addendum no. 3 request for tender no. 108 ......addendum-3 tender # 108-2016 3 q13. please provide a...
TRANSCRIPT
Michael Pacholok Director
Purchasing and Materials Management Division City Hall, 18th Floor, West Tower 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2
Joanne Kehoe Manager Professional Services
Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016
August 25, 2016 Posted via PDF: (3 pages + 1 attachment)
ADDENDUM NO. 3
REQUEST FOR TENDER NO. 108-2016
CONTRACT NO. MCP-14-07
For: Construction Services for the replacement of aging "Electrical Substation – West" at
Humber Wastewater Treatment Plant
CLOSING DATE: 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME), September 07, 2016 (REVISED)
Please refer to the above Request for Tender (RFT) document in your possession and be advised of the
following:
I. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:Geotechnical Investigation Report
II. REVISIONS
A. Specification: 1) Specification 16123, Section – 2.7.4 Cable Tray: Aluminum tray, width 1069mm (42"), with
depth of 150mm, unless otherwise noted in the Contract documents. Provide suitable cable
tray support.
B. Drawing: 1) Drawing E8 – Note 8: All 600V circuit breakers in PDP-0501/0602 shall be electronic relay
with adjustable instantaneous, long time, short time and ground fault protection.
III. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q1. There is a Borehole shown on drawing C1. Is there a geotechnical report that could be provided?
A1. Please refer to the attached geotechnical report. This report should be treated as a reference
document.
Q2. Schedule for prices Item-4 requests supply and installation of aluminum tray, while the
specifications Section 16123 requests a galvanized steel tray. Please clarify.
A2. Please provide Aluminum Tray, in accordance with Specification 16123, Section 2.7.4 (Revised).
Q3. Schedule of prices Item – 4: The new 1000mm wide Aluminum Tray is not CSA approved.
Please specify the class loading type and the type of supports required for the cable tray.
A3. The cable tray width has been specified above in Specification 16123, Section 2.7.4 (Revised).
The Aluminum cable tray is CSA approved. Please provide Class E loading cable tray. The
supports shall be developed by the contractor in accordance with general requirements in
specification 16123.
Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016
2
Q4. Schedule of prices – Item – 21: Please provide the size, specifications and location for the UPS
replacement.
A4. Please refer to Addendum-2 for the UPS ratings, and contract document Division 16 (Electrical)
for the specifications of UPS, its battery and battery rack. The new UPS will be located at the
same location where the existing UPS is located, it was shown to the bidders during the
mandatory site visit to the plant. There is sufficient space available to install new UPS and its
accessories.
Q5. Schedule of prices – Item – 5, 6, 7, 8: We are not aware of the existing conditions of the
underground duct banks and timeline of these as cost of doing this type of work in extremely cold
weather rather than normal summer time is drastically different. Please indicate cash allowance
for these.
A5. Please assume worst case conditions. No extras will be provided for seasonal differences as the
constructor is in control of the schedules.
Q6. List any equipment which have asbestos, lead etc. and/or any equipment that need to be reviewed
by specialty trades.
A6. Please refer to the designated substances survey reports provided on a CD as part of the tender
package.
Q7. List any equipment which is to be demolished and returned back/handed over to the City.
A7. The Vendor shall dispose all equipment, unless specifically identified in the contract documents.
However, City has the right to keep any of the existing equipment that is removed.
Q8. Please provide the fuel cost for 2MVA rental genset as a part of the cash allowance, since the
Contractors won’t be aware for this temporary generator will be required to run.
A8. The Vendor shall supply 2000kW rated temporary generator with a full tank of fuel. Additional
fuel, if required, will be paid through a cash allowance.
Q9. Please note a formal request by our company to be included in the following sections of the
tender package for the Humber Treatment Plant West Substation upgrades: Section 16441 – Low
Voltage Panelboards, Section 16480 – Low Voltage Power Distribution Panel.
A9. At this stage it is not possible to include another company in the specification Section 16441 Low
Voltage Panel-boards and Section 16480 Low Voltage Power Distribution Panel. Please refer to
Section 5A of the tender, item 21 for policy regarding equivalents and alternates. Item 21.4 is
particularly relevant.
Q10. Our company would like to request that we be added as an approved supplier for the 4.16 kV
medium voltage switchgear.
