GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT COLLEGE STREET … · this geotechnical investigation. The ESA report has been submitted separately. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of the geotechnical

Prepared for SRM Associates (Sernas Group Inc.)

110 Scotia Court, Unit 41 Whitby, Ontario L1N 8Y7

Geo-Logic Inc. 347 Pido Road, Unit 29 Peterborough, Ontario K9J 6Z8 DECEMBER, 2011

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT COLLEGE STREET EXTENSION

CITY OF BELLEVILLE, ONTARIO GEO-LOGIC INC PROJECT NO. G023702A1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.....................................................................................................1

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES .................................................................2

4.0 SITE LOCATION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS..........................................................3

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................3 5.1 GENERAL.......................................................................................................................... 3 5.2 TOPSOIL............................................................................................................................ 4 5.3 FILL.................................................................................................................................... 4 5.4 TILL.................................................................................................................................... 5 5.5 BEDROCK ......................................................................................................................... 5 5.6 GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................................. 6 5.7 CHEMICAL ANAYSIS ..................................................................................................... 6

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................10 6.1 GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 10 6.2 EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING ........................................................................... 10 6.3 SERVICE INSTALLATION............................................................................................ 11 6.4 ROAD CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................... 11 6.5 SOILS HANDLING ......................................................................................................... 13 6.6 CORROSIVITY AND SULPHATE................................................................................. 13 6.7 TEST PITS DURING TENDERING ............................................................................... 14 6.8 DESIGN REVIEW AND INSPECTION ......................................................................... 14

7.0 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS...................................................................................15

TABLES TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF METALS AND CORROSIVITY PARAMETERS IN SOIL..... 7 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF PAH PARAMETERS IN SOIL .................................................. 8 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF BTEX AND PHC PARAMETERS IN SOIL ............................. 8 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF VOC PARAMETERS IN SOIL.................................................. 9 TABLE 5: PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ................................................................................ 12

ENCLOSURES PLATE 1 TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDICES APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS APPENDIX B PHYSICAL LABORATORY DATA APPENDIX C CHEMICAL LABORATORY DATA

GEO-LOGIC INC. 347 Pido Road, Unit 29

Peterborough, Ontario K9J 6X7 Tel: (705) 749-3317 Fax: (705) 749-9248

www.geo-logic.ca QMS ISO 9001 : 2008

Geotechnical Engineering Materials Testing Building Science Environment

Detroit Waterloo St. Catharines Toronto Durham Region Peterborough Pembroke Kingston Ottawa Montreal Halifax

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT COLLEGE STREET EXTENSION

CITY OF BELLEVILLE, ONTARIO GEO-LOGIC INC PROJECT NO. G023702A1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed extension of College Street East, from the existing dead-end approximately 750 m to the east, within the City of Belleville, Ontario. Geo-Logic Inc. (Geo-Logic) was retained by SRM Associates (SRM) to conduct this investigation. This work was carried out under the authorization of Mr. Paul Turner, representing SRM, in accordance with our proposal (PG-1031) dated October 5, 2011. Based on information provided by SRM, it is Geo-Logic’s understanding that this project shall include the construction of approximately 750 m of new roadway with the installation of new watermain, sanitary and storm sewer installations. The request for proposal (RFP) included the number and depths of test holes for this project. Additional test holes were advanced to further assess the extent and nature of fill materials encountered, as discussed with Mr. Paul Turner on December 7, 2011. Geo-Logic Inc. performed a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conjunction with this geotechnical investigation. The ESA report has been submitted separately.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to define the subsurface soil, bedrock depths and groundwater conditions at the project site, and to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations relevant to earthwork construction, reuse of existing soil as backfill material, excess soil disposition options, dewatering, trenching and service installation, road construction (including pavement structure) and comment on the potential for a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) to be required. The results of this investigation and the contents of this report must in no way be construed as an opinion of the environmental status of this site.

Geotechnical Investigation Report Geo-Logic Inc. College Street Extension City of Belleville, Ontario Project No. G023702A1

2

The following scope of work was performed in order to accomplish the foregoing purposes. 1. Underground services were cleared prior to the advancement of the test holes. The test holes

were located as shown on the Test Hole Location Plan (Plate 1). 2. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating, sampling and logging a total of

fourteen (14) test pits to depths ranging from approximately 0.5 to 4.6 meters below existing grade (mbeg).

3. The ground at the test pits was reinstated as close as possible to its original condition upon completion of field work.

4. As requested, GPS Coordinates (NAD 83) and geodetic elevations were obtained for each test pit location.

5. Geotechnical analysis of subsurface materials encountered was performed by means of laboratory testing to obtain relevant soil physical properties, including grain size and moisture content.

6. As requested, six (6) soil samples were submitted for chemical testing for Ontario Regulation (O.Reg.) 153/04 (as amended by O.Reg. 511/09, O.Reg. 245/10 and O.Reg. 179/11) parameters of Sodium Adsorption Ration (SAR), Electric Conductivity (EC), a suite of metal parameters, and corrosivity–related parameters (pH, chlorides, sulphate and resistivity). Further chemical testing was conducted as part of the ESA study, and consisted of two (2) samples for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), three (3) samples for Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX) and Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) and one (1) sample for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).

7. Geotechnical engineering analysis of acquired field and laboratory data, and preparation of a geotechnical investigation report outlining our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

A field investigation was conducted under the supervision of Geo-Logic staff on October 24, 2011. The work consisted of subsurface exploration by means of excavating and sampling a total of fourteen (14) exploratory test pits to depths ranging between approximately 0.5 and 4.6 mbeg. The locations of the test pits are illustrated on the attached Test Hole Location Plan (Plates 1). The test pits were advanced using a track-mounted excavator. Samples were obtained either directly from the excavation walls or the excavator’s bucket. A log of each test pit was maintained, and representative samples of the soils encountered were obtained and returned to the laboratory. Groundwater measurements and observations were obtained in the open test pits during excavation operations, and again on November 1, 2011 via temporary standpipe piezometers installed in selected test pits. Groundwater data is presented on individual test pit logs. Soil samples obtained from the test pits were inspected in the field immediately upon retrieval for type, texture, and colour. All test pits were backfilled following completion of the fieldwork.


3

All samples were sealed in clean plastic containers and transported to the Geo-Logic laboratory for visual-tactile examination and to select appropriate samples for laboratory analysis. Laboratory testing of physical soil properties was conducted on selected samples, and consisted of moisture content tests on all recovered soil samples and gradation analysis of three (3) representative soil samples. The analytical results of the moisture content tests are plotted on the test pit logs, while the results of the gradation analysis are attached as Appendix B. Samples for chemical analysis were submitted to AGAT Laboratories (AGAT). AGAT’s certificate of analysis is included as Appendix C. GPS (NAD83) coordinates were obtained using a hand held Magellan eXplorist GC GPS unit. These coordinates are provided on each log. A local benchmark (located on a hydro pole at the east end of College Street East) was provided to Geo-Logic as 93.33 m elevation, by SRM and was used to survey ground surface elevations at each test pit location. Elevations contained hereafter in this report are for engineering analytical purposes only, and must be verified prior to finalizing any design or contract parameters upon which they are based.

