Geotechnical Engineering Report Medical Examiners Building

BAI Project Number: S18706 December 27, 2018

Geotechnical Engineering Report

Medical Examiners Building Spokane, WA

Prepared for:

Bruce Russell, NCARB Spokane County Facilities District

1211 W. Gardner Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0060

Prepared by:

BUDINGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

John Finnegan, PE, LHG Geotechnical Engineer, Principal

S18706 Medical Examiners Building - Geotechnical Engineering Report

Budinger & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers

Construction Materials Testing & Special Inspection

i

Contents

CONTEXT .............................................................. 1 Project Considerations .................................................................................................................... 1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 1

ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS ........................................... 2 Geologic Setting............................................................................................................................... 2 Surface Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 3 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology ............................................................................................ 4

ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS ............................................ 4 FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................... 5

Test Explorations............................................................................................................................. 5 Seepage Test .................................................................................................................................... 6 Soil Samples..................................................................................................................................... 6 Soil Classification ............................................................................................................................ 6 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 6

LIMITATIONS .......................................................... 7 REFERENCES .......................................................... 7

EMBEDDED TABLES Table 1. Spokane 200 Method Outflow Rate Analysis ................................................................... 5

ATTACHED FIGURES Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Site Plan Figure 3: Guide to Soil and Rock Descriptions Figures 4-1 to 4-7: Test Boring Logs and Fence Diagram Figure 5: West Side Drywell Infiltration Test Report Figures 6-1 to 6-4: DCP Test Results Figure 7: Laboratory Summary Figure 8: Grain Size Distributions

Appendix I: West Drywell Infiltration Test ReportAppendix II: GBC - Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report




1

CONTEXT

This report presents results of geotechnical exploration and analysis for proposed improvements to an existing building in Spokane, Washington. The work was contracted with Spokane County Facilities Department, represented by Bruce Russell, NCARB.

Project Considerations

The property encompasses the north half of the block. The project parcel is approximately 55,000 square feet. An approximately 19,840-square foot building with an approximately 35,000-square foot parking lot is present. The building occupies the east side of the parcel.

The stormwater infiltration potential for parking lots and roof drains is needed. We conducted a full-scale infiltration test in the west drywell as the location of the east drywell could not be confirmed. A possible vault was identified in the east parking lot and landscape area but access was not readily available. We also conducted limited infiltration testing at a borehole location near the west drywell. We were also asked to help characterize depth to rock under the building floor for plumbing and other trades.

Relevant design documents include the following: 2018 International Building Code Section 1613 - Earthquake Loads (IBC, 2018) Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (SRSM, 2008) Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Geotechnical Design Manual,

(GDM, 2012)

Location The project site is in Section 20, Township 25 North, Range 43 East (T25N, R43E), Willamette Meridian Washington. It is located on First Avenue between Spokane and Cowley Streets in Spokane, Washington. The address is 218 E. First and includes Parcel Number 35202.1011. The parcel includes “SAUNDERS ADD LTS 1 THRU 12 BLK 6 & TR N OF & ADJ L7 THRU 12 & S OF 1ST AVE.” The location is illustrated in the Vicinity Map and Site Plan.

Scope This geotechnical study involved interpretation of the subsurface soil and rock conditions to assess site suitability for proposed improvements including earthwork, and drainage. We endeavored to conduct these services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices as outlined in proposal S-18706 dated October 3, 2018.




2

In general accordance with the proposal, the following scope was completed: 1. Researched available geotechnical, topographic, and geologic information, as well as preliminary

plans. 2. Explored subsurface conditions inside and outside the building as follows:

1) Borings with penetration tests at 4 locations throughout the building interior, 2) Three 9 to 25-foot deep borings inside the building, 3) 1 boring on the west side of the building exterior, and 4) 1 boring on the east side of the building exterior. Conditions were logged by a qualified

geologist. 3. Performed full-scale drywell testing in the existing west side drywell in accordance with the

SRSM – Appendix 4B. 4. Completed laboratory testing on representative soil samples. The testing included moisture

content, gradation, pH, and Atterberg Limits. 5. Characterized the subsurface conditions encountered, including:

• Layering (stratification) • Relative density • Soil texture and classification • Soil moisture, capillarity, and groundwater

6. Prepared calculations of stormwater infiltration and prepared cross sections of rock profiles. Samples for environmental testing were delivered to Anatek Laboratory. Results of environmental testing will be provided under separate cover. Other geotechnical engineering subjects such as existing foundation size, conditions, and details are beyond the scope of this work.

ENCOUNTERED CONDITIONS

Geologic Setting Geologic history of the area includes pre-Miocene age metamorphic and plutonic basement rocks, massive basalt lava flows, incised river channels, and numerous catastrophic glacial floods. Following basalt placement on basement rocks, the glacial flooding eroded the exposed soil and rock in Spokane area, particularly the basalt in and across the Spokane River channel. Thick basalt is inherently stratified into collonades of columns top and bottom with a zone of irregularly oriented fractures in the center. This allows erosion to remove much of the top layer leaving a bench of tightly fractured basalt. The project area rests on the margin of such a basalt bench with a thin gravel blanket. Geologic mapping of this area shows Miocene age Grande Ronde Basalt (Mgr). The Mgr unit is described as “Dark gray to dark greenish gray, fine-grained basalt; thickness is quite variable due to irregular underlying topography, variable thickness of water-saturated Latah Formation (unit Ml) interbeds, and the invasive nature of at least some of the Grande Ronde Basalt flows in the area.” (WSDNR, 2004). The site is situated on sparse, if any, Pleistocene age glacial flood gravels associated with Quaternary flood channel gravels (Qfcg). The irregular basalt surface hosted a series of shallow lakes. A 1904 Spokane City sewer plan illustrates these lakes, one of which extended south of Sprague and into the northeast quadrant of the existing building. Historically, the lakes were filled with various materials including silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders, including some debris. Soil types at the site, as mapped by the USDA Web Soil Survey, consisted of Urban land-Opportunity, disturbed complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes (NRCS, 2012). The surficial soil group was not rated for engineering parameters by NRCS.




