ATTACHMENT 1.7 2011 Geotechnical Report.pdf

Professional Service Industries, Inc. 3120 Sovereign Drive, Suite C Lansing, MI 48911 Phone 517-394-5700 Fax 517-394-5796

February 22, 2011

Mr. Derek J. Smith TranSystems Corporation 2400 Pershing Road Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64108

RE: Geotechnical Exploration and Engineering Report

Proposed Building No. 2 Replacement Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) 1431 Beach Street Muskegon, Michigan PSI Project No. 525-310

Dear Mr. Smith:

In compliance with your instructions, Professional Service Industries, Inc. (PSI) has developed a geotechnical engineering report for the referenced project. The results of this exploration, together with our recommendations, are presented in the accompanying report, a copy of which is being transmitted herewith.

PSI appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering and consulting services for your project and looks forward to working with you. PSI provides additional consulting services, which include construction materials testing and observation services, environmental services, roof consulting and observation services, pavement and asphalt testing services and specialty engineering and testing. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please feel free to contact this office at your convenience.

Respectfully, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., Matthew R. Brozowski, P.E. Mark J. Carlson, P.E.

Project Manager Chief Engineer

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

AND ENGINEERING REPORT

FOR THE:

PROPOSED BUILDING NO. 2 REPLACEMENT

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

LABORATORY

1431 BEACH STREET

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN

PREPARED FOR:

TRANSYSTEMS CORPORATION

2400 PERSHING ROAD

SUITE 400

KANSAS CITY, MO 64108

PREPARED BY:

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.

3120 SOVEREIGN DRIVE, SUITE C

LANSING, MICHIGAN 48911

FEBRUARY 22, 2011

PSI PROJECT NO. 525-310

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 PROJECT AUTHORIZATION

1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.2 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

2.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.4 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION

2.5 SITE SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION

3.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 SITE PREPARATION

3.2 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS

3.3 FLOOR SLAB

4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 DRAINAGE AND GROUNDWATER CONSIDERATIONS

4.2 EXCAVATION SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

APPENDIX

Figure 1 – Site Location Map

Test Boring Logs (B-1 through B-3) Soil Classification Chart PSI General Notes

____________________________________________________________________________ 1

PSI Project No. 525-310 Proposed GLERL Building No. 2 Replacement

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED GLERL BUILDING NO. 2

1431 BEACH STREET

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN

1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

1.1 Project Authorization

This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering exploration performed relative to the proposed replacement of the existing Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) Building No. 2 situated at 1431 Beach Street in Muskegon, Michigan. This exploration was performed for TranSystems Corporation.

The services for this project were performed in accordance with PSI Proposal No. 525-36746, dated January 12, 2011. The Proposal included a proposed scope of services, estimated cost, unit rates, time schedule and PSI's General Conditions. Authorization to perform this exploration and analysis was in the form of a Request for Services (No. P101100304) issued by TranSystems Corporation.

1.2 Project Description

PSI understands that it is envisioned to reconstruct the existing GLERL Building No. 2 which is currently situated at 1431 Beach Street in Muskegon, Michigan. The new building will be an approximately 5,000 square foot structure and is anticipated to be a single-story (with mezzanine level) with a slab-on-grade floor and will be a steel-frame building. Reportedly, a portion of the existing building may remain in place.

Structural loads were not provided to PSI; however, based on our past experience, we anticipate the proposed building will require foundations to support individual column and bearing wall loads of up to 150 kips and 4 kips per linear foot, respectively.

If any of the information noted above is incorrect or has changed, PSI must be informed immediately so that the recommendations may be reviewed and revised as necessary.

1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services

The purpose of this exploration was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to develop geotechnical design criteria for support of foundations for the planned project.

The scope of the exploration and analysis included a reconnaissance of the project site, completion of three (3) soil borings, field and laboratory testing of recovered samples and an engineering analysis and evaluation of the subsurface materials encountered.

The scope of services did not include an environmental assessment for determining the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, bedrock, surface water, groundwater or air on, below or around this site. Any statements in this report or on the

____________________________________________________________________________ 2 boring logs regarding odors, colors or unusual or suspicious items or conditions are strictly for the information of TranSystems Corporation. Prior to development of this site, an environmental assessment is advisable.

As directed by the scope of work provided by TranSystems Corporation, PSI did not provide any service to investigate or detect the presence of moisture, mold or other biological contaminates in or around any structure, or any service that was designed or intended to prevent or lower the risk of the occurrence or the amplification of the same. TranSystems Corporation acknowledges that mold is ubiquitous to the environment with mold amplification occurring when building materials are impacted by moisture. TranSystems Corporation further acknowledges that site conditions are outside of PSI’s control, and that mold amplification will likely occur, or continue to occur, in the presence of moisture. As such, PSI cannot and shall not be held responsible for the occurrence or recurrence of mold amplification.

PSI also provides an array of complementary environmental and industrial hygiene services to assist our clients in successfully assessing and developing properties such as the one referenced in this report. PSI’s environmental consultants apply their experience, local geologic knowledge and thorough understanding of ASTM standards, environmental risk, and regulatory knowledge to conduct due diligence assessments of a wide range of property types and proposed developments.

If requested by you, we would be pleased to provide your team with a proposal for this and other services regularly provided by PSI. Our familiarity with the site from the Geotechnical scope of work will enable our environmental professionals to proceed quickly in preparing a cost effective and pragmatic Phase I ESA.

2.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

2.1 Site Location and Description

The project site is located at the existing GLERL facility situated at 1431 Beach Street in Muskegon, Michigan. The site is currently occupied by a single-story, metal building with asphalt pavement surrounding the north and east sides of the existing building.

The surface of the site is relatively flat with surface drainage on the site appearing to trend west toward Lake Michigan. The surface of the site was relatively firm at the time of field operations and the truck-mounted drilling equipment experienced little difficulty in moving between boring locations.

2.2 Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing

The site subsurface conditions were determined by completion of a total of three (3) soil test borings, each to depth of about 15 feet below existing grade. The boring locations and depths were established by TranSystems Corporation and located in the field by PSI personnel. The approximate boring positions are depicted on the Boring Location Diagram included in the Appendix.

____________________________________________________________________________ 3

The borings were completed by means of a truck-mounted drilling rig equipped with a rotary head, utilizing 3¼ inch, hollow-stem augers to advance the boreholes. Representative samples were recovered employing split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils" (ASTM D1586). After completion of the test borings, the drill holes were backfilled with the excavated soils.

Free groundwater level measurements were recorded in each test boring during and after completion of drilling operations and removal of the augers. Groundwater levels are noted on the boring logs that are presented in the Appendix. Seasonal variations may influence the depths to the groundwater, and groundwater quantities and flow volumes will largely depend on the permeability of the soil profile.

In addition to the field exploration, a laboratory-testing program was conducted to evaluate engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials. The laboratory-testing program included visual classification of all samples and moisture content tests on selected samples.

Unconfined compressive strengths for selected cohesive samples were estimated using a calibrated spring penetrometer. All phases of the laboratory-testing program were conducted in general accordance with applicable ASTM specifications. The results of these tests are to be found on the boring logs that are included in the Appendix.

2.3 Subsurface Conditions

At the time of our field exploration, the ground surface at the boring locations was covered with approximately 5½ to 6½ inches of asphalt pavement previously emplaced over crushed gravel base course and/or “old” brown fine to medium sand/gravel (fill) soils. The “old” fill soils extend to apparent depths ranging from about 1 to 4½ feet below the existing pavement surface. Also at the Borings B-1 and B-3 locales, a thin layer (i.e., approximately 6 inches in thickness) of buried topsoil is present immediately below the the old fill soils.

Below the deleterious fill soils and buried topsoil (where encountered), brown fine to medium sand is present which extends through the 15 foot terminal depths of the borings. The brown fine to medium sand soils possess a loose to medium relative density as evidenced by Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values which range between 5 and 30 blows per foot.

Cobbles and boulders are often noted in glacial deposits (although apparently none of these large particles were encountered during soil boring operations, it is possible that they may be encountered during excavation operations).

The above subsurface descriptions are of a generalized nature, and are provided to highlight the major soil strata encountered. The boring logs included in the Appendix should be reviewed for specific information as to individual boring locations. The stratification shown on the boring logs represent the conditions only at the actual boring locations. Variations may occur and should be expected between boring locations. The stratification represents the approximate boundary between subsurface materials; however, the actual transition may be gradual, abrupt, or not clearly defined. In the absence of foreign substances, it is difficult to distinguish between native soils and clean fill soil.

____________________________________________________________________________ 4

2.4 Groundwater Information

Free groundwater was encountered in each of the borings during the drilling activities and in two

(2) of the borings upon completion of drilling. The following Table outlines the approximate depths that groundwater was encountered on this site:

Approximate Depth to Free Groundwater (as measured below existing grade) Boring No.

During Drilling Upon Borehole Completion

B-1 7½ ft. 7½ ft. (Collapse at 8 ft.)

B-2 7½ ft. “Dry” (Collapse at 6½ ft.)

B-3 7½ ft. 7½ ft. (Collapse at 7½ ft.)

Groundwater levels on this site are likely to vary as a result of seasonal conditions, and fluctuations should be anticipated. It is recommended that the contractor determine the actual groundwater levels at the time of the construction to evaluate groundwater impact on construction procedures.

2.5 Site Seismic Classification

Muskegon County in Michigan lies in the Central Stable Tectonic Region and in the Seismic Zone 1 of probable seismic activity of the Building Officials Congress of America (BOCA), National Building Code (1993) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC). This zone indicates that minor damages due to occasional earthquakes might be expected in this area. In the 2003 Michigan Building Code (MBC), the State of Michigan has adopted the provisions of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). The Site Class is based on a weighted average of known or estimated soil properties for the uppermost 100 feet of the subsurface profile. Soil borings at the project site extended to a maximum depth of approximately 15 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on regional geologic mapping and past experience in the general project area, PSI anticipates that the subsurface conditions below the explored depth may generally consist of dense/stiff glacial drift underlain by the Marshall bedrock formation at depths of approximately 100 feet or greater below the existing ground surface. Based on our review of the available data, knowledge of regional geology, the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-values and unconfined compressive strength tests, we recommend that the seismic design for this project be based on Site Class D.

The 2002 USGS NEHRP probabilistic ground motion values for the site, which is located near latitude 43.2268 and longitude –86.3389, are as follows based on Site Class D:

Period (seconds)

2% Probability of Event in 50 years* (%g)

Site Coefficient Fa

Site Coefficient Fv

PGA 3.54 -- --

0.2 (Sa) 8.09 1.60 --

1.0 (S1) 3.99 -- 2.40

____________________________________________________________________________ 5

The site coefficients Fa and Fv were interpolated from MBC Tables 1615.1.2(1) and 1615.1.2(2) as a function of the site classification and the mapped spectral response acceleration at the short (Sa) and 1 second (S1) periods.

The development of shear strains tending to cause liquefaction of sand deposits is governed by the character of the ground motion (i.e. acceleration and frequency), soil type, groundwater level and in-situ stress conditions. Very loose to loose sands and sands below the water table are more likely to liquefy than dense sands and sands above the water table. PSI believes the risk of liquefaction occurring at this site is low based on the site being located in a low seismic activity area.

3.0 EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Site Preparation

Deleterious old fills and buried topsoil will generally undergo high and variable volume changes when subjected to loads, resulting in detrimental performance of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills and shallow foundations placed on them. Therefore, it is recommended that all old fills and buried topsoil be stripped from the construction areas and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stripping depths on the order of about 4½ to 5 feet will be necessary at Boring locales B-1 and B-3 in order to remove the old fill and deleterious buried topsoil. Also, a stripping depth of about 1 foot is expected near Boring B-2. Site stripping activities within the footprint of the new building should also include the removal of all existing foundations, debris, subsurface walls, and utilities. The thickness of these materials is likely to vary throughout the site and other, possibly more extensive, deposits could be encountered during the sitework activities. The exact depth of removal of these soils should be determined by PSI during the stripping activities.

After the surficial pavements, old fill material, buried topsoil, and any existing subsurface structures have been removed from the areas of construction and any cut sections are performed, the upper 12 inches of the exposed granular subgrade must be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM Method D-1557 (Modified Proctor). Any unsuitable areas must be removed and replaced with engineered fill or stabilized using other suitable methods prior to backfilling the excavation.

After the subgrade has been compacted and stabilized as described above, any engineered fill required may then be placed. The engineered fill should consist of an environmentally clean, well-graded material such as MDOT Class II. Proper control of the placement and compaction of engineered fills should be monitored by PSI. The new materials should be free of organic matter and placed in individual lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Each lift is to be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density within three (3) percent of the optimum moisture content as determined in accordance with ASTM Method D-1557 (Modified Proctor). A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be performed on each lift of the fill. The tests should be performed in accordance with appropriate ASTM procedures. The existing old fill soils which are free of organics and other deleterious materials are considered suitable for re-use as fill in structural applications provided they are properly prepared and compacted as described above. If the contractor is unable to strip these materials independently of the buried

____________________________________________________________________________ 6 topsoil (or if organic inclusions are noted within the fill soils), the materials must be wasted or used in non-structural applications.

Construction traffic should be restricted from the exposed subgrade soils to help reduce the potential for loosening/softening of the subgrade soils, particularly where excess moisture is present from groundwater and/or precipitation. PSI recommends that the fill be strategically placed so that the construction equipment remains on newly placed fill soils and not on the exposed subgrade during fill placement.

Considering that construction (or earthwork operations) has possibly occurred on the site, it is possible that areas of additional fill and/or buried topsoil deposits that were not identified by the boring program could be encountered at this site. Additionally, it is possible that buried demolition debris and rubble may be encountered in other areas on the site. Where any organic, soft or otherwise unsuitable soils (including old fill and debris materials) are identified, they should be completely removed and replaced with engineered fill. Any non-organic fill soils that are encountered should be characterized with respect to the structural application that they will be subjected to before they are utilized as fill or allowed to remain in place. Additional soil borings and/or test pits may be required to evaluate uncontrolled fill soils.

3.2 Foundation Recommendations

Considering the site subsurface conditions, recommended site preparation activities, and the proposed construction, it is recommended that the proposed building be founded on conventional spread and continuous wall footings founded on either the native brown sands (which have been recompacted as described below) encountered below the old fills and buried topsoil in the soil borings or on newly-placed and compacted engineered fill used to raise site grades and/or replace unsuitable soils. The following Table outlines the approximate depth of over-excavation below design footing grade (i.e., approximately 4 feet below existing grade) which will be required at each boring location to encounter suitable, native soils.

Boring No.

Approximate Minimum Depth of Over-Excavation to Encounter Suitable Natural Soils (ft.)*

B-1 1 B-2 -- B-3 ½

*Below design footing elevation (i.e., below a minimum frost depth of 4 feet below grade)

Estimated total settlements should be less than 1 inch with differential settlement of ½ of the total settlement provided the following design and construction details are incorporated.

Footings should bear on the native sandy soils which have been recompacted or on newly placed and compacted engineered fill placed used to raise site grades. Interior and exterior continuous wall and column footings may be proportioned for a net allowable soil bearing pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot where they bear directly on re-compacted

____________________________________________________________________________ 7 natural sand or on newly placed and compacted engineered fill placed over suitable native soils.

In order to protect against frost action, all perimeter footings, exterior footings and footings located in unheated areas must bear at a depth of 4 feet below final surface grades. Interior footings not subject to frost action may be founded at a depth of 18 inches below the floor slab, provided they will be bearing on suitable native soils, or on properly placed engineered fill.

Where foundations bear on newly placed compacted fill, this fill must be placed in accordance with the requirements described in this report. Shallow footing excavations must be protected from the effects of frost action if construction is carried out during the winter months.

Footings supporting individual columns should have a minor dimension of no less than 24 inches, and continuous footings should have a width of not less than 18 inches, even if those dimensions result in stresses below the allowable bearing capacity. The purpose of limiting the footing size is to prevent "punching" shear deformation and to provide for vertical stability.

Where excavations are extended adjacent to, and below, the footings supporting the existing building, it will be necessary to underpin those footings to transmit their loads to the same elevation as the new foundations. If required, a contractor who specializes in this type of work should install the underpinning and an evaluation of this condition should be made by PSI. Care should be exercised where excavations are performed near the existing structures so as to prevent undermining of the existing foundations, floor slabs and pavements. Temporary shoring may be needed if safe lateral distances are not available to accommodate a stable slope for the excavation sidewalls. New footings which are founded at different elevations should be designed such that a line drawn between the bottoms of the footings has a maximum slope of one (1) horizontal to one (1) vertical.

Any fill placed below the footings where unsuitable soils are removed should extend 1 foot outside of the footing limits for every 1 foot in thickness between the intended bearing surface and the natural, suitable underlying soils. PSI should observe the bearing surfaces prior to placing concrete or reinforcing steel to verify the bearing capacity.

3.3 Floor Slab

The subgrade soils utilized for the support of the floor slab should be prepared as indicated in the Site Preparation Section of this report. Based on the anticipated old fill and buried topsoil stripping depths and a finished floor elevation near existing grade, PSI anticipates that a minimum of approximately 3 to 4 feet of engineered fill will be required in the proposed building area. All of the highly-compressible buried topsoil and deleterious fills must be removed from within the footprint of the proposed building.

A granular mat should be provided between the floor slab and the subgrade soil. It should be 4 inches or greater in thickness and be properly compacted as recommended in this report. The granular mat materials should comply with the current version of ACI 302.1.

Polyethylene sheeting should be placed to act as a vapor retarder where the floor will be in contact with moisture sensitive equipment or products such as tile, wood, carpet, etc., as directed by the design engineer. The decision to locate the vapor retarder in direct contact with

____________________________________________________________________________ 8 the slab or beneath the layer of granular fill should be made by the design engineer after considering the moisture sensitivity of subsequent floor finishes, anticipated project conditions, and the potential effects of slab curling and cracking.

The floor slab should be suitably reinforced to make it as rigid as necessary. Proper joints should be provided at the junctions of the slab and the foundation system so that a small amount of independent movement can occur without causing damage. The floor areas should be provided with joints at frequent intervals to compensate for concrete volume changes during curing. If a vapor retarder/barrier will be utilized, placement should be in compliance with the current version of ACI 302.1, local building codes and the recommendations of the flooring manufacturer. A modulus of subgrade reaction for the new fill soils conditioned as described in this report of 100 psi/in may be used for the floor slab design. This value may be confirmed in the field by performing a 1 foot by 1 foot plate load test. However, depending on how the slab load is applied, the value will have to be geometrically modified.

4.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Drainage and Groundwater Considerations

Free groundwater was typically encountered in the soil borings during or upon completion of the drilling operations at a depth of about 7½ feet below existing grade. Although not expected based on the existing site grades and planned construction activities, if excavations are planned for this project which extend to depths of 6 to 7 feet below existing grade (or deeper), significant groundwater infiltration must be expected in those excavations. The groundwater should be maintained at least two (2) feet below the bottom of excavations on this site.

For shallow excavations (i.e., excavations which extend less than about 5 feet below existing grade) a temporary gravity drainage system, sump pumps, or other conventional minor dewatering procedures should be sufficient to control any groundwater seepage which is encountered. Where excavations extend near or below the prevailing groundwater level, more extensive dewatering operations such as well points may be necessary. The requirement for a more extensive gravity drainage system cannot be ruled out. It is possible that seasonal variations will cause fluctuations of the water table that is present in the upper soils. Since the foundation materials generally tend to soften/loosen or become unstable when exposed to free water, every effort should be made to keep the excavations dry where water is encountered or precipitation or snowmelt occurs during construction.

Appropriate drainage systems, both temporary and permanent, should be utilized where foundation excavations are within impermeable soils and are backfilled using granular soils.

Depending on the prevailing groundwater level and the finished surface elevations, pavement, floor slab and foundation drainage systems may be needed. The groundwater level should be permanently maintained at a depth of at least 2 feet below pavements and floor slabs. Where perimeter or under floor/pavement drains are installed, they should be surrounded by a properly graded filter medium to prevent them from becoming clogged by the infiltration of fine grained soils. If proper slope cannot be established for a gravity drainage system, a permanent sump pit with a continuous acting sump pump should be utilized or the proposed site grades should be

____________________________________________________________________________ 9 raised.

4.2 Excavation Safety Considerations

Care must be taken so that all excavations made for the foundations are properly backfilled with suitable material compacted in accordance with the procedures outlined in this report. Before the backfill is placed, all water and loose debris should be removed from these excavations.

Materials removed from the excavation should not be stockpiled immediately adjacent to the excavation, inasmuch as this load may cause a sudden collapse of the embankment. The contractor should establish a minimum lateral distance from the crest of the slope for all vehicles and spoil piles. Likewise, the contractor should establish protective measures for exposed slope faces and preventative measures for the buildup of moisture in the excavation sidewalls, which can cause slope instability. A slope stability analysis should be performed to determine the factor of safety for cut and fill depths if the depth of the excavations warrant. If temporary shoring of excavation sidewalls is performed, a qualified registered professional engineer must design it. Formed foundations will be required if placed on or within granular soils.

In Federal Register, Volume 54. No. 209 (October 1989), the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) amended its "Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, part 1926, subpart P". This document was issued to better insure the safety of workmen entering trenches or excavations. It is mandated by this federal regulation that all excavations, whether they be utility trenches or footing excavations, be constructed in accordance with the current OSHA guidelines. It is PSI's understanding that these regulations are being strictly enforced and if they are not closely followed, the owner and the contractor could be liable for substantial penalties.

The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable and safe, temporary excavations and should shore, slope, or bench the sides of the excavations as required to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. The contractor's responsible person, as defined in 29 CFR Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety procedures. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations.

All earthwork and foundation placement operations should be conducted in accordance with the project specifications and under the observation of a representative of the geotechnical engineer. We are providing this information solely as a service to TranSystems Corporation.

PSI does not assume responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor’s or other parties’ compliance with local, state and federal safety or other regulations. Such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

5.0 REPORT LIMITATIONS

The recommendations submitted for the proposed building are based on the available soil information and the design details furnished by TranSystems Corporation for the proposed project. If there are any revisions to the plans for this project or if deviations from the

____________________________________________________________________________ 10 subsurface conditions noted in this report are encountered during construction, PSI must be notified immediately to determine if changes in the foundation recommendations are required. If PSI is not retained to perform these functions, PSI can not be responsible for the impact of those conditions on the performance of the project.

The geotechnical engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering practices in the local area. No other warranties are implied or expressed.

After the plans and specifications are complete, PSI should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications. This review is required to verify that the engineering recommendations are appropriate for the final configuration, and that they have been properly incorporated into the design documents. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of TranSystems Corporation for specific application to the proposed replacement of the GLERL Building No. 2 situated at 1431 Beach Street in Muskegon, Michigan.

APPENDIX

DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE

APPROXIMATE BORING

LOCATION

LEGEND

FIGURE NO. 1

PSI PROJECT NO. 525-310

DRAWN BY: MRB

DATE: 02-14-11

SITE AND BORING LOCATION PLAN

PROPOSED BUILDING NO. 2 REPLACEMENT

GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

1431 BEACH STREET

MUSKEGON, MICHIGAN

PROJECT

LOCATION

SITE LOCATION MAP IS A REPRODUCTION

OF A USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAP

SITE LOCATION

EXISTING

BUILDING NO. 3

BORING LAYOUT

EXISTING

BUILDING NO. 2

PROPOSED NEW

BUILDING NO. 2

B-3

B-2

B-1

EXISTING

BUILDING

LAKE MICHIGAN

RIP RAP

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

15.0

0.5 1.0

4.5 5.0

15.0

1.0

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

3-4-5

2-2-2

2-5-8

6-11-12

7-12-18

ASPHALT (6")

Crushed GRAVEL Base Course (FILL) Brown fine SAND (FILL)

Buried TOPSOIL Brown fine SAND, moist to wet, medium (SP)

Boring was terminated at 15 feet below the existing ground surface.

Groundwater was encountered at 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface during drilling and upon completion.

The borehole collapsed at a depth of 8 feet below the existing ground surface upon removal of the augers.

PSI No.:

GLERL Building 2 Replacement, Muskegon, Michigan

EM/RV

Client:

* Sample Blows

REC/RQD

Sample Depth (Feet)

N VALUE (bpf)

*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the last two increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N.

Boring No.: (1 of 1) Elev:

Started:

Qp (tsf)

BORING LOG

Project:

15.0'Depth

Type of Boring: Completed: Driller:

Elevation

TranSystems Corp.

B1

PL

Total Location:

%MC LL

525-310

2/11/112/11/11

Depth NDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Hollow Stem Augers

See Boring Location Plan

B L_

S T

D

5-

N O

A A

.G P

J P

S I_

C O

R P

.G

2/

/1

7.5

10.0

15.0

0.6 1.1

15.0

1.0

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

3-2-3

3-4-6

6-7-9

7-9-15

6-9-16

ASPHALT (6.5")

Brown fine to medium SAND and

GRAVEL (FILL)

Brown fine SAND, moist to wet, loose to medium (SP)

Boring was terminated at 15 feet below the existing ground surface.

Groundwater was encountered at 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface during drilling and not encountered upon completion. The borehole collapsed at a depth of 6.5 feet below the existing ground surface upon removal of the augers.

* Geotextile Fabric was noted at the interface of the fill and natural sand layer.

PSI No.:

GLERL Building 2 Replacement, Muskegon, Michigan

EM/RV

Client:

* Sample Blows

REC/RQD

Sample Depth (Feet)

N VALUE (bpf)

*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the last two increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N.

Boring No.: (1 of 1) Elev:

Started:

Qp (tsf)

BORING LOG

Project:

15.0'Depth

Type of Boring: Completed: Driller:

Elevation

TranSystems Corp.

B2

PL

Total Location:

%MC LL

525-310

2/11/112/11/11

Depth NDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Hollow Stem Augers

See Boring Location Plan

B L_

S

N O

A A

.G P

J P

S I_

C O

R P

.G

7.5

10.0

15.0

0.5 1.0

4.0 4.5

15.0

1.0

3.5

6.0

8.5

13.5

4-3-3

1-2-2

4-7-13

7-9-15

8-12-14

ASPHALT (5.5")

Brown fine to medium SAND and

GRAVEL (FILL)

Brown fine SAND (FILL)

Buried TOPSOIL Brown fine SAND, moist to wet, loose to medium (SP)

Boring was terminated at 15 feet below the existing ground surface.

Groundwater was encountered at 7.5 feet below the existing ground surface during drilling and upon completion.

The borehole collapsed at a depth of

7.5 feet below the existing ground surface upon removal of the augers.

* Geotextile Fabric was noted at a depth of about 1 foot below the existing grade.

PSI No.:

GLERL Building 2 Replacement, Muskegon, Michigan

EM/RV

Client:

* Sample Blows

REC/RQD

Sample Depth (Feet)

N VALUE (bpf)

*Number of blows required for a 140 lb hammer dropping 30" to drive 2" O.D., 1.375" I.D. sampler a total of 18 inches in three 6" increments. The sum of the last two increments of penetration is termed the standard penetration resistance, N.

Boring No.: (1 of 1) Elev:

Started:

Qp (tsf)

BORING LOG

Project:

15.0'Depth

Type of Boring: Completed: Driller:

Elevation

TranSystems Corp.

B3

PL

Total Location:

%MC LL

525-310

2/11/112/11/11

Depth NDESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS (Classification)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Hollow Stem Augers

See Boring Location Plan

B L_

S

N O

A A

.G P

J P

S I_

C O

R P

.G

GRAVEL

AND

GRAVELLY

SOILS

CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

CLAY MIXTURES

WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY

SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES

POORLY-GRADED SANDS,

GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT

MIXTURES

CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY

MIXTURES

INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE

SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR

CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY

SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY

INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO

MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY

CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,

LEAN CLAYS

ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC

SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY

INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR

DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR

SILTY SOILS

INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH

PLASTICITY

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

LARGER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%

OF MATERIAL IS

SMALLER THAN

NO. 200 SIEVE

SIZE

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

PASSING ON NO.

4 SIEVE

MORE THAN 50%

OF COARSE

FRACTION

RETAINED ON NO.

4 SIEVE

SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(APPRECIABLE

AMOUNT OF FINES)

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

FINE

GRAINED

SOILS

SAND

AND

SANDY

SOILS

SILTS

AND

CLAYS

ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO

HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS

PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH

HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS

LETTERGRAPH

SYMBOLS

MAJOR DIVISIONS

COARSE

GRAINED

SOILS

TYPICAL

DESCRIPTIONS

WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -

SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO

FINES

POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,

GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE

OR NO FINES

SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -

SILT MIXTURES

CLEAN

GRAVELS

GRAVELS WITH

FINES

CLEAN SANDS

(LITTLE OR NO FINES)

SANDS WITH

FINES

LIQUID LIMIT

LESS THAN 50

LIQUID LIMIT

GREATER THAN 50

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS

GW

GP

GM

GC

SW

SP

SM

SC

ML

CL

OL

MH

CH

OH

PT