geotechnical investigation report retaining wall

Prepared for:

The Corporation of the County of Prince Edward

332 Picton Main Street

Picton, Ontario K0K 2T0

December 3, 2020

Redstone Engineering Inc.

1086 Hayes Line, Kawartha Lakes, ON L0A1C0

Mail: 1086 Hayes Line, Cavan, ON L0A1C0

www.redstoneeng.ca

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT - MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT AT 47 MARY STREET

PICTON, COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARD, ONTARIO

REDSTONE PROJECT NO. 20R103

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

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

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 4

5.1 GENERAL ................................................................................................................................................... 4

5.2 TOPSOIL AND ORGANICS ........................................................................................................................... 4

5.3 ASPHALT .................................................................................................................................................... 4

5.4 PAVEMENT GRANULARS ........................................................................................................................... 5

5.5 MIXED EARTH FILL ..................................................................................................................................... 5

5.6 NATIVE SOILS (SAND, SILTY SAND) ............................................................................................................ 5

5.7 BEDROCK (INFERRED) ................................................................................................................................ 6

5.8 GROUNDWATER & BOREHOLE CAVE-IN .................................................................................................... 6

5.9 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 6

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 9

6.1 SITE PREPARATION, EXCAVATION, AND BACKFILL .................................................................................. 10

6.2 PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................................... 11

6.3 CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL AND CEMENT TYPE ........................................................................................ 12

6.4 WALL FOUNDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 13

6.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES .................................................................................................................... 15

6.6 PAVEMENT REINSTATEMENT .................................................................................................................. 16

6.7 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION-STAGE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................... 17

6.7.1 Subsoil Sensitivity .................................................................................................................... 17

6.7.2 Test Pit During Tendering ........................................................................................................ 18

6.7.3 Winter Construction ................................................................................................................ 18

6.7.4 Design Review and Construction Inspections .......................................................................... 18

7.0 CLOSURE AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................... 19

TABLES

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF METAL AND INORGANIC ANALYSES RESULTS ............................................................................ 7

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF VOC AND PHC ANALYSES RESULTS ............................................................................................ 7

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF PAH ANALYSES RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 8

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF PCB ANALYSES RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 8

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF TCLP ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 9

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF ANSI/AWWA SOIL CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL RATING & SULPHATE CONTENT ........................ 13

TABLE 7: DEPTH TO COMPETENT STRATA FOR FOUNDATIONS ..................................................................................... 13

TABLE 8: BEARING CAPACITIES FOR WALL FOUNDATIONS ............................................................................................ 14

TABLE 9: PAVEMENT STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................. 16

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A BOREHOLE LOGS

APPENDIX B PHYSICAL LABORATORY DATA

APPENDIX C CHEMICAL LABORATORY DATA


1086 Hayes Line, Kawartha Lakes, ON L0A1C0

Mail: 1086 Hayes Line, Cavan, ON L0A1C0

705-768-9042 redstoneeng.ca

Hydrogeological Geotechnical Environmental


RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT - MUNICIPAL PARKING LOT AT 47 MARY STREET

PICTON, COUNTY OF PRINCE EDWARD, ONTARIO

REDSTONE PROJECT NO. 20R103

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report describes the results of a geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed

design and construction of a new retaining wall to replace an existing wall located along the

east side of a municipal parking lot with civic address 47 Mary Street in Picton, Ontario.

Redstone Engineering Inc. (Redstone) was retained by the Corporation of the County of Prince

Edward (the County) to conduct this investigation, and provide geotechnical engineering

conclusions and recommendations relevant to design and construction of the new retaining

wall. The work conducted for this investigation was carried out under the authorization of Mr.

Garrett Osborne, C.E.T., Project Manager, Engineering Division, representing the County.

Based on the County’s RFQ for this investigation, a maximum 500m3 of excess soils is expected

to be generated during construction. The new parking lot’s grade in the area of the new wall

may be raised by up to 1m in height. Regarding the new wall design, it is Redstone’s

expectation that it will be suitably designed/engineered by others to be internally stable, based

on geotechnical parameters provided herein.

The County’s RFQ outlined specifications for this project including the number and depth of

boreholes, number of soil samples and parameters for chemical testing.

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of Redstone’s work for this project is to obtain subsurface information regarding

the soil and groundwater conditions at the boreholes, and based on these findings, provide

geotechnical engineering opinions and recommendations relevant to design and reconstruction

of the retaining wall including earthworks, bearing capacity for foundations, frost depth, lateral

earth pressures, and parking lot (pavement structure) reconstruction. This report includes an

analysis of a soil sample for its corrosivity-related parameters and sulphate concentration, and

preliminary chemical characterization of selected soil samples to assist in management of

excess soils generated during construction. This scope does not include a pavement life cycle

costing analysis, or any hydrogeological or environmental assessments.

The following scope of work was performed as part of this investigation.

1. Boreholes were located in relation to the existing wall and parking lot.

2. Underground utility services were located and cleared prior to advancing the boreholes.

Geotechnical Investigation Report Redstone Engineering

Retaining Wall Replacement – Municipal Parking Lot at 47 Mary Street

Picton, County of Prince Edward, Ontario Project No. 20R103

2

3. As requested, the subsurface conditions were explored by advancing, sampling and logging

a total of three (3) boreholes to a depth of 5.2 metres below existing grade (mbeg) or

practical refusal. In addition to these boreholes, three (3) further boreholes (bedrock

refusal probes) were advanced, and two (2) handholes were advanced. See Figure 1 (Test

Hole Location Plan) for the location of these Test holes. Groundwater observations were

obtained from the open boreholes immediately following drilling.

4. The ground at each Test hole was reinstated as close as possible to its original condition

upon completion of the fieldwork.

5. The ground surface elevation at each Test hole was measured using a grade laser, based on

survey and control point information provided by Jewell Engineering (Jewell).

6. Laboratory analyses of representative soil samples was performed, consisting of the

following:

a. Physical: moisture content testing on all recovered samples, and grain size

distribution testing on two (2) samples.

b. Chemical (as requested):

i. one (1) sample of soil was tested for corrosivity-related parameters

(resistivity, pH, redox potential, sulphides), and soluble sulphate.

ii. three (3) soil samples (one from each borehole) were tested for the following

O.Reg.406/19 parameters: metals and inorganics (including pH, electrical

conductivity [EC], and sodium adsorption ratio [SAR]), volatile organic

compounds (VOCs), petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC F1-F4 fractions), polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

iii. one (1) soil sample was subjected to TCLP testing per O.Reg 558 for metals

and inorganics, VOCs, and PCBs.

7. Geotechnical engineering analysis of acquired field and laboratory data, and preparation of

this report summarizing our findings and recommendations.

3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES

A field investigation was conducted under the supervision of Redstone staff on November 16,

2020. The work consisted of subsurface exploration by means of advancing, sampling and

logging a total of six (6) exploratory boreholes (three of which were bedrock refusal probes that

did not sample or confirm the overburden), and two (2) handholes. Detailed logs of the

boreholes and handholes (Test holes) were maintained, and representative samples of the

materials encountered were obtained. The location of each Test hole is illustrated on the

attached Test Hole Location Plan (Figure 1).




3

The boreholes were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with approximately

130mm (5”) Outside Diameter (O.D.) solid stem augers and 51 mm O.D. split-spoon samplers.

Redstone’s senior geotechnical engineer supervised the drilling, who logged and sampled the

boreholes. Soil samples were recovered and retained in labeled air-tight containers for

subsequent review and laboratory testing as required.

The depth to groundwater and/or borehole “cave-in” was measured in the open boreholes

upon completion of drilling. The boreholes were backfilled immediately after completion with

a mixture of soil cuttings and bentonite chips. Compacted cold-mix asphalt was used to restore

the boreholes.

Borehole logs detailing the subsurface profiles are provided in Appendix A. Ground surface

elevations at each borehole location were measured using a grade laser and utilizing surveyed

control point information provided by Jewell, as shown on the attached Figure 1. Ground

surface elevations are provided on the borehole logs. Elevations contained in this report are

strictly for engineering analytical purposes only; they must be considered approximate, and

should be verified prior to finalizing any design or contract parameters upon which they are

based.

Physical (geotechnical) laboratory testing consisted of performing moisture content testing on

all recovered samples, and two grain size distribution analyses. The results of the moisture

content tests are presented on the borehole logs, while the grain size distribution analysis

results are attached in Appendix B.

Chemical testing was performed on soil samples as outlined in Section 2 Item 6b of this report.

This testing was performed by Paracel Laboratories Ltd (Paracel), their certificates of analyses

are attached in Appendix C.

4.0 SITE LOCATION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS

The site is located along the easterly side of the County’s municipal parking lot at civic address

47 Mary Street, Picton. The existing retaining wall appears to be a concrete poured in place

wall with some amount of surficial degradation apparent on its vertical face. This investigation

cleared underground utilities from the area of the Test holes advanced, however did not

confirm or identify the location of all utilities at all locations or for the purpose of the project’s

design or construction.




4

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 GENERAL

The site is located within a physiographic region known as the Prince Edward Peninsula

(Chapman, L.J. and Putnam, D.F. “The Physiography of Southern Ontario”, 3rd Edition, 1984).

This area is generally identified as having relatively shallow overburden soils over limestone

bedrock.

Following is a summary of the subsurface conditions encountered in the Test holes. Details of

the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are presented graphically on the logs (see

Appendix A). It should be noted that the boundaries between the strata have been inferred

from Test hole observations and non-continuous samples. They generally represent a transition

from one soil type to another, and should not be inferred to represent an exact plane of

geological change. Further, conditions may vary between and beyond the Test holes. Following

is a summarized account of the subsurface conditions encountered in the Test holes.

Based on the information gathered during this investigation, this site’s subsurface stratigraphy

generally consists of a surficial layer of asphalt (or topsoil and organics in the very southern

portion of the site), over pavement gravel over mixed earth fill over inferred bedrock, or over

native sandy soils (in the southern portion of the wall). None of the open boreholes exhibited

groundwater seepage and/or accumulation during drilling operations.

The following sections describe the major soil strata and subsurface conditions encountered

during this investigation in more detail.

5.2 TOPSOIL AND ORGANICS

A layer of material consisting of topsoil and roots (organics) with some amount of gravel

(appearing to be a surficial fill material) was encountered at handholes HH-1 and HH-2. These

holes were advanced to practical refusal on what appeared to be a buried layer of asphalt

pavement (see handhole logs and pictures in Appendix A). The overlying topsoil and organics

with gravel was about 0.21 to 0.33m thick.

5.3 ASPHALT

A surface layer of asphalt was encountered in boreholes BH-1 to BH-6, and ranged in thickness

from about 40mm (in BH-1 and BH-3) to 255mm (in BH-2).

A buried layer of asphalt pavement was exposed in handholes HH-1 and HH-2 at respective

depths of 0.33 and 0.21 mbeg.




5

5.4 PAVEMENT GRANULARS

A layer of pavement granular fill was encountered immediately beneath the surficial asphalt in

boreholes BH-1 to BH-6. Its thickness ranged from about 60mm (BH-1 and BH-3) to almost

negligible in BH-2. Due to its poor quality and similarity to the underlying earth fill material,

distinguishing this layer from the underling earth fill (and the transition depth from one to the

next) was not clear in each borehole.

5.5 MIXED EARTH FILL

Mixed earth fill was encountered beneath the pavement granulars in the boreholes. It is also

likely present beneath the buried asphalt in the area of handholes HH-1 and HH-2.

The earth fill extended to the bedrock in BH-1 and BH-2 (respective depths of 1.5 and 2.6

mbeg), and to the native silty sand in BH-3 (depth of 2.3 mbeg). This fill contained a mixture of

various colourations (reddish brown to brown to grey to black mottled) and materials (sand and

silt with gravel and trace organics, occasional cinders, occasional bricks). It is noted that the

boreholes and sampling procedures provided only limited intersections of the fill, and due to its

uncontrolled and variable/random nature, contents of the fill may differ between and beyond

the boreholes. The boreholes encountered fill that was in a damp to moist condition, and

generally exhibited a loose in-situ state of relative density.

