to: all holders of contract documents for

TO: ALL HOLDERS OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR:

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico

Wastewater Management Division

Anaerobic Digester Project

BID ‘18/08/B

The following Addendum shall be incorporated into the Contract Documents for the above referenced

project.

ADDENDUM NO. ONE (1)

February 6, 2018

Pre-Bid Conference:

A pre-bid conference was held on January 30, 2018. A copy of the agenda and sign in sheet of the pre-

bid conference is attached. In addition to items listed in agenda, additional items and clarifications

discussed at meeting were as follows:

• The Bid Form will be reissued to include the Utility Relocation Allowance.

• The Bid Form will be reissued to change the description for the Cogeneration System Allowance.

• Bidders are to refer to Front End Specifications for Owner’s instructions relating to local

preferences.

• The Geotechnical Engineering Report will be issued as part of Addendum No. 1.

• The Bid date cannot be extended due to the Owner’s Bid Schedule.

• In addition to the City’s website, any Addendum issued will be posted on Academy

Reprographics Online Plan room.

• The City is coordinating with PNM on the electrical connection for the Cogen System which is to

be paid out of the Cogeneration System Allowance. This electrical connection will be for the

Cogen System only and not affect those items included in the Base Bid.

• Award will be based of the Base Bid. Additive Alternate may be awarded to the successful

bidder if the bid amount is within the Owner’s available funding.

• Contractor shall submit all questions in writing via email to the City. Verbal questions will not be

answered.

Questions during Pre-Bid Conference

• Question: This Bid Form states "two complete copies of the bid submittal is required". May one

copy be copied from the original or does each copy need to be signed?

Response: Only one original copy is required. The second may be a copy of the original.

For Chris Rodriguez, P.E.

HDR Project Manager

City of Santa Fe, NM Wastewater Management Division Anaerobic Digester Project BID '18/08/B

Addendum No. 01February 6, 2018

of 58

• Question: Will the Asbestos Survey and any asbestos removals be paid out of the allowance?

Response: Contractor shall include asbestos survey in bid. If asbestos is discovered, asbestos

removal will be paid out of the Administration Building Control and Server Room Modifications

Allowance.

• Question: What is the engineer’s estimate and Owner’s budget?

Response: The engineer’s estimate is being refined and will be made available to Bidders by

Addendum when completed.

• Question: How are the amounts for the allowances to be determined?

Response: The Allowances amounts are stipulated on the Bid Form.

• Question: Are there any as-built drawings on the two concrete structures that we are to remove?

Response: Drawings will be made available to bidders on this addendum. The drawings are for

information purposes only and no additional costs will be made to Contractor if drawings differ

from actual conditions in field.

• Question: Does any of the demolition materials get salvaged to the Owner?

Response: Owner reserves the first right for salvaged equipment and materials to be removed

and/or demolished. Prior to demolition, Contractor shall coordinate with Owner to identify any

items to be salvaged. Contractor shall remove and place any salvaged items identified by Owner

to Owner’s designated area within the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

• Question: Are there any requirements for a temporary office trailer to be provided during

renovations of the Administration Building?

Response: The City will provide temporary office space for employees during the renovations of

the Administration Building. Contractor to move any office equipment and furniture identified by

Owner to Owner’s designated area. The Contractor can only perform work after Owner’s

normal working hours or on weekends when Administration Building is not occupied by City

staff.

• Question: Does the new SCADA system get integrated with the Buckman Water Treatment Plant

SCADA system?

Response: No.

Questions / Clarifications:

1. Question: Can the mixing manufacture furnish alternative bid for the digester recirculation pumps.

This is a typical chopper pump application, which would be cost saving to the customer. This would

eliminate the specified rotary lobe pump and unneeded quantity two inline grinders. If so, please

provide the exact duty point that’s required (I.E Flow/TDH).

Response: Only the equipment as specified will be approved. No alternative type of equipment will

be considered for any equipment specified for the project.

2. Question: 40 90 05.3.19.D- Per this section the digester should have a foam suppression nozzle and

scum nozzle, the contract drawing don’t reflect these particular items as they aren’t shown. Lastly A

foam buster typically isn’t used in conjunction with a floating cover, and must be eliminated. Since

all nozzle must be located below the Minimum side water depth, an Scum nozzle could be located at

and/or below the concrete corbels.

Response: The foam suppression system is not required and is removed by this addendum.



of 58

3. 40 90 05.3.19.E- Per this section Digester Mixing pumps will be controlled Via VFD, yet this isn’t

indicated on the electrical drawings. Please confirm.

Response: This comment is under review and will be addressed by Addendum No. 2.

4. Section 43 21 00.2.1- Acceptable seal manufactures, this section conflicts with the specified seal in

section 46 73 34.2.6.9. Mixing manufacture will furnish Cartridge Flushless mechanical seal per

section 46 73 34.2.6.9 which is manufactured by the mixing pump manufacture.

Response: Specification Section 43 21 00 2.1 A. 32. C. notes “Or as noted in the individual pump

Specification Sections”, therefore, mechanical seals for the digester mixing pumps shall be as

specified in Specification Section 46 73 34.

5. Question: Due to the elevation of the specified project, since NPSH becomes a factor. The mixing

manufacture strongly recommends the digesting mixing pump suction be minimum of 12” to reduce

the friction loss in the system. Please confirm?

Response: Digester mixing manufacturer shall confirm suction and discharge pipe sizes. A note

clarifying the suction and discharge pipe sizing will be added to drawings by this addendum.

6. Question: Please clarify if pipe mounted mixing nozzle are acceptable, or standard mixing nozzles

with bases are required for all specified manufactures?

Response: Mixing nozzles with bases are required as specified and as shown on Drawings.

7. Per the contract drawing, indicate the mixing pumps/motor are in classified area INDOOR-

WET/CORROSIVE, yet section 46 73 00.2.1 A states electric motors are Class 1 Div 1. Please

Confirm area classification for the mixing pumps?

Response: The area classification is as noted on Drawings.

8. In spec section 01 61 05 Item 6 Digester Boiler you list 3 acceptable suppliers and in section 46 73 41

Boilers you list two other suppliers. Please provide us with the correct suppliers.

Response: All suppliers listed are acceptable. The approved major equipment suppliers list has been

updated as part of this addendum.

Construction Contract Documents & Technical Specifications:

1. Bid Form – Replace pages BF-4 and BF-5 with the attached.

2. Specification Section 01 61 05 Major Equipment Suppliers.

• Subsection 1.4.A.5., Digester Mixing External Pump Type, Add the following manufacturers.

c. Hayward Gordon (Hydromix System).

d. WEMCO.

• Subsection 1.4.A.6., Digester – Boiler, Add the following manufacturers.

d. Hurst Boiler & Welding Company, Inc.

e. Burnham.

3. Specification Section 46 73 35 Digester Gas Equipment

• Subsection 2.1. A.; Add “3. Shand and Jurs” as an acceptable manufacturer.

• Subsection 2.7. Waste Gas Burner; Delete in its entirety and replace with “NOT USED”. There

is no new waste gas burner for this project. The waste gas burner referenced throughout the

specifications is for the existing waste gas burner.



of 58

4. Specification Section 40 90 05 Anaerobic Digester Mixing System Functional Description

• Page 16, 3.19.D., delete in it’s entirety and replace with “Not Used”. There is no foam

suppression / scum breaker system for the new digesters.

