2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill Campbell River, British Columbia. Upland Excavating Ltd.

Transcription

1 2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill Campbell River, British Columbia Upland Excavating Ltd Shellbridge Way Suite 165 Richmond British Columbia V6X 2W8 Canada Report No 6 May

2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Project Description Objective Investigation Methodology Borehole Investigation Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geophysical Seismic Investigation Subsurface Stratigraphy Native Soil Material Bedrock Groundwater Slope Stability Evaluations Material Properties (for Slope Stability Analysis) Water Levels (for Slope Stability Analysis) Seismic Peak Ground Accelerations Targeted Safety Factors Analysis Methodology Critical Cross Sections Stability Results Final Cover Design Considerations Liquefaction Potential Evaluation Conclusions References 13 Figure Index Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Site Location Map Borehole/MASW Investigation Line Location Plan Landfill Cross Sections Table Index Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Summary of Geotechnical Test Results Summary of Assumed Material Properties Summary of Slope Stability Evaluation Results GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) i

3 Appendices Appendix A-1 Appendix A-2 Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Borehole Logs Dynamic Cone Penetration Logs Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results MASW Test Results NBCC Seismic Hazard Information Slope Stability Analysis Results GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) ii

4 1. Introduction GHD Limited (GHD) was retained by Upland Excavating Ltd. (Upland) to carry out a geotechnical investigation for the future Upland Landfill (Landfill) located at 7295 Gold River Hwy, Campbell River, British Columbia (Site). The geotechnical investigation will form part of the Waste Discharge Application submitted to British Columbia Ministry (BC) of Environment (MOE) to obtain an Operational Certificate (OC) for the Landfill. The geotechnical investigation has been prepared in general accordance with the BC MOE's "Draft Second Edition Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste", dated September The Site is located approximately 7 kilometres (km) southwest of the urban area of Campbell River. The Site's southern property coincides with the boundary between the City of Campbell River and the Strathcona Regional District. The Gold River Highway is located to the north and west of the Site. The legal description is Lot A, District Lot 85, Plan 30709, Sayward District. The total area of the Site is approximately 48.2 hectares (ha). A Site location map is presented in Figure 1. The Site is currently an active sand and gravel pit (Pit) that has been in operation since 1969 under Mines Act Permit G issued December 1989 last amended in February The location of the Landfill will be within the base of the Pit. GHD has completed various investigative activities at the Site between August 2015 and February 2016 for the purpose of: Characterizing the geologic conditions underlying the future Landfill and the surrounding areas. Investigating and characterizing the groundwater and surface water flows. Investigating and defining groundwater and surface water quality within and in the vicinity of the future Landfill. Characterizing groundwater quality upgradient and downgradient of the Landfill footprint. Developing recommendations for use in support of an application to the BC MOE to receive an OC for the Landfill. The purpose of this geotechnical investigation, carried out by GHD was to assess the current geotechnical conditions within the Landfill footprint and to assess the geotechnical aspects of the Landfill design. The investigation included advancing three boreholes within or in the proximity of the Landfill footprint and geophysical testing to evaluate the effects of seismic hazard levels introduced in British Columbia Building Code 2012 (BCBC 2012) and National Building Code of Canada 2010 (NBCC 2010) on the Landfill performance. 1.1 Project Description The Landfill will be constructed within the limits of the existing Pit. Upon completion it will have a footprint area with dimensions of 200 metres (m) (north-south direction) by 150 m (east-west direction). A Site plan of the Landfill is presented in Figure 2. The Landfill base will be covered with a base liner (comprising geomembrane/geotextile and geosynthetic clay liner), leachate collection system, and a leachate collection system sump to collect and drain the generated leachate. The Landfill base elevation varies from about m above mean sea level (AMSL) to the south to about m AMSL to the north at the location of the sump. The base will be properly graded to GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 1

5 direct the leachate towards the leachate collection system. Following the construction of the Landfill (completion of waste disposal) it will be covered with a low permeability final cover system (comprising geomembrane/geotextile and geosynthetic clay liner). Therefore, long term water infiltration into the Landfill will be minimal. Cross sections of the Landfill are shown in Figure 3. In general, the existing native slopes within the Landfill footprint will be regraded to slopes not steeper than 2H to 1V (ratio of horizontal to vertical), the side slopes of the waste berm will be constructed with slopes of 3H to 1V, and the top of the Landfill will be graded with a slope of 10H to 1V. The top elevation of the Landfill will be at an approximate elevation of m AMSL, indicating the Landfill has the capacity to accept about 27 m of waste. In accordance to the Design, Operations and Closure Plan (DOCP) Drawings (GHD 2016) the Landfill will be constructed in three stages over a period of 10 years. According to this plan, at each stage of the construction approximately 9 m of waste will be disposed at the Landfill. The waste will be disposed loose and will be compacted to achieve maximum Landfill capacity. Two infiltration ponds are located adjacent to the Landfill, one for surface water and one for treated leachate. The base of this pond will be about 2 m below the exiting floor of the Pit. Localized saturated conditions will exist at the east/northeast toe of the Landfill slope. 1.2 Objective This geotechnical study was designed and executed to collect required information to assist with the final design of the Landfill. The objectives of the geotechnical study included evaluating the stability of the Landfill slopes under various environmental and construction conditions; and completing a seismic study to evaluate the stability of the base and slopes of the Landfill under seismic loads. These objectives were completed in accordance with the National Building of Canada (2010) and British Columbia Building Code (2012). As part of the seismic study the potential for the occurrence of liquefaction at the Site was also assessed. 2. Investigation Methodology To achieve the aforementioned objectives, a subsurface investigation and sample collection was carried out at three locations within the Landfill footprint and around the Landfill mound. Associated laboratory tests were then carried out. The following summarizes the implemented scope of fieldwork: Installation of three geotechnical boreholes: BH1-16, BH2-16, and MW2A-16 were terminated at 24.0 m below existing ground surface (m bgs), 16.5 m bgs, and 45.4 m bgs, respectively. The drilling locations are shown on the attached Figure 2. In-situ tests including SPT sampling and testing were carried out within the boreholes at regular depths. Further, disturbed soil samples were collected from the native soil material to be subjected to laboratory testing. Laboratory tests on native soil samples, including gradation tests. Measurement of the variation of shear wave velocity with depth using seismic geophysical methods (MASW). The measurements were carried out along three investigative lines as shown in Figure 2. The following sections describe the details of each of the above investigation activities. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 2

6 2.1 Borehole Investigation A total of three boreholes (BH1-16, BH2-16, and MW2A-16) were advanced as part of this investigation. The borehole locations were staked in the field by GHD field personnel at the locations shown on Figure 2. Two of the boreholes (BH1-16 and BH2-16) were advanced within the Landfill footprint and borehole MW2A-16 was advanced 40 m northeast of the Landfill footprint. A monitoring well was installed at the latter location for long term groundwater monitoring purposes. The boreholes were advanced by a drilling subcontractor under the full-time supervision of GHD field personnel, utilizing a track-mounted drill rig equipped with roto-sonic systems. Representative disturbed samples of the penetrated strata were obtained during drilling at regular intervals, generally every 0.75 m to 3.0 m as appropriate, utilizing a 50 mm diameter split-barrel sampler. The sampler was advanced by dropping a 63.5 kg hammer approximately 760 mm, in accordance with the standard penetration test method (ASTM D1586). The results of these penetration tests are reported as SPT 'N' values on the borehole logs at the corresponding depths. Information obtained on individual boreholes is recorded on the accompanying Borehole Logs (Appendix A-1). Dynamic Cone Penetration test (DCPT) was carried out from surface to about 0.8 m below the existing ground in the vicinity of each borehole, in accordance to ASTM D6951. The results of these tests are provided in the attached Appendix A-2. The soil samples obtained were inspected upon retrieval and classified in the field for type, texture, colour, and moisture. The obtained samples were sealed in clean, airtight containers and shipped to the GHD Richmond (BC) office, where they were further reviewed. Selected samples were submitted for geotechnical laboratory testing. Upon completion of drilling, the boreholes were backfilled with soil cuttings and sealed at the surface with bentonite pellets in accordance with the current BC Ground Water Protection Regulation (B.C. Reg. 299/2004). Excess soil/waste cuttings (if any) were spread on the ground surface in the vicinity of the borehole locations. Groundwater observations were made in the boreholes as drilling proceeded. The observed groundwater levels are considered transient and do not represent stabilized levels. Borehole MW2A-16 was equipped with 2" standpipe for long term groundwater monitoring. The details of the installed piezometer are provided on the corresponding borehole log. Survey of the drilled borehole locations was carried out by Upland's surveyor subsequent to drilling activities. The ground surface elevations are recorded on the corresponding borehole logs (Appendix A-1). 2.2 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted on representative soil samples in accordance with applicable ASTM and industry acceptable standards. The purpose of the laboratory tests was to determine the geotechnical index properties of the subsurface soils for use in geotechnical analyses. The laboratory testing program consisted of: Sieve and hydrometer (ASTM D421 and ASTM D422) analyses on five retrieved soil samples. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in the attached Table 1 with further details provided in Appendix B. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 3

7 2.3 Geophysical Seismic Investigation A geophysical testing program consisting of multi-channel analysis of surface wave (MASW) was carried out along selected investigation lines. The field work for this aspect of the work was carried out in January 2016 along three investigation lines as follows: Line 1: was located on the east side of the Landfill footprint. Line 2: was located to the north boundary of the Landfill footprint. Line 3: was located to the northwest of the Landfill footprint. Figure 2 provides the locations at which MASW testing was carried out. Detailed field methodology, analysis method, and the results obtained are provided in Appendix C. 3. Subsurface Stratigraphy In general, the subsurface stratigraphy across the Site is quite uniform comprising of native sand and gravel overlying bedrock. The following section provides a general description of the findings at the location of the boreholes. A discussion on the specific characteristics of the geologic units encountered is based on the geotechnical tests carried out. 3.1 Native Soil Material The native soil encountered at the location of the three boreholes is comprised of sand and gravel deposits overlying a sand unit at depth. At the location of borehole BH2-16 a silt deposit was encountered below the sand layer. Boreholes BH1-6 and BH2-16 were terminated at depths of 24.0 m bgs and 16.0 m bgs in bedrock and boreholes MW2A-16 was terminated within sand at the targeted depth of 45.0 m bgs. The thickness of the sand and gravel deposit at BH1-16 and BH2-16 was10.0 m and 11.0 m, respectively. The SPT 'N' values measured within sand and gravel deposit are generally indicative of the dense to very dense nature of this deposit, i.e. SPT 'N' values in excess of 30 blows per 0.3 m of penetration. Layers of compact material (SPT 'N' values of 10 to 20 blows per 0.3 m of penetration) were also observed within this deposit at the location of MW2A-16. One gradation tests carried out on samples from this material resulted in 41.7 percent gravel; 55.5 percent sand, 2.8 percent silt/clay size material. Therefore, this material is classified as gravelly SAND, trace silt. Below the top sand and gravel layer the dominant deposit turns into sand with various amounts of fine sand and silt materials. The SPT 'N' values encountered within this deposit were generally in excess of 50 blows per 0.3 m of penetration indicating the very dense nature of this deposit at the location of the boreholes. A gradation test completed on silt and fine sand rich layer encountered at 24.4 m bgs within MW2A-16 resulted in a grain size distribution of 0.4 percent gravel, 65.8 percent sand, and 33.8 percent silt. Therefore this material is classified as SAND, some silts and clay. A gradation test completed on a silt and sand layer above bedrock in BH2-16 approximately 11.5 to 14 m bgs, resulted in a grain size distribution of 28.3 percent gravel, 39.4 percent sand, and 32.3 percent fines. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 4

8 3.2 Bedrock Igneous bedrock (basaltic) was encountered at boreholes BH1-16 and BH2-16 at 23 m BGS and 14 m bgs, respectively. Bedrock was not encountered at borehole MW2A-16 which was terminated at 45 m bgs. Within the Landfill footprint, the top of bedrock elevation varies from about 145 to 151 m AMSL. At the center of the Landfill bedrock is about 14 m below the designed base of the Landfill. Based on the results of this investigation and previous information collected by GHD, the bedrock surface elevation dips to the south east and is interpreted to be highly variable at and in the vicinity of the Site. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater observations were made during drilling activities and upon borehole completion. During drilling activities, groundwater was encountered at BH1-16 and MW2A-16 at 11.2 m bgs and 13.7 m bgs, respectively and was not encountered at the location of BH2-16. The observed groundwater levels are considered transient and may fluctuate with time. As part of the investigation completed for the Hydrogeolgy and Hydrology Characterization Report, static water levels were measured following borehole completion and monitoring well installation. Hydraulic monitoring results indicated that groundwater flow direction on Site within the sand and gravel unit is directed from the northwest to the southeast. The groundwater elevation within the Landfill footprint was reported to be variable ranging from m AMSL to less than m AMSL. At the center of the Landfill, groundwater is reported to be at about m AMSL or about 7.0 m below the designed base of the Landfill. 4. Slope Stability Evaluations A detailed stability evaluation is carried out to assess the potential failure modes of the designed Landfill slopes and associated factors of safety under various assumed short and long term conditions. The following sections explain the assumptions and the results of our analysis. 4.1 Material Properties (for Slope Stability Analysis) For the purpose of the stability analysis three types of materials are assumed to exist within the Landfill footprint. A description of these materials is as follows: Uncompacted Waste (Material 1): this material represents the freshly deposited material, is highly compressible and shows relatively low strength. Due to its relatively recent deposition, this material has high water content, is under-consolidated and will undergo large settlements upon loading. The strength of this material will increase with time due to compaction and consolidation. Compacted Waste (Material 2): following deposition of the waste, the material will be subjected to mechanical compaction to increase the Landfill capacity. This process will increase its longterm mechanical strength. Consolidated Waste (Material 3): subsequent to deposition and compaction, the consolidation phase of the waste material will start. Depending on the properties of the deposited material such as its permeability and composition, this process may take months to years to complete. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 5

9 Based on the available information in literature and our previous experiences with similar material it is assumed that the waste material will behave as granular material thus its shear strength is governed by internal friction angle and its unit weight and cohesion can be ignored (C'=0). A summary of the assigned parameters is provided in the attached Table 2. The native soil at the Site comprises granular material of gravelly/sandy nature. As mentioned in the previous section, these materials are generally in dense to very dense nature. The assumed mechanical properties for this native material is also presented in attached Table Water Levels (for Slope Stability Analysis) GHD has monitored the groundwater conditions within and around the Landfill footprint with the results provided in the GHD s Hydrogeology and Hydrology Characterization Report, Based on this information groundwater within the native material will range from 3.0 m to 9.7 m below the designed base of the Landfill. However, the existence of a gravel wash plant and a treated leachate infiltration pond to the east of the Landfill may cause temporary saturated condition at the base of the east/northeast toes of the Landfill. The other source of water within the Landfill is the leachate in the landfilled waste during the Landfill development and operation. As the closure works for the Landfill include low permeability final cover and a leachate collection system, it is reasonable to assume that the leachate elevations within the landfilled waste will be controlled and reduce with time. Back calculations have been completed to evaluate the water levels which may cause instabilities within the Landfill slopes. As a result, recommendations are made within this report to monitor the water levels during the development of the Landfill. 4.3 Seismic Peak Ground Accelerations The level of seismic hazards defined for the Campbell River area as obtained from Natural Resources of Canada website are presented in Appendix D. The level of hazards as per National Building Code of Canada 2015 (NBCC 2015) is slightly higher than the ones in NBCC 2010 (NBCC 2005 and NBCC 2010); however the difference is not considered significant. The British Columbia Building Code (BCBC 2012), which is the applicable regulation, adopted the same seismic provisions as NBCC Therefore, in this discussion, reference is made to NBCC The calculated seismic hazards for the site, as per NBCC 2010 (provided by NRCC) for different probabilities, are provided in Appendix D. These values are provided for firm ground (site Class C). The National Building Code of Canada (Code) specifies that buildings and their components should be designed for seismic events with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (i.e., return period of 2475 years). However, the Code does not specifically comment on the appropriate seismic event for Landfills or earth structures. The US Environmental Protection Agency Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D (Richardson et. al., 1995) states that hazardous waste landfill facilities and its engineered components should be designed for maximum horizontal acceleration resulting from a seismic event with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 250 years (i.e., return period of 2373 years). Considering the nature of the Landfill and the low consequences of its failure during an extreme seismic event, it is GHD's opinion that NBCC 2010 regulations and RCRA Subtitle D provide very conservative design criteria, especially for short term conditions. Therefore, in the absence of a specific design code for this application for the seismic condition present at this Site, it is GHD's opinion that for the active life (operation life) of the Landfill, a design based on a seismic event with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 475 years) is appropriate. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 6

10 However, to account for the unknown properties of the freshly deposited waste material and potential seismic amplifications due to its unconsolidated nature, a seismic event with 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 0 years) is considered for stability evaluations in short term. For the post construction conditions the design should be based on a seismic event with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (return period of 2475 years). In accordance with the hazards presented in Appendix D the peak ground accelerations for class C sites are as follows: PGA 0years = 0.202g for 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years PGA 2475years = 0.281g for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years As per the calculations presented in Appendix C the Landfill was designated as Class C. Therefore, the above PGA values can be used in stability calculations without any modification for site amplification effects. The slope stability analysis was carried out using the pseudostatic method; therefore an acceleration multiplier of 0.5 is used in the stability calculations. In conclusion the following accelerations are used in the stability evaluations: PGA 0years = 0.5 x 0.202g = 0.1g PGA 2475years = 0.5 x 0.281g =0.14g 4.4 Targeted Safety Factors Factors of safety (FOS) are quantitative measures of defining the stability conditions of a slope. The most widely used definition for the factor of safety is as follows: FOS = Available shear strength in the soil mass Shear strength required for equilibrium A FOS value of 1 indicates that the resisting shear forces within the soil mass are in equilibrium with the driving forces. Thus FOS values less than 1 are indicative of high probability of failure, whereas FOS values greater than 1 indicate a low probability of failure. Due to the uncertainties in estimating the soil mass shear strength and driving forces, FOS values greater than 1 are typically used in the design. The targeted factors of safety are related to the consequences of failure, expected life span of the slope, uncertainties in evaluating shear strengths, groundwater conditions, future monitoring plans and uncertainties in the analysis methods. Conventionally, the following factors of safety are used in the design of slopes (Blake, 2002): For static long-term slope stability FOS = 1.5 For static short-term slope stability (end of construction) FOS = 1.25 to 1.30 For dynamic-long term slope stability (seismic case) FOS = 1.10 For this Landfill, the consequences of slope failure can be summarized as follows: Damage to the final cover system. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 7

11 Damage to the leachate collections systems. Damage to the access roads in the vicinity of the Landfill. Possible contamination of the existing groundwater with leachate in the immediate vicinity of the Landfill footprint. Based on the above, the Landfill slopes have low to moderate consequences. Therefore, for the duration of the Landfill operation, the following factors of safety are considered adequate and are used as the target factors of safety in the stability analysis: Static (During Expansion and End of construction) FOS = 1.2 to 1.3 Dynamic (Seismic) FOS = 1.0 for events with return periods of 0 years (Short Term) Dynamic (Seismic) FOS = 1.1 for events with return periods of 2475 years (Long Term) Typically, materials exhibit higher strengths under rapid dynamic loads (Blake 2002). For the slope stability evaluations provided in this report, the static strength parameters were used for the cases with seismic loading (rapid dynamic loading), which is considered a conservative assumption. It is emphasized that these factors of safety are considered adequate for the operating life of the Landfill, when comprehensive monitoring programs are implemented, and the failure consequences are low to moderate as stated herein. The above noted targeted factors of safety should be reviewed/ re-evaluated at a later time based on the closure and post-closure development plans and the designed end use for the Landfill. 4.5 Analysis Methodology Slope stability analysis performed using GeoStudio/Slope W software. Limit equilibrium analysis (Morgensten-Price and Bishop methods) was carried out to evaluate the stability of slopes across the Landfill under different material, water level and loading conditions. To account for seismic loading, the analysis was carried out under psuedostatic conditions. A summary of the results is provided in the attached Table 3. Details of the constructed models along with critical surfaces are provided in the figures in Appendix E. 4.6 Critical Cross Sections Two cross sections were selected as critical for this analysis. The attached Figure 2 shows a plan view of the selected cross sections and Section views of selected cross sections are depicted in Figure Stability Results A summary of the factors of safety along each section is provided in Table 3. Selected model outputs from the critical cross sections are provided in the attached Appendix E. The following sections provide a summary of the assessments. For each selected cross section the following cases are evaluated: Stage 1-Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste overlying native soil. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 8

12 Stage 2-Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 of compacted) overlying native soil. Stage 3-End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 of waste (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying native soil. Stage 4-Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed Landfill comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying native soil. A review of the factors of safety as presented in Table 3 reveals that: The obtained factors of safety for static conditions (short and long term conditions) exceed the targeted values as discussed in Section 4.4 above (Table 3 Column under title FOS Static). The obtained factors of safety for dynamic/seismic conditions meet or exceed the targeted values (Table 3 Column under title FOS Seismic). The water levels presented in Table 3 (under title Effect of Water Level) show the maximum temporary water levels within the Landfill. Above this water level the factors of safety will be lower than industry accepted standards. It is observed that in short term, as long as the water levels are maintained at the infiltration pond levels, acceptable factors of safety are achieved. In long term (compacted/consolidated material) higher temporary pore pressures can be tolerated. Neither of the presented slip surfaces passes through the native material. This observation indicates that the existing ground is sufficiently stable to support the Landfill construction. Based on the above evaluations, it is our conclusion that from a geotechnical point of view the Landfill design (with the details presented in the Design drawings) meets or exceeds the required factors of safety for slope stability. 4.8 Final Cover Design Considerations A detailed evaluation of the Landfill cover system should be carried out separately considering the potential for settlement of the landfilled waste. Changes in the static effective stresses within the Landfill or the underlying native soil materials may result in settlements. Uniform settlements generally are not much of concern in Landfills; however differential settlements are important to engineered systems and should be minimized where possible. In the design of engineered systems, the possible adverse effect of large settlements (especially if differential) should be considered. The types of settlements identified for the Landfill are: Short term (elastic) settlements: These settlements occur almost immediately after changes in the loading occurs. This type of settlement can occur due to loading from construction work, heavy machinery, and the vertical expansion of the existing Landfill. Immediate settlements (total or differential) in the order of mm to 200 mm (4" to 8") are expected during the vertical expansion of the Landfill. During this period site reconnaissance by geotechnical professionals should be carried out to identify locations of distress. Long term (primary consolidation) settlements: These settlements occur due to the expulsion of pore water from the waste material. Depending on the loading, saturation degree, and the drainage paths within the Landfill, this settlement may take years to complete and can also be differential in nature. Long term settlements (total or differential) should be expected after the closure of the Landfill. However, due to the compaction of the waste material and the duration GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 9

13 of the construction these settlements are expected to be tolerable. These settlements should be repaired upon detection. Creep (secondary consolidation) settlement: This type of settlement will occur under nearly constant effective stresses. It is associated with the plastic adjustment of the material. Theoretically, this type of settlement will never end, but will slow down with time. Depending on the nature of the deposited waste, long term settlements (creep settlements) are expected to occur at the Landfill on a continuous basis. Again, due to the compaction of the material and staged construction these settlements are expected to be tolerable and of no concern. Contingency plans to address areas of settlement should be included in the design phase of the Landfill closure works. Any post closure land use should consider the potential adverse effect of these settlements on post closure conditions. 5. Liquefaction Potential Evaluation The subsurface underlying the Landfill is comprised of dense to very dense sand to sand and gravel material. Considering the dense to very dense nature of this material and the relatively large amounts of gravel size material within this deposit, the probability of liquefaction during extreme seismic events is considered very low. Further, there is no documented case study of municipal solid waste liquefaction due to seismic loading within waste material. The presence of the Landfill leachate collection system will minimize the potential for pore water pressure build-up within the waste material. Therefore; it is concluded that the potential of liquefaction within the landfilled material is also very low. 6. Conclusions The purpose of the geotechnical investigation carried out by GHD was to assess the current geotechnical conditions at the Site and to evaluate the Landfill design for the construction, use and closure. Based on this geotechnical investigation, the following conclusions are provided: General The results of the geotechnical investigation show that the Landfill design at this Site is geotechnically feasible. Settlement The potential for settlement of the landfilled waste should be considered when conducting a detailed evaluation of the Landfill cover system. Seismic Evaluation A seismic evaluation was carried out based on hazard values (PGA) recommended by NBCC The procedure specified in US EPA RCRA Subtitle D was used for evaluating the amplification factors within the soil and waste material. Overall the obtained hazard values provide a conservative estimation of the amplified peak accelerations at the Landfill. Considering the low consequences of failure at the Site, seismic hazard values with 2% and 5% probability in 50 years (return period of 2475 and 0 years, respectively) were used in the seismic evaluations. The evaluation concluded the following: GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 10

14 Historical data does not show the potential of liquefaction within waste material. The existence of the Landfill leachate collection system does not allow for pressure build up (saturated condition) within the Landfilled material. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction within the waste material is extremely low. Liquefaction assessment of the existing native soil shows very low to low potential of liquefaction during extreme seismic events with return periods of 2475 years or less. Slope Stability Slope stability analysis was carried out using GeoStudio/Slope W software. Limit equilibrium method (Morgensten-Price and Bishop) was utilized to evaluate the stability of slopes across the Landfill under different material, water level and loading conditions. Considering the low consequences of failure of the Landfill, targeted FOS of 1.2 to 1.3 is considered adequate for short term (during construction) stability of the slopes under static loading. For long term (post construction) conditions targeted FOS of 1.5 is considered. For seismic events with return periods of 0 years, a target FOS of 1.0 is considered adequate. For seismic events with a return period of 2475 years, FOS of 1.1 is considered adequate. From the slope stability analysis the following conclusions are made: The safety factors obtained along the studied cross sections meet the targeted safety factors and are thus considered adequate under the assumptions of this report. Due to the nature of the material the factors of safety will increase with time, due to densification. The existing native subgrade is sufficiently stable to support the Landfill construction. A monitoring plan should be prepared and implemented to monitor the slope conditions/movements, and leachate/groundwater conditions as the height of the Landfill mound increases. A contingency plan should be prepared as part of the continued use and closure design to address any sudden buildup of pore pressure within the Landfill. GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 11

15

16 7. References Blake, T.F., Hollingsworth, R.A., and Stewart, J.P. (Editors) (2002), Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines For Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, Southern California Earthquake Center. Boulanger, R.W., and Idriss, I.M. (2004), Evaluation of the potential for liquefaction or cyclic failure of silts and clays, Report No. UCD/CGM-04/01, Center for Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis, California. CFM (2006), Canadian Foundation Manual, 4 th Ed., Canadian Geotechnical Society, Richmond, BC. Idriss, I.M., Boulanger, R.W. (2008), Soil Liquefaction during Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, MNO-12. Kavazanjian, E.J., Matasovic, N. and Bachus, R.C. (2013), 11 th Peck Lecture: Predesign Geotechnical Investigation for the OII Superfund Site Landfill, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, p Kramer, S.L. (1996), Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, USA Matasovic, N., Kavazanjian, E., and Anderson, R.L. (1998), Performance of Solid Waste Landfills in Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra: May 1998, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp Richardson, G., Kavazanjian, E. Jr., and Matasovi, N. (1995), RCRA Subtitle D, Seismic Design Guidance for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facilities, Contract No. 68-C3-0315, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6) 13

17 LOT 6 PLAN ARGONAUT ROAD McIVOR LAKE 112 OIP 2047-R 137m LOT m PLAN GOLD RIVER HIGHWAY 104 OIP LOT A PLAN LOT A PLAN m SHOP + WEIGH SCALE FUEL TANKS OFFICE + M SHED MW PRODUCTION AREA LOT A PLAN STRATA LOT 1 PLAN VIS6756 LOT C PLAN STRATA LOT 2 PLAN VIS m MW4A-15 WASH PLANT MW m OIP RICO LAKE m MW3-14 EXPLOSIVES SHELTER EXPLOSIVES SHELTER PRODUCTION AREA EXPLOSIVES SHELTER MW5A-15 MW5B-15 BH5-15 EXPLOSIVES SHELTER m OPP BCLS m OPP NE 1/4 SEC.32 TP.2 W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 SEC. 33 TP m LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR MW3-14 LIMIT OF WASTE LIMIT OF EXCAVATION EXISTING MONITORING WELL UPLAND EXCAVATING LTD. PROPOSED UPLAND LANDFILL May 25, 2016 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LAKE EXISTING ACCESS ROADWAY SITE LOCATION PLAN FIGURE 1 CAD File: P:\drawings\88000s\88877\ REPORTS\ (006)\ (006)CI\ (006)CI-WA001.dwg

18 m WASH PLANT MW4A-15 MASW LINE 2 MW2-14 MW2A m OIP BH1-16 MASW LINE 3 EXPLOSIVES SHELTER m A FIG. 3 A' FIG. 3 EXPLOSIVES SHELTER MASW LINE 1 MW PRODUCTION AREA EXPLOSIVES SHELTER MW5A-15 MW5B m BUFFER ZONE EXPLOSIVES SHELTER m OPP BCLS724 BH5-15 B' FIG m OPP NE 1/4 SEC.32 TP.2 W 1/2 OF NW 1/4 SEC. 33 TP m 0.5 LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR MASW LINE LIMIT OF WASTE LIMIT OF EXCAVATION UPLAND EXCAVATING LTD. PROPOSED UPLAND LANDFILL May 25, 2016 PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LAKE EXISTING ACCESS ROADWAY MW6A-15 MW3-14 BH5-15 SW15-01 PROPOSED MONITORING WELL EXISTING MONITORING WELL EXISTING BOREHOLE SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATION BOREHOLE / MASW INVESTIGATION LINES PLAN FIGURE 2 CAD File: P:\drawings\88000s\88877\ REPORTS\ (006)\ (006)CI\ (006)CI-WA002.dwg

19 WEST EAST LIMIT OF EXCAVATION 1 2 PERIMETER BERM 1 LIMIT OF WASTE 2 EXISTING GRADES 3 BASE GRADES FINAL COVER SYSTEM 1% LINER SYSTEM 1% 3 1 MID-SLOPE SWALE LIMIT OF WASTE PERIMETER BERM LIMIT OF EXCAVATION STA SECTION HORZ: 1:0 VERT: 1:500 A-A' FIG. 2 NORTH SOUTH PERIMETER BERM LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM SUMP FINAL COVER SYSTEM % EXISTING GRADES BASE LINER SYSTEM PERIMETER BERM STA SECTION HORZ: 1:0 VERT: 1:500 B-B' FIG. 2 FOR DETAILS REFER TO DESIGN AND OPERATIONS PLAN DRAWINGS (001) UPLAND EXCAVATING LTD. PROPOSED UPLAND LANDFILL May 25, 2016 LANDFILL CROSS-SECTIONS FIGURE 3 CAD File: P:\drawings\88000s\88877\ REPORTS\ (006)\ (006)CI\ (006)CI-WA003.dwg

20 Table 1 Page 1 of 1 Summary of Geotechnical Test Results 2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill, Campbell River, British Columbia Soil Samples Particle Size Distribution Borehole Designation Location Subsoil Unit Designation/ Sample Depth (m bgs) Natural Moisture Content (%) % Gravel % Sand % Silt % < mm (clay) USCS (1) Classification BH1-16 BH2-16 Within Proposed Landfill Footprint Within Proposed Landfill Footprint SAND, trace gravel, trace silt SAND, some silt, some gravel MW2A-16 North East of Landfill Footprint gravelly SAND, trace silt MW2A-16 North East of Landfill Footprint SAND, some silt and clay MW2A-16 North East of Landfill Footprint SAND, trace silt GB-1/ GB-4/ GB-7/ GB-5/ GB-6/ N/M SW N/M SM N/M SW N/M SM N/M SP Note: (1) USCS denotes Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487) GB - denotes grab sample bgs - denotes below ground surface GHD (6)

21 Table 2 Page 1 of 1 Summary of Assumed Material Properties 2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill, Campbell River, British Columbia Material Properties for Slope Stability Analysis Description γ C' φ' (KN/m 3 ) (KN/m 2 ) (Degrees) Native- sand/gravel (Very Dense) Material 1 (Uncompacted Waste) Material 2 (Compacted Waste) Material 3 (Compacted/Consolidated Waste) Color GHD (6)

22 Table 3 Page 1 of 1 Summary of Slope Stability Results 2016 Geotechnical Investigation Upland Landfill, Campbell River, British Columbia Effect of Water Level (d) FOS Seismic ( e) Reference Cross Section (a) Case No. (b) Description FOS Static (c) Critical Water Level (m AMSL) FOS Return Period Years Figure Section A-A Section B-B Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste overlying native soil. Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 of compacted) overlying native soil. End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 of waste (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying native soil. Stage 4-Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed landfill comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying native soil. Short term condition during construction: Up to 9.0 m of uncompacted waste overlying native soil. Midterm condition during construction: Up to 18.0 m of waste fill (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 of compacted) overlying native soil. End of construction condition: Up to 27.0 of waste (9.0 m uncompacted over 9.0 m compacted over 9.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste) overlying native soil. Stage 4-Post construction (Long term) condition: Completed landfill comprising 27.0 m of compacted/consolidated waste material overlying native soil. Notes: a) Geometry corresponds to the proposed landfill design as per GHD 2016 design drawings. b) Case Nos corresponsd to the stability analysis of different stages of the MSW material placed c) For acceptable ranges of the factors of safety refer to the report. d) These water levels show the maximum short term water levels acceptable for the design. e) Target value for the factor of safey is 1.0 for seismic events with return periods of 0 and and 1.1 for seismic events with return periods of 2475 years E E E E E E E E-8 GHD (6)

23 Appendices GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6)

24 Appendix A-1 Borehole Logs GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6)

25 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS 1 2 STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 1 of 2 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS NORTHING: EASTING: SW-GRAVELY SAND, well graded, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, brown, dry, dense GROUND SURFACE HOLE DESIGNATION: BH1-16 DATE COMPLETED: 27 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: S. Foster ELEV. m BOREHOLE SOIL CUTTINGS BENONITE GRAVEL NUMBER RS-1 SPT-2 RC-2 INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 80 'N' VALUE SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, well graded, fine to medium sand, fine gravel, brown, dry, very dense - with coarse sand at 3.05m BGS SPT-3 RS moist at 5.15m BGS SP-SAND with gravel, fine sand with trace coarse sand and fine gravel, moist, sub-rounded, very dense SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, well graded, fine to coarse sand and gravel, subangular, grey, moist, very dense mm Ø BOREHOLE SPT-4 RS-4 SPT-5 RS Grain Size Result: SAND, trace gravel, trace silt (Gravel=3.9%, Sand=93.3%, Fines=2.8%) from 8.84 to 10.36m BGS SP-FINE SAND, trace coarse gravel, grey, moist, dense SW-SAND with gravel, fine to medium grained sand and gravel, grey, moist, very dense SOIL CUTTINGS SPT-6 GB-1 RS cobbles at 12.80m BGS OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: SW-SAND, with gravel to trace gravel, fine to medium grained sand and gravel, grey, wet, loose - heaving sands at 14.94m BGS SP-SAND, fine to medium grained sand, grey, moist MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE STATIC WATER LEVEL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS SPT-7 RS

26 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 2 of 2 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS HOLE DESIGNATION: BH1-16 DATE COMPLETED: 27 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: S. Foster ELEV. m BOREHOLE NUMBER INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 'N' VALUE BEDROCK, (highly weathered), silty, slight plasticity, soft, grey, wet BEDROCK, Karmutsen, porphyritic basalt, igneous extrusive, black (blueish) with white crystals, phaneritic, moderate iron staining on fractures vertical fracturing, with iron staining on fracture surface, largely non-intact, RQD=0.25 END OF 24.08m BGS BENTONITE GRAVEL WELL DETAILS Seal: to m to 24.08m BGS Material: BENTONITE GRAVEL RS Borehole completed to target depth in bedrock No topsoil evident/surface compact sand and gravel Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and sealed with bentonite Static water level in boring m BGS measured after 14 hours RS - Rotosonic Core Sample SPT - Standard Penetration Test (splitspoon sample) GB - Grab Sample OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE STATIC WATER LEVEL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

27 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS 1 2 STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 1 of 2 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS NORTHING: EASTING: SW-GRAVELY SAND, with cobbles, well graded, fine to coarse sand and gravel, brown, moist, dense GROUND SURFACE HOLE DESIGNATION: BH2-16 DATE COMPLETED: 28 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: J. Stewart ELEV. m BOREHOLE SOIL CUTTINGS BENONITE GRAVEL NUMBER SPT-1 RS-1 SPT-2 RS-2 INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 'N' VALUE SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, fine to medium grain sand, dry, compact SP-SAND, poorly graded, fine sand, brown, dry, very dense mm Ø BOREHOLE SPT-3 RS-3 GB-1 SPT-4 RS-4 SPT >66 7 SOIL CUTTINGS RS SW/GW-GRAVELY SAND, well graded, grey, moist, dense GB-2 SPT RS-6 11 GB-3 OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: ML-SILTY SAND, with gravel, slightly cohesive, low plasticity, fine sand and gravel, grey with brown ribbons, moist, compact - Grain Size Result: SAND, some gravel and silt (Gravel: 28.3%, Sand: 39.4%, Fines=32.3%) from to 13.41m BGS BEDROCK, highly weathered (saprolite) surface, silt, crumbly, interbedded grey and brown, moist BEDROCK, Karmutsen, porphyritic basalt, igneous extrusive, black (blueish) with white crystals, phaneritic, moderate iron staining on fractures vertical fracturing, with iron staining on fracture surface, largely non-intact, RQD=0 END OF 16.46m BGS Borehole completed to target depth in bedrock No topsoil evident/surface compact sand and gravel Borehole dry upon completion Borehole backfilled with soil cuttings and GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS BENTONITE GRAVEL WELL DETAILS Seal: to m to 16.46m BGS Material: BENTONITE GRAVEL MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE STP-7 GB-4 RS-7 GB

28 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 2 of 2 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS sealed with bentonite RS - Rotosonic Core Sample SPT - Standard Penetration Test (splitspoon sample) GB - Grab Sample HOLE DESIGNATION: BH2-16 DATE COMPLETED: 28 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: J. Stewart ELEV. m BOREHOLE NUMBER INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 'N' VALUE OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS

29 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS 1 2 STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 1 of 3 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS NORTHING: EASTING: SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, medium to coarse sand ti coarse gravel, well graded, grey, dry, subrounded to rounded, dense - Compact, brown, dry at 1.22m BGS GROUND SURFACE HOLE DESIGNATION: MW2A-16 DATE COMPLETED: 27 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: S. Foster ELEV. m MONITORING WELL STICKUP 0.80 M BENTONITE GRAVEL NUMBER SPT-1 RS-1 SPT-2 GB-1 RS-2 INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 'N' VALUE GW-GRAVEL with sand and cobbles, fine to coarse grain gravel, cobbles, coarse sand, well graded, grey, dry, sub-angular-subrounded, compact mm Ø PVC RISER PIPE SPT-3 RS Cobble rich (7-9 cm diameter) from 5.18 to 6.71m BGS - Sandy silt layer, increase in fines, very dense, grey, moist at 5.49m BGS SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, medium sand to coarse gravel, with cobbles, grey moist, well rounded to subrounded, very dense SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, fine to medium sand fine to coarse gravel, grey, dry, very dense mm Ø BOREHOLE SPT-4 RS-4 RS-5 GB-2 SPT-5 RS-6 RS-7 RS-8 SPT RS-9 11 GB SP-SAND with gravel, poorly graded, fine to medium sand, fine gravel, grey, moist, subangular to subrounded, very dense - Becoming wet at 13.41m BGS SOIL CUTTINGS SPT-7 RS > OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: - Grain Size Result: gravelly SAND, trace silt (Gravel=41.7%, Sand=55.5%, Fines=2.8%) from to 16.46m BGS SP-SAND, trace gravel, poorly graded, fine to medium sand, grey, wet, very dense - Cobbles at 19.81m BGS MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE STATIC WATER LEVEL GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS GB-7 RS-11 RS-12

30 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 2 of 3 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS HOLE DESIGNATION: MW2A-16 DATE COMPLETED: 27 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: S. Foster ELEV. m MONITORING WELL NUMBER INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 'N' VALUE 21 SW/GW-SAND AND GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand and gravel to cobble, sand heaving, grey, wet GB-4 SPT SP-SAND, fine grain, grey, sand heaving, wet 23 BENTONITE GRAVEL RS Silt rich layer (20 cm) at 24.08m BGS - Grain Size Result: SAND, some silt and clay (Gravel=0.4%, Sand=65.8%, Fines=33.8%) from to 24.69m BGS GB-5 26 RS RS SOIL CUTTINGS RS Wood detritus (carbon) 2 cm at 32.92m BGS OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: - Grain Size Result: SAND, trace silt (Gravel=0%, Sand=91.9%, Fines=8.1%) from to 38.71m BGS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS BENTONITE PELLETS SILICA SAND 51 mm Ø 10-SLOT PVC SCREEN MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE STATIC WATER LEVEL RS-17 RS-18 GB-6

31 PROJECT NAME: Upland Landfill PROJECT NUMBER: CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited LOCATION: Campbell River, BC DRILLING CONTRACTOR: Drillwell DEPTH m BGS STRATIGRAPHIC AND INSTRUMENTATION LOG (OVERBURDEN) Page 3 of 3 STRATIGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION & REMARKS HOLE DESIGNATION: MW2A-16 DATE COMPLETED: 27 January 2016 DRILLING METHOD: Rotosonic FIELD PERSONNEL: S. Foster ELEV. m MONITORING WELL NUMBER INTERVAL SAMPLE REC (%) 'N' VALUE 41 RS SOIL CUTTINGS RS-20 OVERBURDEN LOG UPLANDS.GPJ CRA_CORP.GDT 18/4/ NOTES: END OF 45.42m BGS Borehole terminated at maximum drilling method depth No topsoil evident/surface compact sand and gravel Static Groundwater Elevation m BGS after completion of well RS - Rotosonic Core Sample SPT - Standard Penetration Test (splitspoon sample) GB - Grab Sample GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS WELL DETAILS Screened interval: to m to 40.54m BGS Length: 3.05m Diameter: 51mm Slot Size: 10 Material: SCH. 40 PVC Seal: to m to 35.05m BGS Material: BENTONITE PELLETS Sand Pack: to m to 36.88m BGS Material: #2 SILICA SAND Seal: to m 3.66 to 21.34m BGS Material: SOIL CUTTINGS Seal: to m to 24.38m BGS Material: BENTONITE CHIPS Seal: to m to 35.05m BGS Material: SOIL CUTTINGS MEASURING POINT ELEVATIONS MAY CHANGE; REFER TO CURRENT ELEVATION TABLE STATIC WATER LEVEL

32 Soil description : Each subsurface stratum is described using the following terminology. The relative density of granular soils is determined by the Standard Penetration Index ("N" value), while the consistency of clayey sols is measured by the value of undrained shear strength (Cu). Clay Classification (Unified system) < mm Terminology Silt to mm "trace" 1-10% Sand to 4.75 mm fine to 4.25 mm "some" 10-20% Gravel 4.75 to 75 mm fine 4.75 to 19 mm coarse 19 to 75 mm Cobbles 75 to 300 mm Boulders 300 mm Relative density of granular soils medium to 2.0 mm adjective (silty, sandy) 20-35% coarse 2.0 to 4.75 mm "and" 35-50% Standard penetration index "N" value Consistency of cohesive soils Undrained shear strength (Cu) (BLOWS/ft 300 mm) (P.S.F) (kpa) Very soft <250 <12 Very loose 0-4 Soft Loose 4-10 Firm Compact Stiff Dense Very stiff Very dense 50 Hard Rock quality designation "RQD" (%) Value Quality <25 Very poor Poor Fair Good STRATIGRAPHIC LEGEND Sand Gravel Cobbles& boulders Bedrock Samples: Type and Number >90 Excellent Silt Clay Organic soil Fill The type of sample recovered is shown on the log by the abbreviation listed hereafter. The numbering of samples is sequential for each type of sample. SS: Split spoon ST: Shelby tube AG: Auger SSE, GSE, AGE: Environmental sampling PS: Piston sample (Osterberg) RC: Rock core Recovery The recovery, shown as a percentage, is the ratio of length of the sample obtained to the distance the sampler was driven/pushed into the soil RQD GS: Grab sample The "Rock Quality Designation" or "RQD" value, expressed as percentage, is the ratio of the total length of all core fragments of 4 inches (10 cm) or more to the total length of the run. IN-SITU TESTS: N: Standard penetration index N c: Dynamic cone penetration index k: Permeability R: Refusal to penetration Cu: Undrained shear strength ABS: Absorption (Packer test) Pr: Pressure meter LABORATORY TESTS: I p: Plasticity index H: Hydrometer analysis A: Atterberg limits C: Consolidation W l: Liquid limit GSA: Grain size analysis w: Water content CS: Swedish fall cone Wp: Plastic limit : Unit weight CHEM: Chemical analysis O.V.: Organic vapor GHD PS Notes on Borehole and Test Pit Reports - Rev.0-07/01/2015

33 Appendix A-2 Dynamic Cone Penetration Logs GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6)

34 Depth Below Ground Surface (mm) Depth Below Ground Surface (mm) Dynamic Penetrometer Test Report ASTM D6951 PROJECT No.: Soil Type: Gravelly Sand CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited Max Expected CBR= 40 Depth of Test Pit/Refusal: PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Specified Min Qall: N/S LOCATION: BH1-16 Aprox Target DPI (mm/blow): N/S Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test location: BH1-16 Test depth: 0 m bgs Test location: Test Depth: m bgs Soil Type: Sandy soil Soil Type: Cummulative Estimated Cummulative Estimated No.Blows DCP Penetration DPI Index CBR (%) No.Blows DCP Penetration DPI Index CBR Per Interval Penetration Depth (mm) (mm/blow) ASTM Per Interval Penetration Depth (mm) (mm/blow) (%) (mm) D6951 (mm) Graphical Presentation of DCP Test Data at BH1-16 DCP Index versus Depth Test No DCP Index (mm/blow) CBR versus Depth Test No. 1 Estimated CBR Average Estimated CBR 38.5 Average Estimated CBR Notes: Max Estimated CBR 40.0 Max Estimated CBR Test No. 1 was carried out from 0 mbgs Min Estimated CBR 24.9 Min Estimated CBR Comments: - The CBR is estimated based on the correlation provided in ASTM D6951. Considering the dominant soil typs (Sand/Silty Sand) an upper limit of 40 is considered for the estimated CBR value. Site Representative : Prepared by: Simon Foster Of: Uplands Excavating Limited Reviewed By: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam Page 2

35 Depth Below Ground Surface (mm) Depth Below Ground Surface (mm) Dynamic Penetrometer Test Report ASTM D6951 PROJECT No.: Soil Type: Gravelly Sand CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited Max Expected CBR= 40 Depth of Test Pit/Refusal: PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Specified Min Qall: N/S LOCATION: BH2-16 Aprox Target DPI (mm/blow): N/S Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test location: BH2-16 Test depth: 0 m bgs Test location: Test Depth: mbgs Soil Type: Sandy soil Soil Type: Cummulative Estimated Cummulative Estimated No.Blows DCP Penetration DPI Index CBR (%) No.Blows DCP Penetration DPI Index CBR Per Interval Penetration Depth (mm) (mm/blow) ASTM Per Interval Penetration Depth (mm) (mm/blow) (%) (mm) D6951 (mm) Graphical Presentation of DCP Test Data at BH2-16 DCP Index versus Depth Test No DCP Index (mm/blow) CBR versus Depth Test No. 1 Estimated CBR Average Estimated CBR 38.2 Average Estimated CBR Notes: Max Estimated CBR 40.0 Max Estimated CBR Test No. 1 was carried out from 0 mbgs Min Estimated CBR 17.3 Min Estimated CBR Comments: - The CBR is estimated based on the correlation provided in ASTM D6951. Considering the dominant soil typs (Sand/Silty Sand) an upper limit of 40 is considered for the estimated CBR value. Site Representative : Prepared by: Simon Foster Of: Uplands Excavating Limited Reviewed By: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam Page 2

36 Depth Below Ground Surface (mm) Depth Below Ground Surface (mm) Dynamic Penetrometer Test Report ASTM D6951 PROJECT No.: Soil Type: Gravelly Sand CLIENT: Uplands Excavating Limited Max Expected CBR= 40 Depth of Test Pit/Refusal: PROJECT: Geotechnical Investigation Specified Min Qall: N/S LOCATION: MW2A-16 Aprox Target DPI (mm/blow): N/S Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Test location: MW2A-16 Test depth: 0 m bgs Test location: Test Depth: m bgs Soil Type: Sandy soil Soil Type: Cummulative Estimated Cummulative Estimated No.Blows DCP Penetration DPI Index CBR (%) No.Blows DCP Penetration DPI Index CBR Per Interval Penetration Depth (mm) (mm/blow) ASTM Per Interval Penetration Depth (mm) (mm/blow) (%) (mm) D6951 (mm) Graphical Presentation of DCP Test Data at MW2A-16 DCP Index versus Depth Test No DCP Index (mm/blow) CBR versus Depth Test No. 1 Estimated CBR Average Estimated CBR 33.7 Average Estimated CBR Notes: Max Estimated CBR 40.0 Max Estimated CBR Test No. 1 was carried out from 0 mbgs Min Estimated CBR 4.1 Min Estimated CBR Comments: - The CBR is estimated based on the correlation provided in ASTM D6951. Considering the dominant soil typs (Sand/Silty Sand) an upper limit of 40 is considered for the estimated CBR value. Site Representative : Prepared by: Simon Foster Of: Uplands Excavating Limited Reviewed By: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam Page 2

37 Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6)

38

39

40

41

42

43 Appendix C MASW Test Results GHD Report for Upland Excavating Ltd Geotechnical Investigation (6)

44 To: Mr. Greg Ferraro, P.Eng. Ref. No.: From: Ali Nasseri-Moghaddam, Ph.D., P.Eng./Hassan Ali, Ph.D. Date: February 12, 2016 RE: Seismic Site Class Determination Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) Analysis Results 1. Introduction Pursuant to our mandate GHD carried out a Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves (MASW) investigation program at the proposed Upland Landfill Site located at 7295 Gold River Highway, Campbell River, BC. Based on the available geotechnical information, the subsurface at the Site consists of deep layers of Sand and Gravel/ Gravelly Sand to Sand overlying bedrock. The Sandy overburden at the site is generally in dense to very dense condition (SPT N values in excess of 40 blows per 0.3 m of penetration) with sporadic layers in compact condition (represented by SPT N values in the range of 20 blows per 0.3 m of penetration). Bedrock at the site is confirmed to have a west-east slope. The purpose of the MASW survey was to assist with the seismic site class determination by measuring the average shear wave velocity within the upper 30+ m of the soil/rock profile below the proposed base of the landfill level. The shear wave velocity measurements were carried out along three MASW survey lines assumed to be representative of the Site. The investigation line locations are shown on Figure 2. According to the existing borehole information bedrock at the location of the investigation lines is expected to be more than 14 m below the existing ground surface (m bgs). 2. MASW Procedure To carry out the MASW test, 24 transducers (i.e., geophones) are deployed in a line at certain distances from a seismic source. The length of the geophone array (D) determines the deepest investigation depth that can be obtained from the measurements. The source should produce enough seismic energy over the desired test frequency range to allow for detection of Rayleigh waves above background noise. A common seismic source is either a sledgehammer or a drop weight hitting a metallic or rubber base plate set at ground surface. The existing traffic noise or the noise generated by heavy machinery travelling close to the survey line can also be utilized as a source for investigating deep soil layers. GHD Limited 651 Colby Drive Waterloo Ontario N2V 1C2 Canada T F W

45 3. Fieldwork The fieldwork for this MASW investigation program was carried out in the period of January 27 to 30, 2016 by GHD field staff. The field data was collected using a 24 channel seismograph (Geometrics Geode 24 consol #3389), twenty-four 4.5 Hz geophones, and one 24 take-out cable with 5 m spacing. A Panasonic Toughbook laptop was used in the field to record and collect the seismic data utilizing Geometrics single geode OS controller version The survey was carried out along three survey lines. Lines 1 and 2 were located perpendicular to each other north of BH2-16 and Line 3 was laid down in the vicinity of borehole BH1-16 in the north-south direction. For all line locations the geophones were installed 75 mm into the surficial soil by manually pushing them into position. A multi geometry approach was utilized for data collection along both lines (Nasseri-Moghaddam and Park, 2010). The active data sets were collected using a 10 kg sledge hammer hitting the ground surface at three different offset distances (distance between the source and first geophone) along each survey line. The following table summarizes the geometry for each investigation line. Table 3.1 MASW Line Geometry Line No. Designation Geophone Spacing (m) Array Length (m) Offset Distances (m) Lines 1, 2, and 3 Long , 30.0, 15.0 Short , 15.0, 7.5 Nine sets of data files (three active at each offset) were collected for each array location/set up. For the active survey measurements, the ground vibrations were recorded for four seconds with one sample per 0.25 ms. 4. Data Interpretation Data analysis including generation of dispersion curves, inversion of the obtained dispersion curves and development of the 1D shear wave velocity profiles at the Site were carried out using SurfSeis version The dispersion curves were calculated at the middle stations along each line. At each investigation line the dispersion images obtained from active data at different offsets were stacked to obtain a combined dispersion curve. The data inversion was carried out using a 15 layer soil velocity numerical model to obtain 1D shear wave velocity profiles at the location of each mid station. The calculated 1D velocity profile along the investigation Lines are shown on the attached Shear Wave Velocity Profile. Figure C-1 shows the obtained results. In accordance with the requirements of National Building Code of Canada 2010 (NBC 2010), the variation of the measured shear wave velocity versus depth up to 30 m below the proposed founding level of the landfill was obtained along each line and is shown in Table C-1 (Tables 1-A through 1- C) Average Shear Wave Velocity with Depth (Vs 30 ). The average shear wave velocity within the upper 30 m of the soil/ rock profile immediately below the proposed founding level of the landfill were obtained utilizing Memo1 2

46 the averaging scheme introduced in Sentence (2) of Commentary J of NBC (2010) User's Guide. With reference to the tables provided in the attachments of this memorandum: Based on the calculations presented in Table C-1 the minimum average shear wave velocity (from 0.0 m bgs to 30.0 m bgs) along the investigation lines is 416 m/s (along line 1). In accordance to Table A of the National Building code of Canada 2010 and based on the measured average shear wave velocity, the Site can be classified as Class 'C' for seismic load calculations subjected to code requirements. Based on the available geotechnical information there is no deep soft soil or liquefiable soil layers at this site, therefore the conditions of site class F are not met. The seismic hazards for the site as obtained from Natural Resources Canada (NRC) website are provided as attachment to this memorandum. 5. Closure It is important to emphasize that a geotechnical investigation is in fact a random sampling of a Site and the comments and conclusions of this report are based on the results obtained at the test locations only. It is therefore assumed that these results are representative of the subsurface conditions across the Site. Should any conditions at the Site be encountered which differ from those found at the test locations, we request that we be notified immediately in order to permit a reassessment of our recommendations. We trust that this report meets with your present requirements. Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise Memo1 3

47 Shear Wave Velocity versus Depth Site Upland Landfill Line 1-5 Site Upland Landfill Line 2 Site Upland Landfill Line Depth below existing ground (m) Shear Wave Velocity (m/s) Figure C-1 SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY VERSUS DEPTH Upland Landfill (Lines 1, 2 and 3) DRAWN BY: HA CHECKED BY: ANM SCALE: REFERENCE NO: N.T.S DATE: FIGURE NO: January 2016 C-1

48 TABLE C-1 SUMMARY OF SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY MEASUREMENTS SEISMIC SITE CLASS DETERMINATION Table 1-A: Average Shear Wave Velocity (VS 30 ) (Assumed founding level at ground surface) Table 1-B: Average Shear Wave Velocity (VS 30 ) (Assumed founding level at ground surface) Table 1-C: Average Shear Wave Velocity (VS 30 ) (Assumed founding level at ground surface) Line 1 Line 2 Line 3 Layer No. Depth (m bgs) Thickness V s Depth (m bgs) Thickness V s Depth (m bgs) Thickness V d s i /V si Layer No. d i /V si Layer No. From To m m/s From To m m/s From To m m/s d i /V si Total Total Total Average Shear Wave Velocity Along the Line (m/s) 481 Average Shear Wave Velocity Along the Line (m/s) 416 Average Shear Wave Velocity Along the Line (m/s) 596 Average VS 30 = Recommended Site Class: 416 m/s Subjected to Code C requirements Notes: 1 - The Seismic Site class is recommended in accordance to Table A of the National Building code of Canada 2010 and based on the lowest measured average shear wave velocity measured along the investigated lines. 2 - VS 30 is calculated based on the average shear wave velocity below the proposed founding elevation. 3 - Site Classes A and B are only applicable if footings are founded on bedrock or there is no more than 3.0 m of soil between founding elevation and bedrock. 4 - The recommended site class is only applicable if site conditions for Site Class F (liquefiable soil/soft soil layers more than 3.0 m thick) are not applicable.