May 13, 2016 File: 19-2697-1 Cargill Limited 300 - 240 Graham Avenue Winnipeg, M.B. R3C 4C5 Attention: Mr. Darrell Mauthe

CARGILL CANADA NORTH VANCOUVER FACILITY - POWER UPGRADE

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Dear Darrell: As requested, Thurber Engineering Ltd. (Thurber) has carried out a geotechnical investigation for the above project. This report summarizes the results of our investigation and provides geotechnical recommendations for design of the proposed substation and comments related to construction of the duct bank. It is a condition of this report that Thurber’s performance of its professional services is subject to the attached Statement of Limitations and Conditions. 1. INTRODUCTION

We understand that Cargill plans to construct a new 69 kV substation and a 12 kV duct bank at their North Vancouver grain handling facility. The substation will be located east of Annex 2, south of the railroad tracks and north of the approach embankment of the recently completed Neptune/Cargill overpass. Thurber provided preliminary recommendations for design of the proposed structures in a draft report dated December 2, 2015 based on a configuration comprising a 2 storey substation with a full basement in the north portion of the structure and a partial basement on the south side. Since then, we understand that the configuration of the substation has been revised. Accordingly, recommendations provided in this report supercede those previously provided. In late January 2016, Lex Engineering Ltd. (Lex) advised us that the substation will be reduced to a single story structure without a basement. Dwg. A1-15019-C100B provided by Lex on March 17, 2016 shows that the footprint of the substation will be nominally 18 by 18 m. A 69 kV switchgear will be situated in the northern two-thirds of the substation and 2 transformers on the southern one-third. A brick wall will be constructed to separate the 2 sections. In addition, Lex advised us that an approximately 1.2 by 2.4 m pad will be constructed outside the substation building to support a temporary generator but the final location has not yet been confirmed.

We understand that the substation will be designed in general accordance with the 2010 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC), which contemplates a 1:2,475 year design earthquake. Further, Lex advised us that the substation is expected to be operational after a major seismic event. Hence, it will be classified as a post-disaster building in accordance with the 2010 NBCC. The duct bank will be constructed between the northwest corner of the substation and the northeast corner of Annex 2 with an approximate length of 90 m. According to Lex’s

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 2 of 14

Dwg. A1-15019-C010 dated July 24, 2015, the duct bank will comprise a total of 15 PVC conduits buried in granular fill. The trench will be about 1.9 m deep and at least 1.8 m wide. The top of conduits will be at a depth of about 1.1 m. Further, Lex informed us by email on November 27, 2015 that the offset between the duct bank and the railroad tracks to the north will be about 7 m. Hence, it may be necessary to either shift the duct bank to the south nominally to meet the minimum required 7.5 m offset or to design the duct bank to withstand Cooper E80 train loading. The scope of our work was to investigate the subsurface conditions at the locations of the substation, duct bank and tap pole, and provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the substation and duct bank. The results of our assessment of soil and groundwater contamination at the duct bank are presented in a separate report. 2. PROGRAM OF WORK Thurber completed a geotechnical investigation for this project on October 29 and 30, 2015. Prior to the investigation, the proposed test hole locations were surveyed in the field by McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd. (McElhanney). To avoid conflicts with both overhead and underground services, a private utility locate contractor was retained to confirm the location of utilities in the vicinity each test hole location in advance of the drilling. It should be noted that Thurber completed applications for Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) and Canadian National Railway (CNR) permits to facilitate the investigation and that a flag person from CNR was required during drilling at the tap pole location due to close proximity to the existing CNR railroad tracks. Four test holes (THs 15-1 to 15-4) were advanced to depths of about 4.6 to 16.8 m using a track-mounted solid stem auger drill operated by On Track Drilling Inc. As shown on Dwg. 19-2697-1-1, TH 15-1 was advanced at the tap pole location, TH 15-2 at the substation location and THs 15-3 and 15-4 along the duct bank alignment. It should be noted that TH 15-2 was terminated at about 16.8 m depth in a coarse granular layer due to auger refusal. Cone penetration test (CPT 15-2) profiling was carried out to about 14.3 m depth adjacent to TH 15-2 by Schwartz Soil Tech. Shear wave velocities were measured in addition to conventional CPT profiling. It should be noted that CPT refusal was encountered in coarse granular soils at about 5.5, 8 and 14.3 depth. Drill-outs were completed at 5.5 and 8 m depth to further advanced the CPT. Due to time and budget constraints, no further drill-out was conducted at 14.3 m depth, where the CPT was terminated. Dynamic cone penetration test (DCPT) profiling was completed at TH 15-1. DCPT refusal was encountered at about 4.3 m depth due to the presence of coarse granular deposits. Soil and groundwater conditions in the test holes were logged in the field by an experienced geotechnical technician. Representative disturbed soil samples were collected from the auger flights for routine moisture content testing and visual classification in our laboratory. Upon

