2016 Geotechnical Investigation - · PDF file2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill...

2016 Geotechnical InvestigationUpland LandfillCampbell River, British Columbia

Upland Excavating Ltd.

10271 Shellbridge Way Suite 165 Richmond British Columbia V6X 2W8 Canada 088877 | Report No 6 | May 27 2016

GHD | Report for Upland Excavating Ltd. -2016 Geotechnical Investigation | 088877 (6) | i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 2

2. Investigation Methodology 2 2.1 Borehole Investigation ....................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................... 3

2.3 Geophysical Seismic Investigation .................................................................................... 4

3. Subsurface Stratigraphy 4 3.1 Native Soil Material ............................................................................................................ 4

3.2 Bedrock .............................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................................... 5

4. Slope Stability Evaluations 5 4.1 Material Properties (for Slope Stability Analysis) ............................................................... 5

4.2 Water Levels (for Slope Stability Analysis) ........................................................................ 6

4.3 Seismic Peak Ground Accelerations ................................................................................. 6

4.4 Targeted Safety Factors .................................................................................................... 7

4.5 Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................................ 8

4.6 Critical Cross Sections ....................................................................................................... 8 4.7 Stability Results ................................................................................................................. 8

4.8 Final Cover Design Considerations ................................................................................... 9

5. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation 10

6. Conclusions 10

7. References 13

Figure Index Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Borehole/MASW Investigation Line Location Plan

Figure 3 Landfill Cross Sections

Table Index Table 1 Summary of Geotechnical Test Results

Table 2 Summary of Assumed Material Properties

Table 3 Summary of Slope Stability Evaluation Results

GHD | Report for Upland Excavating Ltd. -2016 Geotechnical Investigation | 088877 (6) | ii

Appendices Appendix A-1 Borehole Logs

Appendix A-2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Logs

Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

Appendix C MASW Test Results

Appendix D NBCC Seismic Hazard Information

Appendix E Slope Stability Analysis Results

GHD | Report for Upland Excavating Ltd. -2016 Geotechnical Investigation | 088877 (6) | 1

1. Introduction

GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by Upland Excavating Ltd. (Upland) to carry out a geotechnical investigation for the future Upland Landfill (Landfill) located at 7295 Gold River Hwy, Campbell River, British Columbia (Site). The geotechnical investigation will form part of the Waste Discharge Application submitted to British Columbia Ministry (BC) of Environment (MOE) to obtain an Operational Certificate (OC) for the Landfill. The geotechnical investigation has been prepared in general accordance with the BC MOE's "Draft Second Edition Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste", dated September 2015.

The Site is located approximately 7 kilometres (km) southwest of the urban area of Campbell River. The Site's southern property coincides with the boundary between the City of Campbell River and the Strathcona Regional District. The Gold River Highway is located to the north and west of the Site. The legal description is Lot A, District Lot 85, Plan 30709, Sayward District. The total area of the Site is approximately 48.2 hectares (ha). A Site location map is presented in Figure 1.

The Site is currently an active sand and gravel pit (Pit) that has been in operation since 1969 under Mines Act Permit G-8-114 issued December 1989 last amended in February 2014. The location of the Landfill will be within the base of the Pit.

GHD has completed various investigative activities at the Site between August 2015 and February 2016 for the purpose of:

• Characterizing the geologic conditions underlying the future Landfill and the surrounding areas.

• Investigating and characterizing the groundwater and surface water flows.

• Investigating and defining groundwater and surface water quality within and in the vicinity of the future Landfill.

• Characterizing groundwater quality upgradient and downgradient of the Landfill footprint.

• Developing recommendations for use in support of an application to the BC MOE to receive an OC for the Landfill.

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation, carried out by GHD was to assess the current geotechnical conditions within the Landfill footprint and to assess the geotechnical aspects of the Landfill design. The investigation included advancing three boreholes within or in the proximity of the Landfill footprint and geophysical testing to evaluate the effects of seismic hazard levels introduced in British Columbia Building Code 2012 (BCBC 2012) and National Building Code of Canada 2010 (NBCC 2010) on the Landfill performance.

1.1 Project Description

The Landfill will be constructed within the limits of the existing Pit. Upon completion it will have a footprint area with dimensions of 200 metres (m) (north-south direction) by 150 m (east-west direction). A Site plan of the Landfill is presented in Figure 2. The Landfill base will be covered with a base liner (comprising geomembrane/geotextile and geosynthetic clay liner), leachate collection system, and a leachate collection system sump to collect and drain the generated leachate. The Landfill base elevation varies from about 168.3 m above mean sea level (AMSL) to the south to about 165.3 m AMSL to the north at the location of the sump. The base will be properly graded to


direct the leachate towards the leachate collection system. Following the construction of the Landfill (completion of waste disposal) it will be covered with a low permeability final cover system (comprising geomembrane/geotextile and geosynthetic clay liner). Therefore, long term water infiltration into the Landfill will be minimal.

Cross sections of the Landfill are shown in Figure 3. In general, the existing native slopes within the Landfill footprint will be regraded to slopes not steeper than 2H to 1V (ratio of horizontal to vertical), the side slopes of the waste berm will be constructed with slopes of 3H to 1V, and the top of the Landfill will be graded with a slope of 10H to 1V. The top elevation of the Landfill will be at an approximate elevation of 194.8 m AMSL, indicating the Landfill has the capacity to accept about 27 m of waste.

In accordance to the Design, Operations and Closure Plan (DOCP) Drawings (GHD 2016) the Landfill will be constructed in three stages over a period of 10 years. According to this plan, at each stage of the construction approximately 9 m of waste will be disposed at the Landfill. The waste will be disposed loose and will be compacted to achieve maximum Landfill capacity. Two infiltration ponds are located adjacent to the Landfill, one for surface water and one for treated leachate. The base of this pond will be about 2 m below the exiting floor of the Pit. Localized saturated conditions will exist at the east/northeast toe of the Landfill slope.

1.2 Objective

This geotechnical study was designed and executed to collect required information to assist with the final design of the Landfill. The objectives of the geotechnical study included evaluating the stability of the Landfill slopes under various environmental and construction conditions; and completing a seismic study to evaluate the stability of the base and slopes of the Landfill under seismic loads. These objectives were completed in accordance with the National Building of Canada (2010) and British Columbia Building Code (2012). As part of the seismic study the potential for the occurrence of liquefaction at the Site was also assessed.

2. Investigation Methodology

To achieve the aforementioned objectives, a subsurface investigation and sample collection was carried out at three locations within the Landfill footprint and around the Landfill mound. Associated laboratory tests were then carried out. The following summarizes the implemented scope of fieldwork:

• Installation of three geotechnical boreholes: BH1-16, BH2-16, and MW2A-16 were terminated at 24.0 m below existing ground surface (m bgs), 16.5 m bgs, and 45.4 m bgs, respectively. The drilling locations are shown on the attached Figure 2. In-situ tests including SPT sampling and testing were carried out within the boreholes at regular depths. Further, disturbed soil samples were collected from the native soil material to be subjected to laboratory testing.

• Laboratory tests on native soil samples, including gradation tests.

• Measurement of the variation of shear wave velocity with depth using seismic geophysical methods (MASW). The measurements were carried out along three investigative lines as shown in Figure 2.

The following sections describe the details of each of the above investigation activities.


2.1 Borehole Investigation

A total of three boreholes (BH1-16, BH2-16, and MW2A-16) were advanced as part of this investigation. The borehole locations were staked in the field by GHD field personnel at the locations shown on Figure 2. Two of the boreholes (BH1-16 and BH2-16) were advanced within the Landfill footprint and borehole MW2A-16 was advanced 40 m northeast of the Landfill footprint. A monitoring well was installed at the latter location for long term groundwater monitoring purposes.

The boreholes were advanced by a drilling subcontractor under the full-time supervision of GHD field personnel, utilizing a track-mounted drill rig equipped with roto-sonic systems. Representative disturbed samples of the penetrated strata were obtained during drilling at regular intervals, generally every 0.75 m to 3.0 m as appropriate, utilizing a 50 mm diameter split-barrel sampler. The sampler was advanced by dropping a 63.5 kg hammer approximately 760 mm, in accordance with the standard penetration test method (ASTM D1586). The results of these penetration tests are reported as SPT 'N' values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths. Information obtained on individual boreholes is recorded on the accompanying Borehole Logs (Appendix A-1). Dynamic Cone Penetration test (DCPT) was carried out from surface to about 0.8 m below the existing ground in the vicinity of each borehole, in accordance to ASTM D6951. The results of these tests are provided in the attached Appendix A-2.

The soil samples obtained were inspected upon retrieval and classified in the field for type, texture, colour, and moisture. The obtained samples were sealed in clean, airtight containers and shipped to the GHD Richmond (BC) office, where they were further reviewed. Selected samples were submitted for geotechnical laboratory testing.

Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and sealed at the surface with bentonite pellets in accordance with the current BC Ground Water Protection Regulation (B.C. Reg. 299/2004). Excess soil/waste cuttings (if any) were spread on the ground surface in the vicinity of the borehole locations.