5. Specification Section 46 33 13 – Polymer Blending Unit. Change footer specification number from

“11341” to “46 33 13”.

6. Specification Section 46 73 41 – Boilers.

• Subsection 2.1.A.1.a., b, & c., Delete list and replace with “a. See Section 01 61 05”.

• Subsection 2.1.A.4.a., Delete and replace with “a. See Section 01 61 05.

Contract Drawings:

1. Sheet 00D-05, Delete detail 5, Waste Gas Burner. There is no new waste gas burner for this project.

2. Sheet 01C-05

• Grid 3-B, Delete “Proposed Waste Gas Burner, See 1/03S-05” and replace with “Existing Waste

Gas Burner”.

3. Sheet 01C-06

• Grid 2-A, Delete “Proposed Waste Gas Burner, See 1/03S-05” and replace with “Existing Waste

Gas Burner”.

4. Sheet 02D-01

• Add the following to suction discharge piping, fittings and valves for both sets of digester mixing

chopper pumps, “12-inch discharge and suction piping, fittings and valves. Digester mixing

manufacturer shall confirm pump suction and discharge pipe size”.

5. Sheet 02D-03

• Digester mixing chopper pump, Change suction and discharge piping, fittings and valves from

“10-inch” to “12-inch”. Add the following note to suction and discharge piping, “Digester

mixing manufacturer shall confirm pump suction and discharge pipe size”.



of 58

BF - 4

BID FORM

CIP #950 Paseo Real Wastewater Treatment Plant Anaerobic Digester Project

BIDDER will complete the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents for the following prices (All amounts shown are lump sum, complete in place, excluding NMGRT):

ITEM No.

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE (Excluding NMGRT)

1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $

2 SITE WORK 1 LS $

3 YARD PIPING 1 LS $

4 DIGESTER EQUIPMENT

BUILDING 1 LS $

5 ANAEROBIC DIGESTER

TANKS 1 LS $

6 DEWATERING BUILDING

BELT FILTER PRESS #3 1 LS $

7

ADMINSTRATION BUILDING

CONTROL AND SERVER

ROOM MODIFICATIONS

1 LS $

8 ELECTRICAL AND SCADA 1 LS $

9 DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $

10 TESTING ALLOWANCE 1 LS $ 50,000.00

11 UTILITY RELOCATION

ALLOWANCE 1 LS $ 50,000.00

12

ADMINSTRATION BUILDING

CONTROL AND SERVER

ROOM MODIFICATIONS

ALLOWANCE

1 LS $ 50,000.00

13

SLUDGE HOLDING TANK 2

AND PIPE CLEANING

ALLOWANCE

1 LS $ 100,000.00

BASE BID PLUS ALLOWANCES: TOTAL BID ITEMS 1 – 13: $

New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) @ 8.4375% $

TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT PLUS ALLOWANCES AND NMGRT $



of 58

BF - 5

TOTAL BASE BID AMOUNT PLUS ALLOWANCES AND NMGRT (In words):

THE SUM OF ________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________ DOLLARS AND __________________________ CENTS.

* ADDITIVE ALTERNATE BID

ITEM No.

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE (Excluding NMGRT)

14 COGENERATION SYSTEM 1 LS $

15 COGENERATION POWER

DISTRIBUTION ALLOWANCE 1 LS $ 100,000.00

ADDITIVE ALTERNATE PLUS ALLOWANCE: TOTAL ITEMS 14-15 $

New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax (NMGRT) @ 8.4375% $

TOTAL ADDITIVE ALTERANTE PLUS ALLOWANCE AND NMGRT $

* City reserves the right to award Additive Alternates listed depending on available funding. * Bidders choosing not to provide pricing on Alternates may be considered non-responsive and their bid rejected.

TOTAL ADDITIVE ALTERNATE AMOUNT PLUS ALLOWANCES AND NMGRT (In words):

THE SUM OF ________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________ DOLLARS AND __________________________ CENTS.



of 58



of 58

Geotechnical Engineering Report City of Santa Fe Anaerobic Digester Tanks

and Equipment Building

Paseo Real Wastewater Treatment Plant

73 Paseo Real

Santa Fe, New Mexico

May 19, 2016

Terracon Project No. 66165052

Prepared for:

HDR Engineering, Inc.

Albuquerque, Arizona

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Albuquerque, New Mexico



of 58



of 58

mailto:[email protected]

Geotechnical Engineering Report City of Santa Fe Anaerobic Digester Tanks and Building ■ Santa Fe, New Mexico May 19, 2016 ■ Terracon Project No. 66165052

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

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

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 1

2.1 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1

2.2 Site Location and Description ............................................................................. 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................... 3

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile .................................................................................. 3

3.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................................... 4

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 4

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations .............................................................................. 4

4.2 Earthwork ........................................................................................................... 5

4.2.1 Site Preparation ....................................................................................... 5

4.2.2 Excavation ............................................................................................... 6

4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................. 6

4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement .................................................................... 7

4.2.5 Compaction Requirements ...................................................................... 8

4.2.6 Grading and Drainage ............................................................................. 8

4.2.7 Corrosion Potential .................................................................................. 9

4.3 Foundation Recommendations ........................................................................... 9

4.3.1 Footings or Mat Foundation Design Recommendations .......................... 9

4.3.2 Footings or Mat Foundation Construction Considerations .......................10

4.4 Seismic Considerations and Liquefaction Potential ............................................11

4.5 Floor Slab ..........................................................................................................12

4.5.1 Design Recommendations ......................................................................12

4.5.2 Construction Considerations ...................................................................12

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures .....................................................................................13

4.6.1 Design Recommendations ......................................................................13

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ...............................................................................................13



of 58


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

TABLE OF CONTENTS– continued

Exhibit No.

Appendix A – Field Exploration

Site Location Map ....................................................................................................A1

Boring Location Plan ...............................................................................................A2

Field Exploration Description ...................................................................................A3

Boring Logs ................................................................................................ A4 thru A8

General Notes .........................................................................................................A9

Unified Soil Classification System .......................................................................... A10

Appendix B – Laboratory Testing

Laboratory Test Description .....................................................................................B1

Grain Size Distribution ................................................................................ B2 thru B3

Consolidation Test Results ......................................................................... B4 thru B5

Summary of Laboratory Results ................................................................. B6 thru B7

Chemical Test Results



of 58


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This geotechnical executive summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design and/or construction purposes. It should be recognized that specific details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled General Comments should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed City of Santa Fe Anaerobic Digester Tanks and Equipment Building project located at the Paseo Real Wastewater Treatment Plant at 73 Paseo Real in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Terracon’s geotechnical scope of work included the advancement of five (5) test borings to depths ranging from approximately 51-½ to 70-½ feet below existing site grades. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site is suitable for development of the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: Site Development: An existing abandoned clarifier tank, structures, pavements and gravel are located within or directly adjacent to the project site. These structures and elements will need to be removed prior to new construction. Existing below ground utilities within and adjacent to the site were observed and should be considered in the design and development of the project. Site Soils: The site soils generally consisted of sand with varying amounts of silt, clay, and gravel, silt with varying amounts of sand and gravel, lean clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel. On-site soils should be suitable for use as engineered fill or as backfill against structures and foundations. Extra processing effort will likely be required for the clayey soils to produce a uniform engineered fill material. Foundations: Based on the geotechnical engineering analyses, subsurface exploration and laboratory test results, the proposed tanks may be supported on a concrete slab with perimeter thickened edges bearing on undisturbed native soils. The equipment building may be supported on shallow foundation systems consisting of spread/continuous footings or mat foundation bearing on prepared subgrade or a zone of engineered fill. Floor Slabs: The on-site near surface soils are expected to exhibit non- to low expansive and low settlement potentials when compacted and subjected to light loading conditions such as those imposed by floor slabs. Construction of floor slabs associated with the equipment building supported on footings should bear prepared subgrade or a zone of engineered fill, provided some movement can be tolerated. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon or a qualified geotechnical engineer. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction.