A10. At this stage it is not possible to include another company in the specification Section - 16345
4.16kV Medium Voltage Switchgear. Please refer to Section 5A of the tender, item 21 for policy
regarding equivalents and alternates. Item 21.4 is particularly relevant.
Q11. Drawing E11, note 5: Please show the layout of the 4160V duct bank between the two 4.16kV –
600V transformers TR-0500, TR-0600 and 4160 V Switchgear
A11. For the concrete encased duct bank between the 4.16kV switchgear (SWG-0503, SWG0603) and
the transformers (TR-0500 & TR-0600) see drawing E44 Detail 1. A set of six (6) ducts are for
transformer TR-0500, and a set of other six (6) ducts are for transformer TR-0600.
Q12. Please confirm the correct scale for drawing E4. The scale in the drawing block 1:200 is
incorrect.
A12. The scale for this drawing is 1:1000.
Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016
3
Q13. Please provide a detail of the duct bank route from West Substation to the Primary Sludge
Pumping Station #1 and #2, in order to price the Unit price items listed in the Tender Form.
A13. The cable exits West Substation in a short duct bank in accordance with Detail 2 in drawing E5.
This cable then enters an open chamber where it is connected to the cable tray T12 in the pipe
gallery. The cable shall carry on this tray to the Primary Sludge Pumping Station 1 and 2 in the
gallery.
Q14. We request an extension of two weeks from present closing as this project has a major Civil work
and this trade has requested more time.
A14. Please refer to the first page of the addendum for the closing date.
Q15. We respectively request an extension to the closing for the above project of 3 weeks, allowing us
and our suppliers ample time to produce a detailed and accurate estimate for the above tender.
A15. Please refer to the first page of the addendum for the closing date.
Q16. Please confirm who is the Civil Consultant on this project. We have some further enquires.
A16. The Civil Consultant on this project would be AE.
Should you have any questions regarding this addendum contact Candida Charles at [email protected]
or 416-392-7326.
Please attach this addendum to your Tender document and be governed accordingly. Bidders must
acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their Tender in the space provided on the Tender Submission Form
as per Appendix A, Section 4 - Addenda of the Tender document or your response will be declared non-
compliant and will not be considered. All other aspects of the Tender remain the same.
Yours truly,
Joanne Kehoe,
Manager
Professional Services
GeoPro Consulting Limited (905) 237-8336 [email protected]
Units 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6
Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation
Humber Treatment Plant
130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Prepared For:
Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.
GeoPro Project No.: 15-1056-01
Report Date: January 11, 2016
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca i
Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ........................................................................................................... 2
3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Soil Conditions....................................................................................................................... 2
3.1.2 Groundwater Conditions....................................................................................................... 3
4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 4
4.1 Foundation Design Considerations ............................................................................................... 4
4.1.1 Helical Piles ........................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.2 Caissons ................................................................................................................................. 6
4.2 Frost Protection ............................................................................................................................ 7
4.3 Excavations and Groundwater Control ......................................................................................... 7
4.4 Seismic Consideration ................................................................................................................... 8
4.5 Excess Soil Characterization .......................................................................................................... 8
4.5.1 Soil Sample Submission ......................................................................................................... 8
4.5.2 Soil Analytical Results ............................................................................................................ 8
4.6 Corrosivity Potential ..................................................................................................................... 9
5. MONITORING AND TESTING ............................................................................................................... 10
6. CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Drawings No.
Borehole Location Plan Drawing No. 1
Subsurface Utilities Plan Drawing No. 2
Enclosures No.
Notes on Sample Description Enclosure No. 1A
Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Boreholes Enclosure No. 1B
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca ii
Borehole Logs Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3
Appendix A
Soil Analytical Results
Appendix B
Corrosivity Testing Results
Limitations to the Report
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 1
1. INTRODUCTION
GeoPro Consulting Limited (GeoPro) was retained by Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. (the
Client) to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the proposed transformer pad installation at
the Humber Treatment Plant located at 130 The Queensway, in Etobicoke, Ontario.
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to obtain information on the existing
subsurface conditions by means of a limited number of boreholes, test pits, 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 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 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 analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the
geotechnical 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 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 excess 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 and Client’s engineers. 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.
