Land & Building Experts
PEO COA # 100205934
landbuil
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT - ESA (Phase 1 - Assessment; Phase 2 - Soil Test & Ground Water Test; Phase 3 - Contamination Clean-Up)
We offer Environmental Site Assessment Phase 1, 2 & 3 in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, and Woodstock.
When it comes to dealing with environmental contamination it is better to be pro-active.Accidental spills and careless waste disposal practices can result in soil and ground water contamination. Spills are common and can occur just about anywhere and anytime. About 10,000 spills are reported each year in Canada, amounting to thousands of tonnes of fuels and other chemicals. Officials estimate that the total number of unreported spills could be as high as 40,000. Fuel products comprise about 70% of the reported spills. Chemicals spilled many years ago can linger in the soil and still be a problem today. Site contamination is a complex problem that seldom goes away by itself and can persist for decades. The contamination may not be confined to the site itself, because contamination often spread far beyond their original source. Toxic contamination can seep through the soil to the groundwater, which then becomes unfit for drinking. Natural groundwater flow can spread the contamination over a wide area. As a result, soil and ground water contaminations are often found in properties near past or present industrial sites, such as refineries, steel plants, mines, scrap yards and chemical plants. Contamination can also be associated with smaller-scale operations such as dry cleaning outlets, electrical contractors, print shops, waste processors and industrial waste disposal sites.
Leakage of petroleum or other products from underground storage tanks is another common cause of soil and ground water contamination. Environmentally contaminated sites are very often found near operating gas stations, former gas stations and at other locations where petroleum have been stored in underground storage tanks. From 7,500 to 20,000 underground storage tanks across Canada are thought to be leaking. As time passes, more of the older tanks will begin to leak due to problems such as corrosion. There are at least 10,000 contaminated landfill sites across Canada. Contamination may be seeping out of many of these contaminated landfill sites. The health and safety of people who live or work at or very near a contaminated site are directly at risk. The local natural environment is also at risk. The immediate concern is the potential contamination cleanup cost. Individuals and corporations are, with increasing frequency, being charged and convicted of offences associated with contaminated sites, although they may not have been directly responsible for the contamination. Such court cases are very expensive.
The costs associated with contaminated property can be significant, and may have to be borne entirely or in part by past or present property owners, investors, lenders or even commercial tenants. A lender should not acquire title to mortgaged property unless satisfied that there are no indications of contamination on the property. The lender should also ensure that any business conducted on the property does not carry with it an unmanaged risk of contamination. A lending organization or individual who takes possession of a contaminated site, due to foreclosure of a mortgage or for any other reason may find that the property is worth very little. They may even find that the costs of a contamination cleanup exceed the property’s value. A buyer who borrows money to purchase a property that turns out to be a contaminated site may subsequently be prosecuted for environmental offences and face fines and legal and contamination cleanup costs. These contamination cleanup expenses may reduce the buyer's ability to repay the mortgage. If lenders then have to take possession of the contaminated property, they may be prosecuted or become liable for the debtor’s environmental problems, including contamination clean-up costs. If contamination is found at a site, authorities could order anyone who has any control of the site or business to clean it up, whether or not they caused the contamination. Anyone who has ever owned or occupied that site may be ordered to participate in the cleanup. Creditors who were previously in possession of a contaminated site for no matter how short a time, may also be required to cover some or all of the contamination cleanup costs. Compliance with such orders can be extremely expensive. Property owners and occupants affected by nearby contaminated sites may sue those responsible, or sue current owners who may not even have caused the contamination.
There is currently no legal requirement in Ontario to conduct environmental site assessments. However, organizations and individuals who provide mortgages, guarantee mortgages or invest in real estate insist on an Environmental Site Assessment before committing themselves to a transaction. Commercial lending institutions, and those who own, manage or invest in real estate know that it is essential to be concerned about the environmental status of sites with which they are associated. More and more organizations are requiring environmental site assessments as a condition for real estate transactions. The best time to determine if an environmental contamination is present, is prior to purchase a property. After you own the property it becomes your responsibility. Now Environmental Site Assessments have become universally accepted as an essential component of responsible asset management.
Environmental Site Assessments are very valuable to identify potential environmental concerns at a site. These assessments, by their nature, are limited and it is crucial that all of the parties involved understand these limitations.
An Environmental Site Assessment ESA by experienced environmental site assessor should reveal the potential for significant environmental issues at a site even if it is performed in a tight time frame. We use only senior qualified and experienced assessors to conduct the environmental site assessments. To ensure the important issues are not overlooked and that uncertainties associated with the assessment are reduced, Environmental Site Assessments are performed to the Ministry of Environment guidelines, by experienced environmental site assessors. Even the most thorough Environmental Site Assessments may not be able to confirm unequivocally that a site is not contaminated, or guarantee that a site will not become contaminated in the future. An Environmental Site Assessment can only determine that no indicators of contamination are found at the time of the investigation.
Commercial and industrial real estate lenders scrutinize every aspect of a deal to make sure it is a good one. Environmental Site Assessment on commercial and industrial real estate deals is more important than ever. When a commercial or industrial property is purchased or sold, the responsibility for cleanup and containment of contamination is passed to the new owner. For this reason it is vital that any environmental liability be identified before a commercial or industrial property is purchased or sold. Identifying areas of "Environmental Concern" is imperative to prepurchase evaluation and assessment. When it comes to commercial real estate, one of the most-common issues that impairs the deals is environmental contamination. Both buyers and sellers need to know that Environmental laws hold owners responsible for cleaning up contamination, regardless of who created or contributed to the problem. If a buyer misses contamination and it is found later, the buyer will be liable for the cleanup. Recent environmental site assessment of the property can actually make potential buyers more comfortable. The discovery of contamination problems after the sale can lead the new owners to take up a legal battle—at significant cost to everyone—to force the sellers to pay for the cleanup of contamination. Legally, the seller can still be liable for cleanup of contamination even after seller no longer own or operate at the site. So developing a comprehensive understanding of the environmental conditions at the property is the best way to ensure a successful property transfer!
Ignorance at the time of purchase and sale is no excuse. By conducting thorough environmental site assessment early in the deal, everybody involved in the deal can learn about potential contamination upfront and they have time to address contamination issues before closing. If the site is found to be contaminated and we are under no legal obligation to report their findings to any government body, unless it is believed that the contamination seriously endangers the safety or welfare of the public.
CLARIFYING CONTAMINATION - Phase 1 - Environmental Site Assessment - ESA
A variety of actions can cause a Phase 1 Environmental Study to be performed for a commercial property, the most common being:
* Purchase of the property by a person or entity not previously on title
* Contemplation by a new lender to provide a loan on the subject property
* Partnership buyout or principal redistribution of ownership.
* Application to a public agency for change of use or other discretionary land use permit
* Existing property owner’s desire to understand toxic history of the property.
* Compulsion by a regulatory agency who suspects toxic conditions on the site.
* Divestiture of properties
A phase 1 environmental site assessment is an absolute necessity when purchasing commercial property these days. A phase 1 environmental site assessment is the fact phase of an environmental assessment. Basically, the whole purpose of the phase 1 environmental site assessment is to determine whether or not there is any evidence that may suggest that the site is contaminated or may become contaminated.
The best time to determine if an environmental contamination is present, is before you buy. After you own the property it becomes your responsibility.
We conduct thorough rigorous environmental analysis of the property and all surrounding uses or conditions, which may carry the risk of contamination or liability and issues arise from past use of chemical, oil tanks, asbestos and other hazards. Environmental site assessments (ESA) have been performed on a range of property types, including gas stations, medium sized industrial operations and multi-tenant commercial plazas. We focus our phase one environmental site assessment on the unique circumstances, conditions and risks inherent in each property type and develop an efficient strategy for acquiring specialized information unique to the property.
As described by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), in Standard CAN/CSA-Z768-01, a phase 1 environmental site assessment (ESA) is a systematic process by which an environmental assessor seeks to determine whether a particular property is subject to actual or potential contamination. The scope of the phase 1 environmental site assessment will consist of the following four principal components of the CSA Standard:
A very detailed and labor intensive search, review and analyze of historical property use, occupancy records and aerial photographs of the subject and adjacent properties. Geology, Hydrology, Topography are analyzed to determine type of the soil, depth of water table, direction and flow of ground water and other physical attributes to determine the potential of any environmental contamination migrating to or from the subject property. At least a portion of the preliminary records review is conducted before site reconnaissance occurs, in order to obtain an understanding of the potential issues of environmental contamination at the site before conducting the site reconnaissance and interviews. Preliminary information that should be assessed prior to visiting the subject site may include the following:
Depending on the nature of the subject site and our professional judgment, review of additional materials are considered before the site reconnaissance in order to guide our subsequent observations. The list of materials extends beyond this preliminary information, and includes:
It is a requirement that, in the absence of other information regarding the history of the subject site, we have to conduct a chain of title search for the subject site that extends back to the first developed use. Some examples of other information from the records review that could be used to meet the objectives of the records review and avoid the necessity for a title search going back to first developed use may include the following:
The review of aerial photographs is a mandatory requirement for a phase one Environmental Site Assessment . We use historical aerial photographs from sources such as map libraries, the National Air Photo Library, or commercial suppliers rather than relying solely on internet or online imagery. The series of aerial photographs examined us should cover all developed uses, and major changes in developed uses, for the property. When including aerial photographs in phase one Environmental Site Assessment reports, we should indicate the location and extent of the subject property and the phase one ESA Study Area.
Although these sources may not directly contain information on issues of actual or potential environmental concern at the subject site, physiographic maps, topographic maps, geologic maps or similar documents may provide information useful to the development of a ”phase one ESA conceptual site model”.
Visual assessment of the site and surrounding properties including Identification of any liquid or chemical storage, PCBs, ACM, Lead and other designated substances, spills or soil and building contamination and identification of surrounding land use in order to identify possible impacts to the subject site. Physical obstructions can have a large impact on the results of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, since no intrusive sampling is done during the assessment. The site reconnaissance should be documented using written notes and photographs showing each identified issue of potential contamination. Issues that we may wish to document include, but are not limited to, :
Sometimes information provided by individuals about the previous usage of the site and/or adjacent sites may somewhat misleading and may lead to certain assumptions being made regarding the potential environmental risks associated with the property by the parties involved in the transaction. Informations from interviews of individuals must be corroborated whenever possible.
The review and evaluation of information from the records review, interviews and site reconnaissance is required in order to prepare:
The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conceptual site model should provide both a graphical and narrative summary of the information synthesized from the records review, interviews and site reconnaissance components of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The information that should be depicted and described includes:
A mandatory requirement of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is a written report to provide a written record of the scope and findings of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA).
Environmental Site Assessment is one of the services of our ongoing business. Environmental Site Assessments have been performed on a range of property types, including gas stations (retail gasoline/fuel outlets), medium sized industrial operations, residential apartment buildings and multi-tenant commercial plazas. Environmental Site Assessments provide the property owners protection from environmental liability.
Site visits can be arranged within 6 to 8 business days. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment reports are ready within 10 business days after completion of site visits. Our cost of carrying out the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment work as per CAN/CSA-Z768-01 Standard which is suitable for financing purposes and/or due diligence for purchase and sale of the property is $2,490+HST.
RUSH phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment – site visit within 3 business days and Phase 1 Environmental Report within 5 business days after the site visit will cost additional $495.
We provide Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, and Woodstock.
Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment is required when potential contamination has been identified on a high-risk property such as industrial buildings, gas stations, automobile repair garages, dry cleaners etc. A gasoline station or a dry cleaner can severely impact a property 500 m away. Many buyers or sellers of a large property try to limit their costs by drilling few boreholes which may result in few soil samples and limited groundwater assessment. This is prone to error and often misses many potential contamination problems.
As described by the Canadian Standards Association CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z769-00 a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment involves sampling and testing of soil and groundwater considered by the outcome of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment ESA or other investigation to be possible instances of environmental contamination. The cost, scope and duration of a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment are dependent on many factors such as the size and location of the site, the number and type of suspected contaminants, the type of material to be sampled such as soil, groundwater, etc., the methods used for soil and groundwater sampling for testing and the time required to obtain laboratory test results.
The most frequent substances tested are Petroleum Hydrocarbons in four fractions F1-F4, Heavy Metals, Volatile Organic Compounds VOC, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons - PAH, Polychlorinated Biphenyl’s PCBs pesticides and solvents. Representative soil and grounwater samples are mostly obtained from boreholes and monitoring wells.
Prior to any sub-surface investigation, the locations of underground utilities and services are investigated and confirmed to avoid potential disruption to the underground utilities during the sub-surface investigation. The locations for sub-surface investigation are selected by an initial rationale of being the most likely locations of contamination.
The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment should form the basis of planning the sampling locations for soil and groundwater testing and contaminants of concern to be analyzed in the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Conceptual Site Model should be used as a guide to select the specific locations for sampling of environmental media (e.g. soil and groundwater) for testing, the selection of environmental media (e.g. soil, groundwater and sediment), as well as the range of contaminants to be analyzed. Based on the available information, a preliminary phase two “conceptual site model” should be developed in order to assist in the planning of the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment . This conceptual site model represents a preliminary understanding of the site characteristics, including the presence of confining and unconfining layers, expected locations of contamination, likely contamination transport mechanisms, and the existence of potentially preferential pathways for contamination transport such as sewers or utility conduits. The preliminary conceptual site model may be revised or refined as field data are gathered during the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment.
Site-specific constraints such as the physical layout of the property and safety hazards due to the presence of underground utilities, overhead power lines, and building structures may constrain the final selection of the sampling locations for testing. These constraints should be assessed at an early stage to determine how they may influence the final sampling locations for testing in relation to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conceptual site model. This should be documented so that the significance of deviations from the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conceptual site model can be assessed, and if required, an alternate soil and groundwater sampling strategy for testing can be developed.
We will assess whether the property use activities at the property may have changed since the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted and should undertake the investigation accordingly. We visit the property to assess the actual conditions and plan the investigation accordingly. The plan should include a provision for iterative round of sampling particularly where extensive contamination is expected. In such cases, it may be preferable to conduct the initial investigation in the less contaminated portion of the property so that sampling for teasting in the more heavily contaminated areas can be planned more carefully following analysis from the preliminary round of sampling and testing. Sampling locations for testing should be planned near the up-gradient and down-gradient property boundaries so that the implications of contamination movement from or to neighbouring sites can be assessed. Trans-gradient locations should also be assessed in order to confirm groundwater flow.
The selection of the appropriate site condition standards to compare the test results for soil and groundwater samples depends on several factors including, the property use category of the site (i.e., agricultural, residential, parkland, commercial, institutional or industrial use), whether a “full-depth” or “stratified” soil assessment approach is considered, the “potable” or “non-potable” condition of groundwater, proximity of the site to surface water or other environmentally sensitive features, the soil thickness at the site; and the soil texture.
A conceptual site model is a preliminary representation of the hydrogeological conditions at a site based on a simplified summary of the available existing information. The conceptual site model aids in the assessment and, where applicable, the remediation of a site. At a preliminary stage, data assembled during the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will form the basis of the conceptual site model. As additional data become available during the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the conceptual site model can be updated and used to refine the work program.
The planning of a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) will typically involve decisions regarding the type of sampling program for testing of soil and groundwater to be undertaken, the locations of soil that are to be sampled, the contaminants of potential concern to be analyzed based on the potentially contaminating activities identified during the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the methods of sample collection for testing, and the number of samples to be collected for quality assurance test and quality control test purposes.
The sampling plan for testing should be developed with the objective of assessing the potential areas or issues of environmental contamination identified during the phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The sampling plan for testing developed prior to the start of the field work is intended to reflect good practice but it must include inherent flexibility to accommodate variations in the actual subsurface conditions. The sampling plan for tetsing should be based on the conceptual site model developed on the basis of existing preliminary information, but should be flexible enough to allow modifications to or deviations from the plan to account for unexpected conditions encountered when conducting the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). For example, it may not be desirable to drill boreholes to the depth stated in the sampling plan for testing if gross contamination (e.g. free product) is unexpectedly encountered at a particular location. Conversely, if the achievement of the planned depth of investigation coincides with increasing contaminant levels, deeper sampling may be warranted to achieve vertical delineation.
As iterative sampling for testing is an important component in a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the sampling plan for testing developed at this stage may not reflect the final field program that is implemented. The professional undertaking the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should not feel constrained by the sampling plan for testing when field conditions require deviations from this initially developed plan.
All the requirements of the field sampling program for testing should be considered during the planning stage of the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The program should outline the sampling method(s) for testing that are to be used and the sample handling, storage, shipping and laboratory submission for testing procedures. This will help ensure that consistent procedures are followed between sampling locations for testing and when sampling for testing is conducted by different personnel.
The planning for field sampling for testing soil and groundwater should result in sampling personnel having full knowledge of sampling procedures to be used, observations of field and soil conditions to be recorded, the planned sampling locations, criteria for relocating planned sampling sites, methods of recording site locations, proper containers and labelling of samples, and proper procedures for storing and delivering samples to the analytical laboratory. If deemed necessary, contact should be made with the analytical laboratory during the planning stage to verify hold times etc.
Planning for sampling should include consideration of the health and safety of the sampling personnel, the public and the environment. This includes the potential for exposure to hazardous materials, dangers posed by equipment, and field conditions for which safety protocols should be in place (i.e., excavations, encountering buried pipes and storage tanks, mobile equipment, noise etc.) Under the Regulation soil is defined as unconsolidated naturally occurring mineral particles and other naturally occurring materials resulting from the natural breakdown of rock or organic matter that are less than 2 mm in diameter (or that passes through the US No. 10 sieve). Conversely, rock is a naturally occurring aggregation of mineral particles that are greater than 2 mm in diameter (or do not pass through the No. 10 sieve). Particles greater than 2 mm in diameter are not considered as soil for the purposes of the Regulation. Poorly sorted coarse grained glacial deposits may be comprised of particles that are both less than and greater than 2 mm in diameter. In these situations, we must make a judgement based on the predominant particle size present in the deposit whether the material would meet the definition of soil and collect samples for analysis accordingly.
The assessment of soil quality is mandatory in a phase two ESA. Soil sampling and analysis will indicate whether soil conditions are appropriate for the site use or whether site remediation or a risk assessment is necessary. The results of the soil sampling will also help indicate, along with the results of the phase one ESA, if the groundwater at the property may be contaminated and should also be sampled.
Adequate planning of the sampling program must occur in order to assure that samples represent the areas and depths desired, that sample variability is properly determined and accounted for, and that there are sufficient numbers of samples at the appropriate locations to fulfill the purposes of the sampling. Within any soil there is inherent variability in physical and chemical properties. The degree of variability varies according to numerous factors, including the size of the area, mode of contamination, the physical/chemical properties of the contaminant, stratigraphy and soil type. These factors can produce spatial variability that is considerably larger than that encountered in other media. When conducting soil sampling we consider this variability in assessing potential contamination of a phase two ESA property. Soil sampling should be conducted in all potentially contaminated areas identified in the phase one ESA. The sampling locations should be chosen such that the contamination in each area exceeding the applicable generic site condition standards is fully delineated and the maximum level of each contaminant of concern is established. This will require the spatial distribution of sampling locations both in the area of suspected contamination and outside this area to establish the lateral extent of contamination exceeding the generic site condition standards. Similar considerations should be applied in establishing the vertical extent of soil contamination.
Groundwater sampling in a phase two ESA is mandatory when the property is an “enhanced investigation property” (i.e., it is or was used as a garage, a bulk dispensing facility, including a gasoline outlet, or for the operation of dry cleaning equipment). At other properties, we may exercise discretion on the need for groundwater assessment. For example, if the soil is found to be impacted with metals at shallow depth with the deeper soil unimpacted, and the phase one ESA indicates that there are no contaminating activities in the vicinity of the site, we may decide that groundwater assessment may not be required. The rationale for not undertaking groundwater assessment should be provided. Notwithstanding the regulatory flexibility, however, it is considered good practice to conduct groundwater assessment routinely at all sites in order to establish the baseline groundwater conditions. Sufficient monitoring wells should be installed to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of groundwater impact. The number and depth of the monitoring wells will depend on many factors including the depth of the water table, the presence of confined and unconfined groundwater units multiple aquifers, and depth of bedrock. In general, at least one monitoring well should be installed in each potentially identified area of contamination where groundwater impact is considered likely. Monitoring wells should also be placed in the inferred upgradient and downgradient areas from the suspected source of contamination in order to establish background groundwater quality at the site and assess the likelihood of off-site impact. At least three monitoring wells installed in a triangular manner and not in a line will be required to establish the direction of groundwater flow in each groundwater unit. The maximum depth of the monitoring wells will be determined by type of contaminant (i.e.,LNAPL, DNAPL or inorganic and the presence of a confining layer or aquitard. It may be necessary to drill the wells through the confining layer to establish the vertical “clean line” for the groundwater, but this should be conducted with caution to avoid the possibility of dragging down contamination into an unimpacted groundwater unit. The contamination should be delineated in groundwater in both the lateral and vertical directions. Lateral delineation typically requires a sufficient number of monitoring wells; however, vertical delineation requires the use of at least one multi-level monitoring well in at least one area of impact to establish the potential for vertical groundwater flow and depth of contamination. Additional guidance on the vertical delineation of groundwater impacts is as follows:
In the case of combustible LNAPLs, the soil sample combustible vapour readings may be useful for targeting the vertical zone that would have the potential of having groundwater that would meet the MOE site conditions standards.
Where possible, for combustible LNAPLs, we may consider relying on soil headspace combustible vapour screening results in conjunction with soil sample laboratory analytical results as sufficient evidence that vertical delineation has been achieved. For example, if all soil screening results below an observed zone of contamination are below approximately 200 ppm and laboratory analytical data for one or more samples from below the observed contamination confirm that the soil meets the applicable MOE site condition standards, then further vertical delineation may not be necessary. Where groundwater contamination is known or suspected, samples from each of multiple screened well intervals may be necessary to confirm vertical groundwater delineation.
In the case of DNAPLs, we develop a vertical delineation plan carefully. This may include first screening the groundwater in the first confining layer below the observed contamination outside of the suspected source area rather than drilling in the source area.
If it is required to drill in the source area to undertake vertical delineation, it is important that the contamination in the source area is not transferred to greater depths during the drilling process. This is typically achieved using grout and casings and a “telescoping methodology”.
Soil sampling should be conducted in all potential or known areas of contamination identified in the phase one ESA or from other information including field observations during the field component of the phase two ESA. The purpose of the sampling is to determine if contaminants of concern are present in soil above the applicable Ministry of Environment Site Condition Standards. The actual spatial pattern and number of soil samples will depend on the assumed distribution of the contaminants based on existing information and field observations. The depth(s) of sampling will depend on the nature and location of the source (i.e. underground vs. surface) of the contamination, soil stratigraphy and type (i.e. sand vs. clay), and type of contaminant (i.e. retardation factor; Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL), Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) or inorganic; depth to the water table; soil screening results). Soil sampling should extend laterally and vertically beyond the zone of contamination. It is important to sample the surface soil to address sensitive receptors (e.g. toddlers) that have the highest potential for adverse affect upon exposure to this soil.
In some situations all soil on a property may have been excavated to bedrock and to the property boundary for the purpose of future construction purposes. In other situations, bedrock may be exposed across the entire property with no soil cover present. For such situations, phase two ESA report is prepared on the basis of groundwater sampling alone if there is no soil present.
The soil sampling plan should be based on the available background information, usually obtained from a review of the phase one ESA, any other existing site information and visual observations of site conditions. The sampling locations should target the areas identified as potential or actual sources of contamination. Rationale for the selection of each sampling location and any deviations from the planned sampling should be provided. This “judgement” or “focused” sampling method is the most commonly used method in phase two ESAs where potential or actual sources of contamination exist. Where such information is not available, the sampling locations may be randomly distributed across the site. At sites covered with imported fill of unknown quality the sampling locations should be selected on a systematic grid basis in order to obtain a representative indication of fill quality.
Truck-mounted drills are used for deeper soils. They include hollow stem and solid stem augers. Hollow stem augers are commonly used as soil sampling can be conducted by inserting a sampling device through the hollow stem. Solid stem augers may be used in formations such as hard tills where the borehole does not collapse when the stem is removed to permit the taking of discrete soil samples. However, solid stem augers are typically not used for environmental investigations.
Soil samples can also be collected from a discrete depth using the Geoprobe® direct push sampling system. The device is capable of recovering a discrete soil core contained inside a sampling tube fitted with a drive shoe. The sampling tube can be split into two halves to expose the soil core.
Hydrovac or daylighting involves removal of soil using a high-pressure water jet. This method is used when drilling is required near underground buried utilities and sensitive infrastructure. The daylighting exposes the buried infrastructure allowing decisions for the safe collection of soil samples to be made.
Test pits or trenches excavated with a backhoe or excavator offer the capability of collecting soil samples from very specific intervals and allow visual observations of in-situ soil conditions. The maximum depth of a test pit that can be excavated with a backhoe is generally up to 5 m.
The split spoon sampler is a split cylindrical barrel, typically 0.5 m to 0.6 m long and about 5 cm in diameter that is threaded at both ends. The leading end has a bevelled cutting shoe and the other end can be attached to the drill rod. An auger drill rig is used to advance the borehole to a target depth. The auger stem is removed, and the spoon is attached to the drill rod. The drill rig hammer is then used to drive the split spoon into the soil at the bottom of the borehole filling it with soil. The split spoon is then withdrawn, from the borehole, removed from the drill rod and opened for sample collection. Typically, a split spoon sample is collected for every 0.75 m borehole depth increment although the frequency of sampling can be determined by the Project Manager. Split spoons may be fitted with basket or spring retainers to improve ample recovery in non-cohesive soils.
A Shelby tube is a thin-walled push tube with a ball-check to aid in holding the sample during retrieval. Shelby tubes are typically used in geotechnical investigations where undisturbed samples of non-cohesive soils and clays are required. The tube is pressed into the undisturbed clay or silts by hydraulic force applied to the end of the drill rod to which the tube is attached. If samples for chemical analyses are required, the soil inside the tube is removed for sample collection. If geotechnical parameters are required the tube is capped and sent to the geotechnical laboratory.
Once the split-spoon that is driven into the borehole for sample collection is opened, soil recovery and soil classification observations are made and recorded. The top several centimetres of material in the spoon are discarded before removing any portion for sampling as this material normally consists of material that has sloughed-off from the borehole wall after removal of the augers. When sampling the soil core from the split-spoon sampler, a decontaminated stainless steel sampling device (i.e., a putty knife, trowel, spoon or similar implement) should be used. The sample should not be touched by bare hand or gloves and contact and handling of the sample should be kept to a minimum. Any smeared soil on the outer layer of the core should be removed using the sampling device, prior to sampling the soil (to limit the potential for cross contamination). If possible, the sample core should be split longitudinally, along the length of the split-spoon sampler. If varying levels of contamination or varying soil types are observed within the length of the split-spoon core sample, then a sample should be taken from each distinct zone within the split-spoon sample.
The collection of soil samples for the laboratory analysis of volatile contaminants possesses the greatest risk of the loss of contaminants due to the disruption of the soil matrix within the splitspoon during handling. It is not recommended that the soil be exposed for an extended length of time (i.e. >2 min) once the split-spoon has been opened if the soil is to be used for soil headspace vapour measurements or laboratory chemical analysis of volatile contaminants. Every split-spoon sample taken from a borehole does not need to be submitted for laboratory analysis; however, it is required that sufficient samples be analyzed to permit the vertical delineation of contamination. The sample submitted to the laboratory must not be that used for field vapour screening. Typically, all split spoon samples are split in field with one portion used for field screening and the other portion being place in laboratory supplied containers for potential laboratory analysis. Samples being submitted to the laboratory for the analysis of volatile contaminants should not be composited or mixed in the field. These samples should be transferred to pre-charged soil sampling containers with methanol preservation or hermetically sealed sampling devices. The sample containers should be kept cool with ice. For boreholes, it is best practice that a minimum of one sample for each borehole be sent to the laboratory for the analysis of the contaminants of concern. The following procedures should be followed:
Test pits can be a good method of assessment and are often used prior to drilling, allowing the us to better select drilling locations. Test pits have the advantage of providing better observations of the subsurface and larger soil samples. Test pits should not be used for groundwater assessment. A test pit should be advanced until field screening indicates there is no evidence of contamination. Where possible, a test pit should be advanced to a sufficient depth to provide vertical delineation unless the depth of contamination is beyond that which can be assessed with the excavator.
Soil samples from test pits should be collected from the excavator bucket. It is unsafe to enter a test pit or stand near the test pit. Caution should be exercised when collecting the samples and measuring the depths from which they were taken. In order to collect a discrete sample using and excavator a sample should be collected from single point at the base of the test pit. This is done by first advancing the test pit to the desired depth and clearing its base such that sloughing and collapse of soil is not occurring. Then the operator should provide relatively small (i.e.,compared to the bucket) volume of soil from a discrete position and depth and minimizing disruption of the soil. This is preferred to filling the excavator bucket with soils scraped from the entire depth interval being sampled. Often the soil on top of the tooth of a bucket is sufficient for sampling. When the soil sample is being collected, a clean pair of nitrile gloves should be worn and a stainless steel sampling device should be used to scrape off the surface soil. The soil sample should be transferred into a sample bottle or a plastic bag if it is to used for field screening. At least one sample should be collected from each test pit. However, two or more samples may be collected if contamination is encountered, in order to achieve vertical delineation. At sites with Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) contamination, it is recommended that soil samples be collected near the water table.
When excavating a test pit, contaminated and uncontaminated soils should be kept in separate stock piles based on field screening. After completion of the test pits the soils excavated should be backfilled into their approximate original positions. A test pit should be nominally compacted using the excavator bucket in 0.3 m to 0.6 m lifts. Heavily contaminated soil may be segregated and removed from the site.
Soil samples are typically collected from excavations during the removal of infrastructure or remedial actions requiring removal of soil for off-site disposal or ex-situ treatment.
Verification sampling of the walls and floor of the excavation may be conducted to confirm the limits of the contamination. This typically involves dividing walls and floors of the excavation into a grid pattern. If possible, soil samples may be obtained from the walls of the excavation using a scoop fixed to pipe and lowered into the excavation. It is more practical however to collect samples directly from the backhoe bucket at each desired sampling interval. The soil sample should not be taken from the centre of the bucket and not near the edge of the bucket in order to minimize the possibility of cross contamination due to smearing of soil along the wall of the excavation.
Minimum confirmation sampling requirements - Floors & Walls of excavation
Floor Area (sq m) Floor Samples Sidewall Samples
<25 2 2
25-50 2 3
50-100 3 3
100-250 3 5
250-500 4 6
500-750 4 7
750-1000 5 8
Materials in soil stockpiles may be intended for reuse on a property as backfill, either in its current form or once actions to reduce the concentrations of contaminants have been completed, or may be intended for use at another property. As a general principle, the sampling of stockpiles should consider that segregation of materials by grain size may occur during materials handling and stockpiling. Materials at or near the surface of the stockpile may be rain-washed or otherwise segregated, and should therefore not be considered as representative of the stockpile contents. In general, surficial materials should be avoided during stockpile sampling. Prior to the collection of samples, the upper 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 ft to 2 ft) or more of the surficial material should be removed from the area to be sampled. Similarly, the bottom 25% of the stockpile should be avoided, as coarser material may have segregated out of the pile. Sampling of this material may under-represent the concentration of contaminants that may be associated with the finer fractions of the stockpiled materials. The characterization of stockpiled materials is generally most representative if the sample density and/or volume are increased. Characterization of stockpiles is best conducted by the collection of multiple samples throughout the stockpile. This may be accomplished by subdividing each stockpile into an array of grid cells or zones, and selection of specific cells for sampling using a random number generator. It is preferable to use powered sampling equipment to allow for collection of samples deeper within the stockpile. Samples collected for analysis of volatile contaminants of concern (e.g. VOCs) should be collected as grab samples. Samples collected for analysis of less volatile contaminants can be composited if appropriate to provide overall characterization of the stockpiled material.
As an alternative to the collection of samples within the entire stockpiled volume, and particularly if the use of powered equipment to sample deeper within the stockpile is not feasible, then it may be possible to assign numbers to zones along the perimeters of the stockpile at various height intervals within the stockpile (e.g. ¼, ½, and ¾ of the stockpile height, or 1/3 and 2/3 of the stockpile height), and to select specific intervals and locations for sampling using a random number selection algorithm. Sampling using manual equipment should include methods to reduce the potential for ravelling of material into the sampling area from higher within the stockpile. For example, a board or form may be driven into an area above the sampling location in order to achieve this objective. For the collection of composite samples, the use of clean disposable gloves compatible with the type and level of contamination is advised. All of the samples to be composited should be combined into a chemically compatible vessel (e.g. a stainless steel bowl or container). Liquids should be drained away, and vegetation or other non-soil materials (e.g. vegetation, debris, etc.) should be removed. The subsamples should be combined in approximately equal proportions and transferred to laboratory-supplied containers for analysis.
Minimum stockpile sampling frequency
Pile Volume Minimum Number of Minimum Number of Samples
Cubic Metre Field Screening Samples for Laboratory Analysis
< 50 5 1
>50 to150 15 3
>150 to 500 30 5
>500 to 1,500 50 10
>1,500 75 15
It should be noted that these are the minimum number of soil samples to be taken for characterizing soil within the stockpile. We exercise professional judgement in deciding whether a higher sampling frequency is needed based on visual observations and a history of the origin of the soil, if available. The presence of some contaminants in soil, e.g. metals, is not easily discernible through field screening. This should be taken into account in assessing the reliability of field screening in such situations. A higher sampling frequency may be warranted if contaminants not easily discernible through field screening are likely to be present. The sampling frequency would also depend on the final disposition of the soil. For example, a higher sampling frequency may be warranted if the stockpiled soil is to be used in a residential setting
as opposed to its disposal as waste in a landfill site.
Composite soil sampling involves combining two or more discrete soil samples into a single composite sample in order to obtain a better representation of soil quality. The average of soil quality of two or more soil samples may be used to better represent the soil quality at a sampling location. The soil samples used for averaging of soil quality should be collected from the same depth horizon and within an area of less than two metres in radius. Compositing of soil samples for assessing volatile contaminants should not be done as this would result in loss of the volatiles.
For soils being analyzed for organics with very low regulatory limits (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, herbicides, and dioxins/furans), the soil should not be touched by a glove made from a plastic (e.g. latex, nitrile). For these parameters, the soil should only be in contact with a clean stainless steel sampling device (e.g. a putty knife, trowel, or spoon). For soils being analyzed for organics with higher regulatory limits (such as petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC) and benzene, toluene, ethylene, xylenes (BTEX)), contact with clean gloves is acceptable, but such contact should be minimized.
Soil samples being submitted to the laboratory for VOC analysis should not be composited or mixed in the field. Discrete grab samples should be taken from soil that best represent the contamination of the sampling location and then transferred directly into containers. Sample containers being submitted to the laboratory for analysis of volatiles analysis contain zero headspace (i.e., packed tightly with soil).
Visual observations of soil samples should be made and the results recorded in the field log. The visual observations should include any evidence of staining, discolouration or phase-separated contaminants (e.g. free petroleum product in the soil sample). Debris, foreign materials and similar inclusions should also be recorded in order to gain an understanding of the soil characteristics. Observations on soil texture and soil colour should also be included. The results of visual observations should be included in test pit logs, borehole logs and, if deemed necessary, excavation floor and wall drawings contained in the report that is prepared to summarize the field work that was performed.
Any chemical odours that are observed in the normal course of collection of the soil samples should be recorded. For health and safety reasons, it is recommended that samples should not be deliberately and directly smelled to make such observations. It is only necessary to note such occurrence when noticed in the ambient air and as such adjectives such a “mild, weak or strong” are not necessary.
Field screening instruments may be used to obtain a preliminary indication of contaminant levels in the soil samples. The instruments include Photo-Ionization Detectors, Flame Ionization Detectors, Combustible Gas Detectors, Field Chromatographs, Colourimetric Detectors, Immunoassay, and X-Ray Fluorescence. Information obtained using screening instruments should be considered as “semi-quantitative” and is intended to be used in guiding assessment activities. Screening information must not be used for assessing whether or not a property meets a Site Condition Standard.
During drilling or test-pitting, soil samples should be collected from each stratigraphic unit of interest and logged for soil type and staining. Care must be taken to minimize losses of volatile components during sampling and storage prior to determining soil head space vapour measurements. The split sample method is recommended, with one sample screened for head space vapours and the other potentially being submitted for laboratory analysis. Discrete samples must be taken in order to minimize the loss of volatile components.
For excavations, it is recommended that soil samples be collected from at least 0.1 metre below the surface of the wall or excavation floor. The instrument manufacturer’s recommended procedure for preparing and calibrating the instrument and using it in the field should be followed. Any filters and connections in the instruments probe attachment should also be inspected daily. Performance based criteria should be part of the consultant’s operating practices for operating the instrument. If the performance based criteria are not met, the instrument should be recalibrated or repaired such that it meets the criteria before being used for soil field screening. The methane elimination efficiency should be checked at least quarterly, We are well aware of the applications and limitations of screening techniques, and choose the field screening instrumentation most appropriate to the type of contaminant(s) anticipated.
The following procedure may be used for screening soil samples for VOCs:
The soil screening bags should not be exposed to direct sunlight for an extended period of time and should not be stored until the end of the day in order to perform soil screening measurements all at once. Soil from the plastic bags should not be submitted for laboratory analysis of VOCs, but may be used for analysis of non-volatile contaminants or physical parameters (e.g. grain size analysis).
Soil texture (grain size) should be assessed because some of the site condition standards are based on soil texture. The standards are generally more stringent for coarse-grained soils compared to medium/fine textured soil. The selected soil texture must be applicable to at least two-thirds of the site being assessed. If we are intending to use the fine/medium soil textural standards, then grain analysis is conducted. Soil texture can normally be determined in the field based on visual observation. At least one representative soil sample from the soil horizons of concern or most frequently sampled soil interval should be collected for laboratory analysis using the ASTM Method # D24587.
We take into account the overall hydrogeological setting in classifying the site based on texture and are aware that conduits or sand lenses may be the dominant factors in contaminant transport. Where such conditions are likely to be present or when there does not appear to be good correlation between the overall borehole stratigraphy and the soil texture measurements, we consider using the generally more stringent coarse-grained texture for the purpose of selecting the applicable soil standard.
A sufficient number of soil samples should be collected and sent to an accredited analytical laboratory for chemical analysis to fully delineate the contamination at the site. The findings of the phase one Environmental Site Assessment, visual observations of the soil samples, field screening results and our own judgement will guide the number of soil samples collected for analysis and the range of contaminants to be analyzed. A representative number of samples should be analyzed for pH, as this parameter affects the mobility of soil contaminants. It is recommended that at least one soil sample be collected for pH analysis from the surface soil (0 - 1.5m) and one sample from the sub-surface soil (> 1.5m) from within each identified contaminant source or potential contaminant source area on the property. We also collect one duplicate soil sample for each ten soil samples submitted to the laboratory. However soil heterogeneity may affect the range of analytical results reported between the original sample and the duplicate sample. For non-volatile contaminants, homogenization of samples may provide a more representative indication of variability attributable to the sampling and analysis program.
A basic understanding of the site hydrogeology is a first step in groundwater assessment at the phase two Environmental Site Assessment property. A hydrogeological conceptual site model developed on the basis of existing information will aid in determining the monitoring well placement strategy to obtain data on the groundwater conditions.
The objective of a groundwater sampling program in the context of a phase two ESA is to determine the groundwater quality at a site in relation to the applicable potable or non-potable groundwater site condition standards. The assessment should also consider the potential for migration of contaminants both onto the property and to off-site properties. The number and location of groundwater monitoring wells required to establish the groundwater quality will vary, depending on the complexity of the site hydrogeology, and the location and extent of the contaminant sources or areas of concern identified. In general, the following monitoring well placement strategy should be considered:
In developing a groundwater sampling program, we may incorporate the use of existing monitoring wells, if these wells are in good condition.
The regulatory requirements for monitoring well installation and abandonment are prescribed under Ontario Regulation 903. The regulation specifies requirements for licensing of well drillers and contractors, submission of well drilling records to the Ministry of the Environment, and abandonment of the monitoring wells when they are no longer needed. The submission of the well drilling and abandonment records is the responsibility of the licensed well drillers conducting the work.
The truck-mounted hollow stem auger drilling method is the most commonly used drilling technique for installing groundwater monitoring wells at a phase two ESA property. This method is preferred because it is simple to use and does not require any drilling fluids or air that could affect groundwater quality. Portable, hollow and solid stem drilling rigs or direct push drilling equipment can be used for shallow sampling or when truck-mounted drilling equipment cannot be used. “Direct-push” drilling and sampling may also be considered. Other drilling methods include air, water and mud rotary drilling techniques. These methods may be used in difficult conditions (e.g. bouldery formations) or for bedrock, but their use for a phase two Environmental Site Assessment is less common. These methods introduce fluids which can affect the quality of groundwater; hence the monitoring wells should be properly developed prior to sampling. In addition, air rotary drilling may result in the stripping of VOCs and further migration of contaminants. Where drilling fluids are used, we ensure that contaminants are not introduced into the subsurface. If monitoring wells are installed in grossly contaminated areas, suitable drilling and monitoring well installation measures should be implemented to prevent migration of contamination from the soil down to the water table and deeper into lower hydrostratigraphic units.
Monitoring well construction materials should not be stored directly on the ground, or in the vicinity of potentially contaminating materials (e.g. soil cuttings, waste drums, etc.). Monitoring well materials (e.g. PVC risers and screens) should be kept in the original manufacturer’s plastic sleeves as long as possible to minimize the potential for contamination. Latex, nitrile or cotton gloves are recommended for use while handling monitoring well materials and should be discarded if they become contaminated.
A monitoring well consists of the well casing and the well screen. The well casing provides access from the surface to a sampling location (i.e. the well screen) in the subsurface. The well casing is also commonly referred to as the well riser. The well casing (and associated seals and grout) prevents collapse of the borehole and inter-zonal hydraulic connection. The monitoring well casing and screen provide access to the groundwater at the zone of interest in the subsurface.
The fundamental parameters associated with the design of a monitoring well include:
The monitoring well is installed within a borehole drilled into the ground to allow for monitoring within a specific hydrostratigraphic unit of interest. The diameter of the borehole should be sufficiently large to accommodate the monitoring well casing, annular materials and tremie pipes used for filter pack or seal placement. The borehole diameter must be such that the annular space surrounding the monitoring well conforms to Ontario Regulation 903.
The diameter of the monitoring well (installed within the borehole) will be governed by the purpose of the installation. In general, wells installed for monitoring groundwater should be at least 2.5 cm (1 in) in diameter, and are typically 5 cm (2 in) in diameter. This allows small diameter bladder pumps, bailers, or inertial pumps to be installed.
The monitoring well screen length should be consistent with the desired monitored interval and geologic conditions encountered (i.e. stratigraphy and water table elevation). Screens should not straddle multiple hydrostratigraphic units, and must be properly sized and placed to avoid creating preferential pathways for contaminants to migrate between hydrostratigraphic units. It is recommended that shallow water-bearing horizons be characterized first before drilling into deeper formations, if groundwater characterization of the deeper formations is required. It may be necessary to seal the shallower formations by grouting, installing casings or using inflatable packers to prevent cross-contamination.
Typical monitoring well screens are 1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft) in length. The length of the monitoring well screen within the saturated formation not exceed 3 m. Considerations for the length or placement of a well screen include:
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is the most commonly used material for monitoring wells used for assessing groundwater quality in Ontario. It is made of sturdy, lightweight construction and can easily be threaded for joining casing sections. High (parts-per-thousand) concentrations of some organic chemicals may degrade PVC. In cases where conditions are too harsh to use PVC casings, we may consider the use of other monitoring wells made of other materials (e.g., stainless steel or Teflon)
The monitoring well screen slot size should be designed based on the materials used in the filter pack (also referred to as a sandpack) adjacent to the screen. The filter pack is intended to minimize the entry of soil particles into the well during sampling and is selected based on the geologic materials in which the monitoring well is screened. The filter pack is an inert granular material with a grain size and gradation selected to stabilize the hydrogeologic unit adjacent to the screen. ASTM Standard D5092-90 (ASTM, 2001) provides specifications for designing the well screen slot size and filter pack. The elevation of the top of the filter pack is to be selected in the field based upon the geologic conditions encountered. For shallow overburden wells, it is common to extend the filter pack to above the top of the water table to account for the anticipated seasonal fluctuation of the water table. In deeper overburden wells, the filter pack should span the length of the specific hydrogeologic unit that will be monitored. The filter pack should not extend through a confining layer, causing two or more separate permeable layers to become connected. Where practical, the filter pack should extend a minimum of 0.6 m (2 ft) above the top of the well screen.
As a general practice, filter socks should not be installed over monitoring well screens. The filter sock may reduce the measured hydraulic conductivity in coarse-grained formations and can physically entrap contaminants with high viscosity. Filter socks should only be used when fine particulates are adversely affecting analytical results and all other methods of reducing these fines in the groundwater sample (e.g. optimizing the sand filter pack/well screen slot size combination, trying alternate well development methods or using low-flow sampling methodologies) have not been effective. In general, the proper installation and development of a well should be adequate to minimize the amount of sediment entering the well.
In some cases, sampling from multiple discrete intervals at a given location may be required using multi-level monitoring wells. Such wells may be installed within a single borehole with the well screens placed at varying depths and properly sealed to isolate the zones where separate groundwater samples are required. Multi-level monitoring wells may also be placed at varying depths in closely-spaced boreholes.
When placing the filter pack into the borehole, a minimum of 0.15 m (6 in) of the filter pack material may be placed under the bottom of the well screen to provide a firm base. In cases where Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) is present, it may not be desirable to have a filter pack “sump” beneath the well and therefore this requirement may not be followed. The elevation for the top of the filter pack should be selected in the field based upon the geologic conditions encountered; however, is typically 20% of the screen length or 0.6 m (2 ft). In most situations commercially available silica sand is adequate for most applications.
After the filter pack has been installed, a bentonite plug should be placed directly on top of the filter pack to prevent water draining from the annular seal into the well screen and affecting the monitoring results. The annular seal is a low permeability material which is placed above the bentonite plug between the well casing (i.e. riser pipe) and the borehole wall to maintain alignment of the well.
The ground surface around the monitoring well should be sloped to drain surface water away from the well. A protective casing and lockable well cap should be installed to protect the well and prevent unauthorized access. Above ground installations (monument casings) and flush mount casings are available. Leaving an unprotected PVC riser sticking above the ground surface is not recommended, unless the site is secure and has no vehicular traffic in the area of the monitoring wells.
Above ground installations, such as monument casings, are often preferred. These offer the advantages of better visibility, less maintenance, and fewer problems associated with water intrusion and freezing within the casing. Monument casings can be installed to a greater depth below ground surface, and are therefore less susceptible to frost heave. Above ground risers should be protected by steel monument casings that have been sealed into the ground with concrete. The steel monument casing should have a lockable cap. The PVC riser should be capped inside the monument casing.
Flush mount installations are usually necessary in areas with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. They are also preferred in some sites for aesthetic reasons. A lockable cap should be installed on the riser, inside the flush mount casing. This will discourage vandalism of the monitoring well. When installed in the street or any other area with high vehicular traffic, the flush mount casing should have sufficient strength to avoid being damaged. Avoid casing with brass lids in this settings as these are prone to damage to vehicular traffic.
The primary goal of well development is to ensure that water extracted from the well is representative of groundwater conditions in the formation surrounding the well.
The objectives of well development include:
Monitoring well development typically requires the removal of three to ten well volumes of groundwater or, if low yielding, pumping the well until it is dry up to three times over a one to two-day period (i.e. typically 10 to 30 well volumes). The groundwater elevation in the pumped well should be allowed to reach static equilibrium before a subsequent round of pumping is initiated. For the purpose of phase two Environmental Site Assessment monitoring wells, which are not water supply wells, the removal of a maximum of 10 well volumes is often considered the cut-off for development efforts unless monitoring indicates that continued pumping will improve the representativeness of the water being pumped from the well.
Development is considered complete once the groundwater is silt-free (or no further improvement is observed). Silt-free conditions may not be attainable in wells screened in fine-grained soils. Stable levels of measured field parameters such as pH, temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen and turbidity may also be used to determine the cut-off of well development. However, it is often difficult to determine when stabilized measurements are attained; hence these measurements may not always provide good indication of stabilized conditions.
If water is introduced into the formation during the borehole or well installation processes, then sufficient water should be purged to also ensure that all water added to the formation has been removed and representative groundwater samples can be obtained. Due to mixing with formation water this may require up to three times the water lost. A record of the well development process should be kept.
Sub-surface soil and ground water sampling are completed in accordance with the requirements of Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment Standard CAN/CSA-Z769-00. Proper chain of custody procedures are assured for the recovered soil and ground water samples.
Constituents of concern are identified, sampled, analyzed and the laboratory results are compared to the applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment Standards. If the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment identifies adverse environmental impact in excess of the applicable Ontario Ministry of Environment Guidelines, additional assessment and/or remedial work may be required.
A Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment is an investigation to confirm the presence or absence of contamination on a property. If contamination is identified, the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment findings are used to develop options for dealing with the contamination including removing the contamination, managing the contamination in-place and or monitoring soil and groundwater conditions to ensure the contamination doesn’t worsen. The turnaround time for a typical Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment is about 4 to 5 weeks.
Our cost of carrying out the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment work as per CSA Standard CAN/CSA-Z769-00 which is suitable for financing purposes and/or due diligence for purchase and sale of the property is $3,950+HST plus $1,390+HST per borehole.
If a truck mounted drilling rig cannot be used for drilling and compact hydraulic drilling is required due to low ceiling height and/or narrow access, it will cost additional $900+HST. To expedite the project to complete within 3½ weeks may cost extra private locator fee of $495+HST and additional “RUSH” laboratory analysis fee of $975+HST. If required core cutting of concrete slabs may cost $175+HST per borehole. Installation monitoring wells in the borehole will cost $245+HST per monitoring well. Sampling and testing of existing monitoring wells may cost $245+HST per monitoring well. Reliance letter for the bank / lender will cost $245+HST.
We provide Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, and Woodstock.
REMEDIATION (CLEANUP) Phase 3 - Environmental Site Assessment - ESA
Fortunately, today's property owners have learned from yesterday's mistakes, and are eager to cleanup contaminations confirmed in their properties. Phase 3 Environmental Site Assessment and cleanup is an investigation involving remediation of a property. When a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment confirms an environmental contamination, a Phase 3 environmental cleanup and site remediation may be initiated based on the type, degree, and extent of contamination and subsurface conditions at the site.
Phase 3 environmental site investigations aim to delineate the physical extent of contamination based on recommendations made in Phase 2 environmental site Assessments. Phase 3 environmental site investigations may involve intensive testing, sampling, and monitoring, “fate and transport” studies and other modeling, and the design of feasibility studies for remediation and remedial plans. This study normally involves assessment of alternative cleanup methods, costs and logistics. Depending on the subsurface conditions, type of contaminant, and other variables, various methods of cleanup such as excavate and haul of contaminated soil, pump and treatment of groundwater, bioremediation (supply oxygen and nutrients to a contaminated site so that naturally occurring bacteria that degrade hydrocarbons can flourish and breakdown the hydrocarbons), soil vapor extraction (force air through contaminated soil to drive contaminant particles into the air), neutralization in-place, may be used to remove or neutralize the contamination.
Since no two contaminated sites are alike, phase 3 environmental site remediation is customized for every site, and can vary in cost and length of cleanup and remediation. The cost to of Phase 3 environmental site remediation is based on the location and size of the site; type, extent, and degree of contamination; depth to groundwater; subsurface conditions etc.
We provide Phase 3 Environmental Site Assessment and environmental cleanup in Ontario including including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, Woodstock.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation By Geotechnical Engineers
A Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation will evaluate the subsurface soil conditions at the proposed development to provide appropriate recommendations for site preparation, foundation design, drainage and other design and earthwork construction considerations. We will provide a geotechnical engineering report summarizing site observations of subsoil and groundwater conditions, field and laboratory testing, with our comments and recommendations regarding the foundation conditions, T-time for septic area subsoils, backfilling, slab-on-grade construction, asphalt pavement design, etc. The turnaround time for a typical Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation is about 3 to 5 weeks. Our cost of carrying out the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation is as follows:
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation $3,950+HST plus $1,490+HST per borehole
Drilling inside a building may cost additional $900+HST
We provide Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, Woodstock.
Slope Stability Assessment By Engineers Specializing in Slope Stability
The Slope Stability Assessment determines static and dynamic stability of slopes of embankments, excavated slopes, and natural slopes in soil and soft rock. A geotechnical investigation may be required to identify the Existing Top-of-Slope (ETOS) and determine the Long-Term-Stable Top-of-Slope (LTSTOS). Typically, comprehensive assessments are required for development projects close to major features such as steep ravines, while less detail may be required for minor works near shallower slopes. The assessment of the LTSTOS is completed following the MNR’s Technical Guide on River and Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit (2002) and accompanied by a detailed slope stability analysis. The LTSTOS is plotted on a topographic site plan and the minimum Factor of Safety generally required for slope stability analysis is 1.5.
Conservation Authority reviews slope stability reports on behalf of the municipality and provide technical comments to the municipality. Conservation Authority also reviews Natural Hazards including unstable slopes on behalf of the Province of Ontario, since 1995.
The cost, scope and duration of a Slope Stability Assessment are dependent on many factors such as the size and location of the site.
Slope Stability Assessment usually includes
Typical Slope Stability Assessment will cost $5,950+HST plus $1,490+HST per borehole
If required, additional boreholes may cost $990 per borehole. We provide Slope Stability Analysis in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, Woodstock.
Record of Site Condition (RSC)
In 2004, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment enacted Ontario Regulation 153/04 under the Environmental Protection Act to require a Record of Site Condition. When land use changes from a less sensitive use to a more sensitive use (e.g., when industrial or commercial lands are proposed to be converted to residential or parkland use, the more sensitive use must be considered.
A Record of Site Condition (RSC) sets out the environmental condition of a property at the time of the environmental assessment, based on its intended use. Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, a property owner may file a Record of Site Condition (RSC) on the Registry if the applicable standards are met for soil, ground water and sediment, if any. Section 168.3.1 of the Environmental Protection Act requires the filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) in the Registry prior to a change in property use from a commercial or industrial use to a residential or parkland use or other change in use specified by regulation. Section 168.3.1 has been included in Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act to ensure that properties being converted to a more sensitive use meet the appropriate standards. Ontario Regulation 153/04 includes details of the types of property use changes affected by this mandatory filing provision. It is expected that many municipalities will continue to identify other circumstances requiring the filing of a Record of Site Condition (RSC).
The mandatory filing provisions of Section 168.3.1 of the Environmental Protection Act are linked to the Building Code Act, 1992 by requiring that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) be filed before construction, if the building will be used in connection with the regulated change in use. This means that a building permit cannot be issued in relation to the regulated changes in property use (e.g. from industrial use to residential use) until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) is filed for that property. Subsection 11(2) of Ontario Regulation 153/04 stipulates that the term “change in use” does not include a reference to a change in the zoning of the property under a municipal by-law. A change in use therefore refers to a change in the actual use of the property
Section 168.3.1 of the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Regulation 153/04 require that a Record of Site Condition (RSC) must be filed before a change in use is allowed when there is a change (in all or in part of the property) from an industrial, commercial or community property use to residential, institutional, parkland or agricultural or other property use
Municipalities review the provisions of each planning mechanism under the Planning Act, to determine if and how a Record of Site Condition (RSC) requirement can be imposed during a development review and approval process
The amended Ontario Regulation153/04 requires that Environmental Site Assessment reports must be completed within 18 months of the submission of the Record of Site Condition (RSC) or the commencement of the Environmental Site Assessment. Furthermore, the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment must conform to the specific objectives and requirements for the components of the assessment and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report set out in Parts VI, VII, VIII and Schedule D of the regulation.
As described by Ontario Regulation 153/04— Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, amended by Ontario Regulation 511/09, Ontario Regulation 245/10, Ontario Regulation 179/11 and Ontario Regulation 269/11,
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is comprised of:
Our cost of carrying out the Phase 1 - Environmental Site Assessment as per Ontario Regulation 153/04 Records of Site Condition — Part XV.1 of The Environmental Protection Act, amended by Ontario Regulation 511/09, Ontario Regulation 245/10, Ontario Regulation 179/11 and Ontario Regulation 269/11, which is suitable for filing a record of site condition and/or to submit with a building permit application is $5,990+HST.
Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment involves sampling and testing of materials considered to be possible instances of environmental contamination, based on the findings and recommendations of a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment or other investigation. The project fulfills the scope of a ‘Reconnaissance’ type investigation in which conditions are unknown, and the aim is to confirm or refute the presence of Contaminants of Potential Concern in, on or under the subject property. Normal environmental assessment protocol reserves a detailed investigation for a subsequent phase if the reconnaissance/delineation survey indicates a requirement for further contaminant delineation.
The scope of the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment is based on the findings and recommendations of the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, and it generally consists of the following:
Descriptions of soil types will be recorded, and samples will be collected at approximately 0.6 m intervals. Representative soil and groundwater samples from each borehole or monitoring well will be analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in four fractions F1-F4, Metals, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), soil pH, Electrical Conductivity (EC) and/or Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). Following samples’ analysis, we will present recommendations based on all available information.
The legislative requirements for completing and filing a Record of Site Condition (RSC) are set out in Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, as set out in Ontario Regulation 153/04. The type of information to be contained in a Record of Site Condition (RSC) includes a site description, property ownership and property use, site assessment information, the standards that were applied to the site, certification statements and a description of any site remediation/cleanup activities. In addition to this information, supporting documentation for the submitted Record of Site Condition (RSC) such as a legal survey and a copy of the deed for the property are also required.
A Record of Site Condition (RSC) must include the following types of certifications made by the property owner:
A Record of Site Condition (RSC) must include the following types of certifications made by the qualified person who assessed the site:
Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) - an amendment to Ontario Regulation 153/04 - provides quicker and cost-effective approach to obtain a Record of Site Condition for redevelopment on a contaminated property with on-going risk management measures in place.
Where a Record of Site Condition has been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Environment reserves the right to place a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) on a Record of Site Condition. A Certificate of Property Use (CPU) includes a of risk management measures identified through Record of Site Condition Assessment. Certificate of Property Use (CPU) prevents and limits the usage of the property in order to protect health and safety of the public and is registered on title of the property. Certificate of Property Use (CPU) which requires the property owners and occupants to take proper action to:
If a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) is registered on the title of a property, future property owners, municipal officials, and occupants of a property will be aware of any property use restrictions, building restrictions or equipment installation required to be sure that contaminants remaining on a site meet the Ministry of the Environment Guidelines.
Our cost of carrying out the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment work as per Ontario Regulation 153/04 Records of Site Condition Part XV.1 of The Environmental Protection Act, amended by Ontario Regulation 511/09, Ontario Regulation, 245/10,Ontario Regulation 179/11 and Ontario Regulation 269/11 - which is suitable for filing a record of site condition and/or to submit with a building permit application, is $8,950+HST plus $1,665+HST per borehole.
Drilling inside a building may cost additional $900. We provide Record of Site Condition RSC Submission in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, and Woodstock.
Our fee for Filing for Record of Site Condition $1,975+HST
After a completed Record of Site Condition is submitted, the Ministry of Environment will have 30 business days to review the Record of Site Condition submission.
Gas Stations/Petroleum Service Stations (Petro Canada, Esso, Shell, Ultramar, Pioneer)
The storage and the dispensing of petroleum products at gas stations pose a risk of subsurface soil and groundwater contamination. The contamination may not be confined to the site itself, because contaminants often spread far beyond their original source. Leaking storage tanks at gas stations are a major source of environmental contamination. And it is not just the property that the gas station is located on that is at risk. Depending on the type of soil, presence of groundwater etc. the contamination can literally spread for many city blocks. The environmental site assessments, type and age of the underground fuel storage tanks, leak detection system and liability insurance are going to be important as any existing or perceived environmental liability could render the property worthless. Due to the increased focus on environmental issues and the related environmental laws focused around environmental liability issues, any financing request will require recently completed Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments, a commercial property appraisal by an accredited commercial appraiser, valid contamination insurance policy, and a recent tank test report. If there is a material amount of contamination detected, further levels of testing may also be required as well as the completion of remediation work identified.
Some underground tank installations st gas stations pose a risk to the environment and under the TSSA regulations they must be permanently withdrawn from service and removed.
They are as follows.
Because single-walled underground tanks and piping at a gas station pose a significant risk to the environment there are specific requirements that apply when these installations leak. If single-walled underground tank leaks at a gas station, you must immediately and permanently withdraw it from service. You then have two years following the discovery of the leak to remove the system entirely at the gas station. If single-walled underground piping leaks, it must immediately and permanently be withdrawn from service, removed from the gas station and, if you wish to bring the gas station back into operation, replaced by approved piping.
If you have a spill or a leak at a gas station, you must notify your regional spill-notification centre as soon as possible. If 100 litres or more of petroleum product is released into the environment (i.e. beyond the secondary containment) then you are also required to follow up with a written report to Environment Canada.
If you’re considering installing underground fuel storage tanks, lines, pumps, and dispensers it’s important that you get a copy of the regulations. There are requirements governing who may design and install umderground fuel storage tanks, lines, pumps and dispensers, as well as new technical requirements. As with existing systems, all new systems must have a product transfer area designed to contain spills.
The person who delivers petroleum or allied petroleum product will no longer be allowed to fill fuel storage tanks that do not have an Environment Canada identification number visible on the system. Also, delivery personnel are now required to immediately inform the system’s operator of any spills that occur during transfer of the product to your underground fuel storage tank, or of any evidence of a leak or spill.
New underground fiel storage tanks at gas stations must be double-walled with an interstitial space that can be monitored, and have:
New piping must adhere to the following:
Underground fuel storage tanks and associated pipes that do not have double walls or secondary containment pose a higher risk to the environment because, in the event of a leak or spill, product is released directly into soil and water. Once there, it can migrate over a considerable distance and cause extensive and long-term damage to the environment.
If your gas station has single-walled underground storage tanks
1) Carry out a third-party certified tank precision leak test that meets the specifications laid out in section 21 of the regulations.
2) Immediately following your initial tank precision leak test, set up an ongoing leak detection or monitoring program using one of the three options below:
carry out a third-party certified tank precision leak detection test once a year, OR
use automatic tank gauging , OR
use continuous in-tank leak detection .
3) Remove your single-walled underground tank - There are two exceptions:
Steel underfground tanks that have cathodic protection plus either leak detection, groundwater monitoring wells, or vapour monitoring may stay in place. In addition, single-walled underground tanks made of a material other than steel may stay in place if they have either leak detection, groundwater monitoring wells, or vapour monitoring wells.
4) If your single-walled underground tank leaks, immediately and permanently withdraw it from service. You then have two years from the time you found the leak to remove it.
Upon the permanent removal of a underground storage tank the owner of the property must have an environmental assessment report completed which delineates the full extent of any petroleum product that has escaped to the environment. All environmental assessment activities must be completed in accordance with the requirements specified in the TSSA Fuel Safety Division’s “Environmental Protocols for Operating Fuel Handling Facilities in Ontario, GA1/99”. Following removal of the underground fuel storage tank, the base and sidewalls of the excavation must be examined for visual and olfactory evidence of petroleum impacts and screened for the potential presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a real-time, organic vapor analyzer. Confirmation soil samples must be collected from locations with the highest detected VOCs concentrations directly into the laboratory supplied sample containers. The completely filled sample containers (i.e., no headspace) must be immediately placed on ice inside of a sample cooler and delivered for laboratory analyses of total petroleum hydrocarbons (fractions F1 through F4) as well as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. The number and locations of confirmation soil samples must be selected in accordance with the procedures specified in Appendix A of the TSSA Fuel Safety Division’s “Environmental Protocols for Operating Fuel Handling Facilities in Ontario, GA1/99” (i.e., a minimum of 2 floor samples and 2 sidewall samples). If groundwater is encountered at the base of the excavation or there is evidence of potential petroleum impacts to groundwater, confirmation groundwater samples must be collected and placed directly into the laboratory supplied sample containers. The completely filled sample containers (i.e., no headspace) must be immediately placed on ice inside of a sample cooler and delivered for laboratory analyses of total petroleum hydrocarbons (fractions F1 through F4) as well as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes. Complete additional activities, as necessary, to delineate the full extent of any petroleum product that has escaped to the environment. The environmental assessment report must include a comparison of the confirmation soil analytical data to the appropriate MOE soil cleanup standards specified in the document entitled “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act “. Notification must be provided to the TSSA Fuel Safety Division within 90 days following decommissioning and removal of an underground fuel storage tank. The Ministry of Environmenst (MOE) must be notified immediately should it be determined during the environmental assessment activities that environmental conditions at a site contravene the applicable sections of the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act. Environmenatls Remediation or management of any associated petroleum impacted soil or groundwater must be completed in accordance with the requirements of Ontario Regulation 347. Any petroleum impacted soil or groundwater transported from a site for treatment and/or disposal must be characterized in accordance with Ontario Regulation 558. All petroleum impacted soil and/or groundwater must be properly manifested and transported by a qualified waste transporter licensed under Ontario Regulation 347 for treatment and/or disposal at an appropriate waste disposal facility also licensed under Ontario Regulation 347. All environmental laboratory analyses must be completed by an accredited environmental laboratory in accordance with methods and procedures specified in Ontario Regulation 153 and/or Ontario Regulation 558, as appropriate.
Dry Cleaning & Environment
There are an estimated 2,500 dry cleaning facilities in Ontario. The most common form of dry cleaning uses a chemical called tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene or "PERC"). 90% of the dry cleaning industry uses perc, and dry-cleaning accounts for between one-third and one-half of all the perc used in Canada. Perc has been designated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as a persistent, bio-accumulative chemical that is toxic to the environment.
Dry cleaning uses non-water-based solvents to remove soil and stains from clothes. Early dry cleaners used petroleum-based solvents such as gasoline and kerosene. After World War I, dry cleaners began using chlorinated solvents. These solvents were much less flammable than petroleum solvents and had improved drycleaning power. By the mid-1930s, the dry cleaning industry had adopted tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene), colloquially called "PERC," as the ideal solvent. It has excellent drycleaning power and is stable, non-flammable, and gentle to most garments. PERC was included in the list of 44 substances published as the first Priority Substances List in the Canada Gazette Part 1 on February 11, 1989. These substances were given priority by Environment Canada and Health Canada for assessing whether they are “toxic or capable of becoming toxic” according to the definition specified in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1988. On February 5, 1994, a synopsis of the results of the PERC assessment was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. The assessment concluded that PERC occurs in the Canadian environment in quantities that may be harmful to the environment (notably terrestrial dry cleaning plants). Consequently, PERC was added to the CEPA 1999 list of toxic substances - see Canada Gazette, Part II, March 29, 2000.
Under the Federal government’s Toxic Substances Management Policy, PERC fits the management goal to minimize environmental and human health risks by reducing exposure to, and/or release throughout its life-cycle. Following extensive consultation with producers, importers and users of PERC including dry cleaners, other levels of governments and environmental groups, the proposed Regulations were published in Canada Gazette, Part I on August 18, 2001. After further consultation, the final Regulations were passed into law on February 27, 2003 and then published in the Canada Gazette, Part II on March 12, 2003. The purpose of the Regulations is to reduce PERC releases to the environment from dry-cleaning facilities. These reductions will be attained by requiring newer, more efficient dry-cleaning machines, by minimizing spills of PERC and by managing the collection and disposal of residue and waste water.
Modern dry cleaning machines use a closed-loop system in which the chilled air is reheated and recirculated. This results in high solvent recovery rates and reduced air pollution. In the early days of dry cleaning, large amounts of perchloroethylene were vented to the atmosphere because it was regarded as cheap and believed to be harmless.
Working solvent from the dry cleaning washing chamber passes through several filtration steps before it is returned to the dry cleaning washing chamber. The first step is a button trap, which prevents small objects such as lint, fasteners, buttons, and coins from entering the solvent pump.
Over time, a thin layer of filter cake (called muck) accumulates on the lint filter. The muck is removed regularly (commonly once per day) and then processed to recover solvent trapped in the muck. Many dry cleaning machines use "spin disc filters," which remove the muck from the filter by centripetal force while it is back washed with solvent.
After the lint filter, the solvent passes through an absorptive cartridge filter. This filter is made from activated clays and charcoal and removes fine insoluble soil and non-volatile residues, along with dyes from the solvent. Finally, the solvent passes through a polishing filter, which removes any soil not previously removed. The clean solvent is then returned to the working solvent tank.
Cooked Muck
Cooked Powder Residue — the waste material generated by cooking down or distilling muck. Cooked powder residue is a hazardous waste and will contain solvent, powdered filter material (diatomite), carbon, non-volatile residues, lint, dyes, grease, soils, and water. This material should then be disposed of in accordance with local laws.
Sludge
The waste sludge or solid residue from the still contains solvent, water, soils, carbon, and other non-volatile residues. Still bottoms from chlorinated solvent dry cleaning operations are hazardous wastes.
Solvents used in Dry Cleaning:
* Glycol ethers (dipropylene glycol tertiary-butyl ether) (Rynex)(Solvair) — In many cases more effective than perchloroethylene (perc) and in all cases more environmentally friendly. Dipropylene glycol tertiary butyl ether (DPTB) has a flashpoint far above current industry standards, yet at the same time possesses a degree of solvency for water-soluble stains that is at least equivalent to, and in most cases better than, perc and the other glycol ether dry cleaning solvents presently in commercial use. A particular advantage of the DPTB-water solutions of the Rynex product in dry cleaning is that they do not behave like a typical mixture, but, rather, the behavior is the same as a single substance. This permits a better-defined separation upon azeotropic distillation at a lower boiling point and also facilitates reclamation more effectively, at a level of 99% or greater, and also enhances purification using conventional distillation techniques.
* Peroleum Based Hydrocarbon — This is most like standard dry cleaning, but the processes use hydrocarbon solvents such as Exxon-Mobil’s DF-2000 or Chevron Phillips' EcoSolv. These petroleum-based solvents are less aggressive than Perc and require a longer cleaning cycle. While flammable, these solvents do not present a high risk of fire or explosion when used properly. Hydrocarbon also contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to smog.
* Liquid silicone (decamethylcyclopentasiloxane or D5) — gentler on garments than Perc and does not cause color loss. Requires a license be obtained to utilize the property of GreenEarth Cleaning. Though considerably more environmentally friendly, the price of it is more than double that of perc, and GreenEarth charges an annual affiliation fee. Degrades within days in the environment to silica and trace amounts of water and CO2. Produces nontoxic, nonhazardous waste. Toxicity tests by Dow Corning shows the solvent to increase the incidence of tumors in female rats (no effects were seen in male rats), but further research concluded that the effects observed in rats are not relevant to humans because the biological pathway that results in tumor formation is unique to rats.(170.6 °F/77 °C flash point).
* Modified hydrocarbon blends (Pure Dry)
* Perchloroethylene — In use since the 1940s, perc is the most common solvent, the "standard" for cleaning performance, and most aggressive cleaner. It can cause color bleeding/loss, especially at higher temperatures, and may destroy special trims, buttons, and beads on some garments. Better for oil-based stains (which account for about 10% of stains) than more common water-soluble stains (coffee, wine, blood, etc). Known for leaving a characteristic chemical smell on garments. Non-flammable.
* Liquid CO2 — Consumer Reports rated this method superior to conventional methods, but the Dry-cleaning and Laundry Institute commented on its "fairly low cleaning ability" in a 2007 report. Another industry certification group, America's Best Cleaners, counts CO2 cleaners among its members. Machinery is expensive—up to $90,000 more than a perc machine, making affordability difficult for small businesses. Some cleaners with these machines keep traditional machines on-site for the heavier soiled textiles, but others find plant enzymes to be equally effective and more environmentally sustainable. CO2-cleaned clothing does not off-gas volatile compounds. CO2 cleaning is also used for fire- and water-damage restoration due to its effectiveness in removing toxic residues, soot and associated odors of fire.
Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations (SOR/2003-79)
The purpose of the Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations is to reduce releases of tetrachloroethylene to the environment from dry-cleaning facilities. These reductions will be attained by requiring newer, more efficient dry-cleaning machines, by minimizing spills of tetrachloroethylene, and by managing the collection and disposal of residues and waste water.
The reporting provisions in these Regulations apply to persons who import or recycle tetrachloroethylene for any use, to persons who sell tetrachloroethylene to dry cleaners, and to dry cleaners. The provisions are harmonized as much as possible with the Solvent Degreasing Regulations. Persons with a diverse commercial market will thereby avoid the inconvenience of reporting their tetrachloroethylene quantities separately, under two related federal regulations, to Environment Canada. The Tetrachloroethylene (Use in Dry Cleaning and Reporting Requirements) Regulations are put forth under the authority provided by subsection 93(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999).
Printing & Environment
Many solvents and inks used in the printing industry emit a volatile organic compound (VOC) as atmospheric vapour. Emissions can be direct through stacks and vents, or fugitive. VOCs are photo-reactive and when they combine with nitrous oxide emissions and particulate from cars, trucks and industry and are synthesized by ultra violet rays in sunlight, they produce low-level ozone. That is why “smog”, as a dirty yellow pollutant, is most noticeable in summer. It is a serious health concern.
Printing operations could pose some environmental concerns due to potential spills leaks or migration of chlorinated solvents through natural and/or preferential pathways. The stricter pollution regulations including requirements to comply with the P2 (Pollution Prevention) waste water bylaw in Toronto, avoidance, elimination, reduction and/or substitution of the use of chlorinated solvents, re-use and/or recycling of chlorinated solvents, proper waste, spill and contamination programs have reduced the potential spills leaks or migration of chlorinated solvents from printing industry in the last decade.
Environmental Protection Act
The purpose of the Environmental Protection Act "is to provide for the protection and conservation of the natural environment." To ensure this, the Minister of Environment is empowered to administer and enforce the province's environmental legislation. This can take the form of monitoring, recommending appropriate abatement action, or prosecuting polluters. Many times all three are undertaken in the ministry's efforts to get tough with polluters.
The Environmental Protection Act states that:
No person shall discharge into the natural environment any contaminant, and no person responsible for a source of contaminant shall permit the discharge into the natural environment of any contaminant from the source of contaminant, in an amount, concentration or level in excess of that prescribed by the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, s.6(l).
When it comes to dealing with environmental contamination it is better to be pro-active. Accidental spills and careless waste disposal practices can result in soil and ground water contamination. Spills are common and can occur just about anywhere and anytime. The costs associated with contaminated property can be significant, and may have to be borne entirely or in part by past or present property owners, investors, lenders or even commercial tenants.
Environmental Site Assessments are very valuable to identify potential environmental concerns at a property. By conducting thorough environmental site assessment early in the deal, everybody involved in the deal can learn about potential problems upfront and they have time to address any issues before closing.
We provide Environmental Site Assesment, Geotechnical Evaluation, Slope Stability Analysis and Record of Site Condition RSC Submission in Ontario including Acton, Ajax, Alliston, Angus, Aurora, Aylmer, Ayr, Barrie, Beamsville, Beeton, Belleville, Blue Mountains, Bobcaygeon, Bolton, Borden, Bowmanville, Bradford, Brampton, Brant, Brantford, Bracebridge, Brighton, Brock, Burlington, Caledon, Caledon East, Caledonia, Cambridge, Campbellford, Clarington, Collingwood, Cobourg, Crystal Beach, Delhi, Dunnville, East Gwillimbury, Elmira, Erin, Exeter, Fergus, Fort Erie, Georgetown, Georgina, Grand Valley, Gravenhurst, Greater Napanee, Grimsby, Guelph, Haldimand County, Halton Hills, Hamilton, Hanover, Huntsville, Ingersoll, Innisfil, Kawartha Lakes, Keswick, King, Kitchener, Lincoln, Lindsay, Listowel, London, Markham, Meaford, Midland, Milton, Minto, Mississauga, Mono, Mitchell, Mount Albert, Mount Forest, New Hamburg, New Tecumseth, Newcastle, Newmarket, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Nobleton, Norfolk County, Oakville, Orangeville, Orillia, Oshawa, Owen Sound, Paris, Parry Sound, Pelham, Penetanguishene, Peterborough, Pickering, Picton, Port Colborne, Port Dover, Port Elgin, Port Hope, Port Perry, Prince Edward County, Quinte West, Richmond Hill, Rockwood, St.Catharines, St. Marys, St. Thomas, Scogog, Shelburne, Simcoe, Southampton, South Bruce Peninsula, Stayner, Stouffville, Stratford, Strathroy, Sutton, Tay, Thorold, Tillsonburg, Toronto, Tottenham, Uxbridge, Vaughan, Vineland, Walkerton, Wasaga Beach, Waterloo, Welland, West Gwillimbury, Whitby, and Woodstock.
Still have questions?
Call Us Anytime
416 332 1743 (24/7)
Text Messages: 416 727 8336
Email
landbuildex@gmail.com
Copyright 2015 Land & Building Experts Ltd All rights reserved.
Land & Building Experts
PEO COA # 100205934
landbuil