3

Surface Conditions The elevation of the ground surface ranged from approximately 1936 feet at the northeast corner to 1944 feet at the center of the alley and retaining wall along the south side of the site. Existing driveway approaches, paved parking lots, sidewalk, curb, and landscaping were located around the building. The pavement was in good condition. The south side retaining wall along the alley extended from Cowley to Spokane Streets. It ranged from 1 to 7 feet tall. The west side parking lot sloped gently down from the southwest corner of the site to the driveway at the northeast corner of the parking lot. The sidewalks along Cowley and Spokane Streets slope upwards to the south at 5 percent. The pavement at the southeast corner of the site, parallel to the retaining wall slopes down towards the building at 14 percent. The inside of the building contained a concrete slab approximately 5 inches thick. Floor drains exited the building with the south side connecting to the sewer in the alley and the northwest side draining to the drywell. An apparent overflow in the drywell leads to the southwest, likely connected to the sewer also.

Subsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated with test borings. Test boring Logs and a Guide to Soil and Rock Descriptions describe conditions in more detail. In general, we encountered fill, native silt, sand, and gravel overlying basalt rock. undocumented fill Boring Log Symbol:

Beneath concrete and asphalt pavements was fill soil with occasional debris. Plastic sheathing was encountered below the concrete slab inside the building. An approximate 1-foot thick pea (approximately 3/8-inch) gravel layer had been placed as a leveling course below the slab. Below the pea gravel was fill consisting of distinct layers of cobbles, boulders, silt, sand, and gravel, as well as mixtures of these soils. Due to the presence of a historic lake that encroached upon the interior of the north side of the building, much of the fill consisted of open-graded cobbles and boulders. Much of the fill was silty sand with gravel and silty gravel, particularly in the northwest interior of the building; it extended to bottom of Boring 3 (B-3), 25 feet below finish floor. Do to distinct odor encountered, a sample was tested for petroleum hydrocarbons and toxicity (EPA 8 metals); low concentrations of hydrocarbons and metals were found. silt, sand, and gravel Boring Log symbols:

Stratified silt, sand, gravel, and mixtures of soil were encountered overlying basalt rock. Medium brown silt, similar in appearance to wind-blown loess, was observed in 1 to 2.5-foot thick layers in B-3 and B-6 in the fill and in B-1 and B-6 overlying basalt rock. Native silt, sand and gravel in relatively thin laminations were also encountered. Lake sediments common to the area were encountered from 4 to 9 feet below ground surface (BGS) in B-5 overlying basalt rock. The fine sediments were tan silt with sand, gravel, gravel, and cobble inclusions.




4

Samples of native soils overlying basalt rock from B-5, on the west side, and B-6 on the east side were tested for metals toxicity including total and leachable (TCLP) metals. Results indicated low concentrations; barium was the only leachable element. basalt rock Boring Log Symbol:

Basalt rock was encountered in 4 of the 6 borings. It was dark gray, mostly non-vesicular, fresh to highly weathered, and strong. Weathered zones ranged from 1 to 1.5 feet thick.

Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Surface water was not observed near the site except the Spokane River, approximately 2,200 feet northeast and northwest of the site. Surface waters were mapped in 2 historic lake locations on Sprague, between Spokane and Cowley and between Sherman and Hatch (City Sewer Plans, 1904). The lakes were apparently filled with coarse soil including cobbles and boulders. Perched groundwater occurs in isolated basins on the irregular basalt surface and within the historic lakes. Perched groundwater in the west lake was measured at approximately 1914 feet mean sea level (MSL). B-3 did not encounter groundwater to 25 feet in depth. Local well logs and an aquifer map indicate groundwater is at approximately at 1,940 feet MSL, 80 to 90 feet below ground surface (WDOE, Campbell, 2005). Groundwater was not observed in the explorations. Infiltration tests. Infiltration tests were conducted in the existing west side drywell and in B-5 near the drywell. The existing drywell appeared to be a Spokane City Type 1. Water was introduced at a relatively steady rate of 360 gallons per minute, subject to line pressures which declined slightly during the test. Head level was stable at 1.2 feet. The drywell emptied in 4 minutes 10 seconds. A seepage test was conducted in B-5. One hundred fifty gallons of water was pumped into the casing at 30 gallons per minute with no rise in head within the casing. No water was visible in the casing after 15 seconds.

ANALYSIS and CONCLUSIONS

Undocumented fill and depth to basalt rock are highly variable. Undocumented fills resulted from abandonment of historic lakes in the project vicinity. The fills included silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, boulders, and debris. Basalt rock was observed as outcrop across the street to the north and was encountered in several test borings but was not encountered within the northwest area of the building in B-3, which was drilled to a depth of 25 feet. The rock, where encountered, as well as boulders, will be difficult to excavate. Stormwater. Stormwater appears to infiltrate the open-graded, coarse undocumented fill readily. Based on initial testing for hydrocarbons and heavy metals (qualitative petroleum tests and EPA priority 8 metals- total and TCLP), the soils are environmentally suitable for infiltration. Bedrock basins that define the historic lakes controlling capacity and flow directions are not well understood in the area. The historic lake bed is assumed to be a relatively impermeable limiting layer. Previous explorations by BAI (2017) 150 feet north of Sprague at Spokane Street within the lake area measured groundwater at an elevation of 1914 feet, 20 feet lower in elevation than at the project site surface.




5

Exfiltration rates of native soils, as presented below, were estimated based on percentages of fines in accordance with the SRSM, Appendix 4A – Spokane 200 Method (SRSM, 2008). As fines percentages were greater than 12 percent for samples representative of native soils, infiltration to drywells in native soil does not appear to be viable but coarse open graded fill appears suitable. The very high infiltration rates in drywell and borehole tests appear to result from highly permeable, coarse, undocumented fill.