4.0 SITE LOCATION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS

The investigated site is located in the City of Belleville, Ontario. The site is the extension of College Street East (extends approximately 750 m east of the east dead-end). The site is located to the north of Airport Parkway. The surrounding properties are generally agricultural and residential, there are industrial property along the existing portions of College Street. The proposed extension of College Street generally traverses open fields. There are sporadic trees in these fields which are relatively flat. There exists a drainage ditch at the western limit of the extension (at the end of the existing road). To the east of the drainage ditch exists an area of fill, and according to SRM, this area was used as a snow dump site by the City of Belleville.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 GENERAL

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are presented graphically on the test pit logs (Appendix A). It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been inferred from the test pit observations. They generally represent a transition from one soil type to another, and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of geological change. Further, conditions may vary between and beyond the test pits.


4

Based on the information gathered during this investigation, this site’s subsurface stratigraphy generally consists of a surficial layer of topsoil, over fill, over native soils consisting of till, over bedrock. Groundwater was encountered in test holes at depths ranging between approximately 1.1 and 2.5 mbeg. The following sections describe the major soil strata and subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation in more detail. 5.2 TOPSOIL

A layer of surficial topsoil was observed in nine (9) of the test holes (with the exception of test holes TP-2, 8, 12, 13 and 14). The topsoil observed ranged in thickness from approximately 150 to 280 mm. The topsoil was observed to be in a damp, loose state, with a silty, occasionally sandy texture and contained a relatively high organic content. As such, this soil is expected to be devoid of any structural engineering properties. 5.3 FILL

A layer of fill was observed at the surface of test holes TP-2, 8, 12, 13 and 14, and beneath the surficial topsoil in test holes TP-3, 9 and 10. The fill material extended to the full depth of the investigation in test holes TP10, 12 and 13, and extended to an approximate depth of 1.8 to 4.3 mbeg in the remaining test holes in which it was encountered. The fill material typically appeared brown to dark brown to black in colour, and consisted predominately of sand or silt in a generally loose to compact and moist in-situ state. Organic matter was encountered in the fill material as well as debris including asphalt, bricks, concrete, wood, and plastic bags. The moisture content tests conducted on samples of the fill yielded values ranging from approximately 5 to 69 % moisture by weight. Grain size distribution analyses conducted on two (2) samples of the fill suggest the following compositional ranges: 1 to 33 % gravel, 55 to 65 % sand, and 2 to 44 % silt and clay-sized particles (Plates B-1 and B-4). Based on the results of the laboratory testing, combined with visual-tactile examination of this soil, it is expected that the existing fill will not be suitable for reuse as trench or road subgrade backfill material due to organic matter and debris encountered in the test pits.


5

5.4 TILL

A layer of till was encountered in nine (9) of the test holes (TP 2 to 9, and 14). This soil was first encountered at depths of approximately 0.2 to 4.3 mbeg, and extended to the full depth of the investigation. The till generally appeared brown to grey in colour and typically consisted of varying amounts of clay, silt, sand and gravel. This soil was typically in a moist, compact to dense in-situ condition. Moisture content tests conducted on samples of the till yielded values that ranged from approximately 8 to 39 % moisture by weight. Grain size distribution analyses conducted on two (2) samples of the till suggest the following compositional ranges: 3 to 10 % gravel, 51 to 76 % sand, and 21 to 23 % silt and clay-sized particles (Plates B-2 and B-3). Based on the laboratory and field test results, combined with visual-tactile examination, the till is expected to possess low susceptibility to frost action, and will exhibit poor drainage characteristics. Further, it occasionally exhibited an excessive moisture content. The till may be suitable for reuse as trench or road subgrade backfill material, conditional on it being at a moisture content that will allow adequate compaction (this may require aeration prior to it being suitable), and a final review and any approval to reuse it being obtained at the time of construction. 5.5 BEDROCK

Practical refusal to further test hole advancement was encountered in all of the test holes. The cause of the practical refusal was bedrock. The test hole logs provide details regarding the depth of practical refusal. The depth at which practical refusal was encountered was interpreted by Geo-Logic as being the depth of competent bedrock for the purpose of logging the test holes. However, it is noted that bedrock typically exhibits a certain degree of weathering and fracturing in its upper zone. This weathering effect can increase significantly in limestone bedrock, as encountered in our test pits. Due to the penetrative nature of advancing test holes with excavation equipment, the test holes may have penetrated partly into the bedrock, (i.e., through this upper zone of more fractured / weathered bedrock) before encountering refusal. A layer of weathered bedrock is illustrated on the logs for test hole TP-1 and 11.


6

5.6 GROUNDWATER

Groundwater observations and measurements were recorded upon completing the excavation operations at each test hole. Twelve (12) test pits remained dry to their full depth throughout the excavation operations. Two (2) open test holes (TP-2 and 4) exhibited groundwater seepage at depths of about 2.3 and 2.4 mbeg, respectively. The temporary standpipe piezometers were installed in test holes TP-2, 3 and 4 and were measured on November 1, 2011, and yielded groundwater levels at depths ranging from about 1.1 to 2.5 mbeg. It must be noted that groundwater levels are transient and tend to fluctuate with the seasons, periods of precipitation, and temperature. 5.7 CHEMICAL ANAYSIS

As requested, six (6) soil samples were submitted for chemical testing for O.Reg 153/04 parameters of SAR, EC, a suite of metal parameters, and corrosivity–related parameters (pH, chlorides, sulphate and resistivity). Additional samples were submitted as part of the Phase II ESA and are included for discussion purposes. The additional samples from the Phase II ESA include two (2) samples for PAH, three (3) samples for BTEX and PHC, and one (1) sample for VOC. The results of the chemical analyses are compared to current standards O.Reg. 153/04. Results have been compared to all other property uses for Tables 1 to 3. All of the parameters tested meet Table 2 and 3 industrial/commercial/community property use (fine to medium grained soils). Numerous parameters did not meet Table 1 Agricultural/Other, Residential/Parkland/Institutional, and Industrial/Commercial/Community criteria. SAR exceeded Table 2 and 3 Agricultural/Other and Residential/Parkland/Institutional criteria, and benzo[a]pyrene also exceeded Table 2 Agricultural/Other. The following Tables 1 to 4 summarize the result of the chemical analysis, in comparison to Table 2 Industrial/Commercial/Community criteria.


7

Table 1: Summary of Metals and Corrosivity Parameters in Soil

ANALYTICAL TESTING

TP-2, GS-2 TP-4, GS-1 TP-6, GS-2 TP-8, GS-1 TP-9, GS-1 TP-13, GS-1 PARAMETER

Table 2 Industrial

Commercial Community*

24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11

Antimony (Sb) 50 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 < 0.8 Arsenic (As) 18 3 3 2 3 3 4 Barium (Ba) 670 103 49 73 63 88 67 Beryllium (Be) 10 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Boron (B) (total) 120 11 10 10 10 8 9 Cadmium (Cd) 1.9 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Chromium (Cr) (total) 160 26 17 17 16 22 25 Cobalt (Co) 100 6.1 4.9 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.2 Copper (Cu) 300 20 10 9 16 24 34 Lead (Pb) 120 30 6 6 39 43 36 Molybdenum (Mo) 40 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.6 Nickel (Ni) 340 13 10 9 9 10 10 Selenium (Se) 5.5 < 0.4 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 0.5 < 0.4 Silver (Ag) 50 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.2 Thallium (Tl) 3.3 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.4 Uranium (U) 33 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 Vanadium (V) 86 31 20 18 18 21 21 Zinc (Zn) 340 186 20 24 44 76 106 Sodium Absorption Ratio (no units) 12 5.16 0.057 0.156 3.12 2.54 4.29 Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) 1.4 0.583 0.153 0.149 0.486 0.243 0.632 Chloride NA 151 3 2 174 11 193 Sulphate NA 126 6 20 41 22 107 Resistivity (ohm.cm) NA 1720 6540 6710 2060 4120 1580 Redox Potential (mV) NA 190 193 209 214 201 182 pH >5 and <9 8.11 8.09 8.23 8.19 8.47 8.14

