Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
336-406-R-REV-Geot-New Hanover RNG Facility-3-1-24_v1
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NEW HANOVER RNG FACILITY CAPE FEAR TOWNSHIP, NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA PREPARED FOR: ARCHAEA ENERGY, LLC PREPARED BY: CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC CEC PROJECT 336-406 TASK 0031 DECEMBER 22, 2023 (REVISED MARCH 1, 2024) -i- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Scope of Services ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Standard of Care and Report Limitations .................................................................................. 2 3.0 Data Obtained .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1 General Information and Proposed Development ...................................................................... 4 3.2 Existing and Proposed Topography .......................................................................................... 4 3.3 Site Soils and Geology ............................................................................................................. 4 3.4 Subsurface Exploration ............................................................................................................ 4 3.5 Water Level Measurements and Piezometers ............................................................................ 5 3.6 Field Resistivity Testing ........................................................................................................... 6 3.7 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................... 7 3.7.1 Soil Classification............................................................................................................. 7 3.7.2 Soil Density and Strength ................................................................................................. 7 3.7.3 Soil Corrosivity ................................................................................................................ 8 3.7.4 Thermal Resistivity .......................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 10 4.1 Topsoil Conditions ................................................................................................................. 10 4.2 Eolian Soil Conditions ........................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Fluviomarine Soil Conditions ................................................................................................. 10 4.4 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................ 11 4.5 Soil Resistivity and Corrosivity .............................................................................................. 11 4.6 Thermal Resistivity ................................................................................................................ 12 4.7 Seismic Site Class .................................................................................................................. 12 4.8 Soil Properties ........................................................................................................................ 13 4.9 Geotechnical Analyses ........................................................................................................... 15 5.0 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 16 5.1 Earthwork .............................................................................................................................. 16 5.1.1 Fill Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................... 16 5.1.2 Slope Configuration........................................................................................................ 16 5.1.3 Fill Materials .................................................................................................................. 16 5.1.4 Fill Placement ................................................................................................................ 16 5.1.5 Shrink-Swell Considerations ........................................................................................... 17 5.1.6 Quality Assurance and Testing ....................................................................................... 17 5.1.7 Weather Considerations .................................................................................................. 17 5.2 Foundations ........................................................................................................................... 17 5.2.1 Shallow Foundations (Spread and Mat) ........................................................................... 17 5.2.2 Helical Piles ................................................................................................................... 19 5.3 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade ....................................................................................................... 19 5.3.1 Subgrade Preparation ...................................................................................................... 19 5.3.2 Building (Interior) Floor Slab Design.............................................................................. 19 5.4 Construction Phase Services ................................................................................................... 20 -ii- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 TABLES Page Table 1 – Report Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2 – Soil Summary from Subsurface Investigation ........................................................................... 5 Table 3 – Water Levels and Piezometer Summary ................................................................................... 6 Table 4 – Soil Classification Testing Summary ........................................................................................ 7 Table 5 – Soil Density and Strength Testing Summary ............................................................................. 7 Table 6 – Soil Corrosion Testing Summary.............................................................................................. 8 Table 7 – Thermal Resistivity Summary .................................................................................................. 9 Table 8 – Aggressiveness Potential Compared to Resistivity .................................................................. 11 Table 9 – ACI Sulfate Exposure Class ................................................................................................... 12 Table 10 – Seismic Site Class ................................................................................................................ 13 Table 11.a – Estimated Soil Strength Parameters for Foundation Design ................................................ 13 Table 11.b – Additional Soil Strength Parameters for Foundation Design............................................... 14 Table 12 – Dynamic Loading Properties ................................................................................................ 14 Table 13 – Shallow Foundation Design Criteria ..................................................................................... 18 FIGURES Page Figure 1 – Thermal Resistivity vs Moisture Content................................................................................. 9 APPENDICES Appendix A – Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report Appendix B – Test Boring Location Plan Appendix C – Test Boring Logs Appendix D – Field Resistivity Test Results Appendix E – Laboratory Testing Results -1- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 1.0 SUMMARY Table 1 below presents a summary of the data obtained, conclusions, and recommendations detailed in this report for the proposed Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) facility at the New Hanover County Landfill in Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, North Carolina (Facility). The table is for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete report. Table 1 – Report Summary SECTION SUMMARY Background Site: New Hanover Landfill RNG Location: Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, North Carolina Coordinates: 34.320941°, -77.990836° (NAD83) Data Obtained Test Borings: Six (6) Soil Sampling: 201.0 feet Rock Sampling: Not applicable (N/A) Rock Coring: N/A Piezometers: Three (3) Resistivity Transects: Four (4) Laboratory Testing: ASTM D4318 (Atterberg limits), ASTM D422 (mechanical sieve), ASTM D2216 (moisture content), ASTM D698 (standard Proctor), ASTM D3080 (remolded direct shear), AASHTO T289-91 (soil pH), AASHTO T291-94 (soil chlorides), ASTM G187 (soil resistivity), ASTM C1580 (sulfates), ASTM G200 (oxidation reduction potential), and ASTM D5334 (thermal resistivity). Conclusions Soil: Soil origins include very loose, eolian soil at the surface overlying loose, fluviomarine soils which transition to medium dense, fluviomarine soil beyond ~9 feet below ground surface. Bedrock: Not encountered during the investigation with test borings as deep as ~40 feet. Groundwater: Average groundwater Elevation 6.8 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Soil Corrosivity: Non-corrosive to concrete and buried steel. Soil Properties: Refer to Table 11.a and Table 12. Earthwork Recommendations Pad Elevation: Elevation ~18.5 feet AMSL. Cut/Fill: Approximately 6 to 7 feet of cut and 4 to 5 feet of fill. All slopes should be no greater than 3H:1V. Site Preparation: Strip topsoil (~4 inches) and proofroll. Fill: Suitable onsite soil. Place in maximum 12-inch lifts compacted to 98 percent of the maximum dry density based on standard Proctor compaction test. Foundation Recommendations Spread: Over-excavate 3 feet below foundation bearing elevation and replace with engineered fill. For allowable bearing pressures, refer to Table 13. Extend foundations 18 inches below finished grade for frost protection. Mat: Over-excavate 3 feet below bearing elevation and replace with engineered fill. For allowable bearing pressures, refer to Table 13. Design using subgrade reaction modulus presented in Table 11.a and equation in Section 5.2.1. Turn down slabs or place granular fill to a depth of 18 inches below finished grade. Helical Piers: Tip piles 3 feet into medium dense sand which is between Elevations 5 to 9 feet AMSL. Slabs-on-grade: Over-excavate 3 feet below bearing elevation and replace with compacted fill. Design using subgrade reaction modulus presented in Table 11.a. -2- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc’s (CEC’s) geotechnical engineering services was to perform a subsurface investigation at the site; develop opinions on soil, bedrock, and groundwater conditions; and provide design and construction recommendations for earthwork, slope stability, subgrade preparation, foundations, and construction phase services. 2.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES In order to achieve the above-stated purpose, CEC completed the following scope of services: (1) CEC performed geotechnical research for site soils, geology, and geohazards. CEC also planned and coordinated the office and field work. (2) CEC staked the test boring locations in the field and obtained their ground surface elevations. The test boring locations are shown on the Drawing in Appendix B. (3) CEC subcontracted Bridger Drilling Inc. (Bridger) to perform six (6) standard penetration test (SPT) borings at the site and install three (3) piezometers. (4) A CEC field representative monitored the subsurface exploration program, described the materials encountered, made modifications to the drilling program as necessary, obtained water level readings, and prepared field logs. Our representative’s computer-generated field logs are included in Appendix C. Additionally, CEC’s field representative performed field resistivity testing using the Wenner Four Pin method in general accordance with ASTM G57. (5) CEC subcontracted Geotechnical Testing Services, Inc. (GTS) to perform geotechnical laboratory testing on samples obtained at the test boring locations. (6) CEC reviewed the results of the subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, performed geotechnical analyses to develop conclusions and recommendations in accordance with the purpose, and prepared this geotechnical report. 