Appendix_A_-_KC46_AGE_Storage,_Geotechnical_and_Soil_Testing_Report.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage

Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst New Hanover Township, New Jersey

May 18, 2018 Project Number: PTFL 163017

Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Prepared for:

POND – FSB A Joint Venture

Norcross, Georgia

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

South Plainfield, New Jersey

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 4081 Hadley Road Unit B South Pla inf ie ld, NJ P (908) 546-6161 terracon.com

May 18, 2018

POND – FSB A Joint Venture 3500 Parkway Lane, Suite 500 Norcross, Georgia 30092

Attn: Mr. George Fragulis, PE, PMP, CEM, BEMP, LEED AP P: (678) 336-7740 E: fragulisg@pondco.com

Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst New Hanover Township, New Jersey Project Number: PTFL 163017 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Dear Mr. Fragulis:

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) is submitting, herewith, the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this evaluation was to obtain information on subsurface conditions at the project site and, based on this information, to provide recommendations regarding the design and construction of foundations, slabs, and pavements for the proposed development.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Alex C. Kavaleuski Erich Christiansen, P.E.

Project Manager Senior Associate Geotechnical Service Line Geotechnical Department Manager

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Description

2.2 Site Location and Description

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Pavement Thickness Summary

3.2 Typical Profile

3.3 Groundwater

3.4 Environmental Analysis

3.5 Corrosion Testing

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

4.2 Foundations

4.2.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

4.2.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

4.3 Slab-on-Grade

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations

4.3.2 Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations

4.4 Earthwork

4.4.1 Site Preparation

4.4.2 Subgrade Preparation

4.4.3 Excavations

4.4.4 Reuse of Materials

4.4.5 Imported Fill

4.4.6 Fill Placement

4.5 Seismic Considerations

4.6 Pavement Recommendations

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION

Exhibit A-1 Site Location Map Exhibit A-2 Exploration Location Diagram Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Exhibits A-4 to A-11 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Exhibits B-2 through B-4 Gradation Curves Exhibit B-5 Corrosion Testing Summary

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

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

APPENDIX D – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Aerospace Ground Equipement Storage New Hanover Township, New Jersey May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage structure that will be constructed within the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Joint Base) in New Hanover Township, New Jersey. Eight borings were advanced to a depth of approximately 20 below existing grade, to provide geotechnical and environmental information for the project. Site subsurface conditions generally consist of natural loose to medium dense sand, with occasional fill and sandy silt layers.

The following geotechnical considerations for project design and construction were identified and are discussed in the report:

The buildings may be supported on conventional spread footings supported on the natural soils or on structural fill placed directly above these materials.

The uncontrolled fill materials encountered in boring B-1 are not suitable in their current condition for direct support of new foundations and floor slabs.

Where present, these materials should be excavated in their entirety from below the proposed addition footprint and extending at least 2 feet out.

A geotechnical engineer from Terracon should observe the removal and replacement of the fill materials, as well as foundation and floor slab subgrade preparation to confirm that the subgrades are suitable for support of the proposed building loads.

The materials generated during the site preparation, building pad and foundation construction are expected to consist of silty sand, which can be reused as structural fill provided deleterious materials and particles greater that 3 inches in size are segregated prior to reuse.

Based on our review of the available subsurface data, we recommend that Site Class “D” be adopted for seismic design purposes.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. Details are not included or fully developed in this summary; the report must be read in its entirety of a comprehensive understanding of the information contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT STORAGE

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST

NEW HANOVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

Project Number: PTFL 163017 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

May 18, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage structures that will be constructed within the Joint Base in New Hanover Township, New Jersey (see Exhibit A-1, Site Location Map), has been completed. Eight soil borings (B-1 through B-8) were drilled within the proposed structure areas to a depth of approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Individual test boring logs and an Exploration Location Diagram (Exhibit A-2) are included in Appendix A. This report describes the subsurface conditions encountered in the explorations and provides a discussion of geotechnical considerations and recommendations for the construction of the proposed development.

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

subsurface soil conditions seismic considerations groundwater conditions earthwork foundation design and construction slab design and construction pavement design and construction

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

The following paragraphs present the project information that was available in Charrette Report (15 percent submittal) for KC-46A Program, PN 163017 – Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage, dated December 20, 2017. Should this information be incorrect, or changed, please contact this office so that we could reevaluate our analysis and recommendations.

2.1 Project Description

Item Description Site layout Appendix A, Exhibit A-2, Exploration Location Diagram

Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage New Hanover Township, New Jersey May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Building

The proposed Covered Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Storage is planned to consist of two free standing building structures: Covered AGE Storage to house various AGE equipment, and a separate partial enclosure for 150 tons capacity Jack Tester. A total footprint area of both structures is planned to be approximately 20,000 square feet in size.

Building construction Steel-framed, supported on shallow foundation system and concrete slab-on-grade floor.

Finished floor elevation Finish floor elevation is expected to match the existing top of pavement elevation.

Estimated maximum loads

Column: 75 kips (assumed) Wall: 3 kips per linear foot (assumed) Slab: 250 pounds per square foot (psf) or HL93 Vehicle Wheel Loads (not concurrent)

Grading No grading. The structure is expected to be established at the existing site grades.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location

The proposed structures are planned to be located between the existing Buildings 2251 and 2253 located south of Crissom Road within the Joint Base in New Hanover Township, New Jersey.

Approximate coordinates for the proposed structures are Latitude 40.028117°, Longitude -74.593752°

Site history Based on Google Earth TM historical aerial images, the currently present concrete pavement had been in place since at least 1995.

Existing improvements Parking area.

Current ground cover Concrete pavement

Existing topography

Ground surface within the site generally slopes from approximate Elevation +112 feet within the northwest portion of the proposed structure area to approximate Elevation +110 feet within the southeast portion.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.1 Pavement Thickness Summary

The following table provides a summary of the pavement thickness at the site:

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

Boring Concrete Thickness (inches) Base Thickness (inches)1

B-1 9 3 B-2 8 3 B-3 8 3 B-4 20 3 B-5 20 3 B-6 20 3 B-7 10 3 B-8 10 3

3.2 Typical Profile

The following table provides a summary of the generalized soil conditions at the site.

Stratum Typical Stratum Base Depth (feet) 1 Material Description Density

1 2 Fill: Silty sand with gravel Variable

22 Not encountered (>20)

Silty Sand (SM) Loose3 to Medium

Dense

1. Below the existing ground surface elevation.

2. Fill was encountered to a depth of 2 feet below grade in boring B-1, and occasional sandy silt layers were encountered at various depths in borings B-1, B-2, and B-3.

3. Please note that a drop in N-values just below groundwater table is likely due to disturbance from the release of the confining pressure during sampling (running sands) and is not a true representation of the structural consistency.

Based on the site history we expected that fill material would be encountered at the site; however, with exception of boring B-1 fill material was not identified due to the lack of gravel, debris or other inclusions in the samplers, which would confirm the presence of fill. It should be noted that due to the small sample size, collected by split spoons, it is not always possible to determine the presence of fill, especially if the fill material consists of the locally excavated soils and free from manmade inclusions within the sample; therefore, fill material is often mistaken for native soil.

Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs in Appendix A of this report. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil/rock types; in situ, the transition between materials may be gradual.

Further details of the borings can be found on the boring logs.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

3.3 Groundwater

Specific observations of groundwater level as recorded for each boring are noted on the boring logs in Appendix A, and are summarized below.

Boring Number Depth to Groundwater While Drilling, feet. 1

Depth to Groundwater After Drilling, feet. 1

B-1 8 6 (after 1 hour)

B-2 6 6 (after 1.5 hour)

B-3 6 N/A

B-4 8 5 (after 1 hour)

B-5 8 N/A B-6 8 6 (after 1 hour) / 5 (after 5 hours) B-7 10 5 (after 3 hours) B-8 10 N/A

1. Below the existing ground surface elevation.

Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur because of seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors that may differ from those present at the time the explorations were performed. Therefore, the groundwater levels that may prevail during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. Additionally, grade adjustments on and around the site, as well as surrounding drainage improvements, may affect the water table. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

3.4 Environmental Analysis

Terracon also obtained representative soil samples in each of the eight borings performed for this study, in accordance with the Environmental Sampling Protocol as specified in Attachment L of the SOW for this project, the results of which are presented in Appendix D.

3.5 Corrosion Testing

Laboratory soil pH, redox potential, sulfide content, and resistivity tests were conducted at an analytical lab on one soil sample collected from the upper 6 feet from each soil boring performed at the site to assess the corrosivity risk of the on-site soils within proposed addition area. The results of the laboratory tests are provided in Appendix B of this report. If any buried metal or concrete will be used on this project, the following corrosivity information should be considered.

Data suggests the soil pH should not be the dominant soil variable affecting soil corrosion if the soil has a pH in the 5 to 8 range. Based on our laboratory pH tests, the soil tested had a pH

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 between 7.1 and 7.7. The pH of the samples falls within the recommended range; suggesting that pH would not be a dominant soil variable contributing to corrosion.

The resistivity measured on saturated soil samples tested in the laboratory was 1,900 to 8,800 ohm-centimeter. Those resistivity results indicate the soil profile has high to mild corrosive potential to buried ferrous metal pipes. Evaluation of the resistivity test results follows the guidelines of J.F. Palmer, “Soil Resistivity Measurements and Analysis”, Materials Performance, Volume 13, January 1974. The table below outlines the guidelines for soil resistivity versus corrosion potential.

Corrosion Potential of Soil on Steel SOIL RESISTIVITY (ohm-cm) CORROSION POTENTIAL

0 to 1,000 Very High 1,000 to 2,000 High 2,000 to 5,000 Moderate

> 5,000 Mild

Corrosion protection for pipes can vary from encasing or wrapping the pipe in a protective cover to providing cathodic protection. Pipe coatings are sometimes comprised of cement-mortar, bituminous, or other protective material. Furthermore, pipes can also be wrapped with a protective material to aid in resisting corrosion such as a polyethylene wrap. We recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to provide specific corrosion recommendations for the project.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The proposed Covered Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage structure and separate partial enclosure for 150 tons capacity Jack Tester can be supported by a conventional shallow foundations bearing on native silty sand soils. Shallow foundation design and construction considerations are presented in Section 4.2.

It is our understanding that the existing pavement is planned to be reused within the proposed Covered AGE Storage structure; however, a new slab-on-grade will likely be required for the partial enclosure structure. Below the pavement section subgrade a small amount of fill material consisting of silty sand with gravel may be present within the proposed partial enclosure structure, similar to those observed in boring B-1. It is likely that the existing fill material has been placed in a controlled fashion during construction of the existing pavement; however, documents confirming compaction of the soil are not available. In addition, this material is likely be disturbed during concrete removal to accommodate the new foundation construction; therefore, if

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 encountered, fill material should be removed from the foundation areas and replaced with controlled compacted structural fill in accordance with our recommendations below, if needed.

Design recommendations for slab-on-grade presented in Section 4.3.

The materials generated during foundation excavations expected to consist of silty sand, which can be reused as structural fill provided it is free from deleterious materials and particles greater that 3 inches in size.

We recommend that a geotechnical engineer from Terracon observe the excavation of the uncontrolled fill to verify that unsuitable materials have been removed, to observe subgrade preparation and backfilling/filling activities, and to evaluate final foundation subgrades to confirm that they are suitable for support of the proposed building loads.

4.2 Foundations

Following the site and building pad preparations, the proposed addition may be supported on shallow spread foundations bearing directly on the natural silty sand soils or compacted structural fill placed over the natural soils. Design recommendations for shallow foundations are presented in the following table and paragraphs.

4.2.1 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations

Description Value Net allowable bearing pressure 1 3,000 psf Minimum strip footing width 18 inches Minimum isolated spread footing width 24 inches Minimum embedment below finished grade for frost protection 36 inches

Approximate total settlement 2 1 inch

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation.

2. Foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footing, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations.

Exterior foundations should be established a minimum of 36 inches below the proposed adjacent exterior grades, or deeper if required by the local building official, to provide protection from frost penetration. Interior foundations located in permanently heated portions of the structure may be established at convenient depths below the ground floor slab, provided they bear on appropriate materials as described above.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

Uplift resistance of spread footings can be developed from the effective weight of the footing and the overlying soils. As illustrated on the subsequent figure, the effective weight of the soil prism defined by diagonal planes extending up from the top of the perimeter of the foundation to the ground surface at an angle,, of 20 degrees from the vertical can be included in uplift resistance.

The maximum allowable uplift capacity should be taken as a sum of the effective weight of soil plus the dead weight of the foundation, divided by an appropriate factor of safety. A maximum total unit weight of 100 pcf should be used for the backfill. This unit weight should be reduced to 40 pcf for portions of the backfill or natural soils below the groundwater elevation.

4.2.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations

The geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe the subgrade preparation activities, to provide guidance regarding any remedial earthwork required, and to evaluate the suitability of the subgrades to support the design foundation loads. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the following measures can be implemented:

■ Excavation could be extended deeper to suitable native soils so that the footing will bear directly on these soils at the lower level.

■ Excavation could be extended deeper to suitable native soils and then backfilled with lean concrete to the design footing level (left figure).

■ Excavation could be extended deeper and wider to suitable native soils and then backfilled with properly compacted engineered/structural fill to the design footing level (right figure).

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

The following precautions are essential to the satisfactory performance of shallow foundations:

■ Provide positive drainage away from the foundations, both during and after construction.

■ Avoid excavations during inclement weather and place concrete within the excavations within 24 hours after completion of the excavations.

■ Verify that the excavations are completely within the required bearing stratum or engineered fill and remove and replace any unacceptable soils as discussed herein.

■ Maintain adequate moisture levels in exposed excavation and slab subgrades, but do not allow the areas to become saturated.

■ Use a layer of ¾ inch clean crushed stone on the order of 6 inches in thickness may be placed (but not required) in order to help protect the subgrade from disturbance.

Alternately, a “mudmat” of lean concrete to seal the bearing stratum may also be used in the event wet conditions are experienced or expected.

■ Minimize traffic in excavations to only that necessary to place the steel and concrete for the footings.

■ Should the soils at the bearing level become wet, disturbed, or frozen, the materials should be removed prior to placing concrete.

■ Remove free water in the excavations prior to placing concrete.

4.3 Slab-on-Grade

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations

Description Value

Floor slab support 1 12-inch thick layer of compacted Structural Fill Modulus of subgrade reaction 2 150 pounds per square inch per inch (pci)

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundations.

2. Value is for point load condition.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9

Where appropriate, control joints should be saw-cut in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations, the slab designer should refer to the ACI Design Manual.

The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath a concrete slab-on-grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. We also recommend the installation of a six inch layer of clean crushed stone to act as a capillary break between the bottom of the floor slab and the underlying subgrade soils.

4.3.2 Slab-on-Grade Construction Considerations

On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase, and this report assumes that the general slab area will be prepared in accordance with our recommendations below in Section 4.4.2. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed because of utility excavations, construction traffic, precipitation, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of granular base and concrete, and corrective action will be required.

Therefore, immediately prior to placement of the granular base and concrete, we recommend the area underlying the floor slab be proofrolled again with at least six passes of a minimum 4-ton (static weight) vibratory roller compactor. In areas with limited access, a double-drum walk-behind compactor may be used. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located, and manual probes should be performed by Terracon to confirm the stability of these areas. Areas with unsuitable conditions should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill.

We estimate that floor slabs supported by the subgrade soils and/or controlled compacted fill prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report will experience post construction settlement on the order of 1/2-inch or less. The majority of this movement will occur during initial load application.

4.4 Earthwork

4.4.1 Site Preparation

Prior to any earthwork operations, any subsurface utilities and abandoned subsurface structures that are in conflict with the new construction should be relocated and/or removed from the proposed construction area. We recommend that the existing concrete pavement be saw cut and removed along perimeter of the proposed foundations a minimum 2 feet horizontally from the

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 edge of the proposed foundations to allow for construction of the new foundations and slab sections.

Following excavation to the proposed bottom of foundation and slab levels, the exposed subgrades should be evaluated by Terracon representative for the presence of fill material. In areas where fill material is present, removal of the fill material should be continued until stable native silty sand soils are encountered.

4.4.2 Subgrade Preparation

Following verification of stable native soils at the foundation and slab sections, subgrade materials disturbed or loosened by the excavation activities should be compacted in place using portable compaction equipment, and structural fill could then be placed to design subgrade elevations, if needed. Completed subgrades will still be susceptible to disturbance from inclement weather and should be protected by the Contractor prior to the placement of any structural fill. Construction traffic over completed subgrades should be avoided to the extent practical. The surface runoff should be diverted from the excavations. If any subgrades should become frozen, wet, or disturbed, the affected materials should be removed to the surface of stable soils and replaced with controlled compacted fill, or flowable fill under the observation of the geotechnical engineer.

4.4.3 Excavations

As a minimum, temporary excavations should be sloped or braced, as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations, to provide stability and safe working conditions. The contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, 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. All excavations should comply with applicable local, State and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards.

4.4.4 Reuse of Materials

Materials generated during foundation excavations activities are expected to consist of silty sand.

These soils are suitable for reuse as structural fill provided that they are maintained at a moisture content suitable for compaction and deleterious materials and particles greater than 3 inches in size are segregated prior to reuse.

4.4.5 Imported Fill

In the event that imported fill is needed to complete the site grading, we recommend that the material consist of inorganic, readily compactable, well-graded granular soils with no more than 15% fines (no more than 15% passing the No. 200 sieve). Additionally, we recommend excluding gradations greater than 6 inches. The moisture content of the fill material should be controlled to within 3% of the optimum moisture content by wetting, aeration, or blending, as necessary to achieve the required compaction.

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

4.4.6 Fill Placement

Structural fill should be installed in controlled layers uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of the fill material’s maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557 Test Procedures. The layer thickness should be adjusted as needed depending on the type of compaction equipment used and the condition of the fill materials at the time of construction, but should be no greater than 12 inches in loose thickness. It should be expected that thinner lifts will be required to achieve the required compaction in confined areas where portable compaction equipment is used.

4.5 Seismic Considerations

The seismic design requirements for buildings and other structures are based on Seismic Design Category. Site Classification is required to determine the Seismic Design Category for a structure.

The Site Classification is based on the upper 100 feet of the site profile defined by a weighted average value of either shear wave velocity, standard penetration resistance, or undrained shear strength in accordance with Section 20.4 of ASCE 7-10.

Description Value 2015 International Building Code Site Classification New Jersey Edition (IBC) 1 D 2

Site Latitude 40.0278°

Site Longitude -74.5934°

SDS Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 3 0.216g

SD1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 3 0.097g

1. Seismic site classification in general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code New Jersey

Edition, which refers to ASCE 7-10.

2. The 2015 International Building Code (IBC) uses a site profile extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. Borings at this site were extended to a maximum depth of 20 feet. The site properties below the boring depth to 100 feet were estimated based on our experience and knowledge of geologic conditions of the general area. Additional deeper borings or geophysical testing may be performed to confirm the conditions below the current boring depth.

3. These values were obtained using online seismic design maps and tools provided by the USGS (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/).

4.6 Pavement Recommendations

(add pavement section here)

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications, so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 services during grading, excavation, foundation construction, and other earth-related construction phases of the project.

The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the explorations performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between explorations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided.

The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination of pollution, other studies should be undertaken.

This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A

FIELD EXPLORATION

SITE LOCATION MAP

163017 Ground Equipment Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Twp, New Jersey

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IMAGE COURTESY OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

QUADRANGLES INCLUDE: NEW EGYPT, NJ (1/1/1977).

4081 Hadley Rd Ste B South Plainfield, NJ 07080-1114

J6175124D Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

KTP

AK

ELC

1”=2,000’

J6175124D

FEBRUARY 2018

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

A-1 ExhibitAK

SITE

EXPLORATION LOCATION DIAGRAM

163017 Ground Equipment Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Twp, New Jersey 4081 Hadley Rd Ste B

South Plainfield, NJ 07080-1114

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS

NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

J6175124D

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED

BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

KTP

AK

ELC

AS SHOWN

J6175124D

FEBRUARY 2018

Scale:

A-2

ExhibitProject Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

File Name:

Date:

AK

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit A-3

Field Exploration Description

The approximate test boring locations, which are shown on Exhibit A-2, were measured by taping from existing features in the field and by estimating right angles. Ground elevations at the explorations were determined from Google EarthTM based on the boring locations. The locations of the explorations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used to define them.

Terracon coordinated the advancement of five borings (B-1 through B-8) on January 11, 16 and 17, 2018. The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted B-57 hollow stem auger rig, owned and operated by Soil Borings, Inc. of Haddon, New Jersey. The borings were advanced using 3 inch I.D.

continuous flight hollow-stem augers (HSA). The borings terminated at a planned depth of 20 feet.

In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler typically the middle 12 inches of the total 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound safety autohammer with a free fall of 30 inches is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance value “N”. This “N” value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils.

The soil samples were placed in labeled glass jars and transported to our laboratory for further review and classification by a Terracon geotechnical engineer. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, relative density and/or consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site.

Field logs of the explorations were prepared during drilling operations. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final exploration logs included with this report represent further interpretation by the geotechnical engineer of the field logs and incorporate, where appropriate, modifications based on laboratory classification of the samples.

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

May 18, 2018 Terracon Project No. J6175124D

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1

LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY

Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the exploration logs are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). USCS symbols are also shown. A brief description of the USCS is attached to this report. Classification was generally by visual/manual procedures, along with grain size analyzes and moisture content determination. Corrosion suite of tests were also performed and are included herein.

Environmental Analysis results are included in Appendix D.

Exhibit B-5

APPENDIX C

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Exhibit C-2

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification

Group Symbol Group Name B

Coarse Grained Soils:

More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve

Gravels:

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

Clean Gravels:

Less than 5% fines C

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F

Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F

Gravels with Fines:

More than 12% fines C

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G,H

Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H

Sands:

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

Clean Sands:

Less than 5% fines D

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I

Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I

Sands with Fines:

More than 12% fines D

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I

Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I

Fine-Grained Soils:

50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit less than 50

Inorganic:

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M

PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OL

Organic clay K,L,M,N

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O

Silts and Clays:

Liquid limit 50 or more

Inorganic:

PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M

Organic:

Liquid limit - oven dried

0.75 OH

Organic clay K,L,M,P

Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name.

C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc =

DxD

)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.

G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name.

I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.

J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.

K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant.

L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line.

O PI 4 or plots below “A” line.

P PI plots on or above “A” line.

Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPENDIX D

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

01/31/18

Technical Report for

Sampling Date: 01/17/18

Report to:

Terracon Consulting Inc.

4081 Hadley Road, Unit B South Plainfield, NJ 07080 Alex.Kavaleuski@terracon.com

ATTN: Alex Kavaleuski

Total number of pages in report:

Certifications: NJ(12129), NY(10983), CA, CT, FL, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NC, OH VAP (CL0056), AK (UST-103), AZ (AZ0786), PA, RI, SC, TX, UT, VA, WV, DoD ELAP (L-A-B L2248)

This report shall not be reproduced, except in its entirety, without the written approval of SGS.

Test results relate only to samples analyzed.

SGS North America Inc. • 2235 Route 130 • Dayton, NJ 08810 • tel: 732-329-0200 • fax: 732-329-3499

Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program and/or state specific certification programs as applicable.

Client Service contact: Kelly Patterson 732-329-0200

Nancy Cole Laboratory Director

Dayton, NJ 01/31/18 e-Hardcopy 2.0 Automated Report

SGS is the sole authority for authorizing edits or modifications to this document.

Unauthorized modification of this report is strictly prohibited.

Review standard terms at: http://www.sgs.com/en/terms-and-conditions

The results set forth herein are provided by SGS North America Inc.

JC59047

Terracon Consultants J6175124D Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Hanover Township, New Jersey

PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage SGS

Job Number: JC58960

Table of Contents -1-

Sections:

Section 1: Sample Summary Section 2: Summary of Hits Section 3: Sample Results

3.1: JC59047-1: BORING B-3 (4-6')

3.2: JC59047-2: BORING B-2 (4-6')

3.3: JC59047-3: BORING B-1 (4-6')

Section 4: Misc. Forms 4.1: Chain of Custody

JC59047

SGS North America Inc.

Sample Summary

Terracon Consultants Job No: JC59047

JC59047-1 01/17/18 10:20 JP 01/18/18 SO Soil BORING B-3 (4-6')

JC59047-2 01/17/18 11:00 JP 01/18/18 SO Soil BORING B-2 (4-6')

JC59047-3 01/17/18 13:58 JP 01/18/18 SO Soil BORING B-1 (4-6')

Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page.

JC59047

Joint Base PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage Project No: J6175124D

Sample Collected Matr ix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Result/ Analyte Qual RL MDL Units Method

JC59047-1 BORING B-3 (4-6' )

Benzene 2.2 0.65 0.14 ug/kg SW846 8260C Cyclohexane 0.82 J 2.6 0.45 ug/kg SW846 8260C cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.5 1.3 0.52 ug/kg SW846 8260C Ethylbenzene 0.75 J 1.3 0.38 ug/kg SW846 8260C Methyl Acetate 4.2 J 6.5 3.3 ug/kg SW846 8260C o-Xylene 0.33 J 1.3 0.33 ug/kg SW846 8260C Xylene (total) 0.33 J 1.3 0.33 ug/kg SW846 8260C TPH-DRO (C10-C28) 12.9 10 2.4 mg/kg SW846 8015C Aluminum 5950 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Arsenic 2.9 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Beryllium 0.28 0.23 mg/kg SW846 6010C Calcium 5230 570 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 18.5 1.1 mg/kg SW846 6010C Copper 3.7 2.9 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 9210 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 5.2 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Magnesium 1520 570 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 51.4 1.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Potassium 1320 1100 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 16.1 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Zinc 13.3 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C

JC59047-2 BORING B-2 (4-6' )

Acetone 18.9 12 7.9 ug/kg SW846 8260C Benzene 1.8 0.62 0.13 ug/kg SW846 8260C Cyclohexane 1.2 J 2.5 0.42 ug/kg SW846 8260C cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 27.8 1.2 0.50 ug/kg SW846 8260C trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.5 1.2 0.72 ug/kg SW846 8260C Methylene chloride 3.2 J 6.2 3.1 ug/kg SW846 8260C Total TIC, Semi-Volatile 180 J ug/kg Aluminum 5920 58 mg/kg SW846 6010C Arsenic 4.7 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Beryllium 0.44 0.23 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 29.8 1.2 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 16200 58 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 4.0 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Magnesium 1230 580 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 37.4 1.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Potassium 2730 1200 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 21.3 5.8 mg/kg SW846 6010C Zinc 13.9 5.8 mg/kg SW846 6010C

JC59047

2Summary of Hits Page 1 of 2 Job Number : JC59047 Account: Terracon Consultants Project: Joint Base PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage Collected: 01/17/18

JC59047-3 BORING B-1 (4-6' )

Acetone 8.1 7.7 4.9 ug/kg SW846 8260C Cyclohexane 0.94 J 1.5 0.26 ug/kg SW846 8260C Ethylbenzene 0.92 0.77 0.22 ug/kg SW846 8260C Isopropylbenzene 0.61 J 1.5 0.19 ug/kg SW846 8260C Methylcyclohexane 2.1 1.5 0.42 ug/kg SW846 8260C Total Alkanes 8 J ug/kg Anthracene 28.0 J 37 23 ug/kg SW846 8270D Dibenzofuran 19.7 J 74 15 ug/kg SW846 8270D Fluoranthene 83.9 37 17 ug/kg SW846 8270D Fluorene 30.8 J 37 17 ug/kg SW846 8270D Phenanthrene 192 37 12 ug/kg SW846 8270D Pyrene 73.6 37 12 ug/kg SW846 8270D Aluminum 5990 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Arsenic 4.0 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Beryllium 0.43 0.23 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 28.1 1.1 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 14000 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 4.2 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Magnesium 1160 570 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 23.0 1.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Potassium 2510 1100 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 20.4 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Zinc 13.8 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C

JC59047

2Summary of Hits Page 2 of 2 Job Number : JC59047 Account: Terracon Consultants

Collected: 01/17/18

Sample Results

Report of Analysis

Dayton, NJ Section 3

Repor t of Analysis Page 1 of 2

67-64-1 Acetone ND 13 8.4 ug/kg 71-43-2 Benzene 2.2 0.65 0.14 ug/kg 74-97-5 Bromochloromethane ND 6.5 0.57 ug/kg 75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane ND 2.6 0.32 ug/kg 75-25-2 Bromoform ND 6.5 0.41 ug/kg 74-83-9 Bromomethane ND 6.5 0.91 ug/kg 78-93-3 2-Butanone (MEK) ND 13 6.8 ug/kg 75-15-0 Carbon disulfide ND 2.6 0.79 ug/kg 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride ND 2.6 0.85 ug/kg 108-90-7 Chlorobenzene ND 2.6 0.38 ug/kg 75-00-3 Chloroethane ND 6.5 1.2 ug/kg 67-66-3 Chloroform ND 2.6 0.42 ug/kg 74-87-3 Chloromethane a ND 6.5 1.3 ug/kg 110-82-7 Cyclohexane 0.82 2.6 0.45 ug/kg J 96-12-8 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ND 2.6 0.88 ug/kg 124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane ND 2.6 0.50 ug/kg 106-93-4 1,2-Dibromoethane ND 1.3 0.32 ug/kg 95-50-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.3 0.67 ug/kg 541-73-1 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.3 0.37 ug/kg 106-46-7 1,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 1.3 0.62 ug/kg 75-71-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 6.5 0.79 ug/kg 75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane ND 1.3 0.34 ug/kg 107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1.3 0.23 ug/kg 75-35-4 1,1-Dichloroethene ND 1.3 0.92 ug/kg 156-59-2 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 5.5 1.3 0.52 ug/kg 156-60-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1.3 0.76 ug/kg 78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane ND 2.6 0.52 ug/kg 10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.6 0.50 ug/kg 10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 2.6 0.31 ug/kg 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.75 1.3 0.38 ug/kg J 76-13-1 Freon 113 ND 6.5 0.88 ug/kg 591-78-6 2-Hexanone ND 6.5 3.6 ug/kg

ND = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

JC59047

3.1

Client Sample ID: BORING B-3 (4-6') Lab Sample ID: JC59047-1 Date Sampled: 01/17/18 Matr ix: SO - Soil Date Received: 01/18/18 Method: SW846 8260C Percent Solids: 87.2 Project: Joint Base PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 Y177966.D 1 01/24/18 12:54 PS n/a n/a VY7691 Run #2

Initial Weight Run #1 4.4 g Run #2

VOA TCL List

CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q

Repor t of Analysis Page 2 of 2

98-82-8 Isopropylbenzene ND 2.6 0.32 ug/kg 79-20-9 Methyl Acetate 4.2 6.5 3.3 ug/kg J 108-87-2 Methylcyclohexane ND 2.6 0.71 ug/kg 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether ND 1.3 0.56 ug/kg 108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) ND 6.5 2.3 ug/kg 75-09-2 Methylene chloride ND 6.5 3.3 ug/kg 100-42-5 Styrene ND 2.6 0.65 ug/kg 79-34-5 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 2.6 0.33 ug/kg 127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene ND 2.6 0.83 ug/kg 108-88-3 Toluene ND 1.3 0.71 ug/kg 87-61-6 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 6.5 1.3 ug/kg 120-82-1 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 6.5 1.3 ug/kg 71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 2.6 0.76 ug/kg 79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 2.6 0.55 ug/kg 79-01-6 Trichloroethene ND 1.3 0.71 ug/kg 75-69-4 Trichlorofluoromethane ND 6.5 0.63 ug/kg 75-01-4 Vinyl chloride ND 2.6 1.0 ug/kg m,p-Xylene ND 1.3 0.71 ug/kg 95-47-6 o-Xylene 0.33 1.3 0.33 ug/kg J 1330-20-7 Xylene (total) 0.33 1.3 0.33 ug/kg J

CAS No. Surrogate Recover ies Run# 1 Run# 2 Limits

1868-53-7 Dibromofluoromethane 99% 72-129% 17060-07-0 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 99% 73-132% 2037-26-5 Toluene-D8 97% 80-120% 460-00-4 4-Bromofluorobenzene 98% 77-125%

CAS No. Tentatively Identified Compounds R.T. Est. Conc. Units Q

Total TIC, Volatile 0 ug/kg Total Alkanes 0 ug/kg

(a) Associated CCV outside of control limits low.

ND = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

JC59047

3.1

Client Sample ID: BORING B-3 (4-6') Lab Sample ID: JC59047-1 Date Sampled: 01/17/18 Matr ix: SO - Soil Date Received: 01/18/18 Method: SW846 8260C Percent Solids: 87.2 Project: Joint Base PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage

Repor t of Analysis Page 1 of 3

95-57-8 2-Chlorophenol ND 75 19 ug/kg 59-50-7 4-Chloro-3-methyl phenol ND 190 23 ug/kg 120-83-2 2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 190 32 ug/kg 105-67-9 2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 190 67 ug/kg 51-28-5 2,4-Dinitrophenol a ND 190 140 ug/kg 534-52-1 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ND 190 40 ug/kg 95-48-7 2-Methylphenol ND 75 24 ug/kg

3&4-Methylphenol ND 75 31 ug/kg 88-75-5 2-Nitrophenol ND 190 25 ug/kg 100-02-7 4-Nitrophenol ND 380 100 ug/kg 87-86-5 Pentachlorophenol b ND 150 35 ug/kg 108-95-2 Phenol ND 75 20 ug/kg 58-90-2 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ND 190 25 ug/kg 95-95-4 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol ND 190 28 ug/kg 88-06-2 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 190 22 ug/kg 83-32-9 Acenaphthene ND 38 13 ug/kg 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene ND 38 19 ug/kg 98-86-2 Acetophenone ND 190 8.1 ug/kg 120-12-7 Anthracene ND 38 23 ug/kg 1912-24-9 Atrazine ND 75 16 ug/kg 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene ND 38 11 ug/kg 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene ND 38 17 ug/kg 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 38 17 ug/kg 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 38 19 ug/kg 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 38 18 ug/kg 101-55-3 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ND 75 15 ug/kg 85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate ND 75 9.2 ug/kg 92-52-4 1,1'-Biphenyl ND 75 5.2 ug/kg 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde ND 190 9.3 ug/kg 91-58-7 2-Chloronaphthalene ND 75 8.9 ug/kg 106-47-8 4-Chloroaniline ND 190 14 ug/kg 86-74-8 Carbazole ND 75 5.5 ug/kg

ND = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

JC59047

3.1

Client Sample ID: BORING B-3 (4-6') Lab Sample ID: JC59047-1 Date Sampled: 01/17/18 Matr ix: SO - Soil Date Received: 01/18/18 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 87.2 Project: Joint Base PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage

File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run #1 3E100944.D 1 01/19/18 19:55 SB 01/19/18 07:00 OP9365 E3E4457 Run #2

Initial Weight Final Volume Run #1 30.5 g 1.0 ml Run #2

ABN TCL List (SOM0 2.0)

Repor t of Analysis Page 2 of 3

367-12-4 2-Fluorophenol 70% 23-115%

ND = Not detected MDL = Method Detection Limit J = Indicates an estimated value RL = Reporting Limit B = Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E = Indicates value exceeds calibration range N = Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound

JC59047

3.1

Client Sample ID: BORING B-3 (4-6') Lab Sample ID: JC59047-1 Date Sampled: 01/17/18 Matr ix: SO - Soil Date Received: 01/18/18 Method: SW846 8270D SW846 3546 Percent Solids: 87.2 Project: Joint Base PN 163017 Aerospace Ground Equipment Storage

ABN TCL List (SOM0 2.0)

CAS No. Compound Result RL MDL Units Q

105-60-2 Caprolactam a ND 75 15 ug/kg 218-01-9 Chrysene ND 38 12 ug/kg 111-91-1 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane ND 75 8.0 ug/kg 111-44-4 bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ND 75 16 ug/kg 108-60-1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether…