appendix 5 geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation€¦ · it may then be ne cessary to...

APPENDIX 5

Geotechnical and HydrogeologicalInvestigation

Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation

Proposed Municipal Water Supply Well Pumphouse

Cannington, Township of Brock, Ontario

Prepared For:

R.V. Anderson Associates Limited

GeoPro Project No.: 16-1593GH

Report Date: July 10, 2017

GeoPro Consulting Limited (905) 237-8336 [email protected]

Unit 57, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6

Project: 16-1593GH Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Municipal Water Supply Well Pumphouse, Cannington, Township of Brock, Ontario

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ........................................................................................................... 2

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 2

3.1 Soil Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Groundwater Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3

3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity .................................................................................................................. 4

3.3.1 Grain Size Distribution Method ............................................................................................ 4

3.3.2 Single Well Response Test (Slug Test) Method ..................................................................... 5

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 5

4.1 Foundation Design Considerations (BH4 to BH6) ......................................................................... 6

4.2 Floor Slabs ..................................................................................................................................... 7

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressure on Walls .................................................................................................... 8

4.4 Excavations and Groundwater Control ......................................................................................... 8

4.5 Seismic Considerations ................................................................................................................. 9

4.6 Hydrogeological Input on Groundwater Control ........................................................................ 10

4.6.1 Dewatering Volume Estimation .......................................................................................... 11

4.6.2 Need for PTTW/EASR Posting ............................................................................................. 12

4.7 Pavement Design ........................................................................................................................ 12

4.8 General Soil Quality .................................................................................................................... 15

4.8.1 Soil Sample Submission ....................................................................................................... 15

4.8.2 Discussion of Analytical Results .......................................................................................... 15

5. MONITORING AND TESTING ............................................................................................................... 16

6. CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Unit 57, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Office: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca i

http://www.geoproconsulting.ca/


Drawings No.

Borehole Location Plan 1 Enclosures No. Notes on Sample Descriptions 1A Explanation of Terms Used in Borehole Logs 1B Borehole Logs 2 to 7 Figures No. Grain Size Analysis 1 Appendix A Slug Test Results Appendix B Laboratory Certificate of Analysis Limitations to the Report

Unit 57, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Office: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca ii



1. INTRODUCTION

GeoPro Consulting Limited (GeoPro) was retained by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (the Client) to conduct a geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation for the proposed municipal water supply well pumphouse at Cannington, Township of Brock, Ontario.

The purpose of this geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation was to obtain information on the existing subsurface conditions by means of a limited number of boreholes, in-situ tests and laboratory tests of soil samples to provide required geotechnical design information. Based on GeoPro’s interpretation of the data obtained, geotechnical and hydrogeological comments and recommendations related to the project designs are provided.

The report is prepared with the condition that the design will be in accordance with all applicable standards and codes, regulations of authorities having jurisdiction, and good engineering practice. Further, the recommendations and opinions in this report are applicable only to the proposed project as described above. On-going liaison and communication with GeoPro during the design stage and construction phase of the project is strongly recommended to confirm that the recommendations in this report are applicable and/or correctly interpreted and implemented. Also, any queries concerning the geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects of the proposed project shall be directed to GeoPro for further elaboration and/or clarification.

This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented in our approved proposal prepared based on our understanding of the project. If there are any changes in the design features relevant to the geotechnical and hydrogeological analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the recommendations of this report can be relied upon.

This report deals with geotechnical and hydrogeological issues only. The geo-environmental (chemical) aspects of the subsurface conditions, including the consequences of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources, were not investigated and were beyond the scope of this assignment. However, limited chemical testing was carried out on selected soil samples for excessive soil disposal purposes.

The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical consultants in Ontario. Laboratory testing for most part follows ASTM or CSA Standards or modifications of these standards that have become standard practice in Ontario.

This report has been prepared for the Client only. Third party use of this report without GeoPro’s consent is prohibited. The limitations to the report presented in this report form an integral part of the report and they must be considered in conjunction with this report.

Unit 57, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Office: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 1



2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

The field work for the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation was carried out on May 29, 2017, during which time six (6) boreholes (Boreholes BH1 to BH6) were advanced at the locations shown on the Borehole Location Plan, Drawing 1. The boreholes were drilled to a depth of about 6.6 m below the existing ground surface.

The boreholes were advanced using continuous flight auger equipment supplied by a drilling specialist subcontracted to GeoPro. Samples were retrieved with a 51 mm (2 inches) O.D. split-barrel (split spoon) sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm (30 inches) in accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method.

The field work for this investigation was monitored by a member of our engineering staff, who logged the boreholes and cared for the recovered samples. The boreholes were located and staked in the field by GeoPro according to the site plan approved by the Client and minor adjustment was made based on drill rig accessibility and the underground utility conditions.

Groundwater condition observations were made in the open boreholes during drilling and immediately upon completion of drilling. Boreholes were backfilled and sealed upon completion of drilling. Monitoring wells (51 mm O.D.) were installed in Boreholes BH4 to BH6 to monitor long-term groundwater conditions as well as to facilitate the hydrogeological testing.

All soil samples obtained during this investigation were brought to our laboratory for further examination and geotechnical classification testing (including water content and grain size analysis) on selected soil samples. These soil samples will be stored for a period of three (3) months after the day of issuing draft report, after which time they will be discarded unless we are advised otherwise in writing. The results of grain size analysis of the selected soil samples are presented on Figure 1.

The approximate elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were surveyed using a DGPS unit. The elevations at the as-drilled borehole locations were not provided by a professional surveyor and should be considered to be approximate. Contractors performing the work should confirm the elevations prior to construction. The borehole locations plotted on Borehole Location Plan were based on the measurements of the site features and should be considered to be approximate.

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Notes on sample descriptions are presented in Enclosure 1A. An explanation of terms used in the borehole logs is presented in Enclosure 1B. The subsurface conditions in the boreholes (Boreholes BH1 to BH6) are presented in the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 to 7 inclusive). The following are detailed descriptions of the major soil strata encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site.




3.1 Soil Conditions

Topsoil

Topsoil with thickness ranging from 125 mm to 255 mm was encountered surficially in all boreholes. It should be noted that the thickness of the topsoil explored at the borehole locations may not be representative for the site and should not be relied on to calculate the amount of topsoil at the site.

Fill Materials

Fill materials consisting of sand and sandy silt were encountered below the topsoil in Boreholes BH2, BH4, BH5 and BH6, and extended to depths ranging from about 0.7 m to 1.4 m below the existing ground surface. SPT N values ranging from 4 to 23 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a very loose to compact compactness. The in-situ moisture content measured in the soil samples ranged from approximately 6% to 18%.

Sand, Gravelly Sand, Sand and Gravel and Sandy Gravel

Sand, gravelly sand, sand and gravel and sandy gravel deposits were encountered below the topsoil or fill materials in all boreholes, and extended to depths ranging from about 4.0 m to 6.6 m below the existing ground surface. Boreholes BH1 and BH3 to BH6 were terminated in these deposits. SPT N values ranging from 10 to 64 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a loose to very dense compactness. The natural moisture content measured in the soil samples ranged from approximately 2% to 18%.

Silty Clay

Silty Clay deposit was encountered below the sand and gravel deposit in Borehole BH2, and extended to a depth of about 6.6 m below the existing ground surface. Borehole BH2 was terminated in this deposit. SPT N values ranging from 11 to 20 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a stiff to very stiff consistency. The natural moisture content measured in the soil samples ranged from approximately 20% to 25%.

3.2 Groundwater Conditions

The groundwater condition observations made in the boreholes during and immediately upon completion of drilling are shown in the borehole logs and also summarized in the following table:




Note: mBGS = meters below ground surface

Three (3) monitoring wells (51 mm O.D.) were installed to monitor long-term groundwater conditions. The monitoring well construction details and measured groundwater levels are shown in the following table.

Monitoring Well ID Screen Interval (mBGS)

Date: June 7, 2017 Water Level (mBGS)

BH4 1.8 – 3.3 Dry BH5 3.1 – 4.6 3.04 BH6 3.1 – 4.6 3.14

It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations in response to weather events.

3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity

The hydraulic conductivity (K-value) of the soils was estimated based on the results obtained from the grain size analyses of selected soil samples and from the single well response tests (slug tests).

3.3.1 Grain Size Distribution Method

Grain size analyses (sieve and hydrometer) of three (3) soil samples collected from Boreholes BH2, BH4 and BH5 at the Site were conducted, and the results of grain size analysis are presented in Figures No. 1.

The hydraulic conductivities of analyzed soil samples were estimated using applicable empirical equations based on the particle size gradation details. A summary of the estimated hydraulic conductivity values is presented in the following table.

BH No. Depth of Borehole (mBGS)

Water Level Encountered during

Drilling (mBGS)

Water Level upon Completion of

Drilling (mBGS)

Depth of Cave-in (mBGS)

BH1 6.6 - - 4.6

BH2 6.6 - - 4.9

BH3 6.6 - - 3.7

BH4 6.6 - - 2.4

BH5 6.6 3.1 - 3.8

BH6

6.6 3.1 3.4 3.7




Borehole ID

Sample #

Soil sample Depth

(mBGS)

Tested Soil Type K Value (cm/s)

Kaubisch Method

Puckett Method

Kozeny-Carman

BH2 SS6 4.6 – 5.0 Silty Clay 4.7 x 10-9 2.1 x 10-8 BH4 SS3 1.5 – 2.0 Sandy Gravel - - 3.6 x 10-3 BH5 SS5 3.1 – 3.5 Sand - - 1.5 x 10--3

3.3.2 Single Well Response Test (Slug Test) Method

Slug tests using a falling head method in Monitoring Wells BH5, and a rising head method in Monitoring Wells BH4 to BH6 were conducted. The results of the slug tests are attached in Appendix A. The hydraulic conductivity (K value) was estimated using Hvorslev method based on the slug test results. The estimated K values for the soils are provided in the following table.

Borehole No.

Screen Interval (mBGS)

Primary Soil Hydraulic

Conductivity (cm/s) BH4 1.8 – 3.3 Sandy Gravel to Sand and Gravel 3.7 x 10-3

BH5 3.1 – 4.6 Sand; Sand and Gravel 9.9 x 10-4 8.0 x 10-4

BH6 3.1 – 4.6 Gravelly Sand to Sand and Gravel 5.2 x 10-5

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This report contains the findings of GeoPro’s geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation, together with the geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering recommendations and comments. These recommendations and comments are based on factual information and are intended only for use by the design engineers. The number of boreholes may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction methods and costs. Subsurface conditions between and beyond the boreholes may differ from those encountered at the borehole locations, and conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the site investigation. The anticipated construction conditions are also discussed, but only to the extent that they may influence design decisions. Construction methods discussed, however, express GeoPro’s opinion only and are not intended to direct the contractors on how to carry out the construction. Contractors should also be aware that the data and their interpretation presented in this report may not be sufficient to assess all the factors that may have an effect on the construction.

The design drawings of the project were not provided at the time of preparing this report. Once the design drawings and detail site plan are available, this report should be reviewed by GeoPro and further recommendations be provided as appropriate.




4.1 Foundation Design Considerations (BH4 to BH6)

Based on the results of this investigation, the existing fill materials are unsuitable to support the proposed building and any settlement sensitive structures. The proposed building may be founded on conventional shallow spread and/or continuous strip footings bearing in the native, undisturbed competent sand and gravel, sandy gravel, gravelly sand and sand. The soil bearing resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and a factored bearing resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) together with the minimum founding depths and corresponding founding elevations at the borehole locations are provided in the following table.

BH No.

Bearing Resistance at

SLS (kPa)

Factored Bearing

Resistance at ULS

(kPa)

Minimum Depth below Existing

Ground (m)

Anticipated Bearing Soil

BH4 150 225 1.1 m Sandy Gravel to Sand

and Gravel

BH5 150 225 1.6 m Sand

BH6 150 225 1.5 m Gravelly Sand to Sand

and Gravel

It should be noted that the bearing resistances provided in the above table are based on a minimum footing width of 1.5 m; for spread/strip footings with a width less than 1.5 m, a bearing resistance of 100 kPa at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) and 150 kPa at factored Ultimate Limit States (ULS) may be considered.

All foundation bases must be inspected by GeoPro prior to pouring concrete to confirm the design bearing resistance values. The excavated footing bases must be covered with 75 mm thick mud slab immediately after inspection and cleaning, in order to avoid disturbance of the founding soil due to construction activity and weathering /drying.

Footings designed to the specified bearing resistance values at the serviceability limit states (SLS) are expected to settle less than 25 mm total and 19 mm differential.

All footings exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.6 metres of soil cover for frost protection.

In the vicinity of the existing buried utilities, all footings must be lowered to undisturbed native soils, or alternatively the services must be structurally bridged.

Where it is necessary to place footings at different levels, the upper footing must be founded below an imaginary 10 horizontal to 7 vertical line drawn up from the base of the lower footing.




The lower footing must be installed first to help minimize the risk of undermining the upper footing.

It should be noted that the recommended foundation type, founding depths, and bearing resistances were based on the borehole information only. The geotechnical recommendations and comments are necessarily on-going as new information of the underground conditions becomes available. For example, more specific information is available with respect to the subsurface conditions between and beyond the boreholes when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between and beyond the boreholes and the recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by a qualified geotechnical engineer from GeoPro to validate the information for use during the construction stage. Due to the anticipated variation of the subsurface conditions at this specific site, the geotechnical engineer who carried out the geotechnical investigation shall be retained during the construction stage to avoid the potential misinterpretation of the soil information presented in the report.

4.2 Floor Slabs

The existing topsoil and fill materials consisting of topsoil/organics may cause excessive settlement for floor slab and should be completely removed from the building footprint and be replaced with engineered fill. The topsoil and fill materials should be wasted or used for landscaping purposes.

Prior to placing engineered fill, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled in conjunction with an inspection by qualified geotechnical personnel, to confirm that the exposed soils are native, undisturbed and competent, and have been adequately cleaned of fill materials and topsoils, ponded water and all disturbed, loosened, softened, organic and other deleterious material.

Approved materials should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness and compacted to at least 98 percent of materials’ Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. Imported granular fill (i.e. Granular B), which can be compacted with small compact equipment, should be used in confined areas. Should thick engineered fill be considered, granular materials (i.e. such as Granular B) may be considered for the engineered fill within the proposed building footprint. Removal of the existing fill materials and placement of compacted fills must be carried out under full time monitoring by the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro.

As noted above, in case of shortage of the engineered fill materials, imported sandy materials which conform to Granular ‘B’ may be used. The final lift directly beneath the floor slabs should consist of a minimum of 200 mm of OPSS Granular A material, uniformly compacted to at least 100 percent of SPMDD. This should provide a modulus of subgrade reaction for a 1 foot square plate, k1, of approximately 40 MPa/m.

Special care should be taken to ensure compaction adjacent to foundation walls. The floor slabs should be structurally separated from the foundation wall. Sawcut control joints should be




provided at regular intervals and along column lines to minimize shrinkage cracking and to allow for differential settlement of the floor slabs.

Where the backfill against the exterior walls is to support settlement sensitive structures, such as concrete slabs, pavements or walkways, it should be uniformly compacted to at least 98 percent of SPMDD.

If the floor slab is more than about 300 mm higher than the exterior grade then perimeter drainage is not considered to be necessary.

4.3 Lateral Earth Pressure on Walls

The lateral earth pressure acting at any depth on walls can be calculated as follows:

p = K (γ h +q)

Where p = lateral earth pressure in kPa acting at depth of h

K = Lateral earth pressure coefficient for overburden soil

assuming planar overburden/ backfill surface against walls K=0.5

γ = unit weight of overburden soil = 21.5 kN/m3

h = depth of the wall below the finished grade

q = value of surcharge adjacent to walls in kPa

The above expression assumes that a permanent free drainage system will be provided to prevent the build-up of any hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.

Should the hydrostatic pressures be built up behind the walls, they must be included in calculating the lateral earth pressures.

4.4 Excavations and Groundwater Control

It is anticipated that excavations to the underside of footings will continue to depths of up to 2 m below the existing grade. Cobbles and boulders should be expected in the native and fill materials.

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the existing fill materials, native sandy/gravelly soils and silty clay can be classified as Type 3 soil above groundwater table and Type 4 soil below groundwater table.




Based on the results of the investigation, the subsurface conditions consisted of predominant sandy/gravelly soils. Perched groundwater may be expected in the fill materials and shallow sandy/gravelly deposits above the groundwater tables at shallow depths, which can be controlled and removed by pumping from temporary sumps. Significant groundwater seepage should be expected should excavations extend into these deposits below the groundwater tables. Therefore, positive dewatering measures will be required to depressurize the groundwater levels to at least 1 m below the excavation base. It should be noted that any construction dewatering or water taking in Ontario is governed by Ontario Regulation 387/04 - Water Taking and Transfer, made under the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA), and/or Ontario Regulation 63/16 – Registrations under Part II.2 of the Act – Water Taking, made under Environmental Protection Act. Based on these regulations, water taking of more than 400,000 L/day is subject to a Permit to Take Water (PTTW), while water taking of 50,000 L/day to 400,000 L/day is to be registered through the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR).

Dewatering shall also be required for shoring lagging in the cohesionless soils below the groundwater table, should the timber lagging and soldier pile shoring system be utilized.

The selected inorganic fill and native soils free from topsoil and organics can be used as general construction backfill where it can be compacted by sheep foot roller with loose lifts of soil not exceeding 300 mm. Imported granular fill, which can be compacted with small compacting equipment with loose lifts of soil not exceeding 200 mm, should be used in confined areas. Any fill materials should be compacted to at least 98 % of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).

Depending on the time of construction and weather, some excavated material may be too wet to compact and will require aeration prior to use. The existing soils are not considered to be free drained materials. Where free draining backfill is required, imported granular fill such as OPSS Granular B should be used.

It should be noted that the excavated soils are subject to moisture content increase during wet weather which would make these materials too wet for adequate compaction. Stockpiles should be compacted at the surface or be covered with tarpaulins to minimize moisture uptake.

4.5 Seismic Considerations

The 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC 2012) came into effect on January 1, 2014 and contains updated seismic analysis and design methodology. The seismic site classification methodology outlined in the new code is based on the subsurface conditions within the upper 30 m below grade. Two methods of defining the site class are presented in the following sections for the proposed development: a conservative approach based on shallow boreholes (i.e. boreholes less than 30 m in depth) using local geological/physiographical experience; and a method based on geophysical testing in accordance with the Section 4.1.8.4A of the OBC 2012.




The conservative site classification is based on physical borehole information obtained at depths of less than 30 m and based on general knowledge of the local geology and physiography. In this regard, GeoPro’s drilling program included boreholes drilled to depths up to 6.6 m below the existing ground surface. Based on the borehole information and our local experience, a Site Class D may be used for the building design.

Should optimization of the site class be recommended by the structural engineer, either in situ geophysical testing or a 30 m borehole should be carried out at the site.

4.6 Hydrogeological Input on Groundwater Control

Based on the groundwater monitoring, groundwater levels were measured to be about 3 mBGS. Groundwater control will be required should excavation extend below the prevailing groundwater tables during the construction.

Based on the observed soil and groundwater conditions, groundwater seepage should be expected in the wet cohesionless sandy and gravelly soils. As discussed above, the maximum hydraulic conductivity for the sandy and gravelly soils was estimated to be 3.7 x 10-3 cm/s.

Groundwater seepage during the excavations may potentially cause soil instability. Some form of positive (proactive) groundwater control or depressurization will be required to maintain the stability of the base and side slopes of the excavation, in combination with pumping from sumps. As previously mentioned, the groundwater table must be lowered in advance of excavation to at least 1.0 m below the excavation base and maintained at the suppressed level until the foundation is completed and sufficient resistance to buoyancy of the structure is available.

Provided sufficient dewatering measures are in place to draw the groundwater table to an acceptable depth prior to the excavations, the groundwater seepage accumulated during the excavation can be handled by pumping from filtered sumps in the bottom of the excavation.

Depending on seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels and localized soil conditions within the footprint of the proposed excavation, consideration may be given to using a cutoff measure, such as sheet pile wall in conjunction with tremie concrete for the working concrete mud slab to minimize the need for extensive construction dewatering during excavation.

Regarding the groundwater control measures, the contractors should provide a groundwater control or construction dewatering plan as part of the bidding package for review and approval by the engineers.

It should be noted that groundwater control measures within the water bearing sandy and gravelly deposits may cause potential ground settlement in the area adjacent to the site; a settlement monitoring program should be considered and a preconstruction condition survey of the adjacent structures should be carried out prior to the construction.




The contractors should provide a groundwater control plan as part of the bidding package for review and approval by the engineers.

4.6.1 Dewatering Volume Estimation

The construction dewatering generally depends on the design specifications of the proposed structures, associated excavation specifications (depth and area), and the site hydrogeological conditions such as existing groundwater levels at the time of construction and flow regime, drawdown levels required to maintain dry working conditions and stable excavation bottom and slopes.

The detailed design information of the proposed pumphouse is not available. Based on the preliminary conceptual site layout and assumed excavation depths, the following parameters were used in the dewatering volume estimation.

• Excavation Depth for Foundation 4.0 m • Excavation Area 522 m2 • Water Level 2.0 m (Highest water level at BH5 was 3.04 mBGS) • Targeted Water Level 5.0 m (1.0 m below excavation) • Assumed K value for soils 4.0 x 10-3 cm/s (Highest K-value was 3.7x10-3 cm/s)

Based on the observation and testing, the soils to be excavated should consist of primarily sand and gravel soils which would have a relatively high permeability. The positive pumping dewatering may be anticipated to work well.

To estimate the flow rate needed to drain the excavation, the following Dupuit-Thiem equation (for unconfined aquifer steady-state condition) was used:

Q = K* (H2 – hw2) / [0.733 log (Ro / re)]

Where:

H = Initial depth of water (static head) prior to dewatering: 3.0 m

hw = Depth of water under the target elevation: 0.0 m

K = Hydraulic Conductivity: 4.0 x 10-3 cm/s

re = Effective radius, re = (excavation area/ π)0.5

Ro = 3000*(H-h)*K0.5

The calculated construction dewatering rate was estimated to be approximately 174,000 L/day with a considered safety factor of 3. It should be noted that the calculated dewatering rates are positively proportional to the footprint area. In addition, the initial groundwater level and the




designed foundation elevation also affect the total dewatering rate. The above preliminary estimations have been made on the above assumptions and would be considered as a reference, which should be updated once the final designs are available.

4.6.2 Need for PTTW/EASR Posting

Based on the above dewatering rate estimation, the total of estimated construction dewatering rate is anticipated to be in the range of 50,000 L/day and 400,000 L/day. Therefore, a PTTW is not likely required, while an EASR registration should be processed for construction dewatering for the proposed pumphouse construction.

4.7 Pavement Design

Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site and the assumed traffic usage for the subject site, the pavement designs are provided in the following table:

MATERIAL

THICKNESS OF PAVEMENT ELEMENTS (MM)

LOCAL COLLECTOR

Asphaltic Material (OPSS 1150)

HL 3 Surface Course 40 40

HL 8 Binder Course 50 75

Granular Material (OPSS 1010)

OPSS Granular A Base 150 150

OPSS Granular B Subbase 300 400

Prepared and Approved Subgrade

The recommended pavement structures should be considered for preliminary design purposes only. The pavement thickness should also conform to the requirements of the local municipality. A functional design life of ten years has been used to establish the pavement recommendations. This represents the number of years to the first rehabilitation, assuming regular maintenance is carried out. If required, a more refined pavement structure design can be performed based on specific traffic data and design life requirements and will involve specific laboratory tests to determine frost susceptibility and strength characteristics of the subgrade soils.

Subject to the subgrade conditions (i.e. backfill materials wet of optimum water contents being placed) and weather conditions (i.e. during wet weather), the placement of thicker granular base and subbase layer in order to facilitate the construction may be required. The need for filter fabric and geogrid can be evaluated during construction. Furthermore, heavy construction equipment and vehicles may cause the disturbance to the subgrade and granular base and subbase before




the placement of asphalt, especially during wet weather, which should be considered during construction.

It should be noted that in some cases, even though the compaction requirements have been met, the subgrade strength in the trench backfill areas may not be adequate to support heavy construction loading, especially during wet weather or where backfill materials with water contents higher than optimum water contents have been placed. In any event, the subgrade should be proofrolled and inspected by qualified the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro prior to placing the Granular subbase and additional granular materials may need to be placed, as required, consistent with the prevailing weather conditions and anticipated use by construction traffic.

4.7.1 Stripping, Sub-excavation and Grading

The site should be stripped of all topsoil, and any organic or other unsuitable soils to the full depth of the pavement areas.

Following stripping, the site should be graded to the subgrade level and approved. The subgrade should then be proof-rolled by a heavily loaded truck, in the presence of the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro. Any soft spots exposed during the proofroll should be completely removed and replaced by selected fill materials, similar to the existing subgrade soils and approved by the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro. The subgrade should then be re-compacted from the surface to at least 98% of its Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD). If the moisture contents of the local soil materials cannot be maintained at ±2% of the optimum moisture contents, imported select materials may need to be used.

The final subgrade should be cambered or shaped properly to facilitate rapid drainage and to prevent the formation of local depressions in which water could accumulate. Proper cambering which allows the water to escape towards the sides (where it can be removed by means of subdrains or ditches) should be considered for the project. Otherwise, any water trapped in the granular base and subbase materials may cause problems due to softened subgrade, and differential frost heave, etc.

Any fill materials required for re-grading the site or backfill should be free of topsoil, organic or any other unsuitable matter and must be approved by the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro. The approved fill materials should be placed in thin layers not exceeding 300 mm (uncompacted loose lift thickness) and compacted to at least 95 percent of its SPMDD. The compaction should be increased to 98 percent of the SPMDD within 1.0 m below the subgrade, or as per local municipal standards. The compaction of the new fill should be checked by frequent field density tests by GeoPro, which should satisfy the engineers and/or local municipal standards.




4.7.2 Construction

Once the subgrade has been inspected, proofrolled and approved by the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro, the granular base and subbase course materials should be placed in layers not exceeding 300 mm (uncompacted loose lift thickness) and should be compacted to at least 98% of their respective SPMDD. The construction and grading of the granular materials should conform to current OPS Specifications.

The placing, spreading and rolling of the asphalt should be in accordance with OPS Specifications or, as required by the local authorities.

Frequent field density tests should be carried out by the geotechnical engineer from GeoPro on both the asphalt and granular base and sub-base materials to ensure that the required degree of compaction is achieved.

The most severe loading conditions on light-duty pavement areas and the subgrade may occur during construction. Consequently, special provisions such as restricted access lanes, half-loads during paving, etc., may be required, especially if construction is carried out during unfavorable weather.

4.7.3 Drainage

Should ditch drainage be considered, the bottom of the ditch should be at least 0.5 m lower than the underside elevation of the granular subbase. The ditch should be provided with a sufficient gradient to promote the drainage.

Alternatively, installation of full-length subdrains along all roads or parking areas, should be required. The subdrains should be properly filtered to prevent the loss of (and clogging by) soil fines.

The sub-drains system should consist of 100 mm or 150 mm diameter geotextile wrapped perforated pipe, placed inside a 300 mm X 300 mm trench and surrounded on all sides by 20 mm clear stone (minimum 50 mm at the bottom side) and wrapped in filter cloth (Terrafix 270R or the equivalent approved by the engineers). The filter cloth wrap should have a minimum overlap of at least 150 mm. The pipes should be placed such that the top of the wrapped clear stone is at subgrade level and connected to catchbasins or some other permanently frost free outlet to provide positive drainage. In addition, the subgrade should be graded at a slope of minimum 2% downwards towards the subdrains to promote the drainage.

All paved surfaces should be sloped to provide satisfactory drainage towards catchbasins. The finished pavement surface and underlying subgrade should be free of depressions and should be crowned and sloped (at a crossfall of minimum 1.5% for the pavement surface and minimum 2% for the subgrade subject to the design engineers or local design standards) to provide effective




drainage. As discussed above, any water trapped in the granular base and subbase materials should be drained rapidly towards subdrains or other interceptors.

4.8 General Soil Quality

4.8.1 Soil Sample Submission

In order to provide information on the chemical quality of the subsurface soils, selected soil samples were submitted to ALS Environmental Laboratories in Richmond Hill, Ontario (“ALS”) for chemical analyses. Descriptions of the selected soil sample and analytical parameters are presented in the following table:

Sample ID Soil Depth (mBGS) Primary Soil Analytical Parameters

BH2 SS2 0.8 – 1.2 Sandy Silt Fill Metals/Inorganics BH4 SS1 0.3 – 0.6 Sandy Silt Fill Metals/Inorganics BH5 SS3 1.5 – 2.0 Sand Metals/Inorganics

It should be noted that at the time of the sampling, no obvious visual or olfactory evidence of environmental impact (i.e. staining or odours) was observed at the sampling locations.

Metals and Inorganics

A total of three (3) soil samples were analysed for metals and inorganics under Ontario Regulation 153/04 (“O. Reg. 153/04”) as amended. A copy of the soil analytical results is provided in the Laboratory Certificate of Analysis, attached in Appendix B.

The soil analytical results were compared with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, April 2011, Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards for Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Uses (“2011 MOECC Table 1 Standards”); Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition (“2011 MOECC Table 2 Standards”), and Table 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a non-potable Ground Water Condition (“2011 MOECC Table 3 Standards”).

Based on the comparison, no exceedances of MOECC Table 1, Table 2 or Table 3 standards were noted for metals and inorganics in the tested soil samples from Boreholes BH2, BH4 and BH5.

4.8.2 Discussion of Analytical Results

Based on the results of soil sample analysis, GeoPro would recommend the following disposal options:




- The soils generated near Boreholes BH2, BH4 and BH5 at the tested depths with no

identified exceedances can be re-used on Site or re-used at a receiving site which is not used for agricultural purposes and would accept the soils as per the test results. However, additional chemical testing may be required by the receiving site.

It should be noted that the results of the chemical analysis refer only to the soil samples analyzed, which were obtained from specific sampling locations and sampling depths, and that the soil chemistry may vary between and beyond the location and depth of the samples taken. Therefore, soil materials to be used on site or transported to other sites must be inspected during excavation for indication of variance in composition or any chemical/environmental constraints. If conditions indicate significant variations, further chemical analyses should be carried out.

Please note that the level of testing outlined herein is meant to provide a broad indication of soil quality based on the limited soil samples tested. The analytical results contained in this report should not be considered a warranty with respect to the soil quality or the use of the soil for any specific purpose. Furthermore, it must be noted that our scope of work was only limited to the review of the analytical results of the limited number of samples. The scope of work did not include any environmental evaluation or assessment of the subject site (such as a Phase One or Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment).

Sites accepting fill may have requirements relating to its aesthetic or engineering properties in addition to its chemical quality. Some receiving sites may have specific chemical testing protocols, which may require additional tests to meet the requirements. The requirements for accepting the fill at an off-site location must be confirmed in advance. GeoPro would be pleased to assist once the receiving sites are determined and the requirements of the receiving sites are available.

5. MONITORING AND TESTING

The geotechnical aspects of the final design drawings and specifications should be reviewed by GeoPro prior to tendering and construction, to confirm that the intent of this report has been met. During construction, full-time engineered fill monitoring and sufficient foundation inspections, subgrade inspections, in-situ density tests and materials testing should be carried out to confirm that the conditions exposed are consistent with those encountered in the boreholes, and to monitor conformance to the pertinent project specifications.




6. CLOSURE

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and trust that this report provides sufficient geotechnical engineering information to facilitate the detail design of this project. We look forward to providing you with continuing service during the construction stage. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you wish to discuss, in further detail, any aspects of this project.

Yours very truly,

GEOPRO CONSULTING LIMITED

DRAFT

Dylan Xiao, EIT, Project Engineer Geotechnical Group DRAFT David B. Liu, P.Eng. , Principal



DRAWINGS

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure 1A: Notes on Sample Descriptions

1. Each soil stratum is described according to the Modified Unified Soil Classification System. The compactness

condition of cohesionless soils (SPT) and the consistency of cohesive soils (undrained shear strength) are defined

according to Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition. Different soil classification systems may be

used by others. Please note that a description of the soil stratums is based on visual and tactile examination of

the samples augmented with field and laboratory test results, such as a grain size analysis and/or Atterberg

Limits testing. Visual classification is not sufficiently accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise

differentiation between size classification systems.

2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the

boring process. The reader is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree

of compaction. The borehole description may therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill

materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood, large concrete pieces or subsurface

basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since boreholes

cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary

information. Despite the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the

exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This

organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or significant ongoing and future settlements.

Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the results are given on the

borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor

does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed

study is recommended for sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be

contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land

fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for contaminants that may be

considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In

most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally

not detected in a conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.

3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated

with glaciation. Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and

as such may contain pockets and/or seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains

cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders

during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated that normal sampling

equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical

variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential

when dealing with sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.

Enclosure 1B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Boreholes

Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube Sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample

Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). PM – Samples advanced by manual pressure WR – Samples advanced by weight of sampler and rod WH – Samples advanced by static weight of hammer Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). Piezo-Cone Penetration Test (CPT): An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60 degree conical tip and a projected end area of 10 cm² pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurement of tip resistance (Qt), porewater pressure (PWP) and friction along a sleeve are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals.

Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm – 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm-0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)

Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm)

Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%

Soil Description

a) Cohesive Soils(*)

Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Compactness Condition (Formerly Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50

Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test

with porewater pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) γ Unit weight

265.5

259.1

12

27

20

13

23

29

0.1

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

AS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL: (125 mm)SAND AND GRAVEL: trace tosome silt, trace rootlets, containingcobbles and boulders, brown, moistto wet, compact

--- wet

END OF BOREHOLENote:1) Borehole caved at a depth of 4.6m below ground surface (mBGS)upon completion of drilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: Proposed Municipal Water Supply Wells and Pumphouse

CLIENT: R.V. Anderson Associates Limited

PROJECT LOCATION: Cannington, Township of Brock

DATUM: Geodetic

BH LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan

GR

REF. NO.: 16-1593GH

ENCL NO.: 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

265

264

263

262

261

260

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

265.7

PLASTICLIMIT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%Strain at Failure

Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH1

1st 2nd 4th3rd

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA

Method: Continuous Flight Auger - Auto Hammer

Diameter: 155mm

Date: May/29/2017

262.1

261.6

260.9

258.2

255.7

5

10

13

21

21

20

11

0.2

0.7

1.4

4.0

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL: (150 mm)FILL: sand, trace to some silt, tracerootlets, brown, moist, loose

FILL: sandy silt, trace to some clay,trace rootlets, brown, moist, loose

SAND AND GRAVEL: trace tosome silt, trace rootlets, containingcobbles and boulders, brown, moist,compact

SILTY CLAY: trace sand, tracegravel, brown to grey, moist, verystiff to stiff

--- grey


SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: Geodetic


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1593GH

ENCL NO.: 3

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

262

261

260

259

258

257

256

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

262.2

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH2

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155mm

Date: May/29/2017

263.7

257.3

11

19

33

32

26

61

64

0.2

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL: (150 mm)SAND AND GRAVEL: trace tosome silt, trace rootlets, containingcobbles and boulders, brown, moist,compact to very dense

--- containing cobbles and boulders


SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: Geodetic


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1593GH

ENCL NO.: 4

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

263

262

261

260

259

258

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

263.9

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH3

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155mm

Date: May/29/2017

260.6

259.9

254.3

4

23

20

21

36

18

0.3

0.9

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

AS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL: (255 mm)

FILL: sandy silt, some clay, tracegravel, trace rootlets, trace organics,dark brown, moist, loose to compact

SANDY GRAVEL TO SAND ANDGRAVEL: trace to some silt, tracerootlets, containing cobbles andboulders, brown, moist to wet,compact to dense

--- wet

END OF BOREHOLENotes:1) Borehole caved at a depth of 2.4m below ground surface (mBGS)upon completion of drilling.2) 51 mm dia. Monitoring Well wasinstalled in borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingDate W.L. Depth (mBGS)June 7, 2017 dry

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: Geodetic


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1593GH

ENCL NO.: 5

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

260

259

258

257

256

255

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

260.8

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH4

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155mm

Date: May/29/2017

Concrete

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Natural pack

259.1

258.4

257.9

255.3

252.8

7

9

19

16

12

22

12

0.2

0.9

1.4

4.0

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL: (180 mm)

FILL: sandy silt, some clay, traceorganics, trace rootlets, dark brown,moist, loose

FILL:sand, some silt, trace rootlets,trace organics, dark brown to brown,moist to saturated, loose--- pockets of sandy silt, traceorganicsSAND: trace to some silt, tracerootlets, trace organics, containingcobbles and boulders, moist tosaturated, compact

--- wet

--- trace gravel, saturated

SAND AND GRAVEL: trace silt,brown, wet to saturated, compact

--- pockets of sandy silt

END OF BOREHOLENotes:1) Water encountered at a depth of3.1 m below ground surface(mBGS) during drilling.2) 51 mm dia. Monitoring Well wasinstalled in borehole uponcompletion of drilling.1) Borehole caved at a depth of 3.8mBGS upon completion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingDate W.L. Depth (mBGS)June 7, 2017 3.04

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: Geodetic


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1593GH

ENCL NO.: 6

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

259

258

257

256

255

254

253

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

259.3

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH5

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155mm

Date: May/29/2017

Concrete

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Natural pack

W. L. 256.3 mJun 07, 2017

259.2

258.7

252.9

6

11

31

21

22

10

26

0.2

0.7

6.6

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

TOPSOIL: (200 mm)

FILL: sand, some silt, trace gravel,trace rootlets, brown, moist, loose

GRAVELLY SAND TO SAND ANDGRAVEL: trace to some silt,containing cobbles and boulders,brown, moist to wet, loose to dense

--- wet

END OF BOREHOLENotes:1) Water encountered at a depth of3.1 m below ground surface(mBGS) during drilling.2) Water was at a depth of 3.4mBGS upon completion of drilling.3) Borehole caved at a depth of 3.7mBGS upon completion of drilling.4) 51 mm dia. Monitoring Well wasinstalled in borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingDate W.L. Depth (mBGS)June 7, 2017 3.14

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION




DATUM: Geodetic


GR

REF. NO.: 16-1593GH

ENCL NO.: 7

1

2

3

4

5

6


w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)


3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

259

258

257

256

255

254

253

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

259.4

PLASTICLIMIT


ELEV


20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL


TY

PE

,3

CL


Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T


wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH6

1st 2nd 4th3rd


(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA


Diameter: 155mm

Date: May/29/2017

Concrete

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Natural pack

W. L. 256.3 mJun 07, 2017

FIGURES

Project No.

Cannington Municipal Water Supply Wells and Pumphouse, BrockProject Name

16-1593GH

Figure 1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PE

RC

EN

T P

AS

SIN

G

GRAIN SIZE, mm

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

BH2 SS6 BH4 SS3 BH5 SS5

CLAY SILTVERY

FINE

SAND

FINE

SANDMEDIUM

SAND

COARSE

SAND

FINE

GRAVELGRAVEL

FINES (SILT & CLAY) FINE SAND MEDIUM SANDCOARSE

SANDFINE GRAVEL

COARSE

GRAVEL

SAND

COARSEMEDIUMFINE

SILTCLAY

COARSEMEDIUM

CO

BB

LE

SFINE

CO

BB

LE

S

GRAVEL

U.S.BUREAU

UNIFIED

M.I.T.

APPENDIX A

of 1

Slug Test: BH4(Based on data from Datalogger - Falling Head Method -June 7, 2017)

Project Location: Township of Brock, Durham, Ontario

Project No. : 16-1593GH H = Assumed Initial Water Head

Conducted by: Will Guo Ho = Water Head at time = 0

Interpretted by: Kaiying Qiu h = Water Head/Level at time t

Well Number: BH4

Screen Depth (mBGS): 1.8 ~ 3.3

Well Elevation (mASL): 260.84 L = 28 cm

Well Diameter: 2.0" ID R = 7.75 cm

Static Water Level (mBGS): - r = 2.55 cmFinish Reading (H) 10.0857 To = 40 sec

Start Reading (h0) 10.3659 3.7E-03 cm/sK = r2ln(L/R)/(2LTo) =

0.0

0.1

1.0

0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00

(H-h

)/(H

-Ho)

Elapsed Time (sec)

Slug Test Result (Hvorslev Method) Based on Datalogger Readings

To= 40s

0.370.370.37

of 1

Slug Test: BH5(Based on data from Datalogger - Falling Head Method -June 7, 2017)





Well Number: BH5




Static Water Level (mBGS): 3.04 r = 2.55 cmFinish Reading (H) 11.4885 To = 65 sec


0.0

0.1

1.0

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00

(H-h

)/(H

-Ho)

Elapsed Time (sec)


To= 65s

0.370.370.37

of 1

Slug Test: BH5(Based on data from Datalogger - Rising Head Method -June 7, 2017)





Well Number: BH5






0.0

0.1

1.0

0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00

(H-h

)/(H

-Ho)

Elapsed Time (sec)


To= 80s

0.370.370.37

of 1

Slug Test: BH6(Based on data from Datalogger - Rising Head Method -June 7, 2017)





Well Number: BH6






0.0

0.1

1.0

0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00

(H-h

)/(H

-Ho)

Elapsed Time (sec)


To= 1250s

0.370.370.37

APPENDIX B

[This report shall not be reproduced except in full without the written authority of the Laboratory.]

07-JUN-17

Lab Work Order #: L1938102

Date Received:GeoPro Consulting Limited (Richmond Hill)

40 Vogell RoadUnit 57Richmond Hill ON L4B 3N6

ATTN: BuJing GuanFINAL 14-JUN-17 15:01 (MT)Report Date:

Version:

Certificate of Analysis

ALS CANADA LTD Part of the ALS Group An ALS Limited Company

____________________________________________

Emerson Perez, B.S.EAccount Manager

ADDRESS: 5730 Coopers Avenue, Unit #26 , Mississauga, ON L4Z 2E9 Canada | Phone: +1 905 507 6910 | Fax: +1 905 507 6927

Client Phone: 905-237-8336

16-1593Job Reference: NOT SUBMITTEDProject P.O. #:

15-1593-060817C of C Numbers:Cannington, ONLegal Site Desc:

14-JUN-17 15:01 (MT)ANALYTICAL REPORT

L1938102 CONT’D....

2PAGE of

* Please refer to the Reference Information section for an explanation of any qualifiers noted.

Job Reference: 16-15939

Summary of Guideline Exceedances

GuidelineALS ID Client ID Grouping Analyte Result Guideline Limit Unit

Ontario Regulation 153/04 - April 15, 2011 Standards - T1-Soil-Res/Park/Inst/Ind/Com/Commu Property Use(No parameter exceedances)


L1938102 CONT’D....

3PAGE of



Physical Tests - SOIL

Guide Limit #1: T1-Soil-Res/Park/Inst/Ind/Com/Commu Property Use

Conductivity

% Moisture

pH

0.57

-

-

-

-

-

L1938102-1 L1938102-2 L1938102-329-MAY-17 29-MAY-17 29-MAY-17BH2 SS2 BH4 SS1 BH5 SS3

mS/cm

%

pH units

Lab IDSample Date

Sample ID

Guide LimitsUnit #1 #2Analyte

Analytical result for this parameter exceeds Guide Limits listed. See Summary of Guideline Exceedances.Detection Limit for result exceeds Guideline Limit. Assessment against Guideline Limit cannot be made.

0.102 0.151 0.0755

8.98 15.7 9.32

7.63 7.47 7.94


L1938102 CONT’D....

4PAGE of



Cyanides - SOIL


Cyanide, Weak Acid Diss 0.051 -


ug/g

Lab IDSample Date

Sample ID



<0.050 <0.050 <0.050


L1938102 CONT’D....

5PAGE of



Saturated Paste Extractables - SOIL


SAR

Calcium (Ca)

Magnesium (Mg)

Sodium (Na)

2.4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


SAR

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

Lab IDSample Date

Sample ID



<0.10 <0.10 <0.16

9.0 16.7 3.1

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

<1.0 1.0 <1.0

SAR:DL

SAR:M SAR:DL


L1938102 CONT’D....

6PAGE of



Metals - SOIL


Antimony (Sb)

Arsenic (As)

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Boron (B), Hot Water Ext.

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (Cr)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Mercury (Hg)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl)

Uranium (U)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

1.3

18

220

2.5

36

36

1.2

70

21

92

120

0.27

2

82

1.5

0.5

1

2.5

86

290

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-


ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

Lab IDSample Date

Sample ID



<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

1.7 3.7 1.2

80.5 82.6 7.2

<0.50 0.66 <0.50

5.9 6.7 <5.0

<0.10 <0.10 <0.10

<0.50 <0.50 <0.50

14.5 21.3 5.1

4.8 7.2 2.0

8.8 7.2 3.2

3.7 9.1 2.7

0.0069 0.0568 <0.0050

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

9.8 12.8 3.4

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

<0.20 <0.20 <0.20

<0.50 <0.50 <0.50

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

26.8 42.2 13.2

24.1 48.8 10.6


L1938102 CONT’D....

7PAGE of



Speciated Metals - SOIL


Chromium, Hexavalent 0.66 -


ug/g

Lab IDSample Date

Sample ID



<0.20 0.43 <0.20

Reference Information

SAR:M

SAR:DL

Reported SAR represents a maximum value. Actual SAR may be lower if both Ca and Mg were detectable.

SAR is incalculable due to undetectable Na. Detection Limit represents maximum possible SAR value.

Qualifiers for Individual Parameters Listed:

Description Qualifier

14-JUN-17 15:01 (MT)

L1938102 CONT’D....

8PAGE of

B-HWS-R511-WT

CN-WAD-R511-WT

CR-CR6-IC-WT

EC-WT

HG-200.2-CVAA-WT

MET-200.2-CCMS-WT

MOISTURE-WT

Boron-HWE-O.Reg 153/04 (July 2011)

Cyanide (WAD)-O.Reg 153/04 (July 2011)

Hexavalent Chromium in Soil

Conductivity (EC)

Mercury in Soil by CVAAS

Metals in Soil by CRC ICPMS

% Moisture

Methods Listed (if applicable):ALS Test Code Test Description

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

HW EXTR, EPA 6010B

MOE 3015/APHA 4500CN I-WAD

SW846 3060A/7199

MOEE E3138

EPA 200.2/1631E (mod)

EPA 200.2/6020A (mod)

Gravimetric: Oven Dried

Method Reference** Matrix

A dried solid sample is extracted with calcium chloride, the sample undergoes a heating process. After cooling the sample is filtered and analyzed by ICP/OES.

Analysis conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (July 1, 2011).

The sample is extracted with a strong base for 16 hours, and then filtered. The filtrate is then distilled where the cyanide is converted to cyanogen chloride by reacting with chloramine-T, the cyanogen chloride then reacts with a combination of barbituric acid and isonicotinic acid to form a highly colored complex.


This analysis is carried out using procedures adapted from "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" SW-846, Method 7199, published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The procedure involves analysis for chromium (VI) by ion chromatography using diphenylcarbazide in a sulphuric acid solution.


A representative subsample is tumbled with de-ionized (DI) water. The ratio of water to soil is 2:1 v/w. After tumbling the sample is then analyzed by a conductivity meter.


Soil samples are digested with nitric and hydrochloric acids, followed by analysis by CVAAS.


This method uses a heated strong acid digestion with HNO3 and HCl and is intended to liberate metals that may be environmentally available. Silicate minerals are not solubilized. Dependent on sample matrix, some metals may be only partially recovered, including Al, Ba, Be, Cr, Sr, Ti, Tl, V, W, and Zr. Volatile forms of sulfur (including sulfide) may not be captured, as they may be lost during sampling, storage, or digestion. Analysis is by Collision/Reaction Cell ICPMS.

Analysis conducted in accordance with the Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (July 1, 2011), unless a subset of the Analytical Test Group (ATG) has been requested (the Protocol states that all analytes in an ATG must be reported).


Reference Information

GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS

Surrogates are compounds that are similar in behaviour to target analyte(s), but that do not normally occur in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. In reports that display the D.L. column, laboratory objectives for surrogates are listed there.mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram based on dry weight of samplemg/kg wwt - milligrams per kilogram based on wet weight of samplemg/kg lwt - milligrams per kilogram based on lipid-adjusted weight mg/L - unit of concentration based on volume, parts per million.< - Less than.D.L. - The reporting limit.N/A - Result not available. Refer to qualifier code and definition for explanation.

Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory.UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION.Analytical results in unsigned test reports with the DRAFT watermark are subject to change, pending final QC review.

Application of guidelines is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. ALS assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the information.

14-JUN-17 15:01 (MT)

L1938102 CONT’D....

9PAGE of

PH-WT

SAR-R511-WT

pH

SAR-O.Reg 153/04 (July 2011)

Methods Listed (if applicable):ALS Test Code Test Description

Soil

Soil

MOEE E3137A

SW846 6010C

Method Reference**

**ALS test methods may incorporate modifications from specified reference methods to improve performance.

Matrix

A minimum 10g portion of the sample is extracted with 20mL of 0.01M calcium chloride solution by shaking for at least 30 minutes. The aqueous layer is separated from the soil and then analyzed using a pH meter and electrode.


A dried, disaggregated solid sample is extracted with deionized water, the aqueous extract is separated from the solid, acidified and then analyzed using a ICP/OES. The concentrations of Na, Ca and Mg are reported as per CALA requirements for calculated parameters. These individual parameters are not for comparison to any guideline.


Laboratory Definition Code Laboratory Location

WT ALS ENVIRONMENTAL - WATERLOO, ONTARIO, CANADA

The last two letters of the above test code(s) indicate the laboratory that performed analytical analysis for that test. Refer to the list below:

Chain of Custody Numbers:

15-1593-060817


Quality Control ReportPage 1 of

Client:

Contact:

GeoPro Consulting Limited (Richmond Hill)40 Vogell Road Unit 57Richmond Hill ON L4B 3N6BuJing Guan

Report Date: 14-JUN-17Workorder: L1938102

Test Matrix Reference Result Qualifier Units RPD Limit Analyzed

B-HWS-R511-WT

CN-WAD-R511-WT

CR-CR6-IC-WT

EC-WT

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

R3746553

R3745266

R3743439

R3746165

R3746858

Batch

Batch

Batch

Batch

Batch

DUP

IRM

LCS

MB

DUP

LCS

MB

MS

CRM

DUP

LCS

MB

DUP

LCS

MB

WG2546951-4

WG2546951-2

WG2546951-3

WG2546951-1

WG2543717-3

WG2543717-2

WG2543717-1

WG2543717-4

WG2543697-3

WG2543697-4

WG2543697-2

WG2543697-1

WG2546960-4

WG2547283-1

WG2546960-1

L1938126-2

HOTB-SAL_SOIL5

L1938102-3

L1938102-3

WT-SQC012

L1938102-3

WG2546960-3





Cyanide, Weak Acid Diss




Chromium, Hexavalent




Conductivity

Conductivity

0.20

100.8

101.2

<0.10

<0.050

96.8

<0.050

103.8

92.7

<0.20

95.6

<0.20

0.232

97.4

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

12-JUN-17

12-JUN-17

12-JUN-17

12-JUN-17

09-JUN-17

09-JUN-17

09-JUN-17

12-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

7.9

N/A

N/A

1.3

30

35

35

20

70-130

70-130

80-120

70-130

70-130

80-120

90-110

ug/g

%

%

ug/g

ug/g

%

ug/g

%

%

ug/g

%

ug/g

mS/cm

%

0.19

<0.050

<0.20

0.235

0.1

0.05

0.2

RPD-NA

RPD-NA

6


Client:

Contact:




EC-WT

HG-200.2-CVAA-WT

MET-200.2-CCMS-WT

Soil

Soil

Soil

R3746858

R3747307

R3747532

Batch

Batch

Batch

MB

CRM

DUP

LCS

MB

CRM

DUP

WG2546960-1

WG2547886-8

WG2547886-6

WG2547886-3

WG2547886-1

WG2547886-8

WG2547886-6

WT-SS-1

WG2547886-5

WT-SS-1

WG2547886-5

Conductivity

Mercury (Hg)

Mercury (Hg)

Mercury (Hg)

Mercury (Hg)

Arsenic (As)

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (Cr)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

Antimony (Sb)

Arsenic (As)

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

<0.0040

116.0

0.0063

108.5

<0.0050

112.2

109.7

90.3

100.9

94.0

101.6

101.9

99.4

93.4

104.3

96.3

93.1

78.2

106.6

101.8

<0.10

1.56

72.8

0.37

13-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

8.8

N/A

8.9

10

4.8

40

30

30

40

30

70-130

80-120

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

70-130

mS/cm

%

ug/g

%

mg/kg

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

0.0069

<0.10

1.70

80.6

0.39

0.004

0.005

RPD-NA

6


Client:

Contact:




MET-200.2-CCMS-WT Soil

R3747532BatchDUP

LCS

WG2547886-6

WG2547886-4

WG2547886-5Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (Cr)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl)

Uranium (U)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

Antimony (Sb)

Arsenic (As)

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (Cr)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl)

Uranium (U)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

6.5

0.050

13.3

4.47

8.21

3.63

0.13

9.10

<0.20

<0.10

0.079

0.358

24.3

22.7

100.5

102.4

100.0

94.8

96.7

99.0

103.7

102.2

100.2

99.6

99.2

100.8

100.0

92.4

98.6

93.1

104.9

95.1

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

9.4

0.8

9.2

8.2

6.5

1.7

10

7.3

N/A

N/A

1.4

18

9.5

6.1

30

30

30

30

30

40

40

30

30

40

30

30

30

30

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

80-120

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

ug/g

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

5.9

0.051

14.5

4.85

8.76

3.69

0.15

9.79

<0.20

<0.10

0.078

0.430

26.8

24.1

RPD-NA

RPD-NA

6


Client:

Contact:




MET-200.2-CCMS-WT

MOISTURE-WT

PH-WT

SAR-R511-WT

Soil

Soil

Soil

Soil

R3747532

R3742494

R3743787

Batch

Batch

Batch

MB

DUP

LCS

MB

DUP

LCS

WG2547886-1

WG2542904-3

WG2542904-2

WG2542904-1

WG2543863-1

WG2544964-1

L1937484-27

L1938102-1

Antimony (Sb)

Arsenic (As)

Barium (Ba)

Beryllium (Be)

Boron (B)

Cadmium (Cd)

Chromium (Cr)

Cobalt (Co)

Copper (Cu)

Lead (Pb)

Molybdenum (Mo)

Nickel (Ni)

Selenium (Se)

Silver (Ag)

Thallium (Tl)

Uranium (U)

Vanadium (V)

Zinc (Zn)

% Moisture

% Moisture

% Moisture

pH

pH

<0.10

<0.10

<0.50

<0.10

<5.0

<0.020

<0.50

<0.10

<0.50

<0.50

<0.10

<0.50

<0.20

<0.10

<0.050

<0.050

<0.20

<2.0

13.9

99.9

<0.10

7.66

6.96

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

14-JUN-17

08-JUN-17

08-JUN-17

08-JUN-17

09-JUN-17

09-JUN-17

2.9

0.03

20

0.3

90-110

6.7-7.3

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

%

%

%

pH units

pH units

14.3

7.63

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.1

5

0.02

0.5

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.1

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.2

2

0.1

J

6


Client:

Contact:




SAR-R511-WT Soil

R3747178BatchDUP

IRM

MB

WG2546960-4

WG2546960-2

WG2546960-1

WG2546960-3

WT SAR1

Calcium (Ca)

Sodium (Na)

Magnesium (Mg)

Calcium (Ca)

Sodium (Na)

Magnesium (Mg)

Calcium (Ca)

Sodium (Na)

Magnesium (Mg)

10.4

18.7

1.5

105.8

115.7

110.3

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

13-JUN-17

2.1

1.3

1.4

30

30

30

70-130

70-130

70-130

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

%

%

%

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

10.2

18.5

1.5

1

1

1

6

Quality Control Report

Page 6 of


Sample Parameter Qualifier Definitions:

Description Qualifier

J

RPD-NA

Duplicate results and limits are expressed in terms of absolute difference.

Relative Percent Difference Not Available due to result(s) being less than detection limit.

Limit ALS Control Limit (Data Quality Objectives)DUP DuplicateRPD Relative Percent DifferenceN/A Not AvailableLCS Laboratory Control SampleSRM Standard Reference MaterialMS Matrix SpikeMSD Matrix Spike DuplicateADE Average Desorption EfficiencyMB Method BlankIRM Internal Reference MaterialCRM Certified Reference MaterialCCV Continuing Calibration VerificationCVS Calibration Verification StandardLCSD Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate

Legend:

The ALS Quality Control Report is provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS includes comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against pre-determined data quality objectives to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results.

Please note that this report may contain QC results from anonymous Sample Duplicates and Matrix Spikes that do not originate from this Work Order.

Hold Time Exceedances:

All test results reported with this submission were conducted within ALS recommended hold times.

ALS recommended hold times may vary by province. They are assigned to meet known provincial and/or federal government requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by the US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, or Environment Canada (where available). For more information, please contact ALS.

Client:

Contact:


6

Unit 57, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6 Tel: 905 237 8336 Fax: 905 248 3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca

LIMITATIONS TO THE REPORT

This report is intended solely for the Client named. The report is prepared based on the work has been undertaken in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in Ontario.

The comments and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the limited number of the test hole and test pit locations. The boundaries between the various strata as shown on the borehole logs are based on non-continuous sampling and represent an inferred transition between the various strata and their lateral continuation rather than a precise plane of geological change. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between and beyond the test holes and test pits may differ significantly from those encountered at the test hole and test pit locations. The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish relative elevation differences between the test hole and test pit locations and should not be used for other purposes, such as grading, excavating, planning, development, etc.

The report reflects our best judgment based on the information available to GeoPro Consulting Limited at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by GeoPro Consulting Limited, it shall not be used to express or imply warranty as to any other purposes. No portion of this report shall be used as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. The information contained herein in no way reflects on the environment aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated.

The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project designed and constructed completely in accordance with the details stated in this report.

Should any comments and recommendations provided in this report be made on any construction related issues, they are intended only for the guidance of the designers. The number of test holes and test pits may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction activities, methods and costs. Such as, the thickness of surficial topsoil or fill layers may vary significantly and unpredictably; the amount of the cobbles and boulders may vary significantly than what described in the report; unexpected water bearing zones/layers with various thickness and extent may be encountered in the fill and native soils. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual information presented and make their own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work and determine the proper construction methods.

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. GeoPro Consulting Limited accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as agreed to at that time.

tel:905.856.0065


appendix 5 geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation€¦ · it may then be ne cessary to...

Documents