of 58


GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

CITY OF SANTA FE ANAEROBIC DIGESTER TANKS

AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING

PASEO REAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

73 PASEO REAL

SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO

Terracon Project No. 66165052

May 19, 2016

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services performed for the

proposed City of Santa Fe Anaerobic Digester Tanks and Building project located at the Paseo

Real Wastewater Treatment Plant at 73 Paseo Real in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The report

addresses the following:

subsurface soil conditions concrete and metal corrosion potential

earthwork foundation design and construction

seismic considerations floor slab design and construction

lateral earth pressure groundwater conditions

Our geotechnical engineering scope of work for this project included the advancement of five (5)

test borings to depths ranging from approximately 51-½ to 70-½ feet below existing site grades.

Logs of the borings along with a Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan are included in

Appendix A of this report. The results of the laboratory testing performed on soil samples obtained

from the site during the field exploration are included in Appendix B of this report. Descriptions of

the field exploration and laboratory testing are included in their respective appendices.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Site layout Refer to the Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan (Appendix

A).



of 58


ITEM DESCRIPTION

Building/structures Two (2) Digester Tanks

Equipment Building

Construction

Digester Tanks – Pre-stressed, post-tensioned cast-in-place

concrete

Equipment Building – Masonry load bearing walls and cast-in-

place construction

Height and diameter of tank Height – 25 to 30 feet (including lowest depth of sloped floor)

Diameter – 55 feet

Proposed foundations and

depth

Digester Tanks - Concrete slab with thickened edges

Equipment Building - Shallow spread and/or continuous

footings or mat

Anticipated foundation slab

loads

Digester Tanks:

Perimeter walls - 3,000 to 4,500 plf

Fluid pressure – 1,500 to 2,000 psf

Equipment Building – 1,000 to 2,000 plf

Tank floor support Aggregate base course and/or engineered fill

Below grade construction

Digester Tanks – 10 to 12 feet

Equipment Building – 10 to 12 feet

Utility pipelines – 12 to 15 feet

2.2 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location Paseo Real Wastewater Treatment Plant, 73 Paseo Real, Santa

Fe, New Mexico.

Existing site features

(site interior)

The site is currently occupied by an abandoned partially buried

clarifier tank. Existing underground utilities were observed

throughout the site.

Surrounding developments

North: Existing asphalt concrete paved drive and secondary

clarifier basins

East: Existing digester/transfer storage tanks and building

West: Existing sludge beds, buildings and structures

South: Existing tank

Current ground cover Existing abandoned clarifier tank, asphalt concrete pavement,

gravel, vegetation and soil



of 58


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Existing topography The site is relatively level to moderately sloping down to the north

and west

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Typical Subsurface Profile

Specific conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs.

Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil

types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can

be found on the boring logs included in Appendix A of this report. Based on the results of the

borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Description Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency/Density

Stratum 1 6-½ to 23 Sand. The clay, silt and

gravel content varied Loose to Medium Dense

Stratum 2 7-½ to 47-½

Lean clay. The sand and

gravel content varied.

Silt. The sand and gravel

content varied

Medium Stiff to Hard

Stratum 3 51-½ to 70-½ Sand. The clay, silt and

gravel content varied

Medium Dense to Very

Dense

The subsurface sand and silt soils were non-plastic to medium in plasticity. The subsurface clay

soils were medium in plasticity.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in

Appendix B. Laboratory test results indicate that the surface and near surface soils exhibit low

compressibility potentials at in-situ moisture contents and a low tendency for compression and a

non-tendency for expansion when wetted and under anticipated foundation loads. When water

is added to samples of laboratory compacted near-surface soils, we anticipate that the

compacted soils will exhibit low compression and non- to low expansive potential when

subjected to light loading conditions such as those imposed by floor slabs.

Laboratory test results indicate that on-site soils exhibit resistivity values of 1,460 and 2,50 ohm-

centimeters, pH values of about 8.3 and 8.6 and soluble sulfate concentrations of 36 to 110

mg/kg.



of 58


3.2 Groundwater

Groundwater was observed in the test borings at depths ranging from about 41 to 63 feet below

existing site grade at the time of field exploration. These observations represent groundwater

conditions at the time of the field exploration and may not be indicative of other times, or at

other locations. Groundwater conditions can change with varying seasonal and weather

conditions, and other factors.

Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may also occur at times in the subsurface sand

soils overlying clay soils. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several

factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or

adjacent to the site, fluctuations in water features, seasonal and weather conditions.

Fluctuations in groundwater levels can best be determined by implementation of a groundwater

monitoring plan. Such a plan would include installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and

periodic measurement of groundwater levels over a sufficient period of time.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The site appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions

encountered in the test borings. The existing soils exhibit a low tendency for compression and a

non- to low tendency for expansion when wetted and under anticipated foundation loads will

require particular attention in the design and construction.

Existing buildings, structures, gravel and pavements are located within or directly adjacent to

the project site. These structures and elements will need to be removed prior to new

construction. Existing below ground utilities within and adjacent to the site were observed and

should be considered in the design and development of the project.

Based on the geotechnical engineering analyses, subsurface exploration and laboratory test

results, the proposed tanks may be supported on a concrete slab with perimeter thickened

edges and/or interior footings bearing on undisturbed native soils. The equipment building may

be supported on shallow foundation systems consisting of spread/continuous footings or mat

foundation bearing on prepared subgrade or a zone of engineered fill. Slab-on-grade may be

used for the interior floor system associated with the equipment building supported on footings

should bear on prepared subgrade or a zone of engineered fill, provided some movement can

be tolerated.



of 58



On-site soils should be suitable for use as engineered fill and to backfill foundations. Extra

processing effort will likely be required for the clayey soils to produce a uniform engineered fill

material.

Geotechnical engineering recommendations for the foundation systems and other earth

connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this

report are based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in

Appendices A and B), engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed

project.

4.2 Earthwork

The following presents recommendations for site preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation

and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design

and construction of earth supported elements including foundations, slabs and pavements are

contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section.

Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon or a qualified

geotechnical engineer. The evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of

engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical

conditions exposed during the construction of the project.

4.2.1 Site Preparation

Strip and remove the existing structures (where applicable), pavements, vegetation, gravel, and

other deleterious materials from proposed new tank and building areas. Exposed surfaces

should be free of mounds and depressions which could prevent uniform compaction.

Demolition of existing structures should include complete removal within the proposed

construction area. All materials derived from the demolition of existing structures and elements

should be removed from the site, and not be allowed for use in any on-site fills unless

adequately processed and blended with on-site or imported soils.

Stripped materials consisting of vegetation and organic materials should be wasted from the

site, or used to revegetate landscaped areas or exposed slopes after completion of grading

operations. Organic materials (if encountered) on-site should be placed in non-structural areas,

and in fill sections not exceeding 5 feet in height.