Table 1. Spokane 200 Method Outflow Rate Analysis

Boring ID

Sample Depth

(ft)

Fines (%)

Hydraulic Conductivity

(in/hr)1

Normalized Outflow Rate

(cfs/ft)2

Safety Factor3

Factored Outflow Rate (cfs)4

Infiltration Feasibility

Type 1, H=6 Type 2, H=10

5 5-7.5 13 - - - N/A N/A No 6 18-18.5 22 - - - N/A N/A No 1. in/hr- inches per hour (in3/in2/hr)2. cfs/ft- cubic feet per second per foot3. Minimum safety factor in accordance with SRSM Table 4A-1.4. cfs- cubic feet per second

The variability of the fill content, varying depth to rock, and presence of fine-grained lacustrine soil contribute to inconsistent and challenging infiltration conditions. We recommend installing new drywells no further than 20 feet from the tested drywell. The recommended maximum design outflow rates are 0.5 and 1.0 cfs for Spokane City Type 1 and Type 2 drywells, respectively.

Consideration of additional infiltration areas will require explorations at specific locations to determine the presence of open-graded fill. Borehole or test pit infiltration testing in specific proposed drywell areas is recommended to determine boundary conditions, flow characteristics, and estimated infiltration rates.

FIELD EXPLORATION

The fieldwork was conducted by Senior Geologist David Lehn, LG, and supervised by geotechnical engineer John Finnegan, PE, on October 23 to November 6, 2018. The field activities generally consisted of the following:

• Reconnaissance of the site and surrounding area;• Logging subsurface conditions for 6 test borings;• Obtaining continuous and bulk samples of the soils.• Testing drywell infiltration in accordance with SRSM Appendix 4-B.• Performed borehole seepage test in B-5.

Results are presented in Figures.

Test Explorations Air Rotary Drilling, ASTM D5782. Borings were drilled with a track-mounted K-40 low headroom drill in the building and both track mounted Geoprobe 8140LS Sonic drill and truck-mounted Mobile B-57. The K-40 and Mobile B-57 utilized the air rotary method with 5-inch outside diameter casing. The air rotary method involves circulating air through a specially designed pilot bit that engages with a casing bit




6

during drilling, but disengages upon reversal of rotation to allow retrieval of the drill stem at desired sampling depths. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Test. Soil strength was estimated with a series of DCP Tests. The DCPT results can be correlated to N-values for estimating relative soil strength for bearing capacity. The Triggs Wildcat® DCP system consists of a 35-pound slide hammer and rods with 4-inch graduations. The results of DCP penetration per 2-inch intervals are illustrated in Figures 5-1 to 5-4.

Seepage test

A seepage test was conducted in B-5. The test, application, and limitations are described in the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, Section 5.5.3 (2015). 150 gallons of water were injected into the boring at 30 gallons per minute. The drill casing emptied within 15 seconds. The water supply rate did not produce constant head conditions.

Soil Samples Standard Penetration Tests - ASTM D 1586. To obtain samples of soil, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were conducted by driving a 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler with a 140-pound hammer actuated by a Mobile automatic hammer to provide a test of penetration resistance. The resulting blow count for each foot of sampler advancement, representing uncorrected N-values, is presented on the Boring Logs. The sonic drill utilized the continuous SDT45 Sonic Dual Tube Sampling System consisting of a 4.5-inch OD LHSL sonic casing and a 3-inch OD by 60-inch core with 3-inch ID liner. Drill cutting samples were collected at various depths for field identification of soil in accordance with ASTM D-2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure).

Soil Classification WSDOT Soil and Rock Classification and Logging. Field descriptions of soils and rock were completed in accordance with the current version of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM), M 46-03, except that fines (silt and clay) were described in accordance with ASTM D 2487. Whereas, the GDM uses the terms ‘silty’ and ‘clayey’ to describe a very broad range of fines from 10 to 49 percent; ASTM D 2487 uses those terms for percentages greater than 12 and the term ‘with’ for fines ranging from 5 to 12 percent, which is typically necessary to describe variations relevant to soil permeability per the SRSM. A key to the descriptions is provided in Guide to Soil and Rock Descriptions.

Location Horizontal & vertical control. The Site Plan was reproduced from a preliminary plan provided by the client. Boring locations were measured relative to existing site features. The elevations are relative to existing ground surface. Horizontal and vertical locations can be considered accurate to within 5 feet and 2 foot, relative to the information provided.




7

LIMITATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based upon the results of field explorations and laboratory testing results. They are predicated upon our understanding of the project, its design, and its location as defined in by the client. We endeavored to conduct this study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area. This report presents our professional interpretation of investigation data developed, which we believe meets the standards of the geotechnical profession in this area; we make no other warranties, express or implied. Attached is a document titled “Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report,” which we recommend you review carefully to better understand the context within which these services were completed. Unless test locations are specified by others or limited by accessibility, the scope of analysis is intended to develop data from a representative portion of the site. However, the areas tested are discreet. Interpolation between these discreet locations is made for illustrative purposes only, but should be expected to vary. If a greater level of detail is desired, the client should request an increased scope of exploration.

REFERENCES

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010, ASCE Standard 7-05. International Code Council, 2018, International Building Code. Joseph, 1990, WDNR Geologic Map of the Spokane 1:100,000 Quadrangle, Washington. Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, 2008, Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. (SRSM) USDA, 2013, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. USGS, 1974, Spokane NW, Washington, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, 1:24,000, PR 1986. USGS, 2014, Spokane NW, Washington, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, 1:24,000. USGS, 2018, US Seismic Design Maps Web Application, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2004, Geologic Map of the Spokane Northwest 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Spokane County, Washington. OPEN FILE REPORT 2004-3 Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2013, Washington State Geologic Society. Washington State Interactive Map. Available online at http://wigm.dnr.wa.gov/. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2015, Geotechnical Design Manual.

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php

http://wigm.dnr.wa.gov/




8

Washington State Department of Transportation, 2016, Standard Specification for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.