2.3 STANDARD OF CARE AND REPORT LIMITATIONS The services performed by CEC were conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the locality of the project. No warranty, express or implied, is made. Appendix A contains a document entitled “Important Information about This Geotechnical-Engineering Report.” This document further explains the realities of geotechnical engineering and the limitations that exist in evaluating geotechnical issues. This report was prepared for the purpose of design development for Archaea Energy, LLC (Archaea). The report is not a geotechnical baseline report (i.e., performed to document measurable contractual geotechnical conditions to be anticipated during construction). Reliance on this report for any purpose -3- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 other than design development or by any party other than Archaea or its agents is prohibited. CEC assumes no liability for the use of this report or information contained herein for any other purpose. Contractors should not rely on the engineering opinions expressed in this report for bid development or construction beyond the use of factual data. -4- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 3.0 DATA OBTAINED 3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Archaea intends to develop the Facility to include a building/equipment pad, access roads, stormwater conveyance features, and a stormwater management basin. The center of the proposed pad is located at coordinates: 34.320941°, -77.990836° (NAD83). The recommendations provided in this report are based on the preliminary layout and grading plan shown on Drawing GT-01 in Appendix B, information provided by Archaea and their Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contractor. Kiewit Corporation (Kiewit), the data obtained at the site, and our experience with similar projects. Should the layout or grading change from what is presented on the drawing, contact CEC to determine if the recommendations herein still apply. 3.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHY The topography across the proposed Facility ranges from approximate Elevation 14 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the southern limit of the site near the proposed thermal oxidizer to approximate Elevation 28 feet at the northern limit of the site near the proposed flare. The approximate gravel pad is proposed at Elevation 18 feet. 3.3 SITE SOILS AND GEOLOGY The surficial soils1 within the vicinity of the proposed development belong to the Kureb sand series and the Rimini sand series. The Kureb and Rimini sand series consists of eolian sands and sandy, fluviomarine deposits with depths to restrictive features being more than 80 inches. The bedrock2 underlying the Facility is Cretaceous aged and belongs to the Peedee Formation. The Peedee Formation is a marine deposit, consisting of sand, clayey sand, and clay, and is greenish gray to olive black, locally fossiliferous, and calcareous. Additionally, patches of sandy molluscan-mold limestone exist in the upper section of the formation. 3.4 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION CEC’s subcontractor, Bridger Drilling, Inc. (Bridger), drilled six (6) test borings, designated B-1 through B-6, from November 20 to November 21, 2023. The test boring depths ranged from approximately 31.5 to 40.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Approximately 201.0 feet of soil was sampled as part of the exploration. The test boring locations are shown on Drawing GT-01 included in Appendix B. The test borings were performed using a track-mounted drill rig equipped with an automatic hammer. The soil zone was sampled at 3-foot centers using hollow-stem auger drilling methods and split-spoon sampling methods in accordance with the standard penetration test (SPT), as outlined in ASTM D1586. A split- spoon sampler is a 2-inch outside-diameter (OD) tube, which is driven into the soil. The soil is captured in 1 Information obtained through United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey for New Hanover County, North Carolina. 2 Information obtained from the North Carolina Geologic Survey. -5- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 the split-spoon sampler, then removed and identified. The SPT consists of driving the split-spoon sampler through the soil using a 140-pound hammer freely falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler through three successive 6-inch increments is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required to drive the split-spoon sampler through the second and third increments is the N-value of the soil, which is used to estimate soil density, compressibility, and shear strength. CEC’s project representative described the soil color, texture, apparent origin, and apparent moisture content of the split-spoon samples obtained during the subsurface exploration. Detailed soil descriptions are shown on the test boring logs included in Appendix C. Appendix C also contains a summary of the definitions of standard terms and symbols used in this report and on the test boring logs. A summary of the pertinent information from the test borings is presented on Table 2, below. Table 2 – Soil Summary from Subsurface Investigation BORING DATA* SOIL ORIGINS AND THICKNESSES* BEDROCK* Test Boring ID Existing Ground Elevation (feet AMSL) Test Boring Depth (feet bgs) Topsoil (feet) Eolian (feet) Fluvio- marine (feet) Soil Total (feet) Bedrock Thickness (feet) Bedrock Elevation (feet AMSL) B-1 19 34.5 -- 3.0 31.5 34.5 -- -- B-2 18 31.5 -- 3.0 28.5 31.5 -- -- B-3 16 31.5 0.2 2.8 28.5 31.5 -- -- B-4 18 40.5 0.3 2.7 37.5 40.5 -- -- B-5 17 31.5 0.3 2.7 28.5 31.5 -- -- B-6 13 31.5 0.3 2.7 28.5 31.5 -- -- [Average] Total † [16.8] 201.0 [0.3] [2.8] [30.5] 201.0 -- -- -- Not encountered. * All thicknesses, depths, and elevations recorded are approximate. † Average values are bracketed and bolded and total (summed) values are not. 3.5 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS AND PIEZOMETERS CEC obtained water level readings in the test borings at the completion of soil sampling, and where applicable, approximately 24 hours after completion. Water levels measured after soil sampling ranged from approximately 2.5 feet bgs at Test Boring B-5 to approximately 8.2 feet bgs at Test Boring B-1. Water levels measured after soil sampling were likely influenced by water-assisted drilling and may not be indicative of actual groundwater conditions. Water levels after approximately 24-hours ranged from approximately 5.2 feet bgs at Test Boring B-6 to approximately 10.1 feet bgs at Test Boring B-4. -6- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 Bridger installed three (3) piezometers within Test Borings B-3, B-4, and B-6 for the purposes of evaluating the regional water table elevation to support site and foundation designs. Bridger constructed the piezometers starting at the bottom of the test borings with a 2-inch diameter, 10-foot-long slotted Schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) screen and coarse sand pack. The slotted screen was connected to a 2-inch diameter solid PVC pipe and extended approximately 1-foot above the existing ground surface (stickup). The water level measurements from the temporary piezometers installed within the test borings and are summarized in Table 3 below. Table 3 – Water Levels and Piezometer Summary BORING DATA* GROUNDWATER* Test Boring ID Existing Ground Elevation (feet AMSL) Test Boring Depth (feet bgs) Water Level Elevation ≤ 10 Hours (feet AMSL) Water Level Elevation ≥ 24 Hours (feet AMSL) Water Level Elevation on 12/19/23 (feet AMSL) B-3 16 31.5 9.6 7.3 6.4 B-4 18 40.5 8.5 7.9 7.2 B-6 13 31.5 9.7 8.8 6.9 [Average] Total † -- -- [9.3] [8.0] [6.8] -- Not applicable / not recorded. * All depths and elevations recorded are approximate. † Average values are bracketed and bolded and total (summed) values are not. 3.6 FIELD RESISTIVITY TESTING A CEC project representative used an AEMC Ground Resistance Tester Model 4620 to perform field resistivity testing at the Facility. Field resistivity testing was performed using the Wenner Four Pin method in general accordance with ASTM G57, “Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Soil resistivity Using the Wenner-Four-Electrode Method”. The testing was performed at the locations shown on Drawing GT-01 in Appendix B. Linear arrays of four (4) electrodes were inserted into the ground for each measurement. Current was then applied to the ground through the outer two (2) electrodes. The voltage drop was recorded using the two (2) innermost electrodes. The measured voltage drop was used to determine the apparent resistivity of the soil. The maximum depth the probe is inserted into the ground is 1/20 of the “a-spacing”. For example, at a spacing of 10 feet, the probe can only be inserted to a maximum depth of 6 inches. Due to the presence of a root mass and organics, the first test that was taken was at a spacing of 20 feet. Field testing values ranged from 800,518 ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm) at a spacing of 20 feet to 90,010 ohm- cm at a spacing of 50 feet. Field data sheets presenting the field resistivity testing results are included in Appendix D. -7- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 3.7 LABORATORY TESTING CEC subcontracted Geotechnical Testing Services, Inc. (GTS) to perform geotechnical laboratory testing on select soil samples obtained during the subsurface investigation. Full test results are presented in Appendix E. The laboratory testing program consisted of soil classification, density, strength, corrosivity, and thermal resistivity testing. The following sections present a summary of the testing data. 3.7.1 Soil Classification Soil classification testing, which included grain size analysis, Atterberg limits (plasticity), and moisture content testing, is summarized in Table 4 below. Table 4 – Soil Classification Testing Summary Test Boring Sample Depth* (feet bgs) Sample Origin USCS Classification and Symbol Moisture Content (%) Percent Passing 200 Sieve (%) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index B-1 0.0 – 4.0 Eolian / Fluviomarine Poorly Graded Sand, SP 2.7 2.4 NP NP NP B-2 7.5 – 10.0 Fluviomarine Silty Sand, SM 3.7 18.6 NP NP NP B-3 3.0 – 7.5 Fluviomarine Poorly Graded Sand, SP 12.4 3.1 NP NP NP B-6 6.0 – 7.5 Fluviomarine Poorly Graded Sand, SP 21.3 1.5 NP NP NP Average -- -- -- 10.0 6.4 -- -- -- - Not applicable. * All depths recorded are approximate. NP Soil classified as non-plastic. 3.7.2 Soil Density and Strength Soil density and strength testing, which included standard Proctor and remolded direct shear testing, is summarized in Table 5 below. Table 5 – Soil Density and Strength Testing Summary Test Boring Sample Depth* (feet bgs) Sample Origin Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)† Angle of Friction (°) Cohesion (psf)‡ B-1 0.0 – 4.0 Eolian / Fluviomarine 12.6 101.4 32 115.2 B-3 2.0 – 3.0 Eolian 17.6 103.2 -- -- -8- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 Test Boring Sample Depth* (feet bgs) Sample Origin Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf)† Angle of Friction (°) Cohesion (psf)‡ B-3 5.0 – 6.0 Fluviomarine 15.3 104.6 -- -- B-4 2.0 – 3.0 Eolian 18.1 103.9 -- -- B-4 5.0 – 6.0 Fluviomarine 15.8 101.7 -- -- Average -- -- 15.9 103.0 32 115.2 -- Not applicable. * All depths recorded are approximate. † Maximum dry density values provided as pounds per cubic foot (pcf). ‡ Cohesion values provided as pounds per square foot (psf). 3.7.3 Soil Corrosivity Soil corrosivity testing, which included soil pH, soil chlorides, minimum soil resistivity, sulfates, and oxidation-reduction potential, is summarized in Table 6 below. Table 6 – Soil Corrosion Testing Summary Test Boring Sample Depth* (feet bgs) Sample Origin Soil pH Soil Chlorides (ppm)† Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)‡ Sulfate (%) Oxidation Reduction Potential (mV)§ B-2 0.0 – 4.5 Eolian 5.5 34 23,450 < 0.02 358 B-2 7.5 – 10.0 Fluviomarine 5.2 < 30 43,600 < 0.02 319 Average -- -- 5.4 -- 33,525 < 0.02 339 -- Not applicable. * All depths recorded are approximate. † Soil chlorides values provided in parts per million (ppm). ‡ Soil resistivity values provided in ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm). § Oxidation reduction potential values provided in millivolts (mV). 3.7.4 Thermal Resistivity Thermal resistivity testing was performed on bulk samples obtained from Test Borings B-3 and B-4 at depths of 2 to 3 feet bgs and 5 to 6 feet bgs. Test results for thermal resistivity of soil are presented in Table 7 and on Figure 1 below. -9- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 Table 7 – Thermal Resistivity Summary BORING B-3 DEPTH: 2 – 3 feet bgs BORING B-3 DEPTH: 5 – 6 feet bgs BORING B-4 DEPTH: 2 – 3 feet bgs BORING B-4 DEPTH: 5 – 6 feet bgs Eolian Soil Fluviomarine Soil Eolian Soil Fluviomarine Soil Moisture Content (%) Thermal Resistivity (°C-cm/W)† Moisture Content (%) Thermal Resistivity (°C-cm/W)† Moisture Content (%) Thermal Resistivity (°C-cm/W)† Moisture Content (%) Thermal Resistivity (°C-cm/W)† 20.9 43.5 14.5 39.5 19.4 38.8 9.9 52.7 16.0 47.5 10.9 51.0 16.0 45.9 7.3 65.9 13.5 51.2 9.5 52.0 13.9 46.4 6.4 69.9 9.5 52.5 6.7 53.0 9.6 53.8 4.6 79.6 7.5 56.8 5.3 63.1 7.2 65.9 3.6 79.1 5.4 63.7 3.9 70.3 5.2 62.1 2.6 99.0 3.4 107.7 2.3 93.7 3.3 75.1 1.5 182.4 0.0 221.6 0.0 168.0 0.0 180.0 0.0 257.9 * All depths recorded are approximate. † Thermal resistivity values provided on degrees Celsius-centimeter per watt (°C-cm/W). Figure 1 – Thermal Resistivity vs Moisture Content 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 0 5 10 15 20 25 Th e r m a l R e s i s t i v i t y ( °C-cm / W ) Moisture Content (%) B-3 (2.0' - 3.0') B-3 (5.0' - 6.0')B-4 (2.0' -3.0')B-4 (5.0' - 6.0') -10- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 4.0 CONCLUSIONS CEC presents the following conclusions based on the data obtained at the test boring locations, our observations, analyses performed, and our experience on similar projects. The conditions described herein represent the conditions at the test boring locations and at the time of drilling. Conditions may vary at different times and locations. If conditions observed during construction differ from those indicated herein, CEC must review the new information, determine if our conclusions and recommendations are applicable, and provide any required revisions and adjustments. 