The site should be initially graded to create a relatively level surface to receive fill, and to

provide for a relatively uniform thickness of fill beneath proposed structures.



of 58


Evidence of underground facilities and utilities was observed during the site reconnaissance.

Therefore, such features could be encountered during construction. If loose or soft fills or

underground facilities (to be abandoned) are encountered, such features should be removed

and the excavation thoroughly cleaned prior to backfill placement and/or construction.

4.2.2 Excavation

It is anticipated that the shallow excavations planned for the proposed construction can be

accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment.

Based on the results from the soil borings, we do not anticipate groundwater control measures

will be necessary in excavations up to about 41 feet below existing site grades. However,

depending upon depth of excavation and seasonal conditions, groundwater may be

encountered at shallower depths in excavations on the site. Pumping from sumps may be

utilized to control water within excavations.

On-site soils may pump or become unstable or unworkable at high water contents. Workability

may be improved by scarifying and drying, this condition is likely as excavations approach

groundwater conditions. Overexcavation of wet zones and replacement with granular materials

may be necessary. Lightweight excavation equipment may be required to reduce subgrade

pumping.

Use of lime, fly ash, kiln dust, cement or geotextiles could also be considered as a stabilization

technique. Laboratory evaluation is recommended to determine the effect of chemical

stabilization on subgrade soils prior to construction.

The individual contractor(s) is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary

excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom.

Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local, and federal

regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.

4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation

Exposed areas which will receive fill (if applicable), once properly cleared, should be scarified to

a minimum depth of 10 inches, conditioned to near optimum moisture content, and compacted.

Subgrade preparation and engineered fill placement below foundations and floor slabs should

be performed in accordance with Sections 4.3 and 4.5.

Areas of loose/soft soils may be encountered at foundation bearing depth after excavation is

completed for foundations. When such conditions exist beneath planned foundation areas, the

subgrade soils should be surficially compacted prior to placement of the foundation system. If

sufficient compaction cannot be achieved in-place, the loose/soft soils should be removed and

replaced as engineered fill. For placement of engineered fill below foundation, the excavation



of 58



should be widened laterally, at least eight inches for each foot of fill placed below foundation

base elevations.

Subgrade soils beneath exterior slabs and pavements should be scarified, moisture conditioned

and compacted to a minimum depth of eight (8) inches. The moisture content and compaction

of subgrade soils should be maintained until slab construction.

4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement

All fill materials should be inorganic soils free of vegetation, debris, and fragments larger than

six inches in size. Pea gravel or other similar non-cementitious, poorly-graded materials should

not be used as fill or backfill without the prior approval of the geotechnical engineer.

Clean on-site soils or approved imported materials may be used as fill material for the following:

general site grading exterior slab areas

foundation areas foundation backfill

interior floor slab areas

Sand soils should be used as backfill against below ground walls to reduce lateral earth

pressures and settlement.

Extra processing effort will likely be required for the clayey soils to produce a uniform

engineered fill material.

Imported soils for use as fill material within proposed structure areas should conform to low

volume change materials as indicated in the following specifications:

Percent Finer by Weight

Gradation (ASTM C 136)

6" ......................................................................................................... 100

3” .................................................................................................... 70-100

No. 4 Sieve ..................................................................................... 50-100

No. 200 Sieve .............................................................................. 50 (max)

Liquid Limit ....................................................................... 35 (max)

Plasticity Index ................................................................. 15 (max)

Maximum expansive potential (%)* ............................................ 1.0

*Measured on a sample compacted to approximately 95 percent of the ASTM D698

maximum dry density at about 3 percent below optimum water content. The sample is

confined under a 100 psf surcharge and submerged/inundated.



of 58


Engineered fill should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, using equipment and

procedures that will produce recommended moisture contents and densities throughout the lift.

Fill lifts should not exceed eight (8) inches loose thickness.

4.2.5 Compaction Requirements

Recommended compaction and moisture content criteria for engineered fill materials are as

follows:

Material Type and Location

Per the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D 1557)

Minimum

Compaction

Requirement (%)

Range of Moisture Contents for

Compaction

Minimum Maximum

On-site granular or approved imported fill

soils:

Beneath foundations: 95 -3% +3%

Beneath slabs: 95 -3% +3%

Beneath pavements: 95 -3% +3%

Aggregate base 95 -3% +3%

Miscellaneous backfill 90 -3% +3%

4.2.6 Grading and Drainage

All grades must provide effective drainage away from the structures during and after

construction. Water permitted to pond next to the structures can result in greater soil

movements than those discussed in this report. These greater movements can result in

unacceptable differential floor slab movements, cracked slabs and walls, and roof leaks.

Estimated movements described in this report are based on effective drainage for the life of the

structure and cannot be relied upon if effective drainage is not maintained.

Exposed ground should be sloped at a minimum 5 percent away from the structures for at least

5 feet beyond the perimeter of the structures. In the area of the existing solids dewatering

facility, exposed ground should be sloped at a minimum 2 percent away from the structure for at

least 5 feet beyond the perimeter of the structure. After construction and landscaping (if

applicable), we recommend verifying final grades to document that effective drainage has been

achieved. Grades around the structures should also be periodically inspected and adjusted as

necessary, as part of the structure’s maintenance program.

Flatwork will be subject to post construction movement. Maximum grades practical should be

used for flatwork to prevent water from ponding. Allowances in final grades should also

consider post-construction movement of flatwork, particularly if such movement would be



of 58



critical. Where flatwork abuts the structures, effectively seal and maintain joints to prevent

surface water infiltration.

4.2.7 Corrosion Potential

Results of soluble sulfate testing (36 to 110 mg/kg) indicate that ASTM Type I-II or II Portland

cement should be specified for all concrete on and below grade. Foundation concrete should

be designed for moderate sulfate exposure in accordance with the provisions of the ACI Design

Manual, Section 318, Chapter 4.

Laboratory test results indicate that on-site soils exhibit resistivity values of 1,460 and 2,050

ohm-centimeters and pH values of about 8.3 to 8.6 Criteria published by the Cast Iron Pipe

Research Institute indicates that the near surface subgrade soils generally have a low to

moderate corrosive potential to cause corrosion to buried ferrous materials. Review of data

published by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers indicates that the resistivity places

the soils in the mild to moderate corrosive category. If there is concern regarding pipe corrosion,

the use of PVC or poly-wrap should be considered. Refer to Summary of Laboratory Results

contained in Appendix B for the complete results of the corrosivity testing conducted on the site

soils in conjunction with this geotechnical exploration.

4.3 Foundation Recommendations

The proposed tanks may be supported on a concrete slab with perimeter thickened edges

bearing on undisturbed native soils. The equipment building may be supported on shallow

foundation systems consisting of spread/continuous footings or mat foundation bearing on

prepared subgrade or a zone of engineered fill. The design recommendations are discussed

below.

4.3.1 Footings or Mat Foundation Design Recommendations

DESCRIPTION VALUE

Foundation Type

Digester Tanks - Concrete slab with thickened edges

Equipment Building - Shallow spread and/or

continuous footings or mat

Bearing Material

Digester Tanks – Undisturbed native soils

Equipment Building – 12” of prepared subgrade or

engineered fill

Allowable Bearing Pressure Digester Tanks – 3,000 psf

Equipment Building – 2,500 psf



of 58


DESCRIPTION VALUE

Minimum Foundation Dimensions Columns: 18 inches

Walls: 12 inches

Minimum Embedment Depth Below

Finished Grade

Exterior: 36 inches

Interior: 12 inches

Total Estimated Settlement

Digester Tanks

Wall: 1 inch or less

Center: 1 to 1-½ inches

Equipment Building – 1 inch or less

Estimated Differential Settlement Digester Tanks – ½ to 1½ inches

Equipment Building – ½ to ¾ inch

Finished grade is defined as the lowest adjacent grade within five (5) feet of the foundation for

perimeter (or exterior) foundations and finished floor level for interior foundations. The

allowable foundation bearing pressures apply to dead loads plus design live load conditions.

The design bearing pressure may be increased by one-third when considering total loads that

include wind or seismic conditions. The weight of the foundation concrete below grade may be

neglected in dead load computations.

Foundations should be proportioned to reduce differential foundation movement. Proportioning

on the basis of equal total settlement is recommended; however, proportioning to relative

constant dead-load pressure will also reduce differential settlement between adjacent

foundations. Additional foundation movements could occur if water from any source infiltrates

the foundation soils; therefore, proper drainage should be provided in the final design and

during construction.

Footings, foundations, and masonry walls should be reinforced as necessary to reduce the

potential for distress caused by differential foundation movement. The use of joints at openings

or other discontinuities in masonry walls is recommended.

Foundation excavations and engineered fill placement operations (if applicable) should be

observed by a geotechnical engineer. If the soil conditions encountered differ significantly from

those presented in this report, supplemental recommendations will be required.

4.3.2 Footings or Mat Foundation Construction Considerations

The recommended depth of subgrade preparation or zone of engineered fill placed and

compacted below foundations should be in accordance with Section 4.3.1.



of 58



If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in foundation excavations, the excavations should be

extended deeper to suitable soils and the foundations could bear directly on these soils at the

lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. The foundations could also

bear on properly compacted backfill extending down to the suitable soils. Overexcavation for

compacted backfill placement below foundations should extend laterally beyond all edges of the

foundations at least eight (8) inches per foot of overexcavation depth below foundation base

elevation. The overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the foundation base elevation

with well-graded granular material placed in lifts of 10 inches or less in loose thickness and

compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM

D-1557). The overexcavation and backfill procedure is described in the figure below.

4.4 Seismic Considerations

DESCRIPTION VALUE

2012 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1 C2

Site Latitude N 35.63080°

Site Longitude W 106.08842°

SMs Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 0.567g

SM1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.234g

SDs Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 0.378g

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.156g

Fa Site Coefficient for a Short Period 1.200

Fv Site Coefficient for a 1-Second Period 1.659

1 Note: In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is based

on the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile.

2 Note: The 2012 International Building Code (IBC) requires a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of

100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile

determination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of 70-½ feet, and this seismic site class definition considers

Side walls should be

sloped or braced for

stability as required by

OSHA.



of 58


DESCRIPTION VALUE

that dense or denser soil continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to

deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration.

4.5 Floor Slab

4.5.1 Design Recommendations

DESCRIPTION VALUE

Interior floor system Slab-on-grade concrete.

Floor slab support 12” of prepared subgrade or engineered fill

Subbase Subgrade

Modulus of subgrade reaction

150 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) (The modulus was

obtained based on our experience with similar subgrade

conditions, and estimates obtained from ACI design charts.)

Construction of floor slabs directly on prepared subgrade or a zone of engineered fill is

considered acceptable for the project. Some movement of a slab-on-grade floor system is

possible should the subgrade soils become elevated in moisture content due to the

compression potential of the near surface soils. Additional slab movements could occur if water

infiltrates the soils; therefore, proper drainage must be provided in the final design. To reduce

potential slab movements, the subgrade soils should be prepared as outlined in the earthwork

section of this report.

In areas of exposed concrete, control joints should be saw cut into the slab after concrete

placement in accordance with ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R-37 8.3.12 (tooled control

joints are not recommended). Additionally, dowels should be placed at the location of proposed

construction joints. To control the width of cracking (should it occur) continuous slab

reinforcement should be considered in exposed concrete slabs.

Positive separations and/or isolation joints should be provided between slabs and all

foundations, columns or utility lines to allow independent movement. Interior trench backfill

placed beneath slabs should be compacted in accordance with recommendations outlined in the

Earthwork section of this report. Other design and construction considerations, as outlined in

the ACI Design Manual, Section 302.1R are recommended.

4.5.2 Construction Considerations

For the equipment building supported on footings, 12 inches of prepared subgrade or

engineered fill is recommended beneath the floor slab. Some differential movement of a slab-

on-grade floor system is possible should the subgrade soils become elevated in moisture



of 58



content. Such movements are anticipated to be within general tolerance for normal slab-on-

grade construction. To reduce potential slab movements, the floor system should be supported

on a zone of engineered fill.

Any loose fill should be recompacted prior to construction. The engineered fill and subgrade

soils should be placed as outlined in the Earthwork section of this report. On-site soils are

suitable for use as engineered fill.

4.6 Lateral Earth Pressures

4.6.1 Design Recommendations

For soils above any free water surface, recommended equivalent fluid pressures for

unrestrained foundation elements when using on-site soils as backfill are:

ITEM SOIL TYPE VALUE

Active Case On-site sand soils

On-site clay soils

35 psf/ft

45 psf/ft

Passive Case On-site sand soils

On-site clay soils

400 psf/ft

300 psf/ft

At-Rest Case On-site sand soils

On-site clay soils

55 psf/ft

65 psf/ft

Coefficient of Base Friction On-site soils 0.351

1Note: The coefficient of base friction should be reduced to 0.30 when used in conjunction with passive pressure.

The lateral earth pressures herein do not include any factor of safety and are not applicable for

submerged soils/hydrostatic loading. Additional recommendations may be necessary if such

conditions are to be included in the design.

Fill against foundations (if applicable) should be compacted to densities specified in the

Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walls should be

accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon or a qualified geotechnical engineer should be retained to review the final design plans

and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of

our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon or a qualified

geotechnical engineer should also be retained to provide observation and testing services



of 58


during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases

of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained

from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in

this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the

site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such

variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we

should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations

can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any

environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or

prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the

potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the

project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical

engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site

safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the

event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are

planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered

valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this

report in writing.



of 58

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION



of 58

Source: USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps Editions “Agua Fria”, New Mexico, United States, dated 2013.

Project Mngr:

Anaerobic Digester Tanks and Building 73 Paseo Real


SITE LOCATION MAP

MJD

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

N/A

MEA

MEA

Project No. 66165052

Scale

File No.

Date:

As Shown

5/2016

4905 Hawkins, NE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109

505.797.4287 Fax: 505.797.4288

FIG No.

A1

APPROXIMATE SITE

LOCATION



of 58

BORING LOCATION PLAN

Anaerobic Digester Tanks and Building

73 Paseo Real


A24905 Hawkins St. NE

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109

Phone: 505.797.4287 Fax 505.797.4288

66165052

NTS

5/2016

MJD

MEA

MEAB-01 Boring Location

N

B-01

B-02

B-03

B-04B-05



of 58


Field Exploration Description

A total of five (5) test borings were drilled at the site on April 14 and 15, 2016. The borings were

drilled to depths of approximately 51-½ to 70-½ feet below the ground surface at the

approximate locations shown on the attached Site Location Map and Boring Location Plan. The

test borings were located as follows:

Borings Location Depths (feet)

B-01, B-02 and B-05 Anaerobic Digester Tanks 51-½ to 66

B-03 and B-04 Building 66-½ to 70-½

The test borings were advanced with a truck-mounted CME-75 drill rig utilizing 8-inch diameter

hollow-stem augers.

The borings were located in the field by using the proposed site plan of the site and measuring

from existing site features. Boring locations were adjusted due to existing underground utilities

and site access limitations. The latitude and longitude were determined at each boring location

using a hand held GPS unit. The accuracy of boring locations should only be assumed to the

level implied by the method used.

Lithologic logs of each boring were recorded by the field engineer during the drilling operations.

At selected intervals, samples of the subsurface materials were taken by driving split-spoon or

ring-barrel samplers.

Penetration resistance measurements were obtained by driving the split-spoon and ring-barrel

samplers into the subsurface materials with a 140-pound manual hammer falling 30 inches.

The penetration resistance value is a useful index in estimating the consistency or relative

density of materials encountered.

A CME automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings

performed on this site. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in

the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report.

Groundwater conditions were evaluated in each boring at the time of site exploration. For safety

considerations, the borings were backfilled upon the completion of drilling.



of 58

33

38

9

9

12

19

22

8

27

10

19

9

9

113 35-18-17

38-25-13

5-5-5N=10

8-11-12N=23

5

4-7-11N=18

5-7-8N=15

30-32-44N=76

5-7-12N=19

11-19-32N=51

7-9-11N=20

18-23-29N=52

18-21-32N=53

18.0

24.0

38.0

43.0

51.5

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, brown, loose to medium dense

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, medium dense

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, medium dense to very dense

thin clay layer


SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, very dense

Boring Terminated at 51.5 Feet

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

5/13

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1

Advancement Method:HSA

Abandonment Method:Backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion.

4905 Hawkins St NEAlbuquerque, NM

Notes:

Project No.: 66165052

Drill Rig: CME-75

Boring Started: 4/14/2016

BORING LOG NO. B-01HDR Engineering, Inc.CLIENT:Albuquerque, NM

Driller: EDI

Boring Completed: 4/14/2016

Exhibit: A-4

See Exhibit A-3 for description of fieldprocedures.See Appendix B for description of laboratoryprocedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols andabbreviations.

73 Paseo Real Santa Fe, NM

PROJECT: Anaerobic Digestor Tanks and Building

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

Latitude: 35.6309° Longitude: -106.08796°

41 feet While DrillingWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS



of 58

30

23

19

10

21

9

28

36

21

21

28

3

121 NP

NP

4-7-9N=163-4-3N=7

11

3-7-7N=14

12-20-18N=38

3-6-9N=15

5-8-13N=21

3-18-23N=41

5-9-10N=19

4-7-25N=32

18-44-22N=66

23.0

42.5

47.5

51.5

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, loose to dense

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, medium dense to dense

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, brown, hard




GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

5/13

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: EDI


Exhibit: A-5





PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH



No free water observedWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS



of 58

55

13

7

6

9

27

9

24

11

34

14

15

43

27

42

11

102

38-26-12

NP

10-9-8N=172-3-4N=7

8-13-18N=31

3-5-8N=13

35

5-8-12N=20

20-24-24N=48

6-9-12N=21

13-9-21N=30

9-14-21N=35

37-43-50N=93

6-8-14N=22

10-12-20N=32

28-42-42N=84

4.0

7.5

13.0

17.5

27.5

32.5

47.5

52.5

62.5

66.5

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, medium dense

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, brown, medium stiff

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, dense

SANDY SILT (SM), trace gravel, brown, stiff


POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt and gravel, brown, dense







GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

5/13

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: EDI


Exhibit: A-6





PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH






of 58

20

46

12

5

9

27

16

26

31

24

20

21

5

34

36

30

21

115

NP

NP

3-4-3N=72-3-7N=10

8-15-20N=35

3-4-7N=11

53

5-6-11N=17

6-8-17N=25

5-14-16N=30

5-9-11N=20

8-9-10N=19

23-30-41N=71

10-22-14N=36

8-14-17N=31

19-50/3"

19-50/2"

6.5

12.0

18.0

42.5

47.5

52.5

70.5

WELL GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SW-SM), trace gravel, brown, loose

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, dense

CLAYEY SAND (SC), trace gravel, brown, medium dense


SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, brown, very stiff

WELL GRADED SAND (SW), trace silt and gravel, brown, very dense

SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, dense to very dense



GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

5/13

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: EDI


Exhibit: A-7





PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH






of 58

54

10

9

3

26

9

30

13

56

4

20

3

9

42

22

13

122

39-22-17

NP

4-6-12N=18

19-18-16N=34

4-6-12N=18

68

4-7-10N=17

17-23-20N=43

6-10-15N=25

13-17-18N=35

6-10-12N=22

27-27-50N=77

19-19-15N=34

11-16-19N=35

7-10-50N=60

15-50/5"

7.5

12.5

22.5

27.5

32.5

37.5

42.5

47.5

57.5

66.0

SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM), brown, medium dense to dense

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL), trace gravel, brown, very stiff


POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), trace silt and gravel, brown, dense


POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM), trace gravel, brown,dense



SILTY SAND (SM), trace gravel, brown, dense


Boring Terminated at 66 Feet


GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

TH

IS B

OR

ING

LO

G IS

NO

T V

ALI

D IF

SE

PA

RA

TE

D F

RO

M O

RIG

INA

L R

EP

OR

T.

G

EO

SM

AR

T L

OG

-NO

WE

LL 6

616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2015

.GD

T

5/13

/16

SITE:

Page 1 of 1




Notes:


Drill Rig: CME-75



Driller: EDI


Exhibit: A-8





PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

S

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

DR

Y U

NIT

WE

IGH

T (

pcf)

ATTERBERGLIMITS

LL-PL-PI

SA

MP

LE T

YP

E

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

OB

SE

RV

AT

ION

S

DE

PT

H (

Ft.)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

FIE

LD T

ES

TR

ES

ULT

S

DEPTH



53.5 feet While DrillingWATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS



of 58

TraceWithModifier

Water Level Aftera Specified Period of Time

GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGYRELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL

TraceWithModifier

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Descriptive Term(Consistency)

Loose

Very Stiff

Standard Penetration orN-Value

Blows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Ring SamplerBlows/Ft.

Medium Dense

Dense

Very Dense

0 - 1 < 3

4 - 9 2 - 4 3 - 4

Medium-Stiff 5 - 9

30 - 50

WA

TE

R L

EV

EL

Auger Shelby Tube Split Spoon

RockCore

8 - 15

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term

< 1515 - 29> 30

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Water InitiallyEncountered

Water Level After aSpecified Period of Time

Major Componentof Sample

Percent ofDry Weight

(More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.)Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance

Includes gravels, sands and silts.

Hard

Very Loose 0 - 3 0 - 6 Very Soft

7 - 18 Soft

10 - 29 19 - 58

59 - 98 Stiff

less than 500

500 to 1,000

1,000 to 2,000

MacroCore

2,000 to 4,000

4,000 to 8,000> 99

LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES

SA

MP

LIN

G

FIE

LD

TE

ST

S

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Descriptive Term(Density)

Non-plasticLowMediumHigh

BouldersCobblesGravelSandSilt or Clay

10 - 18

> 50 15 - 30 19 - 42

> 30 > 42

_

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS

Hand Penetrometer

Torvane

Standard PenetrationTest (blows per foot)

N value

Photo-Ionization Detector

Organic Vapor Analyzer

(HP)

(T)

(b/f)

N

(PID)

(OVA)

(50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.)Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field

visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION

> 8,000

Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracyof such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey wasconducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographicmaps of the area.

Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dryweight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils haveless than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, andsilts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may beadded according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are definedon the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

Plasticity Index

01 - 1011 - 30

> 30

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES

Descriptive Term(s)of other constituents

Percent ofDry Weight

< 55 - 12> 12

RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Particle Size

Over 12 in. (300 mm)12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm)3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)#4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mmPassing #200 sieve (0.075mm)

ST

RE

NG

TH

TE

RM

S Unconfined CompressiveStrength, Qu, psf

4 - 8

GENERAL NOTES

ModifiedCalifornia

Ring Sampler

GrabSample

ModifiedDames & MooreRing Sampler

NoRecovery

Water levels indicated on the soil boringlogs are the levels measured in theborehole at the times indicated.Groundwater level variations will occurover time. In low permeability soils,accurate determination of groundwaterlevels is not possible with short termwater level observations.

Exhibit A-9City of Santa Fe, NM Wastewater Management Division Anaerobic Digester Project BID '18/08/B


of 58

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A

Soil Classification

Group

Symbol Group Name

B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = 6010

2

30

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,”

whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to

group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

Exhibit A-10City of Santa Fe, NM Wastewater Management Division Anaerobic Digester Project BID '18/08/B


of 58

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING



of 58



Laboratory Testing

Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further

observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in accordance with the

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described in Appendix A. At that time, the field

descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing

program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials.

Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in

this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses,

and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were

performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards.

Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering

properties:

Consolidation/Compression In-situ Dry Density

Sieve Analysis Resistivity

Atterberg Limits

pH

Soluble Sulfates

In-situ Water Content



of 58

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

B-01

B-01

B-02

B-02

B-03

35

38

12

NP

38

0.078

0.135

0.445

0.263

1.783

0.396

0.1

9.5

9.5

9.5

9.5

4.75

6 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006 810

5.5

4.7

6.7

1.2

0.0

14

33.0

38.1

29.6

22.5

54.5

%Fines

LL PL PI

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

B-01

B-01

B-02

B-02

B-03

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

18

25

15

NP

26

17

13

NP

NP

12

D100

Cc Cu

SILT OR CLAY

4

%Sand%GravelD30 D10

10 - 11

20 - 21.5

10 - 11

30 - 31.5

15 - 16.5

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

USCS Classification

55.1

52.3

39.7

75.7

45.1

D60

coarse medium

Boring ID Depth

Boring ID Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

10 - 11

20 - 21.5

10 - 11

30 - 31.5

15 - 16.5

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SANDY SILT (ML)

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136


PROJECT NUMBER: 66165052PROJECT: Anaerobic Digestor Tanks and

Building

SITE: 73 Paseo Real Santa Fe, NM

CLIENT: HDR Engineering, Inc. Albuquerque, NM

EXHIBIT: B-2

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S-2

661

650

52.G

PJ

351

5909

7 -

AT

TE

RB

ER

G IS

SU

E.G

PJ

5/1

3/16



of 58

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

B-03

B-04

B-04

B-05

B-05

NP

NP

NP

39

NP

0.313

0.174

0.236

1.568

0.83

0.114

0.109

0.732

9.5

9.5

4.75

9.5

12.5

6 16 20 30 40 501.5 2006 810

9.0

4.6

0.0

1.5

6.90.078

14

12.9

19.5

46.4

53.7

9.6

%Fines

LL PL PI

41 3/4 1/2 60

fine

B-03

B-04

B-04

B-05

B-05

9.44

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

coarse fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

NP

NP

NP

22

NP

NP

NP

NP

17

NP 0.98

D100

Cc Cu

SILT OR CLAY

4

%Sand%GravelD30 D10

50 - 51.5

10 - 11.5

40 - 41.5

10 - 11.5

35 - 36.5

3/8 3 100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

USCS Classification

62.4

71.6

53.6

44.8

83.5

D60

coarse medium

Boring ID Depth

Boring ID Depth

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

50 - 51.5

10 - 11.5

40 - 41.5

10 - 11.5

35 - 36.5

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTY SAND (SM)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136



Building



EXHIBIT: B-3

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

GR

AIN

SIZ

E: U

SC

S-2

661

650

52.G

PJ

351

5909

7 -

AT

TE

RB

ER

G IS

SU

E.G

PJ

5/1

3/16



of 58

-6.0

-5.5

-5.0

-4.5

-4.0

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0

10 100 1,000 10,000

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf

NOTES:

SWELL CONSOLIDATION TESTASTM D2435

Specimen Identification Classification , pcf

113B-01 12

WC, %

CLAYEY SAND(SC)10.0 - 11.0 ft



Building



EXHIBIT: B-4

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S 6

616

5052

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

15.G

DT

5/1

3/1

6



of 58

-6.0

-5.5

-5.0

-4.5

-4.0

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0

10 100 1,000 10,000

AX

IAL

ST

RA

IN,

%

PRESSURE, psf

NOTES:

SWELL CONSOLIDATION TESTASTM D2435

Specimen Identification Classification , pcf

121B-02 10

WC, %

SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM)10.0 - 11.0 ft



Building



EXHIBIT: B-5

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

TC

_CO

NS

OL_

ST

RA

IN-U

SC

S 6

616

5052

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N20

15.G

DT

5/1

3/1

6



of 58

B-01 2.5 - 4 8.5

B-01 5 - 6.5 9.4

B-01 10 - 11 CLAYEY SAND(SC) 35 18 17 33.0 5.5 55.1 11.6 112.8

B-01 15 - 16.5 18.8

B-01 20 - 21.5 SILTY SAND(SM) 38 25 13 38.1 4.7 52.3 22.3

B-01 25 - 26.5 7.6

B-01 30 - 31.5 26.7

B-01 35 - 36.5 10.2

B-01 40 - 41.5 19.2

B-01 45 - 46.5 9.3

B-01 50 - 51.5 8.8

B-02 2.5 - 4 19.1

B-02 5 - 6.5

B-02 10 - 11 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM) 12 15 NP 29.6 6.7 39.7 10.1 121.5

B-02 15 - 16.5 20.5

B-02 20 - 21.5 8.8

B-02 25 - 26.5 27.8

B-02 30 - 31.5 SILTY SAND(SM) NP NP NP 22.5 1.2 75.7 36.3

B-02 35 - 36.5 20.5

B-02 40 - 41.5 21.1

B-02 45 - 46.5 28.4

B-02 50 - 51.5 3.2

B-03 2.5 - 4 6.7

B-03 5 - 6.5 6.3

B-03 10 - 11.5 9.0

B-03 15 - 16.5 SANDY SILT(ML) 38 26 12 54.5 0.0 45.1 27.3

B-03 20 - 21 9.2 101.8

B-03 25 - 26.5 24.5

B-03 30 - 31.5 10.5

B-03 35 - 36.5 34.3

B-03 40 - 41.5 14.2

B-03 45 - 46.5 14.7

B-03 50 - 51.5 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL(SM) NP NP NP 12.9 9.0 62.4 43.1

B-03 55 - 56.5 27.4

B-03 60 - 61.5 41.6

B-03 65 - 66.5 10.7

B-04 2.5 - 4 11.7

B-04 5 - 6.5 4.7


B-04 15 - 16.5 27.2

B-04 20 - 21 16.1 115.3

B-04 25 - 26.5 26.3

Depth USCS Classificationand Soil Description

CompressiveStrength

(psf)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)

BORINGID

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay

Sheet 1 of 2

Summary of Laboratory Results



Building



EXHIBIT: B-6

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

OLD

-LA

B S

UM

MA

RY

: US

CS

-NO

AS

SIG

NM

EN

T

6616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 5

/13/

16



of 58

B-04 30 - 31.5 30.6

B-04 35 - 36.5 24.3


B-04 45 - 46.5 20.7

B-04 50 - 51.5 4.5

B-04 55 - 56.5 34.4

B-04 60 - 61.5 35.7

B-04 65 - 65.75 29.8

B-04 70 - 70.67 21.3

B-05 2.5 - 4 9.0

B-05 5 - 6.5 3.2

B-05 10 - 11.5 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 39 22 17 53.7 1.5 44.8 25.7

B-05 15 - 16 9.2 122.1

B-05 20 - 21.5 29.8

B-05 25 - 26.5 12.9

B-05 30 - 31.5 56.0

B-05 35 - 36.5 POORLY GRADED SAND with

SILT(SP-SM)

NP NP NP 9.6 6.9 83.5 4.4

B-05 40 - 41.5 19.9

B-05 45 - 46.5 2.7

B-05 50 - 51.5 9.2

B-05 55 - 56.5 41.6

B-05 60 - 61.5 22.0

B-05 65 - 65.92 13.2

Depth USCS Classificationand Soil Description

CompressiveStrength

(psf)

%<#200Sieve

DryDensity

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)

BORINGID

LiquidLimit

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%Gravel

%Sand

%Silt

%Clay

Sheet 2 of 2

Summary of Laboratory Results



Building



EXHIBIT: B-7

LAB

OR

AT

OR

Y T

ES

TS

AR

E N

OT

VA

LID

IF S

EP

AR

AT

ED

FR

OM

OR

IGIN

AL

RE

PO

RT

.

OLD

-LA

B S

UM

MA

RY

: US

CS

-NO

AS

SIG

NM

EN

T

6616

505

2.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

2012

.GD

T 5

/13/

16



of 58

May 02, 2016

TerraconMichael Anderson

Dear Michael Anderson:

RE: Anaerobic Digester Tanks OrderNo.: 1604991

FAXTEL: (505) 797-4287

4905 Hawkins, NEAlbuquerque, NM 87109

Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory4901 Hawkins NE

Albuquerque, NM 87109

Website: www.hallenvironmental.comTEL: 505-345-3975 FAX: 505-345-4107

Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory received 2 sample(s) on 4/20/2016 for the analyses presented in the following report.

Andy Freeman

These were analyzed according to EPA procedures or equivalent. To access our accredited tests please go to www.hallenvironmental.com or the state specific web sites. In order to properly interpret your results it is imperative that you review this report in its entirety. See the sample checklist and/or the Chain of Custody for information regarding the sample receipt temperature and preservation. Data qualifiers or a narrative will be provided if the sample analysis or analytical quality control parameters require a flag. When necessary, data qualifers are provided on both the sample analysis report and the QC summary report, both sections should be reviewed. All samples are reported, as received, unless otherwise indicated. Lab measurement of analytes considered field parameters that require analysis within 15 minutes of sampling such as pH and residual chlorine are qualified as being analyzed outside of the recommended holding time.

Please don't hesitate to contact HEAL for any additional information or clarifications.

ADHS Cert #AZ0682 -- NMED-DWB Cert #NM9425 -- NMED-Micro Cert #NM0190

Sincerely,

Laboratory Manager4901 Hawkins NEAlbuquerque, NM 87109



of 58

http://www.hallenvironmental.com

http://www.hallenvironmental.com

Project: Anaerobic Digester TanksClient Sample ID: B1@5'

Collection Date: 4/14/2016Matrix: SOIL

CLIENT: Terracon

Lab ID: 1604991-001

Date Reported: 5/2/2016

Analytical ReportLab Order 1604991

Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedDFPQL

Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.

Received Date: 4/20/2016 4:43:00 PM

Batch

EPA METHOD 300.0: ANIONS Analyst: LGT

Sulfate 4/25/2016 7:29:41 PM1.5 mg/Kg 1110 24978

RESISTIVITY AND EC SOIL Analyst: JRR

Resistivity 4/26/2016 10:39:00 AM1.00 Ohms * cm 11460 24987

SM4500-H+B: PH Analyst: JRR

pH 4/25/2016 4:26:00 PM1.68 pH Units 18.62 R33776

Qualifiers:

Page 1 of 4

Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.

* Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level. B Analyte detected in the associated Method BlankD Sample Diluted Due to Matrix E Value above quantitation rangeH Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits

ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit P Sample pH Not In RangeR RPD outside accepted recovery limits RL Reporting Detection LimitS % Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix W Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified



of 58

Project: Anaerobic Digester TanksClient Sample ID: B3@15'

Collection Date: 4/14/2016Matrix: SOIL

CLIENT: Terracon

Lab ID: 1604991-002

Date Reported: 5/2/2016

Analytical ReportLab Order 1604991

Analyses Result Qual Units Date AnalyzedDFPQL

Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.

Received Date: 4/20/2016 4:43:00 PM

Batch

EPA METHOD 300.0: ANIONS Analyst: LGT

Sulfate 4/25/2016 7:54:31 PM1.5 mg/Kg 136 24978

RESISTIVITY AND EC SOIL Analyst: JRR

Resistivity 4/26/2016 10:39:00 AM1.00 Ohms * cm 12050 24987

SM4500-H+B: PH Analyst: JRR

pH 4/25/2016 4:26:00 PM1.68 pH Units 18.32 R33776

Qualifiers:

Page 2 of 4

Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.





of 58

Project: Anaerobic Digester TanksClient: Terracon

02-May-16

QC SUMMARY REPORT 1604991WO#:Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.

Sample ID MB-24978

Batch ID: 24978

Analysis Date: 4/25/2016Prep Date: 4/25/2016

Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC %RPDLowLimit HighLimit RPDLimit Qual

Units: mg/Kg

PQL

Client ID: PBS RunNo: 33759

SeqNo: 1039760

mblkSampType: TestCode: EPA Method 300.0: Anions

Sulfate 1.5ND

Sample ID LCS-24978

Batch ID: 24978



Units: mg/Kg

PQL

Client ID: LCSS RunNo: 33759

SeqNo: 1039761

lcsSampType: TestCode: EPA Method 300.0: Anions

Sulfate 30.00 93.9 90 1101.5 028

Qualifiers:

Page 3 of 4





of 58

Project: Anaerobic Digester TanksClient: Terracon

02-May-16

QC SUMMARY REPORT 1604991WO#:Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.

Sample ID 1604991-002ADUP

Batch ID: 24987



Units: Ohms * cm

PQL

Client ID: B3@15' RunNo: 33784

SeqNo: 1040631

DUPSampType: TestCode: Resistivity and eC Soil

Resistivity 201.00 5.481940

Qualifiers:

Page 4 of 4





of 58



of 58