A00804-608460.pdf

Massachusetts Department Of Transportation Highway Division Proposal No. 608460-130088

A00804 - 1

DOCUMENT A00804

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

Massachusetts Department Of Transportation Highway Division

A00804 - 2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

Bay Road (Route 47) over Fort River

(Bridge No. H-01-005 BIN 12J)

Hadley, Massachusetts

July 28, 2020

File No. 01.073284.00

PREPARED FOR:

Alfred Benesch & Company

50 Redfield Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02122

PREPARED BY:

GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

249 Vanderbilt Avenue │ Norwood, MA, 02062

800-789-5848

31 Offices Nationwide www.gza.com

A00804 - 3

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/V/H

July 28, 2020

(Supersedes March 28, 2018 and December 19, 2019)

File No. 01.0173284.00

Matt Card, P.E.

Alfred Benesch & Company

50 Redfield Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02122

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Bay Road (Route 47) over Fort River (Bridge No. H-01-005 BIN 12J)

Hadley, Massachusetts

Dear Mr. Card:

In accordance with our agreement dated May 24, 2017, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) is pleased to submit this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed replacement of the existing Bay Road (Route 47) over Fort River Bridge (Bridge No. H-01-005) in Hadley, Massachusetts. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the replacement bridge. The recommendations of this report are subject to the limitations contained in Appendix A.

This report supersedes our previous reports dated March 28, 2019 and December 19, 2019. The report reflects updates to the structural design and construction staging and revised foundation loads.

Elevations indicated in this report are in feet and are referenced to the North American

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88).

BACKGROUND

Our understanding of the original and proposed replacement bridge is based on:

• Existing bridge plans (Sheets 1 and 2), entitled “The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Proposed Bridge, Hadley, Bay Road, Station 205+10 over Fort River,” prepared by The

Department of Public Works, Boston, MA, dated August 1935;

• Bridge Inventory Photos of the existing bridge, dated December 2009;

• A Bridge Type Selection Worksheet entitled “MassDOT Project #608460, Bay Road

(ST 47) over Fort River, Hadley, MA 01035,” prepared by Benesch, dated

October 2, 2017;

• Addendum 1 - Bridge Type Selection Worksheet entitled “MassDOT Project #608460, Bay Road (ST 47) over Fort River, Hadley, MA 01035,” prepared by Benesch, dated

January 18, 2018;

• A Hydraulic Study Report entitled “Bay Road (ST 47) Over Fort River, Hadley, Massachusetts, Hampshire County – District 1, Bridge No. H-01-005(12J),” prepared by MassDOT, dated February 27, 2018;

• In-Progress Structural Bridge Plans, Sheet Nos. 1 through 34, prepared by Benesch, dated April 2, 2020;

• Structural loads provided by Benesch on March 16, 2020 and May 29, 2020.

• Discussions with Benesch; and

• Readily available published topographic and geologic maps and aerial photographs.

A00804 - 4

01.0173284.00

Page | 3

Proactive by Design

EXISTING CONDITIONS

The existing bridge was constructed in 1935 and consists of an eight-span, continuous reinforced concrete slab superstructure measuring approximately 126 feet long and 38 feet wide. The existing bridge substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and seven open bent intermediate piers. The abutments and piers are supported on

12-inch diameter timber piles, with center-to-center pier spacing of 15’-6”. The bridge carries one lane of vehicular traffic in each direction with a 5’-0” wide sidewalk on the east side of the bridge.

Interior pier bents (Nos. 2 through 6) are reinforced with timber cross bracing, and many of the timber piles have been reinforced with 18-inch diameter concrete jackets over a portion of their length above the mudline. The first row of interior bents (Nos. 1 and 7) are partially embedded by a rip-rap slope (1-1/2H:1V) that extends up to the abutments. The piles and the cross bracing are creosote-treated yellow pine. The outer pile of each bent is battered outward from the bridge at a slope of 1-inch per foot. The original design capacity of the existing timber piles is not provided in the available existing bridge plans. A view of the bridge along Fort River is shown in Photo 1.

The Fort River flows in a westerly direction with a channel width that varies between approximately 58 and 70 feet at the existing bridge crossing. The river in the vicinity of the bridge is approximately 5 feet deep during average flows and is channelized mostly under existing Spans 3 through 6 (spans counted from south to north). Based on the

Hydraulic Study Report, the 100-year flood level of the Fort River at the bridge site is El. 123.10. Stone foundations of the former Bay Road Bridge are located approximately 75 feet upstream (north) of the existing bridge.

Existing utilities on the existing bridge include an 8-inch diameter water main supported below the bridge sidewalk on the eastern portion of the bridge. Overhead electric wires run along the east facia, immediately upstream of the bridge.

In addition, approximately 40 feet south of the bridge, there is an abandoned Verizon utility pole with evidence of a buried utility which may run below the river parallel to the bridge.

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The proposed project includes complete removal and replacement of the superstructure and substructure of the existing Bay Road (Rt. 47) Bridge. Based on the Bridge Type Selection Worksheet (BTSW) and Addendum 1 of the BTSW, four bridge replacement alternatives were considered. We understand that the MassDOT Highway Division approved

Alternate IV, which consists of complete replacement of the existing superstructure and substructure with a three-span precast deck beam superstructure supported by integral abutments and two pile bent piers. The integral abutment piles are proposed to be HP12x84 steel H-piles and the intermediate pier piles are proposed to be 24-inch diameter, closed-end, steel pipe piles.

The bridge will be approximately 126 feet in length and 42’-6” in width, which includes two 12’ wide traffic lanes in each direction, two 5’ wide shoulders in each direction with one 5’-6” wide sidewalk along the east side of the bridge.

