Appendix_B_-_Geotechnical_Report.pdf

Geotechnical Engineering Report Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Township, New Jersey May 18, 2018

Project Number: PTFL 163006 Terracon Project No. J6175124A

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 Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst New Hanover Township, New Jersey Project Number: PTFL 163006 Terracon Project No. J6175124A

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 and slabs 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 Typical Profile

3.2 Groundwater

3.3 Environmental Analysis

3.4 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 Building Pad 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 Lateral Earth Pressures

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 and A-5 Boring Logs

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Exhibit B-2 Gradation Curves Exhibit B-3 Corrosion Testing Summary

APPENDIX C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

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

APPENDIX D – ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

Fuselage Trainier Covered Storage ■ New Hanover Township, New Jersey May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage building that will be constructed within the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (Joint Base) in New Hanover Township, New Jersey. Two borings were advanced to a depth of approximately 20 below existing grade, to provide geotechnical information for the project. In general, natural medium dense silty sand was encountered below the existing pavement section consisting of approximately 20 inches of concrete over a 3-inch thick aggregate base course, to the maximum depth explored.

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

n The proposed Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage building may be supported on conventional spread footings supported on the natural soils or on structural fill placed directly above these materials.

n Following removal of the existing concrete pavement, the proposed floor slab may be supported on approximately 5 feet of structurally placed fill, which will be required to reach the proposed slab subgrade elevation.

Approximately 3 feet of this fill will be contained within a reinforced concrete perimeter foundation wall.

n 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.

n 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

FUSELAGE TRAINER COVERED STORAGE

JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIX-LAKEHURST

NEW HANOVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY

Project Number: PTFL 163006

Terracon Project No. J6175124A May 18, 2018

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage building that will be constructed within the Joint Base in New Hanover Township, New Jersey (see Exhibit A-1, Site Location Map), has been completed. Two soil borings (B-1 and B-2) were drilled within the proposed buildings area 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:

n subsurface soil conditions n foundation design and construction n groundwater conditions n earthwork n seismic considerations n slab 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 163006 – ADAL B3209 for Fuselage Trainer, dated February 7, 2018. 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 Building The proposed building footprint is approximately 2,270 square feet.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2

Item Description

Building construction The proposed structure consists of an open wall, canopy covered storage building utilizing an elevated concrete slab, structural steel frame and standing seam metal roof.

Finished floor elevation

Finish floor elevation for the proposed building will be elevated 42 inches above the existing concrete pavement.

Estimated maximum loads

Column: 75 kips (assumed) Wall: 2 kips per linear foot (assumed) Slab: 120 pounds per square foot (psf) (assumed)

Grading The existing grading of the parking area will not be changed.

2.2 Site Location and Description

Item Description

Location

The new Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage building will be situated 100 feet to the north of Building 3209, on the concrete parking area (west of Broidy Road/ W Arnold Ave) within McGuire-Dix Joint Base in New Hanover Township, New Jersey.

Approximate site coordinates are Latitude 40.0341°, Longitude -74.5966°

Site history Based on Google Earth TM historical aerial images, the existing site had been a paved aircraft parking area since at least 1995.

Existing improvements

The proposed building is planned within a concrete paved area north of the existing building 3209.

Current ground cover Concrete pavement

Existing topography Ground surface within the site is relatively flat at approximate Elevation +117 feet.

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND CONDITIONS

3.1 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

Surface 2 Concrete and Subbase aggregate N/A

12 Not encountered (>20)

Silty Sand (SM) Loose to Dense

1. Below the existing ground surface elevation.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3

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

2. A one foot thick layer of silt was encountered approximately 13.5 feet below existing surface grade in boring B-2.

Based on the site history we expected that fill material could be encountered at the site; however, 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.

3.2 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 7 6

B-2 8 6

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.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4

3.3 Environmental Analysis

Terracon also obtained representative soil samples in each of the two 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.

3.4 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 7.3 and 7.5. The pH of the samples falls within the recommended range and indicates that the soil pH is not a dominant factor contributing to corrosion.

The resistivity measured on saturated soil samples tested in the laboratory was 20,900 to 36,100 ohm-centimeter. Those resistivity results indicate the soil profile has a 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.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations

The proposed Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage building can be supported by a conventional shallow foundations bearing on natural silty sand soils. Shallow foundation design and construction considerations are presented in Section 4.2.

It is our understanding that the slab of the proposed building will be established 3.5 feet above the existing top of pavement. Following removal of the existing pavement, the proposed floor slab may be supported on approximately 5 feet of structural fill which will be required to reach the proposed slab subgrade. Approximately 3 feet of this fill will be unbalanced fill contained within a reinforced concrete perimeter wall. It is expected that placement of additional fill may result in approximately 1/4 to 1/2-inch of settlement; which is expected to occur during fill placement; resulting in post construction slab settlement of less than 1 inch. Design and construction considerations of floor slabs are discussed in Section 4.3, and lateral earth pressures for unbalanced walls are presented in Section 4.6.

The materials generated during on-site 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

The proposed Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage building may be supported on shallow spread foundations bearing directly on the natural medium dense 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

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6

Description Value 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.

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, q, 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.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7

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 natural soils so that the footing will bear directly on these soils at the lower level.

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

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

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.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8

4.3 Slab-on-Grade

4.3.1 Slab-on-Grade Design Recommendations

Description Value Floor slab support 1 36-inch thick layer of compacted Structural Fill Modulus of subgrade reaction 2 150 pounds per square inch per in (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.

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, 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 evaluated. 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

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 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

We recommend that the existing concrete pavement be saw cut and removed from within the building footprint to a minimum 2 feet horizontally from the outside edge of the proposed perimeter footings to allow for construction of the new foundations. No active subsurface utilities were identified within the proposed building addition; however, if old inactive utilities or abandoned subsurface structures are known to exist or exposed during fill removal that are in conflict with the new construction they should be relocated and/or removed from the proposed construction area.

4.4.2 Building Pad Preparation

Following concrete pavement removal the exposed subgrade should be evaluated for presence of fill. If encountered, fill materials present below the existing pavement section should be removed to the natural soils in their entirety from within and a least two feet beyond the building limits.

Following fill removal (if present), the exposed subgrades should be proofrolled to a dense and stable consistency with at least 10 passes of a self-propelled, vibratory compactor with a static drum weight of at least 12,000 pounds. Any areas that show signs of instability under the proofrolling equipment should be selectively overexcavated to a suitable bearing layer, as determined by our engineer. To the extent practical, the proofrolling should be performed after a suitable period of dry weather to reduce the amount of undercutting/remedial work that may be required.

Structural fill could then be placed to the existing exterior grades. The perimeter foundation (footings and perimeter walls) should be constructed prior to the placement of the remaining structural fill to the slab subgrade elevation approximately 3 feet above the exterior grades.

Completed subgrades will still be susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic and 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 site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in 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 if conditions permit may be scarified, moisture conditioned as necessary, and recompacted in place under the observation of a Terracon representative.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10

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 6 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 and building pad, 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.

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.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 11

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

Site Latitude 40.0340°

Site Longitude 74.5966°

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 25 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 Lateral Earth Pressures

Structures with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to values indicated in the following table. Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement and is commonly used for basement walls, loading dock walls, or other walls restrained at the top. The recommended design lateral earth pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls (unless stated).

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12

Lateral Earth Pressure Design Parameters

Earth Pressure Condition 1

Coefficient for Backfill Type2

Surcharge Pressure 3, 4, 5 p1 (psf)

Effective Fluid Pressures (psf) 2, 4, 5

Unsaturated 6 Submerged 6

Active (Ka) Granular - 0.31 (0.31)S (40)H (80)H At-Rest (Ko) Granular - 0.47 0.47)S (55)H (90)H Passive (Kp) Granular - 3.25 --- (390)H (250)H

1. For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements 0.002 H to 0.004 H, where H is wall height. For passive earth pressure, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

2. Uniform, horizontal backfill, compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density, rendering a maximum unit weight of 120 pcf.

3. Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure.

4. Loading from heavy compaction equipment is not included.

5. No safety factor is included in these values.

6. In order to achieve “Unsaturated” conditions, follow guidelines in Subsurface Drainage for Below Grade

Walls below. “Submerged” conditions are recommended when drainage behind walls is not incorporated into the design.

Backfill placed against structures should consist of granular soils. For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out and up from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively.

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 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.

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13

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

163006 Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Township, 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

J6175124A Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

KTP

AK

ELC

1”=2,000’ J6175124A

FEBRUARY 2018

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

A-1

Exhibit

AK

SITE

EXPLORATION LOCATION DIAGRAM

163006 Fuselage Trainer Covered Storage Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst

New Hanover Township, 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

J6175124A

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED

BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS

KTP

AK

ELC

AS SHOWN

J6175124A

FEBRUARY 2018

Scale:

A-2

Exhibit Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

File Name:

Date:

AK

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

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 two borings (B-1 and B-2) on January 18, 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 depth of 20 feet in natural medium dense soils.

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.

115+/-

97+/-

8-6-9-11 N=15

14-14-13-10 N=27

6-9-9-8 N=18

4-4-5-7 N=9

5-6-6-7 N=12

4-7-10-10 N=17

5-8-8-8 N=16

0.0 ppm

0.0 ppm

0.0 ppm

0.0 ppm

2.0

20.0

CONCRETE, 20" Concrete, 3" Base

SILTY SAND (SM), gray to dark gray, loose to medium dense

Boring Terminated at 20 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

T

G

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

A

F

U S

E

LA

G E

T .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/1

8/

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev: 117 (Ft.) +/-

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

P

ID

R ea di ng s:

Joint Base McGuire Dix New Hanover Township, New Jersey

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with Auger Cuttings Surface capped with concrete

Notes:

Project No.: J6175124A

Drill Rig: B-57

Boring Started: 01-18-2018

BORING LOG NO. B-1

Pond- FSB A Joint VentureCLIENT:

Norcross, Georgia

Driller: Rich Eastlack

Boring Completed: 01-18-2018

Exhibit: A-4

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: 163006 Fuselage Trainer

4081 Hadley Rd Ste B South Plainfield, NJ

While drilling

At completion of drilling

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

DEPTH

Latitude: 40.0341° Longitude: -74.5967°

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

115+/-

103.5+/-

102.5+/-

97+/-

7-7-11-10 N=18

10-15-16-26 N=31

22-18-17-14 N=35

7-7-5-6 N=12

5-6-6-6 N=12

4-7-8-10 N=15

6-6-9-9 N=15

0.0 ppm

0.0 ppm

0.0 ppm

0.0 ppm

2.0

13.5

14.5

20.0

CONCRETE, 20" Concrete, 3" Base

SILTY SAND (SM), tan to gray, medium dense to dense

SILT (ML), dark gray, very stiff

SILTY SAND (SM), dark gray, medium dense

Boring Terminated at 20 Feet

G R

A P

H

IC

L O

G

Hammer Type: AutomaticStratification lines are approximate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual.

T H

IS

B

O R

IN

G

L O

G

IS

N O

T V

A

LI

D

IF

S E

P A

R A

T E

D F

R O

M O

R

IG

IN

A

L R

E P

O R

E O

S M

A R

T L

O G

-N O

W E

LL

J

A

F

U S

E

LA

G E

T .G

P J

T E

R R

A C

O N

_D A

T A

T E

M P

LA

T

E .G

D T

/1

8/

W A

T E

R C

O N

T E

N T

ELEVATION (Ft.)

Approximate Surface Elev: 117 (Ft.) +/-

W A

T E

R L

E V

E L

O B

S E

R V

A T

IO

N

S

D E

P T

H

F t.)

S A

M P

LE

T

Y P

E

F

IE

LD

T

E S

T R

E S

U

LT

S

R E

C O

V E

R Y

In

P

ID

R ea di ng s:

Joint Base McGuire Dix New Hanover Township, New Jersey

SITE:

Advancement Method:

Hollow Stem Auger

Abandonment Method:

Boring backfilled with Auger Cuttings Surface capped with concrete

Notes:

Project No.: J6175124A

Drill Rig: B-57

Boring Started: 01-18-2018

BORING LOG NO. B-2

Pond- FSB A Joint VentureCLIENT:

Norcross, Georgia

Driller: Rich Eastlack

Boring Completed: 01-18-2018

Exhibit: A-5

See Exhibit A-3 for description of field procedures.

See Appendix B for description of laboratory procedures and additional data (if any).

See Appendix C for explanation of symbols and abbreviations.

PROJECT: 163006 Fuselage Trainer

4081 Hadley Rd Ste B South Plainfield, NJ

At completion of drilling

Cave-in after removal of auger

While drilling

At completion of drilling

Cave-in after removal of auger

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS

While drilling

DEPTH

Latitude: 40.0341° Longitude: -74.5964°

LOCATION See Exhibit A-2

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

May 18, 2018 ■ Terracon Project No. J6175124A

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.

0.0010.010.1110100

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PERCENT FINER

3/4 1/23/8

SIEVE

(size)

DEPTH

GRAIN SIZE

16 20

REMARKS

SILT OR CLAYCOBBLES

GRAVEL SAND

medium

14.2

12.8

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

44 10063 2 fine coarse

SOIL DESCRIPTION

CU

BORING ID

10 14 506 2001.5 81 140 coarse fine

COEFFICIENTS

% COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND

D30

D10

CC

P E

R C

E N

T F

IN

E

R B

Y W

E

IG

H T

P E

R C

E N

T C

O A

R S

E R

B Y

W E

IG

H

T

% SILT

100.0 95.9 90.0 71.92 51.03 33.21 24.62 14.23

100.0 98.89 95.02 94.17 87.54 58.06 40.83 35.95 32.03 12.78

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

SM

SM

1 1/2" 1"

3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200

4 - 6

18 - 20

ASTM D422 / ASTM C136

0.207 0.139

D60

30 403 60

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

% FINES % CLAY USCS

B-1

B-2

0.0

0.0

4.1

5.8

81.7

81.4

SILTY SAND SM

SILTY SAND SM

0.572 0.899

PROJECT NUMBER: J6175124A

PROJECT: 163006 Fuselage Trainer

SITE: Joint Base McGuire Dix New Hanover Township, New Jersey

CLIENT: Pond- FSB A Joint Venture Norcross, Georgia

EXHIBIT: B-2

4081 Hadley Rd Ste B

South Plainfield, NJ

LA

B

O R

A T

O R

Y T

E S

T S

A R

E N

O T

V A

LI

D

IF

S

E P

A R

A T

E D

F R

O M

O R

IG

IN

A L

R E

P O

R

R

A

IN

S

IZ

E : U

S C

S

C O

R R

E C

T E

D J

4A

F U

S E

LA

G

E T

.G P

J T

E R

R A

C O

N _D

A T

A T

E M

P

LA

T E

.G D

T

/1 8/

COMPACTION CURVE

Test Method: ASTM D1557 Compaction Procedure: C Specimen Preparation Method: Moist

NOTATION: Representative of entire sample Compaction Test specimen X Selected Optimum Point

PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVE

COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY

COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE

Description and/or Classification LL PL PI % Specific Fines Gravity

23.8 2.75 (Assumed)

ID B-2

Sample S-1 & S-2

Terracon Project No. J6175124A

TerraSense, LLC Project No. 8007-18004

SM, brown, Silty sand

Fuselage Trainer

COMPACTION AND INDEX

PROPERTY DATA

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

D ry

U ni t W ei gh t ( pc f)

Molding Water Content (%)

Saturation = 100% for G = 2.75

.5

3/ 4"

1/ 2"

3/ 8"

#4 #1

#2

#4

#6

#1

#1

#2

0.0010.010.1110100PE

R

C

EN

T

PA

SS

IN

G B

Y W

EI

G

H T

GRAIN SIZE (mm)

U.S. Standard Sieve Size

Opt. WC Max. DUW As Tested: 8.5% 129.5 pcf

Corrected for 0.0% +3/4-in material: 8.5% 129.5 pcf

Bleeding noted

Analysis File: CMP_PLTv7 (1/17) Cmp4a.xlsx 2/15/2018 ackavaleuski Text Box Exhibit B-3

TEST SUMMARY

Bearing Bearing Surcharge Penetration Ratio at Ratio at Used Rate 0.1" 0.2" lbs inch/min

Specimen Soaked 50.5 40.0 10 0.05

SAMPLE INFORMATION

Boring: B-2 Sample: S-1 & S-2 Compaction water content = 8.2 % Depth: --- ft Compaction dry density =123.7 pcf

SPECIMEN INFORMATION

Height: 4.6 inch Final water content = 10.5 % Diameter: 6.0 inch Final dry density =123.7 pcf Volume: 0.0749 ft³

Sample swelled 0.0% after soaking for 4 days

Remarks: Specimen compacted at 96% of Modified effort maximum dry density, ~ optimum water content

Tested by: BB Test Date: Checked By: GET Fuselage Trainer CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO TEST

Terracon TerraSense, LLC Project No. 8007-18004 February 2018

Project No. J6175124A

Feb 12, 2018

Corrected 0.1" penetration

Corrected 0.2" penetration

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60

St re ss o n Pi st on ps i)

Penetration (inches)

Analysis File: CbrV1 CbrV4a.xlsx 2/15/2018 ackavaleuski

Exhibit B-4

Terracon #J6175124A Fuselage Trainer

Summary of Corrosion Testing

SAMPLE ID RESISTIVITY TESTS CHEMICAL TESTS REMARKS

Boring Sample Depth As-Received @ Minimum Resistivity Awwa Appendix A

No. No. Test Water Resistivity Water Resistivity Redox Potential Sulfide Method Content Content pH Temperature R1 R2 R3 Average Response

(ft) (%) (k - cm) (%) (k - cm) (pH units) (oC) (mV) (mV) (mV) (mV) (visual) B-1 2-8 ASTM G57 12.7 51.8 43.4 36.1 7.5 22.2 188 207 194 196 trace B-2 2-8 ASTM G57 12.9 25.8 28.9 20.9 7.3 24.0 196 184 195 192 trace pH

ASTM G51

Prepared by: MT Reviewed by: RT Date: 2/20/2018

TerraSense, LLC 45H Commerce Way Totowa, NJ 07512

(973) 812-1818

Project No. 8007-18004 File: Corrosion4.xlsx ackavaleuski

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 ³ 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 ³ 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 ³ 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 ³ 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 ³ 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.

M If soil contains ³ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name.

N PI ³ 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

01/30/18

Technical Report for

Sampling Date: 01/18/18

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 01/30/18 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.

JC59321

Terracon Consultants j6175124A

Joint Base PN 163006 Fuselage Training

SGS Job Number: JC59321

Table of Contents -1-

Sections:

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

3.1: JC59321-1: B-2 BORING (6-8')

3.2: JC59321-2: B-1 BORING (6-8')

Section 4: Misc. Forms 4.1: Chain of Custody

JC59321

SGS North America Inc.

Sample Summary

Terracon Consultants Job No: JC59321

JC59321-1 01/18/18 09:30 JP 01/18/18 SO Soil B-2 BORING (6-8')

JC59321-2 01/18/18 11:20 JP 01/18/18 SO Soil B-1 BORING (6-8')

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

JC59321

Joint Base PN 163006 Fuselage Trainer Project No: J6175124A

Sample Collected Matrix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID

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

JC59321-1 B-2 BORING (6-8')

Acetone a 5.0 J 5.3 3.4 ug/kg SW846 8260C Aluminum 7020 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Antimony 3.1 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 14.8 1.1 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 5010 57 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 4.3 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Magnesium 783 570 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 28.4 1.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 12.6 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Zinc 10.2 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C

JC59321-2 B-1 BORING (6-8')

Acetone a 9.7 5.5 3.5 ug/kg SW846 8260C Aluminum 9280 58 mg/kg SW846 6010C Antimony 5.9 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Arsenic 3.6 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Beryllium 0.30 0.23 mg/kg SW846 6010C Chromium 28.0 1.2 mg/kg SW846 6010C Copper 3.4 2.9 mg/kg SW846 6010C Iron 10200 58 mg/kg SW846 6010C Lead 5.1 2.3 mg/kg SW846 6010C Magnesium 1380 580 mg/kg SW846 6010C Manganese 32.2 1.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C Potassium 2030 1200 mg/kg SW846 6010C Vanadium 23.0 5.8 mg/kg SW846 6010C Zinc 11.4 5.7 mg/kg SW846 6010C

Summary of Hits Page 1 of 2 Job Number: JC59321 Account: Terracon Consultants Project: Joint Base PN 163006 Fuselage Trainer Collected: 01/18/18

Sample Results

Report of Analysis

Dayton, NJ Section 3

Report of Analysis Page 1 of 2

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

JC59321

3.1

Client Sample ID: B-2 BORING (6-8') Lab Sample ID: JC59321-1 Date Sampled: 01/18/18 Matrix: SO - Soil…