Moisture content tests performed on recovered samples of the fill yielded values ranging from

about 2 to 32 % moisture by dry weight. A grain size distribution test performed on sample BH-

2 SS-4 yielded the following distribution: 52% gravel, 35% sand, and 13% silt and clay. (Note

this sample was obtained across the interface between the fill and underlying weathered

bedrock; the relative % of gravel shown in the grain size testing may be elevated as a result.)

Chemical testing was performed on three (3) samples of this fill. Section 5.9 of this report

presents the results of this chemical testing.

5.6 NATIVE SOILS (SAND, SILTY SAND)

A layer of native subgrade soil consisting of silty sand grading to sand was encountered beneath

the fill in borehole BH-3. In BH-3, silty sand was first observed at a depth of 2.3 mbeg, and

extended to a depth of about 4.4 mbeg, where the soil graded to a sand that extended to the

full depth of investigation in this borehole (5.2 mbeg).

The silty sand was fine to medium-grained, and exhibited a brown colouration, with a damp,

loose state of relative density extending to about 3.5 mbeg. At this depth, the silty sand began

exhibiting a brown/dark brown layering, and the relative density increased to compact. At

about 4.4 mbeg, the silty sand graded to a sand with silt that exhibited a medium-grained

texture, brown colouration, in a damp condition, and a compact state of relative density.




6

Moisture content tests conducted on sample of these soils yielded values of about 7 to 15 %

moisture by dry weight. A grain size distribution test performed on a sample of this soil yielded

the following composition: 0 % gravel, 76 % sand, and 24 % silt and clay-sized particles.

5.7 BEDROCK (INFERRED)

The presence of bedrock (and some amount of overlying weathered bedrock) was inferred from

practical refusal to further auger advancement encountered in BH-1, BH-2, BH-4, BH-5, and BH-

6 at depths ranging from 1.1 to 2.9 mbeg. No diamond coring or test pitting was performed to

confirm the bedrock as part of this investigation. Based on published literature for the area,

the bedrock is expected to consist of limestone.

The depth at which practical refusal was encountered was interpreted by Redstone as being the

depth of competent bedrock for the purpose of logging the boreholes. However, it is noted

that bedrock typically exhibits a certain degree of weathering and fracturing in its upper zone,

some of which is shown on the borehole logs. This weathering effect can increase significantly

in shale and limestone. It is possible that some of the material shown as being soil in the logs

may be highly weathered/fractured/fragmented bedrock that was penetrated by the drilling

prior to practical refusal occurring.

5.8 GROUNDWATER & BOREHOLE CAVE-IN

No groundwater accumulation was observed to the full depth of any of the boreholes

advanced. No groundwater monitoring wells were installed as part of this investigation.

Boreholes BH-1 to BH-6 remained effectively open to their full depth throughout the drilling

operations, with only nominal amounts of slough or cave-in (i.e. less than 0.1m) noted at the

bottom of each borehole upon their completion.

5.9 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Three (3) selected soil samples (one sample per borehole) were analyzed for general Metals

and Inorganic parameters under Ontario Regulation O.Reg.406/19. Test results were compared

to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) standards listed in Table 1

(Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards) for Residential/ Parkland/ Institutional/

Industrial/ Commercial/ Community (RPIICC) Property Use, Table 3.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil

Quality Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) for Residential/ Parkland/

Institutional (RPI) and Industrial/ Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses, and Table 2.1

(Full Depth Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for Agriculture

or other (AG) Property Use as per O.Reg.406/19. The tested soil samples met the respective

MECP standards, with the exceptions listed in Table 1. A copy of the laboratory certificate of

analysis is provided in Appendix C.




7

Table 1: Summary of Metal and Inorganic Analyses Results

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.

PARAMETER EXCEEDANCES

MECP

Table 1 RPIICC

MECP

Table 3.1 RPI

MECP

Table 3.1 ICC

MECP

Table 2.1 AG

BH-1 SS-2 Mercury, Lead Mercury, Lead Mercury, Lead Mercury, Lead

BH-2 SS-2 EC, SAR, Mercury EC, SAR, Mercury Mercury EC, SAR, Mercury,

Lead

BH-3 SS-4 SAR None None None

Note: SAR and EC denote Sodium Adsorption Ratio and Electrical Conductivity respectively.

The above noted three (3) soil samples were analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

and petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC, F1 to F4 fraction) parameters under O.Reg.406/19. Test

results were compared to the MECP standards listed in Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site

Condition Standards) for Residential/ Parkland/ Institutional/ Industrial/ Commercial/

Community (RPIICC) Property Use, Table 3.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Non-

Potable Ground Water Condition) for Residential/ Parkland/ Institutional (RPI) and Industrial/

Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses, and Table 2.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil Quality

Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for Agriculture or other (AG) Property Use as

per O.Reg.406/19. The tested soil samples met the respective MECP standards, with the

exceptions listed in Table 2. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in

Appendix C.

Table 2: Summary of VOC and PHC Analyses Results

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.


MECP

Table 1 RPIICC

MECP

Table 3.1 RPI

MECP

Table 3.1 ICC

MECP

Table 2.1 AG

BH-1 SS-2 Xylenes None None None

BH-2 SS-2 None None None None


The above noted three (3) soil samples were analyzed for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(PAH) parameters under O.Reg.406/19. Test results were compared to the MECP standards

listed in Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards) for Residential/ Parkland/

Institutional/ Industrial/ Commercial/ Community (RPIICC) Property Use, Table 3.1 (Full Depth

Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) for Residential/

Parkland/ Institutional (RPI) and Industrial/ Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses, and




8

Table 2.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for

Agriculture or other (AG) Property Use as per O.Reg.406/19. The tested soil samples met the

respective MECP standards, with the exceptions listed in Table 3. A copy of the laboratory

certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix C.

Table 3: Summary of PAH Analyses Results

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.


MECP

Table 1 RPIICC

MECP

Table 3.1 RPI

MECP

Table 3.1 ICC

MECP

Table 2.1 AG

BH-1 SS-2 Naphthalene None None Methylnaphthalene

(1&2)

BH-2 SS-2 Acenaphthylene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthylene Acenaphthylene,

Anthracene


The above noted three (3) soil samples were analyzed for Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)

parameters under O.Reg.406/19. Test results were compared to the MECP standards listed in

Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards) for Residential/ Parkland/

Institutional/ Industrial/ Commercial/ Community (RPIICC) Property Use, Table 3.1 (Full Depth

Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition) for Residential/

Parkland/ Institutional (RPI) and Industrial/ Commercial/ Community (ICC) Property Uses, and

Table 2.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for

Agriculture or other (AG) Property Use as per O.Reg.406/19. The tested soil samples met the

respective MECP standards, with the exceptions listed in Table 4. A copy of the laboratory

certificate of analysis is provided in Appendix C.

Table 4: Summary of PCB Analyses Results

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.


MECP

Table 1 RPIICC

MECP

Table 3.1 RPI

MECP

Table 3.1 ICC

MECP

Table 2.1 AG







9

One (1) composite soil sample was formed by combining representative portions of samples

BH-1 SS-3, BH-2 SS-3, BH-2 SS-4, BH-3 SS-2, BH-3 SS-3a and BH-3 SS-3b. This composite sample

is identified herein as “CS-2”. This sample was analyzed for Metals and Inorganic parameters,

PCBs, and VOCs by Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extraction. Test results

were compared to Schedule 4 of O.Reg.558. The tested soil sample met the relevant guidelines

as presented in Table 5 below. A copy of the laboratory certificate of analysis is provided in

Appendix C.

Table 5: Summary of TCLP Analysis Results

TESTED

SAMPLE I.D.


Metals & Inorganics VOCs PCBs

BH-1 SS-2 None None None



Section 6.2 of this report presents a discussion of these test results.

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Supporting data upon which our recommendations are based have been presented in the

foregoing sections of this report. The following recommendations are governed by the physical

properties of the subsurface materials that were encountered at the site and assume that they

are representative of the overall site conditions. It should be noted that these conclusions and

recommendations are intended for use by the designers only. Contractors bidding on or

undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the assessment, satisfy

themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction, and make their own

interpretation of this factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques,

equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing, and the like. Comments, techniques, or

recommendations pertaining to construction must not be construed as instructions to the

contractor.

The boreholes generally encountered a surficial layer of asphalt (or topsoil/organics in the

southerly portion of the site), over pavement granulars, over mixed earth fill over either

bedrock, or native sandy soil (in the southern portion of the site). Groundwater seepage and

accumulation was not observed in any of the open boreholes.

Details regarding our conclusions and recommendations are outlined in the following sections.




10

6.1 SITE PREPARATION, EXCAVATION, AND BACKFILL

It is recommended that any and all vegetation, topsoil, asphalt, fill, organic and organic-bearing

materials be stripped and removed from the retaining wall area prior to commencing

earthwork construction. Due to the anticipated variable depth of existing fill material requiring

removal during construction, it is recommended the construction tender require a provisional

per-unit line item for excavation and removal of existing materials, which can be applied should

actual quantities of removal exceed estimated quantities.

Excavations should be carried out to conform to the manner specified in Ontario Regulation

213/91 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations for Construction Projects

(OHSA). All excavations above the water table not exceeding 1.2m in depth may be constructed

with unsupported slopes. The soils encountered during this investigation are classed by OHSA

as Type 3. As such, unsupported walls of excavations in this soil must maintain a gradient of 1

horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V) or flatter to the base of the excavation. All neighbouring

structures must be protected from disturbances during construction, including (if necessary)

underpinning and/or shoring.

The subexcavated surfaces must be proof rolled and/or approved by Redstone prior to

placement of fill or foundations.

Groundwater was not encountered within the full depth of the open boreholes advanced

during this investigation; subsequent groundwater depth monitoring was not performed as part

of this investigation. Based on the groundwater conditions observed in the open boreholes,

and the anticipated excavation depths for the project, significant groundwater infiltration into

open excavations is not expected. In general, any groundwater or surficial water infiltration

into open excavations above the groundwater table is expected to be controlled by pumping

from sump(s) to an acceptable outlet. Should more significant groundwater infiltration be

encountered, the use of filtered pumps, sheet piling, or other forms of groundwater control

may be required in which case it would be recommended the contractor retain the services of a

qualified dewatering specialist.

The excavated asphalt, organics, and fill materials are not expected to be suitable for reuse as

any form of structural-related back-fill. See Section 6.2 regarding preliminary chemical

characterization of the fill materials and further commentary regarding handling and

movement/disposal of such materials offsite during construction. Topsoil and other suitable

organic materials may be considered for reuse as surficial topsoil material in landscaped and

non-structural areas. Any excavated native sand may be suitable for reuse as backfill behind

the wall, provided the moisture content is adequate for compaction and workability. Final

review and approval to reuse any soils should be made during construction, based on the

materials exposed and prevailing conditions at that time.

It is recommended that free draining backfill to the retaining wall be provided. Backfill behind

the wall should be accomplished using well graded Granular “B” Type 1 material complying with




11

OPSS 1010. Compaction of such backfill is recommended to be a minimum of 100% of its

Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density, (SPMDD).

It is understood the final grade may be raised by up to 1m in the area behind the new wall.

Where the fill is placed on bedrock subgrade, the resulting consolidation settlement of the

bedrock subgrade will be negligible. Where the backfill is placed on native sandy soil subgrade,

the nature of such soils means consolidation settlement caused by the backfill grade raise will

occur relatively quickly (i.e. during construction), and therefore only negligible effective

settlements will be experienced at the surface once final grading is achieved at the end of

construction. In addition to any short-term consolidation settlements occurring in the

subgrade, the designer must also be aware of self-weight settlement of the backfill material

itself; engineered fill consisting of Granular B material compacted to 100% SPMDD will settle

under its own weight approximately 0.3% to 0.5% of the final fill thickness. For example, where

the granular fill thickness is 3m in height, the settlement of such fill under its own weight is

expected to be in the range of about 9mm to 15mm. For engineered fill consisting of Granular

B material compacted to 100% SPMDD, a major portion (at least 80%) of the self-weight

settlement should occur during construction. To accommodate such settlements, it is

recommended that the construction project include a stage near the end of the project that

performs final fine grading to ensure the design grade is accomplished.

