab samples from the same depth and
stratum/APEC. Kindly refer to sampling plan in Appendix C for details of samples
collected, sample medium, grab and composite samples as well as the rationale for each
sample collection. These samples were analyzed to determine the extent and depth of soil
contamination.
During round one of the sample analyses, a total of 17samples made up of 10 soils samples
and 7 groundwater samples were submitted to the lab for BTEX and PHC (F1,F2,F3 and
F4) analysis. Samples A4, B5, and C5 were composite subsurface soil samples taken at a
depth of 5m and a distance of 0.5m from the USTs for delineation of contamination around
the USTs, while sample 1.1 and 2.1 were composite soil (surface) samples taken at a depth of
0.5m to delineate contamination around the ASTs. Samples 51, 53 and 56 were duplicate
samples for sample A4, B5 and 2.1 consecutively. In addition, control samples (37C and
38C) were submitted to the lab for quality control purposes.
In addition to the above, a total of 7groundwater samples were submitted to the lab for
BTEX and PHC analysis. Kindly refer to Appendix XX for details on the rationale for
groundwater samples collected. Based on the results received from round one, additional
subsurface soil samples were sent to the lab for areas having results exceeding recommended
criteria to further delineate and determine the extent of contamination in those areas. Figure
XX of appendix XX show details of samples submitted for round two analysis while Figure
XXX shows details of samples submitted for round 3 analysis based the result received from
round two.
Duplicate samples were also submitted during each round of sample analysis for quality
control and quality assurance purposes.
4.0 DEVIATIONS FROM CSA METHODOLOGY
There were no deviations from CSA Methodology.
15. 5.0 FINDINGS
5.1 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Selected samples were collected from both soil and ground water and sent to Niagara
Laboratories for analysis. Analytical reports are found in Appendix B These samples were
analyzed to determine the extent and depth of soil contamination. Parameters analyzed were
BTEX and PHC.
5.2 SAMPLING ANALYSIS
The sampling analysis was carried out in three phases. In the first phase, 7 ground water
sample (Sample ID 13, 19, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43) and 10 of soil samples (Sample ID A4, B5, C5,
1.1, 2.1, 37C, 38C, 51, 53, 56 ) were collected from the site and sent to the Niagara College
Laboratory for analysis. Subsurface soil sample were collected at a depth of 5m and at a
distance of 0.5 meters from the three tanks (A, B, and C). The soil samples were analyzed to
determine the extent and depth of contamination.
The second phase was carried out to further delineate contamination at a depth of 6m and a
distance of 1.5m from the tanks. In the second phase, 3 soil samples (Sample ID B6, C6, 54)
were sent to the laboratory for analysis. Sample ID 54 is a duplicate of sample B6. The three
samples were analyzed for BTEX and PHC. Analyzed results for the second stage are
summarized in Appendix B.
The third phase of the sampling was carried out to further confirm the extent of
contamination spatially, based on the results received from the phase three analysis. A total
of 19 soil samples (sample ID 57-74) were taken and sent to the laboratory for BTEX and
PHC analysis. Samples 57 to 62 were collected at a depth of 7m having a distance of 1.5m
from the UST while samples 63 to 68 were collected at a depth of 8m having a distance of
2.5m from the UST and samples 69 to 74 collected at a depth of 9m having a distance of
3.5m from the UST.
5.3 BENZENE, TOLUENE, ETHYLBENZENE AND XYLENE
A total of 10 soil samples were tested in the first phase and the results were compared
against Parkland/Commercial and Institutional land use of Table 3 of the standard under
Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Table 3 in section 6 of this report, gives the
summary of data comparison against the standard for BTEX and PHC under Table 3 of
Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standard for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental
Protection Act.
Benzene concentrations for soil sample were revealed as 0.3088μg/g, 0.0100μg/g,
0.0100μg/g in samples B5, C5 and 53 respectively. Table 3 guideline’s value for benzene is
16. (0.17)0.21 μg/g for residential, parkland and institutional property use, indicating that sample
B5 exceeds the criteria.
Toluene concentrations for soil sample were revealed as 0.4309 μg/g, 0.5674μg/g, and
0.5674μg/g in B5, C5, and 53respectively. Table 3 guideline value for Toluene is (6) 2.3 μg/g
for residential, parkland and institutional property use, indicating the results for samples B5,
C5 and 53 falls below the prescribed set criteria.
Ethylbenzene concentrations for soil sample were revealed as 0.4400μg/g, 0.4445μg/g,
0.4445μg/g in B5, C5 and 53 respectively. Table 3 guideline for Ethylbenzene is (15)2μg/g
for residential, parkland and institutional property use. This reveals that all values falls below
criteria.
Xylene concentrations for soil sample were revealed at 0.1568µg/g in sample B5, 0.1575µg/g
in C5, 0.1575µg/g in 53. Table 3 guideline for Xylene is (25)3.1μg/g for residential, parkland
and institutional property use. This reveals that all values falls below criteria.
In the second phase of soil sampling, samples were taken at a greater depth and farther away
from the UST to determine the depth of contamination. The results from the second phase
indicated that benzene concentrations were revealed at 0.0034μg/g, 2.89μg/g and
0.0034µg/g for B6, C6 and 54. Table 3 guideline value for benzene is (0.17)0.21µg/g for
residential, parkland and institutional property use. This reveals that all values except for
sample C6 is below criteria.
Toluene concentrations for soil samples were revealed at 0.4405μg/g, 135.3μg/g and
0.4401μg/g for B6, C6 and 54 respectively. Table 3 guideline value for Toluene is (6)
2.3μg/g for residential, parkland and institutional property use. This reveals that all values
except for sample C6 is below criteria.
Ethylbenzene concentrations for soil samples were revealed at 0.030μg/g, 25.63μg/g and
0.030µg/g for B6, C6 and 54 respectively. Table 3 guideline values for Ethylbenzene is
(15)2µg/g for residential, parkland and institutional property use. This reveals that all values
except for sample C6 is below criteria.
Xylene concentrations for soil samples were revealed at 0.1563μg/g, 38.33μg/g and
0.1560μg/g for B6, C6 and 54 respectively. Table 3 guideline value for Xylene is (25)3.1.
This reveals that all values except for sample C6 is below criteria.
In the third and final phase of soil sampling, samples were taken at a greater depth and
farther distance away from the UST to determine the depth of the contamination. The
results for this phase revealed that all the values for BTEX came below criteria.
5.4 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
17. Ten samples of soil from the first phase were analyzed for PHC. The result revealed that
values for all samples were below the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standard for Use
Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act of 2009, found in Table 3 for PHC
parameters expect for sample C5 that was above criteria. A summary of data comparison is
summarized in Table 3.
Fraction 1 of PHC was detected at 2.7μg/g, 255μg/g, and 255μg/g for sample B5, C5 and
53 respectively. Table 3 guideline value for Fraction is (65)55μg/g for residential, parkland
and institutional property use. The results reveal that all the samples falls below criteria
except C5 and 53.
Fraction 2 of PHC was detected at 5.9μg/g, 251μg/g and 251μg/g for samples B5, C5 and
53 respectively. Table 3 guideline value for Fraction 2 is (150)98μg/g for residential,
parkland and institutional property use. The results reveal that C5 and 53 are above criteria.
Fraction 3 of PHC was detected at 7.8μg/g, 1983μg/g and 1983μg/g for samples B5, C5
and 53 Table 3 guideline values for Fraction 3 is (1300)300μg/g for residential, parkland and
institutional property use. The results reveal that sample C5 and 53 are above criteria.
Fraction 4 of PHC was detected at 5.4μg/g, 508μg/g and 508μg/g for samples B5, C5 and
53 respectively. Table 3 guideline values for Fraction 4 are (5600)2800μg/g for residential,
parkland and institutional property use. The results reveal that all samples are below criteria.
The results for PHC parameter in the second phase indicated that only Fraction 1, 2 and 3 of
C6 were above criteria.
The results for PHC parameter in the third phase indicated that all samples came below
criteria.
5.5 GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS
Ground water samples were collected from wells 13, 19, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 and sent for
analysis. Ground water samples are to be analyzed for BTEX and PHC. The results reveal
that all the samples for ground water come below criteria.
6.0 EVALUATION OF FINDINGS
The Phase II environmental site assessment of Psychiatrist Hospital located at 850 Highbury
Avenue London, Ontario established the following;
• The presence of BTEX and Petroleum hydrocarbons at UST C in concentrations
above limits specified in the criteria.
18. • The presence of Benzene at UST B in concentrations above the specified in the
criteria.
The result also revealed higher levels of BTEX for sample C6 (depth of 6m and a distance of
1.5m away from the tank) when compared with the results for sample C5 (depth of 5m and a
distance of 1.5m away from the tank). The presence of higher BTEX concentration at a
higher depth at UST C may be due to the geology of the subsurface soil since contamination
would take path of less resistance during migration. It may also be because the tank is no
longer in use; hence contamination may have migrated deeper into the soil or farther from
the tank.
Low PHC concentrations at UST B may also be indicative of low contamination from the
UST. Generally, the presence of BTEX and PHC contaminants at depths below the USTs
gives an indication that the tanks could be leaking, hence the contamination.
Based on the foregoing, the extent of contamination at UST C extends to a depth of 6m and
a distance of 2.5m away from the tank while the presence of contamination at UST B
extends to a depth of 5m and a distance of 0.5m away from the tank. These dimensions
must be properly noted and considered during subsequent clean up exercise of the
contaminated areas.
Table 3 below, show the summary of results received from the lab. Highlighted cells are
parameters above the specified criteria. Details of the results can be found in Appendix B.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
BTEX PHC
Sample ID Benzene Toluene Ethyl-
benzene
Xylene Fraction 1 Fraction 2 Fraction 3 Fraction 4
MDL (ug/g) .0029 .41 .024 .15 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3
Soil Criteria
(ug/g) (0.17) 0.21 (6) 2.3 (15) 2 (25) 3.1 (65) 55 (150) 98 (1300) 300 (5600) 2800
B5 .3088 .4309 .4400 .1568 2.7 5.9 7.8 5.4
C5 .0100 .5674 .4445 .1575 255 251 1983 508
53 .0100 .5674 .4445 .1575 255 251 1983 508
19. Round II
B6 .0034 .4405 .030 .1563 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3
C6 2.89 135.3 25.63 38.33 297.3 345.2 1903.2 1246.1
54 .0034 .4401 .030 .1560 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2
Round III Result
58 <mdl .4406 .025 <mdl 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the results of this Phase II ESA, KMB Consulting offers the following conclusions
regarding the environmental site conditions:
• In accordance with Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of
the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (O.Reg. 153/04), the appropriate generic site
condition standards are the Table 3 standards for non-potable groundwater, industrial,
commercial or community property use and coarse textured soils, as provided in the
supporting document “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part
XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act,” 27 July 2009 (2009 Table 3 SCS).
• Soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for BTEX, PHC (F1 - F4) on the subject
property. The soil sampling was carried out in 3phases and the results of laboratory
analytical testing programs confirms the presence of petroleum contamination on the
property in soils around the power house USTs at the extreme east side of the property.
Results of these Phase II investigations indicate that petroleum contamination is present, but
limited to soil around the power house USTs at the extreme east side of the property. This is
a relatively small area of the property (approximately 133 square meters) at a depth sloping
from six to eight meters. The condition of the soil and the value of the property would
benefit from remediation. Remediation is also necessary to meet the environmental criteria
required of land to be used for residential, institutional or parkland purposes. KMB
Consulting Ltd. has remediated hundreds of properties contaminated with petroleum
hydrocarbons. We invite you to speak with our manager of remediation to plan a successful
path forward.
8.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ASSESSORS
20. This Phase II ESA for London Psychiatric Hospital was conducted by four employees of
KMB Consulting Ltd. under the supervisor of a Senior Environmental site assessor, the
names and qualification of all those involved are listed as follows:
Name Position Qualification
Brown Talker Supervisor Environmental Science
(MSc) & Maters in
Mechanical (MEng)
Kelly Baah Project Manager Environmental Science (BSc)
&
Environmental Management
and Assessment (Graduate
Dip)
Mike Winter Documentation Manager Environmental Management
and Assessment (Graduate
Dip)
Khalid Mahmood Site Assessor Soil Science (MSc) &
Environmental Management
and Assessment (Graduate
Dip)
Olufunso Babajide Field Manager Botany (BSc) &
Environmental Management
and Assessment (Graduate
Dip)
9.0 REFERENCES
• Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Canadian Standards Association, 2000, ISBN
9781553241461
• Guidance on Site Specific Risk Assessment for use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario.
Marius Marsh, Ron Pearson, Lee Hoffman. ISBN 07778405803
• Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in
Ontario. Marius Marsh, 1996, ISBN 0777840561
• Subsurface Assessment Handbook for Contaminated Sites / Waterloo Centre for
• Groundwater Research, University of Waterloo, 1994, ISBN 0919074812, pg. 14
• A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment at Contaminated Sites in Canada, 1994,
ISBN 0662221567
• Field Sampling Methods for Remedial Investigations, 1994, ISBN 0873716981
