Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutESD-007-12 GafilWfi REPORT EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: May 7, 2012 Resolution#: m � By-law#: Report#: ESD-007-12 File#: Subject: NEWCASTLE FIRE HALL #2 — RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report ESD-007-12 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Gordon Weir, AMCT, CMM111 Franklin Wu, Director Emergency & Fire Chief Administrative Officer Services GW/jm CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: ESD-007-12 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT 1.1 At the May 31, 2010 Council meeting, Resolution #GPA-318-10 was approved. This resolution approved the Rudell Road site for the Newcastle Fire Hall and also authorized staff to proceed with the Request for Proposal for an architect/design consultant to initiate the detailed design. 1.2 At the March 7, 2011 Council meeting, Resolution #C-132-11 was approved. This resolution referred Report ESD-003-11 back to staff asking for a subsequent report addressing : a) The cost implications of constructing the fire station at#3333/#3355 Highway 2 versus 1780 Rudell Road; b) A traffic study on Rudell Road to determine the viability of locating a fire station at the 1780 Rudell Road site; and C) Possible construction timelines for both locations. Later at the same meeting Resolution #C-136-11 was passed approving the design of the building as proposed by ZAS Architects Ltd. 1.3 At the November 7, 2011 Council meeting, Report ESD-015-11 was approved as received for information. Later in this same meeting Resolution #GPA-630-11 was approved as follows: "THAT Staff be authorized to proceed with a Phase 11 Environmental Assessment of 3333 Highway 2; THAT the Purchasing By-law be waived in order to award a contract to complete the Phase 11 Environmental Assessment on 3333 Highway 2, Newcastle; and THAT Staff report back as soon as possible". 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 Phase II Environmental Assessment Golder Associates Ltd initiated the fieldwork investigation on January 12, 2012 which included the excavation of fourteen (14) test pits on the site. The location of the test pits was determined using the findings of the Phase I Environmental Assessment completed in August 2011 by McClymont & Rak Engineers as well as discussion with staff regarding the possibility the site was previously occupied by a gas station operation. The results of the investigation showed that four of the test pits indicated Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) impact in the soil samples and two of these test pits indicated evidence of ground water impact. These test pits were located in the north central portion of the site adjacent to the existing driveway. Golder concluded from these findings that a supplemental assessment be completed. This would include drilling of boreholes, installation of monitoring wells and additional test pits to further assess the extent of PHC impact on the soils and REPORT NO.: ESD-007-12 PAGE 3 groundwater on the site. In addition it was recommended to complete a geophysical survey in the area to assess if any underground storage tanks are present on the site. 2.2 Supplemental Phase II Environmental Assessment The fieldwork for this investigation commenced on February 10, 2012 and included the completion of a geophysical survey, excavation of thirteen (13) additional test pits and the drilling of five (5) boreholes completed as monitoring wells. The assessment confirmed that PHC impact to soil conditions was evident in the area of the reported former gas station. It also identified groundwater impact in a borehole in this area. The excavation of additional test pits was beneficial in estimating the area of soil and groundwater impact. The analysis of the geophysical survey did not indicate the presence of an underground storage tank in the north central portion of the site. Although the survey is not absolutely conclusive it is unlikely a tank remains on the site. 2.3 Site Remediation Following the completion of the Supplemental Phase II Environmental Assessment, Golder Associates prepared a report identifying site remediation options. In addition to providing the remediation options, the report also provided estimated costs for each option, an estimated timeline for completion of each option as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with each option. The five options provided in the report are summarized as follows: Remediation Options Estimated cost Estimated Timeline 1.No Immediate Action No immediate n/a cost 2.Screening Level Risk $35,000 2 - 4 months for SLRA Assessment and Monitored plus $5,000 Ongoing Natural Attenuation annual monitoring environmental costs monitoring 3. Full Risk Assessment $150,000 18 - 24 months 4. Dig and Dump with Groundwater $340,000 3 — 6 months Treatment 4a Limited Dig and Dump with $125,000 3 — 5 months Groundwater Treatment Plus $75,000 contingency 5. In-Situ Chemical or Biological $125,000 6 — 12 months Treatment REPORT NO.: ESD-007-12 PAGE 4 The full Golder Associates report has been provided for further reference (Attachment 2). 2.4 Construction Timelines Pending direction received on the site location and remediation options, the project could be ready for tender as early as September 2012 with a projected completion of 12 — 14 months after contract award. 3.0 FINANCIAL 3.1 Cost Implications Summary - Revised The following chart identifies the revised estimated costs associated with the relocation of the fire hall to the Highway 2 site. Estimated Required items Cost A Water main extension to fire hall $63,000.00 B Highway 2 lane reconfiguration $229,000.00 C Geotechnical Survey/Phase I Assessment $11,000.00 D Topographic Survey $6,000.00 E Architectural Work — additional design work for $49,000.00 new site, added cost to prepare new application for site plan approval F Storm Water Pond $50,000.00 G Utility relocation costs at entrance to fire hall $75,000.00 H Sanitary Sewer Extension $75,000.00 1 Phase II Environmental Assessment $45,000.00 Sub-total $603,000.00 Net HST $10,612.00 Total required $613,612.00 J Site Remediation Options (excluding HST): 1. No Immediate Action $0.00 2. Screening Level Risk Assessment $35,000.00 3. Full Risk Assessment $150,000.00 4. Dig and Dump with Groundwater Treatment $340,000.00 4a Limited Dig and Dump with Groundwater Treatment (including $75,000 contingency) $200,000.00 5. In-Situ Chemical or Biological Treatment $125,000.00 REPORT NO.: ESD-007-12 PAGE 5 3.2 The current approved budget for this project, located on Rudell Road is as follows: Construction 3,550,000 Consulting and Disbursements 330,000 Project Contingency 180,000 Furnishings and Equipment 440,000 TOTAL 4,500,000 3.3 The proposed budget for construction on Rudell Road is as follows: Original Budget 4,500,000 Construction Inflation Factor (3,550,000 X 6%) 213,000 Highway 2 Option Investigation Costs 70,000 TOTAL 4,783,000 In conducting the investigation regarding re-locating the fire station to the Highway 2 site costs of$70,000.00 have been incurred. These costs included the topographical survey of the properties, geotechnical survey, Phase I assessment, Phase II Assessment and associated consulting fees from ZAS Architects. The Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP) funding for the back-up generator and equipment for the Emergency Operations Centre is no longer available as of March 31, 2012. This represents a reduction in financing of $21,000.00 in the current approved project budget. 3.4 The proposed budget for construction at #3333 Highway 2 (excluding remediation option costs) is as follows: Original Budget 4,500,000 Construction Inflation Factor (3,550,000 X 6%) 213,000 Highway 2 Relocation Costs (Excluding Remediation costs) 613,612 TOTAL 5,326,612 3.5 At this point the cost of construction at either location will be impacted by an inflationary factor. The original project schedule was based on issuing a tender for the construction of the fire hall in February 2011, with a construction start date of April 2011. Data for 2011 indicates an average of 3.65% annual inflation. For the purposes of preparing revised costs for this project, a 6% factor for inflation on construction costs only has been calculated. REPORT NO.: ESD-007-12 PAGE 6 4.0 COMMENTS 4.1 If the Highway 2 site is chosen, a portion of the additional funds required would be drawn from the Emergency Services Development Charges Reserve Fund. This would result in a deferral of the expansion at the main fire station in Bowmanville identified in the Updated Master Fire Plan. 4.2 Depending on the remediation options the total cost to relocate the fire hall to Highway 2 would be in the range of $5,326,612.00 to $5,666,612.00. 4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 5.1 In addition to members of the project team, staff members in Engineering, Planning and Finance have been consulted and/or provided input into this report. 5.0 CONCURRENCE Director of Finance 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 This report has been submitted for information purposes to address the resolution passed by Council on March 7, 2011. Should it be Council's wish to continue with the project at the Rudell Road site as previously approved by Council, the following resolution should be passed by the General Purpose and Administration Committee: THAT Report ESD-007-12 be received; THAT 1780 Rudell Road, Newcastle be reconfirmed as the location of the new Fire Station; THAT a revised project budget of $4,783,000.00 be approved; THAT $283,000.00 in additional funds and $21,000.00 in lost JEPP funding be provided from Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund $184,580.00 and Emergency Services Development Charges Reserve Fund $119,420.00; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report ESD-007-12 be advised of Council's decision. 7.2 Should Council determine that #3333 Highway 2 is the preferred site for the station, a reconsideration of the earlier decision of Council is required. In this case, it would be appropriate for the General Purpose and Administration Committee to pass a resolution to receive Report ESD-007-12 for information. REPORT NO.: ESD-007-12 PAGE 7 Following the meeting, a Procedural Notice of Motion would be submitted to the Municipal Clerk to allow for the reconsideration to be dealt with at the next Council meeting (May 14, 2012). If the motion to reconsider the previous decision passes, a subsequent motion would be introduced to approve the Highway 2 location, the recommended remediation option and to consider the additional funding requirements of the project. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: _ Promoting economic development x Maintaining financial stability _Connecting Clarington x Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure _ Showcasing our community _ Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Gord Weir, Fire Chief Attachments: Attachment 1 - Report ESD-015-11 Attachment 2 - Golder Associates Ltd, Site Remediation Report List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Mr. Gord Lee Mr. Mike Cleverdon, Golder Associates Ltd. Attachment 1 to Report ESD-007-12 ciffingma REPORT EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: October 31, 2011 Resolution#: U,4-4-P °d®1 By-law#: "1761 Report#: ESD-015-11 File#: Subject: NEWCASTLE FIRE HALL #2 — RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report ESD-015-11 be received for information. Submitted by: Reviewed by: Gordon Weir, AMCT, CMM111 ranklin Wu, Director Emergency & Fire sy ` Chief Administrative Officer Services VV GW/jm CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT 1.1 At the May 31, 2010 Council meeting, Resolution #GPA-318-10 was approved. This resolution approved the Rudell Road site for the Newcastle Fire Hall and also authorized staff to proceed with the Request for Proposal for an architect/design consultant to initiate the detailed design. 1.2 Subsequently, the design services contract was awarded to ZAS Architects Inc., Toronto. Meetings with the municipal project team and the Architects commenced and the hall design began to develop. ZAS was asked by the project team to attend the February 7, 2011 GPA meeting to provide an update to Committee on the project and present the proposed design of the building. In addition Report ESD-003-11 was provided for information. 1.3 At the March 7, 2011 Council meeting, Resolution #C-132-11 was approved. This resolution referred Report ESD-003-11 back to staff asking for a subsequent report addressing : a) The cost implications of constructing the fire station at#3333/#3355 Highway 2 versus 1780 Rudell Road; b) A traffic study on Rudell Road to determine the viability of locating a fire station at the 1780 Rudell Road site; and c) Possible construction timelines for both locations. Later at the same meeting Resolution #C-136-11 was passed approving the design of the building as proposed by ZAS Architects Ltd. 2.0 ANALYSIS 2.1 The project team identified the following items that would be necessary to provide the information as requested by Council: a) Legal Survey on #3333 and #3335 Highway 2 b) Building Fit Analysis — including discussions with Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority c) Geotechnical Investigation of the properties d) Phase I Environmental Assessment e) Traffic Study f) Phase II Environmental Assessment g) Cost implications summary 2.2 Legal Survey In order to proceed with the investigative work for the Highway 2 site, a topographical survey was completed for both # 3333 and # 3355 Highway 2. It was completed by Ivan B. Wallace Ontario Land Surveyors Ltd. REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 3 2.3 Building Fit Analysis The project team had ZAS Architects review the Highway 2 site to determine the feasibility of re-locating the proposed building on this property. After an analysis of the site including discussions with Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, the existing building footprint could fit onto the property at#3333 Highway 2. Please see Attachment#1 —Aerial photo of property#3333 Highway 2 and Attachment#2 — Building Fit Analysis. 2.4 Geotechnical Investigation Another component of the site analysis was a geotechnical report completed in August 2011 by McClymont & Rak Engineers Inc. This analysis included an investigation of native soils, groundwater and other site conditions that may affect the design and construction of the fire hall. The results of this analysis indicated the site would be suitable for construction. 2.5 Phase I Environmental Assessment McClymont & Rak also completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in August 2011. The scope of work included a visual examination of the site, a review of land use registry and a search of public records for the site and surrounding areas to determine activities that may have been a source of contamination to the site. Although the historic review could not find any indication the site had previously been developed, there is evidence on site of fill material that had been placed previously. The report identified three separate areas on site and this resulted in a recommendation to complete a further environmental investigation. Subsequent to receiving the report, municipal staff was made aware of the possibility that a gas station/garage was being operated on this property in the 1950's. Although the official search of records did not confirm this, the possibility of its existence supports the consultant's recommendation to complete further investigation on the site. REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 4 2.6 Traffic Study Dillon Consulting Ltd was retained to complete a traffic assessment and geometric review of the proposed fire hall location on Highway 2. The review included; site traffic estimates; background traffic estimates; site access review (including turn lane requirements); signage options for traffic safety; and traffic impact mitigation recommendation, where required. In addition, Engineering staff scheduled a traffic count to be completed for the intersection at Rudell Road and Highway 2. This study was completed on September 7, 2011 between the hours of 7:00am and 6:00pm. Dillon was asked to review and comment on the results of this traffic count. They observed the 2011 count indicated lower traffic volumes along Highway 2 in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours than was found in a similar study in May 2009. It should also be noted that although the traffic count numbers were down from the 2009 study, the consultant maintains that both sites are viable, noting that a number of enhancements are required with Option B. 2.7 Phase II Environmental Assessment As identified by McClymont & Rak in the Phase I assessment, additional investigation is required in order to proceed with development on this site. At this point no action has been taken on this item, however the cost estimates associated with the Phase Il work as well as estimated soil remediation costs have been provided in the cost implications summary for the relocation of fire hall to the Highway 2 site. In order to maintain the proposed project schedule, staff is recommending approval to waive the Purchasing By-law in order to award a contract to complete this study. The estimate to complete this work exceeds the limit staff has to authorize an award and would require reporting back to Council prior to proceeding. REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 5 2.8 Cost Implications Summary The following chart identifies the estimated costs associated with the relocation of the fire hall to the Highway 2 site. Estimated Required items Cost 1 Water main extension to fire hall $63,000.00 2 Highway 2 lane reconfiguration $229,000.00 3 Geotechnical Survey/Phase I Assessment $11,000.00 4 Topographic Survey $6,000.00 5 Architectural Work— additional design work for $49,000.00 new site, added cost to prepare new application for site plan approval 6 Storm Water Pond $50,000,00 7 Utility relocation costs at entrance to fire hall $75,000.00 8 Septic System $50,000.00 9 Phase II Environmental Assessment $45,000.00 10 Site Mitigation (pending results of Phase ll) $100,000.00 Sub-total $678,000.00 Net HST $11,932.80 Total required $689,932.80 Optional items 1 Future cost for permanent sewer connection to $40,000.00 replace septic system. 2 Future cost for Region of Durham Frontage Fees - $50,000.00 Sewer Service (will be required if permanent sewer connection is made) 3 Force main (net increase in cost in lieu of septic $25,000.00 bed) Sub-total $115,000.00 Net HST $2,024.00 Total optional $117,024.00 REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 6 2.9 Inflation Impact The original project schedule was based on issuing a tender for the construction of the fire hall in February 2011, with a construction start date of April 2011. The revisions to the schedule would see the project tendered in February 2012, with a construction start date of April 2012. The delay in the issuing of a tender for this project of one full year will have an impact on the construction pricing due to inflation. Data for the first and second quarters of 2011 indicates an average of 3.65% annual inflation. The information is referenced by Statistics Canada Non- Residential Building construction data. For the purposes of preparing revised costs for this project, a 6% factor for inflation on construction costs only has been calculated. 2.10 Construction Timelines Based on approval of this report, the project will be scheduled for tender in February 2012 and as indicated above, the project will commence in April with a projected completion of April/May 2013. 3.0 FINANCIAL 31 The current approved budget for this project is as follows: Construction 3,550,000 Consulting and Disbursements 330,000 Project Contingency 180,000 Furnishings and Equipment 440,000 TOTAL 4,500,000 3.2 The proposed budget for construction on Rudell Road (Option A) is as follows: Original Budget 4,500,000 Construction Inflation Factor 3,550,000 X 6% 213,000 Highway 2 Option Investigation Costs 30,000 TOTAL 4,743,000 REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 7 3.3 The proposed budget for construction at#3333 Highway 2 (Option B) is as follows: Original Budget- 4,500,000 Construction Inflation Factor (3,550,000 X 6%) 213,000 Highway 2 Relocation Costs (Required items) 689,932 TOTAL 5,402,932 3.4 In conducting the investigation regarding re-locating the fire station to the Highway 2 site costs of$30,000.00 were incurred. These costs included the topographical survey of the properties, geotechnical survey, Phase I assessment and associated consulting fees from ZAS Architects, 3.5 Additional funding assistance has been received in the form of Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP) grants. Applications for funding assistance for the purchase of an emergency generator, communication tower as well as equipment for the Emergency Operations Centre were submitted and approved in 2010. It has been confirmed with Emergency Management Ontario that should these expenditures not occur in 2012, with purchases made, the funding will be cancelled. This would require staff to submit another round of funding applications. 3.6 As previously discussed a cost estimation of$100,000.00 for soils remediation for the Highway 2 site has been identified, pending the results of the Phase II Environmental Assessment. 3.7 Queries with respect to Department needs, specifications, etc., should be referred to the Director of Emergency and Fire Services. 4.0 COMMENTS 4.1 If the Highway 2 site is chosen, it would mean the expansion at the main fire station in Bowmanville slated for 2012 from the Updated Master Fire Plan would need to be deferred for at least one year. 4.2 It should be noted that the existing Newcastle fire hall is at or near the end of its useful life span and any further delay in the construction of the new fire hall may require building and equipment improvements to be made to the existing hall. The current station has reached call volumes that warrant full time, however the design of the station is not conducive to run as a full-time station 24/7. At this time, no funds have been planned for in the annual operating and capital budget. REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 8 4.3 Should the Highway 2 location be selected for the fire hall, it should be noted that the existing Outdoor Recreation Master Plan for the Newcastle Community Park as updated in September 2006 will be impacted. The current plan identifies future outdoor recreation space on the proposed alternate site for the fire hall. This will require revising the plan and will impact the full development of outdoor recreation for the community park. 5.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES 5.1 In addition to members of the project team, staff members in Planning Services, Engineering and Finance have been consulted and/or provided input into this report. 6.0 CONCURRENCE Director of Finance 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 This report has been submitted for information purposes to address the resolution passed by Council on March 7, 2011. Should it be Council's wish to continue with the project at the Rudell Road site as previously approved by Council, the following resolution should be passed by the General Purpose and Administration Committee: THAT Report ESD-015-11 be received; THAT 1780 Rudell Road, Newcastle be reconfirmed as the location of the new Fire Station; THAT a revised project budget of$4,743,000.00 be approved; THAT $243,000.00 in additional funds be provided from Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund ($162,148.83) and Emergency Services Development Charges Reserve Fund ($80,851.17); and THAT all interested parties listed in Report ESD-015-11 be advised of Council's decision. 7.2 Should Council determine that 3333 Highway 2 is the preferred site for the station, a reconsideration of the earlier decision of Council is required. In this case, it would be appropriate for the General Purpose and Administration Committee to pass a resolution to receive Report ESD-015-11 for information. Following the meeting, a Procedural Notice of Motion would be submitted to the Municipal Clerk to allow for the reconsideration to be dealt with at the next Council meeting (November 7, 2011). If the motion to reconsider the previous decision passes, a subsequent motion would be introduced to approve the Highway 2 location and to consider the additional funding requirements of the project. REPORT NO.: ESD-015-11 PAGE 9 CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development x Maintaining financial stability _Connecting Clarington x Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure _ Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Gord Weir, Fire Chief Attachments: Attachment 1 - Aerial Photo of property#3333 Highway 2 Attachment 2 - Building Fit Analysis List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Mr. Gord Lee ATTACHMENT 1 TO REPORT ESD-015-11 Regional Highway 2 su 'MAr If f ' 3333 i' : � s ti. ���444 4.a E t/] r i►�``�j( Scale 1:2,000 /N 3333 Highway 2-Flown March 2010 /�� ATTACHMENT Z TO REPORT ESD-015-11 o k p I I \/ }s (n O O i No FIRE S ATIO O' G- e . 5 ISHm FLOOR o T _ I d CL ch r - / 6.5 — - � ol o 41 AR ING SPACES' P CES �� \ PART 1;' 1 0R - 3T y Ip , Apf \ \ one of Revised F�oo 0 \ \ .,\ •r�rJn ,�; ti) 2.75 c m .>0 oIG_ 84.5---- _ _ _'—�- 8k • .65 <. 84.25----- — `' '- --- TOP aF''bANK�_,. ` ----- NEWCASTLE FIRE STATION #2 HIGHWAY #2 SITE FIT Attachment 2 to Report ESb-007-12 :NO Golder sociates April 24, 2012 Project No. 11-1185-0324 (4000) Mr. Jerry Barber Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L 1 C 3A6 R1: REMEDIAL OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 3333 DURHAM REGIONAL HIGHWAY 2, MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON, ONTARIO Dear Mr. Barber, Golder Associates Ltd, ("Golder Associates") is pleased to provide the Municipality of Clarington (i.e., the "Municipality") with the following remedial options and associated budgetary cost estimates associated with the management of the environmental impacts that have been identified at the property located at 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2 in Clarington, Ontario (i.e., the "Site"). Golder Associates understands that the Municipality is currently evaluating the suitability of the property for the future construction of a new Clarington Fire Station. BACKGROUND McClymont & RAK Engineers Inc. ("McClymont & RAK") previously completed the following investigation associated with the Site: N "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Newcastle Fire Station No. 2, 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2, Municipality of Clarington"prepared by McClymont& RAK for the Municipality of Clarington C/O ZAS Group of Companies; dated August, 2011 (the"2011 Phase I ESA"). Based on the findings of the 2011 Phase I ESA, several soil stockpiles of unknown origin were identified to represent issues of potential environmental concern. Based on subsequent discussions with the Municipality, a former gas station was also reported to formerly occupy the Site, which represented an additional issue of potential environmental concern. Golder Associates was subsequently retained by the Municipality to complete the following investigations associated with the Site: ® "Phase.li Environmental Site Assessment, 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2, Municipality of Clarington, Ontario"prepared for the Municipality and dated February, 2012 (i.e., the "2012 Phase II ESA"); and, in "Supplemental Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment, 3333 Durham Regional Highway 2, Municipality of Clarington, Ontario" prepared for the Municipality and dated March, 2012 (i.e., the "2012 Supplemental Phase 11 ESA"), Golder Associates Ltd. 100,Scotia Court,Whitby,Ontario,Canada LIN BY6 Tel:+1(905)723 2727 Far+1(905)723 2182 www.golder.com Golder Associates:Operations in Africa,Asia,Australasia,Europe,North America and South America Golder,Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation. Mr.Jerry Barber 11-1185-0324(4000) Municipality of Clarington April 24,2012 Based on the findings of the 2012 Phase II ESA and the Supplemental 2012 Phase II ESA, the presence of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractions F1 and F2 ("PHC") and Ethylbenzene ("EB") impact was identified in the on- Site soil and groundwater, generally located in the north-central portion of the property. For budgetary costing purposes, we have assumed that a volume of approximate 900 cubic metres (m) of soil (i.e., an approximate 20 m X 30 m area of impact X approximately 1.5 m thickness) and 450 m3 of groundwater (i.e., an approximate 20 m X 30 m area of impact X an approximate 2.5 m water column X assumed 30% pore- space)will have to be remediated (refer to Figure 2 for inferred area of impact). REMEDIAL OPTIONS Remedial options that are typically considered for the contaminants.identified during the 2012 Phase II ESA and 2012 Supplemental_ Phase II ESA include taking no immediate action, physical excavation and removal of impacted soil and`groundwater (i.e. "dig and dump"), in-Situ treatment (either chemical or biological), risk assessment("RA"), or a combination thereof. The appropriateness of a remedial option is based on many factors, including cost, timeline and likelihood to achieve the remedial objectives, Remedial Objectives Golder Associates understands that there is no requirement for the filing of a Record of Site Condition ("RSC") for this property at this time. As defined in O. Reg. 153/04 (as amended) (i.e., the "Regulation"), a RSC is required when the land use is changing from a less stringent land use to a more stringent land use (i.e. industrial to residential). However, the filing of a RSC may also be mandated by a municipality during site redevelopment, by lending institutions as a condition of financing, or on a voluntary basis by any landowner. In order to file a RSC, a site must satisfy the applicable generic site condition standards as set out in the Regulation,.'or property- specific standards (risk-based) developed for a specific property through the RA process as se out in the Regulation, at all locations. Remedial Options Based on the above, the following provides a summary of remedial options that may be considered for the Site: Option 1: No Immediate Action Timeline: Nil Cost Estimate: Nil Considerations: The advantages in selecting a No-Action approach are that there is no related delay with the construction schedule, and there are no immediate associated costs. The disadvantages in selecting a No-Action approach are that no active remediation activities take place on the Site (i.e., the contaminant mass remains on Site during construction and operation of the new facility), there is a possibility of future off-Site migration of contaminants, and there exists. the possibility that future Remedial approaches may be required after the proposed infrastructure has been constructed, which could potentially result in costs higher than those associated with selecting a remediation approach prior to construction. Based on the above, a No-Action approach may not be the most suitable option for the Municipality to consider for this Site. Golder 2i6 - Assocaafes Mr.Jerry Barber 11-1185-0324(4000) Municipality of Clarington April 24,2012 Option 2: Screening Level Risk Assessment ("SLRA") and Monitored Natural Attenuation, Timeline: Approximately 2-4 months for SLRA plus annual monitoring. Cost Estimate: Approximately $35,000 for initial SLRA completion, plus an additional $5,000 per year for environmental monitoring. Considerations: The advantages in selecting a SLRA approach are that the costs to complete are relatively low, and the work can be completed in a relatively short period of time. Further, the SLRA completes an assessment of potential risks, so that the owner is aware of concerns or issues that may need to be addressed. The disadvantages in selecting a SLRA approach are that there are no physical remedial actions undertaken at the Site (i.e., the identified soil and groundwater impact remains on-Site), and if any contaminants at the Site are identified above the developed risk-based criteria, some form of additional risk management measures or remedial action may be required (i.e., additional costs), Option 3: Full Risk Assessment ("RA") and Filing with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ("MOE") (no RSC). Timeline: Approximately 1.5-2.0 years. Cost Estimate: Approximately $150,000 for RA; possible submittal of RSC possible in future, though not necessarily required (additional costs). Considerations: The advantage in selecting a full RA approach is that it allows flexibility (i.e., a full RA can support the filing of a RSC, if required in the future). The disadvantages in selecting a full RA approach are that the work can take up to 2- years to complete, the costs increase when compared to a SLRA, and if any contaminants at the Site are identified above the developed risk-based criteria, some form of additional risk management measures or remedial action may be required (i.e., additional costs). Option 4: Dig and Dump with Groundwater Treatment. Timeline: Approximately 3-6 months. Cost Estimate: Approximately $175,000 for soil management of approximately 900 m3 of impacted material (excavation, off-Site disposal, placement of clean fill); Approximately $115,000 for groundwater management of approximately 450 m3 (in-Situ treatment and/or off-Site removal); and Approximately $50,000 for project management, confirmation sampling and environmental monitoring. 3/6 - G er Mr. Jerry Barber 11-1185-0324(4000) Municipality of Clarington April 24,2012 Considerations: The advantage in selecting a dig and dump approach is that the identified soil and groundwater impacts are physically remediated and/or removed from the property; this can support the filing of a RSC in the future. The disadvantages in selecting a dig and dump approach are that the associated costs can be prohibitive, and significant additional effort (i.e. costs) can be expended if residual impact is identified which needs to be removed (note that no identified soil or groundwater impact can remain on Site should the filing of a RSC be needed in the future). Modified Option 4: Limited Dig & Dump with Groundwater Treatment Timeline: Approximately 3-5 months. Cost Estimate: Approximately $60,000 for soil management of approximately 300 m3 of impacted material (excavation, off-Site disposal, placement of clean fill); Approximately $40,000 for groundwater management of approximately 150 m3 (in-Situ treatment and/or off-Site removal); and Approximately $25,000 for project management, confirmation sampling and environmental monitoring. Considerations: The advantage in selecting a limited dig and dump approach is that the identified core of the soil and groundwater impacts (i.e., a specified volume) are physically remediated and/or removed from the property, while maintaining a relatively fixed cost lower than that of a full dig and dump. The disadvantage in selecting a limited dig and dump approach is that there is the potential for residual soil and groundwater impacts to remain on Site, and the work would therefore be insufficient to support the filing of a RSC, if needed in the future. Note that, should the Municipality choose the Modified Dig & Dump option, it would be recommended to maintain a contingency budget to be used in the event that the identified scope of work is completed (Le.,,the fixed volume of soil and groundwater has been excavated/remediated), and it is determined that minimal residual impact is remaining on Site. The contingency would then allow for the continuation (with prior approval of the Municipality) of the excavation work by the existing contractor in order to remove the residual impact, without incurring significant delays related to the standard approval process (i.e. another tendering process, etc.). - Colder 4/6 138SC�c>�[teS Mr.Jerry Barber 11-1185-0324(4000) Municipality of Clarington April 24,2012 Option 5: In-Situ Chemical or Biological Treatment ("ISCO"). Timeline: 6-12 months. Cost Estimate: Approximately $125,000 Considerations: . The advantage in selecting an ISCO approach is that active remediation will take place on the Site, which will reduce the identified contaminant mass (i.e., the core source affecting the contaminant plume). The disadvantages in selecting an ISCO approach are that the work may take up to a year (or longer) to complete, and that the generic criteria for the Site may not be achieved through ISCO activities alone. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Upon reviewing the above options with the Municipality, it can generally be considered that taking a No-Action approach would not be an ideal solution for this Site, given the proposed future use (i.e., impacts may be within the proposed building footprint). Given the timelines, the Municipality may wish to consider that a combination of the above options may prove to be the best solution for the Site, such as completing a limited Dig & Dump to remove the core of the impact, followed by a SLRA to address the residual impact (if any) that remains on Site after the core remedial works are complete. ASSUMPTIONS For costing purposes, Golder Associates has made certain assumptions regarding the extent of impact and the volume of soil and groundwater that needs to be addressed (see above for assumed volumes). Based on the available data to date, Golder Associates has assumed that the limits of the PHC/EB-impacted soil and groundwater to be approximately mid-way between sample locations with known impact and sample locations where no soil or groundwater exceedances were identified. It should be noted that soil and/or groundwater conditions can vary between and beyond testing locations. - LIMITATIONS This letter was prepared for the exclusive use of the Municipality of Clarington. The letter is based on data and information collected during the 2012 Phase II ESA and 2012 Supplemental Phase Ii ESA conducted by Golder Associates Ltd.'s personnel and is based solely on the Site conditions encountered at the time of the fieldwork carried out between January and February, 2012. In preparing this assessment, Golder Associates evaluated only conditions at a limited number of test locations. Only limited chemical analyses of soil and groundwater samples were carried out. It should be noted that the results of an investigation of this nature should, in no way, be construed as a warranty that the site is free from any and all contamination from past or current practices. If additional information is obtained during future work at the Site, including excavations, borings, or other studies, and/or if conditions exposed during construction are different from those encountered in this assessment, Golder Associates should be requested to re-evaluate the conclusions presented in this report and provide amendments as required. This document provides a professional opinion and, therefore, no warranty is either expressed, implied, or made as to the conclusions, advice and recommendations offered in.this document. This document does not provide a 5/6 (A_ older ssociates Mr.Jerry Barber 11-1185-0324(4000) Municipality of Clarington April 24,2012 Condition) of the "Sail, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.9 of the Environmental Protection Act", dated April 15, 2011. Golder Associates' professional services for this assignment addressed only the geo-environ mental (chemical) aspects of the subsurface conditions at a limited number of locations. The potential environmental impact of Site development or local biological, hydrological and hydrogeological functions.and the like has not been investigated or addressed. The geotechnical (physical) aspects, including engineering recommendations for the design and construction of building foundations, pavements, underground servicing and the like are outside the terms of reference for this report and have not been investigated or addressed CLOSURE We trust that this satisfies your current requirements. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the information contained herein, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. We look forward to continuing our work with you on this project. Yours truly, GOLDER ASSOCIATES LTD. Kevan Browne, B.A, Geo. gikeCleverdon, B.Sc. Environmental Specialist Associate- Environmental Division Manager KDB/MLC/kdb:ms:jh CC: Mr. George Acorn— Municipality of Clarington Attachments: Figure 1 —Key Plan Figure 2—Sample Location Plan nAactivel_2011M85 add"1-1185-0324 zas ph n esa da6ngtonUetters\11-1185-0324(3000)let remedlal options 24apr'12.dou 6/6 690000 691000 692000 693000 694000 o < _ N O IS �p pP�3 - 7° o SS\o ff R1� GO/G/y 1 I o \ � II � Z TA 2 p RKE A pZ ^�h \ • QS �\ \ BPS( CL ��� �ENV� vCvNG P >� SITE LOCATION ESQ mm Z o -\ ° A ° HIGHWAY 2 or - 1 11 m N 153 11 \1 O, \ �Q d, m Xcjn_ <1 s� N DARLINGTON VAAGN�1 n ° 90 o . , — / � y Graham Creek Wilmot Creek -I g y - LAKE ONTARIO - - - s - _ _85 M a a 690000 691000 692000 693000 694000 500 0 500 1,000 SCALE 1:25,000 METRES TITLE SUPPLEMENTAL PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED LAND 3333 DURHAM REGIONAL HIGHWAY#2 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON,ONTARIO TITLE KEY PLAN FIGURE 1 REFERENCE Ar PROJECT NO.11-1185-0324 SCALEASSHOWN I REV.0.0 Base Data-MNR NRVIS,obtained 2004 DESIGN Produced by Golder Associates Ltd under licence from �' Citjldef GIS JT MAR.2012 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,©Queens Printer 2008 ASSOCGtICS CHECK Projection:Transverse Mercator Datum:NAD 83 Coordinate System:UTM Zone 17 Whitby,Ontario REVIEW N e m ❑ V z AN W Q ❑ zz ow =v°O� `� E a -°-� Q G LL W Z °'d w5a� a _ o z ° z < W0 w o �. w o Z o w_ ? °w "' a °> a m zw z�m �°�gcz O - LLp' W Qr U Q N ZwGZ 0. 3 az a O wz� o_, J �° ¢¢ z Oda ❑ >zw, V G wo °- FN w ❑r O EaO o° wow OL 3 O aw ftf _z�ao J end°E tz> L: �¢ of zo W� ❑ °gym ¢zWQ J QB wz .2 ym z caiw z� w F rLL 0J0 00 Z Z .2°'Z N (n W m� y 0 b l a I I N d N Z w c W �/ ip LU ++ ri UJ LLI I T T I w -J LJ K maw m � G � otll o cri �L_J ? d a I a. ❑¢ 3 LLw.❑ ?z K I # 0 o z pvOri LLw Z z❑ ���... O �w �- =1 W m z Jw w D m 0 : k °5;r wo w 3 • o <> X O O ! 00 ° W r a. e — N W I' Lu W a• u•Y t� r O_ _ I I `a. �• • ° y # •a i. I t ' a. s N ♦- •a L r / Y �• 3, a O °s. o z I $n ' ti of wdL5:4—ZLOZ '4Z dV 'SVZ)*ZCO-99II—LL\ILOZ\syoaf°Id\:1:cly 6u!--O