7-13 25023-SWM.pdf

MIDLANTIC ENGINEERING, INC.

120 COMMERCE ROAD

PITTSTON TOWNSHIP, PA 18640-9552

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND INFILTRATION TESTING

WAWA – WYOMING AVENUE

EXETER, LUZERNE COUNTY, PA

(Project #25023-SWM)

PREPARED FOR:

REILLY ASSOCIATES

49 SOUTH MAIN STREET

SUITE 200

PITTSTON, PA 18640

MARCH 3, 2025

120 Commerce Road · Pittston Twp., PA 18640-9552 · 570/655-2200 (phone) · midlaneng@aol.com

March 3, 2025

Reilly Associates 49 South Main Street Suite 200 Pittston, PA 18640

ATTENTION: Mr. Casey Cawley ccawley@reillyengineering.com

REFERENCE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (#25023-SWM)

Stormwater Management & Infiltration Testing Wawa – Wyoming Avenue Exeter, Luzerne County, PA

Mr. Cawley:

Submitted herewith is our geotechnical engineering report to address the proposed stormwater management areas for the above referenced development. Our services have been performed in accordance with our agreement and your verbal authorization to proceed of February 7, 2025.

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Services performed for this phase of the study included site reconnaissance, review of site geotechnical engineering studies, observation, and logging of eight test pits, in-situ infiltration testing, soil laboratory analysis, and preparation of our report. Our geotechnical engineering analysis and report for the proposed stormwater management development areas includes the following:

a. Our evaluation of the estimated subsurface conditions within the proposed stormwater management infiltration areas based on the data obtained.

b. Analysis of subgrade conditions, soil laboratory testing, and in-situ infiltration testing to provide design parameters for infiltration devices.

c. Comments concerning the use of infiltration practices at the designated areas tested.

Services with respect to environmental considerations, wetlands investigations, erosion control, building foundations, pavement designs, construction cost or quantity estimates, and construction observation and testing are not included in the scope of services under this phase of our contract.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The project is located along Wyoming Avenue in Exeter Borough, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The area was formerly a residential/trailer park area, and is currently covered with asphalt, small vegetation, trash, debris, etc. The project vicinity is indicated on the 2023 USGS quadrangle map and on the 2024 aerial photograph, included as Figure Nos. 1-1 and 1-2 in Enclosure (1). Representative site photographs are included in Enclosure (4).

The project involves construction of a new Wawa store and related infrastructure. The proposed plan includes four stormwater management areas located north, south, and west of the proposed structure.

Proposed bottom of basin (BOB) for Basin #1 is at El 570.0, Rain Garden #2 is at El 572.0, Basin #3 is at El 571.5, and Basin #4 is at El 571.0.

The information listed above was provided to us by your office, derived from project development plans provided to us, or was obtained during our own site visits.

3. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

In order to evaluate subsurface conditions in the proposed stormwater management areas, eight test pits were excavated. The test pits were extended to depths of approximately 6 feet to 9 feet to determine the shallow subsurface stratification and depths to limiting zones, if applicable.

The test pit logs, water observation data, and test pit location plan are included in Enclosure (4).

3.1 Test Pit Data and Stratification

The test pits indicate the following generalized strata underlie the proposed stormwater management areas to the depths investigated:

Stratum Depths Description Stratum F below topsoil to maximum depth investigated of 7 feet at TP-1, and to depths ranging from 1.75 feet to 6 feet at TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, TP-7, and TP-8 black/dark gray poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM), poorly graded SAND with gravel (SP), and silty SAND (SM); includes brick, coal mine refuse, ash, etc. – FILL

Stratum A below topsoil and Stratum F material to maximum depths investigated brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand (GW), poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP), poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM), and poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM): firm

The soil symbols indicated in the stratum descriptions and on the test pit logs represent the Unified Soil Classification (ASTM D-2488) group symbols based on visual observation of the specimens recovered. Criteria for visual classification of soil samples are given in Enclosure (4) of this report. The visual classifications may vary from the results of laboratory testing classifications.

3.2 Geology

The fill materials of Stratum F are located across the site area. These soils are related to past site grading and site usage. The fill materials of Stratum F were encountered to the maximum depths investigated of 7.0 feet at TP-1, and at test pits TP-2, TP-3, TP-4, TP-7, and TP-8 to depths ranging from 1.75 feet to 6.0 feet.

The underlying natural soil deposits encountered in test pits TP-2 through TP-8 are sand and gravel soils from glacial outwash deposits of the Pleistocene geologic epoch.

These natural soils are moderately over-consolidated. The SCS mapping of the development area is included as Figure No. 2-1 and the surficial geology mapping of the project vicinity is included as Figure No. 2-2 in Enclosure (2).

The underlying bedrock consists of interbedded sandstone, shale, conglomerate, and anthracite coal. This sedimentary rock represents the Llewellyn formation of the Pennsylvanian geologic age. Bedrock is estimated at depths in excess of 40 feet below surface grades.

3.3 Groundwater Observations

Groundwater observations were performed during excavation at the test pit locations. The results of the groundwater observations are shown on the test pit logs in Enclosure (4). Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits to the maximum depths investigated.

Water level readings at the test pit locations are considered to be a reliable indication of groundwater conditions at the times indicated. Fluctuations in groundwater levels, as well as perched water, may be expected with variations in precipitation, evaporation, adjacent construction activity, and similar factors.

4. INFILTRATION FACILITY ANALYSES

The proposed stormwater management areas were identified within the study area and were investigated for suitability for infiltration devices.

The Soil Conservation Service mapping of Luzerne County was referenced for the development area. The delineation of the development area is overlain on the SCS mapping included as Figure No. 2-1 in Enclosure (2). The mapping indicates the natural soil subgrades of the site formed in thick glacial outwash sediments. The engineering index and physical properties of the series provided by SCS are indicated as follows:

Series Designation

USCS

Classifications

Hydrologic

Classification

Estimated Permeability in/hr.

Mg – Mine dump --- -- --- ChA – Chenango gravelly loam SM, GM, GW-GM, GP-GM

A 2.0-6.0 in/hr.

The protocols outlined in the final draft of the Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management

Practices Manual were used as the reference for design and construction standards for stormwater infiltration systems. The protocols include parameters for the conduct of the infiltration testing, site conditions, design considerations, construction requirements and factors of safety.

4.1 Depth of Limiting Zones

Protocol 2 of the referenced manual recommends that a minimum 2-foot clearance be maintained between the bottom of the infiltration facility and a limiting zone of seasonally high water table or intact bedrock.

Bedrock was not encountered to the maximum depths investigated.

Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depth investigated.

The proposed infiltration facilities at the proposed bottom of basin are considered feasible based on depths of limiting zone.

4.2 Soil Textures

Protocol 2 recommends that infiltration facilities be constructed in native soils without prior fill or disturbance. Protocol 2 allows infiltration in areas that have experienced historic fill or disturbance provided that sufficient time has elapsed to restore natural permeability, which is defined as at least 5 years in Chapter 6.

The proposed infiltration facilities were investigated at depths ranging from 2.4 feet to 6.8 feet below surface grades. The test pits indicate the proposed infiltration facilities would be in the natural granular materials of Stratum A in Rain Garden #2, Basin #3, and Basin #4. The test pits at Basin #1, at TP-1 and TP-2, indicate portions of the basin will be in the natural materials of Stratum A and portions will be in the fill materials of Stratum F. Based on the historic mapping data, the fill materials of Stratum F were placed in excess of five years ago.

Pennsylvania Protocol does not have any criteria for soil gradations or for the allowable percentage of fines (<#200 sieve) in the soil, but the other standards referenced in the Pennsylvania Manual limit the clay content to 20 percent by weight, and the combined silt/clay content to 40 percent by weight.

Soil laboratory testing of the subgrade material was performed in accordance with

ASTM D-2487 and is included in Enclosure (3). The laboratory gradation and classification test results are summarized as follows:

Soil Classifications Summary

Test Pit

Soil Sample Depth/

Elevation

Stratum

Moisture

Combined Silt/Clay

(%<#200)

TP-2 4.6’/

El 570.0 A well-graded GRAVEL with sand (GW) 6.4% 4%

TP-3 6.8’/

El 571.0

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

5.7% 3%

TP-6 2.9’/

El 572.0

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

5.1% 2%

TP-8 5.8’/

El 571.5

A poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM)

8.8% 8%

The proposed infiltration facilities are considered feasible in the granular natural soil subgrades of Stratum A.

4.3 In-Situ Infiltration Rates

Protocol 2 recommends that soils underlying infiltration devices should have infiltration rates between 0.1 and 10 inches per hour.

In-situ infiltration testing was conducted at depths as indicated on the site plan included in Enclosure (5). The test method referenced in Protocol 1, as summarized herein, was used to conduct the in-situ infiltration testing.

A test pit was excavated to the test depth at each study location. Two solid 4-inch

I.D. PVC casings were installed and seated approximately 2 inches into the underlying soil subgrades. The outer ring of the infiltration test casing was sealed with a water-bentonite soil mixture. Each test location was presoaked for 1 hour with a 12-inch depth of water immediately prior to testing with the water level re-established at 30-minute intervals.

The drop in the water level during the last 30 minutes of the presoak period was used to determine the time interval used for the infiltration test in accordance with Protocol 1.

Measurements were taken at the appropriate time interval for a total of 8 readings obtained or until a stabilized rate of drop was obtained, whichever occurred first. A stabilized rate of drop is defined by Protocol 1 as a difference of ¼-inch or less of drop between the highest and lowest readings of four consecutive readings. The water level in the infiltration test casing was re-established after each reading.

The final in-situ infiltration rate was calculated as the average stabilized rate or the drop in water level during the final time period, expressed as inches per hour.

Infiltration rates listed as zero includes tests where the rate of infiltration was below a measurable rate, less than 1/16 of an inch per hour.

The observed in-situ infiltration rates at the test locations and test depths are summarized below:

Infiltration

Area

Test Pit

Estimated Surface Grade

Infiltration Test Elev./

Depth

Soil Type

Individual In-situ Infilt. Rate

(in/hr.)

Average Infilt. Rate

(in/hr.)

Basin #1

(BOB=

El 570.0

TP-1 El 574.1 El 570.0 (4.1’)

F poorly graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM), brick, coal, ash, mine refuse etc. –

FILL

A = >20 in/hr.

B = >20 in/hr.

>20 in/hr.

TP-2 El 574.6 El 570.0 (4.6’)

A well-graded GRAVEL with sand (GW)

A = >20 in/hr.

B = 15 in/hr.

>20 in/hr.

Rain Garden #2

(BOB=

El 572.0)

TP-5 El 574.4 El 572.0 (2.4’)

A poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-

SM)

A = 9 in/hr.

B = 9¾ in/hr.

9½ in/hr.

TP-6 El 574.9 El 572.0 (2.9’)

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

A = >20 in/hr.

B = >20 in/hr.

>20 in/hr.

Basin #3

(BOB=

El 571.5

TP-7 El 578.1 El 571.5 (6.6’)

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

A = >20 in/hr.

B = 19 in/hr.

>20 in/hr.

TP-8 El 577.3 El 571.5 (5.8’)

A poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-

SM)

A = 8 in/hr.

B = 10½ in/hr.

9¼ in/hr.

Basin #4

(BOB=

El 1571.0)

TP-3 El 577.8 El 571.0 (6.8’)

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

A = 10¾ in/hr.

B = 8¼ in/hr.

9½ in/hr.

TP-4 El 575.6 El 571.0 (4.6’)

A poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand (GP-GM)

A = 8½ in/hr.

B = 9 in/hr.

8¾ in/hr.

Based upon the recommended infiltration rates in Protocol 2, infiltration facilities are feasible but may need further remediation or augmentation due to excessive infiltration rates in all of the proposed stormwater management areas.

4.4 Safety Factors

Protocol 2 recommends the minimum safety factor that may be used is two (2).

It further recommends that a minimum safety factor of three (3) be used for soils which classify as silty loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay loam or clay under the USDA classification system if the percolation test methodology is used.

Based on the gradation and classification of materials encountered, we recommend a safety factor of two (2) in the natural granular materials of Stratum A and Stratum F.

4.5 Remediation – Subgrade Preparation Recommendations

In general the in-situ infiltration rates measured were greater than the maximum 10 inches per hour as listed in the protocol. In order to prepare subgrade areas in the proposed stormwater management areas, we recommend a subgrade augmentation program. We recommend a monitored grading and mechanical compaction program be completed in the natural granular materials of Stratum A as encountered in TP-2 through TP-8, and in the granular fill material of Statum F at TP-1, to compact the material to 95% to 98% compaction per ASTM-698. We estimate the in-situ infiltration of the remediated subgrades will be in the range of 4 to 8 inches per hour and should consider a factor of safety of two (2).

An estimated proposed subgrade cross-section for the subgrade augmentation construction process is included for reference as Figure No. 6-1 in Enclosure (6). The remediated subgrades or soil buffer should be tested after installation to ensure the required infiltration rates are achieved.

5. OBSERVATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND STUDY LIMITATIONS

The report is based on the design concept of the proposed project as furnished to our office during the preparation of this report. Any substantial changes in construction locations or grading should be brought to our attention so that we may determine any effect on the recommendations given herein.

The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the test pit data and the site plans provided to us. This report does not reflect variations which may occur between the test locations. The nature and extent of variations between test locations may not become evident until the course of construction. It is recommended that on-site observation of facility installations be performed during the construction period to ascertain if re-evaluation of the recommendations of this report must be made.

We have prepared this report for the use of your office and the design professionals for design and planning purposes in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied are made as to the professional services included in this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you for this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us for further clarification of any aspect of this study.

Sincerely, Timothy Burns, P.E.

President

Encls:

(1) Project Vicinity Plans

- Project Vicinity Plan – USGS 2023, Figure No. 1-1

- Project Vicinity Plan – Aerial 2023, Figure No. 1-2

(2) Geologic Mapping

- SCS Mapping, Figure No. 2-1

- Surficial Geology Mapping, Figure No. 2-2

(3) Laboratory Testing Data

- Soil Classifications Summary

- Gradation and Classifications (4 Sheets)

(4) Subsurface Investigation Report

- General Notes

- Identification of Soils

- Test Pit Location Plan, Figure No. 4-1

- Test Pit Logs (TP-1 through TP-8)

- Site Photographs (2 Sheets)

(5) In-Situ Infiltration Testing Setup

(6) Detail – Prepared Infiltration Subgrade cc: Attn: Mr. Thomas Reilly Jr., P.E.

treilly@reillyengineering.com

Enclosure (1)

Drawing Title:

Project Vicinity Plan – USGS 2023

120 Commerce Road • Pittston Township, PA 18640-9552

Drawn By:

LA

Checked By:

TB

Scale:

1” = 500’

570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com Date:

03/03/25

Project No.:

25023-SWM

Sheet No.

N

Figure No. 1-1

Approx.

Property Line

Basin #4

Subsurface Basin #3

Proposed Building

Basin #1

Rain Garden #2

Project Vicinity Plan – Aerial 2024

Exeter, Luzerne County, PA Project:

25023-SWM

Date:

03/03/25 Scale:

1” = 200’

Enclosure (1) Figure No. 1-2

N

Approx.

Property Line

Basin #4

Subsurface Basin #3

Proposed Building

Basin #1 Rain Garden #2

Enclosure (2)

SCS Mapping

LA

Checked By:

TB

Scale:

as shown

570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com Date:

03/03/25

Project No.:

25023-SWM

Map Unit Legend Symbol USCS Classifications Mg – Mine dump --- ChA – Chenango gravelly loam, bedrock >6’

0” – 5” SM, GM

5” – 24” SM, GW-GM

24” – 60” GW, GP, GP-GM

Scale:

Figure No. 2-1

Approx.

Property Line

Basin #4

Subsurface Basin #3

Proposed Building

Basin #1 Rain Garden #2

Enclosure (2)

Surficial Geology Mapping

LA

Checked By:

TB

Scale:

1” = 500’

570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com Date:

03/03/25

Project No.:

25023-SWM

Figure No. 2-2

Legend:

Wisconsinan Outwash Stratified sand and gravel typically forming terraces along the flanks of south draining valleys. The overall stratification is horizontal.

Coal Dump Coal-breaker refuse piles and settling ponds. The refuse piles contain a mixture of coaly and non-coaly rock fragments.

N Qa

Qwo

Approx.

Property Line

Basin #4

Subsurface Basin #3

Proposed Building

Basin #1

Rain Garden #2

Strip Mine cd

MIDLANTIC ENGINEERING INC.

120 Commerce Road • Pittston Twp., PA 18640-9552 570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com

LABORATORY TEST DATA

- Soil Classifications Summary

- Gradation and Classifications (4 Sheets)

SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SUMMARY

Results of testing are summarized in the following table, and the individual gradation and classification curves are included within this enclosure.

Test Pit

Soil Sample Depth/

Elevation

Moisture

Combined Silt/Clay

(%<#200)

TP-2 4.6’/

El 570.0 A well-graded GRAVEL with sand (GW) 6.4% 4%

TP-3 6.8’/

El 571.0

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

5.7% 3%

TP-6 2.9’/

El 572.0

A poorly graded GRAVEL with sand (GP)

5.1% 2%

TP-8 5.8’/

El 571.5

A poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel (SP-SM)

8.8% 8%

Enclosure (3)

Enclosure (4) Contract #25023-SWM

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION REPORT

- General Notes

- Identification of Soils

- Test Pit Location Plan, Figure No. 4-1

- Test Pit Logs (TP-1 through TP-8)

- Site Photographs (2 Sheets)

GENERAL NOTES

1. Test pits are logged by engineering personnel to provide a record for geotechnical evaluation. The log itself includes a description of soil and rock materials encountered using visual classification in the field. Boundary lines between various strata are identified where possible and a graphical presentation is included based on the material excavated from the pit. Any significant features, such as fill conditions, underground structures, groundwater or water seepage conditions are recorded.

2. The test pit logs, and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the specific location and at the particular time excavated. Soil conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these test pit locations. Also, the passage of time may result in a change in the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at these locations.

3. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary between soil and rock types as observed in the test pits. The profiles and water level observations presented have been made with reasonable care and accuracy and must be considered only an approximate representation of subsurface conditions to be encountered at the particular location.

4. Strata descriptions are based on visual inspection and are in accordance with the Unified

Soil Classification System, per ASTM D-2488.

5. The test pit locations and grades are based on information provided by others and should be considered as approximate only. The test pit observations and draft logs were prepared by Mr. Kristopher Konicki, of this office.

MIDLANTIC ENGINEERING INC.

120 Commerce Road • Pittston Twp., PA 18640-9552 570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com

IDENTIFICATION OF SOILS

I. Definition of Soil Group Names – ASTM D-2487-11 Symbol Group Name

Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels – More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve

Coarse, ¾” to 3" Fine, No. 4 to ¾"

Clean Gravels Less than 5% fines

GW well-graded gravel GP poorly graded gravel

Gravels with Fines More than 12% fines

GM silty gravel GC clayey gravel

Sands – 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve

Coarse: No. 10 to No. 4 Medium: No. 40 to No. 10 Fine: No. 200 to No. 40

Clean Sands Less than 5% fines

SW well-graded sand SP poorly graded sand

Sands with Fines More than 12% fines

SM silty sand

SC clayey sand

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit less than 50 Low to medium plasticity

Inorganic CL lean clay ML silt

Organic OL organic clay organic silt

Silts and Clays – Liquid Limit 50 or more Medium to high plasticity

Inorganic CH fat clay MH elastic silt

Organic OH organic clay organic silt

Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT peat

II. Definition of Minor Component Proportions Approximate Percentage of Fraction by Weight adjective form gravelly, sandy 30% or more coarse grained with sand, gravel 15% or more coarse grained silt, clay 5% to 12% fine grained trace sand, gravel Less than 15% coarse grained silt, clay Less than 5% fine grained

III. Glossary of Miscellaneous Terms symbols Unified Soil Classification Symbols are shown above as group symbols. Use a Line Chart for laboratory identification.

Dual symbols are used for borderline classifications.

boulders & cobbles Boulders are considered rounded pieces of rock larger than 12 inches, while cobbles range from 3 to 12 inch size.

disintegrated rock Very generally defined as residual rock material with a standard penetration resistance (SPT) of more than 50 blows per foot, and less than refusal. Refusal is defined as a SPT of 100 blows for 2" or less penetration.

rock fragments Angular pieces of rock, distinguished from transported gravel, which have separated from original vein or strata and are present in a soil matrix.

quartz A hard silica mineral often found in residual soils ironite Iron oxide deposited within a soil layer forming cemented deposits cemented sand Usually localized rock-like deposits within a soil stratum composed of sand grains cemented by calcium carbonate or other materials.

mica A soft plate of silica mineral found in many rocks, and in residual or transported soil derived therefrom.

organic materials (excluding peat)

Topsoil: Surface soils that support plant life and which contain considerable amounts of organic matter;

Organic Matter: Soil containing organic colloids throughout its structure;

Lignite: Hard, brittle decomposed organic matter with low fixed carbon content (a low grade of coal).

fill Man made deposit containing soil, rock and often foreign matter probable fill Soils which contain no visually detected foreign matter but which are suspect with regard to origin lenses 0 to 2 inch seam of minor soil component layers 2 to 12 inch seam of minor soil component pocket Discontinuous body of minor soil component color shades Light to dark to indicate substantial difference in color moisture conditions Wet, moist, or dry to indicate visual appearance of specimen

Test Pit Location Plan

Exeter, Luzerne County, PA Project:

25023-SWM

Date:

03/03/25

Scale:

1” = 60’

Figure No. 4-1

TP-1

LEGEND

= Test Pit Location

= Photo Location/Direction

TP-2

TP-6 TP-5

TP-7 TP-8

TP-3

TP-4

BOB=El 570.0

BOB = El 571.0

BOB = El 572.0

BOB = El 571.5

TEST PIT LOG TP-1

Project: Wawa – Wyoming Avenue

Exeter, PA

Test Loc. No.

TP-1

Contract No. 25023

Date Excavated: 02/25/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

Equip. Used: Excavator

Surface Elev.:

574.1

Groundwater Observations Encountered: 02/25/25 Depth: none Completion: 02/25/25 Depth: dry

(ft.) Strata Description Class. Str’m Elev. InSitu Testing M (%) Remarks Depth Geo. Pen.

2” topsoil brown silty sand – FILL SM F

1 asphalt – FILL 1

2 2 9.1 black/dark gray poorly graded gravel GP-with silt and sand, includes coal GM fragments, ash, brick; angular – FILL

3 3

4 4

10.8 infiltration testing

@ 4.1’, El 570.0

5 5

6 6

7 567.1 7 Bottom of Test Pit at 7.0 feet

8 8

9 9

10 10

Comments: Backfilled upon completion.

TEST PIT LOG TP-2

TP-2

Date Excavated: 02/25/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

574.6

Encountered: 02/25/25 Depth: none Completion: 02/25/25 Depth: dry black/dark gray poorly graded sand SP- F

1 with silt and gravel; ash, mine refuse – SM 1

FILL

2 2 11.5

3 571.6 3 brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand GW A

6.4 infiltration testing

5 5 @ 4.6’, El 570.0

7 567.6 7 Bottom of Test Pit at 7.0 feet

TEST PIT LOG TP-3

TP-3

Date Excavated: 02/24/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

577.8

Encountered: 02/24/25 Depth: none Completion: 02/24/25 Depth: dry

2” topsoil brown and gray poorly graded gravel GP- F

1 with silt and sand – FILL GM 1

2 2 8.5 dark gray/black poorly graded sand SP-

4 with silt and gravel – FILL SM 4

5 5 23.1

6 571.8 6 brown poorly graded GRAVEL GP A with sand, rounded

5.7 infiltration testing

7 7 @ 6.8’, El 571.0

9 568.8 9 Bottom of Test Pit at 9.0 feet

TEST PIT LOG TP-4

TP-4

Date Excavated: 02/24/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

575.6

1” topsoil black/dark gray poorly graded sand SP- F

1 with silt; coal fragments, ash – FILL SM 1

10.6

2 2

573.1 brown poorly graded GRAVEL with GP- A

3 silt and sand GM 3

8.2 infiltration testing

5 5 @ 4.6’, El 571.0

7 7

568.1 10.5 Bottom of Test Pit at 7.5 feet

TEST PIT LOG TP-5

TP-5

Date Excavated: 02/24/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

574.4

8” topsoil

1 1 brown poorly graded GRAVEL with GP- A silt and sand GM

10.3 infiltration testing @ 2.4’, El 572.0

568.9 Bottom of Test Pit at 5.5 feet

TEST PIT LOG TP-6

TP-6

Date Excavated: 02/24/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

574.9

8” topsoil

1 1 brown poorly graded GRAVEL with GP A sand

3 3 5.1 infiltration testing @ 2.9’, El 572.0

6 568.9 6 8.0 Bottom of Test Pit at 6.0 feet

TEST PIT LOG TP-7

TP-7

Date Excavated: 02/24/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

578.1

1” topsoil brown poorly graded sand with SP- F

1 gravel, coal fragments, ash, mine refuse SM 1

– FILL

2 2 17.1 black/dark gray silty sand, coal ash, SM

3 – FILL 575.1 3

brown poorly graded SAND with SP A gravel brown poorly graded GRAVEL with GP

5 sand 5

7.5 infiltration testing

7 7 @ 6.6’, El 571.5

9 569.1 9 Bottom of Test Pit at 9.0 feet

TEST PIT LOG TP-8

TP-8

Date Excavated: 02/24/25

ME, Inc. Rep.: DH

577.3

1” topsoil black/dark gray poorly graded sand SP- F

1 with silt and gravel, coal ash, mine SM 1 refuse – FILL

14.8 topsoil/roots @ 1.75’ 575.5 brown poorly graded SAND with silt SP- A and gravel SM

4 4 6.6

8.8 infiltration testing

6 6 @ 5.8’, El 571.5

568.8 Bottom of Test Pit at 8.5 feet

#25023

Photo No.: 1

Date Taken: 02/25/25

Description:

Representative photograph of site conditions looking east from vicinity of TP-2.

Photo No.: 2

Description:

Representative photograph of site conditions looking north from vicinity of TP-5.

#25023

Photo No.: 3

Description:

Representative photograph of site conditions looking southeast towards TP-6.

Photo No.: 4

Description:

Representative photograph of site conditions from TP-6 looking north towards

TP-7.

Enclosure (5)

In-situ Infiltration Testing Setup

LA

Checked By:

TB

Scale:

NTS

570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com Date:

03/03/25

Project No.:

25023-SWM

Infiltration Facility Proposed Bottom

Test Water Level (introduced within inner-casing)

Existing Ground

S

Outer Ring Seal of Water-Bentonite-Soil

IN-SITU INFILTRATION TESTING

4” dia. PVC Casing

Auger Boring or Test Pit Excavation

8” to 12” (typ.)

Bottom Casing

Enclosure (6)

Detail – Prepared Infiltration Subgrade

LA

Checked By:

TB

Scale:

NTS

570/655-2200 (phone) • midlaneng@aol.com Date:

03/03/25

Project No.:

25023-SWM

D E

T A

IL

P R

E

PA

R

D

IN

FI

L T

R A

T

IO

N S

U B

G R

A D

S

SU

BG

R

AD

ES

R

EM

ED

IA

TE

D W

IT

H

C

O N

TR

O

LL

ED

C O

M

PA

C

TI

O N

T O

T

O

8% P

ER

A

ST

M

-6

G R

AN

U

LA

R

S U

BG

R

AD

AR

EA

S O

F

EX

C

ES

SI

VE

IN

-S

IT

U

IN

FI

LT

R

AT

IO

Figure No. 6-1

III. Glossary of Miscellaneous Terms