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 2
2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK
The field work for the geotechnical investigation was carried out on July 20, 2015, during which
time two (2) boreholes (Boreholes BH1 and BH2) were advanced at the locations shown on the
Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 1. The boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from 4.5 m
to 4.9 m below the existing ground surface and were terminated due to spoon/auger refusal in all
boreholes.
The boreholes were advanced using solid stem auger equipment supplied by a drilling specialist
retained by 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 provided by the Client and the
underground utility conditions.
The shallow groundwater conditions were noted in the boreholes during drilling. The boreholes
were backfilled and sealed upon completion of drilling. Monitoring well (51 mm in diameter) was
installed in Borehole BH2 to monitor the groundwater levels.
All soil samples obtained during this investigation were brought to our laboratory for further
examination and geotechnical classification testing on selected soil samples.
Ground surface elevations at all as-drilled borehole locations were provided by the surveyor
retained by GeoPro.
3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subject site is located in Humber Treatment Plant at 130 The Queensway, north of The
Queensway, east of High Street, in Etobicoke, Ontario.
The borehole locations are shown on Drawing No. 1. Notes on sample descriptions are presented
on Enclosure No. 1. The subsurface conditions in the boreholes (BH1 and BH2) are presented in
the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 to 3 inclusive). The following are detailed
descriptions of the major soil strata encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site.
3.1.1 Soil Conditions
Topsoil
Topsoil with thicknesses ranging from 180 mm to 300 mm was encountered surficially in
Boreholes BH1 and BH2.
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 3
Fill Materials
Fill materials consisting of silty sand and sand were encountered in Boreholes BH1 and BH2 below
the topsoil and extended to depths ranging from about 2.1 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground
surface. SPT N values ranging from 1 to 23 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a very loose
to compact relative density.
Silty Clay
A native silty clay deposit was encountered below the fill materials in Boreholes BH1 and extended
to the depth of 4.7 m below the existing ground surface. SPT N values of 2 blows per 300 mm
penetration indicated a very soft consistency. The natural moisture content measured in the soil
samples was approximately 16%.
Probable Shale Bedrock
As best could be practically determined, shale presumed to coincide with the bedrock surface was
encountered in Boreholes BH1 and BH2 below the fill and native soil and extended to depths
ranging from about 4.5 m to 4.9 m below the existing ground surface. Exploration of the bedrock
was not carried out as part of this assignment, however based on samples recovered from the
penetration testing, the bedrock beneath the site consisted of weathered grey shale interbedded
with limestone.
Both Boreholes BH1 and BH2 encountered weathered grey shale. A penetration resistance of
greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m was typically indicated at these locations. It should be noted
that core drilling would be required to provide information on the rock mass characteristics and
to assess the degree of weathering of the shale.
3.1.2 Groundwater Conditions
Borehole BH1 was open and dry during drilling and upon completion of drilling. Water was
encountered in Borehole BH2 at the depth of 2.4 m below the ground surface (mBGS) during
drilling. Borehole BH2 caved-in to a depth of 4.10 mBGS upon completion of drilling. The
monitoring well construction details and the measured groundwater level are shown in the
following table.
Piezometer ID Screen Interval
(mBGS)
Date of Monitoring: August 6, 2015
Water Level (mBGS)
BH2 2.6 ~ 4.1 2.15
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 4
It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations
in response to weather events.
4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This report contains the findings of GeoPro’s geotechnical investigation, together with the
geotechnical 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 and test pits 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 are not available 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
Based on the results of this investigation, the fill materials ranged widely in relative density and
contained significant amount of construction debris. As such, the fill materials are considered to
be subject to long term settlement and potentially to differential settlement. The areal extent
and magnitude of the settlement cannot be predicted. Therefore, the existing fill materials at the
site are unsuitable for support of the proposed transformer pad. The proposed structure may
therefore be supported on deep foundations founded on the underlying competent shale bedrock.
Driven piles are not suitable for this site due to the small size of the transformer pad and the
complex underground services present on the site, as well as the cost of mobilizing the pile driving
machine, the excessive weight of the heavy piling machine, the vibrations caused during the pile
driving, noise and air pollution generated by heavy diesel engines, and the difficulty of accessibility
for the pile driving machine. As such, the proposed transformer pad may be supported on end
bearing helical screw piles or augered cast in place caissons founded in the shale bedrock below
the fill materials and native clayey soils.
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 5
4.1.1 Helical Piles
The actual design details of the helical piles will typically be provided by the helical pile specialist
contractor. Use of helical piles is recommended as it provides a number of advantages when
compared to driven piles:
1. The helical pile installation is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the existing
underground site services.
2. Helical pile installation uses comparatively smaller equipment which is not known for
generating excessive noise or visible air pollution from diesel engines, especially
compared to pile driving machines.
3. The relatively small size of the helical pile installation equipment would permit easier
access to installation locations close to the adjacent buildings.
It must be noted that some difficulty would be encountered in advancing the piles through the fill
materials due to the significant amount of concrete and asphalt blocks, brick and plastic fragments,
steel bars, and other construction debris present within the fill materials. Should any obstructions
be encountered, the pile could be extracted and reused in an alternate location. However, due
to the amount of construction debris anticipated within the fill materials, consideration may be
given to pre-augering through the existing fill materials and backfilling the pre-augered holes with
low strength unshrinkable fill (i.e. 1 to 2 MPa). A temporary steel liner will be required during
construction to prevent caving of materials and to facilitate the pouring of the unshrinkable fill.
In order to avoid the confliction of existing subsurface utilities, the helical piles should be installed
at least 0.3 m away from the existing utilities as shown in Drawing No. 2. The helical piles can
then be carried out shortly after the unshrinkable fill has been poured, before the unshrinkable
fill has completely set to its full compressive strength. The helical piles are generally designed as
end bearing and the friction from the fill materials and soft native soils must be ignored. The
designer should define the depth and type of helical piles according to the soil conditions and the
required design loads. Based on the thickness of the fill materials and soft native silty clay soils
encountered at the site, it is recommended that the helical piles should be advanced to at least
0.3 m into the weathered shale. The contractor should be notified about the Interbedded
limestone layers within the weathered shale. A specialist contractor should be retained to design
and install helical piles. Bearing capacity and other design details regarding helical piles can be
discussed with the specialist contractor. Field load testing of piles is required to confirm the
design bearing capacity.
As previously noted, the nature and extent of the construction debris within the fill materials at
the proposed pile locations are not known. Due to the presence of construction debris and buried
concrete and asphalt blocks within the existing fill materials, geotechnical inspection to confirm
that the helical pile toes are anchored within the underlying shale bedrock is considered to be
essential.
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 6
The design and construction of the deep foundations should be in accordance with the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th edition.
It should be noted that the recommended design parameters have been calculated by GeoPro
from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are
necessarily on-going as new information on the underground conditions becomes available. For
example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes
when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the
recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by
GeoPro to validate the information for use during the construction stage.
4.1.2 Caissons
As an alternative to end bearing helical screw piles, augered cast in place concrete piles (i.e.
caissons) may be considered. The caissons should have a minimum diameter of 0.6 m and be
socketed at least 0.6 m into the shale bedrock. For cast in place caissons bearing on the shale
bedrock, a factored axial resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 200 kN may be assumed for
design. The geotechnical resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) for 25 mm of settlement
(for the length of piles required at this site) will be greater than the factored axial resistance at
ULS and as a result, ULS conditions will govern. Prior to pouring concrete for the caissons, the
bases should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that they are located in sound
shale bedrock, which has been cleaned of any ponded water and loosened materials. A temporary
steel liner will be required during construction to prevent caving of materials, to permit
geotechnical inspection of the base of the augered excavations, and to facilitate the caisson
installation operations. Pumping of groundwater from the base of some caissons will be required
prior to inspection and pouring concrete. If the water in the caissons cannot be controlled by
pumping, concrete for the caissons should be poured by tremie methods as soon as practicable
after augering and base inspection. The fresh concrete must be kept from freezing during cold
weather construction.
As previously noted, the nature and extent of the construction debris within the fill materials at
the proposed caisson locations are not known. Due to the presence of construction debris and
buried concrete blocks within the existing fill materials, geotechnical inspection to confirm that
the caisson bases are socketed within the underlying sound shale bedrock is considered to be
essential.
The design and construction of the deep foundations should be in accordance with the Canadian
Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th edition.
It should be noted that the recommended bearing resistances have been calculated by GeoPro
from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are
necessarily on-going as new information on the underground conditions becomes available. For
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 7
example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes
when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the
recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by
GeoPro to validate the information for use during the construction stage.
4.2 Frost Protection
The top layer of existing fill materials consisting of topsoil/organics is highly susceptible to frost
heave and should be removed from the transformer pad footprint and be replaced with
engineered fill consisting of Granular A. The topsoil and removed fill materials should be wasted
or used for landscaping purposes.
The transformer pad, which is exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.2 m
free draining materials (i.e. Granular A) or the thermal equivalent placed below the pad for frost
protection. The free draining materials (i.e. Granular A) should be placed in a loose lift not
exceeding 200 mm and compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).
In consideration of the utility casings exposed at shallow depths, consideration may be given to
installing Styrofoam as frost protection for the proposed structural slab. Layers of rigid high-
density closed-cell insulation (such as Styrofoam HL-40) with a thickness selected to satisfy the
frost protection requirement may be considered for the slab design. As a general guideline, 25
mm of insulation provides the same effect as about 300 mm of soil and a minimum of 300 mm
earth cover should be placed on top of the Styrofoam insulation. For the proposed pad, a 75 mm
layer of Styrofoam may be placed as frost protection; the Styrofoam insulation should extend
outwards at least 1.2 m from the perimeter of the pad in all directions; a layer of 300 mm thick
OPSS Granular A should be placed on top of the Styrofoam and compacted to 95% SPMDD.
4.3 Excavations and Groundwater Control
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 can be classified as Type
3 soil above the groundwater table. The native silty clay soil and the existing fill materials below
the groundwater table would be classified as Type 4 soils.
It is anticipated that shallow excavations at the site will consist of temporary open cuts with side
slopes not steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). However, depending on the
construction procedures adopted by the contractor and weather conditions at the time of
construction, some local flattening of the slopes might be required.
As noted above, groundwater was measured in Borehole BH2 at a depth of 2.15 m below the
existing ground surface. Some seepage of free water from the fill materials at shallow depths
should be anticipated. In consideration of the anticipated shallow excavations, the seepage water
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 8
from the existing fill materials should be controlled and removed by pumping from temporary
sumps.
4.4 Seismic Consideration
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 4.9 m below the
existing ground surface. Based on the borehole information and our local experience, a Site Class
D may be used for the structural design.
Should optimization of the site class be recommended by the structural engineer, in situ
geophysical testing may be considered.
4.5 Excess Soil Characterization
4.5.1 Soil Sample Submission
In order to provide information on the chemical quality of the subsurface soils, the following soil
samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario (“AGAT”) for analyses:
two soil samples (BH1/SS1 and BH1/SS2) were submitted for analyses of metals and
inorganics to assess the general soil quality
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.
4.5.2 Soil Analytical Results
Metals and Inorganics
The samples were analyzed for metals and inorganic parameters under Ontario Regulation 153/04
(“O. Reg 153/04”) as amended. The soil analytical results were compared to 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
Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 9
Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/ Community Property Uses (“2011
MOECC Table 1 Standards”).
A copy of the soil analytical results is provided in the Laboratory Certificates of Analysis, attached
in Appendix A. Based upon a comparison of the analytical results to the 2011 MOECC Table 1
Standards, no exceedances were identified for the parameters tested.
4.6 Corrosivity Potential
The sulphate (SO4) resistance requirements for concrete in contact with the site soils was
evaluated by performing water-soluble sulphate tests on two (2) soil samples taken from Borehole
BH1 from 0.3 to 0.6 m and 3.0 to 3.5 m below existing grade. The analytical data are attached to
this report in Appendix B.
The test revealed that the sulphate concentrations in the test soil samples were 21 ug/g and 249
ug/g. The category of severity of attack is “negligible” based on CSA Standard A23.1, Concrete
Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction. The final selection of the type of concrete
should be made by the Engineer taking into account all aspects of design considerations.
The corrosivity of soils towards ferrous metal was evaluated by performing corrosivity tests on
two (2) soil samples taken from Boreholes BH1. The corrosivity of soils was evaluated using the
10 points method which is based on five soil properties: sulphide, resistivity, pH, Redox potential
and moisture content. The following table summarizes the ANSI/AWWA rating for the tested soil
samples for the potential for corrosion towards the buried grey or ductile cast iron pipes. A score
of ten (10) points or more indicates potential for corrosion. The analytical data are attached to
this report in Appendix B.
BH No. /
Sample
No.
Parameter
Depth,
m
(from-
to)
Soil
Type PH
Resistivity
(ohm.cm)
Sulfide
(point)
Redox
potential
(mV)
Moisture
Content
(%) (point)
Total
Points
BH1/SS1 0.3–
0.6
Silty
Sand
8.60
(3) 7350 (0) 0.03 (2) 263 (0) Moist (1) 6
BH1/SS5 3.0-
3.5
Silty
clay
8.28
(0) 1260 (10) 0.18 (2) 234 (0) 16 (1) 13
According to the ANSI/AWWA rating system, the tested sample BH1/SS1 poses low to moderate
potential for corrosion of grey ductile iron pipes. However, the tested sample BH1/SS5 indicates
Client:Project No.:
15-1056-01
Title: Borehole Location Plan
Project:
Drawing No.:1
Drawn: GC Approved: DL
Scale:
Date: August 17, 2015
Original Letter Rev:
DLSize:
BH1 As shown Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Transformer Pad Installation atWest Substation, Humber Treatment Plant
130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario
Associated Engineering (Ont.) Inc.
Borehole Location
BH1
BH2
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 Density Index (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
81.2
79.4
76.8
76.6
9
14
9
2
2
50/76mm
0.3
2.1
4.7
4.9
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOPSOIL (300 mm)
FILL: silty sand, trace gravel,contains concrete and asphaltblocks, contains plastic and brickfragments, contains steel bars,brown, moist, loose to compact.
SILTY CLAY: trace sand, tracegravel, grey, wet to moist, very softto hard.
PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE BEDROCK: grey.END OF BOREHOLE DUE TOSPOON REFUSAL ONPROBABLE SHALE BEDROCKNotes:1) Borehole was open and dry uponcompletion 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: Geotechnical Investigation - Transformer Pad Installation
CLIENT: Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.
PROJECT LOCATION: 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, ON
DATUM: Geodetic
BH LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan
GR
REF. NO.: 15-1056-01
ENCL NO.: 2
1
2
3
4
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
81
80
79
78
77
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
81.5
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: Solid Stem Auger Auto Hammer
Diameter: 115 mm
Date: Jul-20-2015
80.7
78.0
76.576.4
23
15
4
1
2
50/100mm
0.2
2.9
4.44.5
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
1
2
3
4
5
6
TOPSOIL (180 mm)
FILL: silty sand, trace to somegravel, contains concrete andasphalt blocks, contains brick andplastic fragments, contains steelbars, brown, moist, compact.
FILL: sand, trace to some silt, tracegravel, brown, wet, very loose.
PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE BEDROCK: grey.END OF BOREHOLE DUE TOAUGER REFUSAL ONPROBABLE SHALE BEDROCKNotes:1) Water was encountered at adepth of 2.4 meters below groundsurface (mBGS) during drilling.2) The borehole caved in to a depthof 4.10 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.3) 51 mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in borehole uponcompletion of drilling.
Water Level ReadingsDate W.L. Depth (mBGS)August 6, 2015 2.15
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: Geotechnical Investigation - Transformer Pad Installation
CLIENT: Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.
PROJECT LOCATION: 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, ON
DATUM: Geodetic
BH LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan
GR
REF. NO.: 15-1056-01
ENCL NO.: 3
1
2
3
4
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
80
79
78
77
NA
TU
RA
L U
NIT
WT
PO
CK
ET
PE
N.
80.9
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 BH2
1st 2nd 4th3rd
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
(kN
/m3 )
DRILLING DATA
Method: Solid Stem Auger Auto Hammer
Diameter: 115 mm
Date: Jul-20-2015
Concrete
Bentonite
Sand
Screen
Caved in
W. L. 78.7 mAug 06, 2015
CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD40 VOGELL ROAD UNIT 25-27RICHMOND HILL, ON L4B3N6 (905) 237-8336
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
Parvathi Malemath, Data ReviewerSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:
DATE REPORTED:
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5
Aug 27, 2015
VERSION*: 1
Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100
15T009493AGAT WORK ORDER:
ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 5
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 and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)
Member of:
*NOTES
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request
BH1/SS2BH1/SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:
7/20/20157/20/2015DATE SAMPLED:
6885398 6885399G / S RDLUnitParameter
<0.8 <0.8Antimony 0.81.3µg/g
3 3Arsenic 118µg/g
55 62Barium 2220µg/g
<0.5 <0.5Beryllium 0.52.5µg/g
5 5Boron 536µg/g
0.24 0.25Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.10NAµg/g
0.6 0.8Cadmium 0.51.2µg/g
16 19Chromium 270µg/g
6.1 6.4Cobalt 0.521µg/g
23 28Copper 192µg/g
27 34Lead 1120µg/g
<0.5 <0.5Molybdenum 0.52µg/g
13 16Nickel 182µg/g
<0.4 <0.4Selenium 0.41.5µg/g
0.2 0.3Silver 0.20.5µg/g
<0.4 <0.4Thallium 0.41µg/g
<0.5 <0.5Uranium 0.52.5µg/g
15 16Vanadium 186µg/g
72 84Zinc 5290µg/g
<0.2 <0.2Chromium VI 0.20.66µg/g
<0.040 <0.040Cyanide 0.0400.051µg/g
<0.10 0.11Mercury 0.100.27µg/g
0.130 0.127Electrical Conductivity 0.0050.57mS/cm
0.124 0.108Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA2.4NA
7.92 7.86pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use
6885398-6885399 EC & SAR were determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract prepared at 2:1 ratio.
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2015-08-19
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Bujing GuanCLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T009493
DATE REPORTED: 2015-08-27
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)
SAMPLED BY:DylanSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)
Certified By:Page 2 of 5
O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)
Antimony 6884562 <0.8 <0.8 0.0% < 0.8 110% 70% 130% 105% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%
Arsenic 6884562 2 2 0.0% < 1 108% 70% 130% 88% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%
Barium 6884562 167 172 2.9% < 2 109% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%
Beryllium 6884562 0.6 0.7 15.4% < 0.5 94% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%
Boron
6884562 7 8 13.3% < 5 86% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 6884422 <0.10 <0.10 0.0% < 0.10 107% 60% 140% 98% 70% 130% 97% 60% 140%
Cadmium 6884562 <0.5 <0.5 0.0% < 0.5 104% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%
Chromium 6884562 26 27 3.8% < 2 83% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%
Cobalt 6884562 10.7 11.3 5.5% < 0.5 99% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%
Copper
6884562 19 20 5.1% < 1 96% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%
Lead 6884562 8 8 0.0% < 1 105% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%
Molybdenum 6884562 <0.5 <0.5 0.0% < 0.5 110% 70% 130% 110% 80% 120% 111% 70% 130%
Nickel 6884562 18 19 5.4% < 1 99% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 98% 70% 130%
Selenium 6884562 <0.4 <0.4 0.0% < 0.4 87% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%
Silver
6884562 <0.2 <0.2 0.0% < 0.2 111% 70% 130% 118% 80% 120% 110% 70% 130%
Thallium 6884562 <0.4 <0.4 0.0% < 0.4 94% 70% 130% 103% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%
Uranium 6884562 0.5 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 108% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%
Vanadium 6884562 32 34 6.1% < 1 82% 70% 130% 91% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%
Zinc 6884562 56 58 3.5% < 5 110% 70% 130% 113% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%
Chromium VI
6884432 <0.2 <0.2 0.0% < 0.2 100% 70% 130% 103% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%
Cyanide 6885277 <0.040 <0.040 0.0% < 0.040 109% 70% 130% 110% 80% 120% 122% 70% 130%
Mercury 6884562 <0.10 <0.10 0.0% < 0.10 100% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%
Electrical Conductivity 6887188 0.079 0.075 5.2% < 0.005 91% 90% 110%
Sodium Adsorption Ratio 6887188 0.087 0.074 16.1% NA NA NA NA
pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction
6893716 7.43 7.58 2.0% NA 101% 80% 120% NA NA
Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.
Certified By:
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T009493
Dup #1 RPDMeasured
ValueRecovery Recovery
Quality Assurance
ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan
CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
Soil Analysis
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
BatchPARAMETERSample
IdDup #2
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Aug 27, 2015 REFERENCE MATERIAL
MethodBlank
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 5
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.
Soil Analysis
Antimony MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Arsenic 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
Boron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Boron (Hot Water Soluble) MET-93-6104EPA SW 846 6010C; MSA, Part 3, Ch.21
ICP/OES
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
Chromium VI INOR-93-6029 SM 3500 B; MSA Part 3, Ch. 25 SPECTROPHOTOMETER
Cyanide INOR-93-6052MOE CN-3015 & E 3009 A;SM 4500 CN
TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER
Mercury MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS
Electrical Conductivity INOR-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER
Sodium Adsorption Ratio INOR-93-6007McKeague 4.12 & 3.26 & EPA SW-846 6010B
ICP/OES
pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction INOR-93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T009493
Method Summary
ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan
CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 5
CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD40 VOGELL ROAD UNIT 25-27RICHMOND HILL, ON L4B3N6 (905) 237-8336
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
Amanjot Bhela, Inorganic CoordinatorSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:
DATE REPORTED:
PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5
Aug 21, 2015
VERSION*: 1
Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100
15T007255AGAT WORK ORDER:
ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 5
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 and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)
Member of:
*NOTES
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request
BH1 SS5BH1 SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:
7/20/20157/20/2015DATE SAMPLED:
6862503 6862505G / S RDLUnitParameter
0.03 0.18Sulfide 0.01 %
15 307Chloride (2:1) 2µg/g
21 249Sulphate (2:1) 2µg/g
8.60 8.28pH (2:1) NApH Units
0.136 0.793Electrical Conductivity (2:1) 0.005mS/cm
7350 1260Resistivity (2:1) 1ohm.cm
263 234Redox Potential (2:1) 5mV
Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard
6862503-6862505 * Sulphide analyses were performed at AGAT Laboratories Vancouver.
EC/Resistivity, pH, Chloride, Sulphate and Redox Potential were determined on the extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water: 1 part soil).
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
DATE RECEIVED: 2015-08-13
Certificate of Analysis
ATTENTION TO: Bujing GuanCLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T007255
DATE REPORTED: 2015-08-21
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
Corrosivity Package
SAMPLED BY:Dylan XiaoSAMPLING SITE:
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)
Certified By:Page 2 of 5
Corrosivity Package
Sulfide 6862398 0.02 0.01 NA < 0.01 94% 80% 120%
Chloride (2:1) 6857494 5 5 0.0% < 2 92% 80% 120% 96% 80% 120% 98% 70% 130%
Sulphate (2:1) 6857494 65 63 3.1% < 2 94% 80% 120% 92% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%
pH (2:1) 6862402 8.72 8.55 2.0% NA 100% 90% 110% NA NA
Electrical Conductivity (2:1)
6857494 0.063 0.059 6.6% < 0.005 101% 90% 110% NA NA
Redox Potential (2:1) 6857494 268 269 0.4% < 5 99% 70% 130% NA NA
Comments: NA Signifies Not Applicable.RPD Qualifier for Sulfide: As the average value for the sample and a duplicate is less than 5X RDL, lab's RPD acceptance criteria is not applicable.
Certified By:
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan Xiao
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T007255
Dup #1 RPDMeasured
ValueRecovery Recovery
Quality Assurance
ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan
CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
Soil Analysis
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
BatchPARAMETERSample
IdDup #2
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
UpperLower
AcceptableLimits
MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Aug 21, 2015 REFERENCE MATERIAL
MethodBlank
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 5
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.
Soil Analysis
Sulfide GRAVIMETRIC
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-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER
Resistivity (2:1) INOR-93-6036McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B,SSA #5 Part 3
CALCULATION
Redox Potential (2:1) McKeague 4.12 & SM 2510 B REDOX POTENTIAL ELECTRODE
Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested
SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan Xiao
AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T007255
Method Summary
ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan
CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD
PROJECT: 15-1056-01
AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER
5835 COOPERS AVENUE
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
CANADA L4Z 1Y2
TEL (905)712-5100
FAX (905)712-5122
http://www.agatlabs.com
METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 5
Unit 25 to 27, 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. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between
and beyond the test holes and test pit 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.