ADDENDUM NO. 3 REQUEST FOR TENDER NO. 108 ......Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016 3 Q13. Please provide a...

Michael Pacholok Director

Purchasing and Materials Management Division City Hall, 18th Floor, West Tower 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2

Joanne Kehoe Manager Professional Services

Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016

August 25, 2016 Posted via PDF: (3 pages + 1 attachment)

ADDENDUM NO. 3

REQUEST FOR TENDER NO. 108-2016

CONTRACT NO. MCP-14-07

For: Construction Services for the replacement of aging "Electrical Substation – West" at

Humber Wastewater Treatment Plant

CLOSING DATE: 12:00 NOON (LOCAL TIME), September 07, 2016 (REVISED)

Please refer to the above Request for Tender (RFT) document in your possession and be advised of the

following:

I. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1:Geotechnical Investigation Report

II. REVISIONS

A. Specification: 1) Specification 16123, Section – 2.7.4 Cable Tray: Aluminum tray, width 1069mm (42"), with

depth of 150mm, unless otherwise noted in the Contract documents. Provide suitable cable

tray support.

B. Drawing: 1) Drawing E8 – Note 8: All 600V circuit breakers in PDP-0501/0602 shall be electronic relay

with adjustable instantaneous, long time, short time and ground fault protection.

III. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q1. There is a Borehole shown on drawing C1. Is there a geotechnical report that could be provided?

A1. Please refer to the attached geotechnical report. This report should be treated as a reference

document.

Q2. Schedule for prices Item-4 requests supply and installation of aluminum tray, while the

specifications Section 16123 requests a galvanized steel tray. Please clarify.

A2. Please provide Aluminum Tray, in accordance with Specification 16123, Section 2.7.4 (Revised).

Q3. Schedule of prices Item – 4: The new 1000mm wide Aluminum Tray is not CSA approved.

Please specify the class loading type and the type of supports required for the cable tray.

A3. The cable tray width has been specified above in Specification 16123, Section 2.7.4 (Revised).

The Aluminum cable tray is CSA approved. Please provide Class E loading cable tray. The

supports shall be developed by the contractor in accordance with general requirements in

specification 16123.


2

Q4. Schedule of prices – Item – 21: Please provide the size, specifications and location for the UPS

replacement.

A4. Please refer to Addendum-2 for the UPS ratings, and contract document Division 16 (Electrical)

for the specifications of UPS, its battery and battery rack. The new UPS will be located at the

same location where the existing UPS is located, it was shown to the bidders during the

mandatory site visit to the plant. There is sufficient space available to install new UPS and its

accessories.

Q5. Schedule of prices – Item – 5, 6, 7, 8: We are not aware of the existing conditions of the

underground duct banks and timeline of these as cost of doing this type of work in extremely cold

weather rather than normal summer time is drastically different. Please indicate cash allowance

for these.

A5. Please assume worst case conditions. No extras will be provided for seasonal differences as the

constructor is in control of the schedules.

Q6. List any equipment which have asbestos, lead etc. and/or any equipment that need to be reviewed

by specialty trades.

A6. Please refer to the designated substances survey reports provided on a CD as part of the tender

package.

Q7. List any equipment which is to be demolished and returned back/handed over to the City.

A7. The Vendor shall dispose all equipment, unless specifically identified in the contract documents.

However, City has the right to keep any of the existing equipment that is removed.

Q8. Please provide the fuel cost for 2MVA rental genset as a part of the cash allowance, since the

Contractors won’t be aware for this temporary generator will be required to run.

A8. The Vendor shall supply 2000kW rated temporary generator with a full tank of fuel. Additional

fuel, if required, will be paid through a cash allowance.

Q9. Please note a formal request by our company to be included in the following sections of the

tender package for the Humber Treatment Plant West Substation upgrades: Section 16441 – Low

Voltage Panelboards, Section 16480 – Low Voltage Power Distribution Panel.

A9. At this stage it is not possible to include another company in the specification Section 16441 Low

Voltage Panel-boards and Section 16480 Low Voltage Power Distribution Panel. Please refer to

Section 5A of the tender, item 21 for policy regarding equivalents and alternates. Item 21.4 is

particularly relevant.

Q10. Our company would like to request that we be added as an approved supplier for the 4.16 kV

medium voltage switchgear.

A10. At this stage it is not possible to include another company in the specification Section - 16345

4.16kV Medium Voltage Switchgear. Please refer to Section 5A of the tender, item 21 for policy

regarding equivalents and alternates. Item 21.4 is particularly relevant.

Q11. Drawing E11, note 5: Please show the layout of the 4160V duct bank between the two 4.16kV –

600V transformers TR-0500, TR-0600 and 4160 V Switchgear

A11. For the concrete encased duct bank between the 4.16kV switchgear (SWG-0503, SWG0603) and

the transformers (TR-0500 & TR-0600) see drawing E44 Detail 1. A set of six (6) ducts are for

transformer TR-0500, and a set of other six (6) ducts are for transformer TR-0600.

Q12. Please confirm the correct scale for drawing E4. The scale in the drawing block 1:200 is

incorrect.

A12. The scale for this drawing is 1:1000.


3

Q13. Please provide a detail of the duct bank route from West Substation to the Primary Sludge

Pumping Station #1 and #2, in order to price the Unit price items listed in the Tender Form.

A13. The cable exits West Substation in a short duct bank in accordance with Detail 2 in drawing E5.

This cable then enters an open chamber where it is connected to the cable tray T12 in the pipe

gallery. The cable shall carry on this tray to the Primary Sludge Pumping Station 1 and 2 in the

gallery.

Q14. We request an extension of two weeks from present closing as this project has a major Civil work

and this trade has requested more time.

A14. Please refer to the first page of the addendum for the closing date.

Q15. We respectively request an extension to the closing for the above project of 3 weeks, allowing us

and our suppliers ample time to produce a detailed and accurate estimate for the above tender.

A15. Please refer to the first page of the addendum for the closing date.

Q16. Please confirm who is the Civil Consultant on this project. We have some further enquires.

A16. The Civil Consultant on this project would be AE.

Should you have any questions regarding this addendum contact Candida Charles at [email protected]

or 416-392-7326.

Please attach this addendum to your Tender document and be governed accordingly. Bidders must

acknowledge receipt of all addenda in their Tender in the space provided on the Tender Submission Form

as per Appendix A, Section 4 - Addenda of the Tender document or your response will be declared non-

compliant and will not be considered. All other aspects of the Tender remain the same.

Yours truly,

Joanne Kehoe,

Manager

Professional Services

mailto:[email protected]

GeoPro Consulting Limited (905) 237-8336 [email protected]

Units 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6

Geotechnical Investigation

Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation

Humber Treatment Plant

130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario

Prepared For:

Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.

GeoPro Project No.: 15-1056-01

Report Date: January 11, 2016

Project: 15-1056-01 Proposed Transformer Pad Installation at West Substation, Humber Treatment Plant, 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario

Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca i

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK ........................................................................................................... 2

3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 2

3.1.1 Soil Conditions....................................................................................................................... 2

3.1.2 Groundwater Conditions....................................................................................................... 3

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................. 4

4.1 Foundation Design Considerations ............................................................................................... 4

4.1.1 Helical Piles ........................................................................................................................... 5

4.1.2 Caissons ................................................................................................................................. 6

4.2 Frost Protection ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.3 Excavations and Groundwater Control ......................................................................................... 7

4.4 Seismic Consideration ................................................................................................................... 8

4.5 Excess Soil Characterization .......................................................................................................... 8

4.5.1 Soil Sample Submission ......................................................................................................... 8

4.5.2 Soil Analytical Results ............................................................................................................ 8

4.6 Corrosivity Potential ..................................................................................................................... 9

5. MONITORING AND TESTING ............................................................................................................... 10

6. CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 10

Drawings No.

Borehole Location Plan Drawing No. 1

Subsurface Utilities Plan Drawing No. 2

Enclosures No.

Notes on Sample Description Enclosure No. 1A

Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Boreholes Enclosure No. 1B

http://www.geoproconsulting.ca/


Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca ii

Borehole Logs Enclosure Nos. 2 and 3

Appendix A

Soil Analytical Results

Appendix B

Corrosivity Testing Results

Limitations to the Report



Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, ON Tel: 905-237-8336 Fax: 905-248-3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca 1

1. INTRODUCTION

GeoPro Consulting Limited (GeoPro) was retained by Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. (the

Client) to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the proposed transformer pad installation at

the Humber Treatment Plant located at 130 The Queensway, in Etobicoke, Ontario.

The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to obtain information on the existing

subsurface conditions by means of a limited number of boreholes, test pits, in-situ tests and

laboratory tests of soil samples to provide required geotechnical design information. Based on

GeoPro’s interpretation of the data obtained, geotechnical comments and recommendations

related to the project designs are provided.

The report is prepared with the condition that the design will be in accordance with all applicable

standards and codes, regulations of authorities having jurisdiction, and good engineering practice.

Further, the recommendations and opinions in this report are applicable only to the proposed

project as described above. On-going liaison and communication with GeoPro during the design

stage and construction phase of the project is strongly recommended to confirm that the

recommendations in this report are applicable and/or correctly interpreted and implemented.

Also, any queries concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project shall be directed

to GeoPro for further elaboration and/or clarification.

This report is provided on the basis of the terms of reference presented in our approved proposal

prepared based on our understanding of the project. If there are any changes in the design

features relevant to the geotechnical analyses, or if any questions arise concerning the

geotechnical aspects of the codes and standards, this office should be contacted to review the

design. It may then be necessary to carry out additional borings and reporting before the

recommendations of this report can be relied upon.

This report deals with geotechnical issues only. The geo-environmental (chemical) aspects of the

subsurface conditions, including the consequences of possible surface and/or subsurface

contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the

introduction onto the site of materials from off-site sources, were not investigated and were

beyond the scope of this assignment. However, limited chemical testing was carried out on

selected soil samples for excess soil disposal purposes.

The site investigation and recommendations follow generally accepted practice for geotechnical

consultants in Ontario. Laboratory testing for most part follows ASTM or CSA Standards or

modifications of these standards that have become standard practice in Ontario.

This report has been prepared for the Client and Client’s engineers. Third party use of this report

without GeoPro’s consent is prohibited. The limitations to the report presented in this report

form an integral part of the report and they must be considered in conjunction with this report.




2. FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

The field work for the geotechnical investigation was carried out on July 20, 2015, during which

time two (2) boreholes (Boreholes BH1 and BH2) were advanced at the locations shown on the

Borehole Location Plan, Drawing No. 1. The boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from 4.5 m

to 4.9 m below the existing ground surface and were terminated due to spoon/auger refusal in all

boreholes.

The boreholes were advanced using solid stem auger equipment supplied by a drilling specialist

retained by GeoPro. Samples were retrieved with a 51 mm (2 inches) O.D. split-barrel (split spoon)

sampler driven with a hammer weighing 624 N and dropping 760 mm (30 inches) in accordance

with the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method.

The field work for this investigation was monitored by a member of our engineering staff, who

logged the boreholes and cared for the recovered samples. The boreholes were located and

staked in the field by GeoPro according to the site plan provided by the Client and the

underground utility conditions.

The shallow groundwater conditions were noted in the boreholes during drilling. The boreholes

were backfilled and sealed upon completion of drilling. Monitoring well (51 mm in diameter) was

installed in Borehole BH2 to monitor the groundwater levels.

All soil samples obtained during this investigation were brought to our laboratory for further

examination and geotechnical classification testing on selected soil samples.

Ground surface elevations at all as-drilled borehole locations were provided by the surveyor

retained by GeoPro.

3. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The subject site is located in Humber Treatment Plant at 130 The Queensway, north of The

Queensway, east of High Street, in Etobicoke, Ontario.

The borehole locations are shown on Drawing No. 1. Notes on sample descriptions are presented

on Enclosure No. 1. The subsurface conditions in the boreholes (BH1 and BH2) are presented in

the individual borehole logs (Enclosure Nos. 2 to 3 inclusive). The following are detailed

descriptions of the major soil strata encountered in the boreholes drilled at the site.

3.1.1 Soil Conditions

Topsoil

Topsoil with thicknesses ranging from 180 mm to 300 mm was encountered surficially in

Boreholes BH1 and BH2.