All analytical results presented as μg/g (parts per million) unless otherwise noted. “<” indicates parameter is below the laboratory reporting limit (i.e. non-detect); * Soil, Groundwater and Sediments Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Regulation 153/04,

Table 2 Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition (Industrial/Commercial/Community property use), April 15, 2011 (medium and fine textured soils).

mbeg = metres below existing grade; HWE = hot water extract


8

Table 2: Summary of PAH Parameters in Soil

PARAMETER Table 2 Industrial


ANALYTICAL TESTING

TP-8, GS-2 TP-9, GS-1 24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11

Naphthalene 28 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthylene 0.17 < 0.05 < 0.05 Acenaphthene 29 < 0.05 < 0.05 Fluorene 69 < 0.05 < 0.05 Phenanthrene 16 0.24 0.14 Anthracene 0.74 0.06 < 0.05 Fluoranthene 9.6 0.47 0.35 Pyrene 96 0.40 0.28 Benz(a)anthracene 0.96 0.23 0.19 Chrysene 9.6 0.24 0.19 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.96 0.36 0.30 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.96 0.10 0.09 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.3 0.26 0.22 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.95 0.12 0.11 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.1 < 0.05 < 0.05 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 9.6 0.14 0.12 2 and 1-methyl Naphthalene

42 < 0.05 < 0.05




Table 3: Summary of BTEX and PHC Parameters in Soil

ANALYTICAL TESTING

TP-2, GS-2

TP-4, GS-1

TP-6, GS-2

PARAMETER

Table 2 Industrial


24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11 24-Oct-11 Benzene 0.4 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 Ethylbenzene 1.6 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 Toluene 9 < 0.08 < 0.08 < 0.08 Xylene Mixture 30 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 PHC F1 (C6-C10) 65 < 5 < 5 < 5 PHC F2 (C10-C16) 250 < 10 < 10 < 10 PHC F3 (C16-C34) 2500 170 66 < 50 PHC F4 (>C34) 6600 130 59 < 50





9

Table 4: Summary of VOC Parameters in Soil

ANALYTICAL TESTING

TP-8, GS-2 PARAMETER

Table 2 Industrial Commercial Community*

24-Oct-11 Acetone 28 < 0.5 Benzene 0.4 < 0.02 Bromodichloromethane 1.9 < 0.05 Bromoform 1.7 < 0.05 Bromomethane 0.05 < 0.05 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.71 < 0.05 Chlorobenzene 2.7 < 0.05 Chloroform 0.18 < 0.04 Dibromochloromethane 2.9 < 0.05 Dichlorodifluoromethane 25 < 0.05 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 1.7 < 0.05 Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- 12 < 0.05 Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- 0.57 < 0.05 Dichloroethane, 1,1- 0.6 < 0.02 Dichloroethane,1,2- 0.05 < 0.03 Dichloroethylene, 1,1- 0.48 < 0.05 Dichloroethylene, cis- 1,2- 2.5 < 0.02 Dichloroethylene, trans- 1,2- 2.5 < 0.05 Dichloropropane, 1,2- 0.68 < 0.03 Dichloropropene, 1,3- 0.081 < 0.04 Ethylbenzene 1.6 < 0.05 Ethylene Dibromide 0.05 < 0.04 Hexane (n) 88 < 0.05 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 88 < 0.5 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 210 < 0.5 Methyl tert-butyl Ether 2.3 < 0.05 Methylene Chloride 2 < 0.05 Styrene 43 < 0.05 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 0.11 < 0.04 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 0.094 < 0.05 Tetrachloroethylene 2.5 < 0.05 Toluene 9 < 0.05 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- 12 < 0.05 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 0.11 < 0.04 Trichloroethylene 0.61 < 0.03 Trichlorofluoromethane 5.8 < 0.05 Vinyl Chloride 0.25 < 0.02 Xylene m,p- NS < 0.05 Xylene, o- NS < 0.05 Xylene Mixture 30 < 0.05 All analytical results presented as μg/g (parts per million) unless otherwise noted. “<” indicates parameter is below the laboratory reporting limit (i.e. non-detect); * Soil, Groundwater and Sediments Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ontario Regulation 153/04,




10

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered at the site, and assumes that they are representative of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the investigation, satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Comments, techniques, or recommendations pertaining to construction should not be construed as instructions to the contractor. 6.2 EXCAVATION AND DEWATERING

Excavations should be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation 213/91 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects (OHSA). All excavations above the water table not exceeding 1.2 m in depth may be constructed with vertical, unsupported slopes. The native soils encountered during this investigation are classed by OHSA as Type 3. As such, unsupported walls of excavations in this soil must maintain a gradient of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) or flatter, to the bottom of the excavation. Groundwater infiltration above the groundwater table is expected to be controlled using standard techniques, including pumping from sumps to an acceptable outlet. Based on information gathered during the field investigation and waterlevel measurement taken from the temporary piezometers, it is expected that a PTTW will not be required for this site, however should dewatering operations exceed 50,000 L per day, a PTTW must be obtained before continuing further. Note that the test pits were terminated at the bedrock, and that should the excavations extend deeper (ie., into the bedrock), they may encounter groundwater infiltration through joints and cracks within the bedrock. Should an assessment of the groundwater below the bedrock surface be desired, further subsurface exploration will be necessary. It is expected that construction excavation operations will encounter bedrock. It is recommended that a unit price allowance for bedrock removal be included in the construction contract due to the variable bedrock and weathered bedrock elevations that are expected during the proposed construction. Excavation of any highly fractured / weathered bedrock may be possible using a large hydraulic backhoe. However, it is anticipated that the majority of any fractured and any sound bedrock excavation will require the use of hydraulic breaking techniques.


11

6.3 SERVICE INSTALLATION

The materials encountered during this investigation at the anticipated service invert elevations typically consist of fill or native till soils. As such, a normal compacted Class “B” bedding is recommended for all underground services. Class “B” bedding is Granular “A”, or 19 mm crusher run limestone, as per Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS). The minimum recommended bedding thickness for the underground services is 150 mm. All bedding should be compacted to 98 % of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). It is recommended that cover backfilling of the underground services be accomplished using Granular “A”, sand, or other suitable material as allowed by the Municipality’s standards, to a minimum of 300 mm above the pipe. Compaction of this material should be 100 % SPMDD. It is expected that the excavated gravelly sand fill and upper zones of native till soil materials (free of organics) may be suitable for reuse as trench and road subgrade backfill, provided it does not contain organics or other deleterious materials, and conditional upon suitable moisture content and final review / approval at the time of construction. It is recommended that the service bedding subgrade be inspected and approved by Geo-Logic prior to placing the bedding fill, to ensure its suitability and consistency with conditions encountered during this investigation. Bedding and backfill materials and compaction should also be inspected and tested. 6.4 ROAD CONSTRUCTION

Based on the results of this investigation, we would recommend the following procedures be implemented to prepare the proposed development's new access roadway for its construction: 1. Remove any free organic topsoil, fill, organics and organic-bearing materials, loam, frozen

earth, and boulders larger than 150 mm in diameter encountered at subgrade elevation for the full width of construction.

2. The approved native soil may be stockpiled on-site for reuse as trench or road subgrade backfill material. Care must be taken to ensure that unsuitable soils are not mixed into any granular or approved soils materials being considered for reuse.

3. Any subgrade bedrock shatter should be achieved in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard (OPS) 206-2.

4. Proof roll the subgrade for the purpose of detecting possible zones of overly wet or soft subgrade. Any deleterious areas thus delineated should be replaced with acceptable earth fill or granular material compacted to a minimum of 95 % of its SPMDD.

5. Contour the subgrade surface to prevent ponding of water during the construction and to promote rapid drainage of the sub-base and base course materials.


12

6. To maximize drainage potential, 150 mm diameter perforated pipe subdrains should be installed below any curb lines. The pipe should be encased in filter fabric and surrounded by clear stone aggregate. It is recommended that the subdrains discharge to a suitable, frost-free outlet.

7. Construct transitions between varying depths of granular base materials at a rate of 1:25 minimum.

The subgrade materials encountered in the area of the roadway construction consisted of till soils (or weathered bedrock) generally possessing a low to moderate frost susceptibility. In this regard, the following minimum flexible pavement structure is recommended for the roadway.

Table 5: Pavement Structure

Profile Material Minimum Thickness

(mm) In Conformance with

OPSS Form

Asphalt Surface H.L. 3 40

Asphalt Base H.L. 8 50 1150

Granular Base Granular “A” 150

Granular Subbase Granular “B” Type 1 450* 1010

* May be reduced correspondingly where shattered bedrock is present The following steps are recommended for optimum construction of these planned paved roadway: 1 The Granular “A” and “B” courses should be compacted to a minimum 100 % of their

respective SPMDD’s. 2 All asphaltic concrete courses should be placed, spread and compacted conforming to OPSS

Form 310 or equivalent. All asphaltic concrete should be compacted to a minimum of 97 % of their respective laboratory Marshall densities.

3 Adequate drainage should be provided to ensure satisfactory pavement performance. It is recommended that all fill material be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness before compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ moisture content within 2 % of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials should be compacted to 100 % SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular “A” and “B” conforming to the requirements of OPSS Form 1010 or equivalent. It should be noted that the above recommended pavement structures are for the end use of the project. During construction of the project the recommended granular depths may not be sufficient to support loadings encountered.


13

6.5 SOILS HANDLING

In general the current standard for dealing with excess soil on construction sites is in the discussion stages with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and various stakeholders. Based on the test results, the following handling and disposition options are recommended for soils excavated at this site: 1. Material to remain on-site (i.e.: appropriately reused as backfill or for regrading); 2. Moved to another appropriate property owned by the City of Belleville; 3. Moved to a Table 2 or 3 industrial/commercial/community property (with appropriate

documentation for removal from site and site classification by a qualified person). It is recommended that should this option be used additional testing should be carried out and a review of possible receptors should be discussed with Geo-Logic; or

4. Disposed of at a waste disposal landfill appropriately certified by the MOE. Additional chemical testing would be required in accordance with O.Reg. 558 (TCLP waste characterization analysis to confirm the material classification for disposal at MOE-licensed, suitably registered waste disposal site.)

6.6 CORROSIVITY AND SULPHATE

The pH level within the samples ranged from approximately 8.09 to 8.47. The resistivity analysis results ranged from approximately 1580 to 6540 omh·cm. Both the pH levels and resistivity analysis suggest that generally the soil is considered as possessing a moderate to severe potential for corrosivity. It is therefore recommended that appropriate cathodic protection be utilized for the watermain. The sulphate level within the samples ranged from approximately 6 to 126 parts per million (ppm) and suggest that generally the soil is considered as possessing a mild potential for sulphate attack on concrete. Class S-3 concrete may be used, as the potential for sulphate attack is less than the degree of exposure outlined in Table 12 of CSA’s Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction (A23.1-09) for Class S-3 concrete.


14

6.7 TEST PITS DURING TENDERING

Due to the limitations of this report (see Section 7.0 “Statement of Limitations”), it is strongly recommended that test pits be dug at representative locations of this site during the tendering phase, with mandatory attendance of interested contractors so that they can witness the conditions and make their own assessment regarding how these conditions will affect their proposed construction methods, techniques and schedules. It is highly recommended that for such test pitting during tendering, large/powerful excavation equipment, with aggressive bedrock-ripping teeth on its bucket be used (to demonstrate a maximal amount of bedrock excavation to the bidding contractors). 6.8 DESIGN REVIEW AND INSPECTION

Due to the preliminary nature of the design details at the time of this report, we highly recommend that our firm be retained to review the servicing design and grading proposals when they are available. Geotechnical inspection and compaction testing must be carried out by Geo-Logic Inc. to ensure compliance with our recommendations.


16

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This report is intended solely for the SRM Associates (Sernas Group Inc.) and any other parties explicitly identified in the report and is prohibited for use by others without Geo-Logic’s prior written consent. This report is considered Geo-Logic’s professional work product and shall remain the sole property of Geo-Logic. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to Geo-Logic. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold Geo-Logic harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client’s unauthorized distribution of the report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and shall include all supporting drawings and appendices. The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations, and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete. Without this review, Geo-Logic will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or their application and adaptation into the final design. By issuing this report, Geo-Logic is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that Geo-Logic be retained during construction of all foundations and during earthwork operations to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly carried forward to the construction phases. It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the fourteen (14) test hole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at the 14 test hole locations may vary at other locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by the construction activities on site (ex. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by Geo-Logic is completed.

ENCLOSURES

APPENDIX A

TEST PIT LOGS

TOPSOIL (150 mm)

WEATHERED BEDROCK

GS-1

No seepage observedduring the excavation ofthe test pit

Test pit terminated atpractical refusal (due topresence of bedrock)

0.2

0.6

18

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE

DESCRIPTION OFSOIL AND BEDROCK

Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)

TEST PIT REPORTTEST PIT No.: TP-1

DATE: October 24, 2011

CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:

REFERENCE No.: G023702A1

SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312167E 4895740N

College Street East Extension

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-1

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:

Sensitivity (S) Water content (%)

wp wlAtterberg limits (%)

GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r

EXCAVATION COMPANY: A1 Excavating METHOD: Tracked Excavator

ELEVATION: 91.1 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

FILL - Brown to black Gravelly Sandwith Silt, with ROOTS, moist, loose(asphalt fragments, bricks, concrete,and wood logs observed)

TILL - Grey Gravelly Silty Clay withCobbles and Boulders, moist to wet,compact to dense

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

GS-4

GS-5

GS-1: 33% Gravel,65% Sand, and2% Silt and Clay

38 mm solid PVC inbackfill

38 mm slotted PVC inbackfill

Seepage encounteredat 2.3 mbeg


2.1

2.7

27

12

16

8

12

END OF TEST PIT

0.32 m

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312284E 4895782N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-2

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 94.0 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

WL - 1.9 m11/1/2011

TOPSOIL (200 mm)

FILL - Brown Gravelly Silty Sand withClay, with Cobbles and Boulders, moist,compact