To accommodate the bridge replacement, a raise in grade of 15 inches will be required at the approaches to maintain the existing vertical clearance of approximately 22 feet beneath the bridge. Construction will be staged to maintain one active lane of traffic (11 foot wide minimum) and pedestrian access on the bridge during construction.

Photo 1: View of the existing bridge from upstream along the Fort River.

A00804 - 5

Page | 4

Factored structural design loads provided by Benesch for the replacement bridge foundations are summarized in

Table A.

Table A: Structural Design Loads

Foundation Location Foundation

Type

Factored Axial Load per Pile

Factored Moment per Pile

Service I Strength I Service I Strength I

North Abutment H-Piles 108 kips 153 kips 72 kip-ft 103 kip-ft

Piers 1 & 2 Pipe Piles 225 kips 305 kips 60 kip-ft 55 kip-ft

South Abutment H-Piles 108 kips 153 kips 72 kip-ft 103 kip-ft

Note:

1. Loads per pile provided by Benesch on March 16, 2020 (for the piers) and May 29, 2020 (for the abutments).

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

Six borings were performed in 1935 as part of the original design of the existing bridge. To acquire additional subsurface information at the proposed location of the replacement bridge and to confirm the subsurface conditions as part of this current study, three additional test borings were performed between October 30 and November 8, 2017.

Locations and boring information for the previous explorations are provided on the design plans included in

Appendix B. Locations of the previous and recent explorations are shown on Figure 2 and boring logs for the recent borings are provided in Appendix C.

PREVIOUS (1935) BORINGS

Six borings (designated as Nos. 1 through 6) were performed in 1935 as part of the original bridge design. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from about 30 to 40 feet below circa-1935 existing grade. Sampling techniques are not known, however, the boring data shows blows per foot on spoon samples using a 250 pound hammer. While these blows likely do not represent ASTM testing and sampling methods used today, they provide an indication of relative density of the overburden soils. Rock coring was not performed in any of the borings.

Due to the sampling techniques used and the relatively shallow depth of the borings for a new structure supported on deep foundations, these logs were not considered adequate for use in the current bridge foundation design.

RECENT (2017) BORINGS

Three bridge borings (designated as BB-1 through BB-3) were performed by Seaboard Drilling, Inc. between October 30 and November 8, 2017. Timing of the drilling was closely coordinated with MassDOT to avoid disruption and conflict with on-going structural repair of the timber pile foundations of the existing bridge.

Borings were advanced from the existing roadway behind each abutment (BB-1 and BB-3), and through the existing bridge deck (BB-2). The borings were performed using rotary wash, cased drilling methods. Standard Penetration

Tests (SPTs) and split spoon samples were performed continuously through the abutment fill, and were generally performed at 5-foot intervals thereafter. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from 46 to 66 feet below the existing ground surface or mudline, corresponding to elevations ranging from approximately 59 to 66 feet. Bridge borings BB-1 and BB-3 were backfilled with drill cuttings and the ground surface was restored with cold patch asphalt.

A00804 - 6

Page | 5

The reinforced concrete bridge deck and the bridge deck surface was patched with concrete upon completion of boring

BB-2.

GZA personnel coordinated and observed the test borings. The elevations were determined from design drawings provided by Benesch. Boring locations were approximately determined by tape measurements from existing site features. Therefore, the boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

LABORATORY TESTING

GEOTECHNICAL TESTING

Geotechnical laboratory testing included a total of five gradation analyses on select soil samples collected from the borings to confirm visual field classifications and to evaluate engineering properties of the soil and possible soil reuse.

Testing was performed by Thielsch Engineering, Inc. of Cranston, Rhode Island.

Geotechnical laboratory testing results are included in Appendix D.

ENVIRONMENTAL/SEDIMENT TESTING

River sediment samples were collected for environmental testing required for completing the Water Quality Certificate

(WQC) permit application (by Benesch), to evaluate potential off-site soil disposal issues, and to provide parameters for a hydraulic study (by MassDOT). The sediment samples were obtained from the mudline to a depth of about 2 feet.

Samples were submitted to Eurofins Spectrum Analytical, Inc. in Agawam, Massachusetts under chain-of-custody procedures for testing. Testing included:

• grain size,

• volatile solids,

• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH),

• Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH),

• Method 8260 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs),

• Method 8270 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs),

• Method 8082 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),

• Total Organic Carbon

• RCRA-8 metals,

• pesticides and herbicides,

• reactive sulfide and cyanide, and

• conductivity and flashpoint.

GZA previously prepared and submitted a memorandum to Benesch dated January 11, 2018 summarizing the results of the sediment sampling and laboratory testing. Refer to the attached Table 3 for a summary of the environmental laboratory test results and Appendix G for the environmental analytical results.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

The soil and groundwater conditions discussed herein for the bridge are primarily based on conditions observed in the

2017 borings. Previous borings were compared to the 2017 borings for general consistency with previous descriptions of soil types and stratification.

A00804 - 7

Page | 6

A general description of the subsurface conditions encountered from the existing ground surface or mudline of the

Fort River is summarized below. Refer to the existing bridge design plans from 1935 included in Appendix B for the previous borings (attached for reference only), and Appendix C which contain the 2017 boring logs for more detailed descriptions of subsurface conditions. A generalized longitudinal subsurface profile along the proposed bridge is attached as Figure 3.

LOCAL GEOLOGY

Geologic information in the area of the site is available on the MassGIS online database. Based on the available geologic information, the surficial geology and bedrock lithology in the area of the bridge consist predominantly sand and gravel deposits overlying siltstone and sandstone bedrock with the depth to bedrock expected to be more than 100 feet below existing grade.

GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Based on the results of the previous and current subsurface explorations, subsurface conditions generally include a predominantly granular fill layer (at the abutments) overlying natural granular soils. A general description of the subsurface conditions encountered from the ground surface down is summarized below. Refer to the boring logs in

Appendix C for specific conditions in each of the recent borings and attached Table 1 for a summary of subsurface conditions.

Soil

Fill – Fill was encountered in borings performed behind the bridge abutments (BB-1 north abutment and BB-3 south abutment). The fill ranged in thickness from about 16 to 17 feet and consisted of very loose to very dense, brown/gray, fine to medium sand with up to 50 percent silt and up to 20 percent gravel. The field SPT N-values ranged from 2 to greater than 100 blows per foot (bpf) but were generally between 5 to 20 bpf.

Sand & Gravel – A layer of sand and gravel was encountered in each boring consisting of loose to dense brown/red-brown, fine to coarse sand with up to 50 percent gravel and up to 35 percent silt. Probable layers of gravel were observed based on drilling characteristics during advancement of the drill rods during drilling at several depths within this layer as indicated on the boring logs in Appendix C. The thickness of the layer ranged from approximately 26 to 37 feet, with field SPT N-values ranging from 7 to 30 bpf.

Dense to Very Dense Sand and Gravel – A dense to very dense sand and gravel layer was encountered below the sand and gravel layer in each boring consisting of brown/red fine to coarse sand with up to 50 percent gravel and up to 20 percent silt, or gravel with up to 50 percent sand and up to 20 percent silt. The borings were terminated after penetrating 13 to 17 feet into this stratum. Field SPT N-values ranged from 29 to 73 bpf. All of the borings were terminated in this stratum.

It is noted that the historic 1935 borings noted clayey sand and clayey gravel within this layer. The soil samples retrieved from the current borings did not contain clay.

Groundwater/River Level

Groundwater was measured at the end of drilling (after a stabilization time of about 18 hours) in boring BB-1 at a depth of approximately 16.5 ft below ground surface, and in boring BB-3 (after a stabilization time of about 20 hours) at a depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface, corresponding to El. 108.5 and El. 111, respectively. Due to the proximity to the Fort River, groundwater elevations at the bridge abutments are expected to be impacted by and be at

A00804 - 8

Page | 7 or above the river elevation under normal conditions. The 100-year flood elevation of the river is El. 123.10, and the ordinary high-water elevation of the river is El. 107.

Note that fluctuations in groundwater/river levels will occur due to variations in season, precipitation, temperature, river level, construction, and other factors different from those existing at the time the measurements were made.

Table 5-5 of the Hydraulic Study Report, entitled Hydraulic Design Data (Proposed Alternative – 04) indicates the following information relative to scour at the bridge:

Design Flood Scour Frequency 100 years

Design Flood Abutment Scour Depth 11.9 ft

Design Flood Pier Scour Depth 2.6 ft

Check Flood Scour Frequency 200 years

Check Flood Abutment Scour Depth 13.2 ft

Check Flood Pier Scour Depth 2.6 ft

GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The primary geotechnical issues associated with foundation design and construction of the proposed bridge replacement are:

• The presence of existing pile foundations at both abutments.

• Control of groundwater/river water during construction.

• Scour at the intermediate piers and abutments.

Presence of Existing Foundations at Abutments

The existing abutments are supported on one row of nine timber piles. Current plans are to cut the tops of the piles off below the bottom of the new reinforced concrete abutment and leave the remaining portion of the piles in-place.

Therefore, the proposed integral abutment piles will need to be located to avoid conflicts with the existing foundations.

The existing piles should be cutoff and not completely removed to limit disturbance of soil in general, since the new abutment piles are required to support lateral loads for the new bridge.

Control of Groundwater/River Water During Construction

Groundwater is expected to be below the depth of excavation for demolition of the existing abutment foundations and installation of new abutment foundation elements. However, in the area of the existing and new piers, the normal river water depth is typically about 5 feet. Therefore, temporary cofferdams and dewatering will be required during construction of the new pier foundations and during demolition of the existing piers.

Scour at the Intermediate Piers and Abutments

Based on a hydraulic study was performed by MassDOT, the design flood scour depth is 2.6 feet at the piers and 11.9 feet at the abutments. Scour protection measures consisting of riprap are being provided at the abutments to mitigate scour. Within the river channel, no scour protection is proposed, therefore the piles need to be evaluated considering the design scour depth for both axial and lateral loading combinations.

A00804 - 9

Page | 8

DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

The geotechnical recommendations presented below are based on our evaluation of the available subsurface data, existing bridge and the proposed structural design information. As previously indicated, our recommendations for the replacement bridge are provided specifically for Alternative IV of the Bridge Type Selection Worksheet and loads provided by Benesch.

The design recommendations provided herein are based on calculations performed according to the 2017 AASHTO

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Bridge Design Specifications, the 2011 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD

Seismic Bridge Design (with interim revisions through 2015), and the 2013 MassDOT LRFD Bridge Manual.

1. Bridge Foundations - General

It is recommended that the new bridge be supported on deep foundations consisting of driven piles that extend into the dense to very dense sand and gravel layer and derive their resistance through a combination of skin friction and end-bearing. The existing fill is not considered suitable for foundation support.

The foundations currently proposed for support of the new abutments are driven H-piles and pipe piles for the piers. Drilled shafts are also feasible but are expected to be less economical compared to the pile alternatives.

Furthermore, there is a greater likelihood that drilled shafts would conflict with the existing abutment pile foundations. Therefore, piles are recommended.

2. Integral Abutment Foundations – H-Piles

Based on the structural plans prepared by Benesch, the integral abutments will be supported on a single row of seven vertical H-piles. The web of the piles should be oriented parallel to the centerline of the abutment. Pile layout should consider the location of the existing timber piles that support the existing bridge abutment. Timber piles that are in conflict with the proposed piles should be removed and the resulting void should be filled with

3/8-inch Crushed Stone (M2.01.6). Otherwise, the top of the existing timber piles should be cut off and remain in place to limit disturbance to the existing abutment soils.

Based on the anticipated factored axial load per pile at the abutments (maximum factored load of 153 kips) and the potential for driving through gravel layers and into the dense to very dense sand and gravel layer, we recommend that HP12x84 piles be used to support the design loads. The piles should develop their resistance through side friction in the sand and gravel and the dense to very dense sand and gravel layers and end bearing in the dense to very dense sand and gravel. We recommend that heavy duty pile driving shoes be installed to limit damage to the pile tips during driving.

Pile axial resistance was estimated using procedures from NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 Foundations & Earth

Structures. Recommended pile lengths and corresponding tip elevations are presented in Table B, which are based on limiting the effective stress to 20D into the natural sand and gravel stratum. To account for the potential variability of the depth to the dense to very dense sand and gravel layer, the pile lengths were estimated assuming that the piles do not penetrate into the dense to very dense sand and gravel layer.

The abutment H-pile lengths are based on a resistance factor of 0.80, which assumes that both a static load test and a dynamic load test are performed using a pile driving analyzer (PDA). We recommend that the static load test be performed on a sacrificial H-pile near boring BB-1 at the north abutment. Dynamic testing should include one test on the static load test pile and one test on one production pile at each abutment (a total of 3 dynamic tests for the abutment H-piles). The resulting minimum required nominal geotechnical axial pile resistance is approximately 192 kips, which is the basis for the pile tip elevations presented on Table B.

A00804 - 10

Page | 9

Actual tip elevations of the piles at the abutments will be determined based on penetration criteria developed from the dynamic pile analyses of the selected pile driving hammer system and the static load test results and are expected to vary due to variations in the density of the granular soil layer. Note that the Structural Engineer should evaluate the Factored Structural Resistance of the pile relative to the combined axial load and bending moment.

Table B: Estimated H-Pile Lengths and Pile Tip Elevations

Abutment

Estimated Pile Length

Below Pile Cut-off

(ft)

Estimated Pile Tip

Elevations1,2

(ft)

South

(Boring BB-3)

(See note 3) El. 60

North

(Boring BB-1)

(See notes 3 and 4) El. 59

Notes:

1. Actual pile tip elevations will vary. Pile lengths should be confirmed based on the results of both dynamic and static load testing on a sacrificial test pile prior to the start of production pile installation.

2. Pile resistance should be neglected in fill stratum.

3. Pile lengths are referenced to a pile cut-off elevation of El. 117 for the north abutment and El. 118 for the south abutment.

4. Estimated pile lengths assume no embedment into dense to very dense sand and gravel. Depth to dense to very dense sand and gravel varies.

Settlement of piles driven into the sand and gravel stratum is expected to be less than 1 inch. The recommended pile size accounts for 1/16-inch of sacrificial steel loss for corrosion protection on the exterior of the pile surface and 50 ksi steel.

The recommended pile size herein is based on the axial load and drivability considerations. Lateral analyses based on the actual layout and spacing of the piles at the abutments will be evaluated by the Structural Engineer.

Piles should be spaced such that the center-to-center dimension is at least 2.5 times the width of the pile with a maximum spacing of no greater than 10 feet on-center. The minimum distance required from the edge of pile cap to the center of pile should not be less than 9 inches.

3. Intermediate Pier Foundations – Closed-End Pile Piles

Based on the structural plans dated April 2020, the intermediate piers will be supported on a single row of six, 24-inch diameter steel, closed-end pipe piles. Based on the anticipated factored axial load per pile at the piers

(maximum factored load of 305 kips), we recommend that 24-inch diameter, closed-end steel pipe piles with a minimum wall thickness of ½-inch be used to support the design loads. The piles should develop their resistance through side friction in the sand and gravel and the dense to very dense sand and gravel layers and end bearing in the dense to very dense sand and gravel.

Closed-end pipe piles are recommended to increase the side friction and end-bearing resistance of the piles, as compared to open-end pipe piles. Due to the presence of the dense to very dense sand and gravel stratum, we recommend that heavy duty conical point pile driving shoes be installed to limit damage to the pile tips during driving. After pile butts are cut at the cut-off elevations, the piles should be filled with concrete (4,000 psi, ¾”, 610

HP cement concrete).

Proposal No. 608460-130088

A00804 - 11 fcassellius Text Box 5,000 psi

Page | 10

Pile axial resistance was estimated using procedures from NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 Foundations & Earth

Structures. Recommended pile lengths, and corresponding estimated pile tip elevations are presented in Table C, which are based on limiting the effective stress to 20D into the natural sand and gravel and the dense to very dense sand and gravel strata. The unit side friction was also limited to 0.75 ksf in the natural sand and gravel, and 1.0 ksf in the dense to very dense sand and gravel strata based on previous experience on projects in Massachusetts involving driven piles in cohesionless soils.

The pipe pile lengths consider a resistance factor of 0.65, which assumes that dynamic load testing is performed using a pile driving analyzer (PDA) on a minimum of one pile per pier and no less than 2% of all production piles

(i.e. one dynamic test at each intermediate pier for a total of 2 dynamic tests on pier piles). Static axial load testing is not recommended to be performed for the intermediate pier pipe piles due to logistics of the piers being located over water. The resulting minimum required nominal geotechnical axial pile resistance is approximately 470 kips, which is the basis for the pile tip elevations presented on Table C. Based on lateral analyses performed by Benesch, we understand the required pile tip elevation is El. 55, which is 5 feet below the point of fixity. Therefore, the pile embedment depth is governed by lateral loading demands rather than axial load demands.

Table C: Estimated Pipe Pile Lengths and Pile Tip Elevations for Axial Design

Intermediate Pier

Estimated Pile Length

Below Scoured Mudline for

Axial Geotechnical Resistance

(ft)

Estimated Pile Tip Elevation for

Axial Geotechnical Resistance1,2,4

(ft)

South

(Boring BB-2)

37.5

(See notes 2, 3 and 4) El. 62

North

(Boring BB-2)

37.5

(See notes 2, 3 and 4) El. 62

Notes:

1. Actual pile tip elevations will vary. Pile lengths should be confirmed based on the results of dynamic load testing on the first pile to be driven at each pier.

2. Mudline elevation assumed to be El. 102. Pile tip length and pile tip elevation account for 2.5 feet of scour and therefore, pile tip elevation is referenced to an assumed scoured mud line elevation at El. 99.5.

3. Add length of pile above scoured mudline to proposed cut-off elevation for overall pile length.

4. Piles should be driven deeper (to El. 55) to obtain lateral fixity based on the results of lateral pile analyses performed by Benesch.

Settlement of piles driven into the dense to very dense sand and gravel stratum is expected to be less than 1 inch.

The recommended pile size accounts for 1/16-inch of sacrificial steel loss for corrosion protection on the exterior of the pile surface and 50 ksi steel. For additional corrosion protection, we recommend the pile be coated with coal tar epoxy to a minimum depth of at least 10 feet below the mudline.

The recommended pile size herein is based on the axial load and drivability considerations. Lateral analyses based on the actual layout and spacing of the piles at the abutments will be evaluated by the Structural Engineer.

Piles should be spaced such that the center-to-center dimension is at least 2.5 times the width of the pile with a maximum spacing of no greater than 10 feet on-center. The minimum distance required from the edge of pile cap to the center of pile should not be less than 9 inches.

A00804 - 12

Page | 11

4. Lateral Load Analysis and Parameters

The lateral load resistance of piles to be used to support the integral abutments and intermediate piers will be evaluated by Benesch. We recommend that a computer program (e.g. LPILE) be used for the lateral pile analyses

(as opposed to using MassDOT’s simplified design method procedure). Recommended soil parameters for use in the lateral pile analysis are presented on attached Table 2. Lateral pile analyses of the intermediate piers should consider scour based on the results of the hydraulic study performed by MassDOT. Also, installation of batter piles may help resist lateral loads at the intermediate piers.

Upon completion of the lateral pile analyses for the integral abutment piles, the depth of piles need to be checked to verify that the pile embedment satisfies both the needs of axial geotechnical factored resistance as well as depth to fixity, defined as the depth along the pile to the second point of zero lateral deflection.

5. Bridge Abutments

The following parameters are recommended for evaluating the lateral load resistance of the integral abutments:

• horizontal spring coefficient (K): 3 to 4 kips/inch per square foot of abutment wall

• maximum passive resistance in kips per foot of wall: 0.14H2 (where H is the height of the stub abutment in feet). This maximum passive resistance incorporates a factor of safety of 1.5 on the passive earth pressure coefficient Kp.

These values are based on the degree of compaction of the fill behind the abutment of at least 95%, a friction angle of 34 degrees, and a minimum unit weight of backfill (free-draining Gravel Borrow) of 120 pcf.

Additional lateral pressures due to highway traffic surcharge and seismic loads should be used as required by 2017

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and the 2013 MassDOT LRFD Bridge Design Manual. However, based on Section 3.3.1.3 of the 2013 MassDOT LRFD Bridge Manual, if approach slabs are used, the AASHTO live load surcharge load on the abutment can be ignored.

Abutment walls above the water table should be backfilled with free-draining Gravel Borrow (M1.03.0, Type b) and provisions made for weep holes in the walls. Gravel Borrow should be in accordance with Section M of the

MassDOT Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges.

6. Approach Slabs

Approach slabs are recommended for construction of the new bridge abutments. The approach slabs should be free to rotate about the abutment. The intent is to avoid abrupt differential settlement between the abutments and the approach embankment backfill.

7. Seismic Design

Seismic Site Class

The subsurface profile at this site is representative of Site Class D. This site class is based on SPT N-values obtained from the recent borings evaluated in accordance with Section 3.4.2.1 of AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD

Seismic Bridge Design. In accordance with Section 3.4.2 of the MassDOT LRFD Bridge Manual and 3.4.1 of 2011

AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Design Manual, for Site Class D, we recommend the design response spectra for the bridge be constructed using the following parameters:

A00804 - 13

Page | 12

As = 0.094g SDS = 0.209g SD1 = 0.093g where: As is the response spectral acceleration based on Site Class D

SDS is the design spectral acceleration coefficient at 0.2-second period

SD1 is the design spectral acceleration coefficient at 1.0-second period

In accordance with Table 3.5-1 of the 2011 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, and based on an SD1 less than 0.15g, the Seismic Design Category (SDC) for the site is SDC A. Refer to Appendix F for the

Seismic Site Class Analysis.

Liquefaction Analysis

In accordance with the 2011 AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design, a liquefaction analysis is not required for SDC A bridges. However, based on relatively low SPT N-values noted in bridge boring BB-2 within the sand and gravel layer, GZA performed a level-ground liquefaction assessment using the methodology described by Idriss and Boulanger, 2008. An acceleration value of 0.052g was used to perform the analyses which were based on the site class evaluation previously described.

The results of the liquefaction analysis indicate that, for the design earthquake, the site soils have a low potential for liquefaction (FS greater than 1.4). Therefore, soils at the site are not judged susceptible to liquefaction.

CONSTRUCTION

1. Pile Load Testing and Production Pile Installation

As noted in Design Item 2 above, a static load test should be performed on one sacrificial H-pile to confirm the design parameters used for side friction and end bearing. The static load test should be performed on a sacrificial

H-pile near boring BB-1 at the north abutment prior to the start of construction and prior to ordering any production piles for the project to verify pile lengths. After loading the load test pile to the nominal axial geotechnical resistance, the load test pile should be reloaded to “failure” or to 150 percent of the nominal geotechnical resistance, whichever occurs first. The final location of the test pile should be selected by the

Contractor in agreement with the Engineer but should be as close as possible to the existing bridge abutments.

Dynamic load testing (PDA) on the test pile and on driven piles during production installation will be required. We recommend that dynamic load testing (with signal matching) be performed on the sacrificial test pile and at the first pile to be driven at each substructure (for a minimum total of at least 5 piles, including the test pile plus one production pile at each abutment and intermediate pier). Dynamic testing should be performed during initial pile driving, and also, 48 hours after the end of initial driving in order to evaluate possible relaxation at the pile tip.

Preliminary Wave Equation Analyses (WEAP) have been performed to evaluate the driving resistances and stresses induced on the abutment and intermediate pier piles during pile driving based on anticipated subsurface conditions. Since the actual type of pile driving hammer has not yet been selected, the WEAP were performed assuming commonly available diesel hammers. The results indicate that the estimated driving stresses for the piles are anticipated to be within the allowable limits (0.9 times the yield strength of steel, Fy). WEAP will need to be performed by the Contractor based on the actual pile driving hammer selected by the Contractor. The results of the preliminary WEAP are provided in Appendix H.

Prior to installation and testing of piles, the Contractor should be required to submit, for review and acceptance by the Engineer, preliminary pile driving criteria for each pile type to be installed and tested based on WEAP performed by the Contractor for the Contractor’s proposed driving system. The final driving criteria for abutment

A00804 - 14

Page | 13 production piles will be selected by the Contractor based on the results of dynamic and static load testing. The final driving criteria for intermediate pier production piles will be selected by the Contractor based on the results of dynamic load testing. Installation of piles and static pile load testing should be observed by experienced geotechnical personnel.

2. Obstructions

During driven pile installation for foundations and/or sheet piling installation for cofferdams, there is the potential for encountering obstructions in the overburden soils, such as gravel layers, possible cobbles and boulders, as well as the existing pile foundations. It is possible that some timber piles from the existing bridge foundations may need to be removed to avoid conflict with the proposed piles.

The project specifications should make the Contractor aware of these conditions and Contractor’s submittals should include means and methods for penetrating and/or removing potential obstructions when encountered during construction. Obstruction removal should not start without prior notification to and acceptance by the

Engineer.

3. Construction Dewatering and Temporary Excavation Support

Temporary earth support and water control are anticipated during construction. Earth support and groundwater/surface water control measures are anticipated to consist of:

• Temporary earth support behind the existing abutments to allow for staged construction. Excavations up to about 15 feet below existing grade will be required for construction of the new bridge abutments. Feasible earth support systems include, but are not limited to, sheet piles, drilled micropiles and/or driven soldier piles with lagging. Use of a combination of either temporary tiebacks, deadman and/or internal bracing are likely to be required for portions of the temporary earth support. The temporary earth support will need to be designed for both roadway and where applicable, construction surcharges (e.g. excavator and crane loads).

• Sandbag cofferdams around the existing and new proposed intermediate piers for river water control.

Installation of the cofferdams will need to consider access and potential headroom constraints due to staged construction.

• Dewatering within the intermediate pier cofferdams and bridge abutment excavations. The method of dewatering will depend on the type of cofferdam or earth support system, size of the open excavation, the length of time the excavation is left open, and the time of year, particularly with regard to river flow velocity and level.

The cofferdam/earth support and dewatering designs are integral with one another and should be submitted as a single submittal for review by the Engineer. Cofferdam, temporary earth support and dewatering systems should be selected by the Contractor and designed by an experienced registered Professional Engineer in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and retained by the Contractor.

Dewatering efforts must satisfy requirements of local, state, and federal environmental and conservation authorities.

4. Protection of Existing Bridge and Structures

We recommend monitoring of vertical and lateral movement using survey reference points be performed for the existing bridge since the driven piles and sheeting for cofferdams will likely involve the use of vibratory and impact driving methods and also, since the eastern half the existing bridge will remain in service to allow for phased construction. Requirements for monitoring and limiting criteria should be included in the special provisions. In

A00804 - 15

Page | 14 addition, the need for temporary lateral bracing to stabilize the existing bridge bents should also be evaluated and included in the contract drawings and/or special provisions, if required.

5. Contract Documents and Construction Monitoring

We recommend that GZA be retained to provide geotechnical review and monitoring services during construction.

Services may include observation of driven pile installation; review of wave equation analyses and review of static and dynamic load testing of piles, review of deformation survey monitoring data; and in general, observation for compliance with recommendations in this report and the contract documents. This construction oversight is considered an important part of obtaining quality site improvements.

CLOSING

We trust the information presented herein is sufficient for your use. We look forward to our continued involvement with this project as it moves towards construction. Please contact us if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Michael P. Smith, P.E. Andrew R. Blaisdell, P.E.

Senior Project Manager Consultant/Reviewer

Terese M. Kwiatkowski, P.E.

Senior Principal

ATTACHMENTS

TABLES

Table 1 – Summary Table of Subsurface Conditions

Table 2 – Summary Table of Subsurface Conditions

Table 3 – Summary Table of Environmental Testing Results

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Locus Plan

Figure 2 – Exploration Location Plans

Figure 3 – Subsurface Profile A–A’

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Limitations

Appendix B – Available Existing Bridge Drawings

Appendix C – Recent Boring Logs

Appendix D – Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results

Appendix E – Calculations

Appendix F – Seismic Design Parameters

Appendix G – Environmental Laboratory Test Results

Appendix H – Preliminary Wave Equation Analysis Results

A00804 - 16

TABLES

A00804 - 17

Approx.

Ground

Surface/

Mud Line El.

Fill Sand and

Gravel

Dense to Very

Dense Sand and Gravel

Bottom of

Exploration Fill

Sand and

Gravel

Dense to Very

Dense Sand and

Gravel

BB-1 North Abutment 125 125 109 72 59 16 37 13 109 66 BB-2 Intermediate Piers 105 NE 105 72 59 NE 33 13 See Note 3 46 BB-3 South Abutment 126 126 109 83 66 17 26 17 111 60

No.1 South Abutment 109 NE 109 79 75 NE 30 4 NR 34 No.2 South Abutment 110 NE 110 80 78 NE 30 2 NR 32 No.3 Intermediate Piers 107 NE 107 82 75 NE 25 7 NR 32 No.4 Intermediate Piers 110 NE 110 80 75 NE 30 5 NR 35 No.5 North Abutment 108 NE 108 73 70 NE 35 3 NR 38 No.6 North Abutment 108 NE 108 73 71 NE 35 2 NR 37

NE - Not Encountered; NR - Data not reported Notes:

1) Depths shown are below existing ground surface for borings BB-1 and BB-3, and below mudline for BB-2.

2) Ground surface eleva� on es� mated based on available GIS data from a drawing en� tled "Explora� on Loca� on Plan for Proposed Bridge Replacement in Hadley, MA" prepared by GZA, dated August 24, 2017.

3) Boring BB-2 was drilled through the bridge deck, water in casing was approximately at the river level at the end of drilling.

4) Refer to the boring logs in Appendices B and C for additional information.

Recent Borings

Previous (1935) Borings

Bridge Structure

TABLE 1

Bay Road (Route 47) over Fort River River, Hadley, Massachusetts

Summary of Subsurface Conditions

Boring No.

Top of Stratum Elevation (ft) Approximate Stratum Thickness (ft) Depth to

Bottom of

Exploration

(ft)

Groundwater

Elevation (ft)

GZA Project No. 01.0173284.00 Page 1 of 1

A00804 - 18

GZA Project No. 01.0173284.00

Boring

(Location)

Fill

(Layer A)

Sand & Gravel

(Layer B)

Dense to Very Dense

Sand & Gravel

(Layer C)

Design

Groundwater

Elevation

BB-1

(North Abutment 0 to 16 16 to 53 53 to 66

BB-2

(Center Pier) -- 0 to 33 33 to 46

BB-3

(South Abutment) 0 to 17 17 to 43 43 to 60

Notes:

1. Depths shown are below existing ground surface for borings BB-1 and BB-3, and below mudline for BB-2.

2. For preliminary design, use a groundwater elevation equal to the Fort River ordinary high water elevation of El. 107 ft (NAVD 88).

3. Refer to the boring logs in Appendix C for additional information.

Soil Type for p-y Curve

Criteria

Ø

(degrees) k

(pci)

ϒ'

(pcf)

Notes:

90 (below gwt)

55 (below gwt)

BAY ROAD OVER FORT RIVER BRIDGE, HADLEY, MA

Elevation

Layer C

El. 107 ft

Layer A Layer B

See Table 2A

Soil Type Dense to Very Dense

Sand & Gravel

Sand

(Reese et al, 1974)

See Table 2A

45 (above gwt)

35 (below gwt)

Sand & GravelFill

Sand

(Reese et al, 1974)

See Table 2A

Sand

(Reese et al, 1974)

120 (above gwt)

57 (below gwt)

62 (below gwt)

67 (below gwt)

1. Parameters are recommended for use in the computer program LPile or Group to estimate lateral pile resistance and deformation.

2. Recommended parameters are based on data from borings and geotechnical laboratory data from samples collected during the 2017 exploration program at the site.

3. Abbreviations:

ϒ' = effective unit weight

Ø = angle of internal friction e50 = strain (at 50% maximum principal stress difference)

UCS = uniaxial compressive strength pcf = pounds per cubic foot, psf = pounds per square foot, pci = pounds per cubic inch

Recommended Soil Design Profiles (Depths Below Ground Surface) & Design Groundwater (Elevation)

Table 2A

Recommended Lateral Analysis Design Parameters

Table 2B

TABLE 2

RECOMMENDED LATERAL ANALYSIS DESIGN PROFILES & PARAMETERS

A00804 - 19

File N o. : 0 1 . 0 1 7 32 8 4. 0 0

S am ple Nam e:

N aphthalene 11 . 7 <3. 62 33. 4 <4. 34 <5. 53 <6. 53 <5. 13 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 40 0 0

Total VOCs 11 . 7 0 0 . 0 0 33. 40 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0

A nthrac ene 103. 00 8 7 232 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

B enzo(a)A nthrac ene 149. 00 125 146 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0

B enzo(a)P yrene 8 0 . 30 <7 3. 1 <8 4. 8 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0

B enzo(b)Flu oranthene 98 . 50 <7 3. 1 97 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0

B enzo(k)Flu oranthene 95. 50 <7 3. 1 <8 4. 8 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

C hrys ene 147 . 00 111 147 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

Flu oranthene 404. 00 314 498 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 8 6. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

P henanthrene 216. 00 192 431 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0

P yrene 335. 00 255 396 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

Total SVOCs 95. 50

Unad ju s ted C 11-C 22 A romatic H yd roc arbons 15. 40 <10 . 9 13 <11 . 2 <12 . 3 <13. 4 <11 . 9

P henanthrene 216. 00 192 . 00 431 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0

Flu oranthene 404. 00 314. 00 498 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 8 6. 1 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

P yrene 335. 00 255. 00 396 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0

C hrys ene 147 . 00 111 . 00 147 <7 5. 3 <8 3. 1 <8 9. 9 <8 0 . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

Total SVOCs 2 8 41 . 2 0 0 1955. 50 0 3431.400 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 172.200 10 0 10 0

4, 4'-D D D <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 8 0 0 0 4, 4'-D D E <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 60 0 0 4, 4'-D D T[2 C ] <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 60 0 0 a-B H C <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 50 0 0 0 A lac hlor <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <8 . 4 <8 . 7 <7 . 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 A ld rin <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <3. 8 <4. 2 <4. 4 <4. 0 8 0 b-B H C <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 1 0 0 0 0 C hlord ane <23. 0 <22 . 0 <25. 2 <38 <42 <44 <40 50 0 0 d -B H C <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 1 0 0 0 0 D ield rin <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <3. 8 <4. 2 <4. 4 <4. 0 8 0 End os u lfan I <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 50 0 End os u lfan II <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 50 0 End os u lfan s u lfate <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 End rin <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 1 0 0 0 0 End rin ald ehyd e <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 1 0 0 0 0 End rin ketone <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 g-B H C <3. 44 <3. 30 <3. 7 8 <1 . 5 <1 . 7 <1 . 7 <1 . 6 3 H eptac hlor <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 30 0 H eptac hlorepoxid e <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 <7 . 5 <2 . 1 <2 . 2 <7 . 9 1 0 0 H exac hlorobenzene N T N T N T <3. 8 <4. 2 <4. 4 <4. 0 M ethoxyc hlor <9. 1 8 <8 . 8 0 <10 . 1 <38 <42 <44 <40 20 0 0 0 0 Toxaphene <115 <110 <126 <150 <1 7 0 <1 7 0 <160 10 0 0 0 alpha-C hlord ane <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 N T N T N T N T 10 0 0 0 gamma-C hlord ane <5. 7 4 <5. 50 <6. 31 N T N T N T N T

2 , 4, 5-T <94 <97 <10 0 <94 <110 <110 <98 10 0 0 0 0

2 , 4, 5-TP (S ilvex) <94 <97 <10 0 <94 <110 <110 <98 10 0 0 0 0

2 , 4-D B <190 <190 <20 0 <190 <220 <220 <20 0 10 0 0 0 0

2 , 4-D B <190 <190 <20 0 <190 <220 <220 <20 0 10 0 0 0 0

D alapon <94 <97 <10 0 <94 <110 <110 <98 10 0 0 0 0 0

D ic amba <94 <97 <10 0 <94 <110 <110 <98 50 0 0 0 0

D ic hloroprop <140 <140 <150 <140 <160 <160 <150

D inos eb <94 <97 <10 0 <94 <110 <110 <98 50 0 0 0 0

M C P A <2 8 0 0 0 <290 0 0 <30 0 0 0 <2 8 0 0 0 <320 0 0 <330 0 0 <290 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

M C P P <2 8 0 0 0 <290 0 0 <30 0 0 0 <2 8 0 0 0 <320 0 0 <330 0 0 <290 0 0

A rs enic 2 . 45 1 . 6 2 . 4 2 1 3 2 . 9 40 40 20

C ad miu m <0 . 559 <0 . 50 5 <0 . 595 <0 . 40 <0 . 38 <0 . 43 <0 . 37 8 0 30 7 0

C hromiu m 6. 44 4. 8 6. 6 12 6 24 4. 5 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0

C opper 8 . 5 4. 3 5. 9 10 3 18 3. 7 10 0 0

L ead 8 . 8 1 5. 8 6. 6 9 7 15 2 . 9 20 0 0 10 0 0 20 0

N ic kel 5. 8 4 3. 6 6. 1 10 5 17 4. 1 60 0

Zinc 25. 9 19. 6 57 . 5 46 23 8 2 20 . 9 10 0 0

EP A M ethod 7 47 1B (m g/kg d ry)

M erc u ry <0 . 0 322 <0 . 0 316 <0 . 0 351 <0 . 0 3 0 . 0 9 <0 . 0 3 0 . 1 10 10 20

Reac tive C yanid e <24. 4 <24. 8 <24. 4 <24. 5 <24. 9 <22 . 9 <23. 3 30

Reac tive S u lfid e <48 . 8 <49. 5 <48 . 7 <48 . 9 <49. 8 <45. 8 <46. 5

S pec ific C ond u c tanc e (EC ) 150 96. 8 1 7 4 35. 1 46. 5 38 . 8 67 . 1

5300 2400 38 00 6900 8 100 10000 2100

8 8 . 00 8 5. 0 8 2 . 0 8 8 . 00 7 7 . 00 7 5. 00 8 4. 0

Notes:

2 . B old textind ic ates thatthe reported c onc entration exc eed s the RD L .

3. W here RC S -1 and M A L and fills c olu mns are blank, no limitingc riteria has been es tablis hed .

4. VO C and S VO C c ons titu ents thatwere notd etec ted were omitted from this table.

5. N T ind ic ates analyte N otTes ted ;

6. <# (e. g. <94)ind ic ates the analyte was notd etec ted overthe reportable d etec tion limit(RD L ).

7 . Reportable D is pos able limits in µg/kgorin mg/kg

O rganoc hlorine P etic id es

M etals

9/25/20 1 7 9/25/20 1 7 9/25/20 1 7

TotalO rganic C arbon

EP A M ethod 9060A /L . Kahn (m g/kg)

EP A C h. 7 . 3 (m g/kg d ry)

Reac tivity

EP A 9050A

M etals

C ond u c tivity (u S /c m )

EP A M ethod 8 151A (u g/Kg)

C hlorinated H erbic id es

1 . Environmentals amples were c ollec ted by GZA pers onnel. A nalys es were performed by Eu rofins L aboratory in A gawam , M as s ac hu s etts .

B RP 2 B RP 3 B RP 4 B RD 5

D ate ofS am ple C ollec tion 8…