Fill Materials

Fill materials consisting of silty sand and sand were encountered in Boreholes BH1 and BH2 below

the topsoil and extended to depths ranging from about 2.1 m to 4.4 m below the existing ground

surface. SPT N values ranging from 1 to 23 blows per 300 mm penetration indicated a very loose

to compact relative density.

Silty Clay

A native silty clay deposit was encountered below the fill materials in Boreholes BH1 and extended

to the depth of 4.7 m below the existing ground surface. SPT N values of 2 blows per 300 mm

penetration indicated a very soft consistency. The natural moisture content measured in the soil

samples was approximately 16%.

Probable Shale Bedrock

As best could be practically determined, shale presumed to coincide with the bedrock surface was

encountered in Boreholes BH1 and BH2 below the fill and native soil and extended to depths

ranging from about 4.5 m to 4.9 m below the existing ground surface. Exploration of the bedrock

was not carried out as part of this assignment, however based on samples recovered from the

penetration testing, the bedrock beneath the site consisted of weathered grey shale interbedded

with limestone.

Both Boreholes BH1 and BH2 encountered weathered grey shale. A penetration resistance of

greater than 100 blows per 0.3 m was typically indicated at these locations. It should be noted

that core drilling would be required to provide information on the rock mass characteristics and

to assess the degree of weathering of the shale.

3.1.2 Groundwater Conditions

Borehole BH1 was open and dry during drilling and upon completion of drilling. Water was

encountered in Borehole BH2 at the depth of 2.4 m below the ground surface (mBGS) during

drilling. Borehole BH2 caved-in to a depth of 4.10 mBGS upon completion of drilling. The

monitoring well construction details and the measured groundwater level are shown in the

following table.

Piezometer ID Screen Interval

(mBGS)

Date of Monitoring: August 6, 2015

Water Level (mBGS)

BH2 2.6 ~ 4.1 2.15




It should be noted that the groundwater levels can vary and are subject to seasonal fluctuations

in response to weather events.

4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This report contains the findings of GeoPro’s geotechnical investigation, together with the

geotechnical engineering recommendations and comments. These recommendations and

comments are based on factual information and are intended only for use by the design engineers.

The number of boreholes and test pits may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may

affect construction methods and costs. Subsurface conditions between and beyond the boreholes

may differ from those encountered at the borehole locations, and conditions may become

apparent during construction, which could not be detected or anticipated at the time of the site

investigation. The anticipated construction conditions are also discussed, but only to the extent

that they may influence design decisions. Construction methods discussed, however, express

GeoPro’s opinion only and are not intended to direct the contractors on how to carry out the

construction. Contractors should also be aware that the data and their interpretation presented

in this report may not be sufficient to assess all the factors that may have an effect on the

construction.

The design drawings of the project are not available at the time of preparing this report. Once

the design drawings and detail site plan are available, this report should be reviewed by GeoPro

and further recommendations be provided as appropriate.

4.1 Foundation Design Considerations

Based on the results of this investigation, the fill materials ranged widely in relative density and

contained significant amount of construction debris. As such, the fill materials are considered to

be subject to long term settlement and potentially to differential settlement. The areal extent

and magnitude of the settlement cannot be predicted. Therefore, the existing fill materials at the

site are unsuitable for support of the proposed transformer pad. The proposed structure may

therefore be supported on deep foundations founded on the underlying competent shale bedrock.

Driven piles are not suitable for this site due to the small size of the transformer pad and the

complex underground services present on the site, as well as the cost of mobilizing the pile driving

machine, the excessive weight of the heavy piling machine, the vibrations caused during the pile

driving, noise and air pollution generated by heavy diesel engines, and the difficulty of accessibility

for the pile driving machine. As such, the proposed transformer pad may be supported on end

bearing helical screw piles or augered cast in place caissons founded in the shale bedrock below

the fill materials and native clayey soils.




4.1.1 Helical Piles

The actual design details of the helical piles will typically be provided by the helical pile specialist

contractor. Use of helical piles is recommended as it provides a number of advantages when

compared to driven piles:

1. The helical pile installation is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the existing

underground site services.

2. Helical pile installation uses comparatively smaller equipment which is not known for

generating excessive noise or visible air pollution from diesel engines, especially

compared to pile driving machines.

3. The relatively small size of the helical pile installation equipment would permit easier

access to installation locations close to the adjacent buildings.

It must be noted that some difficulty would be encountered in advancing the piles through the fill

materials due to the significant amount of concrete and asphalt blocks, brick and plastic fragments,

steel bars, and other construction debris present within the fill materials. Should any obstructions

be encountered, the pile could be extracted and reused in an alternate location. However, due

to the amount of construction debris anticipated within the fill materials, consideration may be

given to pre-augering through the existing fill materials and backfilling the pre-augered holes with

low strength unshrinkable fill (i.e. 1 to 2 MPa). A temporary steel liner will be required during

construction to prevent caving of materials and to facilitate the pouring of the unshrinkable fill.

In order to avoid the confliction of existing subsurface utilities, the helical piles should be installed

at least 0.3 m away from the existing utilities as shown in Drawing No. 2. The helical piles can

then be carried out shortly after the unshrinkable fill has been poured, before the unshrinkable

fill has completely set to its full compressive strength. The helical piles are generally designed as

end bearing and the friction from the fill materials and soft native soils must be ignored. The

designer should define the depth and type of helical piles according to the soil conditions and the

required design loads. Based on the thickness of the fill materials and soft native silty clay soils

encountered at the site, it is recommended that the helical piles should be advanced to at least

0.3 m into the weathered shale. The contractor should be notified about the Interbedded

limestone layers within the weathered shale. A specialist contractor should be retained to design

and install helical piles. Bearing capacity and other design details regarding helical piles can be

discussed with the specialist contractor. Field load testing of piles is required to confirm the

design bearing capacity.

As previously noted, the nature and extent of the construction debris within the fill materials at

the proposed pile locations are not known. Due to the presence of construction debris and buried

concrete and asphalt blocks within the existing fill materials, geotechnical inspection to confirm

that the helical pile toes are anchored within the underlying shale bedrock is considered to be

essential.




The design and construction of the deep foundations should be in accordance with the Canadian

Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th edition.

It should be noted that the recommended design parameters have been calculated by GeoPro

from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are

necessarily on-going as new information on the underground conditions becomes available. For

example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes

when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the

recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by

GeoPro to validate the information for use during the construction stage.

4.1.2 Caissons

As an alternative to end bearing helical screw piles, augered cast in place concrete piles (i.e.

caissons) may be considered. The caissons should have a minimum diameter of 0.6 m and be

socketed at least 0.6 m into the shale bedrock. For cast in place caissons bearing on the shale

bedrock, a factored axial resistance at Ultimate Limit States (ULS) of 200 kN may be assumed for

design. The geotechnical resistance at Serviceability Limit States (SLS) for 25 mm of settlement

(for the length of piles required at this site) will be greater than the factored axial resistance at

ULS and as a result, ULS conditions will govern. Prior to pouring concrete for the caissons, the

bases should be inspected by the geotechnical engineer to confirm that they are located in sound

shale bedrock, which has been cleaned of any ponded water and loosened materials. A temporary

steel liner will be required during construction to prevent caving of materials, to permit

geotechnical inspection of the base of the augered excavations, and to facilitate the caisson

installation operations. Pumping of groundwater from the base of some caissons will be required

prior to inspection and pouring concrete. If the water in the caissons cannot be controlled by

pumping, concrete for the caissons should be poured by tremie methods as soon as practicable

after augering and base inspection. The fresh concrete must be kept from freezing during cold

weather construction.

As previously noted, the nature and extent of the construction debris within the fill materials at

the proposed caisson locations are not known. Due to the presence of construction debris and

buried concrete blocks within the existing fill materials, geotechnical inspection to confirm that

the caisson bases are socketed within the underlying sound shale bedrock is considered to be

essential.

The design and construction of the deep foundations should be in accordance with the Canadian

Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th edition.

It should be noted that the recommended bearing resistances have been calculated by GeoPro

from the borehole information for the design stage only. The investigation and comments are

necessarily on-going as new information on the underground conditions becomes available. For




example, more specific information is available with respect to conditions between boreholes

when foundation construction is underway. The interpretation between boreholes and the

recommendations of this report must therefore be checked through field inspections provided by

GeoPro to validate the information for use during the construction stage.

4.2 Frost Protection

The top layer of existing fill materials consisting of topsoil/organics is highly susceptible to frost

heave and should be removed from the transformer pad footprint and be replaced with

engineered fill consisting of Granular A. The topsoil and removed fill materials should be wasted

or used for landscaping purposes.

The transformer pad, which is exposed to seasonal freezing conditions must have at least 1.2 m

free draining materials (i.e. Granular A) or the thermal equivalent placed below the pad for frost

protection. The free draining materials (i.e. Granular A) should be placed in a loose lift not

exceeding 200 mm and compacted to 95% of Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).

In consideration of the utility casings exposed at shallow depths, consideration may be given to

installing Styrofoam as frost protection for the proposed structural slab. Layers of rigid high-

density closed-cell insulation (such as Styrofoam HL-40) with a thickness selected to satisfy the

frost protection requirement may be considered for the slab design. As a general guideline, 25

mm of insulation provides the same effect as about 300 mm of soil and a minimum of 300 mm

earth cover should be placed on top of the Styrofoam insulation. For the proposed pad, a 75 mm

layer of Styrofoam may be placed as frost protection; the Styrofoam insulation should extend

outwards at least 1.2 m from the perimeter of the pad in all directions; a layer of 300 mm thick

OPSS Granular A should be placed on top of the Styrofoam and compacted to 95% SPMDD.

4.3 Excavations and Groundwater Control

All excavations must be carried out in accordance with the most recent Occupational Health and

Safety Act (OHSA). In accordance with OHSA, the existing fill materials can be classified as Type

3 soil above the groundwater table. The native silty clay soil and the existing fill materials below

the groundwater table would be classified as Type 4 soils.

It is anticipated that shallow excavations at the site will consist of temporary open cuts with side

slopes not steeper than 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (1H:1V). However, depending on the

construction procedures adopted by the contractor and weather conditions at the time of

construction, some local flattening of the slopes might be required.

As noted above, groundwater was measured in Borehole BH2 at a depth of 2.15 m below the

existing ground surface. Some seepage of free water from the fill materials at shallow depths

should be anticipated. In consideration of the anticipated shallow excavations, the seepage water




from the existing fill materials should be controlled and removed by pumping from temporary

sumps.

4.4 Seismic Consideration

The 2012 Ontario Building Code (OBC 2012) came into effect on January 1, 2014 and contains

updated seismic analysis and design methodology. The seismic site classification methodology

outlined in the new code is based on the subsurface conditions within the upper 30 m below

grade. Two methods of defining the site class are presented in the following sections for the

proposed development: a conservative approach based on shallow boreholes (i.e. boreholes less

than 30 m in depth) using local geological/physiographical experience; and a method based on

geophysical testing in accordance with the Section 4.1.8.4A of the OBC 2012.

The conservative site classification is based on physical borehole information obtained at depths

of less than 30 m and based on general knowledge of the local geology and physiography. In this

regard, GeoPro’s drilling program included boreholes drilled to depths up to 4.9 m below the

existing ground surface. Based on the borehole information and our local experience, a Site Class

D may be used for the structural design.

Should optimization of the site class be recommended by the structural engineer, in situ

geophysical testing may be considered.

4.5 Excess Soil Characterization

4.5.1 Soil Sample Submission

In order to provide information on the chemical quality of the subsurface soils, the following soil

samples were submitted to AGAT Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario (“AGAT”) for analyses:

two soil samples (BH1/SS1 and BH1/SS2) were submitted for analyses of metals and

inorganics to assess the general soil quality

At the time of the sampling, no obvious visual or olfactory evidence of environmental impact (i.e.

staining or odours) was observed at the sampling locations.

4.5.2 Soil Analytical Results

Metals and Inorganics

The samples were analyzed for metals and inorganic parameters under Ontario Regulation 153/04

(“O. Reg 153/04”) as amended. The soil analytical results were compared to the Ontario Ministry

of the Environment and Climate Change (“MOECC”) “Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards

for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, April 2011, Table 1: Full Depth

Background Site Condition Standards for




Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/ Community Property Uses (“2011

MOECC Table 1 Standards”).

A copy of the soil analytical results is provided in the Laboratory Certificates of Analysis, attached

in Appendix A. Based upon a comparison of the analytical results to the 2011 MOECC Table 1

Standards, no exceedances were identified for the parameters tested.

4.6 Corrosivity Potential

The sulphate (SO4) resistance requirements for concrete in contact with the site soils was

evaluated by performing water-soluble sulphate tests on two (2) soil samples taken from Borehole

BH1 from 0.3 to 0.6 m and 3.0 to 3.5 m below existing grade. The analytical data are attached to

this report in Appendix B.

The test revealed that the sulphate concentrations in the test soil samples were 21 ug/g and 249

ug/g. The category of severity of attack is “negligible” based on CSA Standard A23.1, Concrete

Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction. The final selection of the type of concrete

should be made by the Engineer taking into account all aspects of design considerations.

The corrosivity of soils towards ferrous metal was evaluated by performing corrosivity tests on

two (2) soil samples taken from Boreholes BH1. The corrosivity of soils was evaluated using the

10 points method which is based on five soil properties: sulphide, resistivity, pH, Redox potential

and moisture content. The following table summarizes the ANSI/AWWA rating for the tested soil

samples for the potential for corrosion towards the buried grey or ductile cast iron pipes. A score

of ten (10) points or more indicates potential for corrosion. The analytical data are attached to

this report in Appendix B.

BH No. /

Sample

No.

Parameter

Depth,

m

(from-

to)

Soil

Type PH

Resistivity

(ohm.cm)

Sulfide

(point)

Redox

potential

(mV)

Moisture

Content

(%) (point)

Total

Points

BH1/SS1 0.3–

0.6

Silty

Sand

8.60

(3) 7350 (0) 0.03 (2) 263 (0) Moist (1) 6

BH1/SS5 3.0-

3.5

Silty

clay

8.28

(0) 1260 (10) 0.18 (2) 234 (0) 16 (1) 13

According to the ANSI/AWWA rating system, the tested sample BH1/SS1 poses low to moderate

potential for corrosion of grey ductile iron pipes. However, the tested sample BH1/SS5 indicates


DRAWINGS

Client:Project No.:

15-1056-01

Title: Borehole Location Plan

Project:

Drawing No.:1

Drawn: GC Approved: DL

Scale:

Date: August 17, 2015

Original Letter Rev:

DLSize:

BH1 As shown Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Transformer Pad Installation atWest Substation, Humber Treatment Plant

130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, Ontario

Associated Engineering (Ont.) Inc.

Borehole Location

BH1

BH2

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure 1A: Notes on Sample Descriptions

1. Each soil stratum is described according to the Modified Unified Soil Classification System. The compactness

condition of cohesionless soils (SPT) and the consistency of cohesive soils (undrained shear strength) are defined

according to Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition. Different soil classification systems may be

used by others. Please note that a description of the soil stratums is based on visual and tactile examination of

the samples augmented with field and laboratory test results, such as a grain size analysis and/or Atterberg

Limits testing. Visual classification is not sufficiently accurate to provide exact grain sizing or precise

differentiation between size classification systems.

2. Fill: Where fill is designated on the borehole log it is defined as indicated by the sample recovered during the

boring process. The reader is cautioned that fills are heterogeneous in nature and variable in density or degree

of compaction. The borehole description may therefore not be applicable as a general description of site fill

materials. All fills should be expected to contain obstruction such as wood, large concrete pieces or subsurface

basements, floors, tanks, etc., none of these may have been encountered in the boreholes. Since boreholes

cannot accurately define the contents of the fill, test pits are recommended to provide supplementary

information. Despite the use of test pits, the heterogeneous nature of fill will leave some ambiguity as to the

exact composition of the fill. Most fills contain pockets, seams, or layers of organically contaminated soil. This

organic material can result in the generation of methane gas and/or significant ongoing and future settlements.

Fill at this site may have been monitored for the presence of methane gas and, if so, the results are given on the

borehole logs. The monitoring process does not indicate the volume of gas that can be potentially generated nor

does it pinpoint the source of the gas. These readings are to advise of the presence of gas only, and a detailed

study is recommended for sites where any explosive gas/methane is detected. Some fill material may be

contaminated by toxic/hazardous waste that renders it unacceptable for deposition in any but designated land

fill sites; unless specifically stated the fill on this site has not been tested for contaminants that may be

considered toxic or hazardous. This testing and a potential hazard study can be undertaken if requested. In

most residential/commercial areas undergoing reconstruction, buried oil tanks are common and are generally

not detected in a conventional preliminary geotechnical site investigation.

3. Till: The term till on the borehole logs indicates that the material originates from a geological process associated

with glaciation. Because of this geological process the till must be considered heterogeneous in composition and

as such may contain pockets and/or seams of material such as sand, gravel, silt or clay. Till often contains

cobbles (60 to 200 mm) or boulders (over 200 mm). Contractors may therefore encounter cobbles and boulders

during excavation, even if they are not indicated by the borings. It should be appreciated that normal sampling

equipment cannot differentiate the size or type of any obstruction. Because of the horizontal and vertical

variability of till, the sample description may be applicable to a very limited zone; caution is therefore essential

when dealing with sensitive excavations or dewatering programs in till materials.

Enclosure 1B: Explanation of Terms Used in the Record of Boreholes

Sample Type AS Auger sample BS Block sample CS Chunk sample DO Drive open DS Dimension type sample FS Foil sample NR No recovery RC Rock core SC Soil core SS Spoon sample SH Shelby tube Sample ST Slotted tube TO Thin-walled, open TP Thin-walled, piston WS Wash sample

Penetration Resistance Standard Penetration Resistance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in) drive open sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). PM – Samples advanced by manual pressure WR – Samples advanced by weight of sampler and rod WH – Samples advanced by static weight of hammer Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance, Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in) diameter, 60o cone attached to “A” size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in). Piezo-Cone Penetration Test (CPT): An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60 degree conical tip and a projected end area of 10 cm² pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurement of tip resistance (Qt), porewater pressure (PWP) and friction along a sleeve are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals.

Textural Classification of Soils (ASTM D2487) Classification Particle Size Boulders > 300 mm Cobbles 75 mm - 300 mm Gravel 4.75 mm - 75 mm Sand 0.075 mm – 4.75 mm Silt 0.002 mm-0.075 mm Clay <0.002 mm(*) (*) Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (4th Edition)

Coarse Grain Soil Description (50% greater than 0.075 mm)

Terminology Proportion Trace 0-10% Some 10-20% Adjective (e.g. silty or sandy) 20-35% And (e.g. sand and gravel) > 35%

Soil Description

a) Cohesive Soils(*)

Consistency Undrained Shear SPT “N” Value Strength (kPa) Very soft <12 0-2 Soft 12-25 2-4 Firm 25-50 4-8 Stiff 50-100 8-15 Very stiff 100-200 15-30 Hard >200 >30 (*) Hierarchy of Shear Strength prediction 1. Lab triaxial test 2. Field vane shear test 3. Lab. vane shear test 4. SPT “N” value 5. Pocket penetrometer b) Cohesionless Soils Density Index (Relative Density) SPT “N” Value Very loose <4 Loose 4-10 Compact 10-30 Dense 30-50 Very dense >50

Soil Tests w Water content wp Plastic limit wl Liquid limit C Consolidation (oedometer) test CID Consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test

with porewater pressure measurement DR Relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS Direct shear test ENV Environmental/ chemical analysis M Sieve analysis for particle size MH Combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified proctor compaction test SPC Standard proctor compaction test OC Organic content test U Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial Test V Field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) γ Unit weight

81.2

79.4

76.8

76.6

9

14

9

2

2

50/76mm

0.3

2.1

4.7

4.9

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

TOPSOIL (300 mm)

FILL: silty sand, trace gravel,contains concrete and asphaltblocks, contains plastic and brickfragments, contains steel bars,brown, moist, loose to compact.

SILTY CLAY: trace sand, tracegravel, grey, wet to moist, very softto hard.

PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE BEDROCK: grey.END OF BOREHOLE DUE TOSPOON REFUSAL ONPROBABLE SHALE BEDROCKNotes:1) Borehole was open and dry uponcompletion of drilling.

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation - Transformer Pad Installation

CLIENT: Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.

PROJECT LOCATION: 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, ON

DATUM: Geodetic

BH LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan

GR

REF. NO.: 15-1056-01

ENCL NO.: 2

1

2

3

4

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

81

80

79

78

77

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

81.5

PLASTICLIMIT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%Strain at Failure

Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH1

1st 2nd 4th3rd

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA

Method: Solid Stem Auger Auto Hammer

Diameter: 115 mm

Date: Jul-20-2015

80.7

78.0

76.576.4

23

15

4

1

2

50/100mm

0.2

2.9

4.44.5

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

1

2

3

4

5

6

TOPSOIL (180 mm)

FILL: silty sand, trace to somegravel, contains concrete andasphalt blocks, contains brick andplastic fragments, contains steelbars, brown, moist, compact.

FILL: sand, trace to some silt, tracegravel, brown, wet, very loose.

PROBABLE WEATHEREDSHALE BEDROCK: grey.END OF BOREHOLE DUE TOAUGER REFUSAL ONPROBABLE SHALE BEDROCKNotes:1) Water was encountered at adepth of 2.4 meters below groundsurface (mBGS) during drilling.2) The borehole caved in to a depthof 4.10 mBGS upon completion ofdrilling.3) 51 mm dia. monitoring well wasinstalled in borehole uponcompletion of drilling.

Water Level ReadingsDate W.L. Depth (mBGS)August 6, 2015 2.15

SOIL PROFILE

wL

0.0

UNCONFINED

1 OF 1

20 40 60 80 100GR

OU

ND

WA

TE

R

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

"N"

B

LOW

S

0.3

m

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation - Transformer Pad Installation

CLIENT: Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd.

PROJECT LOCATION: 130 The Queensway, Etobicoke, ON

DATUM: Geodetic

BH LOCATION: See Borehole Location Plan

GR

REF. NO.: 15-1056-01

ENCL NO.: 3

1

2

3

4

Numbers referto Sensitivity

w

ELE

VA

TIO

N

:

10 20 30

REMARKS

AND

GRAIN SIZE

DISTRIBUTION

(%)

NATURALMOISTURECONTENT

3

SI

GRAPHNOTES

LIQUIDLIMIT

SAMPLES

NU

MB

ER

80

79

78

77

NA

TU

RA

L U

NIT

WT

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

80.9

PLASTICLIMIT

FIELD VANE& Sensitivity

ELEV

DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIONRESISTANCE PLOT

20 40 60 80 100

QUICK TRIAXIAL

SHEAR STRENGTH (kPa)

TY

PE

,3

CL

=3%Strain at Failure

Measurement

(Cu)

(kP

a)(m)

ST

RA

TA

PLO

T

LAB VANE WATER CONTENT (%)

wP

DEPTH

SA

LOG OF BOREHOLE BH2

1st 2nd 4th3rd

GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS

(kN

/m3 )

DRILLING DATA

Method: Solid Stem Auger Auto Hammer

Diameter: 115 mm

Date: Jul-20-2015

Concrete

Bentonite

Sand

Screen

Caved in

W. L. 78.7 mAug 06, 2015

APPENDIX A

CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD40 VOGELL ROAD UNIT 25-27RICHMOND HILL, ON L4B3N6 (905) 237-8336

5835 COOPERS AVENUE

MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO

CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122

http://www.agatlabs.com

Parvathi Malemath, Data ReviewerSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5

Aug 27, 2015

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

15T009493AGAT WORK ORDER:

ATTENTION TO: Bujing Guan

PROJECT: 15-1056-01

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 5

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.

AGAT Laboratories is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) and/or Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for specific tests listed on the scope of accreditation. AGAT Laboratories (Mississauga) is also accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) for specific drinking water tests. Accreditations are location and parameter specific. A complete listing of parameters for each location is available from www.cala.ca and/or www.scc.ca. The tests in this report may not necessarily be included in the scope of accreditation.

Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request

BH1/SS2BH1/SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

7/20/20157/20/2015DATE SAMPLED:

6885398 6885399G / S RDLUnitParameter

<0.8 <0.8Antimony 0.81.3µg/g

3 3Arsenic 118µg/g

55 62Barium 2220µg/g

<0.5 <0.5Beryllium 0.52.5µg/g

5 5Boron 536µg/g

0.24 0.25Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 0.10NAµg/g

0.6 0.8Cadmium 0.51.2µg/g

16 19Chromium 270µg/g

6.1 6.4Cobalt 0.521µg/g

23 28Copper 192µg/g

27 34Lead 1120µg/g

<0.5 <0.5Molybdenum 0.52µg/g

13 16Nickel 182µg/g

<0.4 <0.4Selenium 0.41.5µg/g

0.2 0.3Silver 0.20.5µg/g

<0.4 <0.4Thallium 0.41µg/g

<0.5 <0.5Uranium 0.52.5µg/g

15 16Vanadium 186µg/g

72 84Zinc 5290µg/g

<0.2 <0.2Chromium VI 0.20.66µg/g

<0.040 <0.040Cyanide 0.0400.051µg/g

<0.10 0.11Mercury 0.100.27µg/g

0.130 0.127Electrical Conductivity 0.0050.57mS/cm

0.124 0.108Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA2.4NA

7.92 7.86pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction NApH Units

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard: Refers to Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards - Soil - Residential/Parkland/Institutional/Industrial/Commercial/Community Property Use

6885398-6885399 EC & SAR were determined on the DI water extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water:1 part soil). pH was determined on the 0.01M CaCl2 extract prepared at 2:1 ratio.

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items tested

DATE RECEIVED: 2015-08-19

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Bujing GuanCLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD

AGAT WORK ORDER: 15T009493

DATE REPORTED: 2015-08-27

PROJECT: 15-1056-01

O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)

SAMPLED BY:DylanSAMPLING SITE:

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 5

O. Reg. 153(511) - Metals & Inorganics (Soil)

Antimony 6884562 <0.8 <0.8 0.0% < 0.8 110% 70% 130% 105% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%

Arsenic 6884562 2 2 0.0% < 1 108% 70% 130% 88% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%

Barium 6884562 167 172 2.9% < 2 109% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 102% 70% 130%

Beryllium 6884562 0.6 0.7 15.4% < 0.5 94% 70% 130% 102% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Boron

6884562 7 8 13.3% < 5 86% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 88% 70% 130%

Boron (Hot Water Soluble) 6884422 <0.10 <0.10 0.0% < 0.10 107% 60% 140% 98% 70% 130% 97% 60% 140%

Cadmium 6884562 <0.5 <0.5 0.0% < 0.5 104% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 100% 70% 130%

Chromium 6884562 26 27 3.8% < 2 83% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 95% 70% 130%

Cobalt 6884562 10.7 11.3 5.5% < 0.5 99% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Copper

6884562 19 20 5.1% < 1 96% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

Lead 6884562 8 8 0.0% < 1 105% 70% 130% 100% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%

Molybdenum 6884562 <0.5 <0.5 0.0% < 0.5 110% 70% 130% 110% 80% 120% 111% 70% 130%

Nickel 6884562 18 19 5.4% < 1 99% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 98% 70% 130%

Selenium 6884562 <0.4 <0.4 0.0% < 0.4 87% 70% 130% 106% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%

Silver

6884562 <0.2 <0.2 0.0% < 0.2 111% 70% 130% 118% 80% 120% 110% 70% 130%

Thallium 6884562 <0.4 <0.4 0.0% < 0.4 94% 70% 130% 103% 80% 120% 97% 70% 130%

Uranium 6884562 0.5 0.5 0.0% < 0.5 108% 70% 130% 107% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%

Vanadium 6884562 32 34 6.1% < 1 82% 70% 130% 91% 80% 120% 91% 70% 130%

Zinc 6884562 56 58 3.5% < 5 110% 70% 130% 113% 80% 120% 101% 70% 130%

Chromium VI

6884432 <0.2 <0.2 0.0% < 0.2 100% 70% 130% 103% 80% 120% 99% 70% 130%

Cyanide 6885277 <0.040 <0.040 0.0% < 0.040 109% 70% 130% 110% 80% 120% 122% 70% 130%

Mercury 6884562 <0.10 <0.10 0.0% < 0.10 100% 70% 130% 96% 80% 120% 92% 70% 130%

Electrical Conductivity 6887188 0.079 0.075 5.2% < 0.005 91% 90% 110%

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 6887188 0.087 0.074 16.1% NA NA NA NA

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction

6893716 7.43 7.58 2.0% NA 101% 80% 120% NA NA

Comments: NA signifies Not Applicable.

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance


CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD

PROJECT: 15-1056-01

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Aug 27, 2015 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 5


Soil Analysis

Antimony MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Arsenic MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Barium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Beryllium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Boron MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Boron (Hot Water Soluble) MET-93-6104EPA SW 846 6010C; MSA, Part 3, Ch.21

ICP/OES

Cadmium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Chromium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Cobalt MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Copper MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Lead MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Molybdenum MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Nickel MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Selenium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Silver MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Thallium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Uranium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Vanadium MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Zinc MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Chromium VI INOR-93-6029 SM 3500 B; MSA Part 3, Ch. 25 SPECTROPHOTOMETER

Cyanide INOR-93-6052MOE CN-3015 & E 3009 A;SM 4500 CN

TECHNICON AUTO ANALYZER

Mercury MET-93-6103 EPA SW-846 3050B & 6020A ICP-MS

Electrical Conductivity INOR-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER

Sodium Adsorption Ratio INOR-93-6007McKeague 4.12 & 3.26 & EPA SW-846 6010B

ICP/OES

pH, 2:1 CaCl2 Extraction INOR-93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan


Method Summary



PROJECT: 15-1056-01

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 5

APPENDIX B

CLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD40 VOGELL ROAD UNIT 25-27RICHMOND HILL, ON L4B3N6 (905) 237-8336

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


Amanjot Bhela, Inorganic CoordinatorSOIL ANALYSIS REVIEWED BY:

DATE REPORTED:

PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): 5

Aug 21, 2015

VERSION*: 1

Should you require any information regarding this analysis please contact your client services representative at (905) 712-5100

15T007255AGAT WORK ORDER:


PROJECT: 15-1056-01

Laboratories (V1) Page 1 of 5

All samples will be disposed of within 30 days following analysis. Please contact the lab if you require additional sample storage time.


Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA)Western Enviro-Agricultural Laboratory Association (WEALA)Environmental Services Association of Alberta (ESAA)

Member of:

*NOTES

Results relate only to the items tested and to all the items testedAll reportable information as specified by ISO 17025:2005 is available from AGAT Laboratories upon request

BH1 SS5BH1 SS1SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:

SoilSoilSAMPLE TYPE:

7/20/20157/20/2015DATE SAMPLED:

6862503 6862505G / S RDLUnitParameter

0.03 0.18Sulfide 0.01 %

15 307Chloride (2:1) 2µg/g

21 249Sulphate (2:1) 2µg/g

8.60 8.28pH (2:1) NApH Units

0.136 0.793Electrical Conductivity (2:1) 0.005mS/cm

7350 1260Resistivity (2:1) 1ohm.cm

263 234Redox Potential (2:1) 5mV

Comments: RDL - Reported Detection Limit; G / S - Guideline / Standard

6862503-6862505 * Sulphide analyses were performed at AGAT Laboratories Vancouver.

EC/Resistivity, pH, Chloride, Sulphate and Redox Potential were determined on the extract obtained from the 2:1 leaching procedure (2 parts DI water: 1 part soil).


DATE RECEIVED: 2015-08-13

Certificate of Analysis

ATTENTION TO: Bujing GuanCLIENT NAME: GEOPRO CONSULTING LTD


DATE REPORTED: 2015-08-21

PROJECT: 15-1056-01

Corrosivity Package

SAMPLED BY:Dylan XiaoSAMPLING SITE:

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS (V1)

Certified By:Page 2 of 5

Corrosivity Package

Sulfide 6862398 0.02 0.01 NA < 0.01 94% 80% 120%

Chloride (2:1) 6857494 5 5 0.0% < 2 92% 80% 120% 96% 80% 120% 98% 70% 130%

Sulphate (2:1) 6857494 65 63 3.1% < 2 94% 80% 120% 92% 80% 120% 94% 70% 130%

pH (2:1) 6862402 8.72 8.55 2.0% NA 100% 90% 110% NA NA

Electrical Conductivity (2:1)

6857494 0.063 0.059 6.6% < 0.005 101% 90% 110% NA NA

Redox Potential (2:1) 6857494 268 269 0.4% < 5 99% 70% 130% NA NA

Comments: NA Signifies Not Applicable.RPD Qualifier for Sulfide: As the average value for the sample and a duplicate is less than 5X RDL, lab's RPD acceptance criteria is not applicable.

Certified By:


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan Xiao


Dup #1 RPDMeasured

ValueRecovery Recovery

Quality Assurance



PROJECT: 15-1056-01

Soil Analysis

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

BatchPARAMETERSample

IdDup #2

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

UpperLower

AcceptableLimits

MATRIX SPIKEMETHOD BLANK SPIKEDUPLICATERPT Date: Aug 21, 2015 REFERENCE MATERIAL

MethodBlank

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORT (V1) Page 3 of 5


Soil Analysis

Sulfide GRAVIMETRIC

Chloride (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

Sulphate (2:1) INOR-93-6004 McKeague 4.12 & SM 4110 B ION CHROMATOGRAPH

pH (2:1) INOR 93-6031 MSA part 3 & SM 4500-H+ B PH METER

Electrical Conductivity (2:1) INOR-93-6036 McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B EC METER

Resistivity (2:1) INOR-93-6036McKeague 4.12, SM 2510 B,SSA #5 Part 3

CALCULATION

Redox Potential (2:1) McKeague 4.12 & SM 2510 B REDOX POTENTIAL ELECTRODE


SAMPLING SITE: SAMPLED BY:Dylan Xiao


Method Summary



PROJECT: 15-1056-01

AGAT S.O.P ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUELITERATURE REFERENCEPARAMETER

5835 COOPERS AVENUE


CANADA L4Z 1Y2

TEL (905)712-5100

FAX (905)712-5122


METHOD SUMMARY (V1) Page 4 of 5

Unit 25 to 27, 40 Vogell Road, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N6 Tel: 905 237 8336 Fax: 905 248 3699 www.geoproconsulting.ca

LIMITATIONS TO THE REPORT

This report is intended solely for the Client named. The report is prepared based on the work has been

undertaken in accordance with normally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in Ontario.

The comments and recommendations given in this report are based on information determined at the

limited number of the test hole and test pit locations. Subsurface and groundwater conditions between

and beyond the test holes and test pit may differ significantly from those encountered at the test hole

and test pit locations. The benchmark and elevations used in this report are primarily to establish

relative elevation differences between the test hole and test pit locations and should not be used for

other purposes, such as grading, excavating, planning, development, etc.

The report reflects our best judgment based on the information available to GeoPro Consulting Limited

at the time of preparation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by GeoPro Consulting Limited, it shall not

be used to express or imply warranty as to any other purposes. No portion of this report shall be used

as a separate entity, it is written to be read in its entirety. The information contained herein in no way

reflects on the environment aspects of the project, unless otherwise stated.

The design recommendations given in this report are applicable only to the project designed and

constructed completely in accordance with the details stated in this report.

Should any comments and recommendations provided in this report be made on any construction

related issues, they are intended only for the guidance of the designers. The number of test holes and

test pits may not be sufficient to determine all the factors that may affect construction activities,

methods and costs. Such as, the thickness of surficial topsoil or fill layers may vary significantly and

unpredictably; the amount of the cobbles and boulders may vary significantly than what described in the

report; unexpected water bearing zones/layers with various thickness and extent may be encountered

in the fill and native soils. The contractors bidding on this project or undertaking the construction

should, therefore, make their own interpretation of the factual information presented and make their

own conclusions as to how the subsurface conditions may affect their work and determine the proper

construction methods.

Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it,

are the responsibility of such third parties. GeoPro Consulting Limited accepts no responsibility for

damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report.

We accept no responsibility for any decisions made or actions taken as a result of this report unless we

are specifically advised of and participate in such action, in which case our responsibility will be as

agreed to at that time.

Tel:905.856.0065


ADDENDUM NO. 3 REQUEST FOR TENDER NO. 108 ......Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016 3 Q13. Please provide a...

Documents

Transcript of ADDENDUM NO. 3 REQUEST FOR TENDER NO. 108 ......Addendum-3 Tender # 108-2016 3 Q13. Please provide a...