aecom peer review assessment - whitchurch-stouffville.ccom . aecom. 300 - 300 town centre boulevard...
TRANSCRIPT
AECOMCCOM 300 - 300 Town Centre Boulevard 905 477 8400 tel
Markham ON Canada L3R 5Z6 905 477 1456 fax
wwwaecomcom
February 7 2013
Ms lsa James Planner Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville 111 Sandiford Drive Stouffville ON L4A OZ8
Dear Ms James
Project No 60272713 Regarding Peer Review Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation Regulatory Requests Site
Plan Approval Comment Responses and Response to Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 6233 6441 amp 6245 Main Street Stouffville Ontario SPA 12004
We are pleased to provide our peer review of the following reports
bull Technical Memorandum Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Pace Redevelopment- Lloyd Street and Main Street Stouffville Ontario prepared by Golder Associates Ltd January 17 2013
bull Response to comments on Lloyd Street- Pace Savings and Credit Union Limited Site Plan Approval- 2nd Submission 181 Project No W0602801 00 F2182 prepared by SCS Consulting Group Ltd January 17 2013
bull Response to Peer Review Comments of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan Application Pace Redevelopment Stouffville Ontario prepared by Golder Associates Ltd August 24 2012 and
bull Regulatory Requests for 6233 6441 amp 6245 Main Street Stouffville Ontario prepared by Golder Associates Ltd January 18 2013
The means and methods of the site investigation and the corresponding data reduction were not reviewed AECOM did not perform independent site investigations or testing
Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation
AECOM provides the following peer review of the Golder Associates Ltd (Golder) Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation Proposed Pace Redevelopment- Lloyd Street and Main Street Stouffville Ontario prepared for Geranium Corporation dated January 17 2013
L_2013-02-07_Peer Review_60272713_T30oc
Page 2 ACOM February 7 2013
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a six storey building with two levels of underground parking for mixed commercialresidential use The site is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Lloyd Street in the Town of Stouffville The objective of this exercise is to review the hydrogeological investigation prepared by Golder to verify the methodscalculationsrecommendations adopted are in conformance with generally accepted hydrogeological standards and practice
It is our overall assessment that the report has adopted hydrogeological methodologies and approaches that follow the principles of generally accepted practice Notwithstanding this we have a few comments for your consideration as outlined below
1 The number of groundwater monitoring wells (6) standpipe piezometers (2) and monitoring well nest (1 shallow well and 1 deep well) are considered to be sufficient to provide reasonable characterization of the hydrogeological conditions at the site
2 The type of hydraulic testing conducted (ie single well response tests and a short term pumping test) as well as the duration of these tests (ie 4-hour pumping test) are considered to be sufficient to provide reasonable estimates of the hydraulic properties of the soils for the purposes of providing preliminary dewatering rate estimates
3 The report would greatly benefit from the addition of a hydrostratigraphic crossshysection as well but to a lesser extent a potentiometric surface map showing groundwater flow direction and a figure showing the radius of water level drawdown related to the pumping test
4 Inconsistencies in rounding or not rounding of calculated results were identified throughout the memorandum but they do not affect the overall interpretation results or conclusions presented
5 Section 12 - Scope of Work
a) We support the installation of three additional groundwater monitoring wells outside of the initial geotechnical drilling program for the specific purpose of hydraulic testing
6 Section 21 - Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity
b) Measured and calculated hydraulic conductivity values seem reasonable for the soils present at the site
c) In our opinion the Aquifer Anisotropy Ratio (KzKr) used for single well response test analysis (Attachment B) should be 05 or less for the glacially deposited (glaciofluvial and or glaciolacustrine) fine and coarse-grained soils However this difference does not affect the overall interpretation results or conclusions presented
7 Section 22- Estimate of Transmissivity
d) The transmissivity and corresponding hydraulic conductivity value presented for the coarse-grained soils seem reasonable for soils present at the site The approach to calculate these values is consistent with standard hydrogeological practices
L_20 13middot02~07_Peer Revlew_60272713_ T3Coc
Page 3 ACOM February 7 2013
8 Section 30- Summary of Hydrogeological Conditions
e) It is agreed that the interpreted vertical hydraulic gradient at the site is downwards however it is important to note that a small upwards hydraulic gradient was observed between the shallow and deep wells at BH12-2 during the September 12 2012 monitoring event
9 Section 41 -Assumed Construction Dewatering Program
f) The assumptions made regarding the potential method depth and extent of dewatering are reasonable given the anticipated groundwater conditions and construction design
g) Based on the table in Section 41 it is unclear how the till soils above the silty sand to sand unit will be dewatered or if Golder simply considers the contribution from these soils to be negligible to the overall dewatering rate estimate due to their low hydraulic conductivity
10 Section 42- Dewatering Zone of Influence
h) The dewatering zone of influence presented for the silty sand to sand unit and the shallow zone mainly fine-grained soils seem reasonable for type of soils present at the site The approaches to calculate these values are consistent with standard hydrogeological practices and approximately match the pumping test results
11 Section 43- Dewatering Rate Estimates
i) The steady state groundwater flow rate estimates presented for depressurization of the confined silty sand to sand aquifer unit and the shallow fine grained soils seem reasonable given the hydrogeological conditions and proposed construction at the site The approach to calculate these values is consistent with standard hydrogeological practices
j) The volume of overburden storage seems underestimated particularly if the volume of water stored in the dewatering zone of influence is also taken into account (this condition seems likely given the assumption of non-watertight vertical soil support for the excavation -Section 41 )
k) We assume the total requested construction dewatering rate of 200m3day is based on experience given the estimated rates for steady-stage flow direct rainfall inputs and removal of overburden storage
I) It is agreed that a Category 3 PTTW submission is appropriate given the expected rate and duration of construction dewatering A factor of safety or contingency dewatering rate higher than that predicted may be useful during formal PTTW submission to provide flexibility during construction
m) In our experience the MOE generally does not issue PTTWs for passive water takings such as a sub-slab drainage system However this is considered on a case-by-case basis and should form part of the consultation with the MOE prior to PTTW submittal
12 No guidance related to groundwater monitoring mitigation dewatering discharge or contingency actions were provided in the Report
L_2013middot02-07 _Peer Review_60272713_T30oc
Page 4 CCOM February 7 2013
Response to Comments on Site Plan Approval
AECOM has reviewed commentresponse number P1 16 of the Response to comments on Lloyd Street- Pace Savings and Credit Union Limited Site Plan Approval- 2d Submission 181 Project No W060280100 F2182 prepared by SCS Consulting Group Ltd (SCS) January 172013 and have the following comments
bull Construction dewatering will require a Category 3 PTTW not a Category 1 PTTW as indicated in the response by SCS
bull The recommended construction dewatering flow rate was estimated by Golder to be 23 Lis or 200m3day The 17 Lis or about 150 m3day as indicated by SCS refers to the volume of dewatering required to remove water from overburden storage and
bull The long term dewatering flow rate of 075 Lis or 65m3day is consistent with the steady-state dewatering flow rate estimated by Golder
No other commentresponses in the letter provided by SCS were reviewed by AECOM
Golder Peer Review Responses
AECOM previously provided peer review comments on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1
(AECOM letter dated July 16 2012) and the Preliminary Geotechnicallnvestigation2 (AECOM letter dated July 26 2012) We reviewed our July 2012 comments with respect to the responses provided by Golders and have presented our responses below
Regulatory Requests -Phase I ESA
Our July 2012 peer review of the Phase I ESA presented the following
Golders concluded that no issues of environmental concern were identified in association with the site AECOM generally agrees though we recommend the following
bull follow-up should be conducted with the MOE the Region and the Town to ensure that no potential environmental concerns were identified and
bull Any deleterious debris found on the site during demolition must be removed and disposed of properly
The January 18 2013 Regulatory Request letter states that as of January 18 2013 no response has been received from the MOE the Town or the Region When a response is received Golder will forward them to the proponent with comments if the results alter the findings of the June 2012 Phase I ESA AECOM is satisfied with this response
1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 6233 6237 6241 and 6245 Main Street Stouffville Ontario dated June 2012
2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan Application Redevelopment Stouffville Ontario dated June 7 2012
1_2013middot02-07 _Peer Revlew_60272713_T3Doc
Page 5 ACOM February 7 2013
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Our July 2012 peer review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation presented several items for clarificationadditional comment The responses provided by Golder in their August 24 2012 letter have addressed these items to AECOMs satisfaction
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
Sincerely AECOM Canada Ltd
Jason Cole MSc PGeo Rob Frizzell MSc PGeo Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist Jason Coleaecom com RobFrizzelaecom com
Patty Wong BSc PGeo Senior Geologist Patty Wongaecomcom
L_2013middot02middot07_Peer Review_6027271 3_TJ_Ooc
Page 2 ACOM February 7 2013
It is understood that the proposed development will consist of a six storey building with two levels of underground parking for mixed commercialresidential use The site is located at the southeast corner of Main Street and Lloyd Street in the Town of Stouffville The objective of this exercise is to review the hydrogeological investigation prepared by Golder to verify the methodscalculationsrecommendations adopted are in conformance with generally accepted hydrogeological standards and practice
It is our overall assessment that the report has adopted hydrogeological methodologies and approaches that follow the principles of generally accepted practice Notwithstanding this we have a few comments for your consideration as outlined below
1 The number of groundwater monitoring wells (6) standpipe piezometers (2) and monitoring well nest (1 shallow well and 1 deep well) are considered to be sufficient to provide reasonable characterization of the hydrogeological conditions at the site
2 The type of hydraulic testing conducted (ie single well response tests and a short term pumping test) as well as the duration of these tests (ie 4-hour pumping test) are considered to be sufficient to provide reasonable estimates of the hydraulic properties of the soils for the purposes of providing preliminary dewatering rate estimates
3 The report would greatly benefit from the addition of a hydrostratigraphic crossshysection as well but to a lesser extent a potentiometric surface map showing groundwater flow direction and a figure showing the radius of water level drawdown related to the pumping test
4 Inconsistencies in rounding or not rounding of calculated results were identified throughout the memorandum but they do not affect the overall interpretation results or conclusions presented
5 Section 12 - Scope of Work
a) We support the installation of three additional groundwater monitoring wells outside of the initial geotechnical drilling program for the specific purpose of hydraulic testing
6 Section 21 - Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity
b) Measured and calculated hydraulic conductivity values seem reasonable for the soils present at the site
c) In our opinion the Aquifer Anisotropy Ratio (KzKr) used for single well response test analysis (Attachment B) should be 05 or less for the glacially deposited (glaciofluvial and or glaciolacustrine) fine and coarse-grained soils However this difference does not affect the overall interpretation results or conclusions presented
7 Section 22- Estimate of Transmissivity
d) The transmissivity and corresponding hydraulic conductivity value presented for the coarse-grained soils seem reasonable for soils present at the site The approach to calculate these values is consistent with standard hydrogeological practices
L_20 13middot02~07_Peer Revlew_60272713_ T3Coc
Page 3 ACOM February 7 2013
8 Section 30- Summary of Hydrogeological Conditions
e) It is agreed that the interpreted vertical hydraulic gradient at the site is downwards however it is important to note that a small upwards hydraulic gradient was observed between the shallow and deep wells at BH12-2 during the September 12 2012 monitoring event
9 Section 41 -Assumed Construction Dewatering Program
f) The assumptions made regarding the potential method depth and extent of dewatering are reasonable given the anticipated groundwater conditions and construction design
g) Based on the table in Section 41 it is unclear how the till soils above the silty sand to sand unit will be dewatered or if Golder simply considers the contribution from these soils to be negligible to the overall dewatering rate estimate due to their low hydraulic conductivity
10 Section 42- Dewatering Zone of Influence
h) The dewatering zone of influence presented for the silty sand to sand unit and the shallow zone mainly fine-grained soils seem reasonable for type of soils present at the site The approaches to calculate these values are consistent with standard hydrogeological practices and approximately match the pumping test results
11 Section 43- Dewatering Rate Estimates
i) The steady state groundwater flow rate estimates presented for depressurization of the confined silty sand to sand aquifer unit and the shallow fine grained soils seem reasonable given the hydrogeological conditions and proposed construction at the site The approach to calculate these values is consistent with standard hydrogeological practices
j) The volume of overburden storage seems underestimated particularly if the volume of water stored in the dewatering zone of influence is also taken into account (this condition seems likely given the assumption of non-watertight vertical soil support for the excavation -Section 41 )
k) We assume the total requested construction dewatering rate of 200m3day is based on experience given the estimated rates for steady-stage flow direct rainfall inputs and removal of overburden storage
I) It is agreed that a Category 3 PTTW submission is appropriate given the expected rate and duration of construction dewatering A factor of safety or contingency dewatering rate higher than that predicted may be useful during formal PTTW submission to provide flexibility during construction
m) In our experience the MOE generally does not issue PTTWs for passive water takings such as a sub-slab drainage system However this is considered on a case-by-case basis and should form part of the consultation with the MOE prior to PTTW submittal
12 No guidance related to groundwater monitoring mitigation dewatering discharge or contingency actions were provided in the Report
L_2013middot02-07 _Peer Review_60272713_T30oc
Page 4 CCOM February 7 2013
Response to Comments on Site Plan Approval
AECOM has reviewed commentresponse number P1 16 of the Response to comments on Lloyd Street- Pace Savings and Credit Union Limited Site Plan Approval- 2d Submission 181 Project No W060280100 F2182 prepared by SCS Consulting Group Ltd (SCS) January 172013 and have the following comments
bull Construction dewatering will require a Category 3 PTTW not a Category 1 PTTW as indicated in the response by SCS
bull The recommended construction dewatering flow rate was estimated by Golder to be 23 Lis or 200m3day The 17 Lis or about 150 m3day as indicated by SCS refers to the volume of dewatering required to remove water from overburden storage and
bull The long term dewatering flow rate of 075 Lis or 65m3day is consistent with the steady-state dewatering flow rate estimated by Golder
No other commentresponses in the letter provided by SCS were reviewed by AECOM
Golder Peer Review Responses
AECOM previously provided peer review comments on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1
(AECOM letter dated July 16 2012) and the Preliminary Geotechnicallnvestigation2 (AECOM letter dated July 26 2012) We reviewed our July 2012 comments with respect to the responses provided by Golders and have presented our responses below
Regulatory Requests -Phase I ESA
Our July 2012 peer review of the Phase I ESA presented the following
Golders concluded that no issues of environmental concern were identified in association with the site AECOM generally agrees though we recommend the following
bull follow-up should be conducted with the MOE the Region and the Town to ensure that no potential environmental concerns were identified and
bull Any deleterious debris found on the site during demolition must be removed and disposed of properly
The January 18 2013 Regulatory Request letter states that as of January 18 2013 no response has been received from the MOE the Town or the Region When a response is received Golder will forward them to the proponent with comments if the results alter the findings of the June 2012 Phase I ESA AECOM is satisfied with this response
1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 6233 6237 6241 and 6245 Main Street Stouffville Ontario dated June 2012
2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan Application Redevelopment Stouffville Ontario dated June 7 2012
1_2013middot02-07 _Peer Revlew_60272713_T3Doc
Page 5 ACOM February 7 2013
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Our July 2012 peer review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation presented several items for clarificationadditional comment The responses provided by Golder in their August 24 2012 letter have addressed these items to AECOMs satisfaction
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
Sincerely AECOM Canada Ltd
Jason Cole MSc PGeo Rob Frizzell MSc PGeo Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist Jason Coleaecom com RobFrizzelaecom com
Patty Wong BSc PGeo Senior Geologist Patty Wongaecomcom
L_2013middot02middot07_Peer Review_6027271 3_TJ_Ooc
Page 3 ACOM February 7 2013
8 Section 30- Summary of Hydrogeological Conditions
e) It is agreed that the interpreted vertical hydraulic gradient at the site is downwards however it is important to note that a small upwards hydraulic gradient was observed between the shallow and deep wells at BH12-2 during the September 12 2012 monitoring event
9 Section 41 -Assumed Construction Dewatering Program
f) The assumptions made regarding the potential method depth and extent of dewatering are reasonable given the anticipated groundwater conditions and construction design
g) Based on the table in Section 41 it is unclear how the till soils above the silty sand to sand unit will be dewatered or if Golder simply considers the contribution from these soils to be negligible to the overall dewatering rate estimate due to their low hydraulic conductivity
10 Section 42- Dewatering Zone of Influence
h) The dewatering zone of influence presented for the silty sand to sand unit and the shallow zone mainly fine-grained soils seem reasonable for type of soils present at the site The approaches to calculate these values are consistent with standard hydrogeological practices and approximately match the pumping test results
11 Section 43- Dewatering Rate Estimates
i) The steady state groundwater flow rate estimates presented for depressurization of the confined silty sand to sand aquifer unit and the shallow fine grained soils seem reasonable given the hydrogeological conditions and proposed construction at the site The approach to calculate these values is consistent with standard hydrogeological practices
j) The volume of overburden storage seems underestimated particularly if the volume of water stored in the dewatering zone of influence is also taken into account (this condition seems likely given the assumption of non-watertight vertical soil support for the excavation -Section 41 )
k) We assume the total requested construction dewatering rate of 200m3day is based on experience given the estimated rates for steady-stage flow direct rainfall inputs and removal of overburden storage
I) It is agreed that a Category 3 PTTW submission is appropriate given the expected rate and duration of construction dewatering A factor of safety or contingency dewatering rate higher than that predicted may be useful during formal PTTW submission to provide flexibility during construction
m) In our experience the MOE generally does not issue PTTWs for passive water takings such as a sub-slab drainage system However this is considered on a case-by-case basis and should form part of the consultation with the MOE prior to PTTW submittal
12 No guidance related to groundwater monitoring mitigation dewatering discharge or contingency actions were provided in the Report
L_2013middot02-07 _Peer Review_60272713_T30oc
Page 4 CCOM February 7 2013
Response to Comments on Site Plan Approval
AECOM has reviewed commentresponse number P1 16 of the Response to comments on Lloyd Street- Pace Savings and Credit Union Limited Site Plan Approval- 2d Submission 181 Project No W060280100 F2182 prepared by SCS Consulting Group Ltd (SCS) January 172013 and have the following comments
bull Construction dewatering will require a Category 3 PTTW not a Category 1 PTTW as indicated in the response by SCS
bull The recommended construction dewatering flow rate was estimated by Golder to be 23 Lis or 200m3day The 17 Lis or about 150 m3day as indicated by SCS refers to the volume of dewatering required to remove water from overburden storage and
bull The long term dewatering flow rate of 075 Lis or 65m3day is consistent with the steady-state dewatering flow rate estimated by Golder
No other commentresponses in the letter provided by SCS were reviewed by AECOM
Golder Peer Review Responses
AECOM previously provided peer review comments on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1
(AECOM letter dated July 16 2012) and the Preliminary Geotechnicallnvestigation2 (AECOM letter dated July 26 2012) We reviewed our July 2012 comments with respect to the responses provided by Golders and have presented our responses below
Regulatory Requests -Phase I ESA
Our July 2012 peer review of the Phase I ESA presented the following
Golders concluded that no issues of environmental concern were identified in association with the site AECOM generally agrees though we recommend the following
bull follow-up should be conducted with the MOE the Region and the Town to ensure that no potential environmental concerns were identified and
bull Any deleterious debris found on the site during demolition must be removed and disposed of properly
The January 18 2013 Regulatory Request letter states that as of January 18 2013 no response has been received from the MOE the Town or the Region When a response is received Golder will forward them to the proponent with comments if the results alter the findings of the June 2012 Phase I ESA AECOM is satisfied with this response
1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 6233 6237 6241 and 6245 Main Street Stouffville Ontario dated June 2012
2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan Application Redevelopment Stouffville Ontario dated June 7 2012
1_2013middot02-07 _Peer Revlew_60272713_T3Doc
Page 5 ACOM February 7 2013
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Our July 2012 peer review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation presented several items for clarificationadditional comment The responses provided by Golder in their August 24 2012 letter have addressed these items to AECOMs satisfaction
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
Sincerely AECOM Canada Ltd
Jason Cole MSc PGeo Rob Frizzell MSc PGeo Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist Jason Coleaecom com RobFrizzelaecom com
Patty Wong BSc PGeo Senior Geologist Patty Wongaecomcom
L_2013middot02middot07_Peer Review_6027271 3_TJ_Ooc
Page 4 CCOM February 7 2013
Response to Comments on Site Plan Approval
AECOM has reviewed commentresponse number P1 16 of the Response to comments on Lloyd Street- Pace Savings and Credit Union Limited Site Plan Approval- 2d Submission 181 Project No W060280100 F2182 prepared by SCS Consulting Group Ltd (SCS) January 172013 and have the following comments
bull Construction dewatering will require a Category 3 PTTW not a Category 1 PTTW as indicated in the response by SCS
bull The recommended construction dewatering flow rate was estimated by Golder to be 23 Lis or 200m3day The 17 Lis or about 150 m3day as indicated by SCS refers to the volume of dewatering required to remove water from overburden storage and
bull The long term dewatering flow rate of 075 Lis or 65m3day is consistent with the steady-state dewatering flow rate estimated by Golder
No other commentresponses in the letter provided by SCS were reviewed by AECOM
Golder Peer Review Responses
AECOM previously provided peer review comments on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1
(AECOM letter dated July 16 2012) and the Preliminary Geotechnicallnvestigation2 (AECOM letter dated July 26 2012) We reviewed our July 2012 comments with respect to the responses provided by Golders and have presented our responses below
Regulatory Requests -Phase I ESA
Our July 2012 peer review of the Phase I ESA presented the following
Golders concluded that no issues of environmental concern were identified in association with the site AECOM generally agrees though we recommend the following
bull follow-up should be conducted with the MOE the Region and the Town to ensure that no potential environmental concerns were identified and
bull Any deleterious debris found on the site during demolition must be removed and disposed of properly
The January 18 2013 Regulatory Request letter states that as of January 18 2013 no response has been received from the MOE the Town or the Region When a response is received Golder will forward them to the proponent with comments if the results alter the findings of the June 2012 Phase I ESA AECOM is satisfied with this response
1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 6233 6237 6241 and 6245 Main Street Stouffville Ontario dated June 2012
2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan Application Redevelopment Stouffville Ontario dated June 7 2012
1_2013middot02-07 _Peer Revlew_60272713_T3Doc
Page 5 ACOM February 7 2013
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Our July 2012 peer review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation presented several items for clarificationadditional comment The responses provided by Golder in their August 24 2012 letter have addressed these items to AECOMs satisfaction
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
Sincerely AECOM Canada Ltd
Jason Cole MSc PGeo Rob Frizzell MSc PGeo Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist Jason Coleaecom com RobFrizzelaecom com
Patty Wong BSc PGeo Senior Geologist Patty Wongaecomcom
L_2013middot02middot07_Peer Review_6027271 3_TJ_Ooc
Page 5 ACOM February 7 2013
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Our July 2012 peer review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation presented several items for clarificationadditional comment The responses provided by Golder in their August 24 2012 letter have addressed these items to AECOMs satisfaction
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
Sincerely AECOM Canada Ltd
Jason Cole MSc PGeo Rob Frizzell MSc PGeo Hydrogeologist Senior Hydrogeologist Jason Coleaecom com RobFrizzelaecom com
Patty Wong BSc PGeo Senior Geologist Patty Wongaecomcom
L_2013middot02middot07_Peer Review_6027271 3_TJ_Ooc