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 3 of 14

completion of drilling and CPT and DCPT profiling, all holes were backfilled with drill cuttings and sealed in general accordance with B.C. Groundwater Protection Regulations. 3. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION The results of the investigation and laboratory testing are presented on the enclosed test hole and CPT logs. The logs provide a complete, detailed description of the conditions encountered in the investigation and must be used in preference to the generalized descriptions given below. The interpreted soil descriptions given on the CPT log are empirically correlated to CPT data and may vary from the actual soil conditions encountered. In general, the soil conditions encountered comprised variable fill over marine/beach deposits to the depth investigated. The fill was typically about 4 to 5 m thick and generally comprised sand and gravel with variable amounts of silt, organic material and wood and brick fragments. At the tap pole location (TH 15-1), the fill appeared to be compact to dense. However, based on our experience elsewhere at the Cargill facility, the fill is generally expected to be loose to compact. Below the fill, the marine/beach deposit was encountered to the maximum depth of the investigation and comprised loose to compact sand with variable amounts of silt and gravel and some shell fragments. At the substation location (TH 15-2), layers of sand and gravel were encountered between depths of about 5.2 and 7 m and about 13.7 to 16.8 m. Layers of sand and silt were also present. Further, courtesy of Vancouver Pile Driving (Vanpile), the piling contractor for the Neptune/Cargill overpass project, available pile driving records suggest that, although not encountered in our test holes, cobbles and boulders are likely present within this unit. Based on our previous investigation at the maintenance shop building located approximately 180 m southwest of the substation, the marine/beach deposits likely extend to a depth of about 24 m, below which a dense sand layer is anticipated. Till-like soil was not encountered in the previous or current investigations. Further, available pile driving records for the overpass south abutment, located approximately 100 m northeast of the substation, indicate that the piles were terminated at about 18 m of embedment on average. We assume that the depth to the dense sand layer at the substation location will be between about 18 and 24 m depth. Groundwater was not encountered in the open test holes during drilling. Groundwater levels can be expected to vary with drainage, infiltration and tidal levels and could be relatively shallow. Mean groundwater elevation is anticipated to be similar to mean sea level (i.e. at about Geodetic El. 0 m). 4. SEISMIC ASSESSMENT 4.1 Liquefaction or Strain-Softening Potential An analysis to evaluate the potential for liquefaction of soils at the substation was carried out using the CPT-based simplified approach outlined in the 2007 Task Force Report. The resistance

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 4 of 14

to liquefaction (i.e. the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR)) was estimated using a correlation by Idriss and Boulanger (2008 and 2014). The shear stress triggering liquefaction (i.e. the cyclic stress ratio (CSR)) was estimated using the estimated peak ground acceleration at the surface and empirical correlations for the shape of the CSR profile with depth. For design purposes, we assumed a mean groundwater level at 4 m depth below ground surface in the analysis. The analysis indicates that the majority of the granular deposit, except for dense gravelly layers, and the sand and silt layers that were encountered below the mean groundwater level will liquefy or experience strain-softening in the 1:2,475 year design earthquake. 4.2 Potential Risks Associated with Liquefaction or Strain Softening In general, liquefaction poses a risk to grade-supported facilities due to the potential of crust rupture, post-liquefaction settlement due to reconsolidation of the liquefied sand, or lateral spreading due to the presence of a static bias (grade differential relative to surrounding area) or the proximity to a free face. At the substation location, we envisage that the primary risk associated with liquefaction or strain-softening will be post-liquefaction settlement due to reconsolidation of the liquefied sand. For design purposes, we estimate that free-field post-liquefaction settlement could be in the order of 300 to 600 mm without ground improvement. Regarding liquefaction-induced lateral deformations, the magnitude typically decreases with increasing distance from the foreshore. As the Cargill facility is bounded by Burrard Inlet to the south, slopes and retaining structures at the shore of Burrard Inlet are anticipated to be susceptible to flow slides (i.e. large uncontrolled displacement events) given the estimated thickness of the zone of liquefaction susceptible soils. However, the lateral extent of flow slide cannot be confidently estimated at this stage as it involves a much larger area that would require an extensive investigation and analysis effort which is not within our current scope of work. As the substation will be situated at least 150 to 200 m from the nearest foreshore slope, we expect that the substation will be outside the flow slide zone but will experience free-field lateral soil displacement, albeit relatively small. 4.3 Mitigation Options As the substation is intended to be operational after the design earthquake, the foundation option selected will depend on the tolerance of the structure and ancillary facilities to deformation. The following two foundations options were discussed during the initial design phase of the project:

1. Pile-supported foundation with pile caps connected by grade beams 2. Mat foundation in conjunction with in-situ densification such as stone columns or

compaction piles to reduce post-liquefaction settlement

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 5 of 14

Based on your requirement for control of seismic displacement, it is our opinion that either foundation Options 1 or 2 will be appropriate for the substation. Accordingly, recommendations for these two options are provided in the sections below. 5. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 69 kV Substation Foundation Option 1 – Piles

Axial Compressive Resistance To take advantage of the available end bearing resistance from the dense stratum, we consider closed-ended steel pipe piles to be suitable to support the substation. As previously discussed, coarse-grained soils such as gravel, cobbles and boulders may be present above the dense stratum, pre-drilling may be required to facilitate the use of closed-ended steel pipe piles. Additional information is provided in Section 5.7. As the steel pipe piles will be installed through fill and will likely be exposed to saline water, the potential for corrosion must be considered in the structural design of piles. As suggested by Lex, Thurber initially evaluated the compressive resistances of 324, 356 and 406 mm outside diameter piles (OD). Based on subsequent discussions with Lex, we understand that 457 mm OD diameter steel pipe piles with 15.9 mm thick walls were considered. The wall thickness includes a sacrificial steel allowance for corrosion. Accordingly, we estimate that 457 x 15.9 mm closed-ended steel pipe piles driven 3 to 6 pile diameters into the dense soil that is anticipated below about 18 to 24 m depth will likely develop a factored axial compressive resistance of about 1,450 kN under non-liquefaction conditions. This value includes a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.4. For reference, 610 x 19 mm steel pipes piles at the south abutment of the Neptune/Cargill overpass were driven closed-ended to between 16.8 and 21.3 m embedment, with an average of about 18 m. Construction challenges for installation of closed-ended steel pipe piles are described in Section 5.7.1. Consideration may be given to using open-ended steel pipe piles to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential risk associated with pile installation. For discussion purposes, an axial compressive resistance similar to the closed-ended piles may be developed for the open-ended piles. However, the required pile embedment length into the dense soil may be significantly longer. Additional information can be provided, if required.

Lateral Resistance A lateral pile analysis was completed for the proposed 457 x 15.9 mm steel pipes using the computer program LPILE Plus 5.0. In the absence of specific loading conditions, lateral loads from 100 to 1000 kN were applied at the head of a single pile to evaluate deflections, bending moments and shear forces in the pile. For reference, all cases were completed using elastic

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 6 of 14

properties for the piles (Epile = 200 GPa and Ipile = 4.4 x 10-4 m4) and assuming a fixed head rotation condition for the pile. Two LPILE cases were analysed. Case 1 was completed using peak soil strength parameters which represents static and seismic conditions prior to onset of liquefaction. Case 2 was completed using reduced soil strength parameters which is applicable for seismic conditions after liquefaction occurs. The results are presented in Figures 1 and 2 and should be reviewed by Lex. Further input that incorporates the design loads and pile group configurations can be provided, if required.

Estimated Settlement The pile-supported structure is expected to experience small (i.e. <25 mm) settlement under non-seismic loading conditions. Although placement of site grading fill surrounding the substation is not anticipated, there may still be some nominal differential settlement (perhaps 25 mm) between the pile supported structure and the adjacent grades. Under seismic loading conditions, some of the soils adjacent to the pile supported structure will liquefy and settle, as described in Section 4, while the pile-supported structure will settle less. Assuming that liquefaction susceptible soils are absent below about 24 m depth and that the structure is situated outside of the flow slide zone, post-seismic settlement of the pile supported structure is expected to be relatively small (<50 mm). For design purposes, differential settlement between the pile supported structure and the adjacent grades or grade-supported structures should be taken as 100% of the total (i.e. 300 to 600 mm as discussed in Section 4).

Pile Group Interaction Effects For design of pile groups, we recommend that the pile spacing be no closer than 3 pile diameters (3D) centre-to-centre. For lateral pile design purposes, it is preferable to increase the pile spacing to at least 5D.

Slab on Grade If the floor slab is supported on grade, we recommend that a vapour barrier and a minimum 150 mm thick base course of clean, well-grade, minus 19 mm crushed sand and gravel be provided below the slab on grade. Both the base course and the exposed granular subgrade should be compacted to 100% standard Proctor maximum dry density (SPMDD). Conventional perimeter drains should be provided.

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 7 of 14

5.2 69kV Substation Foundation Option 2 – Mat Foundation with Ground Improvement

Ground Improvement Considering the project requirements, it is our opinion that vibro-replacement using stone columns is probably the most suitable ground improvement method for the site. Alternatively, compaction piles could be used. However, compaction piles may be more costly and more difficult to adapt to changing or unexpected subsurface conditions than stone columns. We recommend providing a densified zone under the entire mat foundation and extending at least 3 m beyond the edges of the mat. The required depth of the ground improvement will depend on how much seismic settlement can be tolerated, as described below. Ground improvement using stone columns is typically issued for tender as a performance specification. Accordingly, the configuration of the stone columns and the effort used to install them are determined by the ground improvement contractor. Typically, area replacement ratios of about 20% is used to sufficiently densify liquefiable soil with 0.9 to 1.0 m diameter stone columns. For stone columns in a triangular layout, the area replacement ratio of 20% corresponds to centre-to-centre spacing equal to about 3 column diameters. Testing should be carried out within stone column installation zone before and after installation of the columns to confirm that the required degree of ground improvement is attained. Testing should be carried out to the full depth of the improvement zone. Because the CPT that was attempted during the investigation encountered refusal, the testing program should comprise mud-rotary drilling with standard penetration tests (SPTs). SPTs provide an indication of the in-situ density of granular soil and can be used to evaluate its resistance to liquefaction (i.e. CRR). SPTs must follow ASTM D6066 and be accompanied with SPT energy measurements to correct the SPT N-values to the actual energy delivered by the SPT hammer. In order to provide the required CRR, the minimum required energy corrected SPT N values are provided as follows:

Depth (m)

Minimum Required Energy Corrected SPT N values

Soils with Fines Content less than 5%

Soils with Fines Content between 5% and 15%

1 18 15

2 20 16

3 21 17

4 23 18

5 24 19

6 26 20

7 29 23

8 31 25

9 34 27

10 36 29

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 8 of 14

11 38 31

12 40 32

13 41 34

14 43 35

15 44 36

16 46 37

17 47 38

18 48 39

19 49 40

20 50 41

Because the stone column work will be issued for tender as a performance specification, it should the responsibility of the contractor to carry out the confirmatory testing. Additional input for the confirmatory testing requirements will be provided by Thurber during the tender phase of the project. Thurber should review the contractor’s proposed confirmatory testing plan prior to stone column installation.

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction The 3-dimensional finite element modelling software program PLAXIS 3D was used to estimate an equivalent modulus of subgrade reaction. We evaluated the modulus of subgrade reaction based on ground improvement being carried out to a depth of 10 m and also assumed there is a rigid boundary at a depth of 10 m. As directed by Lex, the mat foundation was modelled assuming that it would be 0.61 m thick and used the full moment of inertia of the concrete section for its stiffness. The loads and structural configuration of the substation were provided by Lex on a marked-up version of Dwg. A1-15019-C100B. The modulus of subgrade reaction is a conceptual linear soil spring that does not have a unique value. It is not a soil property, but does depend on soil properties as well as upon many other factors. Some factors affecting the modulus of subgrade reaction include the subsurface soil profile, soil properties, the size and shape of the loaded area, the distribution of the loads, the stiffness of the foundation and the assumed depth to a rigid boundary. The results of the analysis indicate that the modulus of subgrade reaction under the raft slab is not a constant value and depends on the locations of the individual conceptual soil springs. Inside the perimeter of the slab we estimate the modulus of subgrade reaction to be about 5 MPa/m. Within about 1 m of the edges of the slab these modulus values should be doubled and within about 1 m of the corners of the slab they should be tripled. Accordingly, for modulus of subgrade reaction used for structural design of the slab should be taken as 10 and 15 MPa/m within 1 m of the edges and corners of the slabs, respectively. It should be noted that if the depth to a rigid boundary is assumed to be greater than 10 m depth, the modulus of subgrade reaction will be less than these estimates and if it is shallower than 10 m

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 9 of 14

depth it will be greater. As such, we recommend assessing the effects of using moduli of subgrade reactions equal to one-half and double of the estimates provided. These moduli are suitable for structural design of the slab for non-seismic conditions. They are intended for structural modeling of the proposed raft slab only and are not suitable for evaluating settlement. Seismic design of the slab should also consider the structural demands resulting from seismic settlement estimates provided below.

Settlement Settlement will occur due to compression and deformation of subgrade soil under non-seismic loads. Additional settlement will occur under seismic loading conditions due to reconsolidation and shear deformation of the liquefied soil below the zone of ground improvement. The PLAXIS 3D model indicated a maximum net bearing pressure (i.e. increase due to the loads provided) of a 50 kPa at the underside of the mat foundation. For the proposed substation configuration and loads with minimum ground improvement depth of 10 m, settlement under non-seismic conditions is anticipated to be less than 10 mm. The performance of large mat foundations on granular soil is deformation controlled (i.e. service limit states (SLS)) and not controlled by stability (i.e. ultimate limit states resistance (ULS)). For design purposes and to satisfy the requirements of the NBCC, the ULS resistance can be taken as 50 kPa. The amount of reconsolidation settlement that is anticipated to occur after liquefaction depends on the depth of the ground improvement. Post-liquefaction reconsolidation settlements are estimated to be about 300 and 150 mm for ground improvement depths of 10 and 16 m, respectively. The PLAXIS model indicates that shear deformations could result in an additional 50 mm of settlement for both of these ground improvement depths. We recommend taking the differential settlements as one-half of the total settlements over the width of the mat foundation for both the seismic and non-seismic cases.

Spring Coefficients We understand that spring coefficients are required for seismic design of shallow foundations. We assume that the stiffness parameters will be estimated using Gazetas 1991 (see attached), which requires geotechnical inputs of shear modulus (G) and Poisson’s ration (v). Provided that ground improvement is completed as described in Section 5.2.1, we estimate that the small strain shear modulus (Gmax) and Poisson’s ratio will be about 50 to 100 MPa and 0.3, respectively, for shallow foundations founded on densified soils. To adjust the small strain shear modulus for the level of shearing strain in the 1:2,475 design earthquake, a G/Gmax ratio of 0.25 can be used.

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 10 of 14

Sliding Resistance As the mat foundation will be supported on grade, recommendations provided in Section 5.1.5 are considered applicable. As discussed in Section 5.1.5, a conventional poly vapour barrier is recommended below the slab supported on grade as part of the underslab drainage to reduce the risk of moisture wicking into the slab and creating mat surface dampness through capillary action. However, we understand that it may be necessary to delete the vapour barrier for structural design requirements. Deletion of the vapour barrier will increase the risk of damp slab conditions, From a geotechnical perspective, an 150 mm thick layer of 25 mm clear crushed gravel, in lieu of base course material, could be used as capillary break layer below the underside of the mat to reduce the potential risk of damp slab conditions without a conventional vapour barrier. Alternatively, consideration could be given to using a different type of concrete that would be more resistant to the transmission of moisture. This should be confirmed by the structural engineers. For design purposes, an ultimate (unfactored) sliding resistance can be estimated using a coefficient of friction of 0.7. 5.3 Seismic Site Classification The interpolated seismic hazard values for the project site were determined using Natural Resource Canada’s (NRC’s) 2010 National Building Code of Canada online seismic hazard calculation for Site Class C. The results are attached for reference. The 1:2,475 year design earthquake corresponds to 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years.

For design of the substation, the following seismic site classification can be used:

• Site Class E can be used for Foundation Option 1 or Foundation Option 2 with ground improvement to 10 m depth provided that the fundamental period of vibration of the structure is less than 0.5 s as noted in Section 4.1.8.4(6) of the 2010 NBCC. If the structure’s fundamental period is greater than 0.5 s, a site-specific response analysis will be required. The estimated peak ground acceleration at the surface for Site Class E will be about 0.4g for the 1:