6.2 PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION

Three (3) soil samples of the existing fill (one from each borehole) were collected during drilling

and placed into laboratory-provided containers for environmental testing. Soil samples were

analyzed for general Metals and Inorganics (including pH, EC, and SAR), VOCs, PHCs (F1-F4

fractions), PAHs, and PCB parameters per O.Reg.406/19. One (1) soil sample was also analyzed

for TCLP (metals and inorganics, PCBs and VOCs) under O.Reg.558.

Test results were compared to the MECP standards listed in Table 1 (Full Depth Background Site

Condition Standards) for Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community

(RPIICC) Property Use, Table 3.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil Quality Standards in a Non-Potable

Ground Water Condition) for Residential/Parkland/Institutional (RPI) and

Industrial/Commercial/Community (ICC) Property Uses, and Table 2.1 (Full Depth Excess Soil

Quality Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition) for Agriculture or other (AG) Property

Use, as per O.Reg.406/19. Section 5.9 of this report presents these tabulated comparisons.

Note that MECP Table 3 (ICC) criteria are generally used to assess soil quality in municipally

serviced areas. However, for soil to be exported to another property as “clean fill”, it is

advisable that the quality may need to meet MECP Table 1 (RPIICC) criteria. The potential

receiving site’s MECP designation in this regard would be assessed by that site’s Qualified

Person (QP, as defined by the MECP), in accordance with O.Reg.406.




12

While one sample of the existing fill only yielded one parameter exceedance (of SAR) in

comparison to Table 1 RPIICC, the other two samples yielded exceedances across a number of

parameters when compared to Tables 1, 2, and 3 excess soil quality standards (see Section 5.9

of this report). These results do not support movement of excess soils represented by these

samples to Types 1, 2, or 3 sites.

TCLP testing was performed on a representative sample of the fill - see Section 5.9 for detailed

results. The TCLP testing results are below the Leachate Quality Criteria (O. Reg. 558/00) for all

parameters tested, and hence excess soil generated from the proposed construction activities

can be considered as “non-hazardous and non-registrable” waste for disposal at a suitably-

licensed landfill facility.

Due to the expected predominance of existing fill in the excess soils generated during

construction, the sampling and testing conducted as part of this investigation remained focused

on this material. If the design requires increasing amounts of the underlying native sandy soils

to be removed, then it is expected that such soil could either remain onsite (as backfill in some

appropriate form if approved as such from a physical-property perspective), or removed offsite

to a suitable receiving site pending confirmatory testing.

The final volume of excess soil to be generated and shipped offsite during construction, and the

potential receiving site(s) have not been identified at this stage. The number of samples and

chemical parameters tested were as specified in this project’s RFP. The test results and related

commentary herein are provided as preliminary chemical characterization for the purposes of

supporting excess soil management during construction; however the number of samples,

and/or the analytical parameters tested, may not be sufficient to meet the requirements of the

intended receiving site(s). Further sampling and testing may be required depending on the

types and volume of material generated, the handling option(s), receiving site(s) under

consideration, and other relevant information that becomes available over time.

Furthermore, in addition to the requirement for soil receiving sites, planning requirements

including testing, tracking, hauling, reporting and registration are specified under O.Reg. 406/19

On-site and Excess Soil Management. Any new contracts entered into after January 1, 2021

must consider the new planning rules under O.Reg.406/19.

6.3 CORROSIVITY POTENTIAL AND CEMENT TYPE

One (1) soil sample (identified as “CS-1”) was formed by combining soil from the following

samples into one composite sample: BH-1 AS-1, BH-2 AS-1, BH-3 SS-1. This composite sample

was then submitted to Paracel for laboratory analyses of its pH, resistivity, redox potential,

sulphide and soluble sulphate concentrations to determine the corrosive potential of the soil.

The following Table 6 summarizes the ANSI/AWWA rating for the tested soil sample for the

potential for corrosion towards buried grey or ductile cast iron pipe. Points assigned for each




13

parameter based on this scoring system are shown in parentheses - a total of 10 points or more

indicates potential for corrosion.

Table 6: Summary of ANSI/AWWA Soil Corrosivity Potential Rating & Sulphate Content

Sample I.D. RESISTIVITY

(ohms-cm) pH

REDOX

POTENTIAL

(mV)

SULPHIDE

(%)

MOISTURE

CONTENT

(%)

Sulphate

Content

(µg/g)

TOTAL

POINTS

CS-1 3390 (0) 7.78 (0) 353 (0) 0.09 (1) 5.5, fair

drainage (1) 82 2

Based on the results and associated rating, the corrosivity potential of the tested soil sample is

considered low to negligible. It should be noted that there are other factors which may

influence the corrosion potential, such as; the nature of effluent conveyed, the application of

de-icing salts on the site and subsequent leaching into the subsoils, and stray currents.

Soil sample CS-1 was also submitted for laboratory analysis of its soluble sulphate level to

assess the potential for degradation of buried concrete in contact with the encountered soil.

The soluble sulphate concentration of the tested sample was 82 ug/g (82 ppm or 0.0082%).

Based on this result, the potential for sulphate attack on concrete is considered “negligible”

based on CSA Standard A23.1, Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction. It

should, however, be noted that the final selection of the type of concrete should be made by

the Engineer taking into account all design considerations.

6.4 WALL FOUNDATIONS

For the purpose of foundation design for the wall, such foundations should be placed directly

on either bedrock, or native compact soil (sand or silty sand), or on engineered fill placed

directly on such materials. Suitably competent bedrock or native soils were encountered at the

following depths in the boreholes:

Table 7: Depth to Competent Strata for Foundations

Borehole I.D. Depth (mbeg) Borehole I.D. Depth (mbeg)

BH-1 1.7 BH-4 2.9

BH-2 2.7 BH-5 1.1

BH-3 3.5 BH-6 1.4




14

For design purposes, it is recommended that the wall’s footings constructed on the bedrock or

competent native soils or on engineered fill placed directly on such materials be proportioned

using the following bearing capacities:

Table 8: Bearing Capacities for Wall Foundations

Parameter

Bearing Capacity (kPa)

Sound Bedrock Undisturbed Native Soil

(Sand or Silty Sand) Engineered Fill(2)

Factored Bearing Capacity at ULS (1) 750

150 180

Bearing Capacity at SLS 100 120

Notes:

(1) Resistance factor Φ =0.5 applied to the ULS bearing pressure for design purposes.

(2) At least 0.3m of Granular B per OPSS 1010. Quality of material is to be approved prior to use as engineered fill.

Any engineered fill upon which the footings are placed must be a minimum thickness

corresponding to the notes that accompany the above table. The following is recommended

for the construction of any engineered fill for the footings:

1. Remove any and all existing vegetation, topsoil, asphalt, fill, disturbed earth, organics, and

organic-bearing soils to the competent, undisturbed bedrock or native soil from within the

area of the proposed engineered fill.

2. The area of the engineered fill should extend horizontally 1m beyond the outside edge of

the proposed wall foundations and then extend downward at a 1:1 slope to the competent

native soil.

3. The base of the engineered fill area must be approved by a member of Redstone prior to

placement of any fill, to ensure that all unsuitable materials have been removed, that the

materials encountered are similar to those observed during this investigation, and that the

subgrade is suitable for the engineered fill.

4. All engineered fill material is to be approved by Redstone or other qualified geotechnical

engineer at the time of construction.

5. Place approved engineered fill, in maximum 200 mm loose lifts, compacted to 100% of its

SPMDD.

6. Full time testing and inspection of the engineered fill will be required, to ensure compliance

with material and compaction specifications.

For frost protection purposes, the retaining wall’s footings must be covered by at least 1.2m of

earth in all directions, or be treated with an equivalent frost protection (such as suitable

insulation). Backfill should be accomplished using non-frost susceptible Granular B material.




15

Under no circumstances should the foundations be placed above organic materials, loose,

frozen subgrade, construction debris, or within ponded water. Prior to forming, all foundation

excavations must be inspected and approved by a member of Redstone. This will ensure that

the foundation bearing material has been prepared properly at the foundation subgrade level

and that the soils or bedrock exposed are similar to those encountered during this

investigation.

For design purposes this site is classed as Site Class C for Seismic Site Response, in accordance

with the Ontario Building Code (OBC).

6.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES

It is recommended that free draining backfill to retaining walls be provided. As no groundwater

was encountered during this investigation, the new retaining wall is expected to be located

above the groundwater table. Walls located above the groundwater table and utilizing free

draining Granular B backfill compacted to 100% SPMDD may be designed for lateral earth

pressures using the following equation:

p = k (w h + q),

where:

• p = the lateral earth pressure in kPa acting on the subsurface wall at depth h;

• ka = the coefficient of active earth pressure;

o ( = 0.33 for walls restrained from the bottom only);

o ( = 0.5 for walls restrained at the top and bottom*);

• kp = the coefficient of passive earth pressure ( = 3.0);

• ko = the coefficient of at-rest earth pressure (= 0.5);

• w = the granular or native soil bulk density in kN/m3;

o ( = 21.0 kN/m3 for well compacted, OPSS-approved Granular "B");

• h = the depth (in metres) below the exterior grade at which the earth pressure is being

calculated; and

• q = the equivalent value of any surcharge (in kN/m3) acting on the ground surface

adjacent to the walls.

(*) This value is recommended for rigid walls retaining compacted backfill.




16

The recommended value for the coefficient for sliding friction between the subgrade (soil or

bedrock) and the concrete is 0.4. In addition to the above, hydrostatic forces must be taken

into account in the design where the walls extend below the groundwater table. Also, any

additional surcharge loading that will influence the wall must be taken into account in its

design.

Water accumulation in the backfill behind the retaining wall must be prevented by means of an

appropriate drainage system that may consist of a properly filtered perforated drainage pipe

installed at the base of the fill and appropriately gravity-drained to a frost-free outlet.

6.6 PAVEMENT REINSTATEMENT

It is expected that the removal of the existing wall and construction of new wall will also require

the removal and reconstruction of the adjoining pavement surface. The new (reconstructed)

pavement structure should, as a minimum, match the immediately adjacent remaining

pavement structure. Boreholes BH-1 to BH-3 encountered asphalt ranging from about 40 to

255mm in thickness, over pavement granulars whose thickness ranged from about 60mm to

negligible.

For design purposes, and based on the anticipated vehicles loadings and frequencies on this

pavement being typical of a municipal parking lot (i.e. passenger vehicles with very occasional

larger vehicles in the form of service trucks), the following pavement structure is

recommended:

Table 9: Pavement Structure

Profile Material Minimum Thickness (mm) Per OPSS

Asphalt Surface H.L. 3 or 4 40 1150

Asphalt Base H.L. 8 50

Granular Base Granular A 150 1010

Granular Subbase Granular B Type I 300

The following procedures should be implemented to reconstruct these portions of parking lot

pavement.

1. Remove existing materials as required for the new wall’s reconstruction (see Section 6.1 of

this report). Place granular backfill for wall as previously recommended. Remove any

remaining asphalt, earth fill, free organic topsoil, organics and organic-bearing materials,

loam, frozen earth, and/or boulders larger than 150 mm in diameter within the full area of

new pavement construction.




17

2. Proof roll the subgrade for the purpose of detecting possible zones of overly wet or soft

subgrade. Any deleterious areas thus delineated should be replaced with granular material

(utilizing a suitable frost taper to the adjacent original granulars), compacted to a minimum

of 100 % of its Standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD).

3. Contour the subgrade surface to prevent ponding of water during the construction and to

promote rapid drainage of the subbase and base course granular materials.

4. Fill material should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 200 mm in thickness before

compaction. It is suggested that all granular material used as fill should have an in-situ

moisture content within 2 % of their optimum moisture content. All granular materials

should be compacted to 100 % SPMDD. Granular materials should consist of Granular “A”

and “B” Type I conforming to the requirements of OPSS Form 1010 or equivalent.

5. To maximize drainage potential and ensure satisfactory pavement performance, granular

material should extend across the pavement construction area and should be deep enough

to allow granular material to drain.

6. Construct transitions between varying depths of granular base materials at a rate of 1H:10V

minimum.

7. All asphaltic concrete courses should be placed, spread and compacted conforming to OPSS

Form 310 or equivalent. All asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 92.0 % of

their respective laboratory maximum relative densities (MRD).

It should be noted that the recommended pavement structure is for the end use of the project.

During construction of the project the recommended granular depths may not be sufficient to

support loadings encountered.