Wood and brick debris observed

TILL - Grey Silty Clayey Sand, withGravel, with Cobbles and Boulders,moist to wet, compact to dense

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

GS-4



GS-3: 10% Gravel,39% Sand, and51% Silt and Clay,23% between5 and 75 um



0.2

1.2

1.8

3.5

8

12

11

10

END OF TEST PIT

2.52 m

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312387E 4895788N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-3

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 95.3 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

WL - 1.1 m11/1/2011

TOPSOIL (280 mm)

TILL - Brown to grey Gravelly Silty Claywith sand, with Cobbles and Boulders,moist, compact to dense

Very dense

Wet

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3



Seepage encounteredat 2.4 mbeg


0.3

1.5

2.42.5

6

10

11

END OF TEST PIT

0.55 m

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312470E 4895794N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-4

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 94.2 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

WL - 2.5 m11/1/2011

TOPSOIL (280 mm)

TILL - Brown to grey Silty Sand, traceGravel, with Cobbles and Boulders,moist, compact to dense

Very dense

GS-1

GS-2




0.3

1.4

1.5

39

8

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312559E 4895831N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-5

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 94.1 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

TOPSOIL (230 mm)

TILL - Dark brown Clayey Silty Sand,moist to wet, loose to compact (clayweeping tile encountered, soils directedabove weeping tile were reworked till[FILL])

Brown to grey Sandy Silty Clay withGravel, with Cobbles and Boulders,moist, compact to dense

GS-1

GS-2

GS-3




0.2

0.9

1.1

30

10

23

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312653E 4895925N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-6

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 93.2 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

TOPSOIL (280 mm)

TILL - Dark brown Clayey Silty Sand,moist to wet, loose to compact

Brown to grey Sandy Silty Clay withGravel, with Cobbles and Boulders,moist, compact to dense



0.3

0.8

3.0END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312656E 4895842N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-7

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 93.8 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

FILL - Dark brown to black Silty Sand,moist, compact to dense(asphalt fragments, bricks, concrete,wood pieces and plastic bags observed)


GS-1

GS-2

GS-3

GS-4

GS-5



4.3

4.6

6

7

7

9

12

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312396E 4895673N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-8

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 90.8 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

TOPSOIL (150 mm)

FILL - Brown to black Gravelly Sandwith Silt, with ROOTS, moist, loose(debris of pavement, bricks, concrete,and wood logs observed)

Black to dark grey Sandy SiltORGANICS


GS-1

GS-2



0.2

1.1

2.1

2.4

8

10

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312330E 4895881N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-9

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 94.9 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

TOPSOIL (150 mm)

FILL - Brown brown to black GravellySand with Silt, with ORGANICS, moist,loose to compact(debris of pavement, bricks, concrete,and wood logs observed)

GS-1

GS-2



0.2

1.5

13

13

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312252E 4895773N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-10

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 92.8 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

TOPSOIL (150 mm)

WEATHERED BEDROCK



0.2

0.5END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312322E 4895703N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-11

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 91.5 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

FILL - Brown Gravelly Sand, moist,loose to compact

GS-1



0.8

5

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312399E 4895612N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-12

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 89.9 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

FILL - Brown Gravelly Sand, moist,compact

Brown to black Gravelly Sand, moist,compact to loose(Wood and brick debris observed)

Dark brown Clayey Silt with SandORGANICS, moist, loose

GS-1

GS-2



0.2

1.2

1.5

5

69

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312276E 4895662N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-13

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 90.9 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

FILL - Brown Clayey Silt with Sand andGravel, moist, compact(Wood, brick and concrete debrisobserved)

Black staining


GS-1

GS-2

GS-3



1.8

4.0

4.3

10

13

27

END OF TEST PIT

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

COMMENTS

GROUND SURFACE


Field Lab

Shear test (Cu)



CLIENT:

www.geo-logic.ca

0.0

PROJECT:


SERNAS

LOGGED BY: L. Ramos

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

18 N 312432E 4895724N


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

ft

Str

atig

raph

y

m B

elow

Exi

stin

g G

rade

LEGEND

m

Dep

th

ENCLOSURE No.: A-14

of 1Page: 1

NOTES:



GS - GRAB SAMPLE

- WATER LEVEL

%

Moi

stur

eC

onte

nt

Typ

e an

dN

umbe

r


ELEVATION: 96.2 m

TE

ST

PIT

LO

G G

EO

TE

CH

G0

23

70

2A

1, 1

1-1

0-2

8, C

OL

LE

GE

ST

RE

ET

, LO

G R

EP

OR

TS

.GP

J G

EO

LOG

IC.G

DT

12/

6/11

APPENDIX B

PHYSICAL LABORATORY DATA

Ref No.:

Location:

Borehole No.: Sample No.:

Depth: Enclosure:

COARSE

FINE COARSE

% Silt / Clay

TP2,GS1 0.3 to 0.5 m 33 65 2

MEDIUM FINE GRAVEL

% Gravel % Sand

CLAY & SILTFINE FINE

GRAVEL

Sample No. Depth

CLAYV. FINE

GRAVEL

COARSEMEDIUM

SAND

SILTSAND

0.3 to 0.5 m

SS-11-119

Colllege Street Extension

GS1

B-1

SERNAS

G023702A1

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART

GEO-LOGIC INC. 347 Pido Road Unit 29 Peterborough, ON, K9J 6X7 Tel: (705) 749-3317 Fax: (705) 749-9248

TP2

Client:

Project:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100DIAMETER (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T

P

AS

SIN

G

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T

RE

TA

INE

D

Ref No.:

Location:


Depth: Enclosure:

COARSE

FINE COARSE

% Silt / Clay

TP3,GS3 2.0 to 2.1 m 10 39 51

MEDIUM FINE GRAVEL

% Gravel % Sand


GRAVEL

Sample No. Depth

CLAYV. FINE

GRAVEL

COARSEMEDIUM

SAND

SILTSAND

2.0 to 2.1 m

SS-11-119


GS3

B-2

SERNAS

G023702A1



TP3

Client:

Project:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100DIAMETER (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T

P

AS

SIN

G

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T

RE

TA

INE

D

Ref No.:

Location:


Depth: Enclosure:

COARSE

FINE COARSE



TP5

Client:

Project:

SILTSAND

0.6 to 0.8 m

SS-11-119


GS1

B-3

SERNAS

G023702A1

GRAVEL

COARSEMEDIUM

SANDCLAY & SILT

FINE FINE

GRAVEL

Sample No. Depth

CLAYV. FINE MEDIUM FINE

GRAVEL

% Gravel % Sand % Silt / Clay

TP5,GS1 0.6 to 0.8 m 3 76 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100DIAMETER (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T

P

AS

SIN

G

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T

RE

TA

INE

D

Ref No.:

Location:


Depth: Enclosure:

COARSE

FINE COARSE

% Silt / Clay

TP6,GS1 0.3 to 0.5 m 1 55 44

MEDIUM FINE GRAVEL

% Gravel % Sand


GRAVEL

Sample No. Depth

CLAYV. FINE

GRAVEL

COARSEMEDIUM

SAND

SILTSAND

0.3 to 0.5 m

SS-11-119


GS1

B-4

SERNAS

G023702A1



TP6

Client:

Project:

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100DIAMETER (mm)

PE

RC

EN

T

P

AS

SIN

G

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PE

RC

EN

T

RE

TA

INE

D

APPENDIX C

CHEMICAL LABORATORY DATA

CLIENT NAME: GEO-LOGIC INC347 PIDO ROAD, UNIT 29PETERBOROUGH, ON K9J6X7

5835 COOPERS AVENUEMISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2TEL (905)712-5100FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Elizabeth Polakowska, MSc (Animal Sci), PhD (Agri Sci), Inorganic Lab Supervisor

SOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

Inga Kuzmina, Analytical ChemistTRACE ORGANICS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 14

Nov 09, 2011

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

11T543327AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Jeff Van Egmond

PROJECT NO: G023702A1

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 14

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested

TP-8 , GS-1TP-2 , GS-2 TP-4 , GS-1 TP-9 , GS-1 TP-13 , GS-1TP-6 , GS-2

2849006 2849021 2849023 2849030 2849032Parameter G / S RDLUnit 2849022

% 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.08Sulphide*

µg/g 2 151 3 2 174 11 193Chloride (2:1)

µg/g 2 126 6 20 41 22 107Sulphate (2:1)

pH Units N/A 8.11 8.09 8.23 8.19 8.47 8.14pH (2:1)

mS/cm 0.0021.4 0.583 0.153 0.149 0.486 0.243 0.632Electrical Conductivity (2:1)

ohm.cm 1 1720 6540 6710 2060 4120 1580Resistivity (2:1)

mV 5 190 193 209 214 201 182Redox Potential (2:1)

RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to T2(ICC,MFT) CurrentComments:

2849006-2849032 * Analysis was performed at AGAT's Mining Division.

EC,pH,Chloride,Redox Potential and Sulphate were determined on the extract obtained from the 2:1 extraction procedure (2 parts DI water: 1 part soil).


DATE RECEIVED: Oct 27, 2011DATE SAMPLED: Oct 24, 2011

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Jeff Van EgmondCLIENT NAME: GEO-LOGIC INC

AGAT WORK ORDER: 11T543327

Corrosivity Package

DATE REPORTED: Nov 09, 2011 SAMPLE TYPE: Soil





CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 14



µg/g 0.850 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8 <0.8Antimony

µg/g 118 3 3 2 3 3 4Arsenic

µg/g 5120 11 10 10 10 8 9Boron

µg/g 2670 103 49 73 63 88 67Barium

µg/g 0.510 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Beryllium

µg/g 0.51.9 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Cadmium

µg/g 2160 26 17 17 16 22 25Chromium

µg/g 0.5100 6.1 4.9 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.2Cobalt

µg/g 1300 20 10 9 16 24 34Copper

µg/g 1120 30 6 6 39 43 36Lead

µg/g 0.540 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0.6Molybdenum

µg/g 1340 13 10 9 9 10 10Nickel

µg/g 0.45.5 <0.4 0.4 <0.4 <0.4 0.5 <0.4Selenium

µg/g 0.250 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2Silver

µg/g 0.43.3 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4 <0.4Thallium

ug/g 0.533 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5Uranium

µg/g 186 31 20 18 18 21 21Vanadium

µg/g 5340 186 20 24 44 76 106Zinc







O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals (Comprehensive) (Soil)










N/A N/A12 5.16 0.057 0.156 3.12 2.54 4.29Sodium Adsorption Ratio


2849006-2849032 SAR was determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil).






O. Reg. 153(511) - ORPs (Soil) - SAR








TP-8 , GS-2 TP-9 , GS-1

2849025 2849030Parameter G / S RDLUnit

µg/g 0.0528 <0.05 <0.05Naphthalene

µg/g 0.050.17 <0.05 <0.05Acenaphthylene

µg/g 0.0529 <0.05 <0.05Acenaphthene

µg/g 0.0569 <0.05 <0.05Fluorene

µg/g 0.0516 0.24 0.14Phenanthrene

µg/g 0.050.74 0.06 <0.05Anthracene

µg/g 0.059.6 0.47 0.35Fluoranthene

µg/g 0.0596 0.40 0.28Pyrene

µg/g 0.050.96 0.23 0.19Benz(a)anthracene

µg/g 0.059.6 0.24 0.19Chrysene

µg/g 0.050.96 0.36 0.30Benzo(b)fluoranthene

µg/g 0.050.96 0.10 0.09Benzo(k)fluoranthene

µg/g 0.050.3 0.26 0.22Benzo(a)pyrene

µg/g 0.050.95 0.12 0.11Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

µg/g 0.050.1 <0.05 <0.05Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

µg/g 0.059.6 0.14 0.12Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

µg/g 0.0542 <0.05 <0.052-and 1-methyl Naphthalene

% 0.1 6.8 10.1Moisture Content

Acceptable LimitsSurrogate Unit

% 91 81Chrysene-d12 50-140


2849025-2849030 Results are based on the dry weight of the soil.Note: The result for Benzo(b)Flouranthene is the total of the Benzo(b)&(j)Flouranthene isomers because the isomers co-elute on the GC column.






O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil)








TP-2 , GS-4 TP-8 , GS-5 TP-14, GS-3

2849009 2849027Parameter G / S RDLUnit 2849037

µg/g 0.020.4 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02Benzene

µg/g 0.089 <0.08 <0.08 <0.08Toluene

µg/g 0.051.6 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Ethylbenzene

µg/g 0.0530 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05Xylene Mixture

µg/g 5 <5 <5 <5F1 (C6 to C10)

µg/g 565 <5 <5 <5F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX

µg/g 10250 <10 <10 <10F2 (C10 to C16)

µg/g 502500 170 66 <50F3 (C16 to C34)

µg/g 506600 130 59 <50F4 (C34 to C50)

µg/g 50 NA NA NAGravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons

% 0.1 11.1 13.2 26.7Moisture Content


2849009-2849037 Results are based on sample dry weight.The C6-C10 fraction is calculated using toluene response factor.The C10 - C16, C16 - C34, and C34 - C50 fractions are calculated using the average response factor for n-C10, n-C16, and n-C34.Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons are not included in the Total C16-C50 and are only determined if the chromatogram of the C34 - C50 hydrocarbons indicates that hydrocarbons >C50 are present.Total C6 - C50 results are corrected for BTEX contributions.This method complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the laboratory.nC6 and nC10 response factors are within 30% of Toluene response factor.nC10, nC16 and nC34 response factors are within 10% of their average.C50 response factor is within 70% of nC10 + nC16 + nC34 average.Linearity is within 15%.Extraction and holding times were met for this sample.Fractions 1-4 are quantified with the contribution of PAHs. Under Ontario Regulation 153, results are considered valid without determining the PAH contribution if not requested by the client.Quality Control Data is available upon request.






O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)








TP-13 , GS-2

2849034Parameter G / S RDLUnit

µg/g 0.0525 <0.05Dichlorodifluoromethane

ug/g 0.020.25 <0.02Vinyl Chloride

ug/g 0.050.05 <0.05Bromomethane

ug/g 0.055.8 <0.05Trichlorofluoromethane

ug/g 0.50 <0.50Acetone

ug/g 0.050.48 <0.051,1-Dichloroethylene

ug/g 0.052 <0.05Methylene Chloride

ug/g 0.052.5 <0.05Trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene

ug/g 0.052.3 <0.05Methyl tert-butyl Ether

ug/g 0.02 <0.021,1-Dichloroethane

ug/g 0.5088 <0.50Methyl Ethyl Ketone

ug/g 0.022.5 <0.02Cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene

ug/g 0.040.18 <0.04Chloroform

ug/g 0.030.05 <0.031,2-Dichloroethane

ug/g 0.0512 <0.051,1,1-Trichloroethane

ug/g 0.050.71 <0.05Carbon Tetrachloride

ug/g 0.020.4 <0.02Benzene

ug/g 0.030.68 <0.031,2-Dichloropropane

ug/g 0.030.61 <0.03Trichloroethylene

ug/g 0.051.9 <0.05Bromodichloromethane

ug/g 0.50210 <0.50Methyl Isobutyl Ketone

ug/g 0.040.11 <0.041,1,2-Trichloroethane

ug/g 0.059 <0.05Toluene

ug/g 0.052.9 <0.05Dibromochloromethane

ug/g 0.040.05 <0.04Ethylene Dibromide

ug/g 0.052.5 <0.05Tetrachloroethylene

ug/g 0.040.11 <0.041,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane

ug/g 0.052.7 <0.05Chlorobenzene

ug/g 0.051.6 <0.05Ethylbenzene

ug/g 0.05 <0.05m & p-Xylene

ug/g 0.051.7 <0.05Bromoform

ug/g 0.0543 <0.05Styrene

ug/g 0.050.094 <0.051,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane






O. Reg. 153(511) - VOCs (Soil)








TP-13 , GS-2

2849034Parameter G / S RDLUnit

ug/g 0.05 <0.05o-Xylene

ug/g 0.0512 <0.051,3-Dichlorobenzene

ug/g 0.050.57 <0.051,4-Dichlorobenzene

ug/g 0.051.7 <0.051,2-Dichlorobenzene

ug/g 0.0530 <0.05Xylene Mixture

µg/g 0.040.081 <0.041,3-Dichloropropene

µg/g 0.0588 <0.05n-Hexane

% 0.1 44.8Moisture Content

Acceptable LimitsSurrogate Unit

% Recovery 109Toluene-d8 50-140

% Recovery 904-Bromofluorobenzene 50-140


2849034 The sample was analysed using the high level technique. The sample wasextracted using methanol, a small amount of the methanol extract was diluted in water and the purge & trap GC/MS analysis was performed.Results are based on the dry weight of the soil.














O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals (Comprehensive) (Soil)

Antimony 1 2849006 < 0.8 < 0.8 0.0% < 0.8 122% 70% 130% 88% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%

Arsenic 1 2849006 3 3 0.0% < 1 103% 70% 130% 104% 80% 120% 112% 70% 130%

Boron 1 2849006 11 11 0.0% < 5 75% 70% 130% 103% 80% 120% 126% 70% 130%

Barium 1 2849006 103 107 3.8% < 2 100% 70% 130% 95% 80% 120% 105% 70% 130%

Beryllium

1 2849006 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 108% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 121% 70% 130%

Cadmium 1 2849006 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 100% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 96% 70% 130%

Chromium 1 2849006 26 25 3.9% < 2 101% 70% 130% 105% 80% 120% 124% 70% 130%

Cobalt 1 2849006 6.1 6.6 7.9% < 0.5 97% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%

Copper 1 2849006 20 21 4.9% < 1 99% 70% 130% 104% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%

Lead

1 2849006 30 30 0.0% < 1 101% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Molybdenum 1 2849006 0.5 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 102% 70% 130% 95% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Nickel 1 2849006 13 14 7.4% < 1 99% 70% 130% 97% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Selenium 1 2849006 0.3 0.4 28.6% < 0.4 129% 70% 130% 93% 80% 120% 96% 70% 130%

Silver 1 2849006 < 0.2 < 0.2 0.0% < 0.2 118% 70% 130% 120% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%

Thallium

1 2849006 < 0.4 < 0.4 0.0% < 0.4 96% 70% 130% 94% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%

Uranium 1 2849006 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 101% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 93% 70% 130%

Vanadium 1 2849006 31 33 6.3% < 1 98% 70% 130% 94% 80% 120% 109% 70% 130%

Zinc 1 2849006 186 189 1.6% < 5 105% 70% 130% 99% 80% 120% 106% 70% 130%

Corrosivity Package

Sulphide* 1 2844293 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.0% < 0.01 103% 90% 110%

Chloride (2:1) 1 2849021 3 3 0.0% < 2 96% 90% 110% 95% 80% 120% 105% 70% 130%

Sulphate (2:1) 1 2849021 6 6 0.0% < 2 105% 90% 110% 101% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

pH (2:1) 1 2849006 8.11 8.41 3.6% N/A 97% 90% 110%

Electrical Conductivity (2:1)

1 2849021 0.153 0.147 4.0% < 0.002 101% 90% 110%

Redox Potential (2:1) 1 2849021 193 194 0.5% < 5 109% 70% 130%

O. Reg. 153(511) - ORPs (Soil) - SAR

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 1 2849021 0.057 0.053 7.3% N/A

Certified By:



Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: GEO-LOGIC INC


Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Nov 09, 2011 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank




QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 9 of 14


O. Reg. 153(511) - PAHs (Soil)

Naphthalene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 98% 50% 140% 87% 50% 140% 79% 50% 140%

Acenaphthylene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 99% 50% 140% 84% 50% 140% 79% 50% 140%

Acenaphthene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 99% 50% 140% 85% 50% 140% 79% 50% 140%

Fluorene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 98% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140% 80% 50% 140%

Phenanthrene

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 94% 50% 140% 89% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140%

Anthracene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 104% 50% 140% 95% 50% 140% 87% 50% 140%

Fluoranthene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 97% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140% 90% 50% 140%

Pyrene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 99% 50% 140% 85% 50% 140% 90% 50% 140%

Benz(a)anthracene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 104% 50% 140% 101% 50% 140% 106% 50% 140%

Chrysene

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 95% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140%

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 101% 50% 140% 111% 50% 140% 110% 50% 140%

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 93% 50% 140% 92% 50% 140% 88% 50% 140%

Benzo(a)pyrene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 108% 50% 140% 108% 50% 140% 104% 50% 140%

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 95% 50% 140% 94% 50% 140% 81% 50% 140%

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 106% 50% 140% 97% 50% 140% 83% 50% 140%

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 87% 50% 140% 87% 50% 140% 80% 50% 140%

2-and 1-methyl Naphthalene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 101% 50% 140% 85% 50% 140% 80% 50% 140%


Dichlorodifluoromethane 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 110% 50% 140% 85% 50% 140% 102% 50% 140%

Vinyl Chloride 1 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.0% < 0.02 101% 50% 140% 86% 50% 140% 93% 50% 140%

Bromomethane 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 86% 50% 140% 85% 50% 140% 89% 50% 140%

Trichlorofluoromethane 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 101% 50% 140% 82% 50% 140% 95% 50% 140%

Acetone

1 < 0.50 < 0.50 0.0% < 0.50 96% 50% 140% 87% 50% 140% 89% 50% 140%

1,1-Dichloroethylene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 95% 50% 140% 86% 60% 130% 91% 50% 140%

Methylene Chloride 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 114% 50% 140% 103% 60% 130% 116% 50% 140%

Trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 106% 50% 140% 101% 60% 130% 105% 50% 140%

Methyl tert-butyl Ether 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 98% 50% 140% 82% 60% 130% 85% 50% 140%

1,1-Dichloroethane

1 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.0% < 0.02 111% 50% 140% 93% 60% 130% 100% 50% 140%

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1 < 0.50 < 0.50 0.0% < 0.50 88% 50% 140% 98% 50% 140% 99% 50% 140%

Cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene 1 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.0% < 0.02 113% 50% 140% 98% 60% 130% 102% 50% 140%

Chloroform 1 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.0% < 0.04 97% 50% 140% 85% 60% 130% 96% 50% 140%

1,2-Dichloroethane 1 < 0.03 < 0.03 0.0% < 0.03 92% 50% 140% 86% 60% 130% 90% 50% 140%

1,1,1-Trichloroethane

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 97% 50% 140% 84% 60% 130% 95% 50% 140%

Carbon Tetrachloride 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 94% 50% 140% 82% 60% 130% 92% 50% 140%

Benzene 1 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.0% < 0.02 107% 50% 140% 97% 60% 130% 103% 50% 140%

1,2-Dichloropropane 1 < 0.03 < 0.03 0.0% < 0.03 120% 50% 140% 102% 60% 130% 115% 50% 140%

Trichloroethylene 1 < 0.03 < 0.03 0.0% < 0.03 103% 50% 140% 96% 60% 130% 107% 50% 140%

Bromodichloromethane

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 99% 50% 140% 88% 60% 130% 96% 50% 140%



Dup #1 RPDMeasured


Quality Assurance




Trace Organics Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


MethodBlank






Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 1 < 0.50 < 0.50 0.0% < 0.50 95% 50% 140% 101% 50% 140% 89% 50% 140%

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.0% < 0.04 114% 50% 140% 105% 60% 130% 118% 50% 140%

Toluene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 115% 50% 140% 117% 60% 130% 115% 50% 140%

Dibromochloromethane 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 112% 50% 140% 99% 60% 130% 108% 50% 140%

Ethylene Dibromide

1 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.0% < 0.04 119% 50% 140% 102% 60% 130% 113% 50% 140%

Tetrachloroethylene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 118% 50% 140% 117% 60% 130% 116% 50% 140%

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.0% < 0.04 50% 140% 104% 60% 130% 117% 50% 140%

Chlorobenzene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 119% 50% 140% 111% 60% 130% 113% 50% 140%

Ethylbenzene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 103% 50% 140% 95% 60% 130% 99% 50% 140%

m & p-Xylene

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 105% 50% 140% 93% 60% 130% 97% 50% 140%

Bromoform 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 70% 50% 140% 100% 60% 130% 93% 50% 140%

Styrene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 83% 50% 140% 81% 60% 130% 93% 50% 140%

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 50% 140% 101% 60% 130% 96% 50% 140%

o-Xylene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 102% 50% 140% 94% 60% 130% 99% 50% 140%

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 98% 50% 140% 86% 60% 130% 85% 50% 140%

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 106% 50% 140% 99% 60% 130% 95% 50% 140%

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 100% 50% 140% 99% 60% 130% 94% 50% 140%

Xylene Mixture 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 102% 50% 140% 94% 60% 130% 99% 50% 140%

1,3-Dichloropropene 1 < 0.04 < 0.04 0.0% < 0.04 112% 50% 140% 99% 60% 130% 108% 50% 140%

n-Hexane

1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 50% 140% 116% 60% 130% 114% 50% 140%

O. Reg. 153(511) - PHCs F1 - F4 (Soil)

Benzene 1 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.0% < 0.02 119% 50% 140% 105% 60% 130% 119% 50% 140%

Toluene 1 < 0.08 < 0.08 0.0% < 0.08 114% 50% 140% 100% 60% 130% 113% 50% 140%

Ethylbenzene 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 125% 50% 140% 104% 60% 130% 119% 50% 140%

Xylene Mixture 1 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.0% < 0.05 113% 50% 140% 108% 60% 130% 104% 50% 140%

F1 (C6 to C10)

1 < 5 < 5 0.0% < 5 117% 60% 140% 86% 80% 120% 99% 60% 140%

F2 (C10 to C16) 1 < 10 < 10 0.0% < 10 104% 60% 140% 109% 80% 120% 90% 60% 140%

F3 (C16 to C34) 1 < 50 < 50 0.0% < 50 114% 60% 140% 111% 80% 120% 112% 60% 140%

F4 (C34 to C50) 1 < 50 < 50 0.0% < 50 107% 60% 140% 90% 80% 120% 94% 60% 140%

Certified By:



Dup #1 RPDMeasured


Quality Assurance




Trace Organics Analysis (Continued)

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits


MethodBlank






Soil Analysis

Sulphide* MIN-200-12000 ASTM E1915-07a LECO C_S

Chloride (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Sulphate (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

pH (2:1) INOR 93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER

Electrical Conductivity (2:1) INOR 1036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER

Resistivity (2:1) INOR 1036 CALCULATION

Redox Potential (2:1) SM 2510 B REDOX POTENTIAL ELECTRODE

Antimony MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Arsenic MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Boron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Barium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Beryllium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Cadmium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Chromium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Cobalt MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Copper MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Lead MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Molybdenum MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Nickel MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Selenium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Silver MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Thallium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Uranium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Vanadium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Zinc MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Sodium Adsorption Ratio INOR-93-6007McKeague 4.12 & 3.26 & EPA SW-846 6010C

ICP/OES



Method Summary




AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER




METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 12 of 14

Trace Organics Analysis

Naphthalene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Acenaphthylene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Acenaphthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Fluorene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Phenanthrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benz(a)anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Chrysene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(a)pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

2-and 1-methyl Naphthalene ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Moisture Content Org 5506 EPA SW-846 3540 & 8270 BALANCE

Chrysene-d12 ORG-91-5106 EPA SW846 3541 & 8270 GC/MS

Benzene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

Toluene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

Ethylbenzene VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

Xylene Mixture VOL-91-5009 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 P & T GC/MS

F1 (C6 to C10) VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method P & T GC/FID

F1 (C6 to C10) minus BTEX VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method P & T GC/FID

F2 (C10 to C16) VOL-91-5009CCME Tier 1 Method, EPA SW846 8015

GC / FID


GC / FID


GC / FID

Gravimetric Heavy Hydrocarbons VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method BALANCE

Moisture Content VOL-91-5009 CCME Tier 1 Method Balance

Dichlorodifluoromethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Vinyl Chloride VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Bromomethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Trichlorofluoromethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Acetone VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,1-Dichloroethylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Methylene Chloride VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Methyl tert-butyl Ether VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,1-Dichloroethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Methyl Ethyl Ketone VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Cis- 1,2-Dichloroethylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Chloroform VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,2-Dichloroethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,1,1-Trichloroethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Carbon Tetrachloride VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Benzene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS



Method Summary









1,2-Dichloropropane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Trichloroethylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Bromodichloromethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,1,2-Trichloroethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Toluene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Dibromochloromethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Ethylene Dibromide VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Tetrachloroethylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Chlorobenzene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Ethylbenzene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

m & p-Xylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Bromoform VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Styrene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

o-Xylene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,3-Dichlorobenzene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS



Xylene Mixture VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

1,3-Dichloropropene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

n-Hexane VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Toluene-d8 VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

4-Bromofluorobenzene VOL-91-5002 EPA SW-846 5035 & 8260 (P&T)GC/MS

Moisture Content MOE E3139 BALANCE



Method Summary









Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT COLLEGE STREET … · this geotechnical investigation. The ESA report has been submitted separately. 2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of the geotechnical