Groundwater observations were made in the boreholes as drilling proceeded. The observed groundwater levels are considered transient and do not represent stabilized levels. Borehole MW2A-16 was equipped with 2" standpipe for long term groundwater monitoring. The details of the installed piezometer are provided on the corresponding borehole log.

Survey of the drilled borehole locations was carried out by Upland's surveyor subsequent to drilling activities. The ground surface elevations are recorded on the corresponding borehole logs (Appendix A-1).

2.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted on representative soil samples in accordance with applicable ASTM and industry acceptable standards. The purpose of the laboratory tests was to determine the geotechnical index properties of the subsurface soils for use in geotechnical analyses. The laboratory testing program consisted of:

• Sieve and hydrometer (ASTM D421 and ASTM D422) analyses on five retrieved soil samples.

The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the attached Table 1 with further details provided in Appendix B.


2.3 Geophysical Seismic Investigation

A geophysical testing program consisting of multi-channel analysis of surface wave (MASW) was carried out along selected investigation lines. The field work for this aspect of the work was carried out in January 2016 along three investigation lines as follows:

• Line 1: was located on the east side of the Landfill footprint.

• Line 2: was located to the north boundary of the Landfill footprint.

• Line 3: was located to the northwest of the Landfill footprint.

Figure 2 provides the locations at which MASW testing was carried out. Detailed field methodology, analysis method, and the results obtained are provided in Appendix C.

3. Subsurface Stratigraphy

In general, the subsurface stratigraphy across the Site is quite uniform comprising of native sandand gravel overlying bedrock. The following section provides a general description of the findings atthe location of the boreholes. A discussion on the specific characteristics of the geologic unitsencountered is based on the geotechnical tests carried out.

3.1 Native Soil Material

The native soil encountered at the location of the three boreholes is comprised of sand and graveldeposits overlying a sand unit at depth. At the location of borehole BH2-16 a silt deposit wasencountered below the sand layer. Boreholes BH1-6 and BH2-16 were terminated at depths of24.0 m bgs and 16.0 m bgs in bedrock and boreholes MW2A-16 was terminated within sand at thetargeted depth of 45.0 m bgs.

The thickness of the sand and gravel deposit at BH1-16 and BH2-16 was10.0 m and 11.0 m,respectively. The SPT 'N' values measured within sand and gravel deposit are generally indicativeof the dense to very dense nature of this deposit, i.e. SPT 'N' values in excess of 30 blows per0.3 m of penetration. Layers of compact material (SPT 'N' values of 10 to 20 blows per 0.3 m ofpenetration) were also observed within this deposit at the location of MW2A-16. One gradation testscarried out on samples from this material resulted in 41.7 percent gravel; 55.5 percent sand,2.8 percent silt/clay size material. Therefore, this material is classified as gravelly SAND, trace silt.

Below the top sand and gravel layer the dominant deposit turns into sand with various amounts offine sand and silt materials. The SPT 'N' values encountered within this deposit were generally inexcess of 50 blows per 0.3 m of penetration indicating the very dense nature of this deposit at thelocation of the boreholes. A gradation test completed on silt and fine sand rich layer encountered at24.4 m bgs within MW2A-16 resulted in a grain size distribution of 0.4 percent gravel, 65.8 percentsand, and 33.8 percent silt. Therefore this material is classified as SAND, some silts and clay. Agradation test completed on a silt and sand layer above bedrock in BH2-16 approximately 11.5 to14 m bgs, resulted in a grain size distribution of 28.3 percent gravel, 39.4 percent sand, and32.3 percent fines.


3.2 Bedrock

Igneous bedrock (basaltic) was encountered at boreholes BH1-16 and BH2-16 at 23 m BGS and 14 m bgs, respectively. Bedrock was not encountered at borehole MW2A-16 which was terminated at 45 m bgs. Within the Landfill footprint, the top of bedrock elevation varies from about 145 to 151 m AMSL. At the center of the Landfill bedrock is about 14 m below the designed base of the Landfill. Based on the results of this investigation and previous information collected by GHD, the bedrock surface elevation dips to the south east and is interpreted to be highly variable at and in the vicinity of the Site.

3.3 Groundwater

Groundwater observations were made during drilling activities and upon borehole completion. During drilling activities, groundwater was encountered at BH1-16 and MW2A-16 at 11.2 m bgs and 13.7 m bgs, respectively and was not encountered at the location of BH2-16. The observed groundwater levels are considered transient and may fluctuate with time. As part of the investigation completed for the Hydrogeolgy and Hydrology Characterization Report, static water levels were measured following borehole completion and monitoring well installation. Hydraulic monitoring results indicated that groundwater flow direction on Site within the sand and gravel unit is directed from the northwest to the southeast. The groundwater elevation within the Landfill footprint was reported to be variable ranging from 164.0 m AMSL to less than 157.3 m AMSL. At the center of the Landfill, groundwater is reported to be at about 160.0 m AMSL or about 7.0 m below the designed base of the Landfill.

4. Slope Stability Evaluations

A detailed stability evaluation is carried out to assess the potential failure modes of the designed Landfill slopes and associated factors of safety under various assumed short and long term conditions. The following sections explain the assumptions and the results of our analysis.

4.1 Material Properties (for Slope Stability Analysis)

For the purpose of the stability analysis three types of materials are assumed to exist within the Landfill footprint. A description of these materials is as follows:

• Uncompacted Waste (Material 1): this material represents the freshly deposited material, is highly compressible and shows relatively low strength. Due to its relatively recent deposition, this material has high water content, is under-consolidated and will undergo large settlements upon loading. The strength of this material will increase with time due to compaction and consolidation.

• Compacted Waste (Material 2): following deposition of the waste, the material will be subjected to mechanical compaction to increase the Landfill capacity. This process will increase its long-term mechanical strength.

• Consolidated Waste (Material 3): subsequent to deposition and compaction, the consolidation phase of the waste material will start. Depending on the properties of the deposited material such as its permeability and composition, this process may take months to years to complete.


Based on the available information in literature and our previous experiences with similar material it is assumed that the waste material will behave as granular material thus its shear strength is governed by internal friction angle and its unit weight and cohesion can be ignored (C'=0). A summary of the assigned parameters is provided in the attached Table 2.

The native soil at the Site comprises granular material of gravelly/sandy nature. As mentioned in the previous section, these materials are generally in dense to very dense nature. The assumed mechanical properties for this native material is also presented in attached Table 2.

4.2 Water Levels (for Slope Stability Analysis)

GHD has monitored the groundwater conditions within and around the Landfill footprint with the results provided in the GHD’s Hydrogeology and Hydrology Characterization Report, 2016. Based on this information groundwater within the native material will range from 3.0 m to 9.7 m below the designed base of the Landfill. However, the existence of a gravel wash plant and a treated leachate infiltration pond to the east of the Landfill may cause temporary saturated condition at the base of the east/northeast toes of the Landfill. The other source of water within the Landfill is the leachate in the landfilled waste during the Landfill development and operation. As the closure works for the Landfill include low permeability final cover and a leachate collection system, it is reasonable to assume that the leachate elevations within the landfilled waste will be controlled and reduce with time. Back calculations have been completed to evaluate the water levels which may cause instabilities within the Landfill slopes. As a result, recommendations are made within this report to monitor the water levels during the development of the Landfill.

4.3 Seismic Peak Ground Accelerations

The level of seismic hazards defined for the Campbell River area as obtained from Natural Resources of Canada website are presented in Appendix D. The level of hazards as per National Building Code of Canada 2015 (NBCC 2015) is slightly higher than the ones in NBCC 2010 (NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010); however the difference is not considered significant. The British Columbia Building Code (BCBC 2012), which is the applicable regulation, adopted the same seismic provisions as NBCC 2010. Therefore, in this discussion, reference is made to NBCC 2010. The calculated seismic hazards for the site, as per NBCC 2010 (provided by NRCC) for different probabilities, are provided in Appendix D. These values are provided for firm ground (site Class C).

The National Building Code of Canada (Code) specifies that buildings and their components should be designed for seismic events with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., return period of 2475 years). However, the Code does not specifically comment on the appropriate seismic event for Landfills or earth structures. The US Environmental Protection Agency Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D (Richardson et. al., 1995) states that hazardous waste landfill facilities and its engineered components should be designed for maximum horizontal acceleration resulting from a seismic event with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 250 years (i.e., return period of 2373 years).

Considering the nature of the Landfill and the low consequences of its failure during an extreme seismic event, it is GHD's opinion that NBCC 2010 regulations and RCRA Subtitle D provide very conservative design criteria, especially for short term conditions. Therefore, in the absence of a specific design code for this application for the seismic condition present at this Site, it is GHD's opinion that for the active life (operation life) of the Landfill, a design based on a seismic event with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 475 years) is appropriate.


However, to account for the unknown properties of the freshly deposited waste material and potential seismic amplifications due to its unconsolidated nature, a seismic event with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 1000 years) is considered for stability evaluations in short term. For the post construction conditions the design should be based on a seismic event with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 2475 years).

In accordance with the hazards presented in Appendix D the peak ground accelerations for class C sites are as follows:

PGA1000years = 0.202g for 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years

PGA2475years = 0.281g for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years

As per the calculations presented in Appendix C the Landfill was designated as Class C. Therefore, the above PGA values can be used in stability calculations without any modification for site amplification effects. The slope stability analysis was carried out using the pseudostatic method; therefore an acceleration multiplier of 0.5 is used in the stability calculations.

In conclusion the following accelerations are used in the stability evaluations:

PGA1000years = 0.5 x 0.202g = 0.1g

PGA2475years = 0.5 x 0.281g =0.14g

4.4 Targeted Safety Factors

Factors of safety (FOS) are quantitative measures of defining the stability conditions of a slope. The most widely used definition for the factor of safety is as follows:

FOS = Available shear strength in the soil mass

Shear strength required for equilibrium

A FOS value of 1 indicates that the resisting shear forces within the soil mass are in equilibrium with the driving forces. Thus FOS values less than 1 are indicative of high probability of failure, whereas FOS values greater than 1 indicate a low probability of failure. Due to the uncertainties in estimating the soil mass shear strength and driving forces, FOS values greater than 1 are typically used in the design. The targeted factors of safety are related to the consequences of failure, expected life span of the slope, uncertainties in evaluating shear strengths, groundwater conditions, future monitoring plans and uncertainties in the analysis methods. Conventionally, the following factors of safety are used in the design of slopes (Blake, 2002):

• For static long-term slope stability FOS = 1.5

• For static short-term slope stability (end of construction) FOS = 1.25 to 1.30

• For dynamic-long term slope stability (seismic case) FOS = 1.10

For this Landfill, the consequences of slope failure can be summarized as follows:

• Damage to the final cover system.


• Damage to the leachate collections systems.

• Damage to the access roads in the vicinity of the Landfill.

• Possible contamination of the existing groundwater with leachate in the immediate vicinity of the Landfill footprint.

Based on the above, the Landfill slopes have low to moderate consequences. Therefore, for the duration of the Landfill operation, the following factors of safety are considered adequate and are used as the target factors of safety in the stability analysis:

• Static (During Expansion and End of construction) FOS = 1.2 to 1.3

• Dynamic (Seismic) FOS = 1.0 for events with return periods of 1000 years (Short Term)

• Dynamic (Seismic) FOS = 1.1 for events with return periods of 2475 years (Long Term)

Typically, materials exhibit higher strengths under rapid dynamic loads (Blake 2002). For the slope stability evaluations provided in this report, the static strength parameters were used for the cases with seismic loading (rapid dynamic loading), which is considered a conservative assumption.

It is emphasized that these factors of safety are considered adequate for the operating life of the Landfill, when comprehensive monitoring programs are implemented, and the failure consequences are low to moderate as stated herein. The above noted targeted factors of safety should be reviewed/ re-evaluated at a later time based on the closure and post-closure development plans and the designed end use for the Landfill.

4.5 Analysis Methodology

Slope stability analysis performed using GeoStudio/Slope W© software. Limit equilibrium analysis (Morgensten-Price and Bishop methods) was carried out to evaluate the stability of slopes across the Landfill under different material, water level and loading conditions. To account for seismic loading, the analysis was carried out under psuedostatic conditions. A summary of the results is provided in the attached Table 3. Details of the constructed models along with critical surfaces are provided in the figures in Appendix E.

4.6 Critical Cross Sections

Two cross sections were selected as critical for this analysis. The attached Figure 2 shows a plan view of the selected cross sections and Section views of selected cross sections are depicted in Figure 4.

4.7 Stability Results

A summary of the factors of safety along each section is provided in Table 3. Selected model outputs from the critical cross sections are provided in the attached Appendix E. The following sections provide a summary of the assessments.

For each selected cross section the following cases are evaluated:

• Stage 1-Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste overlying native soil.


• Stage 2-Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 of compacted) overlying native soil.

• Stage 3-End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 of waste (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying native soil.

• Stage 4-Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed Landfill comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying native soil.

A review of the factors of safety as presented in Table 3 reveals that:

• The obtained factors of safety for static conditions (short and long term conditions) exceed the targeted values as discussed in Section 4.4 above (Table 3 Column under title FOS Static).

• The obtained factors of safety for dynamic/seismic conditions meet or exceed the targeted values (Table 3 Column under title FOS Seismic).

• The water levels presented in Table 3 (under title Effect of Water Level) show the maximum temporary water levels within the Landfill. Above this water level the factors of safety will be lower than industry accepted standards. It is observed that in short term, as long as the water levels are maintained at the infiltration pond levels, acceptable factors of safety are achieved. In long term (compacted/consolidated material) higher temporary pore pressures can be tolerated.

• Neither of the presented slip surfaces passes through the native material. This observation indicates that the existing ground is sufficiently stable to support the Landfill construction.

Based on the above evaluations, it is our conclusion that from a geotechnical point of view the Landfill design (with the details presented in the Design drawings) meets or exceeds the required factors of safety for slope stability.

4.8 Final Cover Design Considerations

A detailed evaluation of the Landfill cover system should be carried out separately considering the potential for settlement of the landfilled waste.

Changes in the static effective stresses within the Landfill or the underlying native soil materials may result in settlements. Uniform settlements generally are not much of concern in Landfills; however differential settlements are important to engineered systems and should be minimized where possible. In the design of engineered systems, the possible adverse effect of large settlements (especially if differential) should be considered. The types of settlements identified for the Landfill are:

• Short term (elastic) settlements: These settlements occur almost immediately after changes in the loading occurs. This type of settlement can occur due to loading from construction work, heavy machinery, and the vertical expansion of the existing Landfill. Immediate settlements (total or differential) in the order of 100 mm to 200 mm (4" to 8") are expected during the vertical expansion of the Landfill. During this period site reconnaissance by geotechnical professionals should be carried out to identify locations of distress.

• Long term (primary consolidation) settlements: These settlements occur due to the expulsion of pore water from the waste material. Depending on the loading, saturation degree, and the drainage paths within the Landfill, this settlement may take years to complete and can also be differential in nature. Long term settlements (total or differential) should be expected after the closure of the Landfill. However, due to the compaction of the waste material and the duration


of the construction these settlements are expected to be tolerable. These settlements should be repaired upon detection.

• Creep (secondary consolidation) settlement: This type of settlement will occur under nearly constant effective stresses. It is associated with the plastic adjustment of the material. Theoretically, this type of settlement will never end, but will slow down with time. Depending on the nature of the deposited waste, long term settlements (creep settlements) are expected to occur at the Landfill on a continuous basis. Again, due to the compaction of the material and staged construction these settlements are expected to be tolerable and of no concern.

Contingency plans to address areas of settlement should be included in the design phase of the Landfill closure works. Any post closure land use should consider the potential adverse effect of these settlements on post closure conditions.

5. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation

The subsurface underlying the Landfill is comprised of dense to very dense sand to sand and gravel material. Considering the dense to very dense nature of this material and the relatively large amounts of gravel size material within this deposit, the probability of liquefaction during extreme seismic events is considered very low. Further, there is no documented case study of municipal solid waste liquefaction due to seismic loading within waste material. The presence of the Landfill leachate collection system will minimize the potential for pore water pressure build-up within the waste material. Therefore; it is concluded that the potential of liquefaction within the landfilled material is also very low.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation carried out by GHD was to assess the current geotechnical conditions at the Site and to evaluate the Landfill design for the construction, use and closure. Based on this geotechnical investigation, the following conclusions are provided:

General

• The results of the geotechnical investigation show that the Landfill design at this Site is geotechnically feasible.

Settlement

• The potential for settlement of the landfilled waste should be considered when conducting a detailed evaluation of the Landfill cover system.

Seismic Evaluation

A seismic evaluation was carried out based on hazard values (PGA) recommended by NBCC 2010. The procedure specified in US EPA RCRA Subtitle D was used for evaluating the amplification factors within the soil and waste material. Overall the obtained hazard values provide a conservative estimation of the amplified peak accelerations at the Landfill. Considering the low consequences of failure at the Site, seismic hazard values with 2% and 5% probability in 50 years (return period of 2475 and 1000 years, respectively) were used in the seismic evaluations. The evaluation concluded the following:


• Historical data does not show the potential of liquefaction within waste material. The existence of the Landfill leachate collection system does not allow for pressure build up (saturated condition) within the Landfilled material. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction within the waste material is extremely low.

• Liquefaction assessment of the existing native soil shows very low to low potential of liquefaction during extreme seismic events with return periods of 2475 years or less.

Slope Stability

Slope stability analysis was carried out using GeoStudio/Slope W© software. Limit equilibrium method (Morgensten-Price and Bishop) was utilized to evaluate the stability of slopes across the Landfill under different material, water level and loading conditions.

Considering the low consequences of failure of the Landfill, targeted FOS of 1.2 to 1.3 is considered adequate for short term (during construction) stability of the slopes under static loading. For long term (post construction) conditions targeted FOS of 1.5 is considered. For seismic events with return periods of 1000 years, a target FOS of 1.0 is considered adequate. For seismic events with a return period of 2475 years, FOS of 1.1 is considered adequate. From the slope stability analysis the following conclusions are made:

• The safety factors obtained along the studied cross sections meet the targeted safety factors and are thus considered adequate under the assumptions of this report.

