External_Attachment_1_-_JFSD200719_Specifications_-_Rev_17Jun15.pdf

MARCH 23, 2015

-Revised 17Jun15

ADD/REPAIR SMALL ARMS RANGE HEALTH SAFETY

GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE, NORTH DAKOTA

100% SPECIFICATIONS

P L A N N I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E E N G I N E E R I N G I N T E R I O R S

EST. 1915

PREPARED FOR:

GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE, NORTH DAKOTA

PREPARED BY:

LEO A DALY

TERRACON

LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

CRAWFORD CONSULTING SERVICES

LEO A DALY PROJECT NO.: 021-10085-014

CONTRACT NO.: FA4659-09-D-A002

TASK ORDER NO: 014

Grand Forks AFB Project No.: JFSD200719

This page was intentionally left blank for Duplex Printing

Add/Repair Small Arms Range for Health Safety JFSD200719

Grand Forks AFB, ND LEO A DALY Job No.: 021-10085-014

Certification Page - 1

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Print Name: Richard F. Burt

Signature: _________________________________________________

Date: 3/23/2015 License: 50456

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Illinois.

Print Name: Joseph W. Reister

Date: 3/23/2015 License: 062-042515

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Certified Asbestos Designer under the laws of the State of North Dakota.

Print Name: Cheryl A. Sykora

Date: 3/23/2015 License: 2765

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Print Name: Stephen W. Nelson

Date: 3/23/2015 License: 14186

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Print Name: Eric J. Jeppesen

Date: 3/23/2015 License: 45140

I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly

Print Name: Dean R. Smith

Date: 3/23/2015 License: 42362

Table of Contents Page 1 June 2015

Division Section Title

PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING DOCUMENTS GROUP

DIVISION 00 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS

00 31 26 EXISTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INFORMATION

00 31 26a EXISTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REPORT

00 31 32 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

00 31 32a GEOTECHNICAL SURVEY REPORT

SPECIFICATIONS GROUP

General Requirements Subgroup

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 TECHNICAL PROVISIONS (GFAFB)

01 60 00 PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS

01 78 23 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA

Facility Construction Subgroup

DIVISION 02 - EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 41 19 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

02 60 00 CONTAMINATED SITE SOILS REMOVAL

DIVISION 03 - CONCRETE

03 30 00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIVISION 04 - MASONRY

04 22 00 CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY

DIVISION 05 - METALS

05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING

05 31 00 STEEL DECKING

05 43 00 SLOTTED CHANNEL FRAMING

05 50 00 METAL FABRICATIONS

DIVISION 06 - WOOD, PLASTICS, AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 ROUGH CARPENTRY

06 16 00 SHEATHING

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 25 00 WEATHER BARRIERS

07 41 13.16 STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOF PANELS

07 42 13 METAL WALL PANELS

07 62 00 SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM

Table of Contents Page 2

07 92 00 JOINT SEALANTS

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAMES

08 36 13 SECTIONAL DOORS

08 71 00 DOOR HARDWARE

08 80 00 GLAZING

DIVISION 09 - FINISHES

09 22 16 NON-STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING

09 65 19 RESILIENT TILE FLOORING

09 91 13 EXTERIOR PAINTING

09 91 23 INTERIOR PAINTING

09 93 00 STAINING AND TRANSPARENT FINISHING

DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES

10 44 16 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS

10 81 13 BIRD SPIKES

DIVISION 11 - EQUIPMENT

11 67 23 SHOOTING RANGE EQUIPMENT

DIVISION 12 - FURNISHINGS

12 36 16 METAL COUNTERTOPS

Facility Services Subgroup

DIVISION 23 - HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

23 05 13 COMMON MOTOR REQUIREMENTS FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT

23 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR HVAC PIPING AND EQUIPMENT

23 05 93 TESTING, ADJUSTING, AND BALANCING FOR HVAC

23 07 13 DUCT INSULATION

23 08 00 COMMISSIONING OF HVAC

23 09 93 SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS FOR HVAC CONTROLS

23 11 23 FACILITY NATURAL-GAS PIPING

23 31 13 METAL DUCTS

23 33 00 AIR DUCT ACCESSORIES

23 34 16 CENTRIFUGAL HVAC FANS

23 41 33 HIGH-EFFICIENCY PARTICULATE FILTRATION

23 55 33.16 GAS-FIRED UNIT HEATERS

23 74 23.13 PACKAGED, DIRECT-FIRED, OUTDOOR, HEATING-ONLY MAKEUP-AIR UNITS

23 82 13 VALANCE HEATING AND COOLING UNITS

23 82 39.19 WALL AND CEILING UNIT HEATERS

Table of Contents Page 3

DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL

26 05 13 MEDIUM-VOLTAGE CABLES

26 05 19 LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL POWER CONDUCTORS AND CABLES

26 05 26 GROUNDING AND BONDING FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 29 HANGERS AND SUPPORTS FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 33 RACEWAY AND BOXES FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 05 44 SLEEVES AND SLEEVE SEALS FOR ELECTRICAL RACEWAYS AND CABLING

26 05 53 IDENTIFICATION FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

26 12 00 MEDIUM-VOLTAGE TRANSFORMERS

26 24 16 PANELBOARDS

26 27 26 WIRING DEVICES

26 28 13 FUSES

26 28 16 ENCLOSED SWITCHES AND CIRCUIT BREAKERS

26 51 00 INTERIOR LIGHTING

Site and Infrastructure Subgroup

DIVISION 31 - EARTHWORK

31 10 00 SITE CLEARING

31 20 00 EARTH MOVING

DIVISION 32 - EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 12 16 ASPHALT PAVING

32 13 13 CONCRETE PAVING

32 13 73 CONCRETE PAVING JOINT SEALANTS

32 92 00 TURF AND GRASSES

DIVISION 33 - UTILITIES

33 41 00 STORM UTILITY DRAINAGE PIPING

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXISTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INFORMATION 003126 - 1

DOCUMENT 00 31 26 - EXISTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INFORMATION

1.1 EXISTING HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INFORMATION

A. This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the Procurement and Contracting

Requirements for Project. They provide Government's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations. They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information, but are not a warranty of existing conditions. This Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. An existing asbestos report for Project, prepared by, dated, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

C. An existing lead report for Project, prepared by, dated, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

D. Related Requirements:

1. Document 00 21 13 "Instructions to Bidders" for the Bidder's responsibilities for examination of Project site and existing conditions.

2. Document 00 31 19 "Existing Condition Information" for information about existing conditions that is made available to bidders.

3. Document 00 31 32 "Geotechnical Data" for reports and soil-boring data from geotechnical investigations that are made available to bidders.

4. Section 02 41 16 "Structure Demolition"" for notification requirements if materials suspected of containing hazardous materials are encountered.

5. Section 02 41 19 "Selective Structure Demolition" for notification requirements if materials suspected of containing hazardous materials are encountered.

END OF DOCUMENT 00 31 26

GRAND FORKS AFB

BUILDING 654, SHELTER B

ASBESTOS AND LEAD BASED PAINT SURVEY

AMMUNITION FUME SURFACE AND SOIL SURVEY

LEGEND NO. 14-2748

FINAL REPORT

JULY 23, 2014

FOR:

LEO A DALY

730 2ND AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1100

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-2455

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.0 METHODOLOGIES

4.0 FINDINGS

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 STANDARD OF CARE

APPENDIX A – ASBESTOS

DATA TABLE

DIAGRAM SHOWING SAMPLE LOCATIONS

APPENDIX B – LEAD BASED PAINT

XRF DATA TABLE

APPENDIX C – METAL FUME SURFACE AND SOIL DATA

DIAGRAM SHOWING SAMPLE LOCATIONS

APPENDIX D – LABORATORY REPORTS

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 1 OF 8

GRAND FORKS AIRFORCE BASE

BUILDING 654 SHELTER B

HVAC RENOVATION

ASBESTOS, LEAD BASED PAINT AND METAL FUME SURVEY

LEGEND No. 1402748

LEGEND collected eleven (11) bulk samples and analyzed for asbestos content. LEGEND did not identify any asbestos in the samples collected at Grand Forks Air Force Base Building 654, Shelter B, in this nondestructive survey.

No lead based paint was identified in the building construction.

The following recommendations were made:

METAL FUME DEPOSITION INSIDE THE BUILDING

OSHA has airborne exposure standards for lead, copper, and zinc fume but does not establish criteria for surface contamination. EPA has established a level of 40 micrograms per square foot as criteria for floor cleanliness. If we use this number to evaluate the surface wipe data, eight (8) of the twelve (12) locations exceed this level. Looking at the data, sample 11 location probably represents a background concentration for the three metals in dust with 3.1 ug/sqft lead, 43 ug/sqft copper, and 69 ug/sqft zinc. Metal fume deposited on surfaces has the potential for becoming airborne and creating a respiratory exposure as well as a contact hazard through skin contact with the dust. Based on the extent of metal fume contamination inside the building, LEGEND recommends that finishes that remain be cleaned of metal fume as part of the renovation. The cleaning should be done using wet methods and HEPA filtered vacuums to avoid dispersal. Discarding of hard to clean and/or adsorbent materials and replacement with clean items is recommended.

BULLET FRAGMENT AND FUME DEPOSITION OF SOIL BERMS

Copper and zinc are naturally occurring soil elements and plant nutrients. Lead is not. EPA uses 400 milligrams per kilogram as a guideline for lead content in soils under HUD regulations. Using 400 mg/kg as the criteria, the west and north berm soil composites exceed the level. LEGEND noted ammunition fragments which suggested the three metals common to the ammunition would be detected above background in the soil surface prior to the analysis. Given the purpose of the berms, contamination is expected. It is doubtful this poses an exposure risk in its present use as it is not a children’s play area nor is the area used to grow food. This area could be posted as a lead hazard area with respect to soils. Dust from this area will present a hazard with respect to metals.

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 2 OF 8

NARRATIVE REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This is the preliminary report of LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (LEGEND) for limited asbestos, screening lead paint, and dust wipes/soil survey performed at Grand Forks Air Force Base Building 654, Shelter B, firing range.

The site work was performed on June 27, 2014. Mr. Mark Waltz a certified ND Asbestos Inspector #120, Lead Paint Risk Assessor #1performed the asbestos survey, lead screening, and dust/soil wipe sampling for LEGEND.

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Building 654 exterior finishes consist of 4’x 8’ cedar sheets on the walls, shingles on the roof, and metal sheets over the shooting range. The single story building is slab on grade with a concrete floor. The interior finishes consist of wood walls, concrete floors, wood ceiling. LEGEND understands the building is set for renovation.

Building 654, Shelter B functions as a firing range for the Grand Forks Air Force Base, with twenty-eight (28) shooting lanes. Each shooting lane has split doors (upper and lower segments) which allow the shooter to lay in a prone position or stand with the top half of the door open. The existing HVAC ventilation system is designed to pressurize the shooter area with supply air to force the smoke/fume out through the shooting door but is not sufficient to accomplish this. The north wind blows it in towards the shooters and instructors where the ventilation system supply air makes it swirl around the shooters. The shooter when laying prone fires a rifle and the right side of the door/wall has become blackened from the exhaust fume particulate from the rifles.

3.0 METHODOLOGIES

3.1 Asbestos Sampling/Analysis Survey

LEGEND conducted the nondestructive asbestos survey by collecting at least one sample of each suspect miscellaneous material and at least three samples of each suspect surfacing material.

LEGEND quantified each of the building materials that were identified as potentially asbestos containing. Please note that LEGEND did not conduct a destructive survey, thus there is potential that additional asbestos-containing materials (ACM) exist concealed in the structure and may be discovered over the course of the demolition activity that is unaccounted for by this survey.

Analysis for the presence of asbestos fibers in bulk samples was performed at LEGEND’s Saint Paul, MN laboratory. The analysis was performed in accordance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) protocols, “Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials”, EPA 600/R-93/116, 1993. An asbestos containing material is defined as any material containing greater than one percent asbestos as analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM).

The EPA definition of asbestos containing materials (ACM) in regards to building materials states any materials containing greater than 1% asbestos by volume is classified as asbestos

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 3 OF 8 containing. For materials in which multiple samples have been collected, only one sample needs to result at greater than 1% asbestos content to consider all of that given material as asbestos containing.

The following building materials were sampled and tested for asbestos content:

Roof Shingle Caulk for Electrical Conduit Penetration

Shingle Starter Roll Window Caulk

Roof Vent Hood Flashing Tar/Caulk Caulk Door frame to Siding

Whirlybird Caulk to Roof (2 Types) Vent to Siding Caulk

Door Frame Caulk Window Frame Caulk to Siding

APPENDIX A contains the asbestos survey information including data table and diagram showing sample locations.

3.2 Lead Paint Sampling Readings by X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) define the paint action level as a lead concentration at or above the level of 1.0 mg/cm2 when measured with a portable XRF analyzer (or 0.5% by weight when measured by laboratory methods).

The inspection was performed in a nondestructive manner using a Niton XLp 300 Series Lead Paint X-ray Fluorescence Analyzer, Serial Number 26001.This XRF uses a Cadmium 109 radiation source which emits gamma/x-rays that react with elemental lead. The resulting emission of the element is quantified by the elemental detector and the data is processed and recorded on the analyzer’s computer.

XRF results are classified as positive or negative. A positive classification indicates that lead is present on the testing combination at or above the action level. Please note that those surfaces that do not contain LBP at or above the federal standard may still pose a hazard if disturbed. In addition, the client should be informed that OSHA has regulations covering worker safety and health that may apply when any painted surfaces (whether lead containing or not) are disturbed.

Calibration checks were performed on the instrument at the beginning and end of the inspection using known lead paint films provided by the manufacturer to ensure accuracy of the measurements. Additional quality control data and information is available to you upon request.

Readings were collected on interior walls, doors, window components, stairwell components, handrails, cabinets, trim and exterior painted components. The intent of the screening lead paint inspection was to identify and test most painted components to determine if lead based paint is present in the building and if any lead based paint was in poor condition prior to the demolition of the building. LEGEND did not perform a full surface by surface lead based paint inspection in the building.

APPENDIX B contains the lead survey information.

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 4 OF 8

The HUD criteria for assessing paint conditions are the following:

Total Area of Deteriorated Paint on Each Component Type of Building

Component Intact Fair Poor

Exterior components with large surface areas.

Entire surface is intact.

Less than or equal to 10 square feet.

More than 10 square feet.

Interior components with large surface areas (walls, ceilings, floors, doors).

Entire surface is intact.

Less than or equal to 2 square feet.

More than 2 square feet.

Interior and Exterior components with small surface areas (window sills, baseboards, soffits, trim).

Entire surface is intact.

Less than or equal to 10 percent of the total surface area of the component.

More than 10 percent of the total surface area of the component.

3.3 Dust Wipe Sampling

Single surface dust wipe and composite soil samples were collected from components inside Building 654 observed to have evidence of contamination and also areas where no evidence was noted.

The dust wipe samples and the composite soil samples were analyzed for copper, lead, and zinc as ammunition used in the facility included both lead and copper ammunition.

Refer to the diagrams in APPENDIX C showing the sampling locations.

Copper/Lead/Zinc wipe samples were collected with disposable gloves using sterile wipes (Ghost Wipes) in 50-millimeter plastic tubes. Floor samples are wiped with two separate passes followed by a perimeter wipe of the area. First the “S” or side-to side motion is conducted by wiping side to side with as many “S” like motions as necessary to completely cover the entire sampling area. The second wipe pass is conducted by folding the wipe in half with the contaminated side facing inward. Window sill and window trough samples were wiped with two side-to-side passes; with the second pass the wipe is folded so the contaminated side faces inward. Lastly a third pass around the perimeter of the sampling area is conducted. A minimum of 4”x4” area is wiped where applicable for window surfaces, and a minimum of 12”x12” area for floor samples.

Analysis for the presence of copper, lead, and zinc in dust wipes was performed at LEGEND’s AIHA accredited laboratory (#101095) located at 88 Empire Drive St. Paul, MN. The analysis was performed according to National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Method 7300, “Elements by ICP”, March 2003 Revised, using Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP).

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 5 OF 8

3.4 Soil Sampling

Composite soil samples were collected with disposable gloves in various spots no deeper than ½ inch and placed in 50-millimeter plastic tubes. Soil samples were collected from the north, east, and west shooting dirt berms by collecting soil from 12 locations. The composite samples were collected from each berm from three feet to seven feet above grade. Lead bullets and pieces of fragmentation bullets were observed in the north berm.

Composite soil (pea rock) samples were collected between the building and the berm areas. Two composite samples of 12 sub-samples were collected.

Analysis for the presence of copper, lead, and zinc in soil was performed at LEGEND’s accredited laboratory in St. Paul, MN. Soil analysis was performed in accordance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) protocols, “Analysis Method for Flame: Air, Wipes, Paints, and Soil/Solids”, EPA 600/R-93/200(M)-7420.

Diagrams showing locations for the wipe sampling and soil sampling are included in APPENDIX C.

The laboratory reports are included in APPENDIX D.

4.0 FINDINGS

4.1 Asbestos Survey Results

LEGEND collected eleven (11) bulk samples and analyzed for asbestos content. LEGEND did not identify any asbestos in the samples collected at Grand Forks Air Force Base Building 654, Shelter B, in this limited survey.

Refer to the attached asbestos bulk table for analytical results regarding each of the asbestos bulk samples collected. Sampling locations are shown on the attached Soil Sampling Diagram.

4.2 Lead Paint Survey Results

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) define the paint action level as a lead concentration at or above the concentration of 1.0 mg/cm2 when measured with a portable XRF analyzer or 0.5% by weight when measured by laboratory methods.

All of the surfaces tested by LEGEND contained lead levels below the regulatory level of 1.0 mg/cm2.

Please refer to the attached report for detailed analytical results. The column labeled “PbC” gives lead concentrations per square centimeter of painted/coated surface (mg/cm2).

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 6 OF 8

4.3 Copper, Lead, Zinc Dust Sample Results

TABLE A - Copper/Zinc/Lead Dust Analysis Results Sample

No. Location Sample Area (Inches) Component Lead ug/ft2 Copper ug/ft2

Zinc ug/ft2

01 Door 18 Shooting Position 12”x12” Floor 81 2800 410

02 Door 18 Shooting Position 3.5” x 18” Lower Door

Ledge 25 680 420

03 Door 18 Shooting Position North Wall 12” x 12” Wall Up 1 Foot by door 25 4900 690

04 Door 14 Shooting Position 12”x12” Floor 200 4200 800

05 Door 14 Shooting Position 3.5”x18” Lower Door

Ledge 62 940 720

06 Door 14 Shooting Position 12”x12” Wall, up 1 foot from floor 1700 7500 1000

07 Door 5 Shooting Position 12” x 12” Floor 53 1200 260

08 Door 5 Shooting Position 3.5”x18” Lower Door

Ledge 88 1100 710

09 Door 5 Shooting Position 12”x12” Wall Up 1 foot by door edge 2500 3900 3300

10 Room 1, Table Top East of Transformer 12”x12” Other 97 1300 930

11 Room 1, Tower, Top of Table 12”x12” Carpet on table 3.1 43 69

Room 1, Floor where Instructors Stand South of Yellow Line by Door #10

12” x 12” Floor 77 1400 300

NOTE: Wipe media contained zinc and data is background corrected for zinc in wipe media.

LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 7 OF 8

4.4 Copper, Lead, and Zinc Soil Results

TABLE B - SUMMARY OF LEAD SOIL ANALYSIS

Copper/Zinc/Lead Soil Analysis Results on a dry weight basis

Sample No. Location Sample Area Component Lead

(mg/kg) Copper (mg/kg)

Zinc (mg/kg)

1 East Berm Dirt 12 Composites

Top ½”-1” of exposed soil 51 66 52

2 North Berm Dirt 12 Composites

Top ½”-1” of exposed soil 820 18000 68

3 West Berm Dirt 12 Composites

Top ½”-1” of exposed soil 2300 79 32

4 Pea Rock, Building to First Set of Columns

Composites

Top ½”-1” of exposed soil 250 6600 390

5 Pea Rock, Last Column to Grass Line

Composites

Top ½”-1” of exposed soil 130 11000 100

5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

LEGEND has the following recommendations:

ASBESTOS

No asbestos was detected in the samples collected from the building. If materials are encountered during demolition activities during the renovation, they should be tested for asbestos prior to proceeding with the renovation as there can be asbestos materials hidden in the construction.

METAL FUME DEPOSITION INSIDE THE BUILDING

OSHA has airborne exposure standards for lead, copper, and zinc fume but does not establish criteria for surface contamination. EPA has established a level of 40 micrograms per square foot as criteria for floor cleanliness. If we use this number to evaluate the surface wipe data, eight (8) of the twelve (12) locations exceed this level. Looking at the data, sample 11 location probably represents a background concentration for the three metals in dust with 3.1 ug/sqft lead, 43 ug/sqft copper, and 69 ug/sqft zinc. Metal fume deposited on surfaces has the potential for becoming airborne and creating a respiratory exposure as well as a contact hazard through skin contact with the dust. Based on the extent of metal fume contamination inside the building, LEGEND NO. 1402748 Page 8 OF 8

LEGEND recommends that finishes that remain be cleaned of metal fume as part of the renovation. The cleaning should be done using wet methods and HEPA filtered vacuums to avoid dispersal. Discarding of hard to clean and/or adsorbent materials and replacement with clean items is recommended.

BULLET FRAGMENT AND FUME DEPOSITION OF SOIL BERMS

Copper and zinc are naturally occurring soil elements. Lead is not. EPA uses 400 milligrams per kilogram as a guideline for lead content in soils under HUD regulations. Using 400 mg/kg as the criteria the west and north berm soil composites exceed the level. LEGEND noted ammunition fragments which suggested the three metals would be detected above background in the soil surface.

6.0 STANDARD OF CARE

The recommendations in this report represent our professional opinions. These opinions were arrived at in accordance with currently accepted industrial hygiene and lead consulting practices at this time and location. The results of this inspection are only applicable to the structure inspected on the date indicated; future activities at the structure may alter the results.

The samples will be retained by our laboratory for 30 days from the date of this report and then discarded unless other instructions are received from the client.

No warranty is implied or intended.

It has been a pleasure to provide this service to you and your organization. Please contact us if you have questions relating to any aspect of this work.

Respectfully Submitted By:

LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.

Mark Waltz Cheryl A Sykora,CIH,CSP,CHMM Fargo Office Manager Senior Industrial Hygienist ND Risk Assessor #1 ND Asbestos Inspector #120

APPENDIX A

#11

#9

#6

#7

#8,10

Room 1

Room 1

#5

#3

#1,2

#4

Asbestos Bulk Sample Locations Map

GFAFB Small Arms Range

Range Shelter B

#1402748

N

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

#7,8,9

#4,5,6

#11

Room 1

Room 1

#12

#1,2,3

#10

Copper/ Zinc/ Lead Dust Wipe Sample Locations

GFAFB Small Arms Range

Range Shelter B

R a n g e

S h e l t e r

B

#3

#5

#2

#4

#1

Copper/ Zinc/ Lead Soil Sample Locations

GFAFB Small Arms Range

Range Shelter B Site

APPENDIX D

88 Empire Drive St Paul, MN 55103 Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

RE: Analytical Services

Fargo, ND 58103

July 21, 2014

Work Order Number: 1402845

Bach Pham Client Manager II

Legend Technical Services bpham@legend-group.com

Enclosed are the results of analyses for samples received by the laboratory on 06/30/14. If you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact me.

Results are not blank corrected unless noted within the report. Additionally, all QC results meet requirements unless noted.

All samples will be retained by Legend Technical Services, Inc., unless consumed in the analysis, at ambient conditions for 30 days from the date of this report and then discarded unless other arrangements are made. All samples were received in acceptable condition unless otherwise noted.

ND Accreditation #R-065

Prepared by, LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC

Mr. Mark Waltz

1128 Westrac Drive

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Analytical Services 1402748 Mr. Mark WaltzFargo, ND 58103 07/21/14Date Reported:

Legend Technical Services Work Order #: 14028451128 Westrac Drive

Sample ID Laboratory ID Date Sampled

ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES

Date ReceivedMatrix

1 1402845-01 Soil 06/27/14 00:00 06/30/14 14:50

2 1402845-02 Soil 06/27/14 00:00 06/30/14 14:50

3 1402845-03 Soil 06/27/14 00:00 06/30/14 14:50

4 1402845-04 Soil 06/27/14 00:00 06/30/14 14:50

5 1402845-05 Soil 06/27/14 00:00 06/30/14 14:50

Shipping Container Information

Default Cooler Temperature (°C):

Received on ice: No Temperature blank was not present Received on ice pack: No Received on melt water: No Ambient: Yes Acceptable (IH/ISO only): No Custody seals: No

Case Narrative:

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Analytical Services 1402748 Mr. Mark WaltzFargo, ND 58103 07/21/14Date Reported:

Legend Technical Services Work Order #: 14028451128 Westrac Drive

TOTAL METALS ANALYSIS

Legend Technical Services, Inc.

Result Analyte RL Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes MDL

1 (1402845-01) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0310 07/03/14 07/14/14 mg/kg dryCopper 1.3 M2, QR-04EPA 6010C66 0.063 1

" " "mg/kg dryLead 1.3 "51 0.18 1

" " "mg/kg dryZinc 1.3 "52 0.24 1

2 (1402845-02) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0310 07/03/14 07/14/14 mg/kg dryCopper 11 EPA 6010C18000 0.54 10

" " 07/14/14 mg/kg dryLead 1.1 "820 0.16 1

" " "mg/kg dryZinc 1.1 "68 0.20 1

3 (1402845-03) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0310 07/03/14 07/14/14 mg/kg dryCopper 1.2 EPA 6010C79 0.056 1

" " "mg/kg dryLead 1.2 "2300 0.16 1

" " "mg/kg dryZinc 1.2 "32 0.21 1

4 (1402845-04) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0310 07/03/14 07/14/14 mg/kg dryCopper 13 EPA 6010C6600 0.63 10

" " 07/14/14 mg/kg dryLead 1.3 "250 0.18 1

" " "mg/kg dryZinc 1.3 "390 0.24 1

5 (1402845-05) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0310 07/03/14 07/14/14 mg/kg dryCopper 11 EPA 6010C11000 0.52 10

" " 07/14/14 mg/kg dryLead 1.1 "130 0.15 1

" " "mg/kg dryZinc 1.1 "100 0.19 1

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Analytical Services 1402748 Mr. Mark WaltzFargo, ND 58103 07/21/14Date Reported:

Legend Technical Services Work Order #: 14028451128 Westrac Drive

PERCENT SOLIDS

Legend Technical Services, Inc.

Result Analyte RL Units Dilution Batch Prepared Analyzed Method Notes MDL

1 (1402845-01) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0222 07/02/14 07/03/14 %% Solids % calculation76 1

2 (1402845-02) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0222 07/02/14 07/03/14 %% Solids % calculation89 1

3 (1402845-03) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0222 07/02/14 07/03/14 %% Solids % calculation86 1

4 (1402845-04) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0222 07/02/14 07/03/14 %% Solids % calculation99 1

5 (1402845-05) Soil Sampled: 06/27/14 00:00 Received: 06/30/14 14:50

B4G0222 07/02/14 07/03/14 %% Solids % calculation98 1

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Analytical Services 1402748 Mr. Mark WaltzFargo, ND 58103 07/21/14Date Reported:

Legend Technical Services Work Order #: 14028451128 Westrac Drive

Result Units Level Spike

Result Source

%REC

%REC

Limits %RPD

%RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

TOTAL METALS ANALYSIS - Quality Control Legend Technical Services, Inc.

RL MDL

Batch B4G0310 - EPA 3050B

Blank (B4G0310-BLK1) Prepared: 07/03/14 Analyzed: 07/14/14 Copper mg/kg wet< 1.0 1.0 0.048

Lead mg/kg wet< 1.0 1.0 0.14

Zinc mg/kg wet< 1.0 1.0 0.18

LCS (B4G0310-BS1) Prepared: 07/03/14 Analyzed: 07/14/14 Copper mg/kg wet 39.9 80-12099.939.8 1.0 0.048

Lead mg/kg wet 39.9 80-12010340.9 1.0 0.14

Zinc mg/kg wet 39.9 80-12010441.5 1.0 0.18

LCS Dup (B4G0310-BSD1) Prepared: 07/03/14 Analyzed: 07/14/14 Copper mg/kg wet 39.9 80-120101 0.82840.2 1.0 0.048 20

Lead mg/kg wet 39.9 80-120103 0.31041.1 1.0 0.14 20

Zinc mg/kg wet 39.9 80-120104 0.21941.4 1.0 0.18 20

Matrix Spike (B4G0310-MS1) Prepared: 07/03/14 Analyzed: 07/14/14 Source: 1402845-01

Copper mg/kg dry 51.6 75-12596.9116 65.81.3 0.063

Lead mg/kg dry 51.6 75-12590.698.0 51.21.3 0.18

Zinc mg/kg dry 51.6 75-12586.896.9 52.01.3 0.24

Matrix Spike Dup (B4G0310-MSD1) Prepared: 07/03/14 Analyzed: 07/14/14 Source: 1402845-01

Copper mg/kg dry 51.6 M2, QR-0475-12552.3 22.192.8 65.81.3 0.063 20

Lead mg/kg dry 51.6 75-12576.9 7.5390.9 51.21.3 0.18 20

Zinc mg/kg dry 51.6 75-12575.2 6.4790.8 52.01.3 0.24 20

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Analytical Services 1402748 Mr. Mark WaltzFargo, ND 58103 07/21/14Date Reported:

Legend Technical Services Work Order #: 14028451128 Westrac Drive

Result Units Level Spike

Result Source

%REC

%REC

Limits %RPD

%RPD

Limit Notes Analyte

PERCENT SOLIDS - Quality Control Legend Technical Services, Inc.

RL MDL

Batch B4G0222 - General Preparation

Duplicate (B4G0222-DUP1) Prepared: 07/02/14 Analyzed: 07/03/14 Source: 1402845-02

% Solids % 1.1290.0 89.0 20

Duplicate (B4G0222-DUP2) Prepared: 07/02/14 Analyzed: 07/03/14 Source: 1402864-03

% Solids % 0.0094.0 94.0 20

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Project:

Project Number:

Project Manager:

Analytical Services 1402748 Mr. Mark WaltzFargo, ND 58103 07/21/14Date Reported:

Legend Technical Services Work Order #: 14028451128 Westrac Drive

Notes and Definitions

QR-04 The RPD value for the MS/MSD was outside of QC acceptance limits. Data was accepted based on LCS and/or LCSD recovery and/or RPD values.

M2 Matrix spike recovery was low, the associated blank spike recovery was acceptable.

Sample results reported on a dry weight basis

Relative Percent DifferenceRPD dry Less than value listed<

Not applicable. The %RPD is not calculated from values less than the reporting limit.NA MDL Method Detection Limit RL Reporting Limit

LCS

MS

Laboratory Control Spike = Blank Spike (BS) = Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) Matrix Spike = Laboratory Fortified Matrix (LFM)

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced

Tel: 651-642-1150 Fax: 651-642-1239

Legend Technical Services, Inc. The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody document. This analytical report must be reproduced

GEOTECHNICAL DATA 003132 - 1

SECTION 00 31 32 - GEOTECHNICAL DATA

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS

A. Geotechnical reports were generated for this project for the use of the Government and the

Design Professionals. A copy of these reports is attached for the Contractor’s convenience.

Contractor’s use of the reports is at his sole discretion and responsibility. Reports were prepared by third parties for specific purposes and neither the Government nor the Design

Professional are responsible for the accuracy of the data in the reports nor for their relevance to the Contractor’s purposes. Contractor may, at his own expense, conduct such additional geotechnical investigations as the Contractor may deem necessary.

PART 2 - PRODUCTS - Not Used

PART 3 - EXECUTION - Not Used

END OF SECTION 00 31 32

Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Small Arms Range Renovations

Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota December 4, 2014

Terracon Project No. M5145063

Prepared for:

Leo A. Daly Minneapolis, Minnesota

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Grand Forks, North Dakota

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................. 1 2.0

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................ 2 3.0

3.1 Typical Profile

3.2 Groundwater

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 3 4.0

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Earthwork

Site Preparation ........................................................................................ 4 4.2.1 Material Requirements ............................................................................. 4 4.2.2 Compaction Requirements ....................................................................... 5 4.2.3 Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................ 5 4.2.4 Grading and Drainage .............................................................................. 5 4.2.5 Earthwork Construction Considerations .................................................... 6 4.2.6

4.3 Foundations

Foundation Design Recommendations ..................................................... 7 4.3.1 Foundation Construction Considerations .................................................. 7 4.3.2

4.4 Floor Slabs

Floor Slab Design Recommendations ...................................................... 8 4.4.1 Floor Slab Construction Considerations ................................................... 9 4.4.2

GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 9 5.0

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map Exhibit A-2 Exploration Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibit A-4 to A-6 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Exhibit B-2 Atterberg Limits Exhibit B-3 to B-5 Unconfined Compressive Strength

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

Proposed Small Arms Range Renovations ■ Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota December 4, 2014 ■ Terracon Project No. M5145063

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

Geotechnical engineering services have been completed for the proposed renovations at the small arms range at Grand Forks Air Force Base near Grand Forks, North Dakota. Based on the information obtained from our field and laboratory testing, the following geotechnical considerations were identified:

Borings B-2 and B-3 encountered approximately 5 to 7 feet of fill underlain by natural inorganic fat clays. We recommend the fill be excavated from the proposed foundation and floor slab areas.

The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread foundations bearing on natural, undisturbed soils or on engineered fill after removal of the uncontrolled fill.

The natural fat clays encountered in the upper portion of B-1 would be expected to have a volume change potential with variations in soil moisture content. To reduce the potential for detrimental floor slab movement associated with heaving soils, we recommend excavating floor slab areas to a depth that will provide a minimum of 5 feet of engineered fill below the slabs.

The natural soils encountered at the site are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic. Care should be taken to prevent disturbance of the natural soils.

Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be critical in achieving the design subgrade support. We therefore recommend that Terracon be retained to monitor this portion of the work.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

PROPOSED SMALL ARMS RANGE RENOVATIONS

GRAND FORKS AFB, NORTH DAKOTA

Terracon Project No. M5145063

December 4, 2014

INTRODUCTION 1.0

Geotechnical engineering services have been completed for the proposed renovations to the small arms range at the Grand Forks Air Force Base. Three (3) soil test borings were drilled to depths ranging from 8 to 50 feet below existing grade. Logs of the borings along with a site location map, and an exploration plan are included in Appendix A of this report.

The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions foundation design and construction groundwater conditions floor slab design and construction earthwork

PROJECT INFORMATION 2.0

2.1 Project Description

Item Description

Site layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-2: Exploration Plan

Structures The project will include enclosure of the existing small arms firing range.

Building construction Masonry walls with a steel framed roof and a floor slab-on-grade.

Maximum loads

Columns: 80 kips (assumed) Walls: 4 kips per lineal foot (assumed) Slabs: 150 psf (assumed)

Floor slab elevation 894

Below grade areas None

Grading Cuts/fills of 2 feet or less

2.2 Site Location and Description

Location See Appendix A, Exhibit A-1: Site Location Map

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Existing improvements Existing firing range with a canopy and earthen berms

Current ground cover Grasses/pavements/surface aggregate

Existing topography Earthen berms approximately 20 feet in height. Relatively level surrounding the firing range.

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.0

3.1 Typical Profile

Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows:

Stratum Approximate Depth to

Bottom of Stratum (feet)

Material Description Consistency/

Density

1 1 - 7 Topsoil and uncontrolled fill1 consisting mainly of clays of a black and dark gray coloration N/A

2 12 Natural, inorganic fat clay Stiff to medium stiff

3 37 Lean clay with sand containing a trace of gravel and occasional cobbles/boulders

Ranges from medium stiff to very stiff

4 Undetermined2 Fat clay Medium stiff

1. Uncontrolled fill is material that was placed without moisture and density control. This material is typically variable in composition, consistency, density, moisture, and depth. Fill without documentation regarding the placement methods and compaction records is assumed to be uncontrolled.

2. Boring B-1 was terminated in this stratum at the planned depth of 50 feet.

Conditions at each boring location are indicated on the attached individual boring logs.

Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. A discussion of the field sampling is included in Appendix A.

3.2 Groundwater

The boreholes were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Groundwater was not observed in the borings while drilling, or for the short duration

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 that the borings were allowed to remain open. However, this does not necessarily mean these borings terminated above groundwater. Due to the low permeability of the soils encountered in the borings, a relatively long period of time may be necessary for a groundwater level to develop and stabilize in a borehole in these materials. Long term observations in piezometers or observation wells sealed from the influence of surface water are often required to define groundwater levels in materials of this type.

Groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the building may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.0

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

Four (4) soil test borings were originally proposed for the project. Since the inside of the range was not accessible to our drilling machine, one boring was advanced to the north of the earthen berm and one boring was advanced at the southwest corner of the range. Also, one hand auger boring was advanced inside the range. The fourth boring which was proposed at the southeast corner of the range was not advanced due to numerous underground utilities at the proposed boring location, and it was not possible to relocate the boring within a reasonable distance. We have assumed the natural soil conditions at the abandoned location are similar to those encountered at the remaining borings. The depths of fill may be variable. We recommend close observation during excavating by an experienced geotechnical engineer for soil conditions not typical of the strata logged.

Based on the results of the subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and our analysis, it is our opinion that supporting the building on shallow spread foundations is feasible. Boring B-2 and B- 3 encountered uncontrolled fill extending to depths on the order of 5 to 7 feet below the existing grade. The fill consists mainly of clay of a dark grayish brown and black coloration (old topsoil).

We do not recommend the existing fill be used for support of foundations or floor slabs. All uncontrolled fill should be excavated from foundation and floor slab areas and replaced with a controlled engineered fill.

Boring B-1 was advanced along the north side of the earthen berm and encountered approximately 1 foot of topsoil, underlain by natural, inorganic fat clay extending to a depth of approximately 12 feet. The fat clay soils would be expected to have a volume change potential with variations in moisture content. These soils will swell upon wetting and shrink upon drying which can cause detrimental floor slab movement. To minimize the risk of floor slab movement, Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 we recommend excavating the floor slab areas to a depth that will provide a minimum of 5 feet of engineered fill below the slab.

4.2 Earthwork

Site Preparation 4.2.1 Prior to placing engineered fill or concrete, we recommend the uncontrolled fill be excavated from the foundation and floor slab areas. Based on the soil conditions encountered at our boring locations, we estimate excavation depths of up to 7 feet below the existing grade will be needed. Also, we recommend the floor slab areas be excavated to a depth that will provide a minimum of 5 feet of engineered fill below the floor slab.

We recommend that Terracon be retained to evaluate the natural subgrade soils prior to placement of engineered fill. Any unusually soft natural soils should be excavated and replaced with engineered fill. Subsurface conditions, as identified by the field and laboratory testing programs, have been reviewed and evaluated with respect to the proposed plans known to us at this time.

Material Requirements 4.2.2 Compacted structural fill should meet the following material property requirements:

Fill Type 1 USCS Classification Acceptable Location for Placement

Select granular fill

SP, SP-SM, SP-SC,

SW, SW-SM, SW-SC,

SM, SC

(P200<12%)

Support of foundations and floor slabs

Inorganic on-site soils

CL, CH Exterior foundation backfill and utility trench backfill2

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of particles larger than 3 inches, organic matter, debris, or other deleterious substance. Frozen material should not be used, and fill should not be placed on a frozen subgrade. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. Utility trenches should be backfilled with native soils to minimize the potential for differential frost heave, as would occur if a clean sand fill is placed in areas where the dominant natural soil is clay.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

Compaction Requirements 4.2.3

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Fill lift thickness

9-inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, self-propelled compaction equipment is used 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack, plate compactor, etc.) is used

Minimum compaction requirements 1

95% beneath foundations and floor slabs 95% for exterior foundation backfill below pavements 90% for exterior foundation backfill below grassed areas

Moisture content granular material 2 Workable moisture levels

Moisture content clayey material -3 to +3% of the optimum moisture

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

Compaction levels are relative to the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698.

2. Specifically, moisture levels should be maintained low enough to allow for satisfactory compaction to be achieved without the cohesionless fill material pumping when proofrolled.

Utility Trench Backfill 4.2.4

Excavations should be performed in accordance with governing safety regulations. All vehicles and soil piles should be kept back from the crest of excavation slopes. The stability of excavation slopes should be reviewed continuously by qualified personnel. The responsibility for excavation safety and temporary construction slopes lies solely with the contractor.

Trenches that remain open for an extended period of time should be protected by changes in moisture by covering with plastic sheeting or another suitable method.

Grading and Drainage 4.2.5 All grades must provide effective drainage away from the building during and after construction.

Water permitted to pond next to the building can result in undesirable soil volume change.

Gutters and downspouts that drain water a minimum of 10 feet beyond the footprint of the proposed building are recommended.

Exposed ground should be sloped at a minimum of 5 percent away from the building for at least 10 feet beyond the perimeter of the building. After building construction and landscaping, we recommend verifying final grades to document that effective drainage has been achieved.

Grades around the structure should also be periodically inspected and adjusted as necessary, as part of the structure’s maintenance program.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Earthwork Construction Considerations 4.2.6 The natural soils are susceptible to disturbance during construction, especially when wet or saturated.