GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BASEMENT FLOODING

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

BASEMENT FLOODING PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASE 4 (BFPP4)

ASSIGNMENT 16-12 AND ASSIGNMENT 16-22

TORONTO, ONTARIO

Submitted to:

CIMA CANADA INC.

5935 Airport Road, Suite 500

Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1W5

Submitted by:

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions

a Division of Wood Canada Limited

50 Vogell Road, Unit Nos. 3 & 4

Richmond Hill, Ontario

L4B 3K6

19 March 2019

Wood Reference Number: TT183004



50 Vogell Road, Units No. 3 & 4

Richmond Hill, Ontario

Canada L4B 3K6

Tel (905) 415-2632

Fax (647) 689-4876

www.woodplc.com

19 March 2019

Wood Reference Number: TT183004

CIMA Canada Inc.

5935 Airport Road, Suite 500

Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1W5

Dear Mr. Hutu:

RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT



TORONTO, ONTARIO

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a Division of Wood Canada Limited (hereinafter referred to

as Wood), is a leading environment and infrastructure, engineering, consulting and project management

organization. Our team of professionals provides a full range of services to clients in a wide range of

sectors including government, industrial & commercial, water, transportation, minerals & metals, oil & gas

clients and clean energy. Environment and Infrastructure’s core competencies are in environmental

assessments, health and environmental risk assessment, environmental geology (site investigation),

remediation engineering, geotechnical engineering and testing, and water resource services.

We take pleasure in enclosing a copy of our Geotechnical Investigation Report (final) carried out for the

above-mentioned project. The final report submitted herein has incorporated CIMA+’s comments on the

draft report.

We thank you for giving us this opportunity to be of service to you.

Yours truly,



FINAL

Todd Williams, B.Eng., M. A. Sc., P. Eng.,

Associate Geotechnical Engineer/Geotechnical Team Lead

CIMA Canada Inc.

Geotechnical Investigation Report

Basement Flooding Protection Program Phase 4 (BFPP4)

Assignment 16-12 and Assignment 16-22

Wood Reference No.: TT183004

19 March 2019

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

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

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Field Investigation ............................................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Soil Corrosivity Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Soil Chemical Quality for Reuse and / or Disposal ................................................................................ 5

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION FOR ASSIGNMENT 16-12 ....................................................... 7

4.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.2 Investigation Program ....................................................................................................................................... 8

4.3 Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 8

4.3.1 Ground Cover ....................................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.2 Fill Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 9

4.3.3 Organic Silty Clay .............................................................................................................................10

4.3.4 Sandy Silty Clay / Sandy Clayey Silt Till ...................................................................................10

4.3.5 Sandy Silt / Sand and Silt Till .......................................................................................................11

4.4 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................12

4.5 Asphaltic Concrete Cores ...............................................................................................................................13

4.6 Discussions and Recommendations ..........................................................................................................13

4.6.1 Subsurface Conditions at Sewer / Maintenance Hole Inverts ........................................14

4.6.2 Foundations for Maintenance Holes ........................................................................................14

4.6.3 Soil Corrosivity Analysis .................................................................................................................15

4.6.4 Construction Dewatering ..............................................................................................................16

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION FOR ASSIGNMENT 16-22 ..................................................... 17

5.1 Project Description ...........................................................................................................................................17

5.1.1 Sewer Re-construction ...................................................................................................................17

5.1.2 Roding Park – Storm Sewer and Headwalls ...........................................................................18

5.2 Investigation Program .....................................................................................................................................19

5.3 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................................................20

5.3.1 Ground Cover .....................................................................................................................................20

5.3.2 Fill Soils .................................................................................................................................................20

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page ii

5.3.3 Clayey Silt / Silty Clay / Silt and Clay ........................................................................................21

5.3.4 Sandy Silty Clay / Sandy Clayey Silt Till ...................................................................................22

5.3.5 Sand and Silt Till ...............................................................................................................................24

5.3.6 Sand .......................................................................................................................................................24

5.4 Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................25

5.5 Asphaltic Concrete Cores ...............................................................................................................................26

5.6 Discussions and Recommendations ..........................................................................................................28

5.6.1 Subsurface Conditions at Sewer Inverts ..................................................................................28

5.6.2 Foundations for Maintenance Holes ........................................................................................29

5.6.3 Soil Corrosivity Analysis .................................................................................................................31

5.6.4 Construction Dewatering ..............................................................................................................33

5.7 Slope Stability Analyses for Slopes at Headwalls .................................................................................33

5.7.1 Slope Conditions Considered in Analyses ..............................................................................33

5.7.2 Soil Parameters for Analyses ........................................................................................................34

5.7.3 Results of Slope Stability Analyses – South Headwalls .....................................................35

5.7.4 Results of Slope Stability Analyses – North Headwall .......................................................36

5.7.5 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................37

6.0 GENERAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................... 38

6.1 Site Preparation .................................................................................................................................................38

6.2 Engineered Fill ....................................................................................................................................................39

6.3 Open Cut Installation Method .....................................................................................................................39

6.3.1 Open Cut Excavation .......................................................................................................................39

6.3.2 Temporary Shoring ..........................................................................................................................40

6.3.3 Pipe Bedding ......................................................................................................................................40

6.3.4 Anti-Seepage Collars ......................................................................................................................41

6.4 Excavation Backfill .............................................................................................................................................41

6.5 Trenchless Considerations .............................................................................................................................42

6.6 Foundations .........................................................................................................................................................42

6.7 General Construction Dewatering Considerations ..............................................................................43

6.8 Earthquake Considerations ...........................................................................................................................44

6.9 Pavement Structure ..........................................................................................................................................44

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL QUALITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 44

7.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................44

7.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................................45

7.3 Field and Soil Analytical Results, Assignment 16-12 ...........................................................................45

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page iii

7.3.1 Metals and Inorganics ....................................................................................................................46

7.3.2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Fractions (PHC F1-F4) and BTEX .............................................47

7.3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) .......................................................................................47

7.3.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) .............................................................................47

7.3.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ...............................................................................................47

7.3.6 Organochlorine Pesticides ............................................................................................................47

7.3.7 Regulation 347 Waste Characterization ..................................................................................47

7.4 Field and Soil Analytical Results, Assignment 16-22 ...........................................................................47

7.4.1 Metals and Inorganics ....................................................................................................................48

7.4.2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Fractions (PHC F1-F4) and BTEX .............................................49

7.4.3 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) .......................................................................................49

7.4.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) .............................................................................49

7.4.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ...............................................................................................49

7.4.6 Organochlorine Pesticides ............................................................................................................49

7.4.7 Regulation 347 Waste Characterization ..................................................................................49

7.5 Quality Assurance Program...........................................................................................................................49

7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................................................................50

8.0 BULK ASBESTOS ANALYSES .............................................................................................................. 51

8.1 Scope of Work ....................................................................................................................................................51

8.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................51

8.3 Summary of Results .........................................................................................................................................52

8.4 Discussion and Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................55

8.4.1 Assignment 16-12 ............................................................................................................................55

8.4.2 Assignment 16-22 ............................................................................................................................55

9.0 CLOSURE .............................................................................................................................................. 56

LIMITATIONS TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Details of Proposed Work along Gracefield Avenue, Keele Street and Queen’s Greenbelt

(Assignment 16-12) .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Table 4.2: Borehole and Monitoring Well Locations (Assignment 16–12) ..................................................................... 8

Table 4.3: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests, Sandy Silty Clay

Till (Assignment 16-12) .........................................................................................................................................10

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page iv

Table 4.4: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests

Sandy Clayey Silt Till (Assignment 16-12) .....................................................................................................11


Sandy Silt / Sand and Silt Till (Assignment 16-12) .....................................................................................12

Table 4.6: Groundwater Level Measurement in Monitoring Wells (Assignment 16-12) ........................................12

Table 4.7: Asphaltic Concrete Core Thickness and Locations (Assignment 16–12) .................................................13

Table 4.8: Founding Stratum and Soil Bearing Capacity for Maintenance Hole (MH) Foundations

(Assignment 16–12) ................................................................................................................................................15

Table 4.9: Summarized Soil Corrosivity Test Results (Assignment 16–12)...................................................................15

Table 5.1: Details of Proposed Works along Ianhall Road, Gade Drive, Roding Street, Nash Drive,

Bunnell Crescent, Hallsport Crescent and Dorking Crescent (Assignment 16-22) ........................17

Table 5.2: Details of Proposed Works in Roding Park (Assignment 16-22) ................................................................18

Table 5.3: Borehole and Monitoring Well Locations (Assignment 16–22) ...................................................................19

Table 5.4: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analysis, Sand Fill (Assignment 16–22) .............................................21


Clayey Silt / Silty Clay / Silt and Clay (Assignment 16–22)......................................................................22

Table 5.6: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests, Sandy Silty Clay

Till (Assignment 16–22) .........................................................................................................................................22

Table 5.7: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests,

Sandy Clayey Silt Till (Assignment 16–22) .....................................................................................................23

Table 5.8: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses, Sand and Silt Till (Assignment 16–22) ...........................24

Table 5.9: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses, Sand (Assignment 16–22) ...................................................25

Table 5.10: Groundwater Level Measurement in Monitoring Wells (Assignment 16-22) ......................................25

Table 5.11: Asphaltic Concrete Core Thickness and Locations (Assignment 16–22) ...............................................26


(Assignment 16–22) ................................................................................................................................................29

Table 5.13: Summarized Soil Corrosivity Test Results (Assignment 16–22) ................................................................32

Table 5.14: Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses, Roding Park (Assignment 16-22) ................................35

Table 5.15: Calculated Minimum Safety Factors against Slope Instability – South Headwall

Roding Park (Assignment 16-22) ......................................................................................................................36

Table 5.16: Calculated Minimum Safety Factors against Slope Instability – North Headwall

Roding Park (Assignment 16-22) ......................................................................................................................37

Table 8.1: Asbestos Bulk Sampling Analytical Results (Assignment 16-12) ................................................................52

Table 8.2: Asbestos Bulk Sampling Analytical Results (Assignment 16-22) ................................................................53

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location Plan, Assignment 16-12 and Assignment 16-22

Figure 2: Borehole Location Plan, Assignment 16-12

Figure 3: Borehole Location Plan, Assignment 16-22

Figure 4.1: Slope Stability Analysis for Proposed South Headwall (BH 16 Location)

Case 1 – End of Construction, Measured Groundwater Level (El. 152.3 m)


Case 2 – During Service, Assumed Groundwater Level (El. 157.5 m)


Case 3 – Rapid Drawdown from 100-year Flood Level (El. 158.49 m)

Figure 5.1: Slope Stability Analysis for Existing Slope (BH 37 Location)

Case 1 – Effective Stress Analysis

Figure 5.2: Slope Stability Analysis for Existing Slope (BH 37 Location)

Case 2 – Total Stress Analysis

Figure 5.3: Slope Stability Analysis for Proposed North Headwall (BH 37 Location)

Case 3 – End of Construction, Backfill Trench with Engineered Fill, Dry Condition


Case 4 – During Service, Backfill Trench with Engineered Fill, Assumed Groundwater Level (El.

162.0 m)


Case 5 – During Service, Backfill Trench with Engineered Fill, Dry Condition

RECORD OF BOREHOLES

EXPLANATION OF BOREHOLE LOGS

RECORD OF BOREHOLES (BH 1 TO BH 37)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1: Soil Laboratory Test Results, Assignment 16-12

Appendix A2: Soil Laboratory Test Results, Assignment 16-22

Appendix B1: Asphaltic Concrete Core Photographs, Assignment 16-12

Appendix B2: Asphaltic Concrete Core Photographs, Assignment 16-22

Appendix C: Drawing Nos. 17-03309-029 and 17-03309-030, Roding Park, Assignment 16-22

Appendix D: Existing Slope Photographs, Assignment 16-22

Appendix E1: Soil Corrosivity Analysis Results, Assignment 16-12

Appendix E2: Soil Corrosivity Analysis Results, Assignment 16-22

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page vi

Appendix F1: Tables 1 to 5: Analytical Results for Soil, Assignment 16-12

Appendix F2: Tables 1 to 5: Analytical Results for Soil, Assignment 16-22

Appendix G1: Table 6: Ontario Regulation 347/90 for Leachate Analyses, Waste Classification and Other

Analyses, Assignment 16-12

Appendix G2: Table 6: Ontario Regulation 347/90 for Leachate Analyses, Waste Classification and Other

Analyses, Assignment 16-22

Appendix H: Soil Certificate of Analyses, Assignment 16-12 and Assignment 16-22

Appendix I1: Laboratory QA/QC Review and Checklists, Soil Analytical Results, Assignment 16-12

Appendix I2: Laboratory QA/QC Review and Checklists, Soil Analytical Results, Assignment 16-22

Appendix J Asbestos Laboratory Analysis Reports, Assignment 16-12 and Assignment 16-22

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, a Division of Wood Canada Limited (“Wood”), was retained

by CIMA Canada Inc. (“CIMA+”) on behalf of the City of Toronto to conduct a geotechnical investigation

for the “Basement Flooding Protection Program Phase 4 (BFPP4) project – Assignment 16-12 and

Assignment 16-22” under the City of Toronto’s RFP 9117-16-7066 as shown in Figure 1.

The City of Toronto (“City”) is planning to upgrade sections of the existing storm sewers and sanitary

sewers by installing additional or larger sewers in identified areas subject to potential basement flooding

throughout the City under the City’s Basement Flooding Protection Program (BFPP). The project

considered herein is to be carried out as BFPP4 Assignment 16-12 (which consists of sections of Gracefield

Avenue, Keele Street, and Queen’s Greenbelt); and Assignment 16-22 (which comprises Roding Street,

Gade Drive, Ianhall Road, Nash Drive, Bunnell Crescent, Hallsport Crescent, Dorking Crescent and Roding

Park) in the City of Toronto.

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation was to obtain information on sub-surface conditions by

means of a limited number of boreholes and, based on the results of the boreholes drilled within the

project limits, to provide recommendations on the geotechnical design aspects for the project.

Authorization to proceed with this investigation was received via e-mail from Mr. Alin Hutu of CIMA+ on

13 July 2018. The work carried out for this investigation was completed in accordance with CIMA+’s

Purchase Order B2018-002331 and Wood’s proposal P18033 Rev2 dated 12 April 2018. One additional

borehole at the proposed headwall location within Roding Park was approved by Mr. Alin Hutu and the

City on 4 October 2018, and the corresponding change order was issued on 12 October 2018.

This report contains the finding of geotechnical investigation, hydrogeological investigation and

environmental assessment for soil disposal, together with relevant recommendations and comments.

The recommendations and comments provided herein are based on factual information and are intended

only for Design Engineers’ use. The number of boreholes may not be sufficient to determine all the

factors that may affect construction methods and costs. Sub-surface and groundwater conditions

between and beyond the boreholes may differ from those encountered at the borehole locations, and

different conditions may become apparent during construction, which could not be detected at the time

of the site investigation.

The construction conditions are also discussed, but only to the extent that they will likely influence design

decisions. Construction methods discussed, however, express Wood’s opinion only and are not intended

to direct Contractors on how to carry out the construction. Contractors should be aware that the data

and their interpretation presented in this report may not be sufficient to assess all the factors that may

have an effect upon the construction.

Once the details of the proposed works are finalized, on-going liaison with Wood is recommended during

both the design and construction phases of the project to confirm that the recommendations in this

report are applicable and/or correctly interpreted and implemented. Also, any queries concerning the

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 2

geotechnical aspects of the proposed project should be directed to Wood for further elaboration and/or

clarification.

The report is prepared with the conditions that the design and construction will be in accordance with all

applicable standards, codes, regulations of authorities having jurisdiction, and carried out using good

engineering practices. Further, the recommendations and opinions in this report are applicable only to

the proposed project as described herein.

The enclosed Limitations to Geotechnical Reports are integral part of this report.

2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The project includes two Assignments 16-12 and 16-22 sites as shown in Figure 1. For Assignment 16-12

(Figure 2), the project involves road resurfacing, sanitary maintenance hole sealing and storm sewer re-

construction along Gracefield Avenue; and storm sewer re-construction along Keele Street and Queen’s

Greenbelt. As for Assignment 16-22 (Figure 3), the project comprises storm sewer and sanitary sewer re-

construction along Roding Street, Gade Drive, Ianhall Road, Nash Drive, Bunnell Crescent, Hallsport

Crescent, and Dorking Crescent, together with stormwater facility work in Roding Park.

The surrounding land use includes residential dwellings, commercial establishments and a park. The

ground surfaces of both sites are relatively flat, except the west of Roding Street (sloping downward

toward Roding Park) which is located adjacent to a slope of up to 10 m in height.

Based on the preliminary design drawings, the stormwater collected within the Assignment 16-22 area will

be discharged to Roding Park through a storm sewer leading to Roding Street and a proposed headwall

("north headwall)" to replace an existing headwall at the slope toe. Near the south end of Roding Park,

two proposed headwalls ('south headwalls") will be constructed, one at each end of a proposed 450 mm

diameter concrete storm sewer crossing underneath the proposed asphalt walkway embankment.

Based on Map 2556 ‘Quaternary Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet’ prepared by the Ministry of

Northern Development and Mines of Ontario (1991), and Map P. 2204 ‘Quaternary Geology, Toronto and

Surrounding Area, Southern Ontario’ prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) (1990), the

Assignment 16-12 site and most of Assignment 16-22 site are covered by Halton Till which is

characterized by silt to silty clay till, overlying silty/sandy deposits. Roding Park within the Assignment 16-

22 site is covered by modern deposits featured by sand, silt, minor gravel and organic material.

Based on Map 2544 ‘Bedrock Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet’ prepared by the Ministry of Northern

Development and Mines of Ontario (1991), the bedrock underlying the overburden at both sites is the

Georgian Bay Formation, which comprises shale, dolostone, interbedded siltstone and minor limestone.

The bedrock surface elevations range approximately from 105 m to 137 m (about 40 m to 70 m deep at

the sites), according to Preliminary Map 102 ‘Metropolitan Toronto Bedrock Contours’ prepared by

Ontario Department of Mines (1961).

The investigation programs implemented to obtain geotechnical data for both assignments are described

in Section 3.0; the specific proposed works and sub-surface information for each assignment are

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 3

described in Section 4.0 for Assignment 16-12 and Section 5.0 for Assignment 16-22; general design and

construction considerations that are common to the two assignments are provided in Section 6.0; the soil

chemical analyses are discussed in Section 7.0; and asbestos analyses in the asphaltic core samples are

discussed in Section 8.0.

3.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES

3.1 Field Investigation

The fieldwork was carried out from 10 September 2018 to 21 November 2018. A total of thirty-seven (37)

boreholes (BH 1 to BH 37 as shown in Figures 2 and 3) were advanced along the following road sections:

Assignment 16-12:

• Gracefield Avenue: Boreholes BH 1 to BH 11

• Keele Street: Boreholes BH 12 and BH 13,

• Queen’s Greenbelt: Borehole BH 14, and

• North Park: BH 15.

Assignment 16-22:

• Ianhall Road: Borehole BH 18

• Gade Drive: Borehole BH 19

• Roding Street: Boreholes BH 20 and BH 21

• Nash Drive: Boreholes BH 22 to BH 25

• Bunnell Crescent: Boreholes BH 26 to BH 28

• Hallsport Crescent: Boreholes BH 29 to BH 32

• Dorking Crescent: Boreholes BH 33 to BH 36, and

• Roding Park: Boreholes BH 16, BH 17 and BH 37.

Borehole drilling was conducted by Drilltech Drilling Limited using a truck-mounted rig equipped with

solid stem auger on most road sections and a low track-mounted rig in the parks and on the road

sections with overhead wire constraint. The drilling activities were under full-time oversight of

geotechnical engineers from Wood, who also logged the soil types encountered during borehole

advancement and collected soil samples.

Soil samples in boreholes were collected during Standard Penetration Testing (SPT). The SPT sampling

consisted of freely dropping a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer for a vertical distance of 0.76 m (30 inches) to

drive a 50 mm (2 inch) diameter O.D. split-barrel (split spoon) sampler into the ground. The number of

blows of the hammer required to drive the sampler into the relatively undisturbed ground by a vertical

distance of 0.30 m (12 inches) was recorded as SPT ‘N’ value of the soil which indicated the compactness

of cohesionless soils or implied the consistency of cohesive soils. The results of SPT are shown in the

Record of Boreholes.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 4

Soil samples were visually classified in the field and later in Wood’s Richmond Hill laboratory based on

laboratory test results.

Boreholes not selected for monitoring well installation were backfilled as per the requirements of O. Reg.

903.

A total of fourteen (14) monitoring wells (as indicated in Figures 2 and 3) were installed in selected

boreholes using 50 mm diameter PVC pipe. The screen lengths were 1.5 m to 3.0 m. The base of each

monitoring well was covered with a PVC cap to prevent the influx of sediment. Clean sand was placed in

the annular space between the pipe and the borehole wall. The monitoring wells were constructed in

accordance with Ontario Regulation 903 (amended by O. Reg. 372/07) by extending a bentonite layer

from approximately 0.6 m above the screen interval to the ground surface. All the monitoring wells were

completed with protective flushmount covers at the ground surface, except one monitoring well located

in Roding Park which was protected by an above-ground protective casing. The monitoring well

construction details and groundwater level readings are presented on the Record of Boreholes, and

summarized in Section 4.0 for Assignment 16-12 and Section 5.0 for Assignment 16-22.

The groundwater conditions in the open boreholes were monitored throughout the drilling operations.

After completion of the monitoring well installation, groundwater levels were measured in one (1) site

visit.

The fieldwork also included retrieving a total of forty-two (42) asphaltic core samples, of which ten (10)

were collected from the Assignment 16-12 site and thirty-two (32) were collected from the Assignment

16-22 site. The asphaltic core samples were submitted under the chain of custody protocol to EMC

Scientific Inc. (“EMC”) in Mississauga, Ontario to determine any asbestos content by following the

polarized light microscopy (PLM) methodology (EPA/600/R-93/116). Each core sample was inspected by

EMC staff to determine if it consisted of multiple, distinct layers or was a single, consolidated material.

As part of the geotechnical investigation, the coordinates and geodetic elevations for the as-drilled

borehole locations were surveyed by Mandarin Surveyor Limited, a professional surveyor company, using

R10 Trimble GPS for both coordinates and elevations. For the vertical datum, Geoid model HTv2.0 was

used.

For the boreholes within Assignment 16-12, horizontal coordinates were M.T.M. Grid derived from the

Horizontal Control Points 020690127 and 020740634, M.T.M. Zone 10, NAD27 (TOR_H-1974):

020690127: Northing: 4841117.736; Easting: 306473.391


Elevations surveyed were Geodetic with reference to Benchmark NY19033 (as shown on Figure 2),

with the elevation of 164.655 m.

For the boreholes within Assignment 16-22, Horizontal coordinates were M.T.M. Grid derived from the

Horizontal Control Points 020680366 and 020774515, M.T.M. Zone 10, NAD27 (TOR_H-1974):


CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 5


Elevations surveyed were Geodetic with reference to Benchmark NY22022 (as shown on Figure 3),

with the elevation of 177.772 m.

Borehole locations are shown on Borehole Location Plan (Figure 2 for Assignment 16-12 and Figure 3 for

Assignment 16-22), and tabulated in Section 4.0 for Assignment 16-12 and Section 5.0 for Assignment 16-

22.

3.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing

Soil samples collected were transported to Wood’s Advanced Soil Laboratory in Richmond Hill, where they

were re-examined and representative samples were selected for geotechnical testing. The testing program

consisted of the measurement of natural water content (ASTM D-2216) of all samples, grain size

distribution analysis (ASTM D-6913 and ASTM D-7928) of fifty-three (53) selected samples, and Atterberg

limit tests (ASTM D-4318) on forty-nine (49) cohesive soil samples. The soil laboratory test results are

shown on Record of Boreholes and summarized in Sections 4.0 and 5.0.

3.3 Soil Corrosivity Analysis

A total of fifteen (15) soil samples at or near the proposed sewer invert depths were selected for

corrosivity analysis (pH, Chloride, Sulphate, Resistivity and Conductivity) to determine the soil corrosivity

potential with respect to concrete and steel. The results of the corrosivity analysis are summarized in

Section 4.0 for Assignment 16-12 and Section 5.0 for Assignment 16-22.

3.4 Soil Chemical Quality for Reuse and / or Disposal

Assignment 16-12

Soil samples for Assignment 16-12 were collected from nine (9) of the fifteen (15) borehole locations for

the preliminary assessment of soil chemical quality for the potential on-site reuse or off-site

management/disposal purposes. The soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the following

chemical parameters:

• Nine (9) soil samples were analyzed for selected metals and general inorganics including pH, sodium

adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC), and free cyanide;

• Nine (9) soil samples were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons Fractions 1 to 4 (PHC F1-F4) and

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX);

• Five (5) soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs);

• Three (3) soil samples were analyzed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);

• One (1) soil sample was analyzed for organochlorine (OC) pesticides; and

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 6

• Two (2) soil samples were submitted for chemical analyses of Regulation 347 as amended leachate

parameters including: metals and inorganics, VOCs, benzo(a)pyrene, and PCBs; and flammability and

ignitability. The tests were conducted for waste characterization purposes.

Assignment 16-22

Soil samples for Assignment 16-22 were collected from eleven (11) of the twenty-two (22) borehole

locations for the preliminary assessment of the soil quality for the potential on-site reuse or off-site

management/disposal purposes. The soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the following

chemical parameters:

• Eleven (11) soil samples, plus two (2) field duplicate samples for Quality Assurance/Quality Control

(QA/QC) purposes, were analyzed for selected metals and general inorganics including pH, sodium

adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC), and free cyanide;

• Eleven (11) soil samples, plus two (2) field duplicate samples for QA/QC purposes, were analyzed for

petroleum hydrocarbons Fractions 1 to 4 (PHC F1-F4) and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

(BTEX);

• Six (6) soil samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including BTEX and

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);

• Seven (7) soil samples, plus one (1) field duplicate sample for QA/QC purposes, were analyzed for

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);

• Three (3) soil samples, plus one (1) field duplicate for QA/QC purposes, were analyzed for

organochlorine (OC) pesticides; and

• Three (3) soil samples were submitted for chemical analyses of Regulation 347 as amended leachate

parameters including: metals and inorganics, VOCs, benzo(a)pyrene, and PCBs; and, flammability and

ignitability. The tests were conducted for waste characterization purposes.

Selected soil samples were submitted to Maxxam Laboratories in Mississauga, Ontario, a member of the

Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation Inc. (CALA) that meets the requirements of certifying

that the analytical laboratory be accredited in accordance with the International Standard ISO/IEC

17025:2005 and with standards developed by the Standards Council of Canada.

The excess soils generated during borehole drilling operations were temporarily stored in environmental

drums within the two sites and later disposed offsite after waste characterization test (TCLP) results were

available. The receiving disposal site was determined based on the results of the waste characterization

tests.

The results of the soil chemical analyses are discussed in Section 7.0.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 7

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION FOR ASSIGNMENT 16-12

4.1 Project Description

Based on the preliminary design Drawings 18-01231-001 to 18-01231-008 dated 14 December 2017

provided by CIMA+, the proposed works for Assignment 16-12 will involve road resurfacing along

Gracefield Avenue and storm sewer re-construction at Gracefield Avenue, Keele Street and Queen’s

Greenbelt. All the proposed storm sewers will be concrete pipes with diameter ranging from 750 mm to

2400 mm.

The proposed storm sewers will be 900 mm in diameter and 82.5 m long at Gracefield Avenue, connecting

to the proposed storm sewer (900 mm to 750 mm in diameter and 94.5 m in length) at the proposed MH

KS1 The proposed storm sewer at Queen’s Greenbelt will be 2400 mm in diameter and 97.8 m in length,

starting from the existing headwall located at about 35 m east of Keele Street, to MH KS2 on Keele Street

and along Queen's Greenbelt.

Based on the above mentioned drawings, the proposed works will involve the installation / replacement

of various underground utilities (sewers and maintenance holes) to the invert depths ranging from about

4.5 m to 13.3 m below the existing ground surfaces throughout the Assignment 16-12 site. The details of

the proposed works for Assignment 16-12 are summarized in Tables 4.1.

Table 4.1: Details of Proposed Work along Gracefield Avenue, Keele Street and Queen’s Greenbelt

(Assignment 16-12)

Proposed

Work

Location

From To Type of Utility

Utility

Diameter/Size

(mm)

Approximate

Utility Depth

(m)

Approximate

Utility Length

(m)

Gracefield

Avenue MH GA1 Keele Street

Storm Sewer 900 4.3 82.5

Maintenance

Hole (MH GA1) 1,800 4.5 –

Keele

Street

MH KS1

near

Gracefield

Avenue

MH KS2 on

Keele Street

Storm Sewer 900 – 1,050 7.0 – 7.9 94.5

Maintenance

Hole (MH KS1

and MH KS2)

2,400 – 3,600 7.3 – 13.3 –

Queen’s

Greenbelt

35 m east

of Keele

Street

80 m west of

Keele Street

Storm Sewer 2,400 13.3 97.8

Maintenance

Hole (MH KS2) 3,600 13.3 –

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 8

4.2 Investigation Program

Borehole and monitoring well details for Assignment 16-12 are shown on Borehole Location Plan (Figure

2); Record of Boreholes and Table 4.2. The investigation procedures are described in Section 3.0.

Table 4.2: Borehole and Monitoring Well Locations (Assignment 16–12)

Borehole

Location

Borehole

No. Drilling Date Easting Northing

Ground

Elevation

(m)

Borehole

Depth

(m)

Monitoring Well

Screen Depth

(m)

Gracefield

Avenue

BH 1 Sep. 10, 2018 305645 4840891 142.1 4.3 No well

BH 2 Sep. 10, 2018 305710 4840908 144.4 3.7 No well

BH 3 Sep. 10, 2018 305795 4840933 148.5 3.7 No well

BH 4 Sep. 10, 2018 305877 4840961 151.4 3.7 No well

BH 5 Sep. 10, 2018 305940 4840980 153.5 3.7 No well

BH 6 Sep. 10, 2018 306013 4841002 155.8 3.7 No well

BH 7 Sep. 10, 2018 306094 4841027 158.2 3.7 No well

BH 8 Sep. 12, 2018 306177 4841049 161.5 3.7 No well

BH 9 Sep. 12, 2018 306263 4841076 163.5 3.7 No well

BH 10 Sep. 12, 2018 306337 4841099 162.2 6.7 4.6 – 6.1

BH 11 Sep. 12, 2018 306406 4841121 160.8 6.7 No well

Keele Street

BH 12 Sep. 21, 2018 306482 4841147 162.8 9.8 6.1 – 9.1

BH 13 Sep. 21, 2018 306475 4841228 163.5 15.8 12.2 – 15.2

Queen’s

Greenbelt

BH 14 Sep. 12, 2018 306412 4841202 153.6 14.3 10.7 – 13.7

BH 15 Sep. 24, 2018 306518 4841225 153.6 11.3 7.7 – 10.7

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boreholes drilled along the existing paved roads and

within Queen's Greenbelt, the soil profile in Assignment 16-12 comprised surficial asphaltic concrete or

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 9

topsoil overlying fill soils (sandy gravel, gravelly sand, silty sand, sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay) which

were underlain by native soils (organic silty clay, sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till, and sandy silt / sand

and silt till).

The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions are briefly described in this section. Additional

information is provided in Record of Boreholes.

4.3.1 Ground Cover

Asphaltic Concrete

Asphaltic concrete thickness at borehole locations drilled through the existing road pavement varied from

120 mm to 230 mm.

The existing asphaltic concrete was cored at various locations for asbestos analysis as listed in Section 4.5.

Topsoil

Topsoil, 200 mm in thickness, was encountered at Borehole BH 14 located within an unoccupied area, with

its water content of 16 %. The thickness of topsoil may vary considerably between and beyond the

borehole location at the project site.

4.3.2 Fill Soils

Fill soils were encountered below the asphaltic concrete and topsoil at all borehole locations. The fill soils

comprised sandy gravel, gravelly sand, silty sand and sandy silt, sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay.

Dark to light brown sandy gravel and/or gravelly sand fill were present below the asphaltic concrete, while

sandy gravel was found at the ground surface in North Park at Borehole BH 15. The thickness of the sandy

gravel, gravelly sand fill ranged from 0.2 m to 2 m. Water contents were 2 % to 3 % for the sandy gravel

fill and 1 % to 8 % for the gravelly sand fill.

Silty sand fill was revealed below the sandy gravel and gravelly sand fill at the borehole locations along

Gracefield Avenue, and sandy silt fill was found below the sandy gravel at Borehole BH 15. The thickness

of the silty sand fill varied from 0.4 m to 1.9 m, with its water contents ranging from 5 % to 18 %. The

sandy silt fill was 0.4 m thick at Borehole BH 15, and its water content was 15 %.

The sandy silt fill was also found below the topsoil at Borehole BH 14 and extended to 3.2 m below grade.

The sandy silt fill was brown in colour, and contained trace clayey silt and gravel, and trace topsoil

pockets. SPT ‘N’ values of the sandy silt fill soils were 5 to 13 blows per 0.3 m, and water contents ranged

from 8 % to 12 %.

Clayey silt and silty clay fill soils were found below the gravelly sand and sandy silt fill, and extended to

1.4 m to 7.0 m below grade. The clayey silt and silty clay fill soils were brown / grey, and contained trace

sand and gravel, topsoil, organics and rootlets. The fill soils extended to depths ranging from 1.4 m to 7.0

m below the existing grades. SPT ‘N’ values for the clayey silt and silty clay fill soils ranged from 3 to 23

blows per 0.3 m, and water contents varied from 13 % to 33 %.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 10

4.3.3 Organic Silty Clay

Native organic silty clay was present below the fill soils at Borehole BH 14 location, with its thickness

being 0.6 m. The organic silty clay was black in colour, with trace sand pockets and rootlets. SPT ‘N’ value

of the organic silty clay was 11 blows per 0.3 m.

4.3.4 Sandy Silty Clay / Sandy Clayey Silt Till

Sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till was encountered below the fill soils or the organic silty clay at all the

borehole locations except Borehole BH 15, and extended to 8.5 m below the existing grade, or the

termination depths (up to 15.8 m) of the boreholes.

The sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till was brown to grey in colour, partially oxidized at the top, and

contained trace gravel and sand seams / pockets.

SPT ‘N’ values of the sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till ranged from 5 to 46 blows per 0.3 m, implying a

firm to hard consistency. Water contents of the sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till samples varied from

11 % to 22 %.

Grain size distribution plots and Atterberg Limit test results for the sandy silty clay till are shown on the

Record of Boreholes, Figures A1-1 to A1-2 in Appendix A1, and Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests, Sandy Silty Clay Till

(Assignment 16-12)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)

Grain Size Distribution Atterberg Limits

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 2 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 3 23 48 26 27 15 12

BH 4 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 2 27 50 21 25 15 10

BH 6 SS3 1.5 – 2.1 2 28 51 19 25 14 11

BH 7 SS3 0.8 – 1.4 1 32 50 17 24 15 9

BH 9 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 5 29 49 17 23 14 9

BH 9 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 1 31 51 17 23 14 9

BH 12 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 1 24 52 23 28 15 13

BH 12 SS9 9.1 – 9.7 2 29 49 20 21 12 9

BH 13 SS9 9.1 – 9.7 1 31 50 18 25 14 11

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 11

Similarly, grain size distribution and Atterberg Limit test results of the sandy clayey silt till are shown on

Record of Boreholes and Figure Nos. A1-3 and A1-4 in Appendix A1, and summarized in Table 4.4.


Sandy Clayey Silt Till (Assignment 16-12)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 8 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 2 30 50 18 22 14 8

BH 9 SS3 1.5 – 2.1 3 30 51 16 22 14 8

BH 10 SS2 0.8 – 1.4 2 31 51 16 20 13 7

BH 10 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 1 29 52 18 21 13 8

BH 10 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 3 27 52 18 20 12 8

BH 13 SS13 15.2 – 15.8 7 32 46 15 18 12 6

BH 14 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 6 29 46 19 20 12 8

BH 15 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 3 34 47 16 18 12 6

4.3.5 Sandy Silt / Sand and Silt Till

Sandy silt / sand and silt till was encountered below the sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till or fill soils at

Boreholes BH 14 and BH 15 locations along Queen’s Greenbelt, and extended to the termination depths

of the boreholes. The sandy silt / sand and silt till was brown to grey in colour, and contained trace to

some clay, trace gravel, trace cobbles / boulders.

SPT ‘N’ values of the sandy silt / sand and silt till ranged from 16 to 68 blows per 0.3 m, indicating a

compact to very dense compactness. Water contents of the sandy silt / sand and silt till samples varied

from 8 % to 14 %.

Based on Atterberg Limit test results, the sandy silt / sand and silt till was of low plasticity to no plasticity

and low compressibility. Grain size distribution and Atterberg Limits of the sandy silt / sand and silt till are

shown on Record of Boreholes and Figure Nos. A1-5 and A1-6 in Appendix A1, and summarized in Table

4.5.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 12


Sandy Silt / Sand and Silt Till (Assignment 16-12)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 14 SS9 9.1 – 9.7 2 32 62 4 – – –

BH 14 SS11 12.2 – 12.8 6 35 53 6 – – –

BH 14 SS12 13.7 – 14.3 2 37 48 13 14 12 2

BH 15 SS9 9.1 – 9.7 5 33 53 9 15 14 1

4.4 Groundwater Conditions

The groundwater conditions in the open boreholes were monitored throughout the drilling operations

and measured upon completion of drilling. Most of boreholes were open and dry upon completion.

Groundwater was present only in Boreholes BH 13 to BH 15 locations upon completion of drilling.

Monitoring wells (50 mm diameter pipes) were installed in five (5) borehole locations in Assignment 16-12

for subsequent groundwater level measurements.

On 2 and 21 November 2018, the groundwater levels in the monitoring wells were measured as shown on

the corresponding Record of Boreholes, and summarized in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Groundwater Level Measurement in Monitoring Wells (Assignment 16-12)

No. Monitoring Well

(MW) Location

MW

No.

Well

Depth

(m)

Ground

Elevation

(m )

Groundwater Levels in Monitoring Wells

Depth (m) / (Elevation) (m)

On Completion

of Drilling (12-24

September 2018)

2 November

2018

21 November

2018

1 Gracefield Avenue BH 10 6.1 162.2 Dry 3.3 /

(158.9)

2 Gracefield Avenue and

Keele Street BH 12 9.1 162.8 Dry

7.9 /

(154.9)

3 Keele Street BH 13 15.2 163.5 9.1 /

(154.4)

12.7 /

(150.8)

4 West of Keele Street BH 14 13.7 153.6 4.6 /

(149.0)

7.0 /

(146.6)

5 North Park BH 15 10.7 153.6 3.0 /

(150.6)

4.9 /

(148.7)

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 13

The groundwater observations indicated that the groundwater elevations ranged from 158.9 m to 146.6 m

in Assignment 16-12. It should be noted that the groundwater level at the site will fluctuate seasonally

and can be higher during the spring months and in response to major weather events.

4.5 Asphaltic Concrete Cores

Asphaltic concrete cores were collected at and near the borehole locations in Assignment 16-12. Upon

completion of coring, the core locations (Figure 2) were surveyed using a hand-held GPS. All the asphaltic

concrete cores were photographed (Appendix B1) and recorded before delivering to EMC for asbestos

analysis.

The thickness and east/north coordinates of asphaltic concrete cores for Assignment 16-12 are shown in

Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Asphaltic Concrete Core Thickness and Locations (Assignment 16–12)

Core

Location Core No.

Asphaltic Concrete

Thickness

(mm)

Easting Northing

Gracefield Avenue

C1 (BH 1) 170 305645 4840891

C2 (BH 3) 190 305795 4840933

C3 (BH 5) 110 305940 4840980

C4 120 306069 4841016

C5 (BH 8) 150 306177 4841049

C6 120 306306 4841089

C7 (BH 11) 180 306406 4841121

Keele Street

C8 (BH 12) 200 306482 4841147

C9 180 306482 4841193

C10 (BH 13) 220 306475 4841228

The asbestos testing methodology, results and comments are presented in Section 8.0.

4.6 Discussions and Recommendations

Based on Appendix P – Preliminary Design Drawings provided by CIMA+, the proposed storm sewers in

Assignment 16-12 may be installed by open cut or supported trench excavation method.

In general, the soil conditions are capable of supporting the proposed sewers / maintenance holes and

pipe bedding Class B can be used. Groundwater levels are 3.0 m to 12.7 m deep below the existing grade,

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 14

which are higher than the proposed sewer inverts along Keele Street and Queen’s Greenbelt at some

locations and dewatering will be required in some localized areas. Dewatering during construction will

likely be required along Keele Street and Queen’s Greenbelt, from which a hydrogeological assessment

should be carried out prior to construction.

Excavation into the till may encounter cobbles / boulders which will require additional excavation effort

(e.g., impact hammer).

The specific site conditions and bearing values for maintenance hole design for Assignment 16-12 are

provided in this section, while the general design and construction considerations are shown in Section

6.0.

4.6.1 Subsurface Conditions at Sewer / Maintenance Hole Inverts

The results from the investigation along Gracefield Avenue, Keele Street and Queen’s Greenbelt in

Assignment 16-12 are presented on Record of Boreholes and described in Section 4.3.

In general, most of the storm sewers will be laid within the native soils, i.e., sandy silty clay till / sandy clay

silt till.

Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the boreholes, Class ‘B’ Type bedding (i.e.,

compacted granular bedding material) or better (i.e., Class ‘A’ Type bedding) should be used for bedding

the proposed storm sewers.

Loose silty / sandy soil subgrade, where encountered, should be compacted by a vibratory compactor

prior to placing pipe bedding. Very soft to soft clayey soil subgrade, if encountered, should be covered

with lean concrete with a minimum thickness of 100 mm to provide a workable surface and support the

proposed sewers. The very soft to soft clayey soil subgrade may also be removed and replaced by

engineered fill, following the engineered fill placement procedure as discussed in Section 6.2.

4.6.2 Foundations for Maintenance Holes

Based on the design drawings and the finding from the investigation, the founding levels of the proposed

maintenance holes would be located within the sandy silty clay till / sandy clayey silt till.

The till would be capable of supporting of the proposed maintenance holes in Assignment 16-12.

Recommended geotechnical reactions / resistances for the founding stratum for the proposed

maintenance holes are summarized in Table 4.8.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 15


(Assignment 16–12)

Location

Proposed

Maintenance

Hole

Reference

Boreholes

Founding

Stratum(1)

Depth

Below

Grade

(m) (2)

Approximate

Elevation

(m)

Geotechnical

Pressure

Reaction at

SLS

(kPa)

Factored

Geotechnical

Pressure

Resistance at

ULS (3) (4)

(kPa)

Gracefield

Avenue MH GA1 BH 11

Stiff to very stiff,

sandy silty clay till 4.1 156.7 150 225

Keele

Street

MH KS1 and

MH KS2

BH 12 Stiff to very stiff,

sandy silty clay till 3.0 159.8 150 225

BH 13 Very stiff, sandy

silty clay till 7.0 156.5 200 300

Engineered fill (4) 150 225

Notes: (1) Bearing values are provided at the shallowest depth of competent soil found in the boreholes. Higher SLS/ULS

values are normally achievable at deeper depth.

(2) Founding stratum at and below the depth indicated.

(3) A resistance factor of Φ = 0.5 has been applied to the ULS values provided.

(4) Use of the existing fill soils is not recommended due to possible non-uniformly compacted soils. Existing fill soils

should be replaced with engineered fill and compacted to at least 98 % SPMDD for founding stratum. The

thickness of the engineered fill should be at least 1.0 m unless the proposed engineered fill is founded on

competent native soil.

4.6.3 Soil Corrosivity Analysis

To assess the soil aggressiveness to concrete and embedded steel structures, two (2) soil samples at or

near the sewer invert depths were selected and submitted to Maxxam Analytics Laboratory in Mississauga

for corrosivity testing (i.e., pH, soluble chloride, soluble sulphate, electrical conductivity, and resistivity).

The laboratory testing results and the Certificate of Analyses are attached in Appendix E1 and summarized

in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Summarized Soil Corrosivity Test Results (Assignment 16–12)

Location Sample No. Resistivity

ohm-cm

Soluble

Chloride

µg/g

Conductivity

µmho/cm pH

Soluble

Sulphate

µg/g

Gracefield Avenue BH 11 SS6 1800 240 561 7.70 <20

Keele Street

BH 12 SS8 1200 370 803 7.67 74

BH 13 SS12 3600 75 277 7.66 <20

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 16


ohm-cm

Soluble

Chloride

µg/g

Conductivity

µmho/cm pH

Soluble

Sulphate

µg/g

Queen’s Greenbelt

BH 14 SS7 2000 53 493 7.73 270

BH 15 SS7 4900 21 202 7.83 <20

The measured soil resistivity value was 1,800 ohm-cm along Gracefield Avenue Drive, 1,200 to 3,600 ohm-

cm along Keele Street, and 2,000 to 4,900 ohm-cm along Queen’s Greenbelt.

Compared to the values in the available literature (i.e., J.D. Palmer, Soil Resistivity Measurement and

Analysis, Materials Performance, Volume 13, 1974), the above-mentioned range of soil corrosivity should

be considered as “severe” along Gracefield Avenue, “severe“ to “moderate” along Keele Street and

“moderate” along Queen’s Greenbelt, for exposed steel structures.

The measured water soluble sulphate in soil was generally low and ranged from less than 20 to 270 µg/g

in Assignment 16-12. In accordance with Table 3 of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Series CSA

A23.1-14, soil with the sulphate content ratio less than 0.1% (i.e., 1,000 ppm or µg/g) is not considered

aggressive to concrete. Therefore, in accordance with Table 6 of the CSA Series A23.1-14, Type GU

Portland cement may be used for concrete.

Soil corrosivity should be assessed by a corrosivity expert, if necessary.

4.6.4 Construction Dewatering

Boreholes along Gracefield Avenue were dry upon completion of drilling, and the groundwater level was

9.1 m, 4.6 m and 3.0 m deep at Boreholes BH 13 to BH 15 locations. The groundwater levels, measured in

the monitoring wells in Assignment 16-12 on 2 and 21 November 2018, were 3.3 m to 12.7 m below the

existing grade, with the corresponding elevations ranging from 158.9 m to 146.6 m. Groundwater level

measurements for Assignment 16-12 are summarized in Table 4.6.

Based on the planned sewer invert depths, the soils encountered at the boreholes and the groundwater

conditions, localized construction dewatering will likely be required to lower the groundwater level in

Assignment 16-12.

The presence of the sandy silt / sand and silt till should be relatively high permeability soil and should be

considered in the dewatering estimates. Accordingly, a hydrogeological assessment should, therefore, be

conducted for the site in order to provide construction dewatering requirements, and the associated level

of dewatering effort pertaining to construction along Keele Street and Queen’s Greenbelt.

Water seepage, if encountered, in the native cohesive soils (e.g., organic silty clay, sandy silty clay / sandy

clayey silt till) should be manageable through gravity drainage and/or a filtered sump and pump system.

Within the water-bearing sandy / silty soils, a series of sump and pump or a system of well points will be

required for dewatering.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 17

Section 6.0 provides relevant design and construction considerations.

5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATION FOR ASSIGNMENT 16-22

5.1 Project Description

5.1.1 Sewer Re-construction

Based on the preliminary design Drawings 17-03309-001 to 17-03309-015 dated 14 December 2017

provided by CIMA+, the proposed works for Assignment 16-22 will involve storm sewer and sanitary

sewer re-construction along Roding Street, Gade Drive, Ianhall Road, Nash Drive, Bunnell Crescent,

Hallsport Crescent and Dorking Crescent. Most of the proposed storm sewers will be concrete pipes with

diameters ranging from 450 mm to 900 mm, and the proposed sewer pipes will be PVC pipes with

diameters of 300 mm and 375 mm.

The details of the proposed sewer re-construction works for Assignment 16-22 are summarized in Table

5.1.

Table 5.1: Details of Proposed Works along Ianhall Road, Gade Drive, Roding Street, Nash Drive,

Bunnell Crescent, Hallsport Crescent and Dorking Crescent (Assignment 16-22)

Proposed

Work

Location


Utility

Diameter/Size

(mm)

Approximate

Utility Depth

(m)

Approximate

Utility Length

(m)

Ianhall

Road

MH IR1 Gade Drive

Storm Sewer 675 3.0 – 7.0 73.7

MH IR1 1,800 3.5 – 7.2 –

MH IR1A MH IR2A

Sanitary Sewer 250 3.3 – 3.5 30.4

MH IR1A and MH

IR2A 1,200 3.5 – 4.0 –

Gade Drive Ianhall

Road

Roding

Street

Storm Sewer 675 4.5 – 6.7 93.7

MH GD1 1,800 4.9 – 7.2 –

Roding

Street

Gade

Drive Nash Drive

Storm Sewer 750 – 900 4.8 – 7.0 101.2

MH RS1 to MH RS3 1,800 – 2,400 4.9 – 7.1 –

Nash Drive Roding

Street

Bunnell

Crescent

Storm Sewer 750 – 900 3.6 – 5.5 408.8

MH RS3, MH DC1,

MH ND1, MH ND2

and MH BC2

1,500 – 2,400 4.2 – 6.2 –

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 18

Proposed

Work

Location


Utility

Diameter/Size

(mm)

Approximate

Utility Depth

(m)

Approximate

Utility Length

(m)

Bunnell

Crescent MH BC4

Hallsport

Crescent

Storm Sewer 375 – 675 2.3 – 5.0 272.2

MH BC1 to MH BC4 1,200 – 1,800 2.5 – 5.1 –

Hallsport

Crescent MH HC1

Bunnell

Crescent

Storm Sewer 450 – 525 3.4 – 4.6 131.0

MH HC1, MH HC2

and MH BC1 1,200 – 1,800 3.6 – 4.9 –

Dorking

Crescent MH DC6 Nash Drive

Storm Sewer 300 – 375 3.4 – 4.6 131.0

MH DC1 to MH DC6 1,200 – 2,400 3.6 – 4.9 –

5.1.2 Roding Park – Storm Sewer and Headwalls

Based on Drawing Nos. 17-03309-029 and 17-03309-030 dated 11 January 2019 (Appendix C) provided

by CIMA+, a proposed concrete storm sewer (450 mm in diameter and 14 m in length) will be constructed

under an embankment for supporting the proposed asphalt walkway near the south end of Roding Park,

with one (1) precast concrete headwall at each end (near BH 16 in Figure 3) – referred to as "south walls"

herein.

At the existing slope toe (near BH 37 location in Figure 3), the existing headwall will be replaced by a

precast concrete headwall ("north headwall") and the existing 600 mm diameter storm sewer underneath

the slope will be replaced by a 975 mm diameter storm sewer. The details of the proposed works in

Roding Park are summarized in Tables 5.2.

Table 5.2: Details of Proposed Works in Roding Park (Assignment 16-22)

Proposed

Work

Location

From To Type of

Utility

Utility

Diameter/Size

(mm)

Approximate

Utility Depth

(m)

Approximate

Utility Length

(m)

Roding

Park

Near south

end of

Roding

Street (BH 16

in Figure 3)

South end of

Roding Park

Storm Sewer 450 2.0 14.0

Headwalls

("South

headwalls")

- About 2.0

below walkway –

Roding

Street

between

Nash Drive

and Gade

Drive

Existing Slope

Toe - east of

Roding Park

(BH 37 in

Figure 3)

Storm Sewer 975 0.0 – 7.6 40.6

North

Headwall -

About 10 m

below the top

of slope

–

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 19

5.2 Investigation Program

Borehole and monitoring well details for Assignment 16-22 are presented on Borehole Location Plan

(Figure 3), Record of Boreholes and Table 5.3. The investigation procedures are described in Section 3.0.

The results of the geotechnical laboratory tests are presented in Record of Boreholes and Appendix A2.

Table 5.3: Borehole and Monitoring Well Locations (Assignment 16–22)

Borehole

Location

Borehole


Ground

Elevation

(m)

Borehole

Depth

(m)

Monitoring

Well Screen

Depth

(m)

Roding Park

BH 16 Sep. 24, 2018 305285 4842680 156.9 9.8 6.1 – 9.1

BH 17 Sep. 24, 2018 305403 4842812 159.6 6.7 No well

BH 37 Oct. 26, 2018 305398 4842927 162.9 8.1 No well

Ianhall Road BH 18 Sep. 17, 2018 305577 4842858 171.1 6.6 3.1 – 6.1

Gade Drive BH 19 Sep. 17, 2018 305566 4842927 173.6 8.2 4.6 – 7.6

Roding

Street

BH 20 Sep. 25, 2018 305479 4842888 169.8 6.6 No well

BH 21 Sep. 25, 2018 305446 4842942 171.1 8.2 4.6 – 7.6

Nash Drive

BH 22 Sep. 25, 2018 305440 4842982 172.3 7.9 No well

BH 23 Sep. 25, 2018 305531 4843016 172.4 6.7 4.6 – 6.1

BH 24 Sep. 25, 2018 305629 4843047 175.1 6.7 No well

BH 25 Oct. 11, 2018 305739 4843080 178.2 6.6 No well

Bunnell

Crescent

BH 26 Sep. 26, 2018 305870 4843226 181.3 6.7 No well

BH 27 Oct. 11, 2018 305804 4843183 180.2 6.7 No well

BH 28 Sep. 26, 2018 305815 4843105 179.1 6.7 3.1 – 6.1

Hallsport

Crescent

BH 29 Sep. 26, 2018 305835 4843013 179.6 6.7 3.1 – 6.1

BH 30 Sep. 26, 2018 305799 4842995 179.3 6.7 No well

BH 31 Oct. 26, 2018 305828 4842923 179.3 6.6 3.1 – 6.1

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 20

Borehole

Location

Borehole


Ground

Elevation

(m)

Borehole

Depth

(m)

Monitoring

Well Screen

Depth

(m)

Hallsport

Crescent

(cont’d)

BH 32 Sep. 26, 2018 305867 4842938 179.5 6.7 No well

Dorking

Crescent

BH 33 Oct. 26, 2018 305502 4843112 175.1 6.6 3.1 – 6.1

BH 34 Oct. 11, 2018 305562 4843130 176.2 6.6 No well

BH 35 Oct. 11, 2018 305633 4843152 177.5 6.6 No well

BH 36 Oct. 11, 2018 305705 4843164 178.7 6.6 No well

5.3 Subsurface Conditions

Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boreholes drilled along the existing paved roads and

within Roding Park, the soil profile in Assignment 16-22 comprised surficial asphaltic concrete or topsoil

overlying fill soils (sandy gravel, gravelly sand, sand, sandy silt, silty sand, clayey silt and silty clay) which

were underlain by native soils (clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay, sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till,

sand and silt till, and sand).

The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions are briefly described in this section. Additional

information is provided in Record of Boreholes.

5.3.1 Ground Cover

Asphaltic Concrete

Asphaltic concrete found at the boreholes drilled through the existing pavement varied in thickness from

120 mm to 240 mm.

Asphaltic concrete cores were obtained at various locations as listed in Section 5.5 for asbestos analysis.

Topsoil

Topsoil, 150 mm to 180 mm thick, was encountered at Boreholes BH 16, BH 17 and BH 37 located within

Roding Park, with its water contents ranging from 13 % to 18 %. The thickness of topsoil may vary

considerably between and beyond the borehole locations at the project site.

5.3.2 Fill Soils

Fill soils were encountered below the asphaltic concrete and topsoil at all borehole locations. The fill soils

comprised sandy gravel, gravelly sand, sandy silt / silty sand, sand and silty clay.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 21

Dark brown to brown sandy gravel and gravelly sand, with thickness between 200 mm and 700 mm, was

found below the asphaltic concrete. Water contents were 1 % to 5 % for the sandy gravel fill and 3 % to

10 % for the gravelly sand fill.

Sandy silt / silty sand fill was found below the topsoil at Boreholes BH 16, BH 17, BH 34 and BH 37

locations; and extended to 0.4 m to 4.0 m below grade. The sandy silt / silty sand fill was brown to dark

brown in colour, and contained trace silty clay and gravel, and trace organics. SPT ‘N’ values for the sandy

silt / silty sand fill soils varied from 4 to 24 blows per 0.3 m, and its water contents ranged from 8 % to

26 %.

Clayey silt / silty clay fill soil was found below the sandy gravel / gravelly sand / sandy silt fill at Roding

Street, Nash Drive, Bunnell Crescent, Hallsport Crescent, Dorking Crescent and north of Roding Park. It

extended to 0.9 m to 6.2 m below grade. The clayey silt / silty clay fill was brown to dark grey in colour,

and contained trace sand and gravel, topsoil, brick pieces, organics and rootlets. SPT ‘N’ values for the

clayey silt / silty clay fill ranged from 3 to 20 blows per 0.3 m, and its water contents varied from 13 % to

39 %.

Sand fill was encountered below the sandy silt fill and silty clay fill at Boreholes BH 16 and BH 37 locations

in Roding Park, and extended to 7.0 m to 7.3 m below the existing grade. The sand fill contained trace silt,

and rubber pieces. SPT ‘N’ values for the sand fill ranged from 6 to 46 blows per 0.3 m, and its water

contents were 5 % to 10 %.

Grain size distribution for the sand fill is shown on the Record of Boreholes, Figure A2-1 in Appendix A2,

and Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analysis, Sand Fill (Assignment 16–22)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)

Grain Size Distribution

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt and Clay

(%)

BH 37 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 - 80 20

5.3.3 Clayey Silt / Silty Clay / Silt and Clay

Native clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay was present below the fill soils at Boreholes BH 19 to BH 22, BH

26, BH 28, BH 33, and BH 36; and extended to 2.2 m to 7.2 m below the existing grade, or 8.2 m (the

termination depth of Borehole BH 21).

The clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay was brown to grey in colour, partially oxidized on the top, and

contained some sand to sandy. SPT ‘N’ values for the clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay were 7 to 60

blows per 0.3 m, indicating a firm to hard consistency. Its water contents ranged from 13 % to 22 %.

Grain size distribution and Atterberg Limit test results for the clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay are shown

on the Record of Boreholes, Figures A2-2 and A2-3 in Appendix A2, and Table 5.5.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 22


Clayey Silt / Silty Clay / Silt and Clay (Assignment 16–22)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 20 SS7 4.6 – 5.2 - 10 71 19 24 17 7

BH 21 SS9 7.6 – 8.2 - 21 56 23 33 17 16

BH 22 SS3 1.5 – 2.1 <1 15 40 45 39 18 20

5.3.4 Sandy Silty Clay / Sandy Clayey Silt Till

Sandy silty clay / sandy clayey silt till was found below the fill soils or the silty clay / silt and clay, or

interbedded within the clayey silt / silty clay at most boreholes located on the road sections. It extended

to 5.6 m, or the termination depths of Boreholes BH 18, BH 19, and BH 23 to BH 36.

The sandy silty clay till was brown to grey in colour, and contained trace gravel. SPT ‘N’ values for the

sandy silty clay till ranged from 7 to 33 blows per 0.3 m, indicating a firm to hard consistency. Water

contents of the sandy silty clay till varied from 12 % to 20 %.

Grain size distribution and Atterberg Limit test results for the sandy silty clay till are shown on the Record

of Boreholes, Figures A2-4 and A2-5 in Appendix A2, and Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests, Sandy Silty Clay Till


Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 18 SS3 1.5 – 2.1 2 29 49 20 25 13 12

BH 18 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 5 29 47 19 23 13 10

BH 19 SS8 7.6 – 8.2 3 20 47 30 27 14 13

BH 23 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 1 27 43 29 28 14 14

BH 25 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 3 27 50 20 24 13 11

BH 26 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 2 27 51 20 22 13 9

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 23

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 27 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 1 25 54 20 22 13 9

BH 30 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 1 22 58 19 26 15 11

BH 30 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 1 24 55 20 24 14 10

BH 32 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 1 24 55 20 24 15 9

Similarly, the sandy clayey silt till was brown, brownish grey to grey in colour, and contained trace gravel.

SPT ‘N’ values for the sandy clayey silt till ranged from 8 to 35 blows per 0.3 m, implying a firm to hard

consistency. Water contents of the sandy clayey silt till varied from 10 % to 20 %.

The grain size distribution and Atterberg Limit test results for the sandy clayey silt till are shown on the

Record of Boreholes, Figures A2-6 and A2-7 in Appendix A2, and Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses and Atterberg Limit Tests,

Sandy Clayey Silt Till (Assignment 16–22)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 19 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 2 30 50 18 19 13 6

BH 24 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 5 29 47 19 21 13 8

BH 25 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 4 26 51 19 21 13 8

BH 26 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 2 29 50 19 20 12 8

BH 27 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 2 33 52 13 20 14 6

BH 28 SS4 2.3 – 2.9 2 29 51 18 19 12 7

BH 28 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 3 26 51 20 21 13 8

BH 29 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 4 30 49 17 18 12 6

BH 31 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 3 26 52 19 20 13 7

BH 33 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 1 26 53 20 22 14 8

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 24

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 34 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 3 26 45 26 22 14 8

BH 35 SS5 3.1 – 3.7 2 27 52 19 21 13 8

BH 36 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 1 29 51 19 20 12 8

5.3.5 Sand and Silt Till

Sand and silt till was found below the clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay and the sandy silty clay / sandy

clayey silt till at Boreholes BH 18, BH 20 and BH 22 locations close to Roding Park. It extended to the

termination depths of Boreholes BH 18 and BH 20 or it was underlain by the sand (Section 5.3.6) at

Borehole BH 22. The sand and silt till was grey in colour, and contained trace cobbles / boulders, some

clay and trace gravel.

SPT ‘N’ values for the sand and silt till ranged from 34 to 60 blows per 0.3 m, indicating a dense to very

dense compactness, while its water contents varied from 5 % to 9 %.

Grain size distribution for the sand and silt till are shown on the Record of Boreholes, Figures A2-8 and

A2-9 in Appendix A2, and Table 5.8.

Table 5.8: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses, Sand and Silt Till (Assignment 16–22)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)


Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt

(%)

Clay

(%)

Liquid

Limit

Plastic

Limit

Plasticity

Index

BH 18 SS7 6.1 – 6.6 5 35 48 12 15 12 3

BH 22 SS6 4.6 – 5.2 3 38 48 11 18 14 4

5.3.6 Sand

Sand was present below the fill soils or the sand and silt till at Boreholes BH 16, BH 17, BH 22 and BH 37

within or near Roding Park, and extended to the termination depths of the boreholes in Assignment 16-

22. The sand was brown to grey in colour, and contained trace to some silt and gravel.

SPT ‘N’ values for the sand ranged from 35 blows per 0.3 m to 50 blows per 0.15 m, indicating a dense to

very dense compactness, and its water contents varied from 3 % to 10 %. Grain size distribution for the

sand are shown on the Record of Boreholes, Figure A2-10 in Appendix A2, and Table 5.9.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 25

Table 5.9: Results of Grain Size Distribution Analyses, Sand (Assignment 16–22)

Borehole

No.

Sample

No.

Depth

(m)

Grain Size Distribution

Gravel

(%)

Sand

(%)

Silt and Clay

(%)

BH 16 SS8 7.6 – 8.2 22 73 5

BH 17 SS7 6.1 – 6.7 - 75 25

BH 22 SS8 7.6 – 7.9 - 75 25

5.4 Groundwater Conditions

The groundwater conditions in the open boreholes were monitored throughout the drilling operations

and measured upon completion of drilling. Most of boreholes were open and dry upon completion.

Groundwater was only found in Boreholes BH 16, BH 23 and BH 34 upon completion of drilling.

Monitoring wells (50 mm diameter pipes) were installed in nine (9) borehole locations in Assignment 16-

22 for subsequent groundwater level measurements.

On 2 and 21 November 2018, the groundwater levels in the monitoring wells were measured as shown on

the corresponding Record of Boreholes and summarized in Table 5.10.

Table 5.10: Groundwater Level Measurement in Monitoring Wells (Assignment 16-22)

No. Monitoring Well

(MW) Location

MW

No.

Well

Depth

(m)

Ground

Elevation

(m )



On Completion

of Drilling (12-26

September 2018)

2

November

2018

21

November

2018

1 Roding Park BH 16 9.1 156.9 4.6 /

(152.3)

6.5 /

(150.4)

2 Ianhall Road BH 18 6.1 171.1 Dry 2.5 /

(168.6)

3 Ianhall Road and

Gade Drive BH 19 7.6 173.6 Dry

4.3 /

(169.3)

4 Entrance of Roding

Park BH 21 7.6 171.1 Dry – Dry

5 Nash Drive BH 23 6.1 172.4 4.6 /

(167.8)

1.7 /

(170.7)

6 Nash Drive and

Bunnell Crescent BH 28 6.1 179.1 Dry

1.5 /

(177.6)

7 Bunnell Crescent and

Hallsport Crescent BH 29 6.1 179.6 Dry

2.4 /

(177.2)

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 26

No. Monitoring Well

(MW) Location

MW

No.

Well

Depth

(m)

Ground

Elevation

(m )



On Completion

of Drilling (12-26

September 2018)

2

November

2018

21

November

2018

8 Hallsport Crescent BH 31 6.1 179.3 Dry 1.8 /

(177.5)

9 Dorking Crescent BH 33 6.1 175.1 Dry 4.6 /

(170.5)

The measured groundwater elevations ranged from 177.6 m to 150.4 m from north to south in

Assignment 16-22. It should be noted that the groundwater levels at the site will fluctuate seasonally and

should be higher during the spring months and in response to major weather events.

5.5 Asphaltic Concrete Cores

Asphaltic concrete cores were collected at and near the borehole locations in Assignment 16-22. Upon

completion of coring, the core locations (Figure 3) were surveyed using a hand-held GPS. All the asphaltic

concrete cores were photographed (Appendix B2) and recorded before delivering to EMC.

The thickness and east/north coordinates of asphaltic concrete cores are shown in Table 5.11.

Table 5.11: Asphaltic Concrete Core Thickness and Locations (Assignment 16–22)

Core

Location Core No.

Asphaltic Concrete

Thickness

(mm)

Easting Northing

Ianhall Road

C11 (BH 18) 170 305577 4842858

C12 150 305570 4842896

Gade Drive

C13 (BH 19) 120 305566 4842927

C14 130 305525 4842912

Roding Street

C15 (BH 20) 190 305479 4842888

C16 (BH 21) 150 305446 4842942

Nash Drive

C17 (BH 22) 180 305440 4842982

C18 170 305483 4842998

C19 (BH 23) 220 305531 4843016

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 27

Core

Location Core No.

Asphaltic Concrete

Thickness

(mm)

Easting Northing

Nash Drive

(cont’d)

C20 150 305576 4843028

C21 (BH 24) 160 305629 4843047

C22 170 305683 4843062

C23 (BH 25) 140 305739 4843080

C24 170 305783 4843095

Bunnell Crescent

C25 (BH 26) 170 305870 4843226

C26 150 305829 4843211

C27 (BH 27) 240 305804 4843183

C28 190 305810 4843152

C29 (BH 28) 190 305815 4843105

C30 150 305838 4843061

Hallsport Crescent

C31 (BH 29) 150 305835 4843013

C32 120 305820 4843006

C33 (BH 30) 150 305799 4842995

C34 140 305805 4842958

C35 (BH 31) 180 305828 4842923

C36 130 305844 4842928

C37 (BH 32) 160 305867 4842938

Dorking Crescent

C38 180 305513 4843061

C39 (BH 33) 190 305502 4843112

C40 (BH 34) 170 305562 4843130

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 28

Core

Location Core No.

Asphaltic Concrete

Thickness

(mm)

Easting Northing

Dorking Crescent

(cont’d)

C41 (BH 35) 190 305633 4843152

C42 (BH 36) 160 305705 4843164

The asbestos testing methodology, results and comments are presented in Section 8.0.

5.6 Discussions and Recommendations

Based on the preliminary design drawings provided by CIMA+, the proposed storm and sanitary sewers in

Assignment 16-22 may be installed by open cut or supported trench excavation method.

In general, the soil conditions are capable of supporting the proposed sewers / maintenance holes and

pipe bedding Class B can be used. Groundwater levels are 1.5 m to 6.5 m deep below the existing grade,

which are higher than the proposed sewer inverts in the majority of the project area. Dewatering during

construction will likely be required at the majority of the roads (i.e., Ianhall Road, Gade Drive, Nash Drive,

Bunnell Crescent and Hallsport Crescent), from which a hydrogeological assessment should be carried out

prior to construction.

Excavation into the till may encounter cobbles / boulders which will require additional excavation effort

(e.g., impact hammer).

Slope stability analyses at the proposed headwalls have been carried out and the results are discussed in

Section 5.7.

The specific site conditions and bearing values for maintenance hole design for Assignment 16-22 are

provided in this section, while the general design and construction considerations are shown in Section

6.0.

5.6.1 Subsurface Conditions at Sewer Inverts

The results of the investigation along the roads in Assignment 16-22 were presented on Record of

Boreholes as described in Section 5.3. In general, most of the sewers will be installed within the native

soils, i.e., silty clay / silt and clay, silty clay / clayey till, sand and silt till and / or sand.



the proposed storm and sanitary sewers.

Loose silty / sandy soil subgrade, if encountered, should be compacted by a vibratory compactor prior to

placing pipe bedding. Very soft to soft clayey soil subgrade, if encountered, should be covered with lean

concrete with a minimum thickness of 100 mm to provide a workable surface and support the proposed

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 29

sewers. The very soft to soft clayey soil subgrade may also be removed and replaced by engineered fill,

following the engineered fill placement procedure as discussed in Section 6.2.

General discussions and recommendations, site specific design and construction considerations during

installation of the proposed utilities are presented in Section 6.0.

5.6.2 Foundations for Maintenance Holes

Based on the design drawings and the findings from the investigation, the founding levels of the

proposed maintenance holes would be mostly located within native competent soils. Recommended

geotechnical reactions / resistances for the founding stratum for the proposed maintenance holes are

summarized in Table 5.12.



Location Type of

Proposed Utility

Reference Boreholes

Founding

Stratum(1)

Depth Below Grade

(m)(2)

Approximate

Elevation

(m)

Geotechnical

Pressure

Reaction at

SLS

(kPa)

Factored

Geotechnical

Pressure

Resistance at

ULS (3) (4)

(kPa)

Roding

Park

South

Headwalls

and

manhole

BH 16

Engineered

fill(4) (at least 1

m thick below

headwall base)

Minimum

1.2 m 157.0 150 225

Dense, sand 7.3 149.6 300 450

North

Headwall BH 37

Engineered

fill(4) (at least 1

m thick below

headwall base)

Minimum

1.2 m 163.0 150 225

Very dense,

sand 7.0 155.9 300 450

Ianhall

Road

MHs for

Storm and

Sanitary

Sewer

BH 18

Firm to hard,

sandy silty clay

/ sandy clayey

silt till

0.9 170.1 100 150

Gade

Drive

MH for

Storm

Sewer

BH 19

Very stiff to

hard sandy

silty clay /

sandy clayey

silt till

1.4 172.2 200 300

Roding

Street

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 20 Stiff to hard,

clayey silt 4.1 165.7 150 225

BH 21 Stiff, silty clay 7.3 163.8 150 225

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 30

Location Type of

Proposed Utility

Reference Boreholes

Founding

Stratum(1)

Depth Below Grade

(m)(2)

Approximate

Elevation

(m)

Geotechnical

Pressure

Reaction at

SLS

(kPa)

Factored

Geotechnical

Pressure

Resistance at

ULS (3) (4)

(kPa)

Nash

Drive

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 22 Stiff, silt and

clay 0.5 171.8 150 225

BH 23

Hard to very

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

4.1 168.3 200 300

BH 24

Very stiff to

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

2.0 173.1 150 225

BH 25

Very stiff to

hard, sandy

silty clay /

sandy clayey

silt till

2.0 176.2 200 300

Bunnell

Crescent

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 26

Very stiff to

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

2.2 179.1 150 225

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 27

Very stiff to

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

2.0 178.2 150 225

BH 28 Very stiff, silty

clay 0.9 178.2 150 225

BH 29

Very stiff to

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

1.8 177.8 150 225

Hallsport

Crescent

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 30

Stiff to very

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

2.1 177.2 150 225

BH 31

Very stiff,

sandy silty clay

/ sandy clayey

silt till

2.2 177.1 200 300

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 31

Location Type of

Proposed Utility

Reference Boreholes

Founding

Stratum(1)

Depth Below Grade

(m)(2)

Approximate

Elevation

(m)

Geotechnical

Pressure

Reaction at

SLS

(kPa)

Factored

Geotechnical

Pressure

Resistance at

ULS (3) (4)

(kPa)

Hallsport

Crescent

(cont’d)

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 32

Firm to stiff,

sandy silty clay

/ sandy clayey

silt till

2.4 177.1 100 150

Dorking

Crescent

MHs for

Storm

Sewer

BH 33

Very stiff,

sandy silty clay

/ sandy clayey

silt till

2.4 172.6 200 300

BH 34

Stiff to very

stiff, sandy silty

clay / sandy

clayey silt till

2.7 173.5 150 225

BH 35

Hard to stiff,

sandy silty clay

/ sandy clayey

silt till

2.2 175.3 150 225

BH 36

Very stiff,

sandy silty clay

/ sandy clayey

silt till

1.2 177.5 200 300

Notes: (1) Bearing values are provided at the shallowest depth of competent soil found in the boreholes. Higher

SLS/ULS values are normally achievable at deeper depth.

(2) Founding stratum present at the depth indicated and below.

(3) A resistance factor of Φ = 0.5 has been applied to the ULS values provided.

(4) Use of the existing fill soils is not recommended due to possible non-uniformly compacted soils. Existing fill

soils should be replaced with engineered fill and compacted to at least 98 % SPMDD for founding stratum.

The thickness of the engineered fill should be at least 1.0 m unless the proposed engineered fill is founded

on competent native soil.

5.6.3 Soil Corrosivity Analysis

To assess the soil aggressiveness to concrete and embedded steel structures, nine (9) soil samples at or

near the sewer invert depths were selected and submitted to Maxxam Analytics Laboratory in Mississauga

for corrosivity testing (i.e., pH, soluble chloride, soluble sulphate, electrical conductivity and resistivity).

The laboratory testing results and the Certificate of Analyses are attached in Appendix E2 and summarized

in Table 5.13.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 32

Table 5.13: Summarized Soil Corrosivity Test Results (Assignment 16–22)


ohm-cm

Soluble

Chloride

µg/g

Conductivity

µmho/cm pH

Soluble

Sulphate

µg/g

Roding Park

BH 16 SS2 5700 <20 176 7.56 <20

BH 17 SS3 5900 <20 168 7.60 <20

BH 37 SS5 16000 <20 61 7.59 20

Ianhall Road BH 18 SS6 2000 170 497 7.84 <20

Gade Drive BH 22 SS7 5600 50 180 7.93 <20

Roding Street BH 24 SS6 4300 <20 231 7.82 46

Nash Drive BH 26 SS5 4200 28 240 7.77 58

Bunnell Crescent BH 28 SS6 1500 290 660 7.78 65

Hallsport Crescent BH 32 SS5 2800 58 353 7.81 130

Dorking Crescent BH 36 SS5 2200 120 445 7.77 96

The measured soil resistivity values were 5,700 to 16,000 ohm-cm in Roding Park; 2,000 ohm-cm at Ianhall

Road; 5,600 ohm-cm at Gade Drive; 4,300 ohm-cm at Roding Street; 4,200 to 1,500 ohm-cm along Nash

Drive and Bunnell Crescent; 2,800 ohm-cm at Hallsport Crescent and 2,200 ohm-cm at Dorking Crescent.

Compared to the values in the available literature (i.e., J.D. Palmer, Soil Resistivity Measurement and

Analysis, Materials Performance, Volume 13, 1974), the above-mentioned range of soil resistivity

measured leads to soil corrosivity potential as “severe” along Ianhall Road and Bunnell Crescent,

“moderate” along Roding Street, Nash Drive, Hallsport Crescent and Dorking Crescent, and “mild” in

Roding Park and Gade Drive.

The measured water soluble sulphate in soil was generally low and ranged from <20 to 130 µg/g in

Assignment 16-22. In accordance with Table 3 of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Series CSA

A23.1-14, soil with the sulphate content ratio less than 0.1% (i.e., 1,000 ppm or µg/g) is not considered

aggressive to concrete. Therefore, in accordance with Table 6 of the CSA Series A23.1-14, Type GU

Portland cement may be used for concrete.

Soil corrosivity should be assessed by a corrosivity expert, if necessary.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 33

5.6.4 Construction Dewatering

The majority of boreholes were dry upon completion of drilling in Assignment 16-22, except for Boreholes

BH 16 and BH 23, where the initial groundwater level was 4.6 m below grade. The subsequent

groundwater monitoring on 2 and 21 November 2018 showed that the groundwater levels were 1.5 m to

6.5 m below the existing grade, with the corresponding elevations ranging from 177.6 m to 150.4 m.

Groundwater level measurements for Assignment 16-22 are summarized in Table 5.10.

Based on the planned sewer invert depths, the soils encountered at the boreholes and the groundwater

depths encountered at the boreholes, localized construction dewatering will likely be required to lower

the groundwater level in Assignment 16-22.

The presence of the sandy / silty soils should be relatively high permeability soil and should be considered

in dewatering planning. Accordingly, a hydrogeological assessment should be conducted for the site in

order to provide construction dewatering requirements in Assignment 16-22.

Water seepage, if encountered, in the native cohesive soils (clayey silt / silty clay / silt and clay, sandy silty

clay / sandy clayey silt till), should be manageable through gravity drainage and/or a filtered sump and

pump system. Within the water-bearing sandy/silty soils, a series of sump and pump or a system of well

points will likely be required for dewatering.

Section 6.0 provides relevant design and construction considerations.

5.7 Slope Stability Analyses for Slopes at Headwalls

As per Drawing Nos. 17-03309-029 and 17-03309-030 shown in Appendix C of this report, three (3)

precast concrete headwalls at slope toes in Roding Park are proposed, i.e., two 'south headwalls' located

underneath an embankment supporting the proposed asphalt walkway at the south of Roding Park (BH

16 in Figure 3), and one 'north headwall' at the northeastern part of Roding Park (BH 37 in Figure 3).

The existing slope at the north headwall was inspected on 17 January 2019 from which site photographs

are shown on Appendix D. At the time of inspection, the slope was approximately 8 m high and its surface

was covered with small trees and bushes. The existing headwall was about 10 m south of Borehole BH 37

location. The top of slope was a parking lot which showed numerous cracks on the asphalt-paved surface.

The mature trees on top of the slope were not inclined. The existing slope appeared to be stable,

although there could be some settlement at the top of the slope as indicated by the cracked pavement.

5.7.1 Slope Conditions Considered in Analyses

Slope stability analyses were conducted at the proposed headwalls located in Roding Park in order to

provide geotechnical recommendations for slopes to be built by backfilling trenches, if open cut is used to

install the sewers and headwalls. The analyses were carried out using the software package GeoStudio

SLOPE/W (Version 7.17) produced by GEO-SLOPE International Limited, employing the Morgenstern-Price

method of analyses with circular slip surfaces.

The following cases were considered for the slope stability analyses:

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 34

South headwalls (BH 16 Location)

• Case 1 – End of construction (replace the loose fill with engineered fill above El 156.0 m and build

walkway embankment with sewer and headwall), with measured groundwater level (El. 152.3 m),

• Case 2 – During service, with assumed groundwater level (El. 157.5 m) representing the probable water

level in the sewer,

• Case 3 – Rapid drawdown from 100-year flood level (El. 158.49 m) to the ground surface, assuming

flood water can seep into the embankment.

North headwall

• Case 1 – Existing slope, effective stress analysis,

• Case 2 – Existing slope, total stress analysis,

• Case 3 – End of construction (i.e., excavate to install the sewer and headwall, and backfill to form slope

over sewer), with no measured groundwater level (dry),

• Case 4 – During service, with assumed groundwater level (El. 162.0 m) representing the probable water

level in the sewer at the outlet (not along the sewer pipe). It should be noted that the soils

surrounding the sewer should be low permeability soils (i.e., clayey silt / silty clay) in order to prevent

surface water seeping into the slope and/or sewer leakage which may lead to groundwater flow within

the slope. Based on the investigation results and the recommended soil types around the sewer, there

should be no groundwater within the slope.

• Case 5 – During service, dry condition.

A surcharge of 10 kPa was applied on the asphalt walkway to represent the pedestrian load. The analytical

results are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

5.7.2 Soil Parameters for Analyses

Based on the findings from Boreholes BH 16, BH 21 and BH 37, the following soil parameters were

considered for the slope stability analyses, as shown in Table 5.14.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 35

Table 5.14: Soil Parameters for Slope Stability Analyses, Roding Park (Assignment 16-22)

Headwall Soil Type Unit Weight

γ (kN/m3)

Total Stress Effective Stress

Cohesion

c (kPa)

Friction Angle

ф (°)

Cohesion

c’ (kPa)

Friction Angle

ф’ (°)

General

Headwall (assumed to

be hard soil) 24 500 0 500 0

Engineered Fill 21 0(1) 30(1) 0(1) 30(1)

South Headwall

(BH 16)

Loose Sandy Silt Fill 18 0 26 0 26

Compact to Dense

Sand Fill 18 0 30 0 30

North Headwall

(BH 21 and BH 37)

Soft to firm Clayey Silt

/ Silty Clay Fill 19 50 0 0(2) 30(2)

Stiff Silty Clay 20 60 0 0(2) 30(2)

Very dense Sand 21 0 32 0 32

Notes:

(1) Applicable to both silty / sandy soil and clayey silt / silty clay soil. To be conservative, cohesion in clayey silt

/ silty clay soil is not considered (i.e., zero).

(2) Conservative long-term analysis since cohesion is not considered.

5.7.3 Results of Slope Stability Analyses – South Headwalls

Detail 1 in Drawing No. 17-03309-030 provided by CIMA+ was used as the cross section for the slope

stability analyses for the south headwalls. As the two headwalls are approximately at the same height,

only one case (the proposed headwall - north of walkway) was selected for slope stability analyses.

To support the walkway embankment with the proposed sewer, the loose sandy silt fill found near the

ground surface should be replaced with engineered fill from approximate El. 156 m up to the final grade.

The engineered fill should extend horizontally at least 5 m beyond both headwalls. Such

recommendation is used in the analytical model. Only deep-seated slip surfaces, i.e., underneath the

headwall and not above the top of the headwall (e.g., slope surface erosion), are considered. The

minimum calculated factors of safety (FOS) for the south headwall are presented in Figures 4.1 to 4.3 for

Case 1 to Case 3, and summarized in Table 5.15.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 36

Table 5.15: Calculated Minimum Safety Factors against Slope Instability – South Headwall

Roding Park (Assignment 16-22)

Case of Analysis

Soil

Parameters

Used

Figure

No.

Groundwater

Elevation

(m)

Minimum

Factor of

Safety (FOS)

Comments

Case 1 – End of construction

Measured groundwater level Total Stress 4.1 152.3 1.97 Stable

Case 2 – During service

Assumed groundwater level Effective Stress 4.2 157.5 1.54 Stable

Case 3 – Rapid drawdown from

100-year flood level (El. 158.49

m) to ground surface, assuming

flood water can seep into the

embankment

Total Stress 4.3 158.5* 1.46

(~ 1.5)

Stable, protect

slope surface

with dense

vegetation

Note: * elevation of 100-year flood level for the area.

The slope stability analysis results presented in Table 5.15 indicate that the south headwall slopes should

be stable, provided that:

(a) The existing loose fill is replaced with engineered fill (above El. 156 m to the final design grade),

(b) The embankment is built with engineered fill,

(c) Slope inclination is equal to or flatter than 2H:1V, and

(d) Protect slope surface with thick vegetation and topsoil.

5.7.4 Results of Slope Stability Analyses – North Headwall

Detail 2 in Drawing No. 17-03309-030 provided by CIMA+ was used as the cross section for slope stability

analyses for the north headwall. As per Detail 2, the proposed slope is 2H:1V with the height from El.

171 m to El. 161 m.

In the analyses, engineered fill was considered as backfill soil forming the slope after open cut excavation

to install the sewer and the headwall. The excavated soil can be reused to backfill the trench if it is clayey

silt / silty clay and can be compacted as engineered fill (Section 6.2), provided that the soil is

environmentally acceptable.

The calculated minimum factors of safety for the north headwall under the five (5) different cases (Section

5.7.1) are presented in Figures 5.1 to 5.5 and summarized in Table 5.16. Since the 100 year flood level is at

El. 158.49 m which is below the lowest ground surface elevation of the slope at El. 161.0 m, rapid

drawdown is not considered in the slope stability analysis.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 37

Table 5.16: Calculated Minimum Safety Factors against Slope Instability – North Headwall

Roding Park (Assignment 16-22)

Case of Analysis

Soil

Parameters

Used

Figure

No.

Groundwater

Elevation (m)

Minimum

Factor of

Safety (FOS)

Comments

Case 1 – Existing slope, (Effective

stress analysis) Effective Stress 5.1 Dry(1) 1.35(2) Stable

Case 2 – Existing slope

(Total stress analysis) Total Stress 5.2 Dry(1) 2.30(2) Stable

Case 3 – End of construction

(backfill trench with engineered

fill), dry condition

Total Stress 5.3 Dry(1) 1.62 Stable (2H:1V

slope)

Case 4 – During service

Assumed groundwater level Effective Stress 5.4 162.0 1.43 Stable

Case 5 – During service, dry

condition Effective Stress 5.5 Dry(1) 1.62

Stable

(Actual slope

condition)

Notes (1) Groundwater was not encountered in the boreholes. (2) The difference in the calculated FOS is due to the soil parameters used.

The analyses indicate that the existing slope should be stable under the current condition, and the new

slope formed by using engineered fill to backfill the trench for installing the sewer and headwall would be

stable, provided that:

(a) The existing fill is replaced with engineered fill,

(b) The slope is built with engineered fill prepared according to Section 6.2. The excavated soil may be

reused as engineered fill if it is clayey silt / silty clay and can be compacted as engineered fill, in

addition to being environmentally acceptable as mentioned in Section 6.2.

(c) Slope inclination is equal to or flatter than 2H:1V,

(d) Protect slope surface with thick vegetation and topsoil.

5.7.5 Conclusions and Recommendations

For the construction of slopes at the proposed headwalls, the following conclusions and

recommendations should be considered in the detail design and construction:

For the south headwalls:

• At least 1 m thick loose fill near the existing ground surface should be removed and replaced

engineered fill. Such replacement should extend horizontally at least 5 m from both headwalls.

• The proposed headwalls should be founded on engineered fill.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 38

• The proposed embankment should be constructed with engineered fill at 2H:1V or flatter slope and its

surface should be protected against erosion by surface water (e.g., thick vegetation, rip-rap on top

geotextile, etc.).

• The inlet / outlet at the headwalls should be protected against erosion by surface water and against

surface water seeping underneath the headwalls.

For the north headwall:

• Trench used to install the sewer and headwall should be backfilled with engineered fill from the sewer

invert up to the final ground surface. The excavated soil may be used as engineered fill if it is clayey

silt / silty clay and can be compacted as engineered fill, together with being environmentally

acceptable.

• The new backfill slope should be constructed at a slope of 2H:1V or flatter and its surface should be

protected against erosion (e.g., thick vegetation, bush, trees, etc.).

• The sewer should be properly sealed against leakage.

• The outlet should be protected against erosion by surface water.

6.0 GENERAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

General discussions and recommendations are presented in the following sections. Site specific

information for each project area is provided in Section 4.0 for Assignment 16-12 and Section 5.0 for

Assignment 16-22.

6.1 Site Preparation

Site preparation works for installing the proposed utilities (storm sewers, sanitary sewers and associated

maintenance holes) along the investigated roads will require excavation to depths ranging approximately

from 2.8 m to 13.5 m below the existing grades. Dewatering during site preparation will likely be required

in some areas.

The site preparation would require removing the existing asphaltic concrete pavement, the existing fill

soils and part of the native soils. Any topsoil and deleterious materials encountered during site

preparation should be removed from the founding subgrade.

It is recommended that incompetent soils (e.g., soft clayey soils), if encountered at and/or below the

planned founding elevations, be removed and replaced with engineered fill or equivalent material to

provide a uniform and competent subgrade for utility support. Engineered fill placement is discussed in

Section 6.2. Loose sandy soil subgrade, if encountered, should be re-compacted prior to installing the

proposed utilities. Soft clayey soil subgrade, if encountered, should be replaced with engineered fill.

If unsupported open cut cannot be carried out due to site constraints, temporary shoring will be required.

Temporary shoring is discussed in Section 6.3.2.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 39

6.2 Engineered Fill

Engineered fill should be used to backfill the excavations/soft spots and/or to raise the grade (if required).

Engineered fill should be placed after stripping existing fill materials, any soils containing organic matter

and otherwise unsuitable soils. Engineered fill would then be suitable to support the sewers and

associated maintenance holes. The City of Toronto's standards/specifications for preparing engineered fill

should be followed. Otherwise, engineered fill should be placed in thin layers not exceeding about 200

mm when loose and each fill layer should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 % of its Standard Proctor

Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD).

Excavated soils may be reused if compactable and environmentally-acceptable. For the north slope, the

excavated soils, if to be reused as engineered fill, should be clayey silt / silty clay and compactable as

engineered fill.

6.3 Open Cut Installation Method

The proposed storm and sanitary sewers may be installed by using open cut excavation method. The

proposed maintenance holes could be installed by open cut or augering.

6.3.1 Open Cut Excavation

The proposed storm and sanitary sewers may be installed by open cut in the areas where there are no site

restrictions or by trench excavation with temporary support in the areas where existing structures are

located close to the alignments of the proposed sewers and maintenance holes.

Where temporary shoring is necessary, the recommendations provided in Section 6.3.2 should be

adopted. All excavations should be carried out in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act

and Regulations for Construction Projects. The soils to be excavated can be classified as follows:

Existing fill soils Type 3

Firm silty/clayey soils Type 4

Stiff to very stiff silty/clayey soils Type 3

Hard silty/clayey soils Type 2

Loose silty/sandy soils Type 4

Compact to dense silty/sandy soils Type 3

Very dense silty/sandy soils Type 2

Accordingly, a sideslope of 1H:1V is required for excavations in Type 2 and Type 3 soils in accordance with

the Ontario Health and Safety Regulations. For Type 2 soil, a 1.2 m high vertical cut at the bottom of

excavation may generally be constructed. However, a 1.2 m high vertical cut in silty/sandy soils under

groundwater table may not be stable and flatter slopes may be required. For Type 4 soil, a 3H:1V

sideslope is required.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 40

Near the ground surface, occasional 3H:1V slopes may be required due to loose/soft surficial soils.

Should site boundary or existing structures restrict open cut excavation, a shoring system should be

considered. The shoring system should be designed and approved by a Professional Engineer.

Conventional excavation equipment should be suitable for excavation through the existing fill and native

soils. Cobbles and/or boulders may be encountered during excavation. Water seepage, if encountered

during excavation, should be manageable through appropriate construction dewatering means as

discussed in Section 6.7.

The terms describing the compactness (very loose, loose, compact, dense and very dense) or the

consistency (very soft, soft, firm, stiff, very stiff and hard) of soil give an indication of the effort needed for

excavation. For dense / hard soils, additional efforts, including use of hydraulic impact hammers during

excavation, may be required.

Stockpiles of excavated materials should be kept at least at the same distance as the excavation depth

from the top edge of the excavation to prevent slope instability, subject to confirmation by a Geotechnical

Engineer. Care should also be taken to avoid overloading any existing underground services/structures by

stockpiles.

6.3.2 Temporary Shoring

Temporary shoring may be required during vertical excavation and installation of the proposed storm and

sanitary sewers, and maintenance holes in areas of limited available space. This can be accomplished by a

sheetpile and bracing system or a trench box (or similar) in order to support the sides of the excavation.

The temporary shoring system should be designed by a professional engineer and should resist the lateral

earth, surcharge and hydrostatic pressures which could occur during construction. Bracings should also

be installed within the shoring system to minimize movements of the soils. The temporary shoring system

should be designed in accordance with the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual’s latest Edition and

the requirements of the Ontario Health and Safety Regulations.

The following soil parameters may be adopted for design:

Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure at rest = 0.5

Bulk Unit Weight of Retained Soils = 21 kN/m3

6.3.3 Pipe Bedding



during installation of the proposed sewers.

A filter fabric (e.g., non-woven geotextile, with FOS of 75 - 150 μm, Class II) should be placed as a

separator underneath the granular bedding material. Due to the presence of silty/sandy soils, a filter

fabric should be placed between all types of granular bedding material and the on-site silty/sandy soil

subgrade to restrict fines migration.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 41

The minimum thickness of granular bedding below the invert should be 150 mm. The thickness of the

bedding may, however, have to be increased depending on the sewer diameter or if wet or weak

subgrade conditions are encountered.

Loose silty/sandy soil subgrade, if encountered and exposed, should be compacted by a vibratory

compactor prior to placing pipe bedding. Very soft to soft clayey soil subgrade, if encountered, may

require Class A bedding and should be covered with lean concrete with a minimum thickness of 100 mm

to provide a workable surface and support to the proposed sewers. Otherwise, the very soft to soft clayey

soil subgrade should be removed and replaced by engineered fill, following the engineered fill placement

procedure as discussed in Section 6.2.

All pipe bedding and pipe cover materials should conform to the requirements of the Ontario Provincial

Standards Drawing Series OPSD 802.033 (Rigid Pipe Bedding, Cover and Backfill Rock Excavation) and/or

OPSD 802.010 (Flexible Pipe Embedment and Backfill – Earth Excavation).

6.3.4 Anti-Seepage Collars

For pipes installed under groundwater table, seepage through the granular pipe bedding and pipe cover

may cause erosion of the silty/sandy soils around the pipes. It is recommended that nominal anti-

seepage collars be provided at regular intervals, where the pipes are installed under groundwater table, to

prevent erosion of the granular soils placed around the pipes and/or loss of native soils around the pipes

through pipe bedding.

Anti-seepage collars should be placed at minimum intervals of lengths not exceeding 50 m along the

sewer alignments. Anti-seepage collars should also be placed at the locations where water seepage

through the pipe bedding to potential drainage outlets is high, including the vicinity of maintenance hole

locations.

The anti-seepage collar may consist of a clay plug (or similar material) surrounding the sewer pipe. A

typical clay plug should be about 1.0 m thick and extend laterally to a minimum distance of 0.5 m from

the pipe circumference.

The on-site native clayey soils should be suitable for such purpose. The excavated cohesive soils should

be confirmed as suitable clayey soils by carrying out geotechnical testing, including determination of

index properties and gradation, prior to utilization.

Uniform compaction of the soil around the collar may be difficult, depending on soil characteristics. It is

recommended that the compaction around the collars be carried out with adequate equipment and

compaction methods.

6.4 Excavation Backfill

Based on the visual and tactile examination of the soil samples, the on-site excavated fill soils (sandy

gravel, gravelly sand, sand, silty sand, sandy silt, clayey silt and silty clay), and the native soils (clayey silt /

silty clay / silt and clay, sandy silty clay to sandy clayey silt till, sandy silt to sand and silt till, and sand) may

be re-used as backfill soils in service trenches provided that all organic matters and deleterious materials,

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 42

if any, are removed and their water contents are approximately within 2 % of the optimum water

content.

The clayey soils will likely be excavated in cohesive chunks or blocks that will be difficult to handle and

compact. For use as backfill, these blocks should be reduced to less than 100 mm in size, placed in thin

layers, and compacted using suitable heavy equipment, particularly in narrow trenches.

Unless clayey soils are properly reduced in size and compacted in sufficiently thin lifts, post-construction

settlement could occur. It is therefore, recommended that in settlement-sensitive areas (i.e., along

investigated roads), granular materials be used as backfill to minimize subsequent settlement. Such

materials should be tested and approved by a Geotechnical Engineer prior to backfilling.

The on-site excavated soils may need reconditioning (e.g., drying) prior to use. The backfill material

should be placed according to the City of Toronto's standards/specifications. Alternatively, the backfill

should be placed in maximum 200 mm thick layers within ± 2 % of their optimum water content, and each

layer should be compacted to at least 95 % Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density. This value should be

increased to at least 98 % within 0.6 m below the top surface of the backfill (i.e., the bottom of road sub-

base) to minimize road settlement.

The on-site excavated soils should not be used in confined areas (e.g., narrow trenches) where heavy

compaction equipment cannot be operated. The use of good backfill together with an appropriate frost

taper would be preferable in confined areas. Unsuitable material such as organic soils, boulders, cobbles,

frozen soils, etc., should not be used for backfilling.

It is recommended that frost taper be provided at backfilled trenches, along the roads to be excavated, to

promote gradual transition from the frost-free materials to the frost susceptible in-situ soils, otherwise

differential frost heaving may occur. Frost taper would not be necessary if the backfill material can be

matched within the frost zone (i.e., within about 1.2 m depth below the pavement surfaces) with the

subgrade-type material.

6.5 Trenchless Considerations

Trenchless installation methods may be considered for the installation of the proposed utilities along

some roads where the open cut construction method cannot be used due to the site constraints (e.g.,

underground utilities, trees), or due to deep excavation depth.

If tunnelling is considered in some areas, applicable recommendations to trenchless installation should be

developed for the design and construction. Additional investigation may be required.

6.6 Foundations

The subsurface investigation results indicated that the proposed maintenance holes and headwalls would

be founded within highly-variable soil types and consistency/compactness, together with different

groundwater conditions. It should be cautioned that loose silty soils under high groundwater level and

soft clayey soils are present in some localized areas (as shown in Record of Boreholes), which would cause

difficulty in construction and lead to relatively-low bearing capacity.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 43

The existing fill soils are not, generally, considered suitable for supporting heavy loads due to possible

non-homogeneous compaction. Accordingly, the existing fill soils should be replaced by engineered fill

following the fill placement procedures as discussed in Section 6.2.

In general, most native soils would be suitable to provide adequate support for the proposed

maintenance holes.

Recommended geotechnical reactions / resistances for the founding stratum for the proposed

maintenance holes are summarizes in Table 4.8 in Section 4.0 for Assignment 16-12, and Table 5.12 in

Section 5.0 for Assignment 16-22.

For foundations designed and constructed as recommended in Sections 4.6.2 and 5.6.2 and in accordance

with good construction practice, the SLS soil bearing values provided would correspond to total and

differential settlements of not more than 25 mm and 20 mm, respectively. More representative values of

SLS/ULS soil bearing pressures, if required, should be estimated by conducting detailed foundation

analysis. In order to achieve the SLS/ULS soil bearing pressures as indicated in Table 4.8 and Table 5.12,

the exposed subgrade should be free of loose/soft, disturbed wet or otherwise deleterious materials.

The subgrade should be inspected and evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to confirm that the

proposed maintenance holes and headwalls are founded on competent subgrade capable of supporting

the recommended design pressures. The exposed subgrade should not be disturbed by construction

activities. Groundwater level, if encountered, should be lowered to at least 1.0 m below the lowest

foundation subgrade level during construction to maintain dry working conditions and stable excavation

bottom and slopes.

6.7 General Construction Dewatering Considerations

The groundwater levels encountered during drilling boreholes and measured in the monitoring wells are

provided on the Record of Boreholes and summarized in Table 4.6 for Assignment 16-12 and Table 5.10

for Assignment 16-22.

Based on the proposed sewer invert depths, the soils encountered at the boreholes and the groundwater

conditions, construction dewatering will likely be required in some areas during installation of the

proposed sewers and maintenance holes.

As the measured groundwater levels are higher than the majority of the proposed sewer invert elevations,

it is recommended that a hydrogeological site assessment be conducted for Assignments 16-12 and 16-

22 to assess any construction dewatering requirements and the associated level of dewatering effort

pertaining to construction along each road section to be excavated.

Water seepage, if encountered, in clayey soils, should be manageable through gravity drainage and/or a

filtered sump and pump system. Within the water-bearing silty / sandy soils, a series of sump and pump

or a system of well points may be required for dewatering.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 44

6.8 Earthquake Considerations

In conformance with the criteria in Table 4.1.8.4.A, Part 4, Division B of the Ontario Building Code (2012),

the project site may generally be classified as Site Class “D-Stiff Soil”.

The four (4) values of the spectral response acceleration, Sa (T), for different periods and the Peak Ground

Acceleration (PGA) can be obtained from Table C-2 in Appendix C, Division B of the National Building

Code (2010).

The design values of Fa and Fv for the project site should be determined in accordance with Table

4.1.8.4.B and Table 4.1.8.4.C in Part 4, Division B of the Ontario Building Code (2012).

6.9 Pavement Structure

To replace the existing pavement along the roads after excavation for installing sewers, the standard

pavement structure of the City of Toronto should be used.

7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL QUALITY ASSESSMENT

7.1 Methodology

The evaluation of the potential Contaminants of Concern (CofC) for Assignment 16-12 was based on a

cursory review of the City of Toronto and Google Maps aerial photographs only. Completion of Phase I

Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) was not included the scope of work for this assignment nor was

Wood provided with Phase I or Phase II ESAs by others to evaluate the CofCs.

From a review of 1940s to current City of Toronto and Google Maps aerial photographs, it was noted that

the areas investigated, and their surrounding properties were previously occupied by agricultural land

uses and are currently residential. Based on the aerial photograph review, potential COCs are

metals/inorganics parameters, PHCs, VOCs, PAHs, and PCBs in fill and OC-pesticides in landscaped/grassy

areas.

The soil samples retrieved during drilling were examined for visual and/or olfactory indicators of impact

and subsequently split into duplicate fractions. The primary sample fractions were placed into appropriate

sample containers provided by the laboratory and stored in ice-packed coolers for future laboratory

analysis. The duplicate sample fractions were placed in resealable plastic sample bags and stored at

ambient temperature for subsequent field vapour screening.

The duplicate sample fractions were field screened for combustible organic vapours (COVs) and total

organic vapours (TOVs) to assist in selecting the samples to be sent for laboratory analysis. The soil

samples were stored and sealed in resealable plastic bags and allowed to reach a temperature of

approximately 20 degrees Celsius. The soil vapours were measured with an RKI Eagle 2 (“Eagle”) organic

vapour meter calibrated using hexane gas (1,650 ppm) and isobutylene (100 ppm).

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 45

Each of the samples selected for chemical analysis were labelled using a unique identifier (borehole of

origin and sample interval) except for blind duplicate samples that were collected for Quality

Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) purposes that were assigned an alias. All primary samples were

stored in coolers on ice after collection and during transportation to the laboratory, Maxxam Analytics,

where they were delivered under continuous Chain of Custody documentation. Maxxam Analytics is

accredited in accordance with the International Standard ISO/IEC 17025 by the Standards Council of

Canada and has met the standards for parameters set out in the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment

Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act”, dated 15 April 2011.

7.2 Regulatory Framework

Soil quality was evaluated with respect to the regulatory requirements for contaminated sites in Ontario

established by Ontario Regulation 153/04 - Records of Site Condition, Part XV.1 of the Environmental

Protection Act (EPA), dated 15 April 2011, as amended (“O.Reg.153/04”).

The evaluation was completed by comparing the bulk analytical results to the Generic Site Condition

Standards (SCS) set out under O.Reg.153/04. The following assessment criteria were used for evaluation

of the results:

• Table 1 Full Depth Background SCS for residential / parkland / institutional / industrial / commercial /

community property use (Table 1 SCS). The Table 1 SCS would be applicable when assessing surplus

soil for off-site management when the receiving site type is unknown, is considered environmentally

sensitive, or is licensed to receive inert fill only.

• Table 2 Full Depth Generic SCS in a potable groundwater condition for industrial / commercial /

community property use and coarse textured soils (Table 2 SCS). The Table 2 SCS would be applicable

when assessing evaluating alternative locations for off-site soil management at a receiver site within a

potable ground water condition.

• Table 3 Full Depth Generic SCS in a non-potable groundwater condition for industrial / commercial /

community property use and coarse textured soils (Table 3 SCS). The Table 3 SCS would be applicable

when assessing surplus soil for off-site management at a receiver site within a non-potable ground

water condition.

In addition, the following assessment criteria were used to evaluate the soil quality for disposal purposes:

1. Schedule 4 Leachate Quality Criteria as outlined under Ontario Regulation 347/90, as amended.

7.3 Field and Soil Analytical Results, Assignment 16-12

Field screening soil samples were collected from each SPT interval at every borehole. The maximum

measured COV was 5 ppmv and the TOVs were non-detectable. No staining, debris, or odour were noted

in the screening samples. The measured COV and TOV are presented in the Records of Boreholes and in

analytical results Tables 1 to 5 (Appendix F1).

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 46

The results of the soil sample analyses along with the applicable SCS are summarized in Tables 1 through

6 (Appendices F1 and G1) and copies of the laboratory Certificates of Analyses are presented in Appendix

H. A summary of the samples exceeding the SCS for each of the analysed chemical parameter groups

(Section 3.4) is described in Sections 7.3.1 through 7.3.6.

7.3.1 Metals and Inorganics

The results of the metals and inorganics analyses and their respective SCS are presented in Table 1,

Appendix F1.

pH

The pH of surface soil samples (i.e., samples from a depth of less than 1.5 mbgs) ranged from 7.70 to 7.87

which is within the applicable range of 5 to 9 for surface soil as required for the application of the Generic

SCS.

The pH of sub-surface soil samples (i.e. samples from depths greater than 1.5 mbgs) ranged from 7.35 to

7.75 which is within the applicable pH range of 5 to 11 for sub-surface soil as required for the application

of the Generic SCS.

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Table 3 SCS Exceedances – BH 1 SS2 (0.8-1.4 mbgs) and BH 13 SS4 (2.3 – 2.9 mbgs).

Table 1 SCS Exceedances - Three (3) soil samples, BH 7 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH 9 SS-2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs),

BH 11 SS4 (2.3 – 2.9 mbgs) had levels that exceeded the Table 1 SCS but were below the Table 2 and

Table 3 SCS.

The remaining four (4) samples met the SCS.

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

Table 3 SCS Exceedances – BH 7 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH 9 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH 11 SS4 (2.3 – 2.9

mbgs).


mbgs), and BH 13 SS4 (2.3 – 2.9 mbgs), had levels that exceeded the Table 1 SCS, but were below the

Table 2 and Table 3 SCS.

The remaining two (2) samples met the SCS.

Cyanide

All nine (9) samples had measured concentrations of cyanide below the Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 SCS.

Metals

All nine (9) samples had measured concentrations of metals below the Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 SCS.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 47

7.3.2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Fractions (PHC F1-F4) and BTEX

The results of the PHC F1-F4 and BTEX analyses and their respective SCS are contained in Table 2 in

Appendix 1.

Table 1 SCS Exceedance – BH 15 SS3 (1.5 – 2.1 mbgs) has a PHC F4 concentration that exceeded the Table

1 SCS, but it was below the Table 2 and Table 3 SCS. BH 3 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs) had Reportable Detection

Limits (RDLs) (Section 7.5) for benzene and xylenes that exceeded the Table 1 SCS but was below the

Table 2 and Table 3 SCS.

The remaining seven (7) samples met the SCS.

7.3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

The results of the VOCs analyses are summarized in Table 3, Appendix F1. VOCs were not detected in the

analysed soil samples, so VOCs meet the SCS.

7.3.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

The results of the PAHs analyses are summarized in Table 4, Appendix F1. The analysed soil samples had

PAH concentrations that were below the SCS.

7.3.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Three (3) soil samples were submitted for laboratory analyses of PCBs. The results of the PCBs analyses

are summarized in Table 5, Appendix F1. PCBs were not detected in the analysed soil samples, so PCBs

would meet the SCS.

7.3.6 Organochlorine Pesticides

The results of the OC-pesticides analysis are summarized in Table 5, Appendix F1. OC-pesticides were not

detected, so OC-pesticides would meet the SCS.

7.3.7 Regulation 347 Waste Characterization

The results of the O. 347, as amended leachate analyses and their respective Schedule 4 Leachate Quality

Criteria are summarized in Table 6, Appendix G1. Based on the results of these analyses, all parameters

were within the leachate quality criteria for inorganics, metals, VOCs, benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs, and the

sample was not characterized as ignitable.

7.4 Field and Soil Analytical Results, Assignment 16-22

Field screening soil samples were collected from each SPT interval at every borehole. The maximum

measured COV was 10 ppmv and the TOVs were non-detectable. No staining, debris, or odour were noted

in the screening samples. The measured COV and TOV are presented in the borehole logs (Appended)

and in analytical results Tables 1 to 5 (Appendix F2).

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 48

The results of the soil sample analyses along with the applicable SCS are summarized in Tables 1 through

6 (Appendix F2) and copies of the laboratory Certificates of Analyses are presented in Appendix H. A

summary of the samples exceeding the SCS for each of the analyzed chemical parameter groups (Section

3.4) is described in Sections 7.4.1 through 7.4.6.

7.4.1 Metals and Inorganics

The results of the metals and inorganics analyses and their respective SCS are presented in Table 1,

Appendix F2.

pH

The pH of surface soil samples (i.e., samples from a depth of less than 1.5 mbgs) ranged from 7.39 to 7.84

which is within the applicable range of 5 to 9 for surface soil as required for the application of the Generic

SCS.

The pH of sub-surface soil samples (i.e. samples from depths greater than 1.5 mbgs) ranged from 7.21 to

7.85 which is within the applicable pH range of 5 to 11 for sub-surface soil as required for the application

of the Generic SCS. Note: the 7.21 pH is based on the average pH for sample BH 23 SS3 and its duplicate

BH 23 DUP2.

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Table 1 SCS Exceedances – BH 19 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH 21 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH23 SS3 (1.5 – 2.1

mbgs) and its duplicate BH 23 DUP2, BH27 SS3 (1.5 –2.1 mbgs), BH 27 SS3 (1.5 – 2.1 mbgs), BH 29 SS2

(0.8 – 1.4 mbgs) and its duplicate BH 29 DUP1, BH 32 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs) and BH 35 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs),

exceeded the Table 1 SCS, but were below the Table 2 and Table 3 SCS, for EC.

The remaining four (4) samples met the SCS for EC.

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)


mbgs) and its duplicate BH 29 DUP1. Note: the SAR exceedance for BH 29 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs) and its

duplicate BH 29 DUP1 is based on their average.

Table 1 SCS Exceedances – BH 21 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH 23 SS3 (1.5 – 2.1 mbgs) and its duplicate BH 23

DUP2, BH 25 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), BH 32 SS2 (0.8 –1.4 mbgs) and BH 35 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs), exceeded

the Table 1 SCS, but were below the Table 2 and Table 3 SCS.

The remaining three (3) samples met the SCS.

Cyanide

All eleven (11) samples, and the two (2) field duplicates, had measured concentrations of cyanide below its

Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 SCS.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 49

Metals

All eleven (11) samples, and the two (2) field duplicates, had measured concentrations of metals below

their Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 SCS.

7.4.2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Fractions (PHC F1-F4) and BTEX

The results of the PHC F1-F4 and BTEX analyses are summarized in Table 2, Appendix F2.

Table 1 SCS Exceedance – BH 27 SS3 (1.5 - 2.1 mbgs) had Reportable Detection Limits (RDLs) (Section 7.5)

that exceeded Table 1 SCS but was below the Table 2 and Table 3 SCS for benzene and xylenes.

The remaining ten (10) samples and two (2) field duplicate samples met the SCS.

7.4.3 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

The results of the VOCs analyses are summarized in Table 3, Appendix F2. As shown, VOCs were not

detected, so they would meet the SCS.

7.4.4 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

The results of the PAHs analyses are summarized in Table 4, Appendix F2. The analysed soil samples had

PAH concentrations that were below the SCS.

7.4.5 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

The results of the PCBs analyses are summarized in Table 5, Appendix F2. The analysed soil samples had

PCB concentrations that were below the SCS.

7.4.6 Organochlorine Pesticides

The results of the OC-pesticides analyses are summarized in Table 5, Appendix F2. The analysed soil

samples had OC-pesticide concentrations that were below the SCS.

7.4.7 Regulation 347 Waste Characterization

The results of the Reg. 347, as amended, leachate analyses and their respective Schedule 4 Leachate

Quality Criteria are summarized in Table 6, Appendix G2. Based on the results of these analyses, all

parameters were within the leachate quality criteria for inorganics, metals, VOCs, benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs,

and the sample was not characterized as ignitable.

7.5 Quality Assurance Program

In addition to field activities pertaining to quality assurance (decontamination of non-dedicated

equipment, instrument calibration, etc.), an analytical quality assurance program was also implemented.

The analytical quality assurance program usually includes the collection of blind duplicate samples. As the

drilling program for Assignments 16-12 and 16-22 was completed concurrently, blind duplicate soil

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 50

samples which are also collected for the quality assurance program were collected from Assignment 16-

12.

The validity of the analytical results reported for the samples collected during this investigation has been

assessed using the criteria presented in Protocol for Analytical Methods Used in the Assessment of

Properties under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, 09 March 2004, amended as of 01 July

2011 (the “Analytical Protocol”). The Analytical Protocol establishes Acceptance Limits for use when

assessing the reliability of data reported by analytical laboratories. These include maximum hold times for

the storage of samples/sample extracts between collection and analysis, specified/approved analytical

methods, required field and/or laboratory quality assurance samples such as blanks and field and

laboratory duplicate, specified recovery ranges for spiked samples and surrogates (compounds added to

samples in known concentrations for data validation purposes), required Reporting Limits and specified

precision required when analysing laboratory duplicate samples.

It should be noted that the requirements of the Analytical Protocol are applicable to analytical data used

in support of the filing of a Record of Site Condition and that their use on other types of projects is on a

best scientific practice basis rather than as a mandatory requirement.

The results of the QA/QC analyses are included on the laboratory Certificates of Analyses presented in

Appendices F for Assignments 16-12 and 16-22 and are further discussed in Appendices H1 (Assignment

16-12) and H2 (Assignment 16-22).

Based on the results reported for the laboratory and field quality control samples, it is considered that

laboratory analysis, sample collection, sample storage, and transportation of the samples to the

laboratory, had no material effect on the quality of the analytical results reported for the collected soil

samples except for sample BH3 SS2 (0.8 – 1.4 mbgs) (Assignment 16 – 12 and BH27 SS3 (1.5-2.1 mbgs)

(Assignment 16-22). Due to elevated Reportable Detection Limits for benzene and xylenes in both of the

subject samples, there is uncertainty as to whether the actual concentrations of the subject analytes

exceed the Table 1 SCS.

7.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

1. Based on the limited soil chemical analyses results currently available, the quality of excess soil

generated during the program is expected to be variable and as such, soil quality will need to be

monitored during excavation activities.

2. Additional sampling may be required to delineate and define the extent of impact above the Table 1

SCS and to ensure appropriate management/disposal of the excess soil. If stockpiling of soil is not

permitted during construction, additional sampling may be required prior to initiating the

construction activities.

3. Excess soils with concentrations of benzene, and xylenes exceeding the Table 1 SCS may not be

suitable for offsite management at un-regulated receiver sites without additional volume / area-

based characterization and management unless otherwise confirmed by the receiver’s Site’s Qualified

Person (QP) as part of a Fill Management Plan.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 51

4. Soils with concentrations exceeding the Table 1 SCS are not considered to be inert fill but can be

disposed at MECP authorized disposal sites or to a suitable receiver that accepts soil meeting Table

2/3 SCS.

5. As per the guidelines of the MECP document entitled, Management of Excess Soils: A Guide for Best

Management Practices, dated 06 June 2017, these soil sampling results should be used in the

preparation of an excess Soil Management Plan authored by a QP before excess soils are removed

for offsite management/disposal. Note: the MECP are currently preparing proposed regulations for

the management of excess soil. If the new regulations are approved and enacted before

construction, their requirements will need to be fulfilled.

The characterization and assessment of soil were based on Wood’s understanding of site conditions and

available information at the time of the geotechnical investigation. Phase I and Phase II ESAs have not

been conducted by Wood for the Site and Wood does not warrant that the analytical schedule addresses

all the potential environmental issues at the site. The soil chemical analyses results are preliminary and

not intended to provide a complete assessment of conditions at the Site. Further assessment and/or

chemical analyses would be considered appropriate depending on the soil management option selected

and/or receiver’s requirements.

8.0 BULK ASBESTOS ANALYSES

8.1 Scope of Work

The geotechnical fieldwork included retrieval of asphaltic core samples from existing asphaltic concrete

pavement for the purposes of determination of asbestos content. A total of forty-two (42) asphaltic core

samples were collected before the geotechnical investigation, which consisted of ten (10) asphaltic

concrete core samples collected at Assignment 16-12 and thirty-two (32) asphaltic concrete core samples

collected at Assignment 16-22.

The asphaltic concrete core locations for Assignments 16-12 and 16-22 are provided in Tables 4.7 and

5.11 respectively.

Asphalt samples were submitted under chain of custody protocol to an accredited laboratory for analysis

to determine asbestos content.

8.2 Methodology

Asphaltic concrete was encountered at the ground surface at all boreholes located on road sections and

the asphaltic core samples were collected. Based on existing information regarding the existing asphalt

and visual observations at the time of sampling, each street was considered to be a unique location.

Despite the laboratory layering out two (2) phases within the individual core samples, Wood did not

visually observe specific distinctions within individual core samples to indicate distinct separable layers.

As such, each asphalt core to be disturbed during this project is considered to be a homogeneous material.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 52

The asphaltic core samples were submitted under chain of custody protocol to EMC Scientific Incorporated

(“EMC”) in Mississauga, Ontario for asbestos analysis. The core samples were reduced in volume by EMC

staff so that the subsequent samples (sub-samples) were representative of the entire depth of the original

core samples. EMC is accredited for bulk asbestos fiber analysis by the National Voluntary Laboratory

Accreditation Program (NVLAP).

Bulk samples of suspected asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) are analyzed following polarized light

microscopy (PLM) methodology. This method is specified by Ontario Regulation 278/05 “Designated

Substance – Asbestos On Construction Projects And In Buildings And Repair Operations” (O. Reg. 278/05) for

establishing whether the material is an ACM and defining the content and type of asbestos, if any. However,

in certain non-friable organically bound (NOB) materials (such as asphalt), small asbestos fibres may be

missed by PLM due to resolution limitations of the optical microscope that can result in a false negative

analytical result. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) can be used as a confirmatory technique for

asbestos composition. TEM analysis is more sensitive than PLM analysis and is generally regarded as more

definitive regarding asbestos analysis. TEM analysis was not included in this project.

A material is considered to be an ACM if the content of asbestos is 0.5% or greater in accordance with O.

Reg. 278/05. Further, as per Section 3(4) of O. Reg. 278/05, “if analysis establishes that a bulk material

sample contains 0.5 per cent or more asbestos by dry weight, the entire area of homogeneous material from

which the bulk material sample was taken is deemed to be asbestos-containing material.”

8.3 Summary of Results

Analytical Certificates of Analysis for asphaltic concrete core samples are attached in Appendix J for

Assignment 16-12 and Assignment 16-22 in this report, and the analysis results for the asphaltic concrete

core samples at Assignment 16-12 are presented in Table 8.1 below:

Table 8.1: Asbestos Bulk Sampling Analytical Results (Assignment 16-12)

Sample

No. Lab Sample ID Sample Location Description

Friable/Non-

Friable

Laboratory Results

Asbestos

Fibres (%)

Asbestos

Types

C1 A43576-1 Gracefield Avenue N/A None Detected





CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 53

Sample

No. Lab Sample ID Sample Location Description

Friable/Non-

Friable

Laboratory Results

Asbestos

Fibres (%)

Asbestos

Types

C6 A43576-6 Gracefield Avenue Non-Friable

0.5% Chrysotile

1% Chrysotile


C8 A43576-8 Gracefield Avenue and Keele

Street N/A <0.5% Chrysotile

C9 A43576-9 Keele Street N/A None Detected

C10 A43576-10 Keele Street N/A None Detected

Note:

An asbestos-containing material is defined as a material that contains to 0.5, or greater, percent asbestos by dry

weight in accordance with O. Reg. 278/05.

The analysis results for the asphaltic concrete core samples for Assignment 16-22 are presented in Table

8.2 below:

Table 8.2: Asbestos Bulk Sampling Analytical Results (Assignment 16-22)

Sample

No. Lab Sample ID Sample Location

Friable/Non-

Friable

Laboratory Results

Asbestos

Fibres (%)

Asbestos

Types

C11 A43576-11 Ianhall Road N/A None Detected

C12 A43576-12 Ianhall Road N/A None Detected

C13 A43576-13 Gade Drive N/A None Detected

C14 A43576-14 Gade Drive N/A <0.5% Chrysotile

C15 A43576-15 Gade Drive and Roding Street N/A None Detected

C16 A43576-16 Roding Park Entrance N/A None Detected

C17 A43576-17 Roding Street and Nash Drive N/A None Detected

C18 A43576-18 Nash Drive N/A None Detected


CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 54

Sample


Friable/Non-

Friable

Laboratory Results

Asbestos

Fibres (%)

Asbestos

Types


C21 A43576-21 Nash Drive and Gade Drive N/A None Detected




C25 A43576-25 Bunnell Crescent N/A None Detected




C29 A43576-29 Nash Drive and Bunnell

Crescent N/A None Detected

C30 A43576-30 Between 43 Nash Drive and 35

Hallsport Crescent N/A None Detected

C31 A43576-31 Bunnell Crescent and Hallsport

Crescent N/A None Detected

C32 A43576-32 Hallsport Crescent N/A None Detected





C37 A43576-37 Hallsport Crescent and Agate

Road N/A None Detected

C38 A43576-38 Dorking Crescent N/A None Detected



CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 55

Sample


Friable/Non-

Friable

Laboratory Results

Asbestos

Fibres (%)

Asbestos

Types



Note:

An asbestos-containing material is defined as a material that contains to 0.5, or greater, percent asbestos by dry

weight in accordance with O. Reg. 278/05.

8.4 Discussion and Conclusions

8.4.1 Assignment 16-12

Results of analysis of the ten (10) asphaltic core samples collected from Assignment 13-12 indicate the

following:

• One (1) sample, C6 (Lab Sample #A43576-6), Table 8.1, was found to contain chrysotile asbestos

(identified as 0.5% chrysotile in one laboratory identified layer and 1% chrysotile in a second laboratory

identified layer).

• One (1) sample, C8 (Lab Sample #A43576-8), Table 8.1, was found to contain <0.5% chrysotile

asbestos, which is not considered to be asbestos-containing as per O. Reg. 278/05.

• Asbestos was not detected in the remaining nine (9) samples.

Based on the results of analysis, the asphalt sampled in Assignment 16-12 along Gracefield Avenue was

found to contain asbestos.

8.4.2 Assignment 16-22

Results of analysis of the thirty-two (32) asphaltic core samples collected from Assignment 16-22 indicate

the following:

• One (1) sample, C14 (Lab Sample #A43576-14), Table 8.2, was found to contain <0.5% chrysotile

asbestos, which is not considered to be asbestos-containing as per O. Reg. 278/05.

• Asbestos was not detected in the remaining thirty-one (31) samples in Assignment 16-22.

All asphaltic concrete to be disturbed during this project are considered to be a homogeneous material as

noted by street and road locations above. In accordance with O. Reg. 278/05, correspondingly, all asphaltic

concrete road sections having asbestos-containing cores should be treated as asbestos-containing and

handled in accordance with O. Reg. 278/05. This includes all asphaltic concrete road along Gracefield

Avenue in Assignment 16-12.

CIMA Canada Inc.





19 March 2019

Page 56

Asphaltic concrete along the remaining roads in Assignment 16-12 and 16-22 are considered to be non-

asbestos-containing as per O. Reg. 278/05.

All ACM must be removed from the work area prior to renovation and/or demolition projects. Removal or

abatement of ACM must be completed by a qualified asbestos abatement worker and in accordance with

the requirements of O. Reg. 278/05.

9.0 CLOSURE

The subsurface soil conditions and recommendations contained in this report should be used solely for

the purpose of design of the project. All the works were conducted under the Terms and Conditions which

form a part of CIMA+’s Purchase Order B2018-002331 and a change order issued on 12 October 2018, for

one additional borehole at the proposed headwall location.

It is recommended that Wood, formerly Amec Foster Wheeler, be retained to review the subsurface

information and recommendations for this specific applicability, once the details of the development are

available and prior to the final design stage of the project. Additional borehole investigation and analyses

may be required to fulfil the final design requirements.

The environmental part of this report was prepared by Edwin Whitford, P. Eng. and reviewed by Ian

Powell, P. Geo.; the bulk asbestos analyses was prepared by Lisa Scolaro, ROH, CRSP, CHSC and reviewed

by Rita Korczynski, PhD, CIH, CRSP; and the geotechnical part of this report was prepared by Wenqi

(Linda) Ji, M. Sc., P. Eng., P. Geo. A senior technical review of the report was completed by Prapote

Boonsinsuk, Ph.D., P. Eng.

The attached Limitations to Geotechnical Reports are an integral part of this report.

Sincerely,



Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Wenqi (Linda) Ji, M.Sc. P. Eng., P. Geo. Prapote Boonsinsuk, Ph.D., P. Eng.

Project Manager/Senior Geotechnical Engineer Principal Geotechnical Engineer

LIMITATIONS TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented herein are subject to the

following:

a) The contract between Wood and the Client, including any subsequent written amendment or Change Order dully signed by the parties (hereinafter together referred as the “Contract”);

b) Any and all time, budgetary, access and/or site disturbance, risk management preferences, constraints or

restrictions as described in the contract, in this report, or in any subsequent communication sent by Wood

to the Client in connection to the Contract; and

c) The limitations stated herein.

2. Standard of care: Wood has prepared this report in a manner consistent with the level of skill and are ordinarily

exercised by reputable members of Wood’s profession, practicing in the same or similar locality at the time of

performance, and subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to the scope of work, and terms

and conditions for this assignment. No other warranty, guaranty, or representation, expressed or implied, is

made or intended in this report, or in any other communication (oral or written) related to this project. The

same are specifically disclaimed, including the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular

purpose.

3. Limited locations: The information contained in this report is restricted to the site and structures evaluated by Wood and to the topics specifically discussed in it, and is not applicable to any other aspects, areas or locations.

4. Information utilized: The information, conclusions and estimates contained in this report are based exclusively on:

i) information available at the time of preparation, ii) the accuracy and completeness of data supplied by the Client

or by third parties as instructed by the Client, and iii) the assumptions, conditions and qualifications/limitations set

forth in this report.

5. Accuracy of information: No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of any information provided by the

Client or third parties, except as specifically stated in this report (hereinafter “Supplied Data”). Wood cannot be held

responsible for any loss or damage, of either contractual or extra-contractual nature, resulting from conclusions that

are based upon reliance on the Supplied Data.

6. Report interpretation: This report must be read and interpreted in its entirety, as some sections could be

inaccurately interpreted when taken individually or out-of-context. The contents of this report are based upon the

conditions known and information provided as of the date of preparation. The text of the final version of this report

supersedes any other previous versions produced by Wood.

7. No legal representations: Wood makes no representations whatsoever concerning the legal significance of its

findings, or as to other legal matters touched on in this report, including but not limited to, ownership of any

property, or the application of any law to the facts set forth herein. With respect to regulatory compliance issues,

regulatory statutes are subject to interpretation and change. Such interpretations and regulatory changes should be

reviewed with legal counsel.

8. Decrease in property value: Wood shall not be responsible for any decrease, real or perceived, of the property or

site’s value or failure to complete a transaction, as a consequence of the information contained in this report.

9. No third party reliance: This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated

otherwise in the report or Contract. Any use or reproduction which any third party makes of the report, in whole or

in part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or conclusions in the report is the sole

responsibility of such third party. Wood does not represent or warrant the accuracy, completeness, merchantability,

fitness for purpose or usefulness of this document, or any information contained in this document, for use or

consideration by any third party. Wood accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or

kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions taken or not taken or decisions made in reliance on this

report or anything set out therein, including without limitation, any indirect, special, incidental, punitive or

consequential loss, liability or damage of any kind.

10. Assumptions: Where design recommendations are given in this report, they apply only if the project contemplated

by the Client is constructed substantially in accordance with the details stated in this report. It is the sole

responsibility of the Client to provide to Wood changes made in the project, including but not limited to, details in

the design, conditions, engineering or construction that could in any manner whatsoever impact the validity of the

recommendations made in the report. Wood shall be entitled to additional compensation from Client to review and

assess the effect of such changes to the project.

11. Time dependence: If the project contemplated by the Client is not undertaken within a period of 18 months

following the submission of this report, or within the time frame understood by Wood to be contemplated by the

Client at the commencement of Wood’s assignment, and/or, if any changes are made, for example, to the elevation,

design or nature of any development on the site, its size and configuration, the location of any development on the

site and its orientation, the use of the site, performance criteria and the location of any physical infrastructure, the

conclusions and recommendations presented herein should not be considered valid unless the impact of the said

changes is evaluated by Wood, and the conclusions of the report are amended or are validated in writing

accordingly.

Advancements in the practice of geotechnical engineering, engineering geology and hydrogeology and changes in

applicable regulations, standards, codes or criteria could impact the contents of the report, in which case, a

supplementary report may be required. The requirements for such a review remain the sole responsibility of the

Client or their agents.

Wood will not be liable to update or revise the report to take into account any events or emergent circumstances or

facts occurring or becoming apparent after the date of the report.

12. Limitations of visual inspections: Where conclusions and recommendations are given based on a visual inspection

conducted by Wood, they relate only to the natural or man-made structures, slopes, etc. inspected at the time the

site visit was performed. These conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions of the site or

structures, which were not reasonably available, in Wood’s opinion, for direct observation.

13. Limitations of site investigations: Site exploration identifies specific subsurface conditions only at those points

from which samples have been taken and only at the time of the site investigation. Site investigation programs are a

professional estimate of the scope of investigation required to provide a general profile of subsurface conditions.

The data derived from the site investigation program and subsequent laboratory testing are interpreted by trained

personnel and extrapolated across the site to form an inferred geological representation and an engineering

opinion is rendered about overall subsurface conditions and their likely behaviour with regard to the proposed

development. Despite this investigation, conditions between and beyond the borehole/test hole locations may

differ from those encountered at the borehole/test hole locations and the actual conditions at the site might differ

from those inferred to exist, since no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal all

subsurface details and anomalies.

Final sub-surface/bore/profile logs are developed by geotechnical engineers based upon their interpretation of field

logs and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Customarily, only the final bore/profile logs are included in

geotechnical engineering reports.

Bedrock, soil properties and groundwater conditions can be significantly altered by environmental remediation and/or

construction activities such as the use of heavy equipment or machinery, excavation, blasting, pile-driving or

draining or other activities conducted either directly on site or on adjacent terrain. These properties can also be

indirectly affected by exposure to unfavorable natural events or weather conditions, including freezing, drought,

precipitation and snowmelt.

During construction, excavation is frequently undertaken which exposes the actual subsurface and groundwater

conditions between and beyond the test locations, which may differ from those encountered at the test locations. It

is recommended practice that Wood be retained during construction to confirm that the subsurface conditions

throughout the site do not deviate materially from those encountered at the test locations, that construction work

has no negative impact on the geotechnical aspects of the design, to adjust recommendations in accordance with

conditions as additional site information is gained and to deal quickly with geotechnical considerations if they arise.

Interpretations and recommendations presented herein may not be valid if an adequate level of review or

inspection by Wood is not provided during construction.

14. Factors that may affect construction methods, costs and scheduling: The performance of rock and soil materials

during construction is greatly influenced by the means and methods of construction. Where comments are made

relating to possible methods of construction, construction costs, construction techniques, sequencing, equipment

or scheduling, they are intended only for the guidance of the project design professionals, and those responsible

for construction monitoring. The number of test holes may not be sufficient to determine the local underground

conditions between test locations that may affect construction costs, construction techniques, sequencing,

equipment, scheduling, operational planning, etc.

Any contractors bidding on or undertaking the works should draw their own conclusions as to how the subsurface

and groundwater conditions may affect their work, based on their own investigations and interpretations of the

factual soil data, groundwater observations, and other factual information.

15. Groundwater and Dewatering: Wood will accept no responsibility for the effects of drainage and/or dewatering

measures if Wood has not been specifically consulted and involved in the design and monitoring of the drainage

and/or dewatering system.

16. Environmental and Hazardous Materials Aspects: Unless otherwise stated, the information contained in this report in

no way reflects on the environmental aspects of this project, since this aspect is beyond the Scope of Work and the

Contract. Unless expressly included in the Scope of Work, this report specifically excludes the identification or

interpretation of environmental conditions such as contamination, hazardous materials, wild life condi tions, rare

plants or archeology conditions that may affect use or design at the site. This report specifically excludes the

investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of conditions that can contribute to moisture, mould or other

microbial contaminant growth and/or other moisture related deterioration, such as corrosion, decay, rot in

buildings or their surroundings. Any statements in this report or on the boring logs regarding odours, colours,

and unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for informational purposes

17. Sample Disposal: Wood will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and rock samples after 30 days following the

release of the final geotechnical report. Should the Client request that the samples be retained for a longer

time, the Client will be billed for such storage at an agreed upon rate. Contaminated samples of soil, rock or

groundwater are the property of the Client, and the Client will be responsible for the proper disposal of these

samples, unless previously arranged for with Wood or a third party.

Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions,


FIGURES

FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION PLAN, ASSIGNMENT 16-12 AND ASSIGNMENT 16-22

FIGURE 2: BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN, ASSIGNMENT 16-12

FIGURE 3: BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN, ASSIGNMENT 16-22

FIGURE 4.1: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED SOUTH HEADWALL (BH 16 LOCATION)

CASE 1 – END OF CONSTRUCTION, MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL (EL. 152.3 M)


CASE 2 – DURING SERVICE, ASSUMED GROUNDWATER LEVEL (EL. 157.5 M)


CASE 3 – RAPID DRAWDOWN FROM 100-YEAR FLOOD LEVEL (EL. 158.49 M)

FIGURE 5.1: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SLOPE (BH 37 LOCATION)

CASE 1 – EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS

FIGURE 5.2: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING SLOPE (BH 37 LOCATION)

CASE 2 – TOTAL STRESS ANALYSIS

FIGURE 5.3: SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED NORTH HEADWALL (BH 37 LOCATION)

CASE 3 – END OF CONSTRUCTION, BACKFILL TRENCH WITH ENGINEERED FILL, DRY

CONDITION


CASE 4 – DURING SERVICE, BACKFILL TRENCH WITH ENGINEERED FILL, ASSUMED

GROUNDWATER LEVEL (EL. 162.0 M)


CASE 5 – DURING SERVICE, BACKFILL TRENCH WITH ENGINEERED FILL, DRY

CONDITION

ASSIGNMENT 16-12

ASSIGNMENT 16-22

MTM Zone 10

PROJECTION:

NAD27

DATUM:

SITE LOCATION PLAN

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT LOGO

FIGURE No.

CIMA CANADA INC.

LEGEND

ASSIGNMENT NO:

1

PROJECT NO:

TT183004

16-12 & 16-22

CLIENT:

DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

JANUARY 2019

DATE:

SCALE:

WJ

AS SHOWN

KW




TORONTO, ONTARIO

50 Vogell Road, Units 3 & 4, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3K6



N

0 150 300

APPROXIMATE SCALE

600m450

G

r

a

c

e

fie

ld

A

v

e

G

r

a

d

e

D

r

N

a

s

h

D

r

D

o

r

k

in

g

C

r

e

s

B

u

n

n

e

ll C

r

e

s

H

a

lls

p

o

r

t C

r

e

s

BH 13

BH 14

BH 15

C9

MH KS2

BH 11

BH 9

BH 8

BH 10

BH 12

C6

C5

BM NY19033

MH KS1

MH GA1

C7

C8

BH 7

BH 6

BH 5

C3

C4

BH 4

BH 1

BH 2BH 3

C1

C2

0 15 30

APPROXIMATE SCALE

60m45

MTM Zone 10

PROJECTION:

NAD27

DATUM:

TITLE

PROJECT

CLIENT LOGO

FIGURE No.

CIMA CANADA INC.

ASSIGNMENT NO:

2

PROJECT NO:

TT183004

16-12

CLIENT:

DWN BY:

CHK'D BY:

MARCH 2019

DATE:

SCALE:

WJ

AS SHOWN

KW




TORONTO, ONTARIO

50 Vogell Road, Units 3 & 4, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3K6



N

Site Map - N.T.S.

N

Matchlin

e A

-A

Ma

tch

line

B

-B

Ma

tchline A

-A

Matchline B

-B

BR

YN

R

D

DE

L R

IA

D

R

Q

U

E

E

N

S

D

R

CU

LF

OR

D R

D

BOREHOLE WITH MONITORING WELL LOCATION

BOREHOLE LOCATION

SITE AND BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

LEGEND

ASPHALTIC CONCRETE CORE LOCATION

BENCHMARK (NY19033)

HORIZONTAL CONTROL POINTS

020740634

020690127

2460 K

eele S

t

PROPOSED MANHOLE

Documents

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT BASEMENT FLOODING