ML13309B619

Shine Medical Technologies, Inc., Application for Construction Permit Response to Environmental Requests for Additional Information, Enclosure 2, Attachment 27 - Report of Subsurface Exploration (Chippewa Falls)

ML13309B619
Person / Time
Site:	SHINE Medical Technologies
Issue date:	01/21/2011
From:	SHINE Medical Technologies
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML13303A887	List: ML13302C044 ML13309A984 ML13309A987 ML13309A988 ML13309A989 ML13309A990 ML13309A991 ML13309A992 ML13309A993 ML13309A994 ML13309A995 ML13309A996 ML13309B005 ML13309B006 ML13309B007 ML13309B008 ML13309B009 ML13309B010 ML13309B012 ML13309B013 ML13309B014 ML13309B016 ML13309B032 ML13309B033 ML13309B034 ML13309B035 ML13309B036 ML13309B037 ML13309B038 ML13309B039 ML13309B040 ML13309B041 ML13309B618 ML13309B619 ML13309B621 ML13309B622 ML13309B623 ML13309B624 ML13309B625 ML13309B626 ML13309B627 ML13309B628 ML13309B629 ML13309B630 ML13309B631 ML13309B632 ML13309B633 ML13309B634
References
SMT-2013-034
Download: ML13309B619 (23)

Text

22 pages follow ENCLOSURE 2 ATTACHMENT 27 SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

SHINE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN JANUARY 21, 2011

A AMERICAN ENGINEERING iiii. TESTING, INC.

CONSULTANTS o ENVIRONMENTAL o GEOTECHNICAL o MATERIALS o FORENSICS REPORT OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROJECT:

LAKE WISSOT A BUSINESS PARK INTERSECTION OF SEYMOUR CRA Y SR. BLVD.

AND LAKE VIEW DRIVE CHIP PEW A FALLS, WISCONSIN AET JOB NO: 31-00144 REPORTED TO:

CHIPPEWA COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 801 EAST GRAND A VENUE CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI 54729 ATTN:

DATE: JANUARY 21,2011

--- - -:;;;:=...::;::-===============:::::=;~~:;:;::=:c=======--=====

INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration program we recently conducted for the referenced project. This work was performed per our proposal dated January 7, 2011, which you authorized on January 12,2011. Our authorized scope of work included the following:

Drill one ( 1) standard penetration test boring to a depth of 80 feet.

Prepare a factual report summarizing our findings.

The scope of our work is intended for geotechnical purposes only. This scope is not intended to explore for the presence of environmental contamination at the site.

PROJECT INFORMATION It is our understanding that the referenced site is a previously graded and currently undeveloped business park. We further understand that the purpose of our subsurface exploration program was to provide a soil profile at one test boring location, selected by you, as shown in Figure 1.

550 Cleveland Avenue North I St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651-659-9001 I Toll Free 800-972-63641 Fax 651-659-1379 I www.amengtest.com 1 AAIEEO ft.

This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval from American Engineering Testing, Inc.

\\I

AET Project No. 31-00144-Page 2 of 5 The results of this test boring will be used to determine the feasibility of further development throughout the business park.

Because our scope of services for this project is limited to reporting our findings at only one boring location, information concerning soil bearing capacity values and foundation design for future structures on this site is not provided in this report.

SITE CONDITIONS Surface Observations The following information presents our observations of the existing site conditions at the time of our soil boring activity:

The site is located to the west of the intersection of Seymour Cray Sr. Boulevard and Lake View Drive in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.

The site is grassy.

The site is relatively flat.

Soils A log of the test boring is attached. The log contains information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture. Relative density or consistency is also noted, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value). The following is a summary of the soil conditions observed at the location of the test boring:

The soil profile at the location of the test boring consists of fill overlying buried topsoil. The buried topsoil is underlain by coarse alluvial soils.

The fill consists primarily of silty sand and was encountered to a depth of approximately 3 ~

feet.

AET Project No. 31-00144-Page 3 of 5 The buried topsoil layer consists primarily of sandy silt and was found to be approximately 1 Y2 feet thick.

The coarse alluvium consists of varying layers of sands with silt, sands, gravelly sands, and sandy gravel. Based on theN-values, these coarse alluvial soils are medium dense to dense.

The boring log indicates the subsurface conditions only at the sampled location. Variations often occur between and beyond borings.