6.7 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION-STAGE RECOMMENDATIONS

6.7.1 Subsoil Sensitivity

The native subgrade soils are susceptible to strength loss or deformation if saturated or

disturbed by construction traffic. Therefore, where the subgrade consists of approved soil, care

must be taken to protect the exposed subgrade from excess moisture and from construction

traffic. If there is site work carried out during periods of wet weather, then it can be expected

that the subgrade will be disturbed unless a suitable working surface is provided to protect the

integrity of the subgrade soils from construction traffic. Subgrade soil preparation work cannot

be adequately accomplished during overly wet weather, and the project must be scheduled

accordingly.




18

6.7.2 Test Pit During Tendering

It is recommended that at least one test pit be excavated at a representative location of this

site (consider the eastern portion, off the existing parking lot area) during the construction

tendering phase, with mandatory attendance of interested contractors. This will allow them to

make their own assessments of the soil and any groundwater and bedrock conditions at the

site, and how these will affect their proposed construction methods, techniques and schedules.

6.7.3 Winter Construction

The subgrade soil encountered at this site can be frost-susceptible, and freezing conditions may

cause problems to the new wall structure. As preventive measures, the following

recommendations are presented:

1. During winter construction, exposed subgrade soil surfaces intended to support foundations

must be protected against freezing by means of loose straw and tarpaulins, heating, etc.

2. Because of the frost heave potential of the soils during winter, it is recommended that the

longitudinal excavation for the wall be excavated with shallow transition slopes in order to

minimize any abrupt changes in density and gradation between different soil types present

within the newly-backfilled wall areas and the adjacent unexcavated parking lot areas

(which generally contains mixed and variable earth fill beneath that will exhibit variable and

unpredictable frost susceptibilities as a result).

6.7.4 Design Review and Construction Inspections

Due to the preliminary nature of the design details at the time of this report, Redstone must be

allowed to review the foundation design and proposed grading plan prior to their finalization.

In addition, we strongly recommend that our firm be retained to review the related earthworks

specifications when they are available.

Geotechnical inspection and review of foundation excavations and compaction procedures

must be carried out by a qualified geotechnical engineer or representative to ensure

consistency with this investigation’s findings and compliance with Redstone’s

recommendations.




19

7.0 CLOSURE AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of

the project. The subsurface investigation was performed in accordance with current, generally

accepted guidelines. However, should any conditions at the site be encountered which differ

from those at the borehole locations, it is requested that Redstone be notified immediately in

order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations in light of the changed conditions and

exact project details. Redstone requests that they be permitted to review the

recommendations of this report after the drawings and specifications are complete, or if the

final project details should differ from that mentioned in this report.

The attached Statement of Limitations is an integral part of this report. Should questions arise

regarding any aspect of this report, please contact our office.

Sincerely yours,

Garnet Brenchley, P.Eng.

Principal Engineer





20

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS

This report is intended solely for the Corporation of the County of Prince Edward and other parties

explicitly identified in the report and is prohibited for use by others without Redstone’s prior written

consent. This report is considered Redstone’s professional work product and shall remain the sole

property of Redstone. Any unauthorized reuse, redistribution of or reliance on the report shall be at the

Client and recipient’s sole risk, without liability to Redstone. Client shall defend, indemnify and hold

Redstone harmless from any liability arising from or related to Client’s unauthorized distribution of the

report. No portion of this report may be used as a separate entity; it is to be read in its entirety and

shall include all supporting drawings and appendices.

The recommendations made in this report are in accordance with our present understanding of the

project, the current site use, ground surface elevations and conditions, and are based on the work scope

approved by the Client and described in the report. The services were performed in a manner

consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of geotechnical engineering

professions currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality. No other representations,

and no warranties or representations of any kind, either expressed or implied, are made. Any use which

a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the

responsibility of such third parties.

All details of design and construction are rarely known at the time of completion of a geotechnical

study. The recommendations and comments made in the study report are based on our subsurface

investigation and resulting understanding of the project, as defined at the time of the study. We should

be retained to review our recommendations when the drawings and specifications are complete.

Without this review, Redstone will not be liable for any misunderstanding of our recommendations or

their application and adaptation into the final design.

By issuing this report, Redstone is the geotechnical engineer of record. It is recommended that

Redstone be retained during construction of any and all foundations, and during earthwork operations

to confirm the conditions of the subsoil are actually similar to those observed during our study. The

intent of this requirement is to verify that conditions encountered during construction are consistent

with the findings in the report and that inherent knowledge developed as part of our study is correctly

carried forward to the construction phases.

It is important to emphasize that a soil investigation is, in fact, a random sampling of a site and the

comments included in this report are based on the results obtained at the six (6) borehole and two (2)

handhole locations only. The subsurface conditions confirmed at these 8 locations may vary at other

locations. The subsurface conditions can also be significantly modified by construction activities on site

(ex. excavation, dewatering and drainage, blasting, pile driving, etc.). These conditions can also be

modified by exposure of soils or bedrock to humidity, dry periods or frost. Soil and groundwater

conditions between and beyond the test locations may differ both horizontally and vertically from those

encountered at the test locations and conditions may become apparent during construction which could

not be detected or anticipated at the time of our investigation. Should any conditions at the site be

encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified

immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. If changed conditions are

identified during construction, no matter how minor, the recommendations in this report shall be

considered invalid until sufficient review and written assessment of said conditions by Redstone is

completed.


Retaining Wall Replacement - Municipal Parking Lot at 47 Mary Street


FIGURES

1086 Hayes Line Orientation Scale

Cavan, Ontario

705-768-9042

www.redstoneeng.ca

Figure #:By

Project #:Date

1

20R103TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

MARY STREET RETAINING WALL - PICTON, ON

Drawing Title

see dimension

bar

17-Nov-20

GB

Source: portion of drawing by JewellEngineering entitled "Prince EdwardCounty, Mary Street, Retaining Wall -Control Points", dated Nov 20, 2020.




APPENDIX A

BOREHOLE LOGS

BOREHOLE LOG EXPLANATION FORM

This explanatory section provides the background to assist in the use of the borehole logs. Each of the headings used on the borehole log, is briefly explained.

DEPTH

This column gives the depth of interpreted geologic contacts in metres below ground surface.

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION

This column gives a description of the soil based on a tactile examination of the samples and/or laboratory test results. Each stratum is described according to the following classification and terminology.

Soil Classification* Terminology Proportion

'trace" (e.g. trace sand) some" (e.g. some sand) adjective (e.g. sandy) "and" (e.g. and sand)

noun (e.g. sand)

Silt & ClaySandGravelCobblesBoulders

<10% 10% - 20% 20% - 35% 35% - 50%

>50%

< 0.075 mm 0.075 to 4.75 mm 4.75 to 75 mm 75 to 300 mm

>300 mm

* Extension of USCS Classification system unless otherwise noted.

The use of the geologic term "till" implies that both disseminated coarser grained (sand, gravel, cobbles or boulders) particles and finer grained (silt and clay) particles may occur within the described matrix.

The compactness of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils are defined by the following:

COHESIONLESS SOIL COHESIVE SOIL

Standard Penetration Resistance "N", Blows / 0.3 m

Standard Penetration Resistance "N", Blows / 0.3 m

ConsistencyCompactness

Very Soft0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 Over 50

0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8

8 to 15 15 to 30 Over 30

Very Loose Loose Compact Dense Very Dense

SoftFirmStiff

Very StiffHard

The moisture conditions of cohesionless and cohesive soils are defined as follows.

COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS

Drier Than Plastic Limit About Plastic Limit Wetter Than Plastic Limit Much Wetter Than Plastic Limit

Dry DTPLMoistWet

Saturated

APLWTPLMWTPL

Relative Density

STRATIGRAPHY

Symbols may be used to pictorially identify the interpreted stratigraphy of the soil and rock strata.

MONITOR DETAILS

This column shows the position and designation of standpipe and/or piezometer ground water monitors installed in the borehole. Also the water level may be shown for the date indicated.

I* ^Standpipe Geotextile Material / Liner Granular Backfillo±£L

Borehole Seal (Bentonite Grout)

A Piezometer Granular (Filter) Pack

gd Native Soil Backfill / Cave / Slough

Screened Interval Cement Seal

Borehole Seal (Peltomte, Bentonite or Hole Plug)ESEI

Where monitors are placed in separate boreholes, these are shown individually in the "Monitor Details" column. Otherwise, monitors are in the same borehole. For further data regarding seals, screens, etc., the reader is referred to the summary of monitor details table.

SAMPLE

These columns describe the sample type and number, the "N" value, the water content, the percentage recovery, and Rock Quality Designation (RQD), of each sample obtained from the borehole where applicable. The information is recorded at the approximate depth at which the sample was obtained. The legend for sample type is explained below.

Split SpoonThin Walled Shelby Tube Auger Flight Sample Continuous Core

Grab Sample Channel Sample Wash Sample Rock Core

SS GSST CSAS WSCC RC

Length of Core Recovered Per Run x 100 Total Length of Run

% Recovery

Where rock drilling was carried out, the term RQD (Rock Quality Designation) is used. The RQD is an indirect measure of the number of fractures and soundness of the rock mass. It is obtained from the rock cores by summing the length of core recovered, counting only those pieces of sound core that are 100 mm or more in length. The RQD value is expressed as a percentage and is the ratio of the summed core lengths to the total length of core run. The classification based on the RQD value is given below.

RQD Classification RQD (%)

Very poor quality Poor quality Fair quality

Good quality Excellent quality

< 2525 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 90

90 - 100

TEST DATA

The central section of the log provides graphs which are used to plot selected field and laboratory test results at the depth at which they were carried out. The plotting scales are shown at the head of the column.

Dynamic Penetration Resistance - The number of blows required to advance a 51 mm diameter, 60Q steel cone fitted to the end of 45 mm OD drill rods, 0.3 m into the subsoil. The cone is driven with a 63.5 kg hammer over a fall of 750 mm.

Standard Penetration Resistance - Standard Penetration Test (SPT) "N" Value - The number of blows required to advance a 51 mm diameter standard split-spoon sampler 300 mm into the subsoil, driven by means of a 63.5 kg hammer falling freely a distance of 750 mm. In cases where the split spoon does not penetrate 300 mm, the number of

xBlowsblows over the distance of actual penetration in millimetres is shown asmm

Water Content - The ratio of the mass of water to the mass of oven-dry solids in the soil expressed as a percentage.

Plastic Limit of a fine-grained soil expressed as a percentage as determined from the Atterberg Limit Test.

WP -

Liquid Limit of a fine-grained soil expressed as a percentage as determined from the Atterberg Limit Test.

WL-

REMARKS

The last column describes pertinent drilling details, field observations and/or provides an indication of other field or laboratory tests that were performed.

a) Cohesive Soils(*)

Undrained Shear Strength (kPa)

SPT "N" ValueConsistency

Very soft <12 0-2Soft 12-25

25-5050-100100-200>200

2-4FirmStiffVery stiff Hard

4-88-1515-30>30

(*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction1. Lab triaxial test2. Field vane shear test3. Lab. vane shear test4. SPT "N" value5. Pocket penetrometer

Notes on Sample Descriptions

1. All sample descriptions included in this report generally follow the Unified Soil Classification. Laboratory grain size analyses provided by WSP also follow the same system. Different classification systems may be used by others, such as the system by the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE). Please note that, with the exception of those samples where a grain size analysis and/or Atterberg Limits testing have been made, all samples are classified visually. 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.

Redstone

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

AU

AS-1

SS-2

SS-3

7

>100

80

50

5.3

17.3

18.9

Asphalt (40mm)Fill - dark brown Sand and Gravel withSilt, trace organics, dampMixed Fill - brown/grey/black mottledSand and Silt with Gravel and traceOrganics, occasional bricks, damp tomoist, loose

Weathered Bedrock (inferred fromgrinding and underlying refusal)Borehole terminated at refusal tofurther augering - presence of bedrockinferred

0.1

1.5

1.7Borehole remainedopen (no cave-in),and no groundwateraccumulationobserved

85

85.5

86

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

BOREHOLE NO. BH-1

PROJECT NUMBER 20R103PROJECT NAME Mary Street Retaining WallCLIENT County of Prince EdwardADDRESS 47 Mary Street, Picton, OntarioDRILLING DATE November 16, 2020LICENCE NO. 7085 (Well Contractor)

DRILLING COMPANY G.E.T. DrillingDRILLERDRILL RIG Truck-mountedDRILLING METHOD Auger, split spoon samplerTOTAL DEPTH 1.68mDIAMETER 5" (127mm)

COORDINATESCOORD SYSSURFACE ELEVATION 90.85mWELL TOC n/aLOGGED BY GBCHECKED BY GB

COMPLETION Nov 16, 2020 CASING nil SCREEN nil

COMMENTS

Dep

th (m

)

Dril

ling

Met

hod

Sam

ple

Inte

rval

and

Sam

ple

Type

SPT

(N) v

alue

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

e C

ont (

%)

Gro

undw

ater Well

MonitorDetails

Stra

tigra

phy

Stratigraphic Description

Dep

th (m

) AdditionalObservations &

Remarks

Elev

atio

n (m

)

Disclaimer This log must be read in conjunction with the entirety of its parent report Page 1 of 1

produced by ESlog.ESdat.net on 01 Dec 2020

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

AU

AS-1

SS-2

SS-3

SS-4

4

5

>100

80

80

60

3.2

13.1

14.8

20.2

Asphalt (255mm)

Mixed Fill - brown/grey/black mottledSand and Silt with Gravel and traceOrganics, occasional bricks, damp tomoist, loose

Mixed Fill - brown/grey mottled SandyGravel with Silt, moist, loose

Weathered Bedrock (inferred fromgrinding and underlying refusal)Borehole terminated at refusal tofurther augering - presence of bedrockinferred

0.3

2.3

2.62.7

SS-4: Gr 52%, Sa35%, Sil & Cl 13%

Borehole remainedopen (no cave-in),and no groundwateraccumulationobserved

85

85.5

86

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

BOREHOLE NO. BH-2


DRILLING COMPANY G.E.T. DrillingDRILLERDRILL RIG Truck-mountedDRILLING METHOD Auger, split spoon samplerTOTAL DEPTH 2.74mDIAMETER 5



COMMENTS

Dep

th (m

)

Dril

ling

Met

hod

Sam

ple

Inte

rval

and

Sam

ple

Type

SPT

(N) v

alue

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

e C

ont (

%)

Gro

undw

ater Well

MonitorDetails

Stra

tigra

phy


Dep

th (m


Remarks

Elev

atio

n (m

)



0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

AU

SS-1

SS-2

SS-3a

SS-3b

SS-4

SS-5

SS-6

SS-7

SS-8

7

3

7

4

4

26

17

90

80

80

60

90

90

90

10.0

32.1

15.0

2.2

13.2

12.4

6.7

6.6

14.6

Asphalt (40mm)Fill - brown Sand and Gravel, dampMixed Fill - reddish brown Sand(fine-grained) with trace Silt, damp,compactMixed Fill - grey/black mottled Sandand Gravel with occasional cinders,damp to moist, looseMixed Fill - brown/grey mottled SiltySand with Gravel, occasional bricks,moist, loose

Silty Sand (fine-grained tomedium-grained), brown, damp, loose

Brown/dark brown layering exhibited,compact

Sand with Silt, medium-grained,brown, compact, damp

Borehole terminated

0.1

0.60.8

2.3

3.5

4.4

5.2

SS-7: Gr 0%, Sa76%, Si & Cl 24%


85

85.5

86

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

BOREHOLE NO. BH-3





COMMENTS

Dep

th (m

)

Dril

ling

Met

hod

Sam

ple

Inte

rval

and

Sam

ple

Type

SPT

(N) v

alue

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

e C

ont (

%)

Gro

undw

ater Well

MonitorDetails

Stra

tigra

phy


Dep

th (m


Remarks

Elev

atio

n (m

)



0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

AU

Overburden (including surficialasphalt)

Weathered bedrock (inferred)Borehole terminated at refusal tofurther augering - presence of bedrockinferred

2.72.9


85

85.5

86

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

BOREHOLE NO. BH-4





COMMENTS Borehole drilled as a refusal (inferred Bedrock) depth probe, no sampling or definition of overburden stratigraphy

Dep

th (m

)

Dril

ling

Met

hod

Sam

ple

Inte

rval

and

Sam

ple

Type

SPT

(N) v

alue

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

e C

ont (

%)

Gro

undw

ater Well

MonitorDetails

Stra

tigra

phy


Dep

th (m


Remarks

Elev

atio

n (m

)



0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

AU


Weathered bedrock (inferred)

Borehole terminated at refusal tofurther augering - presence of bedrockinferred

0.8


85

85.5

86

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

BOREHOLE NO. BH-5





COMMENTS Borehole drilled as a refusal (inferred Bedrock) depth probe, no sampling or definition of overburden stratigraphy

Dep

th (m

)

Dril

ling

Met

hod

Sam

ple

Inte

rval

and

Sam

ple

Type

SPT

(N) v

alue

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

e C

ont (

%)

Gro

undw

ater Well

MonitorDetails

Stra

tigra

phy


Dep

th (m


Remarks

Elev

atio

n (m

)



0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

AU

SS-1 >100 100 4.6


Weathered bedrock (inferred)

Borehole terminated at refusal tofurther augering - presence of bedrockinferred

1.1


85

85.5

86

86.5

87

87.5

88

88.5

89

89.5

90

90.5

BOREHOLE NO. BH-6





COMMENTS Borehole drilled as a refusal (inferred Bedrock) depth probe, limited sampling and no definition of overburden stratigraphy

Dep

th (m

)

Dril

ling

Met

hod

Sam

ple

Inte

rval

and

Sam

ple

Type

SPT

(N) v

alue

Rec

over

y (%

)

Moi

stur

e C

ont (

%)

Gro

undw

ater Well

MonitorDetails

Stra

tigra

phy


Dep

th (m


Remarks

Elev

atio

n (m

)



From To

0.00 0.10 90 to 100mm of Topsoil and Sod

0.10 0.33 Organic Fill - dark brown Silty Sand and Gravel with Organics and roots throughout, moist

Asphalt. Borehole terminated at refusal. No groundwater observed. See picture (below)

0.00 0.10 90 to 100mm of Topsoil and Sod

0.10 0.21 Organic Fill - dark brown Silty Sand and Gravel with Organics and roots throughout, moist

Asphalt. Borehole terminated at refusal. No groundwater observed. See picture (below)

Notes:

(1)

89.94HH-1

89.74HH-2

metres below existing grade

HANDHOLE LOGS


MARY STREET RETAINING WALL RECONSTRUCTION - 47 MARY STREET, PICTON, ONTARIO

REDSTONE ENGINEERING PROJECT NO. 20R103

Handhole

No.

Depth (mbeg)(1)

Description

0.33

Elevation

(m)

0.21

Page 1 of 1




APPENDIX B

PHYSICAL LABORATORY DATA

Project No.:

Location:

Sample No.: Depth:

Sampled By: Date:

COARSE

FINE COARSE

Sand Class.

35 GM

Doughty Aggregates Form LS-702NSRevision 3 - May 23, 2019

BH-2 SS-4 7.5 - 9.5'

Sample No.Moisture

Content

Sandy GRAVEL some silt 20.2

Silt & Clay

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART

BH-2 SS-4

Client:

Project:

Garnet Brenchley - Redstone Engineering

20R103

November 17, 2020

Prince Edward County

Mary Street Retaining Wall Picton, Ontario

52

SILT

GravelDescription

CLAY & SILT (<0.075mm)FINE

7.5 - 9.5'

GRAVEL (>4.75mm)

COARSEMEDIUM

SAND (<4.75 to 0.075mm)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

13

VERY FINE MEDIUM FINE

GRAVEL

U.S. BUREAU OF SOILS CLASSIFICATION

FINE

CLAYSAND

GRAVEL

Depth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PE

RC

EN

T

R

ET

AIN

ED

PE

RC

EN

T

PA

SS

ING

DIAMETER (mm)

Project No.:

Location:

Sample No.: Depth:

Sampled By: Date:

COARSE

FINE COARSE

Sand Class.

76 SM

Doughty Aggregates Form LS-702NSRevision 3 - May 23, 2019

BH-3 SS-7 12.5 - 14.5'

Sample No.Moisture

Content

Silty SAND 14.6

Silt & Clay

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CHART

BH-3 SS-7

Client:

Project:

Garnet Brenchley - Redstone Engineering

20R103

November 17, 2020

Prince Edward County

Mary Street Retaining Wall Picton, Ontario

0

SILT

GravelDescription

CLAY & SILT (<0.075mm)FINE

12.5 - 14.5'

GRAVEL (>4.75mm)

COARSEMEDIUM

SAND (<4.75 to 0.075mm)

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

24

VERY FINE MEDIUM FINE

GRAVEL

U.S. BUREAU OF SOILS CLASSIFICATION

FINE

CLAYSAND

GRAVEL

Depth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

PE

RC

EN

T

R

ET

AIN

ED

PE

RC

EN

T

PA

SS

ING

DIAMETER (mm)




APPENDIX C

CHEMICAL LABORATORY DATA

www.paracellabs.com

1-800-749-1947

Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8

300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd

Attn: Garnet Brenchley

Cavan, ON L0A1C0

1086 Hayes Line

Redstone Engineering

Certificate of Analysis

This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:

Paracel ID Client ID

Order #: 2047193

Order Date: 17-Nov-2020

Report Date: 23-Nov-2020

Client PO:

Custody: 55732

Project: 20R103

2047193-01 CS-1

2047193-02 BH-1 SS-2

2047193-03 BH-2 SS-2

2047193-04 BH-3 SS-4

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for

this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.

Approved By:

Page 1 of 14

Lab Supervisor

Mark Foto, M.Sc.

Order #: 2047193

Project Description: 20R103


Client:



Client PO:


Analysis Summary Table

Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

EPA 300.1 - IC, water extraction 20-Nov-20 20-Nov-20Anions

MOE (HWE), EPA 200.7 - ICP-OES 20-Nov-20 20-Nov-20Boron, available

MOE E3056 - Extraction, colourimetric 17-Nov-20 20-Nov-20Chromium, hexavalent - soil

MOE E3138 - probe @25 °C, water ext 21-Nov-20 21-Nov-20Conductivity

MOE E3015 - Auto Colour, water extraction 17-Nov-20 19-Nov-20Cyanide, free

EPA 7471B - CVAA, digestion 20-Nov-20 23-Nov-20Mercury by CVAA

SW846 8082A - GC-ECD 18-Nov-20 19-Nov-20PCBs, total

EPA 150.1 - pH probe @ 25 °C, CaCl buffered ext. 19-Nov-20 19-Nov-20pH, soil

CWS Tier 1 - P&T GC-FID 19-Nov-20 20-Nov-20PHC F1

CWS Tier 1 - GC-FID, extraction 17-Nov-20 20-Nov-20PHCs F2 to F4

EPA 6020 - Digestion - ICP-MS 20-Nov-20 20-Nov-20REG 153: Metals by ICP/MS, soil

EPA 8270 - GC-MS, extraction 17-Nov-20 20-Nov-20REG 153: PAHs by GC-MS

EPA 8260 - P&T GC-MS 19-Nov-20 20-Nov-20REG 153: VOCs by P&T GC/MS

EPA 120.1 - probe, water extraction 21-Nov-20 21-Nov-20Resistivity

Calculated 20-Nov-20 23-Nov-20SAR

Gravimetric, calculation 18-Nov-20 19-Nov-20Solids, %

Page 2 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:


Client ID: CS-1 BH-1 SS-2 BH-2 SS-2 BH-3 SS-4

Sample Date: 16-Nov-20 12:0016-Nov-20 12:0016-Nov-20 12:0016-Nov-20 12:00

2047193-01 2047193-02 2047193-03 2047193-04Sample ID:

MDL/Units Soil Soil Soil Soil

Physical Characteristics

% Solids 88.687.883.693.20.1 % by Wt.

General Inorganics

SAR 3.377.450.98-0.01 N/A

Conductivity 424825238-5 uS/cm

Cyanide, free <0.03<0.03<0.03-0.03 ug/g dry

pH 7.597.837.637.780.05 pH Units

Resistivity ---33.90.10 Ohm.m

Anions

Chloride ---425 ug/g dry

Sulphate ---825 ug/g dry

Metals

Antimony <1.0<1.0<1.0-1.0 ug/g dry

Arsenic 1.72.45.9-1.0 ug/g dry

Barium 44.562.8185-1.0 ug/g dry

Beryllium <0.5<0.5<0.5-0.5 ug/g dry

Boron <5.06.511.2-5.0 ug/g dry

Boron, available <0.5<0.5<0.5-0.5 ug/g dry

Cadmium <0.5<0.50.6-0.5 ug/g dry

Chromium 12.117.321.0-5.0 ug/g dry

Chromium (VI) <0.2<0.2<0.2-0.2 ug/g dry

Cobalt 3.45.25.3-1.0 ug/g dry

Copper 7.818.534.7-5.0 ug/g dry

Lead 36.2100406-1.0 ug/g dry

Mercury 0.20.73.0-0.1 ug/g dry

Molybdenum <1.0<1.01.1-1.0 ug/g dry

Nickel 5.79.59.4-5.0 ug/g dry

Selenium <1.0<1.0<1.0-1.0 ug/g dry

Silver <0.3<0.30.3-0.3 ug/g dry

Thallium <1.0<1.0<1.0-1.0 ug/g dry

Uranium <1.0<1.0<1.0-1.0 ug/g dry

Vanadium 20.827.024.5-10.0 ug/g dry

Zinc 26.642.2196-20.0 ug/g dry

Volatiles

Acetone <0.50<0.50<0.50-0.50 ug/g dry

Benzene <0.02<0.02<0.02-0.02 ug/g dry

Page 3 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:




2047193-01 2047193-02 2047193-03 2047193-04Sample ID:


Bromodichloromethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Bromoform <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Bromomethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Carbon Tetrachloride <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Chlorobenzene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Chloroform <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Dibromochloromethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Dichlorodifluoromethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,2-Dichlorobenzene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry



1,1-Dichloroethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,2-Dichloroethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,1-Dichloroethylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,2-Dichloropropane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,3-Dichloropropene, total <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Ethylbenzene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Ethylene dibromide (dibromoethane, 1,2-) <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Hexane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) <0.50<0.50<0.50-0.50 ug/g dry

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone <0.50<0.50<0.50-0.50 ug/g dry

Methyl tert-butyl ether <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Methylene Chloride <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Styrene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Tetrachloroethylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Toluene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,1,1-Trichloroethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

1,1,2-Trichloroethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Trichloroethylene <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Page 4 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:




2047193-01 2047193-02 2047193-03 2047193-04Sample ID:


Trichlorofluoromethane <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Vinyl chloride <0.02<0.02<0.02-0.02 ug/g dry

m,p-Xylenes <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

o-Xylene <0.05<0.050.07-0.05 ug/g dry

Xylenes, total <0.05<0.050.07-0.05 ug/g dry

4-Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate - 99.6% 101% 101%

Dibromofluoromethane Surrogate - 104% 105% 105%

Toluene-d8 Surrogate - 119% 119% 120%

Hydrocarbons

F1 PHCs (C6-C10) <7<7<7-7 ug/g dry

F2 PHCs (C10-C16) <4<4<4-4 ug/g dry

F3 PHCs (C16-C34) <8<8<8-8 ug/g dry

F4 PHCs (C34-C50) <6<6<6-6 ug/g dry

Semi-Volatiles

Acenaphthene <0.02<0.02<0.02-0.02 ug/g dry

Acenaphthylene <0.020.150.02-0.02 ug/g dry

Anthracene <0.020.110.04-0.02 ug/g dry

Benzo [a] anthracene <0.020.130.08-0.02 ug/g dry

Benzo [a] pyrene 0.030.280.10-0.02 ug/g dry

Benzo [b] fluoranthene 0.020.280.10-0.02 ug/g dry

Benzo [g,h,i] perylene 0.020.220.06-0.02 ug/g dry

Benzo [k] fluoranthene <0.020.150.05-0.02 ug/g dry

Chrysene <0.020.130.11-0.02 ug/g dry

Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene <0.020.05<0.02-0.02 ug/g dry

Fluoranthene 0.030.150.14-0.02 ug/g dry

Fluorene <0.02<0.02<0.02-0.02 ug/g dry

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene <0.020.180.05-0.02 ug/g dry

1-Methylnaphthalene <0.02<0.020.11-0.02 ug/g dry

2-Methylnaphthalene <0.02<0.020.16-0.02 ug/g dry

Methylnaphthalene (1&2) <0.04<0.040.28-0.04 ug/g dry

Naphthalene <0.01<0.010.12-0.01 ug/g dry

Phenanthrene <0.020.090.18-0.02 ug/g dry

Pyrene 0.030.180.13-0.02 ug/g dry

2-Fluorobiphenyl Surrogate - 84.4% 86.4% 76.5%

Terphenyl-d14 Surrogate - 77.5% 83.4% 73.0%

PCBs

PCBs, total <0.05<0.05<0.05-0.05 ug/g dry

Page 5 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:




2047193-01 2047193-02 2047193-03 2047193-04Sample ID:


Decachlorobiphenyl Surrogate - 91.3% 115% 107%

Page 6 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:


Method Quality Control: Blank

Analyte ResultReporting

Limit UnitsSource

Result %REC

%REC

Limit RPDRPD

Limit Notes

Anions

Chloride ND 5 ug/g

Sulphate ND 5 ug/g

General Inorganics

Conductivity ND 5 uS/cm

Cyanide, free ND 0.03 ug/g

Resistivity ND 0.10 Ohm.m

Hydrocarbons

F1 PHCs (C6-C10) ND 7 ug/g




Metals

Antimony ND 1.0 ug/g

Arsenic ND 1.0 ug/g

Barium ND 1.0 ug/g

Beryllium ND 0.5 ug/g

Boron, available ND 0.5 ug/g

Boron ND 5.0 ug/g

Cadmium ND 0.5 ug/g

Chromium (VI) ND 0.2 ug/g

Chromium ND 5.0 ug/g

Cobalt ND 1.0 ug/g

Copper ND 5.0 ug/g

Lead ND 1.0 ug/g

Mercury ND 0.1 ug/g

Molybdenum ND 1.0 ug/g

Nickel ND 5.0 ug/g

Selenium ND 1.0 ug/g

Silver ND 0.3 ug/g

Thallium ND 1.0 ug/g

Uranium ND 1.0 ug/g

Vanadium ND 10.0 ug/g

Zinc ND 20.0 ug/g

PCBs

PCBs, total ND 0.05 ug/g

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 0.0869 86.9 60-140ug/g

Semi-Volatiles

Acenaphthene ND 0.02 ug/g

Acenaphthylene ND 0.02 ug/g

Anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g

Benzo [a] anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g

Benzo [a] pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g

Benzo [b] fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g

Benzo [g,h,i] perylene ND 0.02 ug/g

Benzo [k] fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g

Chrysene ND 0.02 ug/g

Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene ND 0.02 ug/g

Fluoranthene ND 0.02 ug/g

Fluorene ND 0.02 ug/g

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g

1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g

2-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g

Methylnaphthalene (1&2) ND 0.04 ug/g

Naphthalene ND 0.01 ug/g

Phenanthrene ND 0.02 ug/g

Pyrene ND 0.02 ug/g

Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1.18 88.6 50-140ug/g

Page 7 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:




Limit UnitsSource

Result %REC

%REC

Limit RPDRPD

Limit Notes

Surrogate: Terphenyl-d14 1.27 95.4 50-140ug/g

Volatiles

Acetone ND 0.50 ug/g

Benzene ND 0.02 ug/g

Bromodichloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g

Bromoform ND 0.05 ug/g

Bromomethane ND 0.05 ug/g

Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.05 ug/g

Chlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g

Chloroform ND 0.05 ug/g

Dibromochloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g

Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g



1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g

1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g

1,1-Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g

1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.05 ug/g

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g

1,3-Dichloropropene, total ND 0.05 ug/g

Ethylbenzene ND 0.05 ug/g

Ethylene dibromide (dibromoethane, 1,2-) ND 0.05 ug/g

Hexane ND 0.05 ug/g

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) ND 0.50 ug/g

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND 0.50 ug/g

Methyl tert-butyl ether ND 0.05 ug/g

Methylene Chloride ND 0.05 ug/g

Styrene ND 0.05 ug/g

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g

Tetrachloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g

Toluene ND 0.05 ug/g

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g

Trichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g

Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g

Vinyl chloride ND 0.02 ug/g

m,p-Xylenes ND 0.05 ug/g

o-Xylene ND 0.05 ug/g

Xylenes, total ND 0.05 ug/g

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 8.64 108 50-140ug/g

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 8.95 112 50-140ug/g

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 7.82 97.7 50-140ug/g

Page 8 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:


Method Quality Control: Duplicate

Analyte Result

Reporting

Limit UnitsSource

Result %REC

%REC

Limit RPDRPD

Limit Notes

Anions

Chloride 46.0 5 ug/g dry 42.3 208.4

Sulphate 89.4 5 ug/g dry 82.5 208.1

General Inorganics

SAR 10.6 0.01 N/A 10.6 300.5

Cyanide, free ND 0.06 ug/g dry ND 35 GEN09NC

pH 7.15 0.05 pH Units 7.20 2.30.7

Resistivity 35.9 0.10 Ohm.m 33.9 205.7

Hydrocarbons

F1 PHCs (C6-C10) ND 7 ug/g dry ND 40NC

F2 PHCs (C10-C16) 9 4 ug/g dry 9 306.1

F3 PHCs (C16-C34) 73 8 ug/g dry 74 300.8

F4 PHCs (C34-C50) 137 6 ug/g dry 162 3016.7

Metals

Antimony ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 30NC

Arsenic 4.1 1.0 ug/g dry 3.8 307.1

Barium 183 1.0 ug/g dry 179 301.8

Beryllium ND 0.5 ug/g dry ND 30NC

Boron, available ND 0.5 ug/g dry ND 35NC

Boron 9.4 5.0 ug/g dry 7.6 3021.3

Cadmium 0.6 0.5 ug/g dry 0.6 303.5

Chromium (VI) ND 0.2 ug/g dry ND 35NC

Chromium 18.7 5.0 ug/g dry 17.3 307.7

Cobalt 4.9 1.0 ug/g dry 4.7 304.7

Copper 28.6 5.0 ug/g dry 27.9 302.3

Lead 9.1 1.0 ug/g dry 8.4 307.7

Mercury 0.290 0.1 ug/g dry 0.236 3020.4

Molybdenum 1.8 1.0 ug/g dry 1.4 3023.5

Nickel 15.4 5.0 ug/g dry 14.4 306.8

Selenium 2.8 1.0 ug/g dry 2.5 308.1

Silver ND 0.3 ug/g dry ND 30NC

Thallium ND 1.0 ug/g dry ND 30NC

Uranium 3.4 1.0 ug/g dry 3.1 309.4

Vanadium 26.3 10.0 ug/g dry 24.7 306.4

Zinc 50.1 20.0 ug/g dry 47.5 305.2

PCBs

PCBs, total ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 40NC

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 0.128 ug/g dry 107 60-140


% Solids 73.6 0.1 % by Wt. 75.5 252.6

Semi-Volatiles

Acenaphthene 0.031 0.02 ug/g dry 0.021 4039.5

Acenaphthylene 0.125 0.02 ug/g dry 0.077 40 QR-0447.2

Anthracene 0.246 0.02 ug/g dry 0.115 40 QR-0472.8

Benzo [a] anthracene 0.794 0.02 ug/g dry 0.404 40 QR-0465.2

Benzo [a] pyrene 0.970 0.02 ug/g dry 0.486 40 QR-0466.4

Benzo [b] fluoranthene 1.12 0.02 ug/g dry 0.584 40 QR-0462.6

Benzo [g,h,i] perylene 0.611 0.02 ug/g dry 0.295 40 QR-0469.8

Benzo [k] fluoranthene 0.582 0.02 ug/g dry 0.337 40 QR-0453.3

Chrysene 0.756 0.02 ug/g dry 0.381 40 QR-0466.0

Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene 0.160 0.02 ug/g dry 0.079 40 QR-0467.6

Fluoranthene 1.08 0.02 ug/g dry 0.560 40 QR-0463.1

Fluorene 0.050 0.02 ug/g dry 0.035 4035.7

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene 0.551 0.02 ug/g dry 0.277 40 QR-0466.2

1-Methylnaphthalene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40NC

2-Methylnaphthalene 0.027 0.02 ug/g dry ND 40NC

Page 9 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:



Analyte Result

Reporting

Limit UnitsSource

Result %REC

%REC

Limit RPDRPD

Limit Notes

Naphthalene 0.285 0.01 ug/g dry 0.053 40 QR-04137.0

Phenanthrene 0.563 0.02 ug/g dry 0.243 40 QR-0479.5

Pyrene 0.996 0.02 ug/g dry 0.513 40 QR-0464.0

Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1.44 ug/g dry 81.4 50-140

Surrogate: Terphenyl-d14 1.22 ug/g dry 69.4 50-140

Volatiles

Acetone ND 0.50 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Benzene ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Bromodichloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Bromoform ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Bromomethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Chlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Chloroform ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Dibromochloromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC



1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,1-Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Ethylbenzene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Ethylene dibromide (dibromoethane, 1,2-) ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Hexane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) ND 0.50 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ND 0.50 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Methyl tert-butyl ether ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Methylene Chloride ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Styrene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Tetrachloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Toluene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Trichloroethylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Trichlorofluoromethane ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Vinyl chloride ND 0.02 ug/g dry ND 50NC

m,p-Xylenes ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

o-Xylene ND 0.05 ug/g dry ND 50NC

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 9.47 ug/g dry 101 50-140

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 10.3 ug/g dry 110 50-140

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 11.3 ug/g dry 122 50-140

Page 10 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:


Method Quality Control: Spike


Limit UnitsSource

Result%REC

%REC

LimitRPD

RPD

Limit Notes

Anions

Chloride 136 42.3 93.4 82-118ug/g 5

Sulphate 180 82.5 97.6 80-120ug/g 5

General Inorganics

Cyanide, free 0.243 ND 80.8 70-130ug/g0.03

Hydrocarbons

F1 PHCs (C6-C10) 205 ND 102 80-120ug/g7

F2 PHCs (C10-C16) 90 9 95.7 60-140ug/g4

F3 PHCs (C16-C34) 277 74 97.9 60-140ug/g8

F4 PHCs (C34-C50) 301 162 107 60-140ug/g6

Metals

Antimony 50.3 ND 100 70-130ug/g 1.0

Arsenic 51.6 1.5 100 70-130ug/g 1.0

Barium 128 71.8 112 70-130ug/g 1.0

Beryllium 54.4 ND 109 70-130ug/g 0.5

Boron, available 4.12 ND 82.4 70-122ug/g 0.5

Boron 52.6 ND 99.2 70-130ug/g 5.0

Cadmium 49.0 ND 97.5 70-130ug/g 0.5

Chromium (VI) 0.1 ND 54.5 70-130 QM-05ug/g0.2

Chromium 60.6 6.9 107 70-130ug/g 5.0

Cobalt 53.7 1.9 104 70-130ug/g 1.0

Copper 60.4 11.2 98.5 70-130ug/g 5.0

Lead 50.1 3.4 93.5 70-130ug/g 1.0

Mercury 2.04 0.236 120 70-130ug/g 0.1

Molybdenum 51.0 ND 101 70-130ug/g 1.0

Nickel 56.3 5.7 101 70-130ug/g 5.0

Selenium 47.5 1.0 92.9 70-130ug/g 1.0

Silver 41.2 ND 82.4 70-130ug/g 0.3

Thallium 47.9 ND 95.8 70-130ug/g 1.0

Uranium 49.9 1.3 97.2 70-130ug/g 1.0

Vanadium 64.3 ND 109 70-130ug/g 10.0

Zinc 67.8 ND 97.6 70-130ug/g 20.0

PCBs

PCBs, total 0.425 ND 88.8 60-140ug/g0.05

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 0.116 97.3 60-140ug/g

Semi-Volatiles

Acenaphthene 0.143 0.021 55.3 50-140ug/g0.02

Acenaphthylene 0.201 0.077 56.3 50-140ug/g0.02

Anthracene 0.263 0.115 67.4 50-140ug/g0.02

Benzo [a] anthracene 0.530 0.404 57.0 50-140ug/g0.02

Benzo [a] pyrene 0.617 0.486 59.1 50-140ug/g0.02

Benzo [b] fluoranthene 0.745 0.584 72.9 50-140ug/g0.02

Benzo [g,h,i] perylene 0.429 0.295 61.0 50-140ug/g0.02

Benzo [k] fluoranthene 0.474 0.337 62.0 50-140ug/g0.02

Chrysene 0.518 0.381 62.4 50-140ug/g0.02

Dibenzo [a,h] anthracene 0.211 0.079 59.6 50-140ug/g0.02

Fluoranthene 0.112 ND 67.5 50-140ug/g0.02

Fluorene 0.160 0.035 56.6 50-140ug/g0.02

Page 11 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:




Limit UnitsSource

Result%REC

%REC

LimitRPD

RPD

Limit Notes

Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene 0.399 0.277 55.4 50-140ug/g0.02

1-Methylnaphthalene 0.167 ND 75.5 50-140ug/g0.02

2-Methylnaphthalene 0.188 ND 85.3 50-140ug/g0.02

Naphthalene 0.253 0.053 90.6 50-140ug/g0.01

Phenanthrene 0.127 ND 76.4 50-140ug/g0.02

Pyrene 0.645 0.513 59.7 50-140ug/g0.02

Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 1.24 70.4 50-140ug/g

Surrogate: Terphenyl-d14 1.13 63.9 50-140ug/g

Volatiles

Acetone 8.85 ND 88.5 50-140ug/g0.50

Benzene 2.85 ND 71.3 60-130ug/g0.02

Bromodichloromethane 2.78 ND 69.4 60-130ug/g0.05

Bromoform 4.92 ND 123 60-130ug/g0.05

Bromomethane 5.36 ND 134 50-140ug/g0.05

Carbon Tetrachloride 4.52 ND 113 60-130ug/g0.05

Chlorobenzene 3.68 ND 92.0 60-130ug/g0.05

Chloroform 3.67 ND 91.8 60-130ug/g0.05

Dibromochloromethane 4.58 ND 115 60-130ug/g0.05

Dichlorodifluoromethane 5.09 ND 127 50-140ug/g0.05

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 3.35 ND 83.6 60-130ug/g0.05



1,1-Dichloroethane 3.20 ND 80.0 60-130ug/g0.05

1,2-Dichloroethane 4.18 ND 104 60-130ug/g0.05

1,1-Dichloroethylene 3.00 ND 75.0 60-130ug/g0.05

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 2.96 ND 74.0 60-130ug/g0.05

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 3.08 ND 77.0 60-130ug/g0.05

1,2-Dichloropropane 2.84 ND 71.1 60-130ug/g0.05

cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 3.74 ND 93.6 60-130ug/g0.05

trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 4.19 ND 105 60-130ug/g0.05

Ethylbenzene 3.52 ND 87.9 60-130ug/g0.05

Ethylene dibromide (dibromoethane, 1,2-) 3.52 ND 88.0 60-130ug/g0.05

Hexane 3.71 ND 92.8 60-130ug/g0.05

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 8.91 ND 89.1 50-140ug/g0.50

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 7.31 ND 73.1 50-140ug/g0.50

Methyl tert-butyl ether 6.91 ND 69.1 50-140ug/g0.05

Methylene Chloride 3.14 ND 78.4 60-130ug/g0.05

Styrene 3.66 ND 91.6 60-130ug/g0.05

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 4.61 ND 115 60-130ug/g0.05

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 3.56 ND 89.1 60-130ug/g0.05

Tetrachloroethylene 3.86 ND 96.5 60-130ug/g0.05

Toluene 3.54 ND 88.4 60-130ug/g0.05

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 4.14 ND 103 60-130ug/g0.05

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2.89 ND 72.2 60-130ug/g0.05

Trichloroethylene 3.47 ND 86.8 60-130ug/g0.05

Trichlorofluoromethane 4.88 ND 122 50-140ug/g0.05

Vinyl chloride 5.52 ND 138 50-140ug/g0.02

m,p-Xylenes 7.29 ND 91.1 60-130ug/g0.05

o-Xylene 3.89 ND 97.2 60-130ug/g0.05

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 7.53 94.1 50-140ug/g

Page 12 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:




Limit UnitsSource

Result%REC

%REC

LimitRPD

RPD

Limit Notes

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 8.63 108 50-140ug/g

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 7.15 89.4 50-140ug/g

Page 13 of 14

Order #: 2047193



Client:



Client PO:


Qualifer Notes:

Login Qualifers :

Sample - One or more parameter received past hold time - Redox Potential

Applies to samples: CS-1

QC Qualifers :

Elevated detection limits due to the nature of the sample matrix.GEN09 :

The spike recovery was outside acceptance limits for the matrix spike due to matrix interference.QM-05 :

Duplicate results exceeds RPD limits due to non-homogeneous matrix.QR-04 :

Sample Data Revisions

None

Work Order Revisions / Comments:

None

Other Report Notes:

MDL: Method Detection Limit

n/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples

%REC: Percent recovery.

RPD: Relative percent difference.

ND: Not Detected

NC: Not Calculated

Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.

Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.

CCME PHC additional information:

- The method for the analysis of PHCs complies with the Reference Method for the CWS PHC and is validated for use in the

laboratory. All prescribed quality criteria identified in the method has been met.

- F1 range corrected for BTEX.- F2 to F3 ranges corrected for appropriate PAHs where available.

- In the case where F4 and F4G are both reported, the greater of the two results is to be used for comparison to CWS PHC criteria.

- The gravimetric heavy hydrocarbons (F4G) are not to be added to C6 to C50 hydrocarbons.

- When reported, data for F4G has been processed using a silica gel cleanup.

Page 14 of 14

Subcontracted Analysis

1086 Hayes Line

Cavan, ON L0A1C0


Tel: (705) 768-9042

Fax: -0

Paracel Report No 2047193

Client Project(s): 20R103

Client PO:

CoC Number: 55732

Reference: #20-920 Redstone - 20R103



Sample(s) from this project were subcontracted for the listed parameters. A copy of the subcontractor’s report is attached



www.paracellabs.com

1-800-749-1947

Kingston, ON, K7P 2R9

637 Norris Court, Unit 1

Analysis

2047193-01 CS-1 Redox potential, soil

Sulphide, solid

Client: Dale Robertson Work Order Number: 417427Company: Paracel Laboratories Ltd.- Ottawa PO #:Address: 300-2319 St. Laurent Blvd. Regulation: O.Reg 153 Table 1 Soil Stringent Criteria

Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8 Project #: 2047193Phone/Fax: (613) 731-9577 / (613) 731-9064 DWS #:Email: [email protected] Sampled By:

Date Order Received: 11/18/2020 Analysis Started: 11/25/2020Arrival Temperature: 10 °C Analysis Completed: 11/25/2020

Sample Description Lab ID Matrix Type Comments Date Collected Time Collected

CS-1 1599832 Soil None 11/16/2020 12:00 PM

WORK ORDER SUMMARY

ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED ON THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES. THE RESULTS RELATE ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED.

Method Lab Description Reference

RedOx - Soil (T06) Mississauga Determination of RedOx Potential of Soil Modified from APHA-2580B

METHODS AND INSTRUMENTATION

THE FOLLOWING METHODS WERE USED FOR YOUR SAMPLE(S):

This report has been approved by:

Brad Halvorson, B.Sc.

Laboratory Director

Date of Issue: 11/26/2020 16:28 7 Margaret Street, Garson, ON, P3L 1E1Phone: (705) 693-1121 Fax: (705) 693-1124 Web: www.testmark.ca

Page 1 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

WORK ORDER RESULTS

Sample Description CS - 1

Sample Date 11/16/2020 12:00 PM

Lab ID 1599832

General Chemistry Result MDL UnitsCriteria: O.Reg

153 Table 1 Soil Stringent Criteria

RedOx (vs. S.H.E.) 353 N/A mV ~

LEGENDDates: Dates are formatted as mm/dd/year throughout this report.

[rr]: After a parameter name indicates a re-run of that parameter. If multiple re-runs exist they are suffixed by a number. Sample may not have been handled according to the recommended temperature, hold time and head space requirements of the method after the initial analysis.

MDL: Method detection limit or minimum reporting limit.

~: In a criteria column indicates the criteria is not applicable for the parameter row.

Quality Control: All associated Quality Control data is available on request.

Field Data: Reports containing Field Parameters represent data that has been collected and provided by the client. Testmark is not responsible for the validity of this data which may be used in subsequent calculations.

Sample Condition Deviations: A noted sample condition deviation may affect the validity of the result. Results apply to the sample(s) as received.

Date of Issue: 11/26/2020 16:28 7 Margaret Street, Garson, ON, P3L 1E1Phone: (705) 693-1121 Fax: (705) 693-1124 Web: www.testmark.ca

Page 2 of 2


Paracel Laboratories Ltd.- Ottawa Work Order Number: 417427

Paracel Laboratories Attn : Dale Robertson

300-2319 St.Laurent Blvd.Ottawa, ONK1G 4K6, Canada

Phone: 613-731-9577Fax:613-731-9064

02-December-2020

Date Rec. : 18 November 2020 LR Report: CA13594-NOV20 Reference: Project#: 2047193

Copy: #1


Final Report Sample ID Sample Date &

TimeSulphide(Na2CO3)

%

1: Analysis Start Date 02-Dec-202: Analysis Start Time 14:473: Analysis Completed Date 02-Dec-204: Analysis Completed Time 15:005: QC - Blank < 0.046: QC - STD % Recovery 119%7: QC - DUP % RPD ND8: RL 0.029: CS-1 16-Nov-20 16:00 0.09

RL - SGS Reporting LimitND - Not Detected

__________________________

Kimberley DidsburyProject Specialist,Environment, Health & Safety

SGS Canada Inc. P.O. Box 4300 - 185 Concession St. Lakefield - Ontario - KOL 2HO Phone: 705-652-2000 FAX: 705-652-6365

OnL

ine

LIM

S 0002338194

Page 1 of 1 Data reported represents the sample submitted to SGS. Reproduction of this analytical report in full or in part is prohibited without prior written approval. Please refer to SGS

General Conditions of Services located at https://www.sgs.ca/en/terms-and-conditions (Printed copies are available upon request.) Test method information available upon request. “Temperature Upon Receipt” is representative of the whole shipment and may not reflect the temperature of individual samples. SGS Canada Inc. Environment-Health & Safety statement of conformity decision rule does not consider uncertainty when analytical results are compared to a specified standard or

regulation.

www.paracellabs.com

1-800-749-1947

Ottawa, ON, K1G 4J8

300 - 2319 St. Laurent Blvd


Cavan, ON L0A1C0

1086 Hayes Line



This Certificate of Analysis contains analytical data applicable to the following samples as submitted:


Order #: 2048187



Client PO:

Custody: 55732

Project: 20R103

2048187-01 CS-2

Any use of these results implies your agreement that our total liabilty in connection with this work, however arising, shall be limited to the amount paid by you for

this work, and that our employees or agents shall not under any circumstances be liable to you in connection with this work.

Approved By:

Page 1 of 8

Lab Supervisor

Mark Foto, M.Sc.

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:


Analysis Summary Table

Analysis Method Reference/Description Extraction Date Analysis Date

TCLP EPA 6020 - Digestion - ICP-MS 27-Nov-20 27-Nov-20Metals, ICP-MS

MOE E3015- Auto Colour 27-Nov-20 27-Nov-20REG 558 - Cyanide

EPA 340.2 - ISE 27-Nov-20 27-Nov-20REG 558 - Fluoride

EPA 7470A - Cold Vapour AA 27-Nov-20 27-Nov-20REG 558 - Mercury by CVAA

EPA 300.1 - IC 27-Nov-20 27-Nov-20REG 558 - NO3/NO2

EPA 608 - GC-ECD 27-Nov-20 27-Nov-20REG 558 - PCBs

EPA 624 - P&T GC-MS 26-Nov-20 26-Nov-20REG 558 - VOCs

Gravimetric, calculation 27-Nov-20 30-Nov-20Solids, %

Page 2 of 8

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:


Client ID: CS-2 - - -

Sample Date: ---16-Nov-20 12:00

2048187-01 - - -Sample ID:

MDL/Units Soil - - -


% Solids ---84.40.1 % by Wt.

EPA 1311 - TCLP Leachate Inorganics

Fluoride ---0.240.05 mg/L

Nitrate as N ---<11 mg/L

Nitrite as N ---<11 mg/L

Cyanide, free ---<0.020.02 mg/L

EPA 1311 - TCLP Leachate Metals

Arsenic ---<0.050.05 mg/L

Barium ---0.660.05 mg/L

Boron ---<0.050.05 mg/L

Cadmium ---<0.010.01 mg/L

Chromium ---<0.050.05 mg/L

Lead ---<0.050.05 mg/L

Mercury ---<0.0050.005 mg/L

Selenium ---<0.050.05 mg/L

Silver ---<0.050.05 mg/L

Uranium ---<0.050.05 mg/L

EPA 1311 - TCLP Leachate Volatiles

Benzene ---<0.0050.005 mg/L

Carbon Tetrachloride ---<0.0050.005 mg/L

Chlorobenzene ---<0.0040.004 mg/L

Chloroform ---<0.0060.006 mg/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ---<0.0040.004 mg/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ---<0.0040.004 mg/L

1,2-Dichloroethane ---<0.0050.005 mg/L

1,1-Dichloroethylene ---<0.0060.006 mg/L

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) ---<0.300.30 mg/L

Methylene Chloride ---<0.040.04 mg/L

Tetrachloroethylene ---<0.0050.005 mg/L

Trichloroethylene ---<0.0040.004 mg/L

Vinyl chloride ---<0.0050.005 mg/L

4-Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate 112% - - -

Dibromofluoromethane Surrogate 103% - - -

Toluene-d8 Surrogate 108% - - -

EPA 1311 - TCLP Leachate Organics

PCBs, total ---<0.0030.003 mg/L

Page 3 of 8

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:


Client ID: CS-2 - - -

Sample Date: ---16-Nov-20 12:00

2048187-01 - - -Sample ID:

MDL/Units Soil - - -

Decachlorobiphenyl Surrogate 104% - - -

Page 4 of 8

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:




Limit UnitsSource

Result %REC

%REC

Limit RPDRPD

Limit Notes


Fluoride ND 0.05 mg/L

Nitrate as N ND 1 mg/L

Nitrite as N ND 1 mg/L

Cyanide, free ND 0.02 mg/L


Arsenic ND 0.05 mg/L

Barium ND 0.05 mg/L

Boron ND 0.05 mg/L

Cadmium ND 0.01 mg/L

Chromium ND 0.05 mg/L

Lead ND 0.05 mg/L

Mercury ND 0.005 mg/L

Selenium ND 0.05 mg/L

Silver ND 0.05 mg/L

Uranium ND 0.05 mg/L


PCBs, total ND 0.003 mg/L

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 0.0096 95.7 62-138mg/L


Benzene ND 0.005 mg/L

Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.005 mg/L

Chlorobenzene ND 0.004 mg/L

Chloroform ND 0.006 mg/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.004 mg/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.004 mg/L

1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.005 mg/L

1,1-Dichloroethylene ND 0.006 mg/L

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) ND 0.30 mg/L

Methylene Chloride ND 0.04 mg/L

Tetrachloroethylene ND 0.005 mg/L

Trichloroethylene ND 0.004 mg/L

Vinyl chloride ND 0.005 mg/L

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 0.803 117 83-134mg/L

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 0.700 102 78-124mg/L

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.710 103 76-118mg/L

Page 5 of 8

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:



Analyte Result

Reporting

Limit UnitsSource

Result %REC

%REC

Limit RPDRPD

Limit Notes


Fluoride 0.24 0.05 mg/L 0.24 200.3

Nitrate as N ND 1 mg/L ND 20NC

Nitrite as N ND 1 mg/L ND 20NC

Cyanide, free ND 0.02 mg/L ND 20NC


Arsenic ND 0.05 mg/L ND 29NC

Barium 0.221 0.05 mg/L 0.202 349.2

Boron ND 0.05 mg/L ND 33NC

Cadmium ND 0.01 mg/L ND 33NC

Chromium 0.064 0.05 mg/L 0.060 326.8

Lead 0.129 0.05 mg/L 0.122 325.6

Mercury ND 0.005 mg/L ND 30NC

Selenium ND 0.05 mg/L ND 28NC

Silver ND 0.05 mg/L ND 28NC

Uranium ND 0.05 mg/L ND 27NC


PCBs, total ND 0.003 mg/L ND 30NC

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 0.010 mg/L 100 62-138


Benzene ND 0.005 mg/L ND 25NC

Carbon Tetrachloride ND 0.005 mg/L ND 25NC

Chlorobenzene ND 0.004 mg/L ND 25NC

Chloroform ND 0.006 mg/L ND 25NC

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.004 mg/L ND 25NC

1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.004 mg/L ND 25NC

1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.005 mg/L ND 25NC

1,1-Dichloroethylene ND 0.006 mg/L ND 25NC

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) ND 0.30 mg/L ND 25NC

Methylene Chloride ND 0.04 mg/L ND 25NC

Tetrachloroethylene ND 0.005 mg/L ND 25NC

Trichloroethylene ND 0.004 mg/L ND 25NC

Vinyl chloride ND 0.005 mg/L ND 25NC

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 0.808 mg/L 117 83-134

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 0.717 mg/L 104 78-124

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.695 mg/L 101 76-118


% Solids 91.5 0.1 % by Wt. 91.4 250.0

Page 6 of 8

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:




Limit UnitsSource

Result%REC

%REC

LimitRPD

RPD

Limit Notes


Fluoride 0.65 0.24 82.8 70-130mg/L0.05

Nitrate as N 10 ND 105 81-112mg/L1

Nitrite as N 10 ND 96.4 76-107mg/L1

Cyanide, free 0.037 ND 74.2 60-136mg/L0.02


Arsenic 49.9 0.540 98.8 83-119mg/L0.05

Barium 70.0 20.2 99.7 83-116mg/L0.05

Boron 47.8 2.84 89.8 71-128mg/L0.05

Cadmium 44.3 0.045 88.6 78-119mg/L0.01

Chromium 56.9 6.02 102 80-124mg/L0.05

Lead 56.7 12.2 89.0 77-126mg/L0.05

Mercury 0.0324 ND 108 70-130mg/L0.005

Selenium 42.8 0.122 85.3 75-125mg/L0.05

Silver 44.2 ND 88.4 70-128mg/L0.05

Uranium 47.7 ND 95.4 70-131mg/L0.05


PCBs, total 0.046 ND 116 86-145mg/L0.003

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 0.010 101 62-138mg/L


Benzene 0.326 ND 94.8 55-141mg/L0.005

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.326 ND 94.7 49-149mg/L0.005

Chlorobenzene 0.350 ND 102 64-137mg/L0.004

Chloroform 0.323 ND 93.8 58-138mg/L0.006

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.352 ND 102 60-150mg/L0.004

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.338 ND 98.2 63-132mg/L0.004

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.347 ND 101 50-140mg/L0.005

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.342 ND 99.5 43-153mg/L0.006

Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-Butanone) 0.646 ND 75.1 26-153mg/L0.30

Methylene Chloride 0.330 ND 95.9 58-149mg/L0.04

Tetrachloroethylene 0.370 ND 108 51-145mg/L0.005

Trichloroethylene 0.336 ND 97.8 52-135mg/L0.004

Vinyl chloride 0.378 ND 110 31-159mg/L0.005

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 0.719 105 83-134mg/L

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 0.695 101 78-124mg/L

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 0.710 103 76-118mg/L

Page 7 of 8

Order #: 2048187



Client:



Client PO:


Qualifer Notes:

None

Sample Data Revisions

None

Work Order Revisions / Comments:

None

Other Report Notes:

MDL: Method Detection Limit

n/a: not applicable

Source Result: Data used as source for matrix and duplicate samples

%REC: Percent recovery.

RPD: Relative percent difference.

ND: Not Detected

NC: Not Calculated

Soil results are reported on a dry weight basis when the units are denoted with 'dry'.

Where %Solids is reported, moisture loss includes the loss of volatile hydrocarbons.

Page 8 of 8

geotechnical investigation report retaining wall

Documents