• Due to the nature of the material the factors of safety will increase with time, due to densification.

• The existing native subgrade is sufficiently stable to support the Landfill construction.

• A monitoring plan should be prepared and implemented to monitor the slope conditions/movements, and leachate/groundwater conditions as the height of the Landfill mound increases. A contingency plan should be prepared as part of the continued use and closure design to address any sudden buildup of pore pressure within the Landfill.


7. References

Blake, T.F., Hollingsworth, R.A., and Stewart, J.P. (Editors) (2002), Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center.

Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. (2004), Evaluation of the potential for liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays, Report No. UCD/CGM-04/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California.

CFM (2006), Canadian Foundation Manual, 4th Ed., Canadian Geotechnical Society, Richmond, BC.

Idriss, I.M., Boulanger, R.W. (2008), Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO-12.

Kavazanjian, E.J., Matasovic, N. and Bachus, R.C. (2013), 11th Peck Lecture: Predesign Geotechnical Investigation for the OII Superfund Site Landfill, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, p. 1849-1863

Kramer, S.L. (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, USA

Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E., and Anderson, R.L. (1998), Performance of Solid Waste Landfills in Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra: May 1998, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 319-334.

Richardson, G., Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Matasovi, N. (1995), RCRA Subtitle D, Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, Contract No. 68-C3-0315, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

G

O

L

D

R

I

V

E

R

H

I

G

H

W

A

Y

2047-R

LOT A

PLAN 42515

632m

2-35-48

113 OPP

105 OPP BCLS724

LOT C

S

H

O

P

OFFICE

SHED

112 OIP

WASH PLANT

NE 1/4 SEC.32 TP.2

W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 SEC. 33 TP. 2

PLAN 42515

524.777m 271-28-27

231.223m 271-28-27

244.553m

2-22-42

3

0

1

.

7

6

4

m

6

5

-

5

8

-

1

5

2

3

6

.

2

3

6

m

6

5

-

5

8

-

1

5

1

3

7

m

1

3

6

-

5

0

-

2

4

+

+M

F

U

E

L

T

A

N

K

S

2015-2017 PRODUCTION AREA

RICO LAKE

STRATA LOT 1

PLAN VIS6756

STRATA LOT 2

PLAN VIS6756

LOT A

PLAN 42515

LOT 6

PLAN 31913

LOT 6

PLAN 31913

MW1-14

MW2-14

MW3-14

A

R

G

O

N

A

U

T

R

O

A

D

MW5B-15

BH5-15

MW5A-15

MW4A-15

McIVOR LAKE

LOT A

PLAN 30709

WEIGH

SCALE

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

EX

PL

OS

IV

ES

S

HE

LT

ER

2015 - 2018

PRODUCTION AREA

243.443m

2-22-42

110 OIP

104 OIP

LEGEND

EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS

EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING LAKE

EXISTING ACCESS ROADWAY

LIMIT OF WASTE

LIMIT OF EXCAVATION

EXISTING MONITORING WELL

MW3-14

165.00

CAD File: P:\drawings\88000s\88877\88877 - REPORTS\88877-02(006)\88877-02(006)CI\88877-02(006)CI-WA001.dwg

May 25, 2016

88877-02

FIGURE 1

UPLAND EXCAVATING LTD.

PROPOSED UPLAND LANDFILL

SITE LOCATION PLAN

0 40 80 120m

0.25

632m

2-35-48

113 OPP

MASW LINE 1

MASW LINE 2

MASW LINE 3

105 OPP BCLS724

WASH PLANT

NE 1/4 SEC.32 TP.2

W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 SEC. 33 TP. 2

231.223m 271-28-27

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

2015 - 2018

PRODUCTION AREA

MW5B-15MW5A-15

MW4A-15

MW3-14

MW2-14

BH1-16

EXPLOSIVES SHELTER

BH5-15

524.777m 271-28-27

A'

FIG. 3

A

FIG. 3

B'

FIG. 3

MW2A-16

50.0m

BUFFER ZONE

244.553m

2-22-42

110 OIP

243.443m

2-22-42

BH5-15

SW15-01

MW6A-15

LEGEND

EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS

EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING LAKE

EXISTING ACCESS ROADWAY

MASW LINE

LIMIT OF WASTE

LIMIT OF EXCAVATION

PROPOSED MONITORING WELL

EXISTING MONITORING WELL

EXISTING BOREHOLE

SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION

MW3-14


May 25, 2016

88877-02

FIGURE 2



BOREHOLE / MASW

INVESTIGATION LINES PLAN

0 20 40 60m

0.5

166

168

170

172

174

176

178

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

198

166

168

170

172

174

176

178

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

198

STA

EASTWEST

0+

025

0+

050

0+

075

0+

100

0+

125

0+

150

0+

175

0+

200

0+

225

0+

250

0+

275

EXISTING GRADES

PERIMETER BERM

FINAL COVER SYSTEM

BASE GRADES

LIM

IT

O

F W

AS

TE

LIM

IT

O

F W

AS

TE

1%

1%

3

1

10

1

10

1

3

1

2

1

2

1

LINER SYSTEM

LIM

IT

O

F

EX

CA

VA

TIO

N

LIM

IT

O

F

EX

CA

VA

TIO

N

PERIMETER BERM

2

1

2

1

MID-SLOPE SWALE

164

166

168

170

172

174

176

178

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

198

164

166

168

170

172

174

176

178

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

196

198

STA

0+

025

0+

050

0+

075

0+

100

0+

125

0+

150

0+

175

0+

200

0+

225

0+

250

EXISTING GRADES

FINAL COVER SYSTEM

2%

LEACHATE COLLECTION

SYSTEM SUMP

PERIMETER BERM

PERIMETER BERM

2

1

3

1

2

1

10

1

10

1

BASE LINER SYSTEM

NORTH

SOUTH

HORZ: 1:1000

SECTION B-B'

FIG. 2

VERT: 1:500

FOR DETAILS REFER TO DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN DRAWINGS 88877-01(001)


May 25, 2016

88877-02

FIGURE 3



LANDFILL CROSS-SECTIONS

HORZ: 1:1000

SECTION A-A'

FIG. 2

VERT: 1:500

Table 1

Summary of Geotechnical Test Results

2016 Geotechnical Investigation

Upland Landfill, Campbell River, British Columbia

Page 1 of 1

BH1-16Within Proposed Landfill

FootprintSAND, trace gravel, trace silt

GB-1/

8.84-10.36N/M 3.9 93.3 SW

BH2-16Within Proposed Landfill

FootprintSAND, some silt, some gravel

GB-4/

11.89-13.41N/M 28.3 39.4 SM

MW2A-16 North East of Landfill Footprint gravelly SAND, trace siltGB-7/

14.94-16.46N/M 41.7 55.5 SW

MW2A-16 North East of Landfill Footprint SAND, some silt and clayGB-5/

24.38-24.69N/M 0.4 65.8 SM

MW2A-16 North East of Landfill Footprint SAND, trace siltGB-6/

38.10-38.7N/M 0.0 91.9 SP

Note:

(1) USCS denotes Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487)

GB - denotes grab sample

bgs - denotes below ground surface

Borehole

DesignationSubsoil Unit

Designation/ Sample

Depth

(m bgs)

Location

2.8

Soil Samples

USCS(1)

Classification

Particle Size Distribution

% < 0.002

mm

(clay)

% Silt

Natural

Moisture

Content (%) % Sand% Gravel

32.3

8.1

2.8

33.8

GHD 088877 (6)

Table 2

Summary of Assumed Material Properties



Page 1 of 1

Descriptionγ

(KN/m3)

C'

(KN/m2)

φ'

(Degrees) Color

Native- sand/Gravel

(Very Dense) 20 0 38

Material 1

(Uncompacted Waste) 8 0 25

Material 2

(Compacted Waste) 12 0 25

Material 3

(Compacted/Consolidated Waste) 15 0 32

Material Properties for Slope Stability Analysis

GHD 088877 (6)

Table 3

Summary of Slope Stability Results



Page 1 of 1

1000 2475

Stage 1Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste

overlying native soil.1.44 154.3 1.22 1.10 - E-1

Stage 2Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m

uncompacted over 9.0 of compacted) overlying native soil.1.44 155.1 1.26 1.07 - E-2

Stage 3

End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 of waste (9.0 m uncompacted over

9.0 m compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying

native soil.

1.44 157.9 1.28 1.03 - E-3

Stage 4

Stage 4-Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed landfill

comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying

native soil.

1.78 158.5 1.29 - 1.23 E-4

Stage 1Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste

overlying native soil.1.45 154 1.05 1.16 - E-5

Stage 2Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m

uncompacted over 9.0 of compacted) overlying native soil.1.45 154 1.17 1.08 - E-6

Stage 3

End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 of waste (9.0 m uncompacted over

9.0 m compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying

native soil.

1.46 157 1.18 1.08 - E-7

Stage 4

Stage 4-Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed landfill

comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying

native soil.