Water Level Measurements The borehole was probed for the presence of ground water, and a water level measurement was taken. The measurement is recorded on the boring log. We measured a ground water level at a depth of about 50 feet. Because the sands and gravels below this depth are waterbearing, we judge this to represent a hydrostatic condition. Because the boring encountered mostly free draining sands and gravel, the water level indicated should be reasonably accurate at this time and location. A discussion of the water level measurement method is presented on the sheet entitled "Exploration/Classification Methods".

Groundwater levels usually fluctuate. Fluctuations occur due to varying seasonal and yearly rainfall and snow melt, as well as other factors.

GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Review of Soil Properties The site soils classified as sand, sand with silt, gravelly sand, and sandy gravel are not judged to be significantly susceptible to frost-related movements. The site soils classified as silty sands are at least moderately susceptible to frost-related movements, but can become highly susceptible if they are wet before they freeze. The site soils classified as sandy silt are highly susceptible to

AET Project No. 31-00144-Page 4 of 5 frost-related movements.

The site soils classified as buried topsoil are judged to be compressible.

We cannot make judgments regarding the strength or compressibility of the fill and tops<?il because they were frozen and accurate N-values could not be obtained. We judge the alluvial sands and gravels to have moderate to high strength and low compressibility.

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION The form "Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing", which can be found in Appendix A, provides details on sampling, classification, and water level measurement methods. Additional information is provided in the sheets entitled "Boring Log Notes" and "Unified Soil Classification System".

Determining surface elevations at the boring locations was not part of our scope of services and was not performed.

LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, our services have been conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location.

Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended.

Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled "Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use".

AET Project No. 31-00144-Page 5 of 5 CLOSURE If you have any questions regarding the work reported herein, or if we can be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to contact AET at (715) 861-5045.

Report Prepared by:

Report Reviewed by:

American Engineering Testing, Inc.

American Engineering Testing, Inc.

APPENDIX A-Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Particle Size Distribution Reports APPENDIX B-Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Appendix A AET Project No. 31-00144 Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figure 1 - Boring Location Subsurface Boring Log Particle Size Distribution Reports

Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 31-00144 A.l FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling one standard penetration test boring. The location of the boring appears on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Log in this appendix.

A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples (SS)- Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM:D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value.

Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod.

In the past, standard penetration N-value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split-spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count.

Most newer drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N-values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100%. Therefore, the intent of AET's hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches.

The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N-values, stating that N-values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of theN-values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method.

A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU)

Sample types described as DS or SU on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger.

Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate.

A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs.

Determining the thickness of "topsoil" layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed.

A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The USCS is described in ASTM:D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM:D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments.

Charts are attached which provide information on the USCS, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs.

The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment.

A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing AET Project No. 31-00144 The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under Water Level Measurements on the logs:

Date and Time of measurement Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing.

A.S LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.S.l Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM:D2216 and AASHTO:T265.

A.5.2 Sieve Analysis of Soils (thru #200 Sieve)

Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-040, which is performed in general conformance with ASTM:D6913, Method A.

A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied.

A. 7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days.

Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Symbol Definition B,H,N:

CA:

CAS:

CC:

COT:

DC:

DM:

DR:

DS:

FA:

HA:

HSA:

LG:

MC:

N (BPF):

NQ:

PQ:

RD:

REC:

REV:

SS:

su TW:

WASH:

WH:

WR:

94mm:

T:

\\1:

Size of flush-joint casing Crew Assistant (initials)

Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches Crew Chief(initials)

Clean-out tube Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches Drilling mud or bentonite slurry Driller (initials)

Disturbed sample from auger flights Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches Field logger (initials)

Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the ground water level symbols Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per foot (see notes)

NQ wireline core barrel PQ wireline core barrel Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit In split-spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample.

In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered.

Revert drilling fluid Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; ld" is inside diameter; 2" outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after "falling" through drilling fluid Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and 140-pound hammer Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94 millimeter wireline core barrel Water level directly measured in boring Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance 01REP052 (12/08)

Symbol CONS:

DEN:

DST:

E:

HYD:

LL:

LP:

OC:

PERM:

PL:

qp:

qc:

q.:

R:

RQD:

SA:

TRX:

VSR:

VSU:

WC:

%-200:

TEST SYMBOLS Definition One-dimensional consolidation test Dry density, pcf Direct shear test Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf Hydrometer analysis Liquid Limit, %

Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf Organic Content, %

Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; L - Laboratory Plastic Limit, %

Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate)

Static cone bearing pressure, tsf Unconfined compressive strength, psf Electrical Resistivity, ohm-ems Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent (aggregate length of core pieces 4" or more in length as a percent of total core run)

Sieve analysis Triaxial compression test Vane shear strength, remolded (field), psf Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf Water content, as percent of dry weight Percent of material finer than #200 sieve STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer and counting the number ofblows applied in each of three 6" increments of penetration. Ifthe sampler is driven less than 18" (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM: D 1586, the blows for each complete 6" increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number ofblows is shown to the nearest 0.1' below the slash.

The length of sample recovered, as shown on the "REC column, may be greater than the distance indicated in theN column. The disparity is because theN-value is recorded below the initial 6" set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM: D\\586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18").

AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AMERICAN l1 ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

Soil Classification

~

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Labbratory TestsA Group GroupNameu ABased on the material passing the 3-in Symbol

,75-mm) sieve.

Coarse-Grained Gravels More Clean Gravels Cu?;4 and I ::;Cc::;3

• ow Well graded gravel If field sample contained cobbles or Soils More than 50% coarse Less than 5%

boulders, or both, add "with cobbles or than 50%

fraction retained finesc C11<4 and/or 1 >Cc>3" GP Poorly graded gravel*

~oulders, or both" to group name.

retained on on No. 4 sieve caravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual No. 200 sieve Gravels with Fi ncs classify as ML or MH GM Sflty gravel*.u.n symbols; Fines more GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt than 12% fines c Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel * '*"

GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gmvol with silt Sands 50% or Clean Sands Cu?;6 and I:SCc:S3" sw Well-graded sand GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay more of coarse Less than 5%

0Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual fraction passes flnes0 Cu<6 and l>Cc>3" SP Poorly-graded sand symbols:

No.4 sieve SW-SM well-graded sand with silt Sands with Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandu.n.

SW -SC well-graded sand with clay Fines more SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt than 12% fines 0 Fines classify as CL or CH sc Clayey sandu.u.

SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay Fine-Grained Silts and Clays inorganic PI>? and plots on or above CL Lean clay~*'"*"'

Soils 50% or Liquid limit less "A" lineJ CDlGf more passes than 50 Pl<4 or ylots below ML siJt**'-*M "cu = Doo/010, Cc=

the No. 200 "A" line D,ox o..

sieve organic Liguid limi!::QVQ!! dried <0.75 OL Organic clay~*-M**

'lr soil contains ?;15% sand, add "with (see Plasticity Liquid limit-not dried Organic siltK.L.M.o sand" to group name.

Chart below) 0Iffines classify as CL-ML, use dual Silts and Clays inorganic PI plots on or above "A" line CH Fat ela~-L-M

~bot GC-GM, or SC-SM.

Liquid limit 50 1 If lines are organic, add "with organic or more PI plots below "A"line MH

. Elastic silt~*"""'

fines" to group name, 1Ifsoil contains?;15% gravel, add "with organic Liguid limit-ov~n gri~d <0.75 OH Organic clay~-~~-*

r,ravel" to group name.

Liquid limit-not dried Organic siltK.L.M.Q lf Atte!berg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL-ML silty clay.

Highly organic Primarily organic matter, dark PT Peat" Klf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 soil in color, and organic in odor add "with sand" or "with gravel",

whichever is predominant.

Llfsoil contains ?;30% plus No. 200, SI8/EAI'W.YSIS 00

/

/

predominantly sand, add "sandy" to

~-....... (lot+--..._-~

w dl!!fi&:aiw m fniKnllned IIOil!l n v

fi>>..qtiln!!dfmd!oorlgmt<riiriidiOll;

/

group name.

3 2.1'4.1%

.10

iO AD Nl 140ZXI Mlf soil contains ?;30% plus No. 200, 100 0

00

/

/

/

~-

[

Equatm ar*A"-&ra 4-1" predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" tiOrlzcntalrltPf*~lolL.,.:2fi.5.

n-?-

.~-#.

r-20

~..,

theRPic0.73(l.l*20) to group name.

t!l

~

EquoiiOOci'IY..... L

/ v-<- /

v NP1?:4 and plots on or above "A"Iine.

z VllttiCalalllc11JIOPI*7.

~.,

U.a1&nn

"~

I ltP'IPio::0.9(Ll-8)

,/

0Pl<4 or plots below "A" line.

o; II\\

/

/

PpJ plots on or above "A" line.

I..

"'I

,/ bv QpJ plots below "A" line.

20 RFiber Content description shown below.

lhlo::2.rmn

/

/ &" v I" '-.....I.

31

'/

1---

O..aO.Q76rm'l 10

/1

/

I 7 ---

.0

~!""

'/

1.0 0.5 Oo 1<l 16 20 00 70 00 00 100 110 PARTICLE SIZE IN MWMi'JERS UQIJID LIMIT (LL) r..*~-~-:m

~*~*~*U Plasticity Chart Af>DITlONAt TERMINOLOGY NOTES US.ED BY AEt FOR SOIL IDENTlFICA TION AND DESCRIPTION GrainSi~

Gravel ~~re~ntftge~

CQn§isten~ Qf ri!!§tic Soil§ Relntive D~ID!!ity ofNon-Plaslic S!!il§ Term Particle Size Term Percent Term N-Value, BPE JSrm N-Value, BPF Boulders Over 12" A Little Gravel 3%-14%

Very Soft Jess than2 Very Loose 0-4 Cobbles 3"to 12" With Gravel 15%-29%

Soft 2-4 Loose 5-10 Gravel

1. 4 sieve to 3" Gravelly 30%-50%

Firm 5-8 Medium Dense 11-30 Sand

1. 200 to #4 sieve Stiff 9-15 Dense 31-50 Fines (silt & clay)

Pass #200 sieve Very Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Greater than 50 Hard Greater than 30 Moi~rnrc/Ero~t Condi!iQll

!&:t!![ing l'jQtcs P~at Dcseril!tiQl!

Qr~mnic D£!;criRtion {if no jab tests)

(MCColumn)

Soils arc described as otganic, if soil is not peat D (Dry):

Abscnsc of moisture, dusty, dry to Laminations: Layers less than Fiber Content and is judged to have sufficient organic lines touch.

content to influence the Liquid Limit properties.

M(Moist);

Damp, although fi*ee water not

\\1, thick of Term (Yisual Estimat~)

Slightly otganlc used for borderline cases.

visible. Soil may still have a high differing material Root In~lusion~

water content (over "optimum").

or color.

Fibrie Peat; Greater than 67%

With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity W(Wetl Free water visible intended to Hemic Peat:

33-67%

of roots to influence the soil Wate!bearing); describe non-plastic soils.

Lenses:

Pockets or layers Sapric Peat; Less than 33%

properties.

Waterbearing usually relates to greater than W' Trace roots; Small roots present, but not judged sands and sand with silt.

thick of differing to be in sufficient quantity to F (Frozen):

Soil frozen material or color.

significantly affect soil properties.

01CLS021 (01/08)

AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

SCALE Location of boring is approximate.

LAKE WISSOTA BUSINESS PARK FIGURE 1 -BORING LOCATION SKETCH None DRAWN BY AS CHECKED BY JG AETJOBNO.

31-00144 DATE 1/20/2011 PAGE I ofl

AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

SUBSURFACE BORING LOG AET JOB NO:

31-00144 LOG OF BORING NO.

B-1 (~. 1 of2}

PROJECT:

Lake Wissota Business Park; Chi~~ewa Falls~ Wisconsin DEPTH N/A FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS SURFACE ELEVATION:

GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC IN N

MC TYPE IN.

Vo-#201 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION we DEN LL PL FILL, si1ty sand with gravel, a little lean clay, FILL IX I -

2-brown, frozen F

ss 3-4-

SANDY SILT, a little gravel, trace roots, dark

~--

TOPSOIL F ~ ss 5-~~f~;n' moist, medium dense, laminations oflean/

COARSE

~

6-(ML)

ALLUVIUM 29 M

ss 16 7-SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, fme to 8-1\\~~~~~e(f;~~) reddish-brown, moist, medium

[7-'.

9-10 -

SAND WITH GRAVEL, fme to coarse grained, II-brown, moist, medium dense (SP) 18 M X ss 13 12-13-14 -

SAND, a little gravel, fme to coarse grained, 15 -

brown to light brown, moist, medium dense (S.f!)

16 -

16 M X ss 14 17-18-19-20-21-11 M X ss 12 22-23-24-25-

!:::l 26-14 M X ss 12 27-28-29-SAND, a little gravel, fme to coarse grained, 30-light brown, moist, medium dense (SP) 31 -

18 M X ss 12 32-33-34 -

SAND, fme to medium light brown, 35 -

moist, medium dense 36-11 M X ss 13 37-38-39-40-

!:::l 41-11 M X ss 11 42-43-44-DEPTH:

DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO DATE TIME S~JffiD CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER THE ATTACHED 0' to 50' 3.25" HSA DEPTH DEPTH FLUID LEVEL LEVEL 50' to 82' RDw!DM 1/12/11 15:45 80.0 50.0 80.0 50.0 SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF gg~L~TED: 1/12/11 TERMINOLOGY ON DR: MD LG: JG Rig: 16 THIS LOG 06/04

AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.

AET JOB NO:

31-00144 SUBSURFACE BORING LOG LOG OF BORING NO.

B-1 (p.2of2}

PROJECT:

Lake Wissota Business Park; Chi~~ewa Falls2 Wisconsin DEPTH GEOLOGY SAMPLE REC FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS IN N

MC TYPE IN.

~lo-#20 FEET MATERIAL DESCRIPTION we DEN LL PL 46-SAND WITH GRAVEL, fme to coarse grained, 27 M IX ss 13 brown, moist, medium dense (SP) (continued) 47-48-49-SAND, fme to medium grained, brown, moist to y_

50-about 50' then waterbearing, dense (SP)

~

51 -

37 w ss 12 52-53-54 -

SAND WITH GRAVEL, possible cobbles, fme

~

55-to coarse grained, brown, waterbearing, medium 56-dense (SP) 29 w [>( ss 6

57-lJ.

58-I) 59-SAND, a little gravel, fine to medium grained, 60-brown, waterbearing, medium dense (SP) fL---1 61-I~

62 SAND, a little gravel, fme to coarse grained, 18 w ss 8

63 -

64-brown, waterbearing, medium dense (SP) 65-

~

66-67-68-SAND WITH GRAVEL, fme to coarse grained,

~

69-brown, waterbearing, dense (SP) 70-71-31 w !X ss 8

72-

'J.

73-74 -

GRA YELL Y SAND, fine to coarse grained,

)

75 -

brown, waterbearing, medium dense (SP)

~

76 -

21 w

~

ss 6

77-78-

0.

~

79-SANDY GRAVEL, brown, waterbearing, dense p*~*

• o*D' 80 -

(GP) t>>

81 -

.e*:.t 31 w rx ss 6

p*O:

82

.*~

End ofboring at 82 feet.

06/04

Particle Size Distribution Report

.. 5 c:

-~

0 c 0

~ g

.5

.E

.E

~

c 0

~

0

~

0 0

CD

;.t

~"'

~

CD

~

C')

C\\1

~

100 I

I l"h I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I 90 I

I I

1'1'1 I

I I

I I

I I I I I

~

~

I I

I I I I 80 I

I I

"'(~

I I

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I I

70 a:

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I w

z 60 1\\

u::

I I

I I I I I I

I i\\:

I I I I 1-50 I

I I

I I

I z

w I

I I

I I I I I

I

~

I I

I I

()

I I

I I

I I

a:

40

I\\

w I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I 0..

I I

I I

I 30 I

I I

I I I I I

I I li I

I I 20 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I' I I I

10 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I i\\1 I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I CN I 0

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I 100 10 1

0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% +3"

%Gravel

%Sand

%Fines Coarse l Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 I

15.3 6.8 34.5 38.8 4.6 Test Results (ASTM C 136 & ASTM C 117)

Material DescriptiQn Opening Percent Spec.*

Pass?

SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, reddish Size Finer (Percent)

(X= Fail) brown, moist, medium dense 3/4 100.0 3/8 93.3 Attirbirg Llrnlti (ASTM D 4318}

1. 4 84.7 PL=

LL=

PI=

1. 10 77.9

1. 16 72.0 Cl~sslflc~tiQn

1. 20 65.4 uses (D 2487)=

SP-SM AASHTO (M 145)=

1. 40 43.4 CQifflcltnts

1. 100 8.6 Dgo= 7.3132 Dss= 4.8820 Dso= 0.6936

1. 200 4.6 Dso= 0.5093 o30= 0.3012 o15= 0.1960 D1o= 0.1610 Cu= 4.31 Cc= 0.81 Remarks Moisture - 4.9%

Date Received: 1-12-11 Date Tested:

1-19-11 Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

"' (no specification provided)

§~~~l~n: Bo1~~:1 Deoth; 5-7 Date Sampled:

1-12-11 Numl

• 3 AMERICAN ENGINEERING Client:

Chippewa County Highway Department I

TESTING, INC.

Project:

Lake Wissota Business Park Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Chippewa Falls~ Wisconsin Prolect No; 31-00144 Fiaure Checked By: _________ _

Particle Size Distribution Report

".5.5

. c 0

~

0

.E

.S

-~ ~

c: *-

CXl 0

~

0 i i

0

~

(") "' ~

~ :>1.

~ (;)-

01;

~

100 I

II I

-to..

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I r--r-.~

I I

I I

I I

90 I

I I

I' I

I I

I I

I I I I I I

~)

I I

I I

I I

80 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

70 a:

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

w

+

z 60 u:::

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I

I f-50 I

I I

I I

z w

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

()

I I

J L

I a:

40 w

I I

I I I I I I

I '

I I

I I I 0...

I I

I I

I 30 I

I I

I I I I I

I

~r\\

I I

I I

20 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I I ~

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I

I 10 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I i'f I

0 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I 100 10 1

0.1 Q.Q1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm.

% +3"

%Gravel

%Sand

%Fines Coarse I

Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 I

7.9 10.9 53.1 I

24.8 3.3 Test Results (ASTM C 136 & ASTM C 117)

Material Dt&crlgtiQn Opening Percent Spec.*

Pass?

SAND, a little gravel, fine to coarse grained, brown to light brown, Size Finer (Percent)

(X= Fall) moist, medium dense 3/4 100.0 3/8 96.8 Atttr!:!erg Limits (ASIM D 4318}

1. 4 92.1 PL=

LL=

PI=

1. 10 81.2

1. 16 70.7 Cl~:~ssiflcatiQn

1. 20 57.9 uses (D 2487)=

SP AASHTO (M 145)=

1. 40 28.1 CQefficteots

1. 100 8.2 o90= 3.8778 o85= 2.6240 Dso= 0.8919

1. 200 3.3 o50= 0.7139 o30= 0.4478 o15= 0.2563 o10= 0.1806 Cu= 4.94 Cc= 1.25 Remarks Moisture - 7.3%

Date Received: 1-12-11 Date Tested:

1-19-11 Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

" (no specification provided)

~~~a~~~n: Boring 1 Deeth~ 15-17 Date Sampled:

1-12-11

• mol Number: 5 AMERICAN ENGINEERING Client:

Chippewa County Highway Department TESTING, INC.

Project:

Lake Wissota Business Park Chippe~a Falls, Wisconsin Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Proiect Mo.:

31-00144 Flaure Checked By: __________ _

Particle Size Distribution Report

".S.E 0

~

0

.5

.5

.S ~

c *-

0 0

0 0

~

0 0

"' "' ~

~ ~ ~ ~

01:

~ ~ ;;t

~

100 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I

II

(-o.

I I

I I I 90 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I I\\

I I

I I I 80 I

I I

II I

I I

I I

I I I I I I

I

~I I

I I

I 70 a:

I I

I I I I I I

I

/\\I I

I I I w

I I

_L z

60 I~

u:::

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I I-I I

I I

I z

50

~

w I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I

()

I I

I I

j_

a:

40 w

I I

I I I I I I

I I ' I I

I I

a..

I I

I I

I 30 I

I I

I I

I 1\\

I I I I

I I I 20 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I

I I

I I I I I I

I I !'

I I I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I

I I 10 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I~

I 0

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I Ll 100 10 1

0.1 0.01 0.001

_GRAIN_SIZE - mm.

%Gravel

%Sand

%Fines

%+3" Coarse I

Fine Coarse Medium I

Fine Slit Clay 0.0 0.0 I

4.5 1.0 39.3 I

53.9 1.3 Test Results (ASTM C 136 & ASTM C 117)

Material Dt~~rigtion Opening Percent Spec.*

Pass?

SAND, fine to medium grained, light brown, moist, medium dense Size Finer (Percent)

(X=Fall) 3/4 100.0 3/8 95.7 Atterberg Limitl (ASTM D 4318)

1. 4 95.5 PL=

LL=

PI=

1. 10 94.5 Cla!islficatiQn

1. 16 93.4

1. 20 90.5 uses (D 2487)=

SP AASHTO (M 145)=

1. 40 55.2 Coetfl~ients

1. 100 3.4 o90= 0.8338 o85= 0.7174 o60= 0.4582

1. 200 1.3 o50= 0.3923 Dao= 0.2831 o15= 0.2113 o10= 0.1870 Cu= 2.45 Cc= 0.94 Remarks Moisture - 2.2%

Date Received: 1-12-11 Date Tested:

1-19-11 Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

• (no specification provided)

§~cation~

1 ~~~~~:1 Deoth~ 35-37 Date Sampled:

1-12-11

amole u

• 9 AMERICAN ENGINEERING Client:

Chippewa County Highway Department TESTING, INC.

Project:

Lake Wissota Business Park Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin ProlectNo:

31-00144 Flaure Checked By: __________ _

Particle Size Distribution Report

.. 5

.5.5 r:::

8

~

0

.5

.5

.5

~

c:: *-

0

~

0 0

0

~

T""'

l

~ l

~

~ ~

co

"' "' ~

~

100 I

I I

t> I"--~

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I

I I

90 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I

~

I I

I I I

80 I

I I

~~

I I

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I 70 I~

a:

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I w

I z

60 u::

I I

I I I I I I

I I~ I I

I I f-50 I

I I

I I

z I ' I w

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I

(.)

I I

J I

I I

a:

40 w

I I

I I I I I I

I I N I I I

a..

I I II I

I 30 I

I I

I I I I I

I I :\\

I I I 20 I

I' I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I \\:

I I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I 10 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I ~

I 0

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I 100 10 1

0.1 O.o1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm.

%+3"

%Gravel

%Sand

%Fines Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Slit Clay 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.6 30.7 61.1 2.9 Test Results (ASTM C 136 & ASTM C 117)

Material Des~rigtion Opening Percent Spec.*

Pass?

SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, waterbearing, dense Size Finer (Percent)

(X=Fall) 3/8 100.0

1. 4 98.3 Atterberg Llmltl (ASTM D 4318)

1. 10 94.7 PL=

LL=

PI=

1. 16 91.6

1. 20 87.6 Cla11lflcatlon

1. 40 64.0 uses (D 2487)=

SP AASHTO (M 145)=

1. 100 6.9 CQeffl~lentl

1. 200 2.9 o90= 1.0047 o85= 0.7492 o60= 0.3952 o50= 0.3339 Dao= 0.2426 o15= 0.1847 o10= 0.1643 Cu= 2.40 Cc= 0.91 Remarks Moisture - 15.3%

Date Received: 1-12-11 Date Tested:

1-19-11 Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

"' (no specification provided)

§~cation: Boring 1 Deeth~ 50-52 Date Sampled:

1-12-11 iamole Number: 12 AMERICAN ENGINEERING Client:

Chippewa County Highway Department TESTING, INC.

Project:

Lake Wissota Business Park Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin r..

1ft-No:

31-00144 Flaure Checked By:-----------

Particle Size Distribution Report

.. E

.5

-~

. c:

0 0

0

.E

.~

.5

1 c

*-

0 0

g 0

0 0..

0 i

i

<D C\\J

<D C\\J

~

~ ;.;.

~ C>>

100 I

I N~

I I

II I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I 90 I

I I

I I

II I

I I

I I I I r--~ r--..

I I

I I I I 80 I

I I

"""( ~

I I

I I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I 70 a:

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I I w

I

_l lJ.

z 60 u:::

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I 1-50 I

I I

I I

I z

w I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I 0

I I

I

~

..1 I

I a:

40 w

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I I 0..

I I

I

[\\ I I

I I 30 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I 20 I

I I

I I I I I

I

/\\I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I I

I

~~~ I I I I I

I I

I I I I I

I I N...

I I I 10 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I ~

I 0

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I 100 10 1

0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm.

%+3"

%Gravel

%Sand

%Fines Coarse I

Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 I

16.7 5.6 59.2 13.9 4.6 Test Results (ASTM C 136 & ASTM C 117)

Mat~rial Dt!ZCri~tiQn Opening Percent Spec.*

Pass?

SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse grained, brown, waterbearing, Size Finer (Percent)

(X= Fall) dense 3/4 100.0 3/8 87.8 Attertu~rg Limits (ASTM D 4318}

1. 4 83.3 PL=

LL=

PI=

1. 10 77.7

1. 16 70.3 Classlfl~atlon

1. 20 58.2 uses co 2487)=

SP AASHTO (M 145)=

1. 40 18.5 Cotffi~ltnts

1. 100 7.1 o90= 11.2117 Das= 6.8082 o60= 0.8828

1. 200 4.6 Dso= 0.7323 o30= 0.5292 o15= 0.3321 o10= 0.2140 Cu= 4.12 Cc= 1.48 Remarks Moisture - 12.8%

Date Received: 1-12-11 Date Tested:

1-19-11 Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

"' (no specification provided)

~~~ation~~~~~~/

Deoth~ 70-72 Date Sampled:

1-12-11 1mole IL

• 15 AMERICAN ENGINEERING Client:

Chippewa County Highway Department TESTING, INC.

Project:

Lake Wissota Business Park Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Chippewa Falls. Wisconsin Prolect No*

31-00144 Floure Checked By: _________ _

Particle Size Distribution Report c:

.s.e

. c:

g 0

0

-~

.5

.5 ~

c: *-

0 0

0 0

d!

-.t

~

tO

"' "' ~

~ ;;;;.

~ Q5'

t

~ ~ ;;t......

100 I

I

~:

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I I 90 I

I I \\1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I I

80 I

I I'

I I

I I

I I I I

i I

I I

I I 70 cr:

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I

I I w

I z

60 u::::

I I

I I I I I f\\~

I I

I I

I I 1-50 I

I I

I I

I z

w I

I I

I I I I

,: 1\\

I I

I I

I I

()

I I

I I

I I

a:

40 w

I I

I I I I I I

]\\..

I I

I I I I 0..

I I

I I

I I I 30 I

I I

I I I I I

't\\ I I

I I I I

20 I

I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I

I I

I I I I I I

I "r-. I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I I

I rc"""

I I

I I

10 I

I I

I I I I I

I I rt--~I I 0

I I

I I I I I I

I I

I T

100 10 1

0.1 O.Q1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm

% +3"

%Gravel

%Sand

%Fines Coarse I

Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay 0.0 0.0 I

47.8 16.9 22.8 8.5 4.0 Test Results (ASTM C 136 & ASTM C 117)

Mat~rial D~s~riRtiQn Opening Percent Spec.*

Pass?

SANDY GRAVEL, brown, waterbearing, dense Size Finer (Percent)

(><;:Fall) 3/4 100.0 3/8 72.7 Att~rb~rg Limits (ASIM D 4318)

1. 4 52.2 PL=

LL=

PI=

1. 10 35.3

1. 16 27.6 Qla&&ifi~atiQn

1. 20 21.3 uses (D 2487)=

GP AASHTO (M 145)=

1. 40 12.5 QQeffl~lents

1. 100 5.9 o90= 14.9455 Des= 13.1985 o60= 6.3748

1. 200 4.0 o50= 4.3345 Dao= 1.3724 o15= 0.5443 o10= 0.3125 Cu= 20.40 Cc= 0.95 Remarks Moisture - 10.1%

Date Received: 1-12-11 Date Tested:

1-19-11 Tested By:

Checked By:

Title:

" (no specification provided)

~~~~~~n~LB~~~~ 1 um r: 17 Deoth* 80-82 Date Sampled: 1-12-11 AMERICAN ENGINEERING Client:

Chippewa County Highway Department TESTING, INC.

Project:

Lake Wissota Business Park Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin Chippewa Falls~ Wisconsin PrniAr.t Nn~

~1-00144 Fioura Checked By: __________ _

Appendix B AET Project No. 31-00144 Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use

Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 31-00144 B.l REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE1, of which, we are a member firm.

B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client.

No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.

B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only.

B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study.

Typically factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:

not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made.

Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:

the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership.

As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.

B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations.

Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.

ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite Gl06, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733 : www.asfc.org Appendix B -Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC

Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use AET Project No. 31-00144 B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engili).eer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.

B.2.6 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical' engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.

B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.

Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.

B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.

To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.

B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.

B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled "limitations" many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.

B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study.

For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.

Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.

Appendix B - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC