WV Infiltration Report.pdfPanGEE)O R P O R A T E D
Geotecnnlcal & tartnquake
Engineering Consultants
September 28, 2017
File No. 16-217.200
Mr. Anthony Jansen
Westgate Village LLC
4025 Delridge Way SW # 530
Seattle, WA 98106
Subject: Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village
10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Jansen:
As requested, PanGEO, Inc. is pleased to present this infiltration evaluation for the
infiltration system design at the Westgate Village property. Our scope of services
consisted of excavating two test pits at the site, completing two Small Pilot Infiltration
Test (PIT) tests, reviewing subsurface information from previous borings completed by
PanGEO, and developing the infiltration recommendations presented in this letter. This
report presents a summary of our testing procedures and provides design infiltration rates
for the proposed development.
We previously prepared a geotechnical report for this project dated September 16, 2017.
This letter references explorations and conditions described in our geotechnical report
and should be used in conjunction with that report.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The subject site is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of 100th Avenue
West and Edmonds Way (SR 104) in Edmonds, Washington, approximately as shown on
Figure 1, Vicinity Map.
We understand the site will be developed with a 4-story mixed use building. It is planned
to infiltration surface water from the planned improvements into the site soils. Based on
review of the preliminary design, the proposed infiltration system will consist of two
below grade infiltration galleries located in the southeast and northwest portions of the
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
property. The approximate layout of the site and the locations of the proposed
infiltration galleries are shown on Figure 2, Site and Exploration Plan.
The proposed development area is generally flat with a surface elevation of about 317
feet. In the southwestern portion of the site is a 40- to 50-foot high slope that ascends to
the west.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGY
Based on our review of the Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area (Booth, et.
al., 2004), the proposed development area is underlain by Vashon Advance Outwash
(Qva). The slope in the southwest portion of the site mapped as being underlain by
Vashon Till (Qvt).
Advance Outwash consists of sand deposited by meltwater streams emerging from an
advancing glacier. Advance outwash has also been glacially overridden and as such is
typically dense to very dense.
Vashon Till consists of an unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel that is directly
deposited below a glacier. This soil unit has been glacially overridden; as such it is
typically dense to very dense. Till typically exhibits very low infiltration capability.
SOIL CONDITIONS
Subsurface exploration for our infiltration assessment included excavating two
infiltration test pits on September 15, 2017. The approximate locations of the test pits are
shown on the attached Figure 2, and summary logs of the test pits are included in
Appendix A.
In general, the soils encountered in Test Pit PIT-1 consisted of about 2 feet of medium
dense, brown, silty sandy gravel (Fill) overlying grey -brown sand with silt and gravel
(Advance Outwash) to the termination depth of 4 feet below grade.
At the location of Test Pit PIT-2 we encountered approximately 2 feet of yellow -brow
silty sand with gravel (Recessional Outwash) overlying grey -brown sandy gravel with silt
(Advance Outwash).
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 2 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations are
described in Appendix A of this report.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was not encountered at the locations of test pits PIT-1 or PIT-2. At the
boring locations drilled for our September 16, 2016 geotechnical report, we did not
encounter a continuous layer of groundwater, however, localized thin seams of wet soil
were encountered below about 12 feet from existing grade. Based on the planned four -
foot deep infiltration galleries and the absence of a continuous groundwater table, we do
not anticipate that groundwater will need to be a consideration with respect to the
infiltration system design.
However, the designers and contractor should be aware there will be fluctuations in
groundwater conditions depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water
runoff, tides, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rates are
greater in the wetter, winter months (typically October through May).
SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION
Samples recovered from the test pits were visually classified in the field. Representative
portions of the samples were returned to our office where the field classifications were
verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance
with ASTM D 2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils
(Visual -Manual Procedure) and Figure A-1, Terms and Symbols for Boring and Test Pit
Logs included as Figure 3. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color, relative
moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in the
sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs.
MOISTURE CONTENT
Moisture content tests were performed on two representative samples obtained from the
test pits. The determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures
described in ASTM D 2216 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of
Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. Moisture content results are shown
on the test pit logs in Appendix A and Appendix B.
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 3 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
The grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a
particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in
general accordance with ASTM D 2487 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for
Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). The results of the grain size
determinations for the samples are presented in Appendix B.
CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY
The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil refers to the capability of the soil to
adsorb and exchange cations and anions. Two representative samples from our test pits
were collected and submitted to an analytical laboratory for CEC testing in accordance
with EPA Test Method 9081 Cation Exchange Capacity of Soils. Our CEC test results
are discussed below and included in Appendix C.
INFILTRATION TESTING
The field infiltration tests were conducted in general accordance with the procedure for
Small Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) as outlined in the 2014 DOE Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (WDOE Manual) and the 2017 Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 18.30. In general, the test consisted of the following
procedure:
• We excavated a test pit to the design bottom of the proposed infiltration facilities
with a minimum bottom area of 12 square feet.
• The test pits were pre-soaked by maintaining a water level of at least 12 inches
above the bottom of the pit.
• At the end of pre-soak period, a flow meter was used to monitor the amount of
water needed to maintain a constant head of 12 inches for at least one hour and
until at least a point at which a constant volume of water per time unit was
achieved.
• At the end of the constant head test, we measured the falling head infiltration rate
by shutting off the water flow and recording the drop in water level over regular
time intervals until all of the water was infiltrated.
The field infiltration rate was then calculated based on the final measured volume per
time unit, and the surface area of the hole. The results of our tests are summarized in
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 4 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
Table 1 on the next page. A graphical representation of our infiltration tests are provided
as Figures 3 and 4.
TABLE 1 -- INFILTRATION TEST RESULT
Test
Pre -Soak
Test
Test Result
Location/Depth
Duration
Test Stage
Duration
(inches/hour)
Soils
(hours)
(hours)
Constant
1
7.4
Head
PIT-1 at 4 feet
6
Poorly graded SAND
Falling
Head
1
8.9
Constant
1
35.8
Poorly graded SAND
Head
with gravel
PIT-2 at 4 feet
6
Falling
Head
1
30
DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE
The infiltration test results measured in the field are considered short term rates. The
short-term rate needs to be reduced through correction factors to generate a design
infiltration rate. The corrections factors account for site variability and the number of
locations tested, test method, and the degree of long-term maintenance and influent
control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup. Table 2, below outlines the correction factors
to be applied to the field infiltration rate in order to estimate the long-term design
infiltration rate for proposed infiltration facility.
TABLE 2 - CORRECTION FACTORS
Item
Partial Correction Factor
Site variability and number of locations tested
CFv = 0.33 to 1.0
Test Method: Small -Scale PIT
CFt = 0.50
Degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-
buildup
CFm = 0.9
Total Correction Factor (CFT) = CFI * CFt * CFm
Source: Table 3.3.1, Vol. 3, DOE Stormwater Manual
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt 5 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
Based on review of the test pits excavated for the infiltration tests and our previous
borings, the subsurface conditions are relatively uniform, therefore, we selected a
correction factor of 0.9 for site variability.
The correction factors for the small PIT test method and clogging are prescribed in the
WDOE Manual as 0.5 and 0.9, respectively.
The total correction factor (CFT = CF, * CF, * CF.) was then applied to the field rate to
obtain a long-term design infiltration rate_ The recommended design infiltration rates for
the infiltration facilities are summarized in Table 3, below.
TABLE 3 -- DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE
Test Location/Depth
Field Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
Long -Term Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
PIT-1 at 4 feet deep
7.4
3.0
PIT-2 at 4 feet deep
35.8
14.5
CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY
In accordance with the WDOE Manual, soils used for treatment and infiltration should
have a Cation Exchane Capacity (CEC) of greater than or equal to 5 milliequivalents per
100 grams of dry soil (meq/100g). CEC testing was performed by Fremont Analytical on
two representative samples of the site soils. The test results are included in Appendix C
of this report. Table 4, below, provides a summary of the CEC test results.
Table 4 -- Cation Exchange Capacity Test Results
Soil Sample Depth
CEC
Location
[feet]
[meq/100g]
PIT-1
4
6.57
PIT-2
4
10.5
Based on the results of the CEC testing, the soils are suitable for treatment.
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt 6 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
INFILTRATION CONCLUSIONS AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the results of our field exploration, infiltration tests, and laboratory testing, in
our opinion, infiltration of stormwater should be feasible using an infiltration rate of
Based on the testing results and the applied correction factor, it is our opinion that a
design infiltration rate of 3.0 and 14.5 inches per hour may be used to size the infiltration
galleries at PIT-1 and PIT-2, respectively.
Infiltration facilities are post -construction facilities which are designed to improve the
quality and manage the volume of stormwater runoff by encouraging natural infiltration
on -site. In order to protect the infiltration receptor soils from becoming clogged with
sediment and/or compacted during construction, we recommend the following measures
be implemented during construction:
• The infiltration facilities should be constructed as late in the schedule as feasible
and should not be constructed until after the upstream areas are stabilized.
• Heavy equipment traffic on prepared subgrades should be limited, especially
during wet weather.
• If fine grained sediment is deposited or tracked onto the infiltration system
subgrade, it should be removed using an excavator with a grade plate, small dozer
or vacuum truck.
• The subgrade should be scarified prior to placing fill to prevent sealing of the
receptor soils.
• Structural fill and aggregate base materials should be end -dumped at the edge of
the fill area and the material pushed out over the subgrade.
• Grading of the infiltration galleries should be accomplished using low -impact
earth -moving equipment to prevent compaction of the underlying soils. Wide
tracked vehicles such as back hoes, small dozers and bobcats are suggested.
PanGEO should be retained during construction to observe excavations of infiltration
facilities to confirm the infiltration facilities are constructed in the intended soil unit.
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 7 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by Westgate Village, LLC and the project team.
Recommendations contained in this report are based on a site reconnaissance, a
subsurface exploration program, review of pertinent subsurface information, and our
understanding of the project. The study was performed using a mutually agreed -upon
scope of work.
This report may be used only by the client and for the purposes stated, within a
reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both off and on -site), or
other factors including advances in our understanding of applied science, may change
over time and could materially affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be
relied upon after 24 months from its issuance. PanGEO should be notified if the project
is delayed by more than 24 months from the date of this report so that we may review the
applicability of our conclusions considering the time lapse.
Within the limitation of scope, schedule and budget, PanGEO engages in the practice of
geotechnical engineering and endeavors to perform its services in accordance with
generally accepted professional principles and practices at the time the Report or its
contents were prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
CLOSURE
We trust that the information outlined in this letter meets your need at this time. Please
call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
PanGEO, Inc.
Bart Weitering, G.I.T.
Staff Geologist
�of wash��\
Hydrogeologist t,
Sed Geo
Scott D. Dinkelman
Scott D. Dinkelman, LEG, LHG
Senior Hydrogeologist Geologist
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 8 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
Enclosures:
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site and Exploration Map
Figure 3 Infiltration Test PIT-1
Figure 4 Infiltration Test PIT-2
Appendix A Summary Test Pit Logs
Figure A-1 Terms and Symbols for Boring and Test Pit Logs
Figure A-2 Log of Test Pit PIT-1
Figure A-3 Log of Test Pit PIT-2
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Figure B-1 Particle -Size Analysis
Appendix C Analytical Test Results
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 9 PanGEO, Inc.
Infiltration Evaluation
Westgate Village: 10000 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
September 28, 2017
REFERENCES:
Booth, D.B., Cox, B.F., Troost, K.G. and Shimel, S.A., 2004, Draft Composite Geologic
Map of the Sno-King Area, Central Puget Lowland, Washington. University of
Washington Seattle -Area Mapping Project (SGMP) and the United States Geological
Survey (USGS), Scale 1: 24, 000.
City of Edmonds, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, 2017.
PanGEO, Inc., 2016, Geotechnical Report, Westgate Village, 10000 Edmonds Way,
Edmonds, Washington, dated September 17, 2016
Washington State Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington, Volume III, 2014.
16-217 10000 Edmonds Way Infiltration Rpt_ 10 PanGEO, Inc.
Puget 0 524
Edmonds
Community College
ngston Feat'
A
rti`a�
z
v
a
Edmonds
Main St
n
D?
r
O212t!
eo
N <
<
>
Marina
216th St sw
-
-ach Park ,oa
220th St SW
220th St S1
po,
_ %D D
o,
Woodway
?
>
y
�
Esperance
`9
1 !
_ J 228111 st SW
,
Q�
�-; -
PROJECT SITE
la4
D
Costco Wholesale O
M
=r
z z
D T ,
< n
n_ <
0
z
K,
Z
m
y
- NW
3
<� - D
z
°`w
Beach Rd
f
N
185th St
t
�
\
o
,J
n
Base Map: Google Maps
Not to Scale
PanGE8 Infiltration Evaluation VICINITY MAP
10000 Edmonds Way
I N CO R P O R AT ED Edmonds, WA
Project No. 16-217 Figure No. 1
I �
Approx. Scale
1"=100'
PmGE@)P O R A T E D
.4.
Infiltration Evaluation
10000 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, Washington
Note: Base map modified from Site Plan by
Henbart, LLC dated November 22, 2016
Legend:
61 Approx. Infiltration Test Pit Location
Approx. Previous Test Boring Location
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
0.
16-217
0.
2
Pre -Soak
Constant Head Falling Head
14
12.0
12
10.0
-
0
o
10
t
u
8.0 v
m
g
c
o
bD
6.0
'^ 6
c
m
>_
4.0 CL
4
v
m
3
2.0
2
0
0.0
0
50 100 150 200 250
300 350
400 450 500
Time (min)
-Water Stage -Flow Rate
-Infiltration Rate
Infiltration Rate Summary
Westgate Village
PmGE®
1000 Edmonds Way
Test Pit PIT-1
N c 0 R P 0 R A T E 0
Edmonds, Washington
Project No. Figure No.
16-217 3
Pre -Soak
Constant Head Falling Head
12
45.0
40.0
10
35.0
0
8
30.0
s
u
v
m
_
25.0
c
0
Y
��
v 6
on
m
f0
v
20.0
�
m
4
15.0
Q'
a�
m
10.0
0
2
LL
5.0
0
0.0
0
50 100 150 200 250
300 350
400 450 500
Time (min)
-Water Stage -Flow Rate
-Infiltration Rate
Infiltration Rate Summary
Westgate Village
PmGEE�
1000 Edmonds Way
Test Pit PIT-2
N c 0 R P 0 R A T E 0
Edmonds, Washington
Project No. Figure No.
4
16-217
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY TEST PIT LOGS
RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY
SAND / GRAVEL
SILT / CLAY
SPT
Approx. Relative
SPT
Approx. Undrained Shear
Density
N-values
Density (%)
Consistency
N-values
Strength (psf)
Very Loose
<4
<16
Very Soft
<2
<260
Loose
4 to 10
16.36
Soft
2 to 4
260.600
Med. Dense
10 to 30
36.66
Med. Stiff
4 to 8
600.1000
Dense
30 to 60
66.86
Stiff
8 to 16
1000 -2000
Very Dense
>60
86.100
Very Stiff
16 to 30
2000 -4000
Hard
>30
>4000
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP DESCRIPTIONS
•�'
GW:
Well -graded GRAVEL
Gravel
GRAVEL (<6% fines)'.....
......................................................
50% or more of the coarse
, o
GP :
Poorly -graded GRAVEL
fraction retained on the #4
sieve. Use dual symbols leg.
0 0
.....:......................................................
GM :
Silty GRAVEL
GP -GM) for 5% to 12% fines.
GRAVEL (>12% fines)
• •................................................
GC :
• • • • • •
Clayey GRAVEL
.......................................................................:::..............................................................
SW :
Well -graded SAND
Sand
SAND (<6 /° fines)
:......................................................
'>:
50% or more of the coarse
SP
Poorly -graded SAND
fraction passing the #4 sieve.
Use dual symbols leg. SP-SM)
SM :
Silty SAND
-......:
fors%to12%fines.
SAND (>12% fines)
......................................................
SC :
Clayey SAND
......................................................................
........................................................
ML :
:
SILT
Liquid Limit < 60
......................................................
CL
...........................................................
Lean CLAY
Silt and Clay
_ _
�
OL :
Organic SILT or CLAY
50%or more passing #200 sieve
MH :
Elastic SILT
Liquid Limit > 60
CH
Fat CLAY
....................... ..........................................
OH
.............................................................
Organic SILT or CLAY
HighlyOrganic Soils
PT
PEAT
Notes: 1. Soil exploration logs contain material descriptions based on visual observation and field tests using a system
modified from the Uniform Soil Classification System (USCS). Where necessary laboratory tests have been
conducted (as noted in the "Other Tests" column), unit descriptions may include a classification. Please refer to the
discussions in the report text for a more complete description of the subsurface conditions.
2. The graphic symbols given above are not inclusive of all symbols that may appear on the borehole logs.
Other symbols may be used where field observations indicated mixed soil constituents or dual constituent materials.
DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL STRUCTURES
Layered:
Units of material distinguished by color and/or
Fissured:
Breaks along defined planes
composition from material units above and below
Slickensided:
Fracture planes that are polished or glossy
Laminated:
Layers of soil typically 0.05 to 1 mm thick, max. 1 cm
Blocky:
Angular soil lumps that resist breakdown
Lens:
Layer of soil that pinches out laterally
Disrupted:
Soil that is broken and mixed
Interlayered:
Alternating layers of differing soil material
Scattered:
Less than one per foot
Pocket:
Erratic, discontinuous deposit of limited extent
Numerous:
More than one per foot
Homogeneous:
Soil with uniform color and composition throughout
BCN:
Angle between bedding plane and a plane
normal to core axis
COMPONENT DEFINITIONS
COMPONENT
SIZE / SIEVE RANGE
COMPONENT
SIZE / SIEVE RANGE
Boulder:
> 12 inches
Sand
Cobbles:
3 to 12 inches
Coarse Sand:
#4 to #10 sieve (4.5 to 2.0 mm)
Gravel
Medium Sand:
#10 to #40 sieve (2.0 to 0.42 mm)
Coarse Gravel:
3 to 3/4 inches
Fine Sand:
#40 to #200 sieve (0.42 to 0.074 mm)
Fine Gravel:
3/4 inches to #4 sieve
Silt
0.074 to 0.002 mm
Clay
<0.002 mm
TEST SYMBOLS
for In Situ
and Laboratory Tests
listed in
"Other Tests" column.
ATT
Atterberg Limit Test
Comp
Compaction Tests
Con
Consolidation
DD
Dry Density
DS
Direct Shear
%F
Fines Content
GS
Grain Size
Perm
Permeability
PP
Pocket Penetrometer
R
R-value
SG
Specific Gravity
TV
Torvane
TXC
Triaxial Compression
UCC
Unconfined Compression
SYMBOLS
Sample/In Situ test types and intervals
OD Split Spoon, SPT
H2-inch
(140-lb. hammer, 30" drop)
3.25-inch OD Spilt Spoon
H
(300-lb hammer, 30" drop)
Non-standard penetration
test (see boring log for details)
Thin wall (Shelby) tube
Grab
Rock core
MVane
Shear
MONITORING WELL
SZ
Groundwater Level at
time of drilling (ATD)
1
Static Groundwater Level
Cement / Concrete Seal
Bentonite grout / seal
Silica sand backfill
Slotted tip
Slough
Bottom of Boring
MOISTURE CONTENT
Dry
Dusty, dry to the touch
Moist
Damp but no visible water
Wet
Visible free water
PanGEO Terms and Symbols for
I N C O R P O R A T E D Boring and Test Pit Logs Figure A-1
Phone: 206.262.0370
Test Pit No. PIT-1
Location: Latitude 47.790326, Longitude-122.36802
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 317 feet
Date: September 15, 2017
Surface Vegetation: Grass
Depth ft
USCS
Soil Description
0-2
Fill
Loose to medium dense, brown, silty, sandy GRAVEL (GM); dry to moist; poorly graded,
rootlets [Fill]
2-4
SP
Medium dense, grey -brown, poorly graded, medium to coarse SAND; moist; pockets of sandy
silt [Qva — Vashon Advance Outwash]
°
_� r
lac v,•�„ ���
�� � �7' 4 �`3�
k
i
�7xi
\�
t ��s
.�'
i `�`C
r'!�C�i
Photo PIT-]: View of infiltration test underway at the location of Test Pit PIT-L
Test Pit PIT-1 terminated at 4 feet below grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
16-217 Test Pit Logs Figure A-2 PanGEO, Inc.
Test Pit No. PIT-2
Location: Latitude 47.7908, Longitude-122.36814
Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 316 feet
Date: September 15, 2017
Surface Vegetation: Grass
Depth ft I USCS
Soil Description
0-2 SM Loose, yellow -brown, silty fine to medium SAND with gravel (SM); moist; poorly graded, iron
oxide staining [Qvr — Vashon Recessional Outwash]
2-4 SP Medium dense to dense, grey -brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel; moist; imbricated
sravels [Ova — Vashon Advance Outwashl
Photo PIT-2: View of infiltration test underway at the location of Test Pit PIT-2.
Test Pit PIT-2 terminated at 4 feet below grade.
No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
16-217 Test Pit Logs Figure A-3 PanGEO, Inc.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
3/4"
3"
1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200
I
100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
80
=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(9
70
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
co
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
40
z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
30
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
0
50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT
CLAY
Coarse
Fine
Coarse
Medium
Fine
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft.
CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name
% MC
LL
PL
PI
Gravel
Sand
Fines
•
TP-1
S-2
4.0 - 5.0
(SP) Olive -brown, poorly graded SAND
4
7.6
87.6
4.9
■
TP-2
S-2
4.0 - 5.0
(SP) Reddish -brown, poorly graded SAND with gravel
3
41.7
54.8
3.6
Westgate Village OF SOILS
METHOD ASTM D422
PanGEO Project No. 16-217
PROJECT NO.: 2012-022 T7400 FIGURE: B-�
MLT for PanGEO PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS
HWAGRSZ 2012-022 T7400.GPJ 09/27/17
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL TEST RESULTS
Fremont
3600 Fremont Ave. N.
Seattle, WA 98103
T: (206) 352-3790
F: (206) 352-7178
info@fremontanalytical.com
PanGEO Inc.
Scott Dinkelman
3213 Easklake Ave E. Suite B
Seattle, WA 98102
RE: Westgate Village
Work Order Number: 1709270
September 26, 2017
Attention Scott Dinkelman:
Fremont Analytical, Inc. received 2 sample(s) on 9/22/2017 for the analyses presented in the
following report.
Cation Exchange Capacity
This report consists of the following:
- Case Narrative
- Analytical Results
- Applicable Quality Control Summary Reports
- Chain of Custody
All analyses were performed consistent with the Quality Assurance program of Fremont Analytical,
Inc. Please contact the laboratory if you should have any questions about the results.
Thank you for using Fremont Analytical.
Sincerely,
C�1-4
CC:
Chelsea Ward Bart Weitering
Project Manager
DoD/ELAP Certification #L17-135, ISO/IEC 17025:2005
ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)
Original www.fremontanalytical.com
Page 1 of 8
Fremont
I J ,MigV7 i raTo 7A
CLIENT:
Project:
Work Order
Lab Sample ID
1709270-001
1709270-002
PanGEO Inc.
Westgate Village
1709270
Client Sample ID
PIT-1
PIT-2
Date: 0912712017
Work Order Sample Summary
Date/Time Collected
09/15/2017 8:00 AM
09/15/2017 8:00 AM
Date/Time Received
09/22/2017 9:08 AM
09/22/2017 9:08 AM
Original Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:OOAM is assigned
Page 2 of 8
Fremont
PiTtl171roro7i
CLIENT: PanGEO Inc.
Project: Westgate Village
Case Narrative
W O#: 1709270
Date: 9/26/2017
I. SAMPLE RECEIPT:
Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist.
II. GENERAL REPORTING COMMENTS:
Results are reported on a wet weight basis unless dry -weight correction is denoted in the units field on the
analytical report ("mg/kg-dry" or "ug/kg-dry").
The validity of the analytical procedures for which data is reported in this analytical report is determined by
the Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) and the Method Blank (MB). The LCS and the MB are processed
with the samples to ensure method criteria are achieved throughout the entire analytical process.
III. ANALYSES AND EXCEPTIONS:
Exceptions associated with this report will be footnoted in the analytical results page(s) or the quality
control summary page(s) and/or noted below.
Original
Page 3 of 8
Fremont
Qualifiers:
Qualifiers & Acronyms
W O#: 1709270
Date Reported: 9/26/2017
* - Flagged value is not within established control limits
B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D - Dilution was required
E - Value above quantitation range
H - Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
I - Analyte with an internal standard that does not meet established acceptance criteria
J - Analyte detected below Reporting Limit
N - Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC)
Q - Analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria
(<20%RSD, <20% Drift or minimum RRF)
S - Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits
ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit
R - High relative percent difference observed
Acronyms:
%Rec - Percent Recovery
CCB - Continued Calibration Blank
CCV - Continued Calibration Verification
DF - Dilution Factor
HEM - Hexane Extractable Material
ICV - Initial Calibration Verification
LCS/LCSD - Laboratory Control Sample / Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate
MB or MBLANK - Method Blank
MDL - Method Detection Limit
MS/MSD - Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate
PDS - Post Digestion Spike
Ref Val - Reference Value
RL - Reporting Limit
RPD - Relative Percent Difference
SD - Serial Dilution
SGT - Silica Gel Treatment
SPK - Spike
Surr - Surrogate
Original
www.fremontanalytical.com
Page 4 of 8
Fremont
Analytical
Report
Work Order:
1709270
Date Reported:
9/26/2017
CLIENT: PanGEO Inc.
Project: Westgate Village
Lab ID: 1709270-001 Collection Date: 9/15/2017 8:00:00 AM
Client Sample ID: PITA Matrix: Soil
Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed
Cation Exchange Capacity
Cation Exchange Capacity 6.57
Lab ID: 1709270-002
Client Sample ID: PIT-2
Analyses Result
Cation Exchange Capacity
Cation Exchange Capacity 10.5
Batch ID: R38844 Analyst: TN
1.00 meq/100g 1 9/26/2017 3:52:23 PM
Collection Date: 9/15/2017 8:00:00 AM
Matrix: Soil
RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed
Batch ID: R38844 Analyst: TN
1.00 meq/100g 1 9/26/2017 4:00:25 PM
Original
Page 5 of 8
FlFremont
: riMMIM .
Work Order: 1709270
CLIENT: PanGEO Inc.
Project: Westgate Village
Date: 9/26/2017
QC SUMMARY REPORT
Cation Exchange Capacity
Sample ID MB-R38844
SampType: MBLK
Units: meq/100g Prep Date: 9/26/2017
RunNo: 38844
Client ID: MBLKS
Batch ID: R38844
Analysis Date: 912612017
SegNo: 746790
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cation Exchange Capacity ND 1.00
Sample ID LCS-R38844
SampType: LCS
Units: pg/L Prep Date: 9/26/2017
RunNo: 38844
Client ID: LCSS
Batch ID: R38844
Analysis Date: 9/26/2017
SegNo: 746791
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Sodium 1,040 100 1,000 0 104 75 125
Sample ID 1709270-001ADUP
SampType: DUP
Units: meq/100g Prep Date: 9/26/2017
RunNo: 38844
Client ID: PIT-1
Batch ID: R38844
Analysis Date: 9/26/2017
SegNo: 746793
Analyte
Result
RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val
%RPD RPDLimit Qual
Cation Exchange Capacity
6.95 1.00
6.570 5.62 30
Original Page 6 of 8
Fremont
iiTi7i7rrarp7A
Client Name: PANGEO
Logged by: Brianna Barnes
Chain of Custody
1 Is Chain of Custody complete?
2. How was the sample delivered?
Lop In
3. Coolers are present?
4. Shipping container/cooler in good condition?
5. Custody Seals present on shipping container/cooler?
(Refer to comments for Custody Seals not intact)
Sample Log -In Check List
Work Order Number: 1709270
Date Received: 9/22/2017 9:08:00 AM
Yes No ❑ Not Present ❑
Client
Yes ❑ No d❑ NA ❑
No cooler present
Yes d❑ No ❑
Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Required ❑�
6.
Was an attempt made to cool the samples?
Yes
❑
No U
NA ❑
Unknown
prior to receipt
7.
Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C*
Yes
❑
No 0
NA ❑
Please refer to item information
8.
Sample(s) in proper container(s)?
Yes
d❑
No ❑
9.
Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)?
Yes
d❑
No ❑
10.
Are samples properly preserved?
Yes
d❑
No ❑
11.
Was preservative added to bottles?
Yes
❑
No ❑d
NA ❑
12.
Is there headspace in the VOA vials?
Yes
❑
No ❑
NA ❑d
13.
Did all samples containers arrive in good condition(unbroken)?
Yes
d❑
No ❑
14.
Does paperwork match bottle labels?
Yes
❑d
No ❑
15.
Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody?
Yes
d❑
No ❑
16.
Is it clear what analyses were requested?
Yes
❑d
No ❑
17.
Were all holding times able to be met?
Yes
d❑
No ❑
Special Handling (if applicable)
18. Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑J
Person Notified: Date
By Whom: Via: ❑ eMail ❑ Phone ❑ Fax ❑ In Person
Regarding:
Client Instructions:
19. Additional remarks:
Item Information
Item # Temp °C
Sample 21.1
* Note: DoD/ELAP and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C
Original
Page 7 of 8
FremontChain
of Custody Record and Laboratory Services Agreem�tent
Date: ��2�[ 1 O 2�
tr ni
�w
/ Laboratory Project No (internal): v
3600 Fremont Ave N. Tel: 206-352-3790
Page: of:
Seattle, WA 98103 Fax: 206-352-7178
Project Name:
8er�� Vhl,6:ge—
Client: o"-' &C—o t1, nC
1/
Project No: `G� I�4� Collected by: Jae r - �.a14o-cr
a7
Address: 69-N3Egs+V4�kQ A,-e- G
Location: EaMwClS w
City, State, Zip: Sea4"e, WA CA5,0
Report To (PM): SC04 D%nV-t\Mat1
Telephone: 12-04-a61-o3"I0 Fax:
PM Email: d"mcelkMK n QG(�G•CC'1 tl;,oe��C�`*f� �611 @��t`C•C0n'1
`Matrix Codes: A = Air, AQ = Aqueous, B = Bulk, O = Other, P = Product, 5 = Soil, SD = Sediment, SL = Solid, W = Water, DW = Drinking Water, GW = Ground Water, SW = Storm Water, W W = Waste Water
+\
Sample
p Pac ,°0 a�A QP p P
Sample Name
Sample
Date
Sample
Time
Type o� a,aso°asesz\�epC9\�Pr��`�5\Q
(Matrix)* J 0 0 0 d O` Q Q �° P Comments
1��Y- s-Z
9/►r
$ar
S
5-Z
C1/Ir
$arh
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
**Metals Analysis (Circle): MTCA-5 RCRA-8 Priority Pollutants TAL
Individual: Ag Al As B Ba Be Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Hg K Mg Mn Mo Na Ni Pb Sb Se Sr Sri Ti TI U V Zn
*"Anions (Circle): Nitrate Nitrite Chloride Sulfate Bromide
O-Phosphate Fluoride Nitrate+Nitrite
Turn -around times for samples
received after 4:00pm will begin
Special Remarks:
Disposal by Lab (Samples will be held for 30 days unless otherwise noted. A fee may be
Sample Disposal: O Return to Client
on the following business day.
assessed if samples are retained after 30 days.)
1 represent that I am authorized to enter into this Agreement with Fremont Analytic 1 on behalf of the ('lient named above, that 1 have verified ('lient's
agreement to each of the terms on the front and backside of this Agreement.
Relinquished Date/Time / H Q
e iv ate/Time
Relinquished Date/Time
ceived bateflime ITAT
--> SameDay^ NextDay^ 2 Day Da STD
^Please coordinate with the lab in advance
x
x
00
1
Distribution: White - Lab, Yellow - File,Pink- Originator www.fremontanalytical.com COC 1.1 - 4.5.16 - 1 of 2