5.5-inch Concrete slabPlastic Sheeting

Pea Gravel (FILL)

SILTY SAND with Gravel, Cobbles, andBoulders, coarse to fine, angular tosubrounded (FILL)Boulder, 3 to 4.5 feet

Boulder, 5.5 to 7.5 feet

Basalt rock, fresh, strong below 9 feetEnd of Boring @ 9 ft

moist, medium brown

moist, gray/whiteno free groundwaterobserved

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERG LIMITS

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")

APPROX. SPT N-VALUE USING 3" SAMPLER

PLWATER CONTENT

10-23-18Budinger & Assoc., Inc.HammerDrill K40 Low Headroom DrillInside building, 34' E and 19' N of SW cornerconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:

STANDARD PEN TEST, N-VALUE (OBSERVED)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:

FIGURE 4-1Project: Medical Examiners Building

Location: Spokane, Washington

Number: S18706

TEST BORING 1

1938 ftD. Lehnair rotary overburdensystem, 4.5 in O.D. casing

DE

PT

H LL

Type of Drill:

LOG

S W

ITH

OU

T W

ELL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11

/13/

18

5-inch Concrete slabPlastic Sheeting

Pea Gravel (FILL)

SILTY SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, coarseto fine, angular to subrounded (FILL)

SILT, low plasticity

Basalt rock, highly weathered from 3 to 3.5feet, strong below 3.5 feet

End of Boring @ 9 ft

moist, medium brown

moist, medium brown

moist, gray/white

no free groundwaterobserved

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERG LIMITS

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")


PLWATER CONTENT

10-25-18Budinger & Assoc., Inc.HammerDrill K40 Low Headroom DrillInside building, 42' W and 21' N of SE cornerconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:



Number: S18706

TEST BORING 2


DE

PT

H LL

Type of Drill:

LOG

S W

ITH

OU

T W

ELL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11

/13/

18

5-inch Concrete slabPlastic Sheeting

Pea Gravel (FILL)


GRAVEL with Sand, Silt, and Cobbles, coarseto fine, angular to subrounded (FILL)

SILTY fine SAND with debris (brick) (FILL)

SILTY SAND with Pea Gravel, coarse to fine,angular to subrounded (FILL)

GRAVEL with Cobbles 20 to 21 feet


moist, medium brown

moist, medium brown

moist, medium brown

moist, medium brown


TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERG LIMITS

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")


PLWATER CONTENT

10-26-18Budinger & Assoc., Inc.HammerDrill K40 Low Headroom DrillInside building, 44' E and 30' S of NW cornerconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:



Number: S18706

TEST BORING 3


DE

PT

H LL

Type of Drill:

LOG

S W

ITH

OU

T W

ELL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11

/13/

18

Environmental test sample

5-inch Concrete SlabPlastic Sheeting

Pea Gravel

SILTY SAND with Gravel and Cobbles, coarseto fine, angular to subrounded (FILL)

End of Boring @ 2.7 ft

moist, medium brown


TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERG LIMITS

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")


PLWATER CONTENT

10-18-18Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Concrete core drillInside building, 50' W and 33' S of NE cornerconcrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:



Number: S18706

TEST BORING 4

1938 ftD. Lehn6-inch core

DE

PT

H LL

Type of Drill:

LOG

S W

ITH

OU

T W

ELL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11

/13/

18

5.5-inch Concrete slab

SILTY SAND with Gravel, coarse to fine,angular to subrounded (FILL)

GRAVELLY SILT with Sand, low plasticity

SILT with Sand, Gravel, and Cobbles,Lacustrine lake bed with coarse fill

Basalt rock

Seepage Test, Introduced 150 gallons at 30gallons per minute. Drained in 1 minute.


moist, medium brown

moist, medium brown

moist, tan


12

6

R

R

(65%)

(47%)

(0%)

(100%)

(100%)

(100%)

(4-6-6)

(2-3-3)

(50(0))

(21-50(1))

TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERG LIMITS

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")


PLWATER CONTENT

10-29-18Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Geoprobe 8140LS Sonic Drill, automatic SPT hammerW parking lot, 66' S of retaining wall and 40' W of buildingasphalt concrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:



Number: S18706

TEST BORING 5

1939 ftD. LehnSDT45 Sonic 4.5-inch ODDual Tube with3-inchODx60-inch core

DE

PT

H LL

Type of Drill:

LOG

S W

ITH

OU

T W

ELL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11

/13/

18

+100

+100

2.5-inches Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

SILTY SAND with Gravel, occasional Cobbles(FILL)

SILT, low plasticity (FILL)

SILTY SAND with Gravel, coarse to fine,angular to subrounded (FILL)

SILTY SAND with Gravel and debris (brick)(FILL)

COBBLES, voids, air loss, no return


SILTY SAND with fine Gravel, coarse to fine,angular to subrounded

Basalt rock, highly weathered 18.5 to 19.5 feet


moist, dark brown

moist, medium brown

moist, dark brown

moist, medium to darkbrown

moist, light brown

moist, medium brownmoist


TEST RESULTS

Driller:

BORING LOGS

Logged by:

MO

IST

UR

E,

CO

LOR

,C

ON

DIT

ION

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ATTERBERG LIMITS

RQ

D,

SP

T N

(% R

EC

OV

ER

Y)

(Blo

ws

per

6")


PLWATER CONTENT

11-6-18Budinger & Assoc., Inc.Mobile B-57 with automatic SPT hammerNE parking lot, 15' south of edge of pavement, 17' E of buildingasphalt concrete pavementSurface:

SO

IL L

OG

Elevation:

Location:


10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size of hole:

SA

MP

LE

S

DESCRIPTION

Date of Boring:



Number: S18706

TEST BORING 6


DE

PT

H LL

Type of Drill:

LOG

S W

ITH

OU

T W

ELL

WIT

H T

ES

TS

S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11

/13/

18

1,912

1,914

1,916

1,918

1,920

1,922

1,924

1,926

1,928

1,930

1,932

1,934

1,936

1,938

1,940

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

1,912

1,914

1,916

1,918

1,920

1,922

1,924

1,926

1,928

1,930

1,932

1,934

1,936

1,938

1,9400 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

-40 0 40

-40 0 40

1 23 456

DATE

S18706 4-7

Medical Examiners Building

Spokane, Washington

Ele

vatio

n

Nov 18

SUBSURFACE FENCE DIAGRAM 1

Figure

Distance Along Baseline

PROJECT #

BA

SIC

FE

NC

E

S18

706

ME

DIC

AL

EX

AM

INE

RS

BU

ILD

ING

.GP

J B

UD

ING

ER

.GD

T

11/1

3/18

WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1

PROJECT NUMBER: S18706DATE STARTED: 10-18-2018

DATE COMPLETED:

HOLE #: DCP-1 SouthwestCREW: J. Pritzl SURFACE ELEVATION: 1939

PROJECT: Medical Examiner Building WATER ON COMPLETION:ADDRESS: 218 E. 1st Ave. HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs.

LOCATION: Spokane, WA CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm

BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCYDEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm² 0 50 100 150 N' NON-COHESIVE COHESIVE

-- 11 48.8 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 1 ft 10 44.4 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 10 44.4 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 10 44.4 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 2 ft 28 124.3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 50 222.0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ VERY DENSE HARD-- 3 ft- 1 m-- 4 ft--- 5 ft--- 6 ft-- 2 m- 7 ft--- 8 ft--- 9 ft--- 3 m 10 ft---- 11 ft--- 12 ft--- 4 m 13 ft

Budinger & Associates, Inc.Geotechnical & Environmental Engineers


FIGURE 5-1



DATE COMPLETED:

HOLE #: DCP-2 SoutheastCREW: J. Pritzl SURFACE ELEVATION: 1939




-- 15 66.6 ••••••••••••••••••• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF- 1 ft 28 124.3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 50 222.0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ VERY DENSE HARD-- 2 ft--- 3 ft- 1 m-- 4 ft--- 5 ft--- 6 ft-- 2 m- 7 ft--- 8 ft--- 9 ft--- 3 m 10 ft---- 11 ft--- 12 ft--- 4 m 13 ft



FIGURE 5-2



DATE COMPLETED:

HOLE #: DCP-3 NorthwestCREW: J. Pritzl SURFACE ELEVATION: 1939




-- 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF- 1 ft 18 79.9 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF- 26 115.4 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 31 137.6 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 2 ft 28 124.3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 36 159.8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 45 199.8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ VERY DENSE HARD- 3 ft 51 226.4 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ VERY DENSE HARD- 1 m 26 115.4 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ DENSE HARD- 24 92.6 •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF- 4 ft 12 46.3 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 7 27.0 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF- 10 38.6 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 5 ft 9 34.7 •••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF- 10 38.6 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 9 34.7 •••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF- 6 ft 8 30.9 •••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF- 8 30.9 •••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF- 2 m 8 30.9 •••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF- 7 ft--- 8 ft--- 9 ft--- 3 m 10 ft---- 11 ft--- 12 ft--- 4 m 13 ft



FIGURE 5-3



DATE COMPLETED:

HOLE #: DCP-4 NortheastCREW: J. Pritzl SURFACE ELEVATION: 1939




-- 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF- 1 ft 10 44.4 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF- 1 4.4 • 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT- 1 4.4 • 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT- 2 ft 15 66.6 ••••••••••••••••••• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF- 50 222.0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 25+ VERY DENSE HARD-- 3 ft- 1 m-- 4 ft--- 5 ft--- 6 ft-- 2 m- 7 ft--- 8 ft--- 9 ft--- 3 m 10 ft---- 11 ft--- 12 ft--- 4 m 13 ft



FIGURE 5-4

S18706 Medical Examiners Building - Laboratory Summary

Units Test MethodsLABORATORY NUMBER 18-1591 18-1592BORING NUMBER 5 6DEPTH TOP feet 5 18

BOTTOM feet 7.5 18.5SAMPLE TYPE continuous SPTMOISTURE % ASTM D2216 8.6 11.9UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION ASTM D2487 GM SMSIEVE ANALYSIS ASTM D6913

3" 1001 1/2" 90

1" 81S 3/4" 74I 1/2" % 63 100E 3/8" 57 97V #4 P 43 58E #10 A 32 37

#16 S 26 33S #30 S 21 29I #40 I 18 28Z #100 N 15 25E #200 G 13 22

SOIL MECHANICSLABORATORY SUMMARY



FIGURE 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

%GravelD10

41 3/4 1/23/8

%Sand %Silt %Clay

5

6

Specimen Identification

Specimen Identification

PI Cc

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

4

5

6

LL PL

56.9

42.3

Classification

3

29.9

35.7

10.984

4.971

76.2

12.7

1.677

0.711

D100 D60

60

fine

D30

5.0

18.0

1610 20

coarse fine coarse medium

6 146 8 100 1403 2 200

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

5.0

18.0

Cu

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

13.0

22.0

30 40 501.5

Project: Medical Examiners Building


Number: S18706

GR

AIN

SIZ

E W

O F

IGU

RE

# S

1870

6 M

ED

ICA

L E

XA

MIN

ER

S B

UIL

DIN

G.G

PJ

BU

DIN

GE

R.G

DT

11/

16/1

8

FIGURE 7

Appendix I: West Drywell Infiltration Test Report

S18706 Medical Examiners - Dry Well

Infiltration Test Results

S18706 Medical Examiner Building6 Total Depth (ft) 6.04 Depth of Active Barrel (ft) 4.0

Time Time (min) meter 1 (gal)M1 cumulative

gallonsmeter 2 (gal)

aM2 cumulative

gallonsCumulative

Volume (gal)Rate (gpm) Head

depth to water

9:30 0 5863 0 2295 0 0 0 0.0 6.09:35 5 7500 1637 2900 605 2242 448 1.2 4.89:40 10 9000 3137 3425 1130 4267 427 1.2 4.89:45 15 10600 4737 4000 1705 6442 429 1.2 4.89:50 20 12000 6137 4800 2505 8642 432 1.2 4.89:55 25 13500 7637 5470 3175 10812 432 1.2 4.8

10:00 30 15225 9362 5780 3485 12847 428 1.2 4.810:05 35 16800 10937 6300 4005 14942 427 1.2 4.810:10 40 18400 12537 6750 4455 16992 425 1.2 4.810:15 45 19850 13987 7100 4805 18792 418 1.2 4.810:20 50 21400 15537 7162 4867 20404 408 1.2 4.810:25 55 23100 17237 7205 4910 22147 403 1.2 4.810:30 60 24600 18737 7268 4973 23710 395 1.2 4.810:35 65 26100 20237 7342 5047 25284 389 1.2 4.810:40 70 27780 21917 7495 5200 27117 387 1.2 4.810:45 75 29380 23517 7595 5300 28817 384 1.2 4.810:50 80 30900 25037 0 5300 30337 379 1.2 4.810:55 85 32495 26632 5300 31932 376 1.2 4.811:00 90 34060 28197 5300 33497 372 1.2 4.811:05 95 35640 29777 5300 35077 369 1.2 4.811:10 100 37205 31342 5300 36642 366 1.2 4.811:15 105 38800 32937 5300 38237 364 1.2 4.811:20 110 40355 34492 5300 39792 362 1.2 4.811:25 115 41925 36062 5300 41362 360 1.2 4.811:30 120 43500 37637 5300 42937 358 1.2 4.8

DRAWDOWN 124 (4:10) 0.0 6.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Hea

d (f

t)

Q (

gp

m)

Time (min)

INFILTRATION TEST RESULTS DW West

Flow (gpm) Head (ft)


Construction Materials Testing & Inspection

Appendix II: Important Information About This Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical-Engineering Report

Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and ProjectsGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a constructor — a construction contractor — or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical- engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on this geotechnical-engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply this report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

Read the Full ReportSerious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical-engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

Geotechnical Engineers Base Each Report on a Unique Set of Project-Specific FactorsGeotechnical engineers consider many unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk-management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report that was:• not prepared for you;• not prepared for your project;• not prepared for the specific site explored; or• completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical-engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed

from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light-industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse;

• the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weightof the proposed structure;

• the composition of the design team; or• project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes—even minor ones—and request an

assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

Subsurface Conditions Can ChangeA geotechnical-engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical-engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or natural events, such as floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Contact the geotechnical engineer before applying this report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional OpinionsSite exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide geotechnical-construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

A Report’s Recommendations Are Not FinalDo not overrely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if that engineer does not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability.

A Geotechnical-Engineering Report Is Subject to MisinterpretationOther design-team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical-engineering reports has resulted in costly

Important Information about This

Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.

While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help.

problems. Confront that risk by having your geo technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical-engineering report. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation.

Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s LogsGeotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical-engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical-engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

Read Responsibility Provisions CloselySome clients, design professionals, and constructors fail to recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help

others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk-management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with MoldDiverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold-prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold- prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical- engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.

Rely, on Your GBC-Member Geotechnical Engineer for Additional AssistanceMembership in the Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you GBC-Member geotechnical engineer for more information.

8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017

e-mail: [email protected] www.geoprofessional.org

Copyright 2015 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, or its contents, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document

is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical-engineering report. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without

being a GBA member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.

9922 East Montgomery Suite 13 TESTING

Spokane Valley, WA 99206 NVLAP LAB CODE 101890-0

(509) 922-1365 ● Fax (509) 922-1380

Polarized Light Microscopy, NVLAP Accreditation

September 28, 2018

IRS Environmental Project: Spokane St. Bldg.

Wendy Nixon Project #: 20638

PO Box 15216

Spokane Valley, WA 99215-5216

Dear Ms. Nixon,

The enclosed report details results for the analysis of the bulk sample(s) submitted to Mountain

Laboratories on September 27, 2018. Sample analysis was performed to determine asbestos type and

content using Polarized Light Microscopy, supplemented by Dispersion Staining (PLM/DS).

This report includes a summary of the analytical results and chain of custody. Analytical results are only

reflective of the samples, which were tested and presented in this report. Mountain Laboratories limits

warranty to proper analysis methods and takes no responsibility for sample procurement.

It has been our pleasure providing you with these analytical services. If you have any questions

regarding this report, please do not hesitate to call us at (509) 922-1365.

Sincerely,

Heidi L. McCarthy

Laboratory Manager

Mountain Laboratories

Mountain Laboratories NW, Inc.

Enclosure: 1018.37217.37252

Page 2 of 18

MOUNTAIN LABORATORIES

BULK SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR ASBESTOS



PO Box 15216


Test Method: EPA-600/R-93/116: Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. Customer #: 1018

Laboratory No. B18-37217 B18-37218 B18-37482

Sample ID No. 20638-01 20638-02 20638-02-A

Sample Description GWB GWB

Sub-sample of

20638-02

Top Layer

Sample Treatment Teased/Crushed

Heated

Teased/Crushed

Heated

Teased/Crushed

Heated

Homogeneous No No No

Layered Yes Yes Yes

Fibrous Yes Yes No

Sample Color Red/Tan

Off White Tan/Off White Dark Gray/Off White

Asbestos Present None None No

Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

N.D. GWB: N.D. Top Layer: N.D.

Total % Asbestos None None None

Other Fibrous Material

In Sample

Cellulose 5% Cellulose 5%

Non-Fibrous Material:

Binder/Filler 5%

Gypsum 89%

Paint <1%

Other 100%

Binder/Filler 5%

Gypsum 90%

Gypsum 10%

Paint 90%

Other 100%

Extremely thin layer. Date Analyzed: September 27, 2018 Analyzed By: Heidi L. McCarthy

Mountain Laboratories, Mountain Laboratories NW, Inc. limits warranty to proper analysis methods only and takes no responsibility for sample procurement. Mountain Laboratories, Mountain

Laboratories NW, Inc., 9922 E. Montgomery Suite #13, Spokane Washington 99206 (509) 922-1365 - Fax (509) 922-1380. PLM has been known to miss asbestos in a small percentage of

samples. Thus negative or <1% PLM results should be tested with either SEM or TEM. Customer is responsible for sample separation. This report may only be reproduced in full with written

approval by Mountain Laboratories. Soil/Dust samples are not covered under NVLAP Accreditation.

Sample results must not be used by the customer to claim product certification, approval, or endorsement by NVLAP, NIST, or any agency of the Federal Government.

Page 3 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-03 20638-04 20638-05

Sample Description Joint Compound Joint Compound Sheet Vinyl

w/Adhesive


Heated

Teased/Crushed

Heated Teased/Heated


Layered Yes Yes Yes

Fibrous No No No

Sample Color Tan/Off White Gold/Off White Brown/Tan/Yellow

Asbestos Present No No No

Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

N.D. N.D. Sheet Vinyl: N.D.

Yellow Mastic: N.D.



In Sample


Gypsum 99%

Paint <1%

Other 100%

Gypsum 99%

Paint <1%

Other 100%

Small sample.

Sheet Vinyl:

Binder/Filler 30%

Vinyl 70%

Yellow Mastic:

Other 100% Date Analyzed: September 27, 2018 Analyzed By: Heidi L. McCarthy






Page 4 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-06 20638-07 20638-08

Sample Description Sheet Vinyl

w/Adhesive

Sheet Vinyl

w/Adhesive

Sheet Vinyl

w/Adhesive

Sample Treatment Teased/Heated Teased/Heated Teased/Heated


Layered Yes Yes Yes

Fibrous No Yes Yes

Sample Color Brown/Tan/Yellow Beige/Tan/Yellow

Red/Gray

Beige/Tan

Red/Yellow


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Sheet Vinyl: N.D.

Yellow Mastic: N.D.

Sheet Vinyl: N.D.

Yellow Mastic: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Sheet Vinyl: N.D.

Yellow Mastic: N.D.



In Sample

Sheet Vinyl:

Glass Fibers <1%

Sheet Vinyl:

Glass Fibers <1%


Sheet Vinyl:

Binder/Filler 30%

Vinyl 70%

Yellow Mastic:

Other 100%

Sheet Vinyl:

Binder/Filler 40%

Vinyl 59%

Yellow Mastic:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Other 100%

Sheet Vinyl:

Binder/Filler 40%

Vinyl 59%

Yellow Mastic:

Other 100%

Date Analyzed: September 27, 2018 Analyzed By: Heidi L. McCarthy






Page 5 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-09 20638-10 20638-11

Sample Description Carpet

w/Adhesive

Carpet

w/Adhesive Flooring Adhesive


Homogeneous No No Yes

Layered Yes Yes No

Fibrous Yes Yes No

Sample Color Brown/Gold/Yellow Brown/Gold/Yellow Off White


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Carpet: N.D.

Yellow Mastic: N.D.

Carpet: N.D.

Yellow Mastic: N.D.

N.D.



In Sample

Carpet:

Synthetic 95%

Carpet:

Synthetic 95%


Carpet:

Other 5%

Yellow Mastic:

Other 100%

Carpet:

Other 5%

Yellow Mastic:

Other 100%

Other 100%

Date Analyzed: September 27 & 28, 2018 Analyzed By: Heidi L. McCarthy






Page 6 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-12 20638-13 20638-14

Sample Description Flooring Adhesive Gold Adhesive Gold Adhesive


Homogeneous Yes Yes Yes

Layered No No No

Fibrous No No No

Sample Color Off White Yellow Yellow


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

N.D. N.D. N.D.



In Sample

Non-Fibrous Material: Other 100% Other 100% Other 100%







Page 7 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-15 20638-16 20638-17

Sample Description Flooring Adhesive Flooring Adhesive Ceramic Wall Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Sample Treatment Teased/Heated Teased/Heated Teased/Crushed

Homogeneous Yes Yes No

Layered No No Yes

Fibrous No No No

Sample Color Green Green Tan/Gray


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

N.D. N.D. Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.



In Sample


Other 100% Other 100% Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%







Page 8 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-18 20638-19 20638-20

Sample Description Ceramic Wall Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Ceramic Floor Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Ceramic Floor Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Sample Treatment Teased/Crushed Teased/Crushed Teased/Crushed


Layered Yes Yes Yes

Fibrous No No No

Sample Color Tan/Gray Tan/Gray/Brown Tan/Gray/Brown


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.



In Sample


Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 90%

Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 90%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%

Other 75%

Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 90%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%







Page 9 of 18





PO Box 15216

Spokane Valley, WA 99215-5216 Test Method: EPA-600/R-93/116: Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. Customer #: 1018


Sample ID No. 20638-21 20638-22 20638-23

Sample Description Ceramic Floor Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Ceramic Floor Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Ceramic Wall Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive


Heated


Layered Yes Yes Yes

Fibrous Yes Yes No

Sample Color Tan/Gray/Brown Tan/Gray/Brown Brown/Cream

Off White


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Off White Mastic: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.



In Sample

Gray Layer:

Glass Fibers <1%

Gray Layer:

Glass Fibers <1%


Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 89%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%

Other 75%

Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 89%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%

Other 75%

Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Off White Mastic:

Other 100%

Brown Layer:

Other 100%







Page 10 of 18





PO Box 15216

Spokane Valley, WA 99215-5216 Test Method: EPA-600/R-93/116: Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. Customer #: 1018


Sample ID No. 20638-24 20638-24-A 20638-25

Sample Description Ceramic Wall Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Sub-sample of

20638-24

Off White Layer

Ceramic Floor Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive


Heated

Teased/Crushed

Heated Teased/Crushed

Homogeneous No Yes No

Layered Yes No Yes

Fibrous No No Yes

Sample Color Brown/Cream

Off White Off White Tan/Gray/Brown


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Off White Mastic: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.

Off White Layer N.D. Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.



In Sample

Gray Layer:

Glass Fibers <1%


Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Off White Mastic:

Other 100%

Brown Layer:

Other 100%

Gypsum 100% Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 89%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%







Page 11 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-26 20638-27 20638-28

Sample Description Ceramic Floor Tile

w/Grout & Adhesive

Ceramic Tile w/Grout

& Adhesive

Ceramic Tile w/Grout

& Adhesive



Layered Yes Yes Yes

Fibrous Yes Yes Yes

Sample Color Tan/Gray/Brown Tan/Gray/Brown Tan/Gray/Brown


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.

Brown Layer: N.D.

Ceramic Tile: N.D.

Gray Layer: N.D.



In Sample

Gray Layer:

Glass Fibers <1%

Gray Layer:

Glass Fibers <1%

Gray Layer:

Glass Fibers <1%


Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 89%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%

Other 75%

Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 89%

Brown Layer:

Quartz 25%

Other 75%

Ceramic Tile:

Other 100%

Gray Layer:

Quartz 10%

Other 89%







Page 12 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-29 20638-30 20638-31

Sample Description Ceiling Tile Ceiling Tile Ridgecap Sealant


Homogeneous No No Yes

Layered Yes Yes No

Fibrous Yes Yes No

Sample Color Gray/Off White Gray/Off White Gray


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

N.D. N.D. N.D.



In Sample

Cellulose 30%

Mineral Wool 44%

Cellulose 30%

Mineral Wool 44%


Perlite 10%

Binder/Filler 15%

Paint <1%

Other 100%

Perlite 10%

Binder/Filler 15%

Paint <1%

Other 100%

Other 100%







Page 13 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-32 20638-33 20638-34

Sample Description Ridgecap Sealant Penetration Sealant Penetration Sealant


Homogeneous Yes Yes Yes

Layered No No No

Fibrous No Yes Yes

Sample Color Gray Black/Gray Black/Gray


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

N.D. N.D. N.D.



In Sample

Cellulose 15% Cellulose 15%

Non-Fibrous Material: Other 100% Tar 85% Tar 85%







Page 14 of 18





PO Box 15216




Sample ID No. 20638-35 20638-35-A 20638-36

Sample Description Roof Core

Sub-sample of

20638-35

Brown Paper

Roof Core

Sample Treatment Teased/Heated Teased Teased/Heated

Homogeneous No Yes No

Layered Yes No Yes

Fibrous Yes Yes Yes

Sample Color Black Brown Black


Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Multi Layered Roofing

N.D.

Brown Paper N.D. Multi Layered Roofing

N.D.



In Sample

Glass Fibers 25% Wood 5%

Cellulose 90%

Glass Fibers 25%

Non-Fibrous Material: Aggregate 15%

Tar 60%

Binder/Filler 5%

Aggregate 15%

Tar 60% Date Analyzed: September 28, 2018 Analyzed By: Heidi L. McCarthy






Page 15 of 18





PO Box 15216



Laboratory No. B18-37485

Sample ID No. 20638-36-A

Sample Description

Sub-sample of

20638-36

Brown Paper

Sample Treatment Teased

Homogeneous Yes

Layered No

Fibrous Yes

Sample Color Brown

Asbestos Present No

Asbestos Type and

Percentage

1. Chrysotile

2. Amosite

3. Crocidolite

4. Other

Brown Paper N.D.

Total % Asbestos None


In Sample

Wood 5%

Cellulose 90%

Non-Fibrous Material: Binder/Filler 5%







Page 16 of 18

Page 17 of 18

Page 18 of 18

Page 1 of 2

SPOKANE REGIONAL CLEAN AIR AGENCY 3104 E. Augusta Ave., Spokane, WA 99207 (509) 477-4727, Fax (509) 477-6828, www.SpokaneCleanAir.org

NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FOR 1st TIME OPERATION OF A PORTABLE/TEMPORARY AIR POLLUTION SOURCE

GENERATOR SET / INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE

This Notice of Construction (NOC) application must be accompanied by the required $4,100 base fee, which covers 42 hours of SRCAA review time. Additional review time will be billed at $98/hour. See Spokane Clean Air’s current fee schedule for more information. To complete this application, please “save as” the document onto your computer. Then use your mouse to click and fill in the required data. Print, sign, and submit with base fee and any required additional information. 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Owner / Operator: Name of Business: Business Address: Contact Person: Business Phone #: Business Fax #: Business Email:

Applicant: Applicant Address: Contact Person: Applicant Phone #: Applicant Fax #: Applicant Email:

2. INSTALLATION INFORMATION Installation Address: Contact Person: Installation Phone #: Installation Fax #: Installation Email: Type of business (check one): New Existing Facility registered with SRCAA (check one)? Yes No

Installer Co. Name: Installer Address: Contact Person: Installer Phone #: Installer Fax #: Installer Email: Nature of business: Estimated date of completion:

3. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE / GENERATOR SET BEING INSTALLED/MODIFIED What will the internal combustion engine power (check one)? Generator Set Stump Grinder Rock Crusher Other: Manufacturer: Model number: Size of engine (brake hp):

Status of equipment (check one): New Used Existing Fuels burned: Rated fuel consumption at full load (gal/hr): Number of cylinders: Is the unit turbocharged (check one)? Yes No Is the unit aftercooled (check one)? Yes No

4. ENGINE / GENERATOR SET EXHAUST STACK DATA Stack height from ground (ft): Flow rate (SCFM): Exit temperature (oF): Internal dimensions of stack/vent (ft):

How does exhaust exit the stack (check one)? Vertical Horizontal Stack height above roof (ft): Will a stack cap/rain guard be installed (check one)? Yes No (If yes, submit a drawing of the stack cap design.)

For agency use only. NOC#:

http://www.spokanecleanair.org/

https://spokanecleanair.org/documents/regulation_docs/Certified-Consolidated-Fee-Schedule.pdf

Page 2 of 2

5. OPERATION INFORMATION FOR EQUIPMENT BEING INSTALLED / MODIFIED Business Hours: From a.m. to p.m. Business Days (check): Su Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Business Weeks per Year:

Operating Hours: From a.m. to p.m. Operating Days (check): Su Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Operating Weeks per Year:

6. MODELING INFORMATION All building dimensions w/in 200 ft. of proposal (LxWxH, ft, Include these dimensions on required plot plan.): Distance from stack to nearest property line (ft):

Describe any dispersion modeling that has been done: (Attach computer printout of results.)

7. OTHER INFORMATION – ATTACH THE FOLLOWING TO THIS APPLICATION

• Plot plan showing the entire facility, buildings within 200 ft. of proposal, including property lines, cross streets, and location of proposed engine / generator set (required.)

• Flow diagram detailing operations occurring and material flow process (required.) • Environmental Checklist, SEPA, see section #8 (required.) • Any emission data and/or source test data including particulate, NOx, SO2, CO, VOC, lead and toxics (if

available.) • Manufacturer and/or vendor information on engine / generator set being installed or modified (if available.)

8. SEPA I certify that the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) has been satisfied for this project on (mo/day/yr) by (government agency). The Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency may require that a copy of the final determination and the environmental checklist or environmental impact statement be submitted with this application. Print this form, sign below, and submit with base fee and any required additional information. I HEARBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL FORMS AND DATA, IS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE COMPLETE AND CORRECT.

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Phone:

Title: Email:

FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Approved by the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency pursuant to conditions of approval specified in the Approval Order. CONTROL OFFICER

DATE COMMENTS

Updated Dec. 2018

Documents

Geotechnical Engineering Report Medical Examiners Building