Stantec Consulting Ltd 207-201 Churchill Drive Membertou NS …tarpondscleanup.ca/upload/135402608420120213 CO6A... · 2012-11-27 · • Project Item QCP-05: Performed visual field

Stantec Consulting Ltd 207-201 Churchill Drive Membertou NS B1S 0H1 Tel: (902) 564-1855 Fax: (902) 564-8756

February 13, 2012 File: 121410955.245

Sydney Tar Ponds Agency 1 Inglis Street PO Box 1028, Stn. A Sydney, NS B1P 6J7

Attention: Ms. Diane Ingraham, PhD., PMP, Quality Contracts Manager

Dear Ms. Ingraham:

Reference: STPA Project Element CO6A – Coke Ovens Capping Independent Quality Assurance (IQAC) November 2011 Monthly Summary Report

At the request of Sydney Tar Ponds Agency (STPA), Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec) has completed the following quality assurance inspection/testing services and meetings in accordance with project requirements at the above mentioned site between October 1 and November 30, 2011:

• Project Item PM-01: Eight daily field reports. • Project Item PM-02: One monthly QA report (November 2011) completed in the month of February

2012.

• Project Item PM-04: Two site meetings were attended by Stantec in the month of November 2011.

• Project Item PM-05: Other meetings and frequent opinions were provided in the month of November 2011.

• Project Item PM-10: One weekly quality QC/QA meeting was attended by Stantec in the month of November 2011.

• Project Item PM-19: Review of and data entry into CO6A September 2011 QC/QA testing summary tables.

• Project Item QCP-02: Submittal reviews (Review of November 2011 QC report including daily/test reports).

• Project Item QCP-05: Performed visual field inspections during the placement cohesive backfill soil.

• Project Item TS-20: Completed two site visits on November 3 and 9, 2011 to assess the compaction of placed cohesive backfill soil layers (6 measurements). All measured compactions of the placed soil met the specified 95% minimum compaction criterion. The test results are included in this monthly report and summarized in the QC-QA summary table section.

• Project Items TS09, TS21 and Extras: Completed two site visits on November 17 and 24, 2011 for the purpose of testing grout batches and preparation of compressive strength samples out of them (Set 1 and Set 2, each of 9 cubes). Later in December 2011, the compressive strength test results met the specified 28 Day strength criterion. All test results are included in this monthly report and summarized in the QC-QA summary table section.

• Project Item ENV-T-01: One noise monitoring event. Noise levels were within the guidelines at two of the three monitoring locations. See the Monthly Noise QA Testing Summary Table provided in this report for further information.

February 1Ms. Diane Page 2 of 2

Reference

• Projecwere

We trust thesitate to

Sincerely,

STANTEC

Rabi MoreGeotechnrabi.morellyv:\1214\active\12

3, 2012 Ingraham, PhD2

e: STPA ProjeIndepende

ct Item ENV-Twithin the acc

this informatioo contact us.

,

C CONSULTI

elly, M.Sc., Pnical and [email protected]\121410955

D., PMP, Qualit

ect Element Cnt Quality Ass

T-02: Four suceptable rang

on meets you

ING LTD

.Eng. erials Quality m -stpa combined eleme

ty Contracts M

CO6A – Coke Osurance (IQAC

urface water (tge.

r present req

Lead

ents\245 co6a\300 rep

anager

Ovens CappinC) November 2

turbidity) sam

uirements. If

porting\qa reports\co6a

g 2011 Monthly

mpling events.

you have any

Willie McProject Mwillie.mcne

a november 2011 qa m

Summary Rep

. All measure

y questions, p

cNeil, B.Tech.Manager

[email protected] report_rm_tm

port

ments record

please do not

(Env.), CET

om .docx

ded

STPA PROJECT ELEMENT CO6A: COKE OVENS SURFACE CAP

IQAC SITE TESTING SUMMARY Page 1 of 1

Date: November 3, 2011 IQAC On‐Site Rep: Enzo Poloni

Relevant Project Specification(s)

Environmental Quality Assurance

Relevant Project Specification(s) No.

QA‐EPP Project No. 121410955.245

IQAC Item No(s) / Descriptions

ENV‐T‐02 Time On‐Site: 15:00

Weather: Partly Cloudy, 7°C

Area Tested/Inspected: CO6A – Coke Oven Brook Up/Down Stream

Inspection / Testing SummaryStantec on site for 15:00 meeting Tanya Young (QC Representative) who was replaced by Devon Abbass (QC Representative) for this sampling. Sampling began downstream (ESE‐2) and then upstream (ESE‐5). Activities noted as clay infill, moving and compaction and pumping of 2 sub‐surface pipes on site. Samples analyzed at Stantec lab. Sample # GPS Co‐ordinates

(NAD 83 – Northing/Easting) General SiteDescription

Sample Results(NTU)

1 460 2732 511 3174

ESE‐5 (Upstream) 2.46

2 460 2055 511 2960

ESE‐2(Down stream) 1.23

As stated in the Environmental Protection Plan – “The upper level criteria defined as a reportable event for turbidity will be 110% of background, when background (upstream sample location) is greater than or equal to 80 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). When background is less than 80NTU, a reportable event will be greater than an increase of 8NTU above background” Turbidity values recorded above are within acceptable levels.

IQAC Review and Acceptance

IQAC On‐Site Rep (Sign/Print/Date):

/Enzo Poloni, B.Tech. (Env)

IQAC Management Review (Sign/Print/Date):

/Tanya MacDonald, B.Tech.(Env), AScT

November 3, 2011 November 4, 2011










Weather: Partly Cloudy, 7°C


Inspection / Testing SummaryStantec onsite at 14:55. Tanya Young (QC representative). Sampling began with downstream (ESE‐2) then upstream (ESE‐5). Clay trucking, leveling and rolling noted as activities at the time. Samples analyzed at Stantec lab. Sample # GPS Co‐ordinates


Sample Results(NTU)

1 460 2732 511 3174


2 460 2055 511 2960

ESE‐2(Down stream) 0.98

















Weather: Clear, 10°C


Inspection / Testing SummaryStantec met with Devon Abbass (QC representative) at 11:15am. Sampling began with downstream (ESE‐2) and then upstream (ESE‐5). Activities noted on site as slag laydown, leveling, and compaction on site road parallel to SPAR and sod placement along embankment at lower Coke Oven Brook. Samples analyzed at Stantec lab. Sample # GPS Co‐ordinates


Sample Results(NTU)

1 460 2731 511 3168


2 460 2056 511 2953

ESE‐2(Downstream) 1.28

















Weather: Cloudy, ‐1°C/‐5°C


Inspection / Testing SummaryMet onsite with Devon Abbass at 11:04 and sampling began immediately with ESE‐2 (downstream) and then ESE‐5 (upstream). No major activities noted by QC, except for the grouting of a pit (mid site). Samples analyzed at Stantec lab. Sample # GPS Co‐ordinates


Sample Results(NTU)

1 460 2056 511 2961


2 460 2735 511 3172

ESE‐2(Downstream) 1.57








CONCRETETEST REPORT

Stantec Consulting Ltd207-201 Churchill Drive, Membertou, NS B1S 0H1

(TEL) 902-564-1855 (FAX) 902-564-8756

CERTIFIED LABORATORYFOR TESTING CONCRETE

On Site Inspection By Derek Corbett.

PROJECT

CLIENT

C.C.

1410955.245

Sydney Tar Ponds Agency


C/O Sydney Tar Ponds Agency

1 Inglis Street, PO Box 1028

Sydney, NS

B1P 6J7

ATTN: Ms. Diane Ingraham

Sydney Tar Ponds Sydney Tar PondsSydney

1 6 2011.Nov.18 2011.Nov.17

TO

PROJECT

SET NO. NO. OF DATE DATE

SPCMNO.

DATETESTED

AGEAT

TEST(DAYS)

SPECIFIED STRENGTH DAYS CONCRETE

AIR TEMPERATURE

MAXIMUM SIZE AGGREGATE

CEMENT TYPE SLUMP

AIR %

SPEC.

SPEC. ±

±

BATCH TIME

CAST TIME

CAST BYADMIXTURES

CURING CONDITIONS

INITIAL CURING TEMP:MAXIMUM MINIMUM

LOCATION

SUPPLIER

TRUCK NO.

LOAD VOL.

WATER ADDED

COMMENTS

TICKET NO.

3 CUM. VOL. 3

AUTH. BY

PER.

A Nov.24 7 50.0x 50.0 50.0 6.5 2.6

Nov.24 7 50.0x 50.0 50.0 5.9 2.4

Nov.24 7 50.0x 50.0 50.0 7.4 3.0

Dec.15 28 50.0x 50.0 50.0 11.9 4.8

Dec.15 28 50.0x 50.0 50.0 13.2 5.3

Dec.15 28 50.0x 50.0 50.0 11.8 4.7

B

C

D

E

F

3 28

GU

20

09:02

14.0

PLASTIC

Quality Concrete - Sydn

QS44 78988

4.6 4.6

N/A

Page 1 of 1 2011.Dec.20

7.0

SYD DC

Coke Oven gasline between points 1 and 2.

20.0 20.0

Element CO6A

AVERAGEDIAMETER (mm)

ORSIDE (mm x mm)

AVERAGELENGTH ORSPAN (mm)

MAXIMUMLOAD(kN)

COMPRESSIVEOR FLEXURAL

STRENGTH(MPa) Average

°C

°C

mm

mm

MPa @

°C°C

m m

l

Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of test results is provided only on written request.

Stantec Consulting Ltd

MOULD TYPE

TREND GRAPH

2.6

4.9

FAILURETYPE

SPECIMENTYPE

Cube Lab

CURECONDN

Lab

Cube

Cube

Cube

Cube

Cube

Lab

Lab

Lab

Lab

CONCRETETEST REPORT

Stantec Consulting Ltd207-201 Churchill Drive, Membertou, NS B1S 0H1

(TEL) 902-564-1855 (FAX) 902-564-8756

CERTIFIED LABORATORYFOR TESTING CONCRETE

On Site Inspection By Derek Corbett.

PROJECT

CLIENT

C.C.

1410955.245



C/O Sydney Tar Ponds Agency

1 Inglis Street, PO Box 1028

Sydney, NS

B1P 6J7

ATTN: Ms. Diane Ingraham

Sydney Tar Ponds Sydney Tar PondsSydney

2 6 2011.Nov.25 2011.Nov.24

TO

PROJECT

SET NO. NO. OF DATE DATE

SPCMNO.

DATETESTED

AGEAT

TEST(DAYS)

SPECIFIED STRENGTH DAYS CONCRETE

AIR TEMPERATURE

MAXIMUM SIZE AGGREGATE

CEMENT TYPE SLUMP

AIR %

SPEC.

SPEC. ±

±

BATCH TIME

CAST TIME

CAST BYADMIXTURES

CURING CONDITIONS

INITIAL CURING TEMP:MAXIMUM MINIMUM

LOCATION

SUPPLIER

TRUCK NO.

LOAD VOL.

WATER ADDED

COMMENTS

TICKET NO.

3 CUM. VOL. 3

AUTH. BY

PER.

A Dec.01 7 50.0x 50.0 50.0 18.0 7.2

Dec.01 7 50.0x 50.0 50.0 17.1 6.8

Dec.01 7 50.0x 50.0 50.0 17.1 6.8

Dec.22 28 50.0x 50.0 50.0 29.9 12.0

Dec.22 28 50.0x 50.0 50.0 30.1 12.0

Dec.22 28 50.0x 50.0 50.0 29.7 11.9

B

C

D

E

F

3 28

GU

20

08:29

15.0

09:40PLASTIC

Quality Concrete - Sydn

QS43 79116

5.4 5.4

N/A

Page 1 of 1 2012.Jan.05

0.0

SYD DC

Gasline between points 5 and 6.

20.0 20.0

Element CO6A

AVERAGEDIAMETER (mm)

ORSIDE (mm x mm)

AVERAGELENGTH ORSPAN (mm)

MAXIMUMLOAD(kN)

COMPRESSIVEOR FLEXURAL

STRENGTH(MPa) Average

°C

°C

mm

mm

MPa @

°C°C

m m

l

Reporting of these test results constitutes a testing service only. Engineering interpretation or evaluation of test results is provided only on written request.

Stantec Consulting Ltd

MOULD TYPE

TREND GRAPH

7.0

12.0

FAILURETYPE

SPECIMENTYPE

Cube Lab

CURECONDN

Lab

Cube

Cube

Cube

Cube

Cube

Lab

Lab

Lab

Lab

PROJECT: 121410955.245

COMPACTION SPECIFICATION SAMPLED FROM

PROCTOR TYPE 2073.0 kg/m3 OPTIMUM MOISTURE

TESTED BY GAUGE SERIAL #

DRY MOISTUREDENSITY CONTENT

(kg/m³) (%)

3‐Nov‐2011 1st lift 2022.7 10.7 200

1st lift 2106.4 10.1 200

1st lift 2051.7 9.1 200

Note: A compaction test only provides data for the specific test location and to a depth of up to 300 mm below the surface at the time of the test.Total approval of a fill project requires continuous inspection and a brief report written by a geotechnical engineer.

CHECKED BY: DATE:Rabi Morelly 3-Nov-11

3 5113217, 4602532 99.0

The measured percent compactions met the requirements of the project specifications (Minimum 95%).

PROBEDEPTH (mm)

REMARKS(%)

1 5113170, 4602561 97.6

2 5113216, 4602585 101.6

Derek Corbett DATE 3-Nov-11 14630

FIELD TEST DATA

DATE TEST NO.

TEST LOCATIONS(Northing, Easting)

APPROX.ELEVATION

PROCTOR

MATERIAL AND PROCTOR DATA

95% MATERIAL TYPE Cohesive Backfill Keltic Drive Pit

STD MAX. DRY DENSITY 10.6%

207‐200 Churchill DrMembertou, NS B1S 0H1Ph: (902) 564‐1855Fx: (902) 564‐8756

SOILS COMPACTION REPORT

CLIENT: Sydney Tar Ponds Agency CO6A - Coke Ovens Surface Cap PROJECT NO:

PROJECT: 121410955.245

COMPACTION SPECIFICATION SAMPLED FROM

PROCTOR TYPE 2073.0 kg/m3 OPTIMUM MOISTURE

TESTED BY GAUGE SERIAL #

DRY MOISTUREDENSITY CONTENT

(kg/m³) (%)

9‐Nov‐2011 Grade 2100.0 8.6 200

Grade 2012.0 9.8 200

Grade 2095.0 9.8 200

Note: A compaction test only provides data for the specific test location and to a depth of up to 300 mm below the surface at the time of the test.Total approval of a fill project requires continuous inspection and a brief report written by a geotechnical engineer.

CHECKED BY: DATE:Rabi Morelly 9-Nov-11

3 5113193, 4602688 101.1

PROBEDEPTH (mm)

REMARKS(%)

1 5113222, 4602498 101.3The measured percent compactions met the requirements of the project specifications (Minimum 95%).

2 5113188, 4602551 97.1

Derek Corbett DATE 9-Nov-11 16731

FIELD TEST DATA

DATE TEST NO.

TEST LOCATIONS(Northing, Easting)

APPROX.ELEVATION

PROCTOR

MATERIAL AND PROCTOR DATA

95% MATERIAL TYPE Cohesive Backfill Keltic Drive Pit

STD MAX. DRY DENSITY 10.6%

207‐200 Churchill DrMembertou, NS B1S 0H1Ph: (902) 564‐1855Fx: (902) 564‐8756

SOILS COMPACTION REPORT

CLIENT: Sydney Tar Ponds Agency CO6A - Coke Ovens Surface Cap PROJECT NO:

Contractor: DENKO Client: STPA Form Number: CO6A Noise November 2011Element: CO6A Oversight: AECOM/CBCL Project: Remediation of the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens SitesMonth: November 2011 IQAC: Stantec

NOTES

EPP ENV-T-01 NoiseCBRM Noise By-

Law & NSE Criteria

once per month 21-Nov-11 <65 dBA CO6A-11-21-2011-0846-1050 460 2193511 3174 62.2dBA Pass Y Sample location is 20m South of SPAR in front of site trailer.

SPAR Traffic.


Law & NSE Criteria

once per month 21-Nov-11 <65 dBA CO6A-11-21-2011-1055-1304 460 2126511 3049 57.2dBA Pass Y

Sample location is at West side fenceline where Coke Oven Brook meets North Aligned Channel (Adjacent to CO8

Treatment Plant). Victoria Road Traffic.


Law & NSE Criteria

once per month 21-Nov-11 <65 dBA CO6A-11-21-2011-1313-1608 460 2547 511 3276 71.5dBA Fail Y

Sample location is 50 -100m East of Site Trailer along Site Boundry with SPAR. Spreading/Leveling topsoil. SPAR Traffic

contribuiting to elevation of noise levels. STPA notified immediately.

Activities onsite at the time of the sampling events included hay spreading on banks.

QAQA Pass/Fail

Monthly Noise QA Testing Summary Table

RESULTS

Spec Description Test Type QA Frequency

Met? Y/NQA Test ResultQA Sample ID CriteriaSample LocationGPS Coordinates

NAD 83

SPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS

Date CollectedQA Frequency Spec

Section Standard

November CO6A NOISE.xls Page 1 of 1

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 207-201 Churchill Drive Membertou, NS B1S 0H1 Tel: (902) 564-1855 Fax: (902) 564-8756

February 9, 2012 File: 121410955.245


Attention: Ms. Diane Ingraham, Ph.D., PMP, Quality Contract Manager

Dear Ms. Ingraham:

Reference: Materials and Geotechnical Quality Assurance of Quality Control Program Element CO6A, Sydney Tar Ponds Project, Sydney, NS Review of Contractor’s November 2011 Quality Control (QC) Report

At the request of the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency (STPA), Stantec Consulting Ltd (Stantec), acting as the project Independent Quality Assurance Consultant (IQAC), has completed a Quality Assurance Review of the Contractor’s (DENKO Mi’kmaq Enterprises LTD, and their quality control consultant (exp Services Inc. (exp)) Monthly Quality Control (QC) Report for the month of November 2011 for project Element CO6A.

Comments are prepared using a three tier system as requested by the STPA:

Level 1 - Critical comments which need to be addressed promptly. The IQAC requests responses on any critical comments within one week.

Level 2 - Comments for which a response is required. All comments for which a response is required should be responded to in the form of a written response or by providing the necessary information as requested.

Level 3 - Comments that would improve the quality of the work but for which the agency need not respond to.

Based on our review of the QC information provided from the referenced period, the IQAC offers the following comments for your considerations:

Level 2 Manufacturer quality control test certificates of installed HDPE liners in September 2011 are still not included in this monthly QC report. Also, the IQAC was not notified of these installations.

Level 2 Manufacturer quality control test certificates of installed geotextiles in November 2011 are not included in this monthly QC report.

Level 2 Manufacturer quality control test certificates of placed erosion mats are not included in this monthly QC report.

February 9, 2012

Ms. Diane Ingraham, Ph.D., PMP, Quality Contract Manager

Page 2 of 2

Reference: Materials and Geotechnical Quality Assurance of Quality Control Program

Element CO6A, Sydney Tar Ponds Project, Sydney, NS

Review of Contractor’s November 2011 Quality Control (QC) Report

Level 3 All reports should be signed by the applicable QC testing and review personnel, with names clearly printed, and dated once they are completed and reviewed.

This report covers the quality control aspects for both the geotechnical and materials portions of the project.

We trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD

Rabi Morelly, M.Sc., P.Eng Willie McNeil, B.Tech. (Env.), CET Geotechnical & Materials Quality Lead Project Manager [email protected] [email protected]

\\cd1177-f02\workgroup\1214\active\121410xxx\121410955-stpa combined elements\245 co6a\400 reviews\qa review of qc monthly report\geo_mat qc reviews\co6a _2011_11_geo_mat iqac

review of qc report.docx

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Stantec Consulting Ltd 207-201 Churchill Drive Membertou, NS B1S 0H1 Tel: (902) 564-1855 Fax: (902) 564-8756

February 15, 2012 File: 121410955.245


Attention: Ms. Diane Ingraham, Ph.D., PMP, Quality Contract Manager

Dear: Ms. Ingraham

Reference: Environmental Quality Assurance of Quality Control Program Element CO6A, Sydney Tar Ponds Project, Sydney, NS Review of Contractor’s November 2011 Quality Control (QC) Report

At the request of the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency (STPA), Stantec Consulting Limited (Stantec), acting as the project Independent Quality Assurance Consultant (IQAC), has completed a Quality Assurance Review of the Contractor’s, (DENKO Mi’Kmaq Enterprises Ltd.) and their quality control consultant (exp. Global Inc.), Monthly Quality Control (QC) Report for the month of November 2011 for project element CO6A.

Comments are prepared using a three tier system as requested by the STPA:

Level 1 - Critical comments which need to be addressed promptly. The IQAC requests responses on any critical comments within one week. Level 2 - Comments for which a response is required. All comments for which a response is required should be responded to in the form of a written response or by providing the necessary information as requested. Level 3 - Comments that would improve the quality of the work but for which the agency need not respond to.

Based on our review of the QC information provided from the referenced period, the IQAC offers the following comments for your considerations:

Level 1

Environmental Inspection Logs

The footnote on Page 1 of the EILs state, “Criteria for Acceptable and Not Acceptable for each checklist item is given on Pages 3 to 6”. Pages 3 to 6 are not provided nor is the guidelines for noise or surface water provided on the EIL. As such, it cannot be determined from the EIL if the measurements Pass or Fail the guidelines.

Level 3


The Environmental Inspection Logs appear to have been scanned. Page numbers on the EILs read as “Page 1 of 2, Page 2 of 2, Page 3 of 2”. The EILs should be properly formatted so that the page numbers are consecutive.

Level 1 Environmental Inspection Logs/Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Environmental Testing Summary Table

The surface water measurements (turbidity) on the EIL for November 1 (1100) are different

February 15, 2012 Ms. Diane Ingraham, Ph.D., PMP, Quality Contract Manager Page 2 of 2

Reference: Environmental Quality Assurance of Quality Control Program Element CO6A Sydney Tar Ponds Project, Sydney, NS Review of Contractor’s November 2011 Quality Control (QC) Report

than those listed in the table for this event. The measurements on the EIL indicate a failure in the downstream sample; whereas, the ones listed in the table are within the acceptable guideline.

Level 3


Noise monitoring should be listed under “#13. Other Specific EM Activities” under the Daily Checklist Item list on days in which noise monitoring is undertaken.

Level 1


The turbidity measurements are checked off as “Acceptable” on the November 17 (700 and 1100) EILs. However, the downstream sample indicates an exceedence of the acceptable guideline. These events are listed in the Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Environmental Testing Summary Table as a failure.

Level 1


The turbidity measurements are checked off as “Acceptable” on the November 18 (700) EIL. However the downstream sample indicates an exceedence of the acceptable guideline. This event is listed in the Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Environmental Testing Summary Table as a failure.

Level 3


A noise measurement of 66.9 Leq is presented in the Sound Monitoring Results section on the November 22 (1100) EIL. The noise measurements were collected on November 21 for this week and the November 21 (1100) measurement was 66.9 Leq. As such, this measurement is likely a typo carried over from the sample event from the previous day.

We trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience.

Sincerely,


Tanya MacDonald, B.Tech.(Env.), AScT William McNeil, B.Tech.(Env.),CET Project Environmental Manager Project Manager Tel: (902) 564-1855 Tel: (902) 564-1855 Fax: (902) 564-8756 Fax: (902) 564-8756 [email protected] [email protected]

v:\1214\active\121410xxx\121410955-stpa combined elements\245 co6a\400 reviews\qa review of qc monthly report\environmental qc reviews\2011 11 env iqac-qcreview-co6a.docx

Contractor: DENKO Mi'Kmaq Enterprises Client: STPA Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Environmental Testing Summary Table Element: CO6A Oversight: Dillon Consulting

IQAC: StantecWeeklyMonthly From: 2011-10-30 To: 2011-11-26

EPP Section 4.3

Surface Water Turbidity Sampling

Turbidity Sampling with portable turbidity meter

As per EPP Every 4 Hours 2011-10-31

CO6A-ESC 5-0720-2011-10-31CO6A-ESC 2-0720-2011-10-31CO6A-ESC 5-1115-2011-10-31CO6A-ESC 2-1115-2011-10-31CO6A-ESC 5-1510-2011-10-31CO6A-ESC 2-1510-2011-10-31

As per EPP 2011-10-31

3.31 NTU7.43 NTU2.48 NTU6.24 NTU1.86 NTU3.06 NTU

Pass YSamples were collected in accordance with the EPP.

Please refer to the daily EIL for specific testing results.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-01


Pass Y Samples were collected in accordance with the EPP.


EPP Section 4.2

Noise SamplingNoise Monitoring with a dosimeter or equivalent

CBRM noise by-law and NSE criteria

Daily 2011-11-02CO6A-Gate 3, 30 m South of Spar- 2011-11-02CO6A-SW corner of site, near WTP- 2011-11-02CO6A-50mE of Site Lunch Trailer -2011-11-02

CBRM noise by-law and NSE criteria 2011-11-02

69.2 Leq (dBA)64.7 Leq (dBA)72.3 Leq (dBA)

Fail (See QC Note) Y

Samples were collected in accordance with the EPP. Please refer to the daily EIL for specific testing

results.Noise exceedances were due to proximity to traffic along SPAR road.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-02




EPP Section 4.3



As per EPP Every 4 Hours Once Weekly 2011-11-03


As per EPP 2011-11-03


Pass Y CO6A-ESC5-2011-11-03-1500CO6A-ESC2-2011-11-03-1500 2011-11-03 2.46 NTU

1.23 NTUPassPass Yes


results.

Samples were collected in accordance with the EPP. Please refer to the weekly IQAC Site Testing Summary for further

details.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-04




EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-07




EPP Section 4.2








results. Noise exceedance was due to proximity of traffic along SPAR road.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-08




EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-09




EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-10





results.


details.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-14




EPP Section 4.2








results. Noise exceedance was due to proximity of traffic along SPAR road and equivalent with the

background noise.

QAQA Frequency

Week 1

Date QA Result

ReceivedTest Type QA Frequency

Met? Y/N

NOTESSPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS

QC Pass/Fail

RESULTS

QA Pass/Fail Spec Description

Week 3

Week 2

Standard Date Collected QCQA Sample ID QA Test ResultQC Frequency Met? Y/NCriteria Date QC Result

Received QC Sample IDSpec Section

Form Number: 97918-QAF-073

QC Test Result

Project: Remediation of the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Sites

QC Frequency

CO6A Nov 2011 QCQA Env Testing.xlsForm Revision: April 07, 2010, Rev. 0 Page 1 of 2

Contractor: DENKO Mi'Kmaq Enterprises Client: STPA Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Environmental Testing Summary Table Element: CO6A Oversight: Dillon Consulting

IQAC: StantecWeeklyMonthly From: 2011-10-30 To: 2011-11-26

QAQA Frequency Date QA Result

ReceivedTest Type QA Frequency

Met? Y/N

NOTESSPECIFIED REQUIREMENTS

QC Pass/Fail

RESULTS

QA Pass/Fail Spec Description Standard Date Collected QCQA Sample ID QA Test ResultQC Frequency Met? Y/NCriteria Date QC Result

Received QC Sample IDSpec Section


QC Test Result


QC Frequency

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-15




EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-16





results.


details.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-17




results.Silt fencing was torn and allowing sediment through. Repairs were immediately undertaken.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-18




results.Silt fencing was torn and allowing sediment through. Repairs were immediately undertaken.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-21




EPP Section 4.2



Daily Once Monthly 2011-11-21CO6A-Gate 3, 30 m South of Spar- 2011-11-21CO6A-SW corner of site, near WTP- 2011-11-21CO6A-50mE of Site Lunch Trailer -2011-11-21




CO6A-11-21-2011-0846-1050CO6A-11-21-2011-1055-1304CO6A-11-21-2011-1313-1608

2011-11-2162.2 Leq (dBA)57.2 Leq (dBA)71.5 Leq (dBA)

PassPassFail

Yes


results. Noise exceedance was due to background noise from traffic on SPAR as well as the generator running nearby and the results are consistent with

background noise levels.

Samples collected as per EPP. Refer to Monthly Noise QA Testing Summary Table

in this report for more information.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-22




EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-23




EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-24





results.


details.

EPP Section 4.3





As per EPP 2011-11-25




Week 4

CO6A Nov 2011 QCQA Env Testing.xlsForm Revision: April 07, 2010, Rev. 0 Page 2 of 2

Contractor: DENKO Mi'Kmaq Enterprises Client: STPA Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Testing Summary Table Element: CO6A Oversight: Dillon Consulting

IQAC: Stantec

WeeklyMonthly From: 30-Oct-11 To:

31 22 16 Cohesive Soil BackfillField Compaction

and Moisture Content

ASTM D6938 Every 625 m2 for each lift

25-Oct-11Cohesive Soil Backfill

(Blackett's Lake) 25-Oct-11

95% of Maximum Standard Dry

Density95.9 - 96.9% Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the

Contractor's Quality Control Plan.




2-Nov-11Cohesive Soil Backfill

(Blackett's Lake) 02-Nov-11








(Keltic Drive Source Pit)02-Nov-11







1 test or 10% of QC tests

whichever is greater.




Density95.8 - 98.3% Pass Y

Placed Cohesive Soil Backfill Keltic Drive Pit

Field Compaction Tests 1-3

(3-Nov- 11)

3-Nov-11

% Compaction:97.6-101.6

% M.C.: 9.1 -10.7

Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the Contractor's Quality Control Plan.

All compactions exceeded 95% of Maximum Standard Dry Density. However, all of measured moisture contents were below the specified expected moisture content limits.















Density95.2 - 96.7.% Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the








Density93.2 - 93.9.% Pass Y

Testing was conducted in accordance with the Contractor's Quality Control Plan. It should be noted that since the moisture content varied greater than 6% from optimum, the required compaction was 92%.




1 test or 10% of QC tests

whichever is greater.




Density96.7 - 98.5.% Pass Y

Placed Cohesive Soil Backfill Keltic Drive Pit

Field Compaction Tests 1-3

(9-Nov- 11)

9-Nov-11

% Compaction:97.1-101.3

% M.C.: 8.6-9.8

Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the Contractor's Quality Control Plan.

All compactions exceeded 95% of Maximum Standard Dry Density. However, all of measured moisture contents were below the specified expected moisture content limits.







Density95.9 - 97.6.% Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the


03 60 00 Grout CompressiveStrength ASTM C109 Every Batch Once Every 4

Batches 17-Nov-11 2011-AF1 3.0 MPa Pending Pending Y

Grout Compressive Strength

7 and 28 Days Test Results(Cast on 17-Nov- 11)

15-Dec-11

7 Day Results:2.6 MPa2.4 MPa3.0 MPa


Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the Contractor's Grout Plan.

The specified 28 day criterion for compressive strength is 3.0 MPa

03 60 00 Grout Compressive Strength ASTM C109 Every Batch 17-Nov-11 2011-AF2 3.0 MPa Pending Pending Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the

Contractor's Grout Plan.

8-Nov-11

Week 3

10-Nov-11

Pending

Pending

Week 2

3-Nov-11

3-Nov-11

7-Nov-11

4-Nov-11

QA Sample ID Date QA Result ReceivedQC Frequency

2-Nov-11


QC Test Result QC Pass/Fail QA Pass/Fail

NOTES


26-Nov-11

QA Frequency Met? Y/N

QC Frequency Met? Y/N

RESULTS

Criteria QAQCQA Frequency


Spec Section Spec Description QC Sample IDDate Collected

9-Nov-11

QA Test ResultDate QC Result Received

31-Oct-11

Week 1

Test Type Standard

CO6A November 2011 QC and QA Testing Summary.xlsForm Revision: April 07, 2010 Rev 4 Page 1 of 2

Contractor: DENKO Mi'Kmaq Enterprises Client: STPA Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) Testing Summary Table Element: CO6A Oversight: Dillon Consulting

IQAC: Stantec

WeeklyMonthly From: 30-Oct-11 To:

QA Sample ID Date QA Result ReceivedQC Frequency


QC Test Result QC Pass/Fail QA Pass/Fail

NOTES


26-Nov-11

QA Frequency Met? Y/N

QC Frequency Met? Y/N

RESULTS

Criteria QAQCQA Frequency


Spec Section Spec Description QC Sample IDDate Collected QA Test ResultDate QC Result

ReceivedTest Type Standard









03 60 00 Grout Compressive Strength ASTM C109 Every Batch Once Every 4

Batches 24-Nov-11 2011-AF7 3.0 MPa Pending Pending Y

Grout Compressive Strength

7 and 28 Days Test Results(Cast on 24-Nov- 11)

22-Dec-11



Pass Y Testing was conducted in accordance with the Contractor's Grout Plan.

The specified 28 day criterion for compressive strength is 3.0 MPa





Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Pending

Week 4

Pending

CO6A November 2011 QC and QA Testing Summary.xlsForm Revision: April 07, 2010 Rev 4 Page 2 of 2

February File: 1214

Sydney T1 Inglis StPO Box 1Sydney, N

Attention

Dear Ms.

Referenc

At the reqreportableSummary

We trust thesitate to

Sincerely,

STANTEC

Willie McNProject MTel: (902) 5Fax: (902) willie.mcne

\\cd1177-f02\wo

7, 2012 410955.245

ar Ponds Agetreet 028, Stn. A

NS B1P 6J7

n: Ms. Di

Ingraham:

ce: ExtrasIndepe

quest of Sydnee extra items y Report.

this informatioo contact us.

,

C CONSULTI

Neil, B.Tech. anager 564-1855 564-8756

[email protected]

orkgroup\1214\active\1

Stantec Consu207-201 ChurcMembertou NSTel: (902) 564-Fax: (902) 564

ency

iane Ingraha

s Section - Sendent Qual

ey Tar Pondsto include in t

on meets you

ING LTD

(Env.), CET

m

21410xxx\121410955

ulting Ltd chill Drive S B1S 0H1 -1855

4-8756

am, PhD., CA

TPA Project ity Assuranc

s Agency (STthe EXTRAS

r present req

5-stpa combined eleme

APM, Quality

Element COce (IQAC) No

PA), Stantec section of the

uirements. If

ents\245 co6a\700 ext

Contracts M

O6A Coke Ovovember 201

Consulting Le (IQAC) Nov

you have any

tras\co6a extras sectio

Manager

vens Capping1 Monthly Su

td (Stantec) hvember 2011

y questions, p

on november 2011.do

g ummary Rep

has no Monthly

please do not

ocx

port

Stantec Consulting Ltd 207-201 Churchill Drive Membertou NS B1S 0H1 Tel: (902) 564-1855 Fax: (902) 564-8756


Attention: Ms. Diane Ingraham, PhD., PMP, Quality Contracts Manager

Dear Ms. Ingraham:

Reference: Monthly Invoices As per the request of the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency, monthly invoices will be submitted in a separate submittal. Sincerely,


Willie McNeil, B.Tech. (Env.), CET Project Manager Tel: (902) 564-1855 Fax: (902) 564-8756 [email protected]

Documents

Stantec Consulting Ltd 207-201 Churchill Drive Membertou NS …tarpondscleanup.ca/upload/135402608420120213 CO6A... · 2012-11-27 · • Project Item QCP-05: Performed visual field