1.92 158 1.18 - 1.31 E-8

Notes:

a) Geometry corresponds to the proposed landfill design as per GHD 2016 design drawings.

b) Case Nos corresponsd to the stability analysis of different stages of the MSW material placed

c) For acceptable ranges of the factors of safety refer to the report.

d) These water levels show the maximum short term water levels acceptable for the design.

Return Period Years

Section A-A

Section B-B

Description

e) Target value for the factor of safey is 1.0 for seismic events with return periods of 1000 and and 1.1 for seismic events with return periods of 2475 years.

Cross Section(a) Case No.

(b)

FOS Static (c)

Effect of Water Level (d)

FOS Seismic ( e)

Reference

FigureCritical Water

Level

(m AMSL)

FOS

GHD 088877 (6)

GHD | Report for Upland Excavating Ltd. -2016 Geotechnical Investigation | 088877 (6)

Appendices


Appendix A-1 Borehole Logs

43

45

85

87

41

4

100

80

100

80

100

50

100

100

100

50

100

100

50

100

SW-GRAVELY SAND, well graded, fine tomedium sand, fine to coarse gravel, brown,dry, dense

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, well graded,fine to medium sand, fine gravel, brown, dry,very dense- with coarse sand at 3.05m BGS

- moist at 5.15m BGS

SP-SAND with gravel, fine sand with tracecoarse sand and fine gravel, moist,sub-rounded, very dense

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, well graded,fine to coarse sand and gravel, subangular,grey, moist, very dense

- Grain Size Result: SAND, trace gravel, tracesilt

(Gravel=3.9%, Sand=93.3%, Fines=2.8%) from8.84 to 10.36m BGS

SP-FINE SAND, trace coarse gravel, grey,moist, dense

SW-SAND with gravel, fine to medium grainedsand and gravel, grey, moist, very dense

- cobbles at 12.80m BGS

SW-SAND, with gravel to trace gravel, fine tomedium grained sand and gravel, grey, wet,loose- heaving sands at 14.94m BGS

SP-SAND, fine to medium grained sand, grey,moist

SOILCUTTINGS

BENONITEGRAVEL

152 mm ØBOREHOLE

SOILCUTTINGS

165.65

163.22

162.30

158.03

157.12

154.38

150.41

(OVERBURDEN) Page 1 of 2

INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

DEPTHm BGS

BH1-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

DATE COMPLETED: 27 January 2016

DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic

FIELD PERSONNEL: S. Foster

STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG

PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill

PROJECT NUMBER: 088877

CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited

LOCATION: Campbell River, BC

DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell

HOLE DESIGNATION:

NORTHING: 5541551.18EASTING: 330846.01

STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS

MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLENOTES:

STATIC WATER LEVEL

OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

BOREHOLE

GROUND SURFACE

ELEV.m

168.40

RS-1

SPT-2

RC-2

SPT-3

RS-3

SPT-4

RS-4

SPT-5

RS-4

SPT-6

GB-1

RS-5

SPT-7

RS-7

100

BEDROCK, (highly weathered), silty, slightplasticity, soft, grey, wet

BEDROCK, Karmutsen, porphyritic basalt,igneous extrusive, black (blueish) with whitecrystals, phaneritic, moderate iron staining onfracturesvertical fracturing, with iron staining on fracturesurface, largely non-intact, RQD=0.25

END OF BOREHOLE @ 24.08m BGS

Borehole completed to target depth in bedrockNo topsoil evident/surface compact sand andgravelBorehole backfilled with soil cuttings andsealed with bentoniteStatic water level in boring - 11.21 m BGSmeasured after 14 hoursRS - Rotosonic Core SampleSPT - Standard Penetration Test (splitspoonsample)GB - Grab Sample

BENTONITEGRAVEL

WELL DETAILSSeal: 146.45 to 144.32m 21.95 to 24.08m BGSMaterial: BENTONITE GRAVEL

145.23144.93

144.32


INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

DEPTHm BGS

BH1-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS










HOLE DESIGNATION:



STATIC WATER LEVEL

OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

BOREHOLEELEV.m

RS-8

48

42

44

21

>66

37

13

20100

20

100

50

100

60

100

50

100

50

100

50

100

SW-GRAVELY SAND, with cobbles, wellgraded, fine to coarse sand and gravel, brown,moist, dense

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, fine to mediumgrain sand, dry, compact

SP-SAND, poorly graded, fine sand, brown,dry, very dense

SW/GW-GRAVELY SAND, well graded, grey,moist, dense

ML-SILTY SAND, with gravel, slightlycohesive, low plasticity, fine sand and gravel,grey with brown ribbons, moist, compact- Grain Size Result: SAND, some gravel and

silt(Gravel: 28.3%, Sand: 39.4%, Fines=32.3%)from 11.89 to 13.41m BGS

BEDROCK, highly weathered (saprolite)surface, silt, crumbly, interbedded grey andbrown, moist

BEDROCK, Karmutsen, porphyritic basalt,igneous extrusive, black (blueish) with whitecrystals, phaneritic, moderate iron staining onfracturesvertical fracturing, with iron staining on fracturesurface, largely non-intact, RQD=0


Borehole completed to target depth in bedrockNo topsoil evident/surface compact sand andgravelBorehole dry upon completionBorehole backfilled with soil cuttings and

SOILCUTTINGS

BENONITEGRAVEL

152 mm ØBOREHOLE

SOILCUTTINGS

BENTONITEGRAVEL

WELL DETAILSSeal: 156.24 to 151.36m 11.58 to 16.46m BGSMaterial: BENTONITE GRAVEL

164.47

162.64

159.59

156.24

153.80153.49

151.36


INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

DEPTHm BGS

BH2-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS



FIELD PERSONNEL: J. Stewart







HOLE DESIGNATION:




OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

BOREHOLE

GROUND SURFACE

ELEV.m

167.82

SPT-1RS-1

SPT-2

RS-2

SPT-3

RS-3

GB-1SPT-4

RS-4

SPT-5

RS-5

GB-2

SPT-6

RS-6

GB-3

STP-7

GB-4

RS-7

GB-5

sealed with bentoniteRS - Rotosonic Core SampleSPT - Standard Penetration Test (splitspoonsample)GB - Grab Sample


INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

DEPTHm BGS

BH2-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS



FIELD PERSONNEL: J. Stewart







HOLE DESIGNATION:



OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

BOREHOLEELEV.m

32

15

12

12

69

90

>100

25100

25

100

25

100

500

100

25

100

100

100

50

100

20

100

100

100

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, medium tocoarse sand ti coarse gravel, well graded, grey,dry, subrounded to rounded, dense

- Compact, brown, dry at 1.22m BGS

GW-GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, fine tocoarse grain gravel, cobbles, coarse sand, wellgraded, grey, dry, sub-angular-subrounded,compact

- Cobble rich (7-9 cm diameter) from 5.18 to6.71m BGS

- Sandy silt layer, increase in fines, very dense,grey, moist at 5.49m BGS

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, medium sandto coarse gravel, with cobbles, grey moist, wellrounded to subrounded, very dense

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, fine to mediumsand fine to coarse gravel, grey, dry, verydense

SP-SAND with gravel, poorly graded, fine tomedium sand, fine gravel, grey, moist,subangular to subrounded, very dense

- Becoming wet at 13.41m BGS

- Grain Size Result: gravelly SAND, trace silt(Gravel=41.7%, Sand=55.5%, Fines=2.8%)from 14.94 to 16.46m BGS

SP-SAND, trace gravel, poorly graded, fine tomedium sand, grey, wet, very dense

- Cobbles at 19.81m BGS

STICKUP0.80 M

BENTONITEGRAVEL

51 mm Ø PVCRISER PIPE

152 mm ØBOREHOLE

SOILCUTTINGS

170.32

167.57

166.66

160.87

156.60


INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

DEPTHm BGS

MW2A-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS










HOLE DESIGNATION:




STATIC WATER LEVEL

OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

MONITORING WELL

GROUND SURFACE

ELEV.m

173.06

SPT-1RS-1

SPT-2GB-1RS-2

SPT-3

RS-3

SPT-4RS-4

RS-5GB-2

SPT-5

RS-6

RS-7

RS-8

SPT-6

RS-9

GB-3

SPT-7

RS-10

GB-7

RS-11

RS-12

750

100

100

100

100

100

100

SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, fine to coarsesand and gravel to cobble, sand heaving, grey,wet

SP-SAND, fine grain, grey, sand heaving, wet

- Silt rich layer (20 cm) at 24.08m BGS- Grain Size Result: SAND, some silt and clay(Gravel=0.4%, Sand=65.8%, Fines=33.8%)from 24.38 to 24.69m BGS

- Wood detritus (carbon) 2 cm at 32.92m BGS

- Grain Size Result: SAND, trace silt(Gravel=0%, Sand=91.9%, Fines=8.1%) from38.10 to 38.71m BGS

BENTONITEGRAVEL

SOILCUTTINGS

BENTONITEPELLETS

SILICA SAND

51 mm Ø10-SLOT PVCSCREEN

152.64

152.03


INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

DEPTHm BGS

MW2A-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS










HOLE DESIGNATION:



STATIC WATER LEVEL

OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

MONITORING WELLELEV.m

GB-4SPT-9

RS-13

GB-5

RS-14

RS-15

RS-16

RS-17

RS-18

GB-6

100

100


Borehole terminated at maximum drillingmethod depthNo topsoil evident/surface compact sand andgravelStatic Groundwater Elevation - 13.74 m BGSafter completion of wellRS - Rotosonic Core SampleSPT - Standard Penetration Test (splitspoonsample)GB - Grab Sample

SOILCUTTINGS

WELL DETAILSScreened interval: 135.57 to 132.52m 37.49 to 40.54m BGSLength: 3.05mDiameter: 51mmSlot Size: 10Material: SCH. 40 PVCSeal: 136.18 to 138.01m 36.88 to 35.05m BGSMaterial: BENTONITE PELLETSSand Pack: 132.22 to 136.18m 40.84 to 36.88m BGSMaterial: #2 SILICA SAND----------Seal: 169.40 to 151.72m 3.66 to 21.34m BGSMaterial: SOIL CUTTINGS----------Seal: 151.72 to 148.68m 21.34 to 24.38m BGSMaterial: BENTONITE CHIPS----------Seal: 148.68 to 138.01m 24.38 to 35.05m BGSMaterial: SOIL CUTTINGS

127.64


INT

ER

VA

L

SAMPLE

RE

C (

%)

NU

MB

ER

'N' V

ALU

E

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

DEPTHm BGS

MW2A-16

GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS










HOLE DESIGNATION:



STATIC WATER LEVEL

OV

ER

BU

RD

EN

LO

G 0

8887

7 U

PLA

ND

S.G

PJ

CR

A_C

OR

P.G

DT

18/

4/1

6

MONITORING WELLELEV.m

RS-19

RS-20

�

�

��

GHD PS-020.01 - Notes on Borehole and Test Pit Reports - Rev.0 - 07/01/2015

Soil description :

Each subsurface stratum is described using the following terminology. The relative density of granular soils is determined by the Standard Penetration Index ("N" value), while the consistency of clayey sols is measured by the value of undrained shear strength (Cu).

Classification (Unified system) Terminology

Clay < 0.002 mm

Silt 0.002 to 0.075 mm "trace" 1-10%

Sand 0.075 to 4.75 mm fine 0.075 to 4.25 mm "some" 10-20%

medium 0.425 to 2.0 mm adjective (silty, sandy) 20-35%

coarse 2.0 to 4.75 mm "and" 35-50%

Gravel 4.75 to 75 mm fine 4.75 to 19 mm

coarse 19 to 75 mm

Cobbles 75 to 300 mm

Boulders �300 mm

Relative density of granular soils

Standard penetration index "N" value

Consistency of cohesive soils

Undrained shear strength (Cu)

(BLOWS/ft – 300 mm) (P.S.F) (kPa)

Very soft <250 <12

Very loose 0-4 Soft 250-500 12-25

Loose 4-10 Firm 500-1000 25-50

Compact 10-30 Stiff 1000-2000 50-100

Dense 30-50 Very stiff 2000-4000 100-200

Very dense �50 Hard �4000 �200

� � �

Rock quality designation STRATIGRAPHIC LEGEND

"RQD" (%) Value Quality

Sand Gravel Cobbles& boulders Bedrock

<25 Very poor

25-50 Poor

50-75 Fair

75-90 Good

>90 Excellent

� Silt Clay Organic soil Fill

Samples:

Type and Number

The type of sample recovered is shown on the log by the abbreviation listed hereafter. The numbering of samples is sequential for each type of sample.

SS: Split spoon ST: Shelby tube AG: Auger

SSE, GSE, AGE: Environmental sampling PS: Piston sample (Osterberg) RC: Rock core

GS: Grab sample

Recovery

The recovery, shown as a percentage, is the ratio of length of the sample obtained to the distance the sampler was driven/pushed into the soil

RQD

The "Rock Quality Designation" or "RQD" value, expressed as percentage, is the ratio of the total length of all core fragments of 4 inches (10 cm) or more to the total length of the run.

IN-SITU TESTS:

N: Standard penetration index Nc: Dynamic cone penetration index k: Permeability

R: Refusal to penetration Cu: Undrained shear strength ABS: Absorption (Packer test)

Pr: Pressure meter

LABORATORY TESTS:

Ip: Plasticity index H: Hydrometer analysis A: Atterberg limits C: Consolidation

O.V.: Organic

vapor

Wl: Liquid limit GSA: Grain size analysis w: Water content CS: Swedish fall cone

Wp: Plastic limit �: Unit weight CHEM: Chemical analysis


Appendix A-2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Logs

Dynamic Penetrometer Test Report

ASTM D6951

PROJECT No.: 88877 Soil Type:

CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited Max Expected CBR= 40 Depth of Test Pit/Refusal:

PROJECT: Specified Min Qall: N/S

LOCATION: Aprox Target DPI (mm/blow): N/S

Test location: BH1-16 Test depth: 0 m bgs Test location: Test Depth: m bgs

Soil Type: Sandy soil Soil Type:

No.Blows

Per Interval

Cummulative

DCP

Penetration

(mm)

Penetration

Depth (mm)

DPI Index

(mm/blow)

Estimated

CBR (%)

ASTM

D6951

No.Blows

Per Interval

Cummulative

DCP

Penetration

(mm)

Penetration

Depth (mm)

DPI Index

(mm/blow)

Estimated

CBR

(%)

0 0 0

2 18 18 9.0 24.9

2 31 31 6.5 35.9

5 45 45 2.8 40.0

10 72 72 2.7 40.0

10 110 110 3.8 40.0

10 132 132 2.2 40.0

15 156 156 1.6 40.0

15 169 169 0.9 40.0

20 185 185 0.8 40.0

20 205 205 1.0 40.0

40 236 236 0.8 40.0

40 260 260 0.6 40.0

40 285 285 0.6 40.0

Average Estimated CBR 38.5 Average Estimated CBR Notes:

Max Estimated CBR 40.0 Max Estimated CBR

Min Estimated CBR 24.9 Min Estimated CBR

Comments:

Site Representative : Simon Foster

Of: Uplands Excavating Limited Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam

Geotechnical Investigation

Reviewed By:

Test No. 2 Graphical Presentation of DCP Test Data at

BH1-16

- The CBR is estimated based on the correlation provided in ASTM D6951. Considering the dominant soil typs (Sand/Silty Sand) an upper limit of 40 is considered for the estimated CBR value.

Test No. 1 was carried out from 0 mbgs

Test No. 1

Prepared by:

Gravelly Sand

BH1-16

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

De

pth

Bel

ow

Gro

un

d S

urf

ace

(mm

)

DCP Index (mm/blow)

DCP Index versus Depth

Test No. 1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1.0 10.0 100.0

De

pth

Bel

ow

Gro

un

d S

urf

ace

(m

m)

Estimated CBR

CBR versus Depth

Test No. 1

Page 2


ASTM D6951





Test location: BH2-16 Test depth: 0 m bgs Test location: Test Depth: mbgs


No.Blows

Per Interval

Cummulative

DCP

Penetration

(mm)

Penetration

Depth (mm)

DPI Index

(mm/blow)

Estimated

CBR (%)

ASTM

D6951

No.Blows

Per Interval

Cummulative

DCP

Penetration

(mm)

Penetration

Depth (mm)

DPI Index

(mm/blow)

Estimated

CBR

(%)

0 0 0

2 25 25 12.5 17.3

2 40 40 7.5 30.6

5 62 62 4.4 40.0

10 102 102 4.0 40.0

10 144 144 4.2 40.0

10 175 175 3.1 40.0

10 213 213 3.8 40.0

15 270 270 3.8 40.0

15 335 335 4.3 40.0

15 410 410 5.0 40.0

15 430 430 1.3 40.0

15 450 450 1.3 40.0

15 495 495 3.0 40.0

15 520 520 1.7 40.0

15 535 535 1.0 40.0

20 555 555 1.0 40.0

25 595 595 1.6 40.0

25 635 635 1.6 40.0




Comments:



BH2-16

Reviewed By:


BH2-16



Test No. 1

Prepared by:

Gravelly Sand


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1.0 10.0 100.0

De

pth

Bel

ow

Gro

un

d S

urf

ace

(mm

)

DCP Index (mm/blow)


Test No. 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1.0 10.0 100.0

De

pth

Bel

ow

Gro

un

d S

urf

ace

(m

m)

Estimated CBR

CBR versus Depth

Test No. 1

Page 2


ASTM D6951





Test location: MW2A-16 Test depth: 0 m bgs Test location: Test Depth: m bgs


No.Blows

Per Interval

Cummulative

DCP

Penetration

(mm)

Penetration

Depth (mm)

DPI Index

(mm/blow)

Estimated

CBR (%)

ASTM

D6951

No.Blows

Per Interval

Cummulative

DCP

Penetration

(mm)

Penetration

Depth (mm)

DPI Index

(mm/blow)

Estimated

CBR

(%)

0 0 0

1 45 45 45.0 4.1

2 75 75 15.0 14.1

4 120 120 11.3 19.4

6 160 160 6.7 34.9

10 215 215 5.5 40.0

11 252 252 3.4 40.0

4 265 265 3.3 40.0

10 315 315 5.0 40.0

15 370 370 3.7 40.0

15 450 450 5.3 40.0

15 535 535 5.7 40.0

15 601 601 4.4 40.0

15 655 655 3.6 40.0

15 723 723 4.5 40.0

10 780 780 5.7 40.0

5 822 822 8.4 26.9




Comments:




Reviewed By:


MW2A-16



Test No. 1

Prepared by:

Gravelly Sand

MW2A-16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1.0 10.0 100.0

De

pth

Bel

ow

Gro

un

d S

urf

ace

(mm

)

DCP Index (mm/blow)


Test No. 1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1.0 10.0 100.0

De

pth

Bel

ow

Gro

un

d S

urf

ace

(m

m)

Estimated CBR

CBR versus Depth

Test No. 1

Page 2


Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results


Appendix C MASW Test Results

GHD Limited 651 Colby Drive Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2 Canada T 519 884 0510 F 519 884 0525 W www.ghd.com

To: Mr. Greg Ferraro, P.Eng. Ref. No.: 088877-01

From: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam, Ph.D., P.Eng./Hassan Ali, Ph.D. Date: February 12, 2016

RE:

Seismic Site Class Determination

Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Analysis Results

1. Introduction

Pursuant to our mandate GHD carried out a Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) investigation program at the proposed Upland Landfill Site located at 7295 Gold River Highway, Campbell River, BC.

Based on the available geotechnical information, the subsurface at the Site consists of deep layers of Sand and Gravel/ Gravelly Sand to Sand overlying bedrock. The Sandy overburden at the site is generally in dense to very dense condition (SPT ‘N’ values in excess of 40 blows per 0.3 m of penetration) with sporadic layers in compact condition (represented by SPT ‘N’ values in the range of 20 blows per 0.3 m of penetration). Bedrock at the site is confirmed to have a west-east slope.

The purpose of the MASW survey was to assist with the seismic site class determination by measuring the average shear wave velocity within the upper 30+ m of the soil/rock profile below the proposed base of the landfill level. The shear wave velocity measurements were carried out along three MASW survey lines assumed to be representative of the Site. The investigation line locations are shown on Figure 2. According to the existing borehole information bedrock at the location of the investigation lines is expected to be more than 14 m below the existing ground surface (m bgs).

2. MASW Procedure

To carry out the MASW test, 24 transducers (i.e., geophones) are deployed in a line at certain distances from a seismic source. The length of the geophone array (D) determines the deepest investigation depth that can be obtained from the measurements. The source should produce enough seismic energy over the desired test frequency range to allow for detection of Rayleigh waves above background noise. A common seismic source is either a sledgehammer or a drop weight hitting a metallic or rubber base plate set at ground surface. The existing traffic noise or the noise generated by heavy machinery travelling close to the survey line can also be utilized as a source for investigating deep soil layers.

088877-Memo1 2

3. Fieldwork

The fieldwork for this MASW investigation program was carried out in the period of January 27 to 30, 2016 by GHD field staff. The field data was collected using a 24 channel seismograph (Geometrics Geode 24 consol #3389), twenty-four 4.5 Hz geophones, and one 24 take-out cable with 5 m spacing. A Panasonic Toughbook© laptop was used in the field to record and collect the seismic data utilizing Geometrics single geode OS controller version 9.14.0.0.

The survey was carried out along three survey lines. Lines 1 and 2 were located perpendicular to each other north of BH2-16 and Line 3 was laid down in the vicinity of borehole BH1-16 in the north-south direction. For all line locations the geophones were installed 75 mm into the surficial soil by manually pushing them into position.

A multi geometry approach was utilized for data collection along both lines (Nasseri-Moghaddam and Park, 2010). The active data sets were collected using a 10 kg sledge hammer hitting the ground surface at three different offset distances (distance between the source and first geophone) along each survey line. The following table summarizes the geometry for each investigation line.

Table 3.1 MASW Line Geometry

Line No. Designation Geophone

Spacing (m) Array Length (m) Offset Distances (m)

Lines 1, 2, and 3 Long 3.0 69.0 45.0, 30.0, 15.0

Short 1.5 34.5 22.5, 15.0, 7.5

Nine sets of data files (three active at each offset) were collected for each array location/set up. For the active survey measurements, the ground vibrations were recorded for four seconds with one sample per 0.25 ms.

4. Data Interpretation

Data analysis including generation of dispersion curves, inversion of the obtained dispersion curves and development of the 1D shear wave velocity profiles at the Site were carried out using SurfSeis© version 3.06. The dispersion curves were calculated at the middle stations along each line. At each investigation line the dispersion images obtained from active data at different offsets were stacked to obtain a combined dispersion curve. The data inversion was carried out using a 15 layer soil velocity numerical model to obtain 1D shear wave velocity profiles at the location of each mid station. The calculated 1D velocity profile along the investigation Lines are shown on the attached Shear Wave Velocity Profile. Figure C-1 shows the obtained results. In accordance with the requirements of National Building Code of Canada 2010 (NBC 2010), the variation of the measured shear wave velocity versus depth up to 30 m below the proposed founding level of the landfill was obtained along each line and is shown in Table C-1 (Tables 1-A through 1-C) Average Shear Wave Velocity with Depth (Vs30). The average shear wave velocity within the upper 30 m of the soil/ rock profile immediately below the proposed founding level of the landfill were obtained utilizing

088877-Memo1 3

the averaging scheme introduced in Sentence 4.1.8.4 (2) of Commentary J of NBC (2010) User's Guide. With reference to the tables provided in the attachments of this memorandum:

Based on the calculations presented in Table C-1 the minimum average shear wave velocity (from 0.0 m bgs to 30.0 m bgs) along the investigation lines is 416 m/s (along line 1). In accordance to Table 4.1.8.4.A of the National Building code of Canada 2010 and based on the measured average shear wave velocity, the Site can be classified as Class 'C' for seismic load calculations subjected to code requirements. Based on the available geotechnical information there is no deep soft soil or liquefiable soil layers at this site, therefore the conditions of site class F are not met.

The seismic hazards for the site as obtained from Natural Resources Canada (NRC) website are provided as attachment to this memorandum.

5. Closure

It is important to emphasize that a geotechnical investigation is in fact a random sampling of a Site and the comments and conclusions of this report are based on the results obtained at the test locations only. It is therefore assumed that these results are representative of the subsurface conditions across the Site. 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.

We trust that this report meets with your present requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise.

SCALE: REFERENCE NO:

DATE: FIGURE NO:

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY VERSUS DEPTHUpland Landfill (Lines 1, 2 and 3)

CHECKED BY:

Figure C-1 DRAWN BY:

HA N.T.S

January 2016 C-1

088877-01

ANM

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

00 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

Dep

th b

elo

w e

xist

ing

gro

un

d (

m)

Shear Wave Velocity (m/s)

Shear Wave Velocity versus Depth

Site Upland Landfill Line 1



TABLE C-1SUMMARY OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS

SEISMIC SITE CLASS DETERMINATION

Thickness Vs Thickness Vs Thickness Vs

From To m m/s From To m m/s From To m m/s1 0.0 0.3 0.3 146 0.0022 1 0.0 0.8 0.8 376 0.0022 1 0.0 0.2 0.2 193 0.00102 0.3 0.7 0.4 193 0.0021 2 0.8 1.9 1.0 452 0.0023 2 0.2 0.4 0.2 224 0.00113 0.7 1.2 0.5 254 0.0020 3 1.9 3.2 1.3 489 0.0027 3 0.4 0.8 0.3 262 0.00124 1.2 1.8 0.6 280 0.0022 4 3.2 4.8 1.6 487 0.0034 4 0.8 1.2 0.4 303 0.00135 1.8 2.6 0.8 205 0.0038 5 4.8 6.9 2.0 485 0.0042 5 1.2 1.6 0.5 326 0.00156 2.6 3.6 1.0 314 0.0031 6 6.9 9.4 2.6 487 0.0052 6 1.6 2.2 0.6 320 0.00197 3.6 4.8 1.2 417 0.0029 7 9.4 12.6 3.2 245 0.0130 7 2.2 3.0 0.8 373 0.00208 4.8 6.4 1.5 443 0.0035 8 12.6 16.6 4.0 262 0.0152 8 3.0 4.0 1.0 399 0.00249 6.4 8.3 1.9 413 0.0046 9 16.6 21.6 5.0 433 0.0115 9 4.0 5.1 1.2 260 0.0046

10 8.3 10.7 2.4 320 0.0075 10 21.6 27.8 6.2 652 0.0096 10 5.1 6.6 1.5 237 0.006311 10.7 13.6 3.0 379 0.0079 11 27.8 30.0 2.2 808 0.0027 11 6.6 8.5 1.9 370 0.005012 13.6 17.4 3.7 560 0.0067 12 8.5 10.8 2.3 594 0.003913 17.4 22.0 4.7 763 0.0061 13 10.8 13.7 2.9 732 0.004014 22.0 27.9 5.8 915 0.0064 14 13.7 17.3 3.6 837 0.004315 27.9 30.0 2.1 1425 0.0015 15 17.3 30.0 12.7 1287 0.0098

30.0 0.0624 30.0 0.0721 30.0 0.0503481 416 596

416 m/s

CRecommended Site Class:

Average VS30 =

Notes:1 - The Seismic Site class is recommended in accordance to Table 4.1.8.4.A of the National Building code of Canada 2010 and based on the lowest measured average shear wave velocity measured along the investigated lines.2 - VS30 is calculated based on the average shear wave velocity below the proposed founding elevation.3 - Site Classes A and B are only applicable if footings are founded on bedrock or there is no more than 3.0 m of soil between founding elevation and bedrock.4 - The recommended site class is only applicable if site conditions for Site Class F (liquefiable soil/soft soil layers more than 3.0 m thick) are not applicable.

Subjected to Code requirements

TotalAverage Shear Wave Velocity Along the Line (m/s) Average Shear Wave Velocity Along the Line (m/s)

Total

Table 1-A: Average Shear Wave Velocity (VS30) (Assumed founding level at ground surface)

Average Shear Wave Velocity Along the Line (m/s)Total

Line 1

Layer No.Depth (m bgs)

di/Vsi Layer No.Depth (m bgs)

Table 1-B: Average Shear Wave Velocity (VS30) (Assumed founding level at ground surface)

Line 2

Table 1-C: Average Shear Wave Velocity (VS30) (Assumed founding level at ground surface)

Line 3

Layer No.Depth (m bgs)

di/Vsidi/Vsi


Appendix D NBCC Seismic Hazard Information

2010 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 francais (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836

Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565

Requested by: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam, GHD

Site Coordinates: 50.0022 North 125.3608 West

User File Reference: Upland Landfill

February 12, 2016

National Building Code ground motions:2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (0.000404 per annum)Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA (g)

Ground motions for other probabilities:Probability of exceedance per annumProbability of exceedance in 50 yearsSa(0.2)Sa(0.5)Sa(1.0)Sa(2.0)PGA

0.01040%

0.002110%

0.0015%

0.625 0.463 0.276 0.153 0.281

0.1480.1020.0570.0320.075

0.3170.2270.1300.0730.151

0.4350.3170.1850.1030.202

Notes. Spectral and peak hazard values are determined for firm ground (NBCC 2010 soil class C - averageshear wave velocity 360-750 m/s). Median (50th percentile) values are given in units of g. 5% dampedspectral acceleration (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) valuesare tabulated. Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a 10km spaced grid of points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at this locationcalculated directly from the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent of interpolated valuesare within 2 percent of the calculated values. Warning: You are in a region which considers the hazardfrom a deterministic Cascadia subduction event for the National Building Code. Values determined for highprobabilities (0.01 per annum) in this region do not consider the hazard from this type of earthquake.

References

National Building Code of Canada 2010 NRCCno. 53301; sections 4.1.8, 9.20.1.2, 9.23.10.2,9.31.6.2, and 6.2.1.3Appendix C: Climatic Information for BuildingDesign in Canada - table in Appendix C starting onpage C-11 of Division B, volume 2

U s e r ’ s G u i d e - N B C 2 0 1 0 , S t r u c t u r a lCommentaries NRCC no. 53543 (in preparation)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects

Geological Survey of Canada Open File xxxxFourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada:Maps and grid values to be used with the 2010National Building Code of Canada (in preparation)

See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.ca andwww.nationalcodes.ca for more information

Aussi disponible en francais

Natural ResourcesCanada

Ressources naturellesCanada CanadaCanada

125.5˚W 125˚W

50˚N

0 10 20 30

km

2015 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 francais (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836

Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565

Site: 50.0022 N, 125.3608 W User File Reference: Upland Landfill

Requested by: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam, GHD

February 12, 2016

National Building Code ground motions: 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (0.000404 per annum)

Sa(0.05) Sa(0.1) Sa(0.2) Sa(0.3) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) Sa(5.0) Sa(10.0) PGA (g) PGV (m/s)

Ground motions for other probabilities:

Probability of exceedance per annum

Probability of exceedance in 50 years

Sa(0.05)

Sa(0.1)

Sa(0.2)

Sa(0.3)

Sa(0.5)

Sa(1.0)

Sa(2.0)

Sa(5.0)

Sa(10.0)

PGA

PGV

0.010

40%

0.0021

10%

0.001

5%

0.323 0.507 0.624 0.644 0.610 0.428 0.276 0.098 0.035 0.295 0.508

0.053

0.080

0.110

0.114

0.098

0.061

0.033

0.0097

0.0039

0.047

0.065

0.143

0.224

0.286

0.292

0.261

0.170

0.101

0.033

0.012

0.131

0.205

0.211

0.333

0.419

0.431

0.398

0.270

0.170

0.058

0.021

0.195

0.325

Notes. Spectral (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) values aregiven in units of g (9.81 m/s2). Peak ground velocity is given in m/s. Values are for "firm ground" (NBCC2015 Site Class C, average shear wave velocity 450 m/s). NBCC2015 and CSAS6-14 values are specified inbold font. Three additional periods are provided - their use is discussed in the NBCC2015 Commentary.Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a 10-km-spaced gridof points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at this location calculated directlyfrom the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent of interpolated values are within 2 percentof the directly calculated values.

References

National Building Code of Canada 2015 NRCC no. 56190;Appendix C: Table C-3, Seismic Design Data for Selected Locations inCanada

User’s Guide - NBC 2015, Structural Commentaries NRCC no.xxxxxx (in preparation)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects

Geological Survey of Canada Open File 7893 Fifth GenerationSeismic Hazard Model for Canada: Grid values of mean hazard to beused with the 2015 National Building Code of Canada

See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.caand www.nationalcodes.ca for more information

Aussi disponible en francais

Natural ResourcesCanada

Ressources naturellesCanada CanadaCanada

125.5˚W 125˚W

50˚N

0 10 20 30

km


Appendix E Slope Stability Analysis Results

a) Uncompacted waste

b) Uncompacted waste with water

c) Uncompacted waste with Seismic

Figure E-1SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS SECTION A - A STAGE 1UPLAND EXCAVATING LTD. - PROPOSED UPLAND LANDFILLGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

Note: Stage 1 - Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste overlying native soil.

1.440

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.221

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.104

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.44

FS= 1.22

FS= 1.10

Uncompacted

Native - Sand/Gravel

Uncompacted


Uncompacted


Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

Saturatedzone

a) Compacted waste

b) Compacted waste with water

c) Compacted waste with Seismic


Note: Stage 2- Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m of compacted) overlying native soil.

1.440

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.266

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.070

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.44

FS= 1.26

FS= 1.07

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

UncompactedCompacted






Saturatedzone

a) Compacted waste Long Term (LT)

b) Compacted waste Long Term with Water

c) Compacted waste Long Term with Seismic


Note: Stage 3- End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m of compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying native soil.

1.439

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.283

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.027

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.44

FS= 1.28

FS= 1.03

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond


Native - Sand/GravelCompacted (LT)





Saturatedzone

a) Compacted waste Long Term (Post closure)

b) Compacted waste Long Term (Post Colsure) - Seismic

c) Compacted waste Long Term (Post Colsure) - Water


Note: Stage 4- Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed landfill comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying native soil.

1.780

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.286

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.231

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.78

FS= 1.29

FS= 1.23

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

Infiltration Pond

Compacted (LT)


Compacted (LT)


Compacted (LT)


Saturatedzone

a) Uncompacted waste

b) Uncompacted waste with water

c) Uncompacted waste with Seismic

Note: Stage 1 - Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste overlying native soil.

Figure E-5SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS SECTION B-B STAGE 1UPLAND EXCAVATING LTD. - PROPOSED UPLAND LANDFILLGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

1.452

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.164

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.052

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.45

FS= 1.05

FS= 1.16

Uncompacted


Uncompacted


Uncompacted


Saturatedzone

a) Compacted waste

b) Compacted waste with Water

c) Compacted waste with SeismicNote: Stage 2- Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m of compacted) overlying native soil.


1.088

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.455

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.170

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.45

FS= 1.17

FS= 1.08







Saturatedzone

a) Compacted waste Long Term (LT)

b) Compacted waste Long Term with Water

c) Compacted waste Long Term with SeismicNote: Stage 3- End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m of compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying native soil.


1.467

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.179

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.086

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.47

FS= 1.18

FS= 1.08







Saturatedzone

a) Compacted waste Long Term (Post closure)

b) Compacted waste Long Term (Post Colsure) with Water

c) Compacted waste Long Term (Post Colsure) with SeismicNote: Stage 4- Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed landfill comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying native soil.


1.918

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.182

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

1.309

Distance (m)0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275

Ele

vatio

n (m

. AM

SL)

100

108

116

124

132

140

148

156

164

172

180

188

196

204

212

220

FS= 1.92

FS= 1.18

FS= 1.31

Compacted (LT)


Compacted (LT)


Compacted (LT)


Saturatedzone

2016 Geotechnical Investigation - · PDF file2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill...

Documents

Transcript of 2016 Geotechnical Investigation - · PDF file2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill...