GEOTECHNICAL DATA REPORT EASTERLY CSO ADVANCED FACILITIES PLAN CLEVELAND, OHIO VOLUME I OF II by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio in association with Hatch Mott MacDonald Cleveland, Ohio for Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Cleveland, Ohio File No. 28087-002 August 2004

11 August 2004 File No. 28087-002 Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1300 E. Ninth Street, Suite 1215 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Attention: Mr. Steven G. Benton, P.E. Subject: Geotechnical Data Report Easterly CSO Advanced Facilities Plan Cleveland, Ohio Gentlemen: Haley & Aldrich, Inc., (Haley & Aldrich) is pleased to submit herewith our report entitled “Geotechnical Data Report, Easterly CSO Advanced Facilities Plan, Cleveland, Ohio”. This report is a compilation of the results of subsurface investigations and laboratory soil and rock testing conducted in connection with the subject project and was prepared in general accordance with the Scope of Work as described in Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Metcalf & Eddy) Subcontract No. 03630400013 between Metcalf & Eddy and Haley & Aldrich, dated December 27, 2001. Geotechnical Design Memoranda which present interpretation of the information presented in this Geotechnical Data Report with respect to planned structures and facilities along the projects various tunnel and pipeline alignments will be issued under separate cover. It has been a pleasure working with Metcalf & Eddy and the project team on this project. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Dan Dobbels at 216.739.0555. Sincerely yours, HALEY & ALDRICH, INC. Daniel J. Dobbels, P.E. Vice President G:\28087\FINALGDR\Final GDR Text.doc

OFFICES Cleveland Ohio Dayton Ohio Detroit Michigan Hartford Connecticut Kansas City Kansas Los Angeles California Manchester New Hampshire Parsippany New Jersey Portland Maine Providence Rhode Island Rochester New York San Diego California Santa Barbara California Tucson Arizona Washington District of Columbia

Haley & Aldrich, Inc. 465 Medford St. Suite 2200 Boston, MA 02129-1400 Tel: 617.886.7400 Fax: 617.886.7600 HaleyAldrich.com

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page VOLUME I OF II LIST OF FIGURES iii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope 1 1.3 Project Description 2 1.4 Elevation Datum and Horizontal Control 2 1.5 Limitations 3

2. GEOLOGIC SETTING 4

2.1 General 4 2.2 Physiographic Setting and Regional Geology 4 2.3 Topography and Land Use 5

2.3.1 Topography 5 2.3.2 Land Use 5

3. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 6

3.1 Previous Subsurface Investigations and Available Data 6 3.2 Test Borings 6 3.3 Groundwater Piezometer Installation and Monitoring 9 3.4 In-Situ Permeability Testing 10

3.4.1 Soil Permeability Testing 10 3.4.2 Water Pressure Testing in Rock 10

3.5 Natural Gas Observations 11

4. LABORATORY TESTING 13

4.1 Soil Testing 13 4.1.1 General 13 4.1.2 Water Content 13 4.1.3 Atterberg Limits 13 4.1.4 Grain Size Distribution 13 4.1.5 Soil Unconfined Compressive Strength 13 4.1.6 Soil Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compressive Strength 14

4.2 Rock Testing 14 4.2.1 General 14 4.2.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests 14 4.2.3 Slake Durability Tests 14

5. ENVIRONMENTAL PRE-SCREENING 15

REFERENCES 16

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) TABLES FIGURES APPENDIX A – Boring Log Data by Others APPENDIX B – (See Volume II of II) Subsurface Exploration Key Test Boring and Core Boring Log Reports Rock Core Photographs on CD APPENDIX C – Groundwater Piezometer Installation Reports APPENDIX D – Soil Permeability Test Data APPENDIX E – Laboratory Soil Testing Results APPENDIX F – Rock Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results APPENDIX G – Rock Slake Durability Test Results APPENDIX H – Environmental Pre-Screening Reports Study Area – Shoreline Tunnel Study Area – Dugway Tunnel/Euclid Creek Tunnel Study Area – Doan Valley Tunnel System Study Area – Dugway Interceptor Relief Sewer VOLUME II OF II APPENDIX B – Subsurface Exploration Key Test Boring and Core Boring Log Reports Rock Core Photographs on CD

iii

LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title I Summary of Subsurface Exploration Program II Summary of Groundwater Elevation Data III Summary of Soil Permeability Testing Results IV Summary of Water Pressure Testing Results V Summary of Natural Gas Observations VI Summary of Laboratory Soil Testing Results VII Summary of Laboratory Rock Testing Results LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 1 Project Locus

2 Boring Location Plan

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General The Easterly Combined Sewer Overflow Advanced Facilities Plan (Easterly CSO-AFP) Project is being undertaken by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD). The NEORSD has engaged Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., (Metcalf & Eddy) as the prime ‘Engineer’ for the project. Metcalf & Eddy has subcontracted the geotechnical Scope of Work described in this report to Haley & Aldrich, Inc. (Haley & Aldrich), Cleveland, Ohio, who in-turn is supported by Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM), Cleveland, Ohio. The drilling subcontractors were DLZ Ohio, Inc., (DLZ) of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, and Resource International, Inc., (Resource) of Cleveland, Ohio. As part of Task A, “Subsurface Investigations” for the Easterly CSO-AFP, Haley & Aldrich was responsible for the collection of readily-available geotechnical information for the project area; and for planning and implementing subsurface explorations at regular intervals along the proposed tunnel and pipeline alignments. This Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) is a document that presents sitewide geotechnical information gathered through: existing data research, subsurface explorations, in-situ and laboratory testing, and in-situ instrumentation programs conducted for the project. This GDR was prepared in general accordance with the Scope of Work as described in Metcalf & Eddy Subcontract No. 03630400013 between Metcalf & Eddy and Haley & Aldrich, dated December 27, 2001. 1.2 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to present the factual geotechnical information obtained in connection with the Easterly CSO-AFP. This document serves as an integral resource from which geotechnical data will be accessed during planning, design, and construction of any Easterly CSO control program project. The work scope undertaken to complete this task included the following: � Collected readily available data on subsurface soil, rock and groundwater conditions

along the CSO system alignments � Planned and executed the geotechnical investigation program to provide detailed

subsurface data for advanced planning and preliminary design (30% level) of the various CSO control program projects.

� Prepared and issued interim Preliminary Data Submittals during the progress of the

geotechnical explorations. � Prepared and published this GDR, which presents factual data and information

obtained during the execution of the geotechnical investigation program. A general discussion of the regional geologic setting is presented in Section 2 and descriptions of subsurface investigations and laboratory testing are presented in Sections 3 and 4, respectively.

2

1.3 Project Description Figure 1 shows the location of the Easterly CSO-AFP project area, and Figure 2 shows the approximate arrangement of the various CSO control program discussed below. The Easterly CSO storage tunnel system will consist of four major storage tunnels – Doan Valley, Dugway, Shoreline and Euclid Creek. The Doan Valley storage tunnel (17 ft diameter hard rock tunnel) will capture and store CSO from the Doan Brook area. It is a shallow rock tunnel, that is not hydraulically connected to the other storage tunnels. It will dewater by gravity through the Dugway West Interceptor system. The Dugway storage tunnel (24 ft diameter hard rock tunnel) will capture and store CSO from the Dugway Brook area, as well as a portion of the CSO originating from the Collinwood Interceptor service area. The Shoreline storage tunnel (20 ft diameter soft ground tunnel), will capture CSO from the outfalls west of the Dugway Brook CSO’s and is connected to the Dugway storage tunnel with a drop structure. The Euclid Creek storage tunnel (24 ft diameter hard rock tunnel) will capture CSO from the balance of the Collinwood Interceptor service area and will be hydraulically connected to the Dugway storage tunnel at the White City Beach area, both being screened and dewatered by a proposed dewatering pump station at that location. In addition to the new dewatering pump station at the White City Beach area, the existing NEORSD-owned Euclid Creek Pump Station will be upgraded and wet weather overflows from this facility discharged to the Euclid Creek storage tunnel. Supporting the storage tunnel projects are several consolidation conduits, numerous drop shafts and regulator modifications. Along with the storage tunnels described above the CSO control program also includes relief sewers for the Dugway Interceptor East and West branches. The proposed relief sewers will deliver additional flows to the Easterly Main Interceptor up to its available capacity. The Dugway East Interceptor Relief Sewer (DEIRS) will run approximately 10,800 linear ft and range in size from 36 in. inside diameter at the upstream end to 72 in. inside diameter in downstream reaches. The proposed Dugway West Interceptor Relief Sewer (DWIRS) will run approximately 10,600 linear ft and will range in size from 66 in. inside diameter at the upstream end to 108 in. inside diameter in downstream reaches. The DWIRS will connect to the DEIRS at the northern end of Forrest Hill Park near Hazeldell Road. The DEIRS, carrying combined sewer flows from both the Dugway East and Dugway West Interceptor service areas will connect to the Easterly Interceptor north of Hazeldell Road near Interstate 90 and the CSX Railroad. 1.4 Elevation Datum and Horizontal Control Ground surface elevations and boring locations were initially determined from available topographic-planimetric drawing sheets based on ortho-photogrammetric mapping conducted in April 1993. Wherever feasible, borings were situated within approximately 50 ft of proposed tunnel alignments available in January 2002. In most cases borings were drilled at the proposed locations staked in the field. In several instances however, boring locations had to be offset nominal distances to accommodate existing overhead and/or subsurface utilities and other restrictions. Final as-built borehole surface elevations and location coordinates were determined in the field by DLZ, under subcontract to Metcalf & Eddy. Boring locations

3

and elevations were determined using total station digital/optical survey and triangulation methods relative to fixed reference points. Boring locations are reported in north and east coordinates relative to the Cleveland Regional Geodetic Survey (CRGS) Datum. Elevations refer to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). Test boring locations are shown on Figure 2, Boring Location Plan. 1.5 Limitations As stated above, this GDR is a sitewide document that presents the factual aspects of geotechnical subsurface information collected within the proposed Easterly CSO-AFP project area during the period of February 2002 through October 2003. The geotechnical information presented herein is intended for use during planning, design and construction of the proposed CSO control program project. The work performed to prepare this document has been done in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the local area. Our research and collection of existing geotechnical data was not exhaustive and was limited by budget, availability of documents and other factors. There is likely to be more information in existence, although it may be proprietary in nature, or simply not discovered during our collection period. The boring log reports and related information depict subsurface conditions at the specific locations and at the particular times designated on the reports. Subsurface conditions at other locations will differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface conditions at these boring locations. The stratification lines designating the interface between soil types on the test boring reports represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. No interpretation of the geotechnical data or the geologic conditions along any proposed alignment and grade are contained in this document. Geotechnical interpretation and engineering evaluations concerning ground conditions encountered, design considerations, and potential construction scenarios are presented in separate Geotechnical Design Memoranda for major project elements. The scope of our services does not include any specific site environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic material in the soil, bedrock, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. A limited amount of testing (Combination Gas Meter) was conducted as part of the geotechnical investigation. Any statements in this report or on the test boring reports regarding staining of soils, Combination Gas Meter detections, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of Metcalf & Eddy. An independent subcontractor is providing environmental pre-screening (as defined in Section 5) along the tunnel and pipeline alignments, and at shaft and structure sites where excavation is planned. The results of the environmental pre-screening are appended to this report.

4

2. GEOLOGIC SETTING 2.1 General The proposed Easterly CSO-AFP project area is located on east side of Cleveland in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The tunnel and pipeline alignments total approximately 20 miles as shown on Figure 2. Approximately one third of this length runs east-west, roughly parallel with I-90 from Marquette Street at the western end, continuing eastward toward the Easterly Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) on Lakeshore Boulevard and further continuing along Lakeshore Boulevard, and Nottingham Road to the eastern end at the intersection of Nottingham Road and St. Clair Avenue. The remaining tunnel and pipeline alignments generally run north-south from the area of the City of Cleveland, Glenville Maintenance Facility near E. 110th Street, following Lakeview Road southward to Superior Avenue. The Doan Valley segment proceeds southward from Superior Avenue toward the vicinity of the Baldwin Water Treatment Facility, continues south along Woodhill Avenue, and terminates at the intersection of Woodhill Avenue and Shaker Boulevard. 2.2 Physiographic Setting and Regional Geology The Easterly CSO-AFP project area is located predominantly within the Erie Lake Plain section of the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province and abuts the Portage Escarpment along the northern edge of the Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section of the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Provinces. The bedrock plateaus are comprised of interbedded sandstones, siltstones and shales that were initially deposited in and around deep marine basins in late Devonian and early Mississippian time (approximately 350 to 380 million years before present). Following deposition and lithification, regional uplift has gently tilted the rock layers downward toward the east-southeast at an angle of less than 10 degrees. The bedrock formations that have been encountered in the explorations reported herein are listed below in order from youngest to oldest:

� Bedford Formation (Strong Siltstone, weak gray shale) � Cleveland Shale (weak to medium strong black carbonaceous shale) � Chagrin Shale (weak to medium strong gray argillaceous shale)

Glaciers advancing from the north during the Pleistocene “Ice Age” epoch, enlarged and deepened the valleys occupied by the ancestral Cuyhoga River and other drainage features. As the glaciers retreated, these valleys were infilled with up to several hundred feet of glacial till, glaciolacustrine, and alluvial deposits. The glaciers also planed and rounded the pre-glacial bedrock topography on the adjacent plateaus and subsequently covered them with a veneer of fine grained glacial till and alluvium, locally over 40 ft thick. Sand and gravel layers (outwash/fluvial deposits) are often interbedded with the glacial till and glaciolacustrine

5

deposits. Bedrock exposures are present within the southernmost reaches of the project area near the Portage escarpment and along Doan Brook and Euclid Creek. During the historic past, parts of the tributary valleys and other drainage features have been used as dumping sites or have been partially backfilled for subsequent development. Fill has also been placed at various locations in the project area for road and railroad embankments. Extensive areas of fill have also been placed along the lakeshore for development of I-90, Burke Lakefront Airport, Easterly WWTP and industries and parks along the shore. Localized and possibly undocumented landfills may be present within the project area, especially around the former stream valleys. 2.3 Topography and Land Use 2.3.1 Topography

The general topography of the project area comprises a gently sloping plain located between Lake Erie to the north and the Appalachian (Portage) Escarpment and Plateau to the southeast. The unmodified Lake Erie shoreline is typically a 10- to 20-ft high wave cut bluff. Where modified, such as at the Easterly WWTP, the shoreline is a gentle plain. From the Lake Erie shoreline at El. 572 ft and the top of the wave-cut bluffs, ground surface rises steadily to about El. 670 ft at Euclid Avenue. The Appalachian (Portage) Escarpment is located immediately southeast of Euclid Avenue along a portion of the Doan Conveyance Tunnel alignment where the land rises rapidly approximately 125 to 150 ft to about El. 825 ft. From the top of the escarpment, the land surface again flattens into a plateau with a gentle upward gradient to the east-southeast.

Existing streams including Doan, Dugway, and Shaw Brooks and Nine-Mile, Green and Euclid Creeks begin in the plateau southeast of the escarpment and flow northwesterly toward Lake Erie. The streams have cut steep walled ravines into the bedrock across the escarpment face and flow across the lower plain northeast of Euclid Avenue in narrow to broad valleys. Parts or all of the streams, especially Dugway and Shaw Brooks and Nine-Mile and Green Creeks, have been placed in buried culverts in the plain northeast of Euclid Avenue.

2.3.2 Land Use

All of the project alignments are situated in the urbanized areas of Cleveland, East Cleveland and Cleveland Heights. In general, most of the land is used for single and multi-family housing with scattered commercial and industrial properties along the major streets. The heaviest industries are concentrated along the I-90 corridor and east of Eddy Road near the Shaw Brook and Nine-Mile Creek drainages. As presently planned, the CSO tunnel and pipeline alignments will be located under or immediately adjacent to streets and roadways, parks and/or city owned real estate, minimizing the need for easements under homes, buildings or industrial/commercial properties.

Perhaps the most significant features crossed by the tunnel alignments consist of I-90, the CSX Railways and RTA transit railways, and respective bridge crossings. Various sections of the tunnel alignments run parallel to and will cross these features at select locations.

6

3. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 Previous Subsurface Investigations and Available Data As part of the background study for this project, Haley & Aldrich researched and reviewed published and unpublished reports, drawings and documents related to the geologic and geotechnical conditions, and available construction related documents pertaining to structures in the Easterly CSO-AFP project area. The following documentation was reviewed: � Easterly CSO Phase II Facilities Plan, Geotechnical Data Report, URS Corporation � Geologic and groundwater reports and maps and borehole data from the Ohio

Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) � Geotechnical borings from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) � Foundation drawings, selected bridge structures on I-90 from ODOT � Geotechnical borings and data from in-house reports � NEORSD records for investigations around the Easterly WWTP � Construction and foundation drawings and borehole data from Cleveland Electric

Illuminating (CEI) Co. lakefront power station Information obtained from these documents is incorporated into this report and figures as applicable and the document titles are presented as references at the end of the report. The URS document is available as a separate report prepared as part of the District’s Easterly CSO Phase II Facilities Planning Project. ODOT and CEI drawings are available for review and inspection at the offices of Haley & Aldrich. Borehole and geotechnical investigation reports pertaining to selected CEI structures, ODOT borehole reports pertaining to the I-90 bridge crossing at E 105th Street, and the ODNR borehole records pertaining to offshore explorations for the Wildwood Aqueduct Intake structure are included in Appendix A of this report. 3.2 Test Borings A total of seventy nine (79) borings were drilled along the various tunnel and pipeline alignments in the project area in three phases. The initial phase consisted of 70 borings drilled during the period 6 February through 13 September 2002, the second phase consisted of 8 borings drilled during the period 3 February through 19 May 2003 and the final phase consisted of one boring drilled during the period 20 through 23 October 2003. The test borings are labeled according to major project elements as indicated below: Letter Prefix Project Element

SS Shoreline Storage Tunnel ECS Euclid Creek Storage Tunnel EC-PS Euclid Creek Pump Station Upgrade DDS Dugway Storage Tunnel DD–PS Tunnel Dewatering Pump Station DC Doan Valley Storage Tunnel DIR Dugway Interceptor Relief Sewers

7

The test borings were widely spaced along the proposed tunnel and pipeline alignments laid out at the time the investigation program was initiated. Borings along the Shoreline Storage tunnel alignment (between Marquette Street and E 110th Street) were spaced at approximate intervals of 1000 ft. Boreholes along the remaining tunnel and pipeline alignments were spaced at approximate intervals of 2000 ft. Borings were situated on city streets, tree lawns, parks and other city real estate wherever feasible and only rarely on private property. Two borings (DDS-109 and DDS-116) were located on the eastbound lanes of I-90 and were drilled concurrently over one weekend on a 24 hour-per-day basis. Table I provides a summary of all the borings performed for this project. A total of over 11,450 linear ft of borings were drilled to borehole depths ranging from 28.5 ft to 245 ft. DLZ and Resource provided the equipment and crews to perform the drilling, sampling, and in-situ testing. Representatives from Haley & Aldrich and DLZ monitored all the borings in the field with the exception of boring ECS-202 which was monitored by a representative from HMM. Selected soil and rock samples from the borings were delivered to DLZ soil and rock testing laboratory in Columbus, Ohio for testing during the course of the field investigations. All the borings were drilled using either truck mounted CME-75, Mobile B-57, Mobile B-59 or rubber tire ATV mounted CME-750 drill rigs. The overburden soil in the borings was drilled using Hollow Stem Auger (HSA) or External Flush rotary wash (with 4-in. I.D. flush joint casing) drilling methods as indicated on the boring reports. A standard 2-in. O.D., 1-3/8-in. I.D., split-spoon sampler was used to obtain soil samples from the borings. Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed by recording the number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler a distance of 18 or 24-in. with a 140-lb. hammer falling freely through a distance of 30-in. per ASTM D1586. The number of blows required to drive the sampler from 6 to 18 in. of sampling depth is referred to as the SPT “N” value (in units of blows per ft) and is used as an indicator of soil density or consistency. During the drilling program concerns developed in connection with the external flush rotary wash method of advancing the casing and flushing the borehole. Specifically, there was a concern that the flushing action of the circulating water at the bottom of the casing could be disturbing the ground at the bottom of the hole thus yielding poor quality samples and SPT N-values in glacial till soils. To verify that this was not the case a 9 to 14 ft long section of glacial till in borings DDS-103 and DDS-118 was drilled by using a tricone-roller bit to advance and clean out the boring in an open-hole mode. It was determined that SPT N-values and sample quality for the external flush and tri-cone drilling methods were generally consistent thus the SPT N-values and sample quality concerns for the external flush drilling method were unwarranted. Several 3-in. diameter thin-wall open drive (Shelby) tube samples were obtained from selected test borings. The samples were taken in general accordance with ASTM D 1587. For each sample the thin wall tube was slowly and continuously pushed for 24-in. through the soil and allowed to stabilize for a minimum of 10-minutes in the hole before recovering. The sampler was slowly rotated and extracted from the hole. Both ends of the sampler were sealed with wax, end caps and tape. The tubes were transported and stored in the vertical position at all times.

8

Generally, each boring was initiated using a standard SPT sampling interval of 5 ft. Once the boring was advanced to within two tunnel diameters of the proposed crown depth of the tunnel, continuous sampling methods (i.e. sampling at 2.5 ft intervals) were used to the total depth of the boring (generally 1.5 to 2 tunnel diameters below the proposed tunnel invert) or to the top of rock, which ever was encountered first. At proposed shaft and/or pump station locations, continuous sampling methods were used throughout the entire depth of the boring. Samples were described as they were retrieved in the field by the Haley & Aldrich, DLZ or HMM field representative in general accordance with visual/manual methods as described in the Project Manual of Field Procedures for the project. Field descriptions were then later modified as appropriate based on laboratory test data, recognizing that discrete samples tested in the laboratory do not fully represent the range of variability observed in the field. Rock coring was generally initiated when SPT refusal was encountered. SPT refusal was defined as the depth where 50 blows of a 140-lb. hammer advanced the split-spoon sampler only 6-in. or less in accordance with ASTM D 1586. However, quite frequently the refusal criteria was achieved within a dense/hard glacial till or on a boulder or cobble. When this occurred, SPT sampling would continue until a visual confirmation of bedrock was observed or auger/casing refusal was encountered, at which time rock coring was initiated. At three borings, ECS104, DDS109 and SS109, 3.5 to 7.5 ft lengths of glacial till with frequent boulders and cobbles were cored with limited recoveries. Continuous rock coring was carried out in all borings located along tunnel and pipeline alignments designed for bedrock excavation. At the east end of the Shoreline Storage Tunnel alignment, rock coring was performed in borings SS109 and SS117 to verify the top of bedrock. Core samples of rock were obtained by means of double-tube split inner liner core barrels in run lengths of 5 to 10 ft. When poor core recovery was encountered, the run lengths would be shortened until near 100% recoveries were once again achieved. The rock generally was cored with 1-7/8-in. I.D. NQ wireline core barrels. At four borings, DIR 107, DIR 112, DIR 117 and DIR 118, conventional NX core barrels were used. Additional details of rock coring equipment and procedures are indicated on the test boring reports as presented in Appendix B. All rock core was logged in the field by visual/manual methods in accordance with the Project Manual of Field Procedures. Each 5 or 10 ft core run was photographed in the field before the core was removed from the split inner liner and again in the core box after a core box was filled and labeled. A compact disk (CD) containing photographs of the rock core (core boxes) for each respective core boring is included at the end of Appendix B. At 33 of the test boring locations, standpipe piezometers were installed in the boreholes, as discussed below. Where piezometers were not installed, the boreholes were tremie-grout backfilled to the ground surface with a cement-bentonite grout. For borings located in a city street, the final 12-in. of the borehole was filled with a quick setting non-shrink Portland cement. All split-spoon samples and rock core boxes were delivered to the sample storage facility located near the Baldwin Reservoir and Water Treatment plant in Cleveland. From here, soil and rock samples were selected for laboratory testing. The Test Boring Reports/Core Boring

9

Reports (logs) are included as Appendix B along with cover sheets explaining/defining the descriptive terminology and abbreviations. 3.3 Groundwater Piezometer Installation and Monitoring A total of 33 groundwater piezometers were installed in the exploration boreholes, or in adjacent offset boreholes. The piezometers are standpipe-type installations and were constructed of sections of 1.0-in. I.D. machine slotted PVC screens connected to 1.0-in. I.D. solid-wall PVC riser pipes. Screen lengths vary from 5 to 20 ft and were set in various geologic strata as summarized below. � Sixteen piezometers were installed with screens in soil horizons varying from wet

clays to silts, sands, and gravels. Piezometer depths of this type varied approximately from 28 to 145 ft below ground surface.

� Eight piezometers were installed with screens at or near the top of bedrock.

Piezometer depths of this type varied from approximately 14 to 134 ft below ground surface.

� Nine piezometers were installed with screens within the bedrock. Piezometer depths

of this type varied from approximately 45 to 191 ft. An approximate 3 to 6-in. long section of 1.0-in. I.D. solid-wall PVC pipe was included below the bottom of each screen to act as a "silt-trap." The annular space outside each piezometer screen was backfilled with #4 silica sand to a depth of approximately 2 ft above the screen. A minimum 1.0-ft thick bentonite seal then typically was placed above the screen, and the remaining annular space above the seal backfilled with solid bentonite that was later hydrated or bentonite-cement slurry to the ground surface. After installation of the piezometer and riser pipe, a 6-in. I.D. roadway box with an attached bolted cover was installed at the ground surface to protect the installation. At one piezometer location (DDS-102) situated in a wooded area, a 3-ft high steel guard pipe was installed to protect an extended riser pipe. After the piezometers were installed, they were developed by surging and purging with an automated inertial pumping system. Each piezometer was pumped “dry” or until a minimum of three piezometer volumes of groundwater were removed. During the development process at two piezometer locations, SS-114 and ECS-109, it was found that the screened portion of each piezometer was filled in with sediment. Due to the depth and small diameter of the piezometers and the density of the sediment, attempts to clean out the piezometer screens were unsuccessful. In addition, the roadway box for a piezometer installed at boring location ECS-104 on Lakeshore Boulevard, was apparently destroyed by pavement milling operations and covered over by resurfacing asphalt pavement. Consequently, access to this piezometer is no longer available.

10

At some piezometer installations, as indicated on Table II, the presence of natural gas caused fluctuations in the water level surface impeding the accuracy of the readings. At these locations the water levels are estimated as closely as practicable. See Section 3.5 for further details on Natural Gas Observations. A summary of groundwater elevation data from all 33 piezometer installations is presented in Table II. Installation reports for the piezometers are presented in Appendix C. 3.4 In-Situ Permeability Testing 3.4.1 Soil Permeability Testing

As indicated above, a total of 33 standpipe piezometers were installed. Of these 33 piezometers, 24 were installed in overburden or at the top of bedrock and the remaining nine were installed in bedrock at or near the anticipated tunnel/pipeline depths. An in-situ permeability test was conducted in 16 of the 24 overburden or top of rock piezometers after they had been developed to assist in estimating the permeability of some of the overburden sediments throughout the project site. In-situ permeability tests were not conducted in the remaining eight overburden or top of rock piezometers due to the presence of gas and associated fluctuating water levels (DDS-104P1, DDS-104P2, DDS-117P2 and DD-PS-101P1), the screened zone being silted in (ECS-109P and SS-114P) the piezometer being dry (DC-107P2) and access constraints (ECS-101P2). In-situ permeability tests were not conducted in the bedrock since water pressure tests were conducted in bedrock as described hereinafter.

For the falling head permeability tests, a mechanical slug was dropped into the piezometer to displace the static water level by a nominal volume to create a head differential within the aquifer test zone. The slug comprised a ¾-in. O.D. length of PVC pipe (3-ft or 6-ft in length), weighted and sealed at both ends and tethered with a line to the surface. The change in borehole groundwater levels was measured with an electronic water level indicator and recorded with respect to time as the increased water head infiltrated into the aquifer. The resulting head versus time data were used to estimate the permeability of the aquifer test zone.

One rising head permeability test was performed at piezometer SS-104P. For this test the piezometer was pumped to nearly dry-hole conditions via an automated inertial pumping system to create a head differential within the aquifer test zone. The change in borehole groundwater levels was measured with an electronic water level indicator and recorded with respect to time as groundwater from the aquifer recharged the piezometer. Again the resulting head versus time data were used to estimate the permeability of the aquifer test zone.

Table III presents a summary of the results of the field soil permeability tests and the field soil permeability test data are presented in Appendix D.

3.4.2 Water Pressure Testing in Rock

A total of 15 water pressure (packer) tests were performed in rock in twelve (12) test borings to assist in estimating equivalent rock mass permeability and flow characteristics through bedrock discontinuities.

11

DLZ of Ohio supplied the equipment utilized for the packer tests. A hydraulically operated Moyno pump mounted on the drill rig pumped water through a standard mechanical flow meter graduated in 0.1-gallon increments, and a standard mechanical pressure gage, and into the borehole test zone through the drill rods and a wireline double-packer assembly. The packer assembly was seated and sealed just below the core bit and extended approximately 15-ft beyond the core bit. The length of the straddle packer assembly test section was nominally 10 ft. The equipment was calibrated for friction loss characteristics in the field during its use on the project.

The rubber membrane packers were activated utilizing pressurized nitrogen controlled by a regulator/gage at ground surface and connected to the packers by high-pressure tubing. Water flow was regulated by a bypass valve or by adjusting the speed of the Moyno pump.

In general, the procedures used to conduct the water pressure tests were as follows:

1. Upon completion of rock coring, the borehole was flushed with clean water to

remove drilling debris. 2. A reference static water level was measured from ground surface. 3. The double packer system was assembled and lowered into the borehole

through the NQ wireline drill rods, and seated below the core bit to the prescribed test depth.

4. Following inflation of the packer system at 250 to 400 psi, the flow meter was

checked prior to testing to verify the meter was functioning. An approximate maximum gage pressure (MGP) was selected considering depth of the test zone and the overall rock quality in order to reduce the possibility of hydrofracturing.

5. Each test was performed at five pressure increments: 1/3 MGP, 2/3 MGP,

1 MGP, 2/3 MGP and 1/3 MGP. By adjusting by-pass valves on the drill rig or the Moyno pump speed, water flow into the borehole was regulated to approximately achieve the desired pressure. If no water flow was observed after obtaining MGP, the final two pressure increments were not tested.

6. Each pressure increment was maintained for 10 minutes, recording the water

inflow at one-minute time intervals. Upon completion of the test cycle, the pneumatic pressure was released by venting the packer system.

On occasion, water pressure testing was terminated due to equipment breakdown or water leakage past the packer assembly. Such tests are noted in Table IV, which summarizes the water pressure testing results.

3.5 Natural Gas Observations During drilling, a Combination Gas Meter capable of detecting and measuring carbon monoxide (CO), percent oxygen (O2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of flammable/combustible gases, was used to monitor each borehole. The meters

12

provide a general indication of the presence of detectable gas. No attempt was made to quantify the volume of gas or to analyze the composition of the gas beyond that which the handheld meters recorded. The gas readings, if detected, are noted on the test boring log reports in Appendix B. In addition, Table V provides a summary of detectable gas readings or observations for those borings in which gas was observed. As indicated in Table V, observations of natural gas and/or elevated LEL readings were noted at a number of boring locations. At some locations, gas under pressure caused groundwater and/or drilling water to be ejected from the borehole. On occasion, drilling operations were temporarily suspended for time periods ranging from 30 minutes to up to 3 days to allow gas to vent and the pressure to dissipate. See Table V for details. Similarly, the presence of gas at some piezometer locations has impeded accurate determination of groundwater levels (see Table II).

13

4. LABORATORY TESTING 4.1 Soil Testing 4.1.1 General

Laboratory tests were performed on selected jar samples and undisturbed thin-walled tube (Shelby Tube) samples of soils recovered from borings to verify field classifications, determine selected soil classifications and to estimate engineering properties. Soil samples were tested for selected geotechnical index tests including water content, Atterberg Limits, and grain size distribution. Selected Shelby Tube samples were submitted for unconfined compressive strength tests and consolidated undrained triaxial compression testing. DLZ Testing Laboratories of Columbus, Ohio, performed the soil tests in general conformance with applicable ASTM standards.

The following paragraphs describe the laboratory testing conducted on soil samples recovered from the test borings. A summary of the soil laboratory testing results is provided in Table VI.

4.1.2 Water Content

A total of 1147 water content measurements were made on soil samples representing an approximate vertical profile for each boring having more than 8 ft of soil cover over the bedrock surface. Water contents were measured in general accordance with ASTM D 2216.

4.1.3 Atterberg Limits

A total of 194 Atterberg Limit tests were performed on soil samples recovered from the test borings, as reported in Table VI. The equipment and test procedures were in general accordance with ASTM D 4318.

4.1.4 Grain Size Distribution

A total of 89 mechanical sieve analyses and 79 hydrometer analyses were used to determine the grain size distribution of selected jar samples of soil. Tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM D 421 and D 422. Results of grain size analysis are summarized in Table VI and grain size distribution curves are presented in Appendix E.

4.1.5 Soil Unconfined Compressive Strength

A total of 22 unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on selected soil samples recovered from Shelby Tube samplers. Tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM D2166. The results of these tests are summarized in Table VI and the test data are presented in Appendix E.

14

4.1.6 Soil Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compressive Strength

A total of six triaxial (CIUC) compression tests were performed on selected soil samples recovered from Shelby Tube samplers, in general conformance to ASTM D4767. Two to three point tests were applied to each sample using effective consolidation stresses of 7.5, 15, and/or 30 psi. The results of the triaxial tests are summarized in Table VI. The laboratory data sheets for the triaxial tests are included in Appendix E.

4.2 Rock Testing 4.2.1 General

Laboratory tests on selected rock samples for this investigation included unconfined compressive strength tests and slake durability tests. All rock testing was performed by DLZ Testing Laboratories of Columbus, Ohio. A summary of the rock test results is presented in Table VII.

4.2.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests

Unconfined compression tests were performed on 93 rock core samples. Testing was done in accordance with ASTM D 2938, with rock specimens prepared in accordance with ASTM D 4543.

Rock samples used in this testing program were approximately 2-in. diameter. Strengths for samples with a length to diameter ratio of less than 2.0 were corrected in accordance with ASTM D 2938. The results of the unconfined compressive strength tests are included in Appendix F and summarized in Table VII.

4.2.3 Slake Durability Tests

A total of 44 slake durability tests were conducted on selected rock core samples. Slake durability tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4644. This test measures the resistance of a rock sample to weakening and disintegration when subjected to wetting and drying cycles. The test is conducted by placing lumps of rock in a mesh drum, weighing the drum and rock, partially submerging the drum in water, rotating the drum through 200 revolutions, drying the sample, and weighing the drum and rock after drying. The slake durability index for each cycle is the ratio of mass of rock retained in the test drum compared to the initial mass of the rock pieces, expressed as a percentage.

The results of the Slake Durability tests are included in Appendix G and summarized in Table VII.

15

5. ENVIRONMENTAL PRE-SCREENING An environmental pre-screening study was carried out by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). This study consisted of searching all available federal, state and local environmental records and data bases for documented sites or locations of known or suspected potentially hazardous materials, including but not limited to spills, releases, underground storage tanks, etc. The study area included an approximate 1000-ft wide corridor, 500-ft wide either side of the centerline of the proposed tunnel and pipeline alignments. Independent reports presenting the findings of this study is included in Appendix H.

16

REFERENCES 1. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey,

Bedrock Topography of the Cleveland North, Ohio Quadrangle, Open File Map BT-D2E6, Columbus, Ohio, 1996, Revised October 2000.

2. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bedrock Topography of the Cleveland East Quadrangle, Open File Map BT-D2E5, Columbus, Ohio, 1996.

3. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Bedrock Topography of the Shaker Heights, Ohio Quadrangle, Open File Map BT-D2D5, Columbus, Ohio, May 1996.

4. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Glacial and Surficial Geology of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Report of Investigations No. 134, by John P. Ford, Columbus, Ohio, 1987.

5. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Geologic Map of Ohio, by J.A. Bownocker, Columbus, Ohio, 1981.

6. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey, Glacial Geology of Northeastern Ohio, Bulletin 68, by George W. White, Columbus, Ohio, 1982.

7. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Map of the Consolidated Rock Formations in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, by George W. White, Columbus, Ohio, 1952.

8. United States Department of Interior, Division of Geologic Survey, Glacial Map of Ohio, by R.P. Goldthwait, G.W. White, and J.L. Forsyth, Washington, D.C., 1961.

9. URS Corporation, Easterly CSO Phase II Facilities Plan, Geotechnical Data Report, written for Metcalf & Eddy and the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, 2001.

G:\28087\FINALGDR\Final GDR Text.doc

APPENDIX A

Boring Log Data by Others

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.

Selected Foundation Geotechnical Investigations

Ohio Department of Transportation

E. 105 St. / I-90 Bridge Foundation Borings

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

Exploration Borings for Nottingham Intake Tunnel

APPENDIX B

Subsurface Exploration Key

Test Boring and Core Boring Log Reports

Rock Core Photographs on CD

are Included in Volume 2 of this Document

APPENDIX C

Groundwater Piezometer Installation Reports

APPENDIX D

Soil Permeability Test Data

APPENDIX E

Laboratory Soil Testing Results

Soil Unconfined Compression Strength Tests

Soil Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compressive Strength Tests

APPENDIX F

Rock Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results

APPENDIX G

Rock Slake Durability Test Results

APPENDIX H

Environmental Pre-Screening Reports

Study Area – Shoreline Tunnel Study Area – Dugway Tunnel/Euclid Creek Tunnel Study Area – Doan Valley Tunnel System Study Area – Dugway Interceptor Relief Sewer