4.1 TOPSOIL CONDITIONS Topsoil is defined as surficial soil supporting vegetative growth with elevated concentrations (i.e., visually exceeding about 10 percent) of organic material. Approximately 0.3-foot of topsoil was encountered at test boring locations. Topsoil may not be present or may be thicker at other locations not sampled. Topsoil thicknesses were based on observations/measurements performed by CEC personnel at the time of drilling and may be interpreted differently by others. It is generally not possible for a contractor to remove less than about 8 to 12 inches of material during stripping operations. Other factors can also impact the actual amount of material removed during stripping operations. CEC is not responsible for the final amount of material removed by the contractor. Topsoil is generally compressible and contains organic materials that decompose over time. The topsoil is not suitable to reuse as new fill or to support new fills. The topsoil may be suitable for reuse in landscaping or re-vegetation applications. Testing the topsoil for fertility or landscaping suitability was not included as part of this investigation. 4.2 EOLIAN SOIL CONDITIONS Eolian refers to soil formations formed or influenced by the action of wind. Winds may erode, transport, and deposit materials, and are effective agents in regions with sparse vegetation and a large supply of unconsolidated sediments. Eolian soil was encountered at the ground surface in Test Borings B-1 and B-2, and directly beneath topsoil in the remaining test borings. Eolian soil ranged in thickness from 2.7 to 3.0 feet. The eolian encountered generally consisted of coarse-grained material (sands). The relative density of the coarse-grained eolian was very loose and sampled in a moist condition. Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted on the eolian soil, which has been summarized in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 in Section 3.7. Detailed laboratory test results are included in Appendix E. Eolian soils will be encountered during site grading and during foundation construction. Because of its low density, eolian soil in its current condition is not suitable to support shallow foundations. The eolian soil is suitable for new fill placement provided it is placed in accordance with the recommendation provided in Section 5.1. For soil resistivity and corrosivity conclusions, please refer to Section 4.5. For thermal resistivity conclusions, please refer to Section 4.6. 4.3 FLUVIOMARINE SOIL CONDITIONS Fluviomarine deposits are soils that result from the interaction of both river (fluvial) and marine (marine) processes. These soils typically occur in transitional zones where rivers meet the sea or ocean. Fluviomarine soils were encountered directly below the eolian stratum in all the test borings and were sampled in thicknesses ranging from 28.5 to 37.5 feet. All test borings were terminated within the fluviomarine layer and therefore, the base of fluviomarine soils is unknown. The fluviomarine soils encountered generally -11- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 consisted of coarse-grained material (sands). The relative density of the fluviomarine soils ranged from very loose to dense, generally medium dense, and sampled in a moist to wet condition. The relative density of the fluviomarine soils generally increased with depth. Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted on fluviomarine soil, which has been summarized in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 in Section 3.7. Detailed results are included in Appendix E. Fluviomarine soil will be encountered during site grading activities. Because of its low density, the shallow fluviomarine soil in its current condition is not suitable to support shallow foundations. The fluviomarine soil is suitable for new fill placement provided it is placed in accordance with the recommendation provided in Section 5.1. For soil resistivity and corrosivity conclusions, please refer to Section 4.5. For thermal resistivity conclusions, please refer to Section 4.6. 4.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Based on the piezometer readings, CEC anticipates that groundwater exists at an approximate Elevation of 8 feet AMSL below the proposed pad. Based on a pad Elevation of approximately 18.5 feet as shown on Drawing GT-01 in Appendix B, groundwater will not be encountered during earthwork operations. However, groundwater conditions fluctuate and vary based on precipitation, season, temperature, and other factors. CEC anticipates that groundwater, if encountered, can be controlled using diversion ditches and pumping. 4.5 SOIL RESISTIVITY AND CORROSIVITY Laboratory resistivity was performed on two (2) bulk samples. The laboratory test results for resistivity were 23,450 ohm-cm and 43,600 ohm-cm. In addition, four (4) field electrical resistivity transects were performed at the approximate locations shown on Drawing GT-01 in Appendix B. The field resistivity values obtained ranged from 90,010 to 800,518 ohm-cm. The field resistivity test results, included in Appendix F, decreased with depth, and are considered high, but not outside of published values for sand. Field resistivity values may have been impacted by the presence of a root mass, loose sand, and organic material. Actual field resistivity values after removing topsoil and site grading are anticipated to be lower. Additional field resistivity testing should be considered after site grading has been performed. The measured pH levels, tested in accordance with ASTM D4972, were 5.2 and 5.5, averaging 5.4. The Federal Highway Administration3 (FHWA) correlates resistivity to aggressiveness potential (corrosion) as shown in Table 8 below. Table 8 – Aggressiveness Potential Compared to Resistivity Aggressiveness Potential Resistivity (ohm-cm) Very Corrosive < 700 Corrosive 700 – 2,000 Moderately Corrosive 2,000 – 5,000 Mildly Corrosive 5,000 – 10,000 Non-corrosive > 10,000 3 FHWA Publication No. FHWA-NHI-09-087 (Corrosion/Degradation of Soil Reinforcements for Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, dated November 2009) -12- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 Additionally, the FHWA publication recommends an allowable pH range of about 5 to 10. Based on these references relative to our laboratory and field testing, the site soils are non-corrosive according to FHWA. Based on the results of the laboratory corrosion testing, the sulfate levels were less than 0.02 percent and are considered negligible. A sulfate exposure class of “S0” is recommended for the site in accordance with the American Concrete Institute4 (ACI) as shown below in Table 9. An exposure class of “S0” means that no special provisions are required for Portland cement type. Guidance provided by the American Water Works Association5 (AWWA) compares testing results for resistivity, pH, oxidation reduction potential, sulfides, and drainage characteristics of the on-site soils. While CEC did not test for sulfides, the laboratory testing for the other corrosive constituents and the guidance provided by AWWA suggest that the site soils are non-corrosive to ductile iron pipe and other metals. The results of the laboratory corrosion testing are provided in Appendix E. Table 9 – ACI Sulfate Exposure Class Aggressiveness Potential WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE IN SOIL Class Sulfate % by Weight Negligible S0 SO4 < 0.10 Moderate S1 0.10 < SO4 < 0.20 Severe S2 0.20 < SO4 < 2.00 Very Severe S3 SO4 > 0.20 4.6 THERMAL RESISTIVITY Thermal resistivity is the ability of the soil to resist the flow of heat. The reciprocal of thermal resistivity is thermal conductivity. Soil resistivity varies based on density, temperature, soil composition, and moisture content. Thermal resistivity testing was performed at moisture contents ranging from 0 percent (dry) to 20.9 percent. The thermal resistivity test results varied from 257.9 °C-cm/W (0 percent moisture) to 38.8 °C-cm/W (19.4 percent moisture). The natural moisture contents at the site, determined by laboratory testing, ranged from 2.7 percent near the ground surface to 21.3 percent at a depth of 6 to 7 feet. 4.7 SEISMIC SITE CLASS Based on Chapter 16 of the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) and ASCE7-16, an evaluation of the upper 100 feet of the material below the ground surface and its characteristics is required to determine the site classification for the proposed development. The SPT “N” values from the test borings, correlated to shear wave velocities, were used to determine the seismic site class. However, as detailed herein, CEC’s borings were not extended to a depth of 100 feet. The subsurface conditions at each of the sites appear consistent with the Seismic Site Class provided in Table 10 as defined by the current edition of the IBC. Using this Seismic Site Class, CEC referenced The Applied Technology Council’s (ATC) website and the IBC spectral response mapping to determine the 4 ACI Publication 318 (Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete) 5 AWWA Document C105/A21.5-10, Table A.1 -13- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 design spectral acceleration values at short (SDS) and 1-second (SD1) periods. Using the seismic site class and mapped site coefficients in the vicinity of the project sites, CEC estimated the SDS and SD1 accelerations which are also provided in Table 10. CEC evaluated the soils underlying at the site and determined that they have low risk for liquefaction potential. Table 10 – Seismic Site Class Seismic Site Class SDS SD1 Class D 0.166 0.109 4.8 SOIL PROPERTIES CEC reviewed the subsurface boring information, laboratory testing, and published references to estimate internal strength, density, material properties, and dynamic loading parameters for the existing soil and proposed engineered fill. Foundation design properties are presented in Table 11.a, and include total unit weight (), angle of internal friction (), cohesion (c), modulus of subgrade reaction (ks), modulus of elasticity (Es), and Poisson’s ratio (µ). Table 11.b includes coefficients of friction for sliding (passive), active earth pressure coefficients (Ka), and passive earth pressure coefficients (Kp) Table 11.a – Estimated Soil Strength Parameters for Foundation Design Material Density, Origin, (USCS) USCS Class. * Approx. Depth Range (feet bgs) Total Unit Weight (pcf)¶ Angle of Friction (°) Cohesion (psf)# Modulus of Subgrade Reaction§ (pci) Modulus of Elasticity (ksf)** Poisson’s Ratio Dense Engineered Fill ‡ -- 110 32† 115† 200 600 0.30 Compacted Aggregate GP/GW -- 135 34 0 300 2,000 0.30 Very Loose to Loose Eolian SP 0 to 3 100 32† 115† 125 60 0.20 Loose Fluviomarine SP, SM 3 to 9 100 32† 115† 150 100 0.25 Medium Dense Fluviomarine sp > 9 105 34 0 175 400 0.30 -- Not applicable * Lowercase values denote visual classification; uppercase values denote laboratory classification. † Values based on laboratory testing data. ‡ Engineered fill conforming to the recommendations in Section 5.1 for gradation, placement, and compaction. § Modulus of subgrade reaction values, provided in pounds per cubic inch (pci), apply to a homogenous soil layer at least 10-feet thick. If soft subgrade exists, conservatively use lower value. ¶ Total unit weight value provided in pounds per cubic foot (pcf). # Cohesion value provided in pounds per square foot (psf). ** Modulus of Elasticity value provided in kips per square foot (ksf). -14- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 Table 11.b – Additional Soil Strength Parameters for Foundation Design Material Density, Origin, (USCS) USCS Class. * Approx. Depth Range (feet bgs) Coefficient of Friction for Sliding (Passive) Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient, Kp Dense Engineered Fill ‡ -- 0.50 0.31 3.25 Compacted Aggregate GP/GW -- 0.50 0.28 3.54 Very Loose to Loose Eolian SP 0 to 3 0.50 0.31 3.25 Loose Fluviomarine SP, SM 3 to 9 0.50 0.31 3.25 -- Not applicable * Lowercase values denote visual classification; uppercase values denote laboratory classification. ‡ Engineered fill conforming to the recommendations in Section 5.1 for gradation, placement, and compaction. Dynamic loading properties are presented in Table 12 and include shear wave velocity (Vs), dynamic shear modulus (G), and damping ratio (). Table 12 – Dynamic Loading Properties Material Density and Origin / Description USCS Class. † Depth Range (feet bgs) Shear Wave Velocity (fps)# Dynamic Shear Modulus¶ (ksf) Damping Ratio§ Dense Engineered Fill ‡ -- 900 2,750 0.01 Compacted Aggregate GP/GW -- 2,000 16,800 0.01 Very Loose to Loose Eolian SP 0 to 3 450 650 0.01 Loose Fluviomarine SP, SM 3 to 9 500 800 0.01 Medium Dense Fluviomarine sp > 9 825 2,200 0.01 -- Not applicable * Lowercase values denote visual classification; uppercase values denote laboratory classification. † Values based on laboratory testing data. ‡ Engineered fill conforming to the recommendations in Section 5.2 for gradation, placement, and compaction. § Value based on guidance provided in American Concrete Institute 351.3R-18, Section 7.2.3.2 and Section A.3. ¶ Dynamic shear modulus values, provided in kips per square foot, are the “Best Estimate” value. For upper bound and lower bound values, use coefficient of variation (COV) value of 0.5 and Equations A.2a and A.2b in Section A.2 of American Concrete Institute 351.3R-18. # Shear wave velocity values provided in feet per second. -15- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 4.9 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSES Using the soil parameters presented in Table 11.a, CEC conducted slope stability analyses for the proposed site grading and bearing capacity and settlement analyses for the proposed foundations. CEC concludes that the proposed site slopes will meet a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater if constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.1. Additionally, CEC concludes that shallow foundations and on- grade slabs that are designed using the allowable bearing pressures and recommendations provided in Section 5.2 will experience less than approximately 1-inch of total settlement, and less than approximately 0.5-inch of differential settlement across the limit of individual equipment foundations. -16- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS CEC presents the following recommendations for site development and earthwork, foundations, on-grade concrete slabs, and construction phase services. If the grading and/or other site conditions change from what is described herein, or if the subsurface conditions during construction differ from those indicated by our test borings, CEC must review the new information and determine if our conclusions and recommendations are applicable or if revisions will be required. CEC stresses our continued involvement with the project during both the design and construction phases. 5.1 EARTHWORK 5.1.1 Fill Subgrade Preparation Topsoil should be stripped and stockpiled prior to fill placement and construction. Roots, vegetation, and other deleterious materials should also be removed. After removing topsoil and other deleterious materials, exposed subgrades in new fill areas and final pad subgrades in cut areas should be compacted with a 10- ton or heavier vibratory compactor. If the subgrade displays excessive elasticity or deformation during compaction, the deflecting material should be over-excavated and replaced with suitable fill material in accordance with Section 5.1.3. Excavate to a depth where suitable material is encountered, or to a maximum depth of 3 feet. 5.1.2 Slope Configuration CEC recommends that final cut and fill slopes in suitable soils be no steeper than 3H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical). All temporary excavations should be completed and shored, if necessary, in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. If temporary excavation slopes appear unstable, they should be flattened or buttressed to increase stability, and to limit raveling and sloughing during construction. The contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. This slope recommendation assumes that runoff will be controlled such that excessive erosion of slopes does not occur. 5.1.3 Fill Materials On-site or borrow fill material placed at the site should not contain rocks with a maximum dimension greater than 4 inches. Soil fill should classify as GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, SC, ML, or CL (or combinations thereof) according to the USCS. Fat clay or elastic silt (USCS classification CH or MH) and high plasticity clay (Plasticity Index greater than 20 percent) should not be placed as fill at the site. 5.1.4 Fill Placement All engineered fill should be placed in a controlled manner in maximum 12-inch thick loose lifts. Fill material containing more than 10 percent fines should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density and within ±3 percent of optimum moisture content as estimated by the standard Proctor (ASTM D698) compaction test. Padded drum compactors should be used to compact fine-grained fill material (silts and clays). Clean coarse-grained cohesionless soil containing less than 10 percent fines should be -17- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 compacted to visual non-movement with at least 5 passes using a 10-ton or heavier smooth drum vibratory soil compactor. 5.1.5 Shrink-Swell Considerations Loose to very loose eolian and fluviomarine sand was encountered in the test borings in the upper 6 to 10 feet of the soil zone. Earthwork will result in a reduction in volume (shrinkage) when the soil is compacted. CEC estimates that the soil shrinkage factor will range from 10 to 20 percent, depending on the in-situ density and moisture content. Earthwork volumes should account for this change volume. Because the shrinkage factor is an estimate, site development should include means to obtain additional, or waste excess, material as necessary during construction. The shrinkage factor provided does not include spoils generated during construction which can influence the final earthwork balance. 5.1.6 Quality Assurance and Testing CEC recommends performing grain size analysis (ASTM D422), Atterberg limits (ASTM D4318), natural moisture content (ASTM D2216), and standard Proctor (ASTM D698) testing on fill materials prior to construction to confirm its suitability. Testing should also be conducted periodically during fill placement for each type of material used. Field density/moisture testing, in accordance with ASTM D6938, should be performed on all new soil fill placed at the site. Perform at least one density and moisture content test for every 10,000 square feet of fill placed at the site, with a minimum of one test per lift. Density and moisture testing should also be performed every 100 linear feet along utility trenches (if applicable during backfill operations), with a minimum of one test per lift. 5.1.7 Weather Considerations If earthwork is performed during winter or spring months, or during inclement weather, fill compaction may be difficult. Additionally, frozen soil/bedrock should not be placed as new fill, nor should new fill be placed on frozen subgrade. Further, groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally. Groundwater levels may be higher at the site during spring months. 5.2 FOUNDATIONS CEC prepared the recommendations herein based on a preliminary equipment layout as shown on Drawing GT-01 in Appendix B. Based this layout, foundations will bear on eolian and fluviomarine soil. As requested by Archaea and their EPC contractor, Kiewit, CEC has included recommendations for shallow foundations (spread and mat) and helical piles. 5.2.1 Shallow Foundations (Spread and Mat) Construct exterior building foundations or foundations subject to frost heave a minimum of 18 inches below proposed final grade in accordance with the IBC6. Do not support structures on variable bearing surfaces. Eolian soils shall not be utilized as a foundation subgrade. Foundations should bear entirely on one surface (i.e., engineered fill or compacted fluviomarine). Do not disturb bearing surfaces for foundations or leave exposed during inclement weather. Do not place concrete on frozen or wet subgrades. 6 2021 IBC Section R403.1.4 and Section R403.1.4.1. -18- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 For shallow spread and mat foundations, over-excavate a minimum of 3 feet below proposed foundation bearing elevation. The purpose of this recommendation is to remove loose eolian soil that is susceptible to settlement. After excavating 3 feet below foundation bearing elevations, compact the exposed subgrades with a roller or vibratory plate compactor. Backfill over-excavations with suitable fill material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Based on our analyses and the recommendations presented herein, shallow spread and mat foundations can be designed using the criteria provided in Table 13 which is based on an assumed maximum total settlement tolerance of approximately 1-inch. Table 13 – Shallow Foundation Design Criteria Maximum Foundation Bearing Area and Dimensions (Square Feet [SF]) 3-FOOT OVER-EXCAVATION Allowable Bearing Pressure (psf) 100 SF (10 feet X 10 feet) 2,250 400 SF (20 feet X 20 feet) 2,000 900 SF (30 feet X 30 feet) 1,500 2,025 SF (45 feet X 45 feet) 1,000 Design mat foundations using a unit modulus of subgrade reaction, k, as provided in Table 11.a. The provided subgrade reaction value is a unit-value based on a 1-foot square footing. Therefore, the design k value should be reduced in accordance with the following equation when used to design larger foundations: kr = k (𝐵+1 2𝐵) 2 where: kr = reduced subgrade reaction value k = unit modulus of subgrade reaction (based on 1-foot square footing) B = foundation width (feet) Place mat foundations on a minimum of 6 inches of AASHTO No. 57 aggregate or a crushed stone/granular base with less than 6 percent fines or on a concrete mudmat. In addition, the AASHTO No. 57 aggregate should extend at least 18 inches below exterior finished grade (i.e., if the mat is less than 6 inches thick). Place a non-woven AASHTO M288 Class 1 separation geotextile between the subgrade and crushed stone to limit migration of fines. For frost protection, exposed slabs should be thickened, or “turned-down”, around the perimeter of the slab to the greater of 18 inches below finished pad grade or to the base of AASHTO No. 57 aggregate. The turned-down portion of the slab should be a minimum of 1 foot wide. As an alternative to a turn-down, the crushed stone or granular base may be placed at least 18 inches below exterior finished grade for frost protection. The thickness of crushed stone beneath the mat foundation may be decreased if foundation insulation is installed in accordance with the guidance provided by the American Society of Civil Engineers7 (ASCE). 7 ASCE 32 - Design and Construction of Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations -19- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 The foundation subgrades should be reviewed by a CEC field representative for conformance with these recommendations prior to reinforcement bar installation. 5.2.2 Helical Piles CEC recommends helical piles as a foundation system to bypass the upper loose to very loose soil and bear in medium dense sand. Helical piles are a versatile and cost-efficient alternative to deep foundations or ground improvement at this site. A helical pile is a type of deep foundation system that includes helical bearing plates welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates. Concrete grade beams or pile caps can be used to distribute the structural loads to each individual pile, or the pile can be directly connected to equipment skids, pipe racks or structural steel. Due to the variety of helix configurations available, helical piles are by necessity designed to support specific foundation loads within a given soil profile. For this reason, a helical pile specialty contractor with a minimum of 5 years of experience should be retained for design and installation of helical piles. The load capacity of helical piles can be determined using soil bearing capacity, torque correlation, or load tests. CEC recommends using two of these methods to estimate helical pile capacity. Based on the results of the test borings, CEC recommends helical piles be tipped a minimum of 3 feet into the medium dense sands encountered between approximate Elevations 5 to 9 feet AMSL. The actual depth of helical pile embedment within the medium dense alluvial soil should be determined by the helical pile contractor, based on the loading conditions and pile spacing determined by the structural engineer. CEC also recommends specifying a round shaft helical pile. A variety of manufacturers offer helical piles based on either square or round shafts. In general, a round shaft helical pile offers a larger cross-sectional area then their square counterparts, resulting in higher allowable compressive loads per pile, increased resistance to buckling, and a reduction in torsional bending of the pile shaft during installation. CEC recommends that helical piles be installed using a torque- or shear pin-based acceptance criteria to provide additional assurance that the designed allowable pile capacity has been met for each pile installed. 5.3 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE 5.3.1 Subgrade Preparation Over-excavate a minimum of 3 feet below proposed slab bearing elevation. The purpose of this recommendation is to remove loose eolian soil that is susceptible to settlement. After excavating 3 feet below foundation bearing elevations, proof-roll subgrades in accordance with Section 5.1.1 of this report. Remove soft or deflecting subgrade material delineated by proof-rolling to a depth at which the subgrade displays minimal deflection or up to a maximum depth of 3 feet. Backfill over-excavations with suitable fill material placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Provide a minimum 6-inch-thick layer of non-expansive crushed stone beneath slabs placed on grade. 5.3.2 Building (Interior) Floor Slab Design Floor slabs constructed inside heated buildings should be lightly loaded (250 psf or less). Design lightly loaded on-grade floor slabs for the proposed building(s) using a unit modulus of subgrade reaction, k, as provided in Table 11.a. -20- 336-406 New Hanover RNG Geotechnical Report December 2023 – Revised March 2024 5.4 CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES Geotechnical engineering is a two-phase process. The first phase includes a subsurface exploration, analyses, and preparation of this report presenting conclusions and recommendations. The second phase involves observing the actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction, assessing the recommendations based on field conditions, and confirming that the geotechnical recommendations are being properly implemented. The recommendations presented in this report and on the figures in Appendix B, require field verification and possible adjustments during construction. Field observations are critical for future slope and foundation performance. Furthermore, the test borings performed at this site represent subsurface conditions at those locations only at the time they were drilled, and subsurface conditions likely differ at other locations or times. CEC stresses our continued involvement, or the involvement of a qualified geotechnical engineer, during construction to assess field conditions and adjust recommendations as necessary. The recommendations presented in this report are contingent on CEC observing: • Fill material suitability; • Proof-rolling and new fill subgrade conditions; • Soil over-excavations; • Fill placement and compaction; • Foundation bearing subgrade; and • Compliance with the geotechnical recommendations. APPENDIX A – IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this ReportGeotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific TimesGeotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop specifications; • review pertinent elements of other design professionals’ plans and specifications; and • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this report. Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction-phase observations. Give Constructors a Complete Report and GuidanceSome owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting the information they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent the costly, contentious problems this practice has caused, include the complete geotechnical-engineering report, along with any attachments or appendices, with your contract documents, but be certain to note conspicuously that you’ve included the material for information purposes only. To avoid misunderstanding, you may also want to note that “informational purposes” means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations, opinions, conclusions, or recommendations in the report. Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific project requirements, including options selected from the report, only from the design drawings and specifications. Remind constructors that they may perform their own studies if they want to, and be sure to allow enough time to permit them to do so. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Conducting prebid and preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some client representatives, design professionals, and constructors do not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This happens in part because soil and rock on project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete. That lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have resulted in disappointments, delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. To confront that risk, geotechnical engineers commonly include explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The personnel, equipment, and techniques used to perform an environmental study – e.g., a “phase-one” or “phase-two” environmental site assessment – differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical-engineering study. For that reason, a geotechnical-engineering report does not usually provide environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated subsurface environmental problems have led to project failures. If you have not obtained your own environmental information about the project site, ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find environmental risk-management guidance. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Moisture Infiltration and Mold While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, water infiltration, or similar issues in this report, the engineer’s services were not designed, conducted, or intended to prevent migration of moisture – including water vapor – from the soil through building slabs and walls and into the building interior, where it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. Accordingly, proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer’s recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent moisture infiltration. Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with GBA’s specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. Telephone: 301/565-2733 e-mail: info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org APPENDIX B – TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN REFERENCES 8 34567 12 8 34567 12 A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E NO RE V I S I O N R E C O R D DA T E : DW G S C A L E : DR A W N B Y : CH E C K E D B Y : AP P R O V E D B Y : PR O J E C T N O : SHEET OF DRAWING NO.: TE S T B O R I N G L O C A T I O N P L A N 33 6 - 4 0 6 1" = 4 0 ' DE C E M B E R 2 0 2 3 HC B TA B MJ S 1 1 GT-01 AR C H A E A E N E R G Y , I N C . NE W H A N O V E R R N G F A C I L I T Y NE W H A N O V E R C O U N T Y , N C 25 0 W . O l d W i l s o n B r i d g e R o a d · S u i t e 2 5 0 · W o r t h i n g t o n , O H 4 3 0 8 5 61 4 - 5 4 0 - 6 6 3 3 · 8 8 8 - 5 9 8 - 6 8 0 8 ww w . c e c i n c . c o m NORTH LEGEND PLAN VIEW TEST BORING COORDINATES P R E L I M I N A R Y NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION APPENDIX C – TEST BORING LOGS SS1 SS 2 SS3 SS 4 SS5 SS 6 SS7 SS8 SS 93 60 53 40 53 73 80 47 53 2-1-2(3) 2-2-3 (5) 2-2-4(6) 7-10-13 (23) 6-9-11(20) 9-14-13 (27) 10-10-10(20) 8-10-10(20) 5-4-13 Light Brown To Brown, POORLY-GRADED SAND, SP, Moist, VeryLoose (EOLIAN)Trace roots and organic material observed throughoutsample. Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 0.0 to 4.0 feetbgs. Optimum Moisture Content= 12.6%; Maximum Dry Density= 101.4 pcf; Cohesion= 115.2 psf; Angle of Friction= 32.1 degrees. Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Moist, Looseto Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE)Samples observed to transition from moist to wet at SS-8. NOTES Elevation obtained from CEC survey. GROUND ELEVATION 19 ft SOIL SAMPLING METHOD HSA & SPT SOIL SAMPLING CONTRACTOR Bridger Drilling, Inc. CHECKED BY HCB DATE STARTED 11/21/23 COMPLETED 11/21/23 BACKFILL Grout CEC REP AFP WATER LEVELS: AT END OF SOIL SAMPLING 8.2 ft / Elev 10.8 ft AT END OF CORING --- Not Applicable 24hrs AFTER DRILLING --- Backfilled Immediately 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 (Continued Next Page) EL E V A T I O N (f t ) 15 10 5 0 -5 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-1 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 9 SS10 SS 11 SS12 87 67 80 (17) 6-9-9(18) 4-6-7 (13) 8-9-11(20) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, MediumDense (FLUVIOMARINE)(continued) Water levels likely influenced by water-assisted drilling. Bottom of boring at 34.5 feet. 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 EL E V A T I O N (f t ) -10 -15 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 25 30 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-1 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 SS1 SS 2 SS3 SS 4 SS5 SS 6 SS7 SS8 SS 73 67 67 73 33 73 27 40 53 1-1-2(3) 2-3-2 (5) 5-9-5(14) 5-8-11 (19) 7-11-11(22) 10-13-17 (30) 4-8-9(17) 6-9-9(18) 8-11-12 Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Moist, Very Loose(EOLIAN)Trace roots and organic material observed throughout sample.Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 0.0 to 5.0 feet bgs.Chloride= 34 ppm; pH= 5.5; Resistivity= 23,450 Ohm-cm; Oxidation Reduction Potential= 358 mV; Sulfate= <0.02%. Light Brown To Brown, SILTY SAND, SM, Moist, Loose to Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 7.5 to 10.0 feet bgs.Chloride= <30 ppm; pH= 5.2; Resistivity= 43,550 Ohm-cm; OxidationReduction Potential= 319 mV; Sulfate= <0.02%. Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Medium Dense to Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) NOTES Elevation obtained from CEC survey. GROUND ELEVATION 18 ft SOIL SAMPLING METHOD HSA & SPT SOIL SAMPLING CONTRACTOR Bridger Drilling, Inc. CHECKED BY HCB DATE STARTED 11/21/23 COMPLETED 11/21/23 BACKFILL Grout CEC REP AFP WATER LEVELS: AT END OF SOIL SAMPLING 6.1 ft / Elev 11.9 ft AT END OF CORING --- Not Applicable 24hrs AFTER DRILLING --- Backfilled Immediately 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 (Continued Next Page) EL E V A T I O N (f t ) 15 10 5 0 -5 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-2 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 9 SS10 SS 11 53 60 (23) 9-13-18(31) 7-11-13 (24) Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Medium Dense toDense (FLUVIOMARINE)(continued) Water levels likely influenced by water-assisted drilling. Bottom of boring at 31.5 feet. 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 EL E V A T I O N (f t ) -10 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 25 30 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-2 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 SS1 SS 2 SS3 SS 4 SS5 SS 6 SS7 SS8 SS 80 60 67 53 67 53 67 60 67 2-1-1(2) 2-2-3 (5) 2-3-4(7) 5-8-7 (15) 7-9-10(19) 10-10-12 (22) 6-7-9(16) 4-5-5(10) 4-5-9 Topsoil - 0.2 feet Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Moist, Very Loose(EOLIAN)Trace roots and organic material observed throughout sample. Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 2.0 to 3.0 feetbgs.Optimum Moisture Content= 17.6%; Maximum Dry Density= 103.2 pcf. Light Orangish Brown To Brown, POORLY-GRADED SAND, SP, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 5.0 to 6.0 feetbgs. Optimum Moisture Content= 15.3%; Maximum Dry Density= 104.6 pcf. Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) NOTES Elevation obtained from CEC survey. GROUND ELEVATION 16.4 ft SOIL SAMPLING METHOD HSA & SPT SOIL SAMPLING CONTRACTOR Bridger Drilling, Inc. CHECKED BY HCB DATE STARTED 11/20/23 COMPLETED 11/20/23 BACKFILL Grout CEC REP AFP WATER LEVELS: AT END OF SOIL SAMPLING 3.1 ft / Elev 13.3 ft AT END OF CORING --- Not Applicable 24hrs AFTER DRILLING 9.7 ft / Elev 6.7 ft 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 (Continued Next Page) EL E V A T I O N (f t ) 15 10 5 0 -5 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-3 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 9 SS10 SS 11 73 67 (14) 4-7-12(19) 7-10-12 (22) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Loose toMedium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE)(continued) Water levels likely influenced by water-assisted drilling. Bottom of boring at 31.5 feet. 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 EL E V A T I O N (f t ) -10 -15 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 25 30 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-3 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 SS1 SS 2 SS3 SS 4 SS5 SS 6 SS7 SS8 SS 60 53 67 53 80 80 93 60 73 2-1-2(3) 2-2-3 (5) 2-4-5(9) 4-8-11 (19) 6-9-10(19) 7-6-7 (13) 5-7-9(16) 7-7-9(16) 8-8-7 Topsoil - 0.3 feet Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Moist, Very Loose(EOLIAN)Trace organic material observed throughout sample. Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 2.0 to 3.0 feetbgs.Optimum Moisture Content= 18.1%; Maximum Dry Density= 103.9 pcf. Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximtely 5.0 to 6.0 feetbgs. Optimum Moisture Content= 15.8%: Maximum Dry Density= 101.7 pcf. NOTES Elevation obtained from CEC survey. GROUND ELEVATION 17.8 ft SOIL SAMPLING METHOD HSA & SPT SOIL SAMPLING CONTRACTOR Bridger Drilling, Inc. CHECKED BY HCB DATE STARTED 11/20/23 COMPLETED 11/20/23 BACKFILL Grout CEC REP AFP WATER LEVELS: AT END OF SOIL SAMPLING 4.2 ft / Elev 13.6 ft AT END OF CORING --- Not Applicable 24hrs AFTER DRILLING 10.1 ft / Elev 7.7 ft 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 (Continued Next Page) EL E V A T I O N (f t ) 15 10 5 0 -5 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-4 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 9 SS10 SS 11 SS12 SS 13 SS14 47 73 33 33 40 (15) 6-7-9(16) 4-9-9 (18) 4-4-4(8) 2-2-2 (4) 2-1-1(2) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Loose toMedium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE)(continued) Light Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Loose to Very Loose (FLUVIOMARINE) Water levels likely influenced by water-assisted drilling. Bottom of boring at 40.5 feet. 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 EL E V A T I O N (f t ) -10 -15 -20 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 25 30 35 40 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-4 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 SS1 SS 2 SS3 SS 4 SS5 SS 6 SS7 SS8 SS 100 53 40 73 93 73 53 67 47 1-1-1(2) 2-1-2 (3) 3-3-5(8) 5-8-11 (19) 6-8-10(18) 5-8-8 (16) 9-10-11(21) 6-8-8(16) 5-7-9 Topsoil - 0.3 feet Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Moist, Very Loose(EOLIAN)Trace organic material observed throughout sample. Bulk sample of auger cutting obtained from approximately 0.0 to 3.0 feet bgs. Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Very Loose to Loose (FLUVIOMARINE) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, Medium Dense to Loose (FLUVIOMARINE) NOTES Elevation obtained from CEC survey. GROUND ELEVATION 17.3 ft SOIL SAMPLING METHOD HSA & SPT SOIL SAMPLING CONTRACTOR Bridger Drilling, Inc. CHECKED BY HCB DATE STARTED 11/20/23 COMPLETED 11/20/23 BACKFILL Grout CEC REP AFP WATER LEVELS: AT END OF SOIL SAMPLING 2.5 ft / Elev 14.8 ft AT END OF CORING --- Not Applicable 24hrs AFTER DRILLING --- Backfilled Immediately 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 (Continued Next Page) EL E V A T I O N (f t ) 15 10 5 0 -5 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-5 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 9 SS10 SS 11 67 80 (16) 3-4-6(10) 5-8-11 (19) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Wet, MediumDense to Loose (FLUVIOMARINE)(continued) Water levels likely influenced by water-assisted drilling. Bottom of boring at 31.5 feet. 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 EL E V A T I O N (f t ) -10 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 25 30 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-5 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 SS1 SS 2 SS3 SS 4 SS5 SS 6 SS7 SS8 SS 100 53 67 53 73 67 80 80 53 1-1-3(4) 2-2-3 (5) 3-3-3(6) 3-4-6 (10) 4-5-5(10) 6-11-11 (22) 5-6-5(11) 8-9-14(23) 5-7-11 Topsoil - 0.3 feet Light Brown To Brown, Poorly-Graded Sand, SP, Moist, Very Loose(EOLIAN)Trace roots and organic material observed throughout sample. Bulk sample of auger cuttings obtained from approximately 0.0 to 3.0 feet bgs. Light Orangish Brown To Brown, POORLY-GRADED SAND, SP, Wet, Loose to Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE) NOTES Elevation obtained from CEC survey. GROUND ELEVATION 12.8 ft SOIL SAMPLING METHOD HSA & SPT SOIL SAMPLING CONTRACTOR Bridger Drilling, Inc. CHECKED BY HCB DATE STARTED 11/20/23 COMPLETED 11/20/23 BACKFILL Grout CEC REP AFP WATER LEVELS: AT END OF SOIL SAMPLING 3.5 ft / Elev 9.3 ft AT END OF CORING --- Not Applicable 24hrs AFTER DRILLING 5.2 ft / Elev 7.6 ft 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 (Continued Next Page) EL E V A T I O N (f t ) 10 5 0 -5 -10 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 1 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-6 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 9 SS10 SS 11 67 73 (18) 5-7-9(16) 5-6-10 (16) Light Orangish Brown To Brown, POORLY-GRADED SAND, SP, Wet,Loose to Medium Dense (FLUVIOMARINE)(continued) Water levels likely influenced by water-assisted drilling. Bottom of boring at 31.5 feet. 20 40 60 80 PL LLMC FINES CONTENT (%) 20 40 60 80 EL E V A T I O N (f t ) -15 SPT N VALUE 20 40 60 80 GR A P H I C LO G DE P T H (f t ) 25 30 SA M P L E T Y P E NU M B E R RE C O V E R Y % (R Q D ) BL O W CO U N T S (N V A L U E ) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Soil classifications were derived using the general methodologies presented inASTM D2488, except where capitalized USCS group names are indicatedhereon, if any. Capitalized USCS group names denote the classifications werederived using the general methodologies presented in ASTM D2487 PAGE 2 OF 2 BORING NUMBER B-6 CLIENT Archaea Energy, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER 336-406 PROJECT NAME New Hanover RNG Facility PROJECT LOCATION Cape Fear Township, New Hanover County, NC CE C C U S T O M L O G 3 3 6 - 4 0 6 T E S T B O R I N G L O G S . G P J C E C . G D T 2 / 2 / 2 4 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. 700 Cherrington Parkway Moon Township, PA 15108 APPENDIX D – FIELD RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS A-Spacing (feet) A-Spacing (cm) Resistance (Ω) ρ Resistivity (Ω-cm) ρ Resistivity (Ω-ft) 20 609.6 209.0 800,518 26,264 30 914.4 49.9 286,693 9,406 50 1524.0 14.4 137,888 4,524 Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results ASTM G57 Wenner Four Probe Method Test Location:ER-1 N/S Project Name:New Hanover RNG Facility Project Number:336-406 Project Location:Wilmington, NC Test Date:11/20/2023 Weather & Temp.:Partly Cloudy 45-68 degrees F Test Time:10:15 AM Soil Conditions:Roots and organics to 1.5'Performed By:AFP Notes:Electrode depth = ~6-inches Notes A-Spacing (feet) A-Spacing (cm) Resistance (Ω) ρ Resistivity (Ω-cm) ρ Resistivity (Ω-ft) 20 609.6 155.6 595,984 19,553 30 914.4 41.8 240,155 7,879 50 1524.0 9.4 90,010 2,953 11/20/2023 Weather & Temp.: Soil Conditions: Notes: Project Number: Test Date: Test Time: Performed By: New Hanover RNG FacilityProject Name: Project Location:Wilmington, NC 11:20 AM AFP Electrode depth = ~6-inches Partly Cloudy 45-68 degrees F Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results ASTM G57 Wenner Four Probe Method Test Location:ER-1 E/W 336-406 Roots and organics to 1.5' Notes A-Spacing (feet) A-Spacing (cm) Resistance (Ω) ρ Resistivity (Ω-cm) ρ Resistivity (Ω-ft) 20 609.6 120.0 459,628 15,080 30 914.4 48.2 276,926 9,085 50 1524.0 15.3 146,506 4,807 Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results ASTM G57 Wenner Four Probe Method Test Location:ER-2 N/S Project Name:New Hanover RNG Facility Project Number:336-406 Project Location:Wilmington, NC Test Date:11/20/2023 Weather & Temp.:Partly Cloudy 45-68 degrees F Test Time:1:05 PM Soil Conditions:Roots and organics to 1.5'Performed By:AFP Notes:Electrode depth = ~6-inches Notes A-Spacing (feet) A-Spacing (cm) Resistance (Ω) ρ Resistivity (Ω-cm) ρ Resistivity (Ω-ft) 20 609.6 99.2 379,959 12,466 30 914.4 59.9 344,146 11,291 50 1524.0 18.1 173,318 5,686 Field Electrical Resistivity Test Results ASTM G57 Wenner Four Probe Method Test Location:ER-2 E/W Project Name:New Hanover RNG Facility Project Number:336-406 Project Location:Wilmington, NC Test Date:11/20/2023 Weather & Temp.:Partly Cloudy 45-68 degrees F Test Time:2:10 PM Soil Conditions:Roots and organics to 1.5'Performed By:AFP Notes:Electrode depth = ~6-inches Notes APPENDIX E – LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-3 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 3.0' - 7.5' Project No.23-004710 Sample SS-2,3 Lab Sample 23-004710-01 Sample Color:VERY PALE BROWN USCS Group Name:POORLY GRADED SAND USCS Group Symbol:SP USDA:NA AASHTO:A-2-4 (0) Sieve Nominal Dry Project Total Sample Wet Wt, gm (-3")437 Size Opening, mm Wt, gm % Retained % Finer Specifications Sample Split on Sieve 3/4"3"75 0 0.0%100.0% Coarse Washed Dry Sample, gm 0 2-1/2"63 0 0.0%100.0% Wet Wt Passing Split, gm 437 2"50 0 0.0%100.0% Dry Wt. Passing Split, gm 388 1-1/2"37.5 0 0.0%100.0% Total Sample Dry Wt, gm 388 1"25 0 0.0%100.0% 19 100.0%3/4"19 0 0.0%100.0% 1/2"12.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare No.750 3/8"9.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare + WS., gm 618.78 No. 4 4.75 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare + DS., gm 570.58 No. 10 2 0.27 0.1%99.9% Tare, gm 182.14 No. 20 0.85 32.22 8.3%91.6% Water Content of Split Sample 12.4%No. 40 0.425 135.70 34.9%56.7% Wt. of DS., gm 388.44 No. 60 0.25 142.61 36.7%20.0% No. 140 0.106 62.21 16.0%4.0% Wt. of +#200 Sample, gm 376.22 No. 200 0.075 3.21 0.8%3.1% % Gravel (-3" & +#4)0.0 Silt=NA Clay=NA Coarse=0; Fine=0 D60, mm 0.45 % Sand (-#4 & +#200)96.9 D30, mm 0.29 Coarse=0.1; Medium=43.2; Fine=53.6 D10, mm 0.15 Wt Ret, gm % Retained % Finer % Fines (-#200)3.1 Cc 1.26 12" Sieve - 300 mm 0 0.0 100.0 % Plus #200 (-3")96.9 Cu 3.10 6" Sieve - 150 mm 0 0.0 100.0 3" Sieve - 75 mm 0 0.0 100.0 Performed By: BK PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS - ASTM D422-63(2007) MECHANICAL SIEVE Total Sample Split Normalized Split Sample - Passing 3/4" USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 Corrected For 100% Passing a 3" Sieve USCS Description POORLY GRADED SAND USCS Group Symbol Atterberg Limits Group Symbol SP NP - NON PLASTIC Auxiliary Information Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r Diameter, mm Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-3 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 3.0' - 7.5' Project No.23-004710 Sample SS-2,3 Lab Sample 23-004710-01 Soil Description:VERY PALE BROWN NON PLASTIC MATERIAL (-#40 Fraction) Tare Number 750 Liquid Limit (LL), %NA Wt. Tare & WS, gm 618.78 Plastic Limit (PL), %NA Wt. Tare & DS, gm 570.58 Plasticity Index (PI)NA Wt. Tare, gm 182.14 USCS Group Symbol (-#40 Fraction )NP Water Content, %12.4 USCS Group Name (-#40 Fraction)NON PLASTIC Sample Color:VERY PALE BROWN Points Run Tare Number ------ Wt. Tare & WS, gm ------ Wt. Tare & DS, gm ------ Wt. Tare, gm ------ Water Content, %#DIV/0! # of Blows 22 26 31 Non-Plastic NO NO Blows 92 92 92 #DIV/0!Log WC 1.96 1.96 1.96 Non-Plastic NO NO 1 Pt = wc*(blows/25)^0.121#VALUE!#VALUE! 1pt avg #VALUE! LL #VALUE! Slope #DIV/0! Intercept #DIV/0! Blows 70 Performed By: BK LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D4318-17e1 AS-RECEIVED W.C.SAMPLE SUMMARY PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 0 Non-Plastic 0 Non-Plastic PLASTICITY CHART FLOW CURVE Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 NMC = 12.4 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 Wa t e r C o n t e n t No. of Blows 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x Liquid Limit CH -Fat Clay MH -Elastic Silt CL Lean Clay ML -SiltCL-ML Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-6 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 6.0' - 7.5' Project No.23-004710 Sample SS-3 Lab Sample 23-004710-02 Sample Color:VERY PALE BROWN USCS Group Name:POORLY GRADED SAND USCS Group Symbol:SP USDA:NA AASHTO:A-2-4 (0) Sieve Nominal Dry Project Total Sample Wet Wt, gm (-3")316 Size Opening, mm Wt, gm % Retained % Finer Specifications Sample Split on Sieve No. 4 3"75 0 0.0%100.0% Coarse Washed Dry Sample, gm 0 2-1/2"63 0 0.0%100.0% Wet Wt Passing Split, gm 316 2"50 0 0.0%100.0% Dry Wt. Passing Split, gm 261 1-1/2"37.5 0 0.0%100.0% Total Sample Dry Wt, gm 261 1"25 0 0.0%100.0% 4.75 100.0%3/4"19 0 0.0%100.0% 1/2"12.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare No.316 3/8"9.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare + WS., gm 504.18 No. 4 4.75 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare + DS., gm 448.72 No. 10 2 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare, gm 187.82 No. 20 0.85 2.67 1.0%99.0% Water Content of Split Sample 21.3%No. 40 0.425 36.75 14.1%84.9% Wt. of DS., gm 260.90 No. 60 0.25 130.29 49.9%35.0% No. 140 0.106 86.33 33.1%1.9% Wt. of +#200 Sample, gm 257.07 No. 200 0.075 1.03 0.4%1.5% % Gravel (-3" & +#4)0.0 Silt=NA Clay=NA Coarse=0; Fine=0 D60, mm 0.33 % Sand (-#4 & +#200)98.5 D30, mm 0.22 Coarse=0; Medium=15.1; Fine=83.4 D10, mm 0.13 Wt Ret, gm % Retained % Finer % Fines (-#200)1.5 Cc 1.13 12" Sieve - 300 mm 0 0.0 100.0 % Plus #200 (-3")98.5 Cu 2.49 6" Sieve - 150 mm 0 0.0 100.0 3" Sieve - 75 mm 0 0.0 100.0 Performed By: BK Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 Corrected For 100% Passing a 3" Sieve USCS Description POORLY GRADED SAND USCS Group Symbol Atterberg Limits Group Symbol SP NP - NON PLASTIC Auxiliary Information USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS - ASTM D422-63(2007) MECHANICAL SIEVE Total Sample Split Normalized Split Sample - Passing No. 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r Diameter, mm Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-6 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 6.0' - 7.5' Project No.23-004710 Sample SS-3 Lab Sample 23-004710-02 Soil Description:VERY PALE BROWN NON PLASTIC MATERIAL (-#40 Fraction) Tare Number 316 Liquid Limit (LL), %NA Wt. Tare & WS, gm 504.18 Plastic Limit (PL), %NA Wt. Tare & DS, gm 448.72 Plasticity Index (PI)NA Wt. Tare, gm 187.82 USCS Group Symbol (-#40 Fraction )NP Water Content, %21.3 USCS Group Name (-#40 Fraction)NON PLASTIC Sample Color:VERY PALE BROWN Points Run Tare Number ------ Wt. Tare & WS, gm ------ Wt. Tare & DS, gm ------ Wt. Tare, gm ------ Water Content, %#DIV/0! # of Blows 22 26 31 Non-Plastic NO NO Blows 92 92 92 #DIV/0!Log WC 1.96 1.96 1.96 Non-Plastic NO NO 1 Pt = wc*(blows/25)^0.121#VALUE!#VALUE! 1pt avg #VALUE! LL #VALUE! Slope #DIV/0! Intercept #DIV/0! Blows 70 Performed By: BK COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 0 Non-Plastic 0 Non-Plastic PLASTICITY CHART FLOW CURVE Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 ASTM D4318-17e1 AS-RECEIVED W.C.SAMPLE SUMMARY PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS NMC = 21.3 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 Wa t e r C o n t e n t No. of Blows 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x Liquid Limit CH -Fat Clay MH -Elastic Silt CL Lean Clay ML -SiltCL-ML Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-1 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 0.0' - 4.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample 23-004710-03 Sample Color:BROWN USCS Group Name:POORLY GRADED SAND USCS Group Symbol:SP USDA:NA AASHTO:A-2-4 (0) Sieve Nominal Dry Project Total Sample Wet Wt, gm (-3")19693 Size Opening, mm Wt, gm % Retained % Finer Specifications Sample Split on Sieve 3/4"3"75 0 0.0%100.0% Coarse Washed Dry Sample, gm 0 2-1/2"63 0 0.0%100.0% Wet Wt Passing Split, gm 19693 2"50 0 0.0%100.0% Dry Wt. Passing Split, gm 19184 1-1/2"37.5 0 0.0%100.0% Total Sample Dry Wt, gm 19184 1"25 0 0.0%100.0% 19 100.0%3/4"19 0 0.0%100.0% 1/2"12.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare No.1014 3/8"9.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare + WS., gm 1478.00 No. 4 4.75 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare + DS., gm 1444.87 No. 10 2 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare, gm 195.30 No. 20 0.85 49.32 3.9%96.1% Water Content of Split Sample 2.7%No. 40 0.425 673.40 53.9%42.2% Wt. of DS., gm 1249.57 No. 60 0.25 385.92 30.9%11.3% No. 140 0.106 105.02 8.4%2.9% Wt. of +#200 Sample, gm 1219.22 No. 200 0.075 5.56 0.4%2.4% % Gravel (-3" & +#4)0.0 Silt=NA Clay=NA Coarse=0; Fine=0 D60, mm 0.54 % Sand (-#4 & +#200)97.6 D30, mm 0.35 Coarse=0; Medium=57.8; Fine=39.7 D10, mm 0.22 Wt Ret, gm % Retained % Finer % Fines (-#200)2.4 Cc 1.01 12" Sieve - 300 mm 0 0.0 100.0 % Plus #200 (-3")97.6 Cu 2.44 6" Sieve - 150 mm 0 0.0 100.0 3" Sieve - 75 mm 0 0.0 100.0 Performed By: BK PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS - ASTM D422-63(2007) MECHANICAL SIEVE Total Sample Split Normalized Split Sample - Passing 3/4" USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 Corrected For 100% Passing a 3" Sieve USCS Description POORLY GRADED SAND USCS Group Symbol Atterberg Limits Group Symbol SP NP - NON PLASTIC Auxiliary Information Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r Diameter, mm Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-1 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 0.0' - 4.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample 23-004710-03 Soil Description:BROWN NON PLASTIC MATERIAL (-#40 Fraction) Tare Number 1014 Liquid Limit (LL), %NA Wt. Tare & WS, gm 1478.00 Plastic Limit (PL), %NA Wt. Tare & DS, gm 1444.87 Plasticity Index (PI)NA Wt. Tare, gm 195.30 USCS Group Symbol (-#40 Fraction )NP Water Content, %2.7 USCS Group Name (-#40 Fraction)NON PLASTIC Sample Color:BROWN Points Run Tare Number ------ Wt. Tare & WS, gm ------ Wt. Tare & DS, gm ------ Wt. Tare, gm ------ Water Content, %#DIV/0! # of Blows 22 26 31 Non-Plastic NO NO Blows 92 92 92 #DIV/0!Log WC 1.96 1.96 1.96 Non-Plastic NO NO 1 Pt = wc*(blows/25)^0.121#VALUE!#VALUE! 1pt avg #VALUE! LL #VALUE! Slope #DIV/0! Intercept #DIV/0! Blows 70 Performed By: BK LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D4318-17e1 AS-RECEIVED W.C.SAMPLE SUMMARY PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 0 Non-Plastic 0 Non-Plastic PLASTICITY CHART FLOW CURVE Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 NMC = 2.7 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 0 5 Wa t e r C o n t e n t No. of Blows 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x Liquid Limit CH -Fat Clay MH -Elastic Silt CL Lean Clay ML -SiltCL-ML Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-2 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 7.5' - 10.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample 23-004710-09 Sample Color:YELLOWISH BROWN USCS Group Name:SILTY SAND USCS Group Symbol:SM USDA:NA AASHTO:A-2-4 (0) Sieve Nominal Dry Project Total Sample Wet Wt, gm (-3")15926 Size Opening, mm Wt, gm % Retained % Finer Specifications Sample Split on Sieve 3/4"3"75 0 0.0%100.0% Coarse Washed Dry Sample, gm 0 2-1/2"63 0 0.0%100.0% Wet Wt Passing Split, gm 15926 2"50 0 0.0%100.0% Dry Wt. Passing Split, gm 15357 1-1/2"37.5 0 0.0%100.0% Total Sample Dry Wt, gm 15357 1"25 0 0.0%100.0% 19 100.0%3/4"19 0 0.0%100.0% 1/2"12.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare No.862 3/8"9.5 0 0.0%100.0% Tare + WS., gm 1646.70 No. 4 4.75 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare + DS., gm 1594.61 No. 10 2 0.00 0.0%100.0% Tare, gm 188.20 No. 20 0.85 59.99 4.3%95.7% Water Content of Split Sample 3.7%No. 40 0.425 425.86 30.3%65.5% Wt. of DS., gm 1406.41 No. 60 0.25 491.15 34.9%30.5% No. 140 0.106 161.08 11.5%19.1% Wt. of +#200 Sample, gm 1144.54 No. 200 0.075 6.46 0.5%18.6% % Gravel (-3" & +#4)0.0 Silt=NA Clay=NA Coarse=0; Fine=0 D60, mm NA % Sand (-#4 & +#200)81.4 D30, mm NA Coarse=0; Medium=34.5; Fine=46.8 D10, mm NA Wt Ret, gm % Retained % Finer % Fines (-#200)18.6 Cc NA 12" Sieve - 300 mm 0 0.0 100.0 % Plus #200 (-3")81.4 Cu NA 6" Sieve - 150 mm 0 0.0 100.0 3" Sieve - 75 mm 0 0.0 100.0 Performed By: BK PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS - ASTM D422-63(2007) MECHANICAL SIEVE Total Sample Split Normalized Split Sample - Passing 3/4" USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 Corrected For 100% Passing a 3" Sieve USCS Description SILTY SAND USCS Group Symbol Atterberg Limits Group Symbol SM NP - NON PLASTIC Auxiliary Information Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r Diameter, mm Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc Boring B-2 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 7.5' - 10.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample 23-004710-09 Soil Description:YELLOWISH BROWN NON PLASTIC MATERIAL (-#40 Fraction) Tare Number 862 Liquid Limit (LL), %NA Wt. Tare & WS, gm 1646.70 Plastic Limit (PL), %NA Wt. Tare & DS, gm 1594.61 Plasticity Index (PI)NA Wt. Tare, gm 188.20 USCS Group Symbol (-#40 Fraction )NP Water Content, %3.7 USCS Group Name (-#40 Fraction)NON PLASTIC Sample Color:YELLOWISH BROWN Points Run Tare Number ------ Wt. Tare & WS, gm ------ Wt. Tare & DS, gm ------ Wt. Tare, gm ------ Water Content, %#DIV/0! # of Blows 22 26 31 Non-Plastic NO NO Blows 92 92 92 #DIV/0!Log WC 1.96 1.96 1.96 Non-Plastic NO NO 1 Pt = wc*(blows/25)^0.121#VALUE!#VALUE! 1pt avg #VALUE! LL #VALUE! Slope #DIV/0! Intercept #DIV/0! Blows 70 Performed By: BK LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS ASTM D4318-17e1 AS-RECEIVED W.C.SAMPLE SUMMARY PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT COPYRIGHT © 2018 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES INC. 1-800-853-7309 0 Non-Plastic 0 Non-Plastic PLASTICITY CHART FLOW CURVE Input Validation: RS Reviewed By: BS Date Tested: 12/12/2023 NMC = 3.7 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 0 5 Wa t e r C o n t e n t No. of Blows 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x Liquid Limit CH -Fat Clay MH -Elastic Silt CL Lean Clay ML -SiltCL-ML LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.Boring B-1 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 0.0' - 4.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample No.23-004710-03 Visual Description:BROWN POORLY GRADED SAND WET DENSITY TEST PARAMETERS Mold ID I I I I I Test Method ASTM D698 Compaction Point #1 2 3 4 5 Compaction Energy Standard Wt. Mold & WS, gm.10007 10200 10334 10182 10182 Test Procedure C Wt. Mold, gm.6448 6448 6448 6448 6448 Mold Diameter, in 6 Wt. WS, gm.3559 3752 3886 3734 3733.8 Compacted Layers 3 Mold Volume, cc 2122 2122 2122 2122 2122 Blows Per Layer 56 Wet Density, gm./cc 1.68 1.77 1.83 1.76 1.76 Rammer Weight / Fall 5.5 lbs / 12 in. Wet Density, pcf 104.7 110.3 114.3 109.8 109.8 Size of Material Used -3/4" Sieve Use: <5% Retained on 3/4" WATER CONTENT OVERSIZE PARTICLE CORRECTION No Corrections Needed Tare Number 603 Q58 232 600 600 Wt. Tare & WS, gm.672.3 714.8 735.3 877.1 877.1 Wt. Tare & DS, gm.630.9 663.7 669.7 782.5 782.5 Percent of Oversize Rock (+3/4" Sieve) = <5% Wt. Tare, gm.142.5 193.7 179.1 141.9 141.9 (Based on As-received Screening & Soaking) Water Content, %8.5 10.9 13.4 14.8 14.8 W.C. of Finer Material, % (-3/4" Sieve) = NA DRY DENSITY vs. WATER CONTENT Water Content, %8.5 10.9 13.4 14.8 14.8 Lab Optimum Water Content, %12.6 Dry Density, pcf 96.5 99.5 100.8 95.7 95.7 Lab Maximum Dry Density, pcf 101.4 Note: Maximum Density and Optimum Water Content reported from estimated best fit smooth curve! Note: Compacted with automatic compaction machine Input Validation:JSJ Reviewed By:BLS Date Tested:12/08/23 COPYRIGHT © 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 WWW.GTS-LABS.COM SAMPLE SUMMARY LABORATORY TEST VALUES 95% Lab MDD = 96.3 95.0 100.0 105.0 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dr y D e n s i t y , p c f Water Content, % LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.Boring B-3 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 2.0' - 3.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample No.23-004710-04 Visual Description:Brown Sand WET DENSITY TEST PARAMETERS Mold ID 1046 1046 1047 1047 1047 Test Method ASTM D698 Compaction Point #1 2 3 4 5 Compaction Energy Standard Wt. Mold & WS, gm.6149.2 6234 6261 6252 6252 Test Procedure B Wt. Mold, gm.4404 4404 4392 4392 4392 Mold Diameter, in 4 Wt. WS, gm.1745 1830 1869 1860 1859.8 Compacted Layers 3 Mold Volume, cc 948 948 953 953 953 Blows Per Layer 25 Wet Density, gm./cc 1.84 1.93 1.96 1.95 1.95 Rammer Weight / Fall 5.5 lbs / 12 in. Wet Density, pcf 114.9 120.5 122.3 121.7 121.7 Size of Material Used -3/8" Sieve Use: <5% Retained on 3/8" WATER CONTENT OVERSIZE PARTICLE CORRECTION No Corrections Needed Tare Number 709 539 224 760 760 Wt. Tare & WS, gm.286.9 389.1 330.8 449.5 449.5 Wt. Tare & DS, gm.263.1 361.2 307.1 400.8 400.8 Percent of Oversize Rock (+3/8" Sieve) = <5% Wt. Tare, gm.96.5 196.1 182.1 181.1 181.1 (Based on As-received Screening & Soaking) Water Content, %14.3 16.9 19.0 22.2 22.2 W.C. of Finer Material, % (-3/8" Sieve) = NA DRY DENSITY vs. WATER CONTENT Water Content, %14.3 16.9 19.0 22.2 22.2 Lab Optimum Water Content, %17.6 Dry Density, pcf 100.5 103.1 102.8 99.6 99.6 Lab Maximum Dry Density, pcf 103.2 Note: Maximum Density and Optimum Water Content reported from estimated best fit smooth curve! Note: Compacted using manual hammer. Input Validation:JSJ Reviewed By:BLS Date Tested:11/28/23 COPYRIGHT © 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 WWW.GTS-LABS.COM SAMPLE SUMMARY LABORATORY TEST VALUES 95% Lab MDD = 98.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dr y D e n s i t y , p c f Water Content, % LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.Boring B-3 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 5.0' - 6.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample No.23-004710-05 Visual Description:Brown Sand WET DENSITY TEST PARAMETERS Mold ID 1046 1047 1046 1047 1047 Test Method ASTM D698 Compaction Point #1 2 3 4 5 Compaction Energy Standard Wt. Mold & WS, gm.6146 6209.4 6250.4 6270 6270 Test Procedure B Wt. Mold, gm.4404 4392 4404 4392 4392 Mold Diameter, in 4 Wt. WS, gm.1742 1817 1846 1878 1877.8 Compacted Layers 3 Mold Volume, cc 948 953 948 953 953 Blows Per Layer 25 Wet Density, gm./cc 1.84 1.91 1.95 1.97 1.97 Rammer Weight / Fall 5.5 lbs / 12 in. Wet Density, pcf 114.7 118.9 121.6 122.9 122.9 Size of Material Used -3/8" Sieve Use: <5% Retained on 3/8" WATER CONTENT OVERSIZE PARTICLE CORRECTION No Corrections Needed Tare Number 963 873 783 754 754 Wt. Tare & WS, gm.298 375.9 361.3 403.7 403.7 Wt. Tare & DS, gm.278.8 352.8 335.8 368.5 368.5 Percent of Oversize Rock (+3/8" Sieve) = <5% Wt. Tare, gm.103.9 186.2 179.2 183.9 183.9 (Based on As-received Screening & Soaking) Water Content, %11.0 13.9 16.3 19.1 19.1 W.C. of Finer Material, % (-3/8" Sieve) = NA DRY DENSITY vs. WATER CONTENT Water Content, %11.0 13.9 16.3 19.1 19.1 Lab Optimum Water Content, %15.3 Dry Density, pcf 103.3 104.4 104.5 103.2 103.2 Lab Maximum Dry Density, pcf 104.6 Note: Maximum Density and Optimum Water Content reported from estimated best fit smooth curve! Note: Compacted using manual hammer. Input Validation:JSJ Reviewed By:BLS Date Tested:11/28/23 COPYRIGHT © 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 WWW.GTS-LABS.COM SAMPLE SUMMARY LABORATORY TEST VALUES 95% Lab MDD = 99.4 95.0 100.0 105.0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Dr y D e n s i t y , p c f Water Content, % LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.Boring B-4 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 2.0' - 3.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample No.23-004710-06 Visual Description:Brown Sand WET DENSITY TEST PARAMETERS Mold ID 1047 1046 1047 1047 1047 Test Method ASTM D698 Compaction Point #1 2 3 4 5 Compaction Energy Standard Wt. Mold & WS, gm.6175 6233 6281 6288 6288 Test Procedure B Wt. Mold, gm.4392 4404 4392 4392 4392 Mold Diameter, in 4 Wt. WS, gm.1783 1829 1889 1896 1896 Compacted Layers 3 Mold Volume, cc 953 948 953 953 953 Blows Per Layer 25 Wet Density, gm./cc 1.87 1.93 1.98 1.99 1.99 Rammer Weight / Fall 5.5 lbs / 12 in. Wet Density, pcf 116.7 120.4 123.6 124.1 124.1 Size of Material Used -3/8" Sieve Use: <5% Retained on 3/8" WATER CONTENT OVERSIZE PARTICLE CORRECTION No Corrections Needed Tare Number 894 812 232 816 816 Wt. Tare & WS, gm.346.2 342.2 310.9 427.5 427.5 Wt. Tare & DS, gm.326.1 319.5 289.6 384.4 384.4 Percent of Oversize Rock (+3/8" Sieve) = <5% Wt. Tare, gm.187.4 180.9 178.7 182.1 182.1 (Based on As-received Screening & Soaking) Water Content, %14.5 16.4 19.2 21.3 21.3 W.C. of Finer Material, % (-3/8" Sieve) = NA DRY DENSITY vs. WATER CONTENT Water Content, %14.5 16.4 19.2 21.3 21.3 Lab Optimum Water Content, %18.1 Dry Density, pcf 101.9 103.5 103.7 102.3 102.3 Lab Maximum Dry Density, pcf 103.9 Note: Maximum Density and Optimum Water Content reported from estimated best fit smooth curve! Note: Compacted using manual hammer. Input Validation:JSJ Reviewed By:BLS Date Tested:11/28/23 COPYRIGHT © 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 WWW.GTS-LABS.COM SAMPLE SUMMARY LABORATORY TEST VALUES 95% Lab MDD = 98.7 95.0 100.0 105.0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Dr y D e n s i t y , p c f Water Content, % LABORATORY COMPACTION CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.Boring B-4 Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Depth 5.0' - 6.0' Project No.23-004710 Sample Bulk Lab Sample No.23-004710-07 Visual Description:Brown Sand WET DENSITY TEST PARAMETERS Mold ID 1047 1047 1046 1046 1046 Test Method ASTM D698 Compaction Point #1 2 3 4 5 Compaction Energy Standard Wt. Mold & WS, gm.6106.4 6164.1 6210.8 6201 6201 Test Procedure B Wt. Mold, gm.4392 4392 4404 4404 4404 Mold Diameter, in 4 Wt. WS, gm.1714 1772 1806 1797 1796.6 Compacted Layers 3 Mold Volume, cc 953 953 948 948 948 Blows Per Layer 25 Wet Density, gm./cc 1.80 1.86 1.91 1.90 1.90 Rammer Weight / Fall 5.5 lbs / 12 in. Wet Density, pcf 112.2 116.0 118.9 118.3 118.3 Size of Material Used -3/8" Sieve Use: <5% Retained on 3/8" WATER CONTENT OVERSIZE PARTICLE CORRECTION No Corrections Needed Tare Number 1014 868 96 Q61 Q61 Wt. Tare & WS, gm.370.6 379.5 306.9 431.2 431.2 Wt. Tare & DS, gm.352.1 355.2 283 392.1 392.1 Percent of Oversize Rock (+3/8" Sieve) = <5% Wt. Tare, gm.195.2 185.3 147.3 192.1 192.1 (Based on As-received Screening & Soaking) Water Content, %11.8 14.3 17.6 19.6 19.6 W.C. of Finer Material, % (-3/8" Sieve) = NA DRY DENSITY vs. WATER CONTENT Water Content, %11.8 14.3 17.6 19.6 19.6 Lab Optimum Water Content, %15.8 Dry Density, pcf 100.4 101.4 101.1 99.0 99.0 Lab Maximum Dry Density, pcf 101.7 Note: Maximum Density and Optimum Water Content reported from estimated best fit smooth curve! Note: Compacted using manual hammer. Input Validation:JSJ Reviewed By:BLS Date Tested:11/28/23 COPYRIGHT © 2015 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 WWW.GTS-LABS.COM SAMPLE SUMMARY LABORATORY TEST VALUES 95% Lab MDD = 96.6 95.0 100.0 105.0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Dr y D e n s i t y , p c f Water Content, % Client:Boring Client Project:Depth Project No.Sample Lab No. 0. 2 5 i n Analysis & Quality Review/Date Richard S. Lacey, P.E.12/12/2023 8.5 14.8 Normal Stress (psi)5.7 11.5 22.9 Shear Stress (psi)3.9 Displacement rate (in/min)1E-03 Pe a k Displacement, in 0.23 0.25 0.24 Normal Stress (psi)5.7 11.5 22.7 Shear Stress (psi)3.9 8.5 14.8 Co n s o l Normal Stress (psi)5.0 10.0 20.0 Duration (min)1000 1000 1000 15.4 Height (in)1.0 1.0 1.0 In i t i a l Co n d i t i o n Diameter (in)2.50 2.50 2.50 Height (in)1.00 1.00 Dry Density (pcf)96.3 96.3 96.3 1.00 Water Content (%)15.4 15.4 Specimen Number 1 2 3 0.25 in 0.8 31.8 Peak 0.8 32.1 Direct Shear Test Under Consolidated Drained Conditions (ASTM D3080) Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.B-1 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility 0.0' - 4.0' 23-004710 Bulk 23-004710-03 Strength Envelope Linear Regression Criterion C' (psi)f' (deg) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Shear Stress, (psi) Effective Normal Stress , ' (psi) Peak 0.25 in Note: Area Correction Has Been Applied 0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Shear Stress, (psi) Relative Lateral Displacement (in) 5.0 10.0 20.0 Normal Stress, (psi) -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Vertical Displ. Change (in) Relative Lateral Displacement 5.0 10.0 20.0 Normal Stress, (psi) Dilation Contraction Page 1 of 1 Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Project No.23-004710 Re s u l t Da t e T e s t e d Te s t e d B y Re s u l t mg / k g ( p p m ) Da t e T e s t e d Te s t e d B y Re s u l t , Oh m - c m Re s u l t R o u n d e d , Oh m - c m Da t e T e s t e d Te s t e d B y Av e r a g e , m V Da t e T e s t e d Te s t e d B y Re s u l t % S u l f a t e b y Ma s s Da t e T e s t e d Te s t e d B y 23-004710-08 B-2 0.0'-4.5'SS-1,2 Soil 5.5 12/7/2023 BR 34 12/7/2023 BR 23,450 23,500 12/7/2023 BR 358 12/6/2023 BR <0.02 12/8/2023 BR 23-004710-09 B-2 7.5'-10.0'Bulk Soil 5.2 12/7/2023 BR <30 12/7/2023 BR 43,550 43,600 12/7/2023 BR 319 12/6/2023 BR <0.02 12/8/2023 BR CORROSIVITY RESULTS SUMMARY AASHTO T289-91(2018)AASHTO T291-94(2018) Method B ASTM G187 ASTM G200-20 ASTM C1580-20 pH Sulfate Soil Resistivity La b S a m p l e I D Bo r i n g De p t h Sa m p l e Ma t r i x Chloride Soil ORP Input Validation: BR Reviewed By: BS Resistivity of Soils ASTM G187 (2 Electrode Method) Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Project No.23-004710 Boring B-2 B-2 Depth 0.0' - 4.5'7.5' - 10.0' Sample SS-1,2 Bulk Lab Sample ID 23-004710-08 23-00710-09 Date/Temp/Time Sampled unknown unknown Tare #512 419 Tare+WS, g 33.87 32.96 Tare+DS, g 29.46 29.03 Tare wt., g 10.73 10.68 Water Content %24%21% Resistivity Measured, Ohm-cm 35,000 65,000 Resistivity Calculated for 2 electrode box, (Resisistivity x 0.67), Ohm-cm 23,450 43,550 Resistivity Rounded, Ohm-cm 23,500 43,600 Temp. of Sample, ˚C @ Time of Testing, 19.9 21.2 Samples Tested as received saturated SOIL BOX PARAMETERS Soil Box Length, cm 11.15 Soil Box Area, cm^2 7.2 Electrode Spacing, cm 10.8 Test Performed:In Lab Soil Box Factor,cm (Area/Spacing)0.67 On Site Input Validation: BR Reviewed By: BS Nilsson Resisitivity Meter Model 400 COPYRIGHT © 2019 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 Oxidation-Reduction Potential of Soil ASTM G200-20 Client Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. Client Project 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility Project No.23-004710 Boring B-2 B-2 Depth 0.0' - 4.5'7.5' - 10.0' Sample SS-1,2 Bulk Lab Sample ID 23-004710-08 23-004710-09 Time Sampled unknown unknown Measurements Reading 1, mV 389.5 314.4 Reading 2, mV 378.2 335.3 Reading 3, mV 307.4 307.7 Average 358 319 Time 12:30 PM 12:35 PM Ambient Temp (˚C)25 25 ORP Meter Calibration Solution Manufacturer Accumet Basic Purchase Date 9/22/2023 Model #AB 15 Expiration Date 3/21/2023 Serial #AB81206922 ORP Probe Calibration Check.Units Manufacturer Sensorex Cal. Solution 200 mV Model #S500C-ORP 1st Reading 210.3 mV <30mV Difference Cal. Solution Purchase Date 10/26/2023 2nd Reading 210.7 mV <10mV difference 1st Reading Input Validation: BR Reviewed By: BS COPYRIGHT © 2021 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING SERVICES, INC. 1-800-853-7309 Client:TRI Log #: Project: Sample ID: *Sandy/Silty Material - Nominal Volume Change 221.60.0 *22.3 0.451 0.0134 107.73.4 *21.4 0.928 0.0111 56.8 5.4 *21.4 1.570 0.0060 63.7 7.5 *20.7 1.761 0.0082 Dry Density gd (pcf) 97.5 * Specimen Temperature at Measurement °C 20.1 19.9 - 0.0043 0.0073 0.0085 Thermal Conductivity W/(m﹡K) 2.297 2.107 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Thermal Dry-Back - ASTM D5334 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC)23-004710.4 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility B-3 (2.0' - 3.0'); Bulk Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Ph.D, P.E.12/15/2023 Gravimetric Water Content Thermal Resistivity w (%)°C-cm/W 16.0 Standard Error 47.5 20.9 43.5 13.5 51.220.7 9.5 52.5* 1.955 1.904 0.006820.0 * 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 Th e r m a l R e s i s t i v i t y °C-cm / W Gravimetric Water Content, w (%) Page 1 of 1 Client:TRI Log #: Project: Sample ID: *Sandy/Silty Material - Nominal Volume Change 168.00.0 *22.3 0.595 0.0178 93.72.3 *21.4 1.067 0.0177 63.1 3.9 *21.2 1.422 0.0161 70.3 5.3 *20.5 1.586 0.0165 Dry Density gd (pcf) 97.5 * Specimen Temperature at Measurement °C 19.7 19.9 - 0.0078 0.0165 0.0166 Thermal Conductivity W/(m﹡K) 2.534 1.962 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Thermal Dry-Back - ASTM D5334 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC)23-004710.5 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility B-3 (5.0' - 6.0'); Bulk Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Ph.D, P.E.12/15/2023 Gravimetric Water Content Thermal Resistivity w (%)°C-cm/W 10.9 Standard Error 51.0 14.5 39.5 9.5 52.020.8 6.7 53.0* 1.924 1.886 0.015520.1 * 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 Th e r m a l R e s i s t i v i t y °C-cm / W Gravimetric Water Content, w (%) Page 1 of 1 Client:TRI Log #: Project: Sample ID: *Sandy/Silty Material - Nominal Volume Change 9.6 53.8* 2.157 1.860 0.017319.6 * 45.9 19.4 38.8 13.9 46.420.6 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Thermal Dry-Back - ASTM D5334 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC)23-004710.6 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility B-4 (2.0' - 3.0'); Bulk Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Ph.D, P.E.12/15/2023 Gravimetric Water Content Thermal Resistivity w (%)°C-cm/W 16.0 Standard Error - 0.0049 0.0164 0.0131 Thermal Conductivity W/(m﹡K) 2.578 2.179 Dry Density gd (pcf) 97.3 * Specimen Temperature at Measurement °C 19.7 19.8 65.9 5.2 *21.0 1.611 0.0145 62.1 7.2 *20.3 1.517 0.0194 75.13.3 *21.2 1.331 0.0155 180.00.0 *22.4 0.556 0.0150 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 Th e r m a l R e s i s t i v i t y °C-cm / W Gravimetric Water Content, w (%) Page 1 of 1 Client:TRI Log #: Project: Sample ID: *Sandy/Silty Material - Nominal Volume Change 257.90.0 *22.7 0.388 0.0118 182.41.5 *21.3 0.548 0.0170 79.1 2.6 *20.9 1.010 0.0136 99.0 3.6 *20.6 1.264 0.0151 Dry Density gd (pcf) 96.7 * Specimen Temperature at Measurement °C 19.5 19.9 - 0.0082 0.0156 0.0147 Thermal Conductivity W/(m﹡K) 1.899 1.517 Analysis & Quality Review/Date Thermal Dry-Back - ASTM D5334 Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC)23-004710.7 336-406 New Hanover RNG Facility B-4 (5.0' - 6.0'); Bulk Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Ph.D, P.E.12/15/2023 Gravimetric Water Content Thermal Resistivity w (%)°C-cm/W 7.3 Standard Error 65.9 9.9 52.7 6.4 69.920.3 4.6 79.6* 1.430 1.257 0.017719.9 * 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 40 Th e r m a l R e s i s t i v i t y °C-cm / W Gravimetric Water Content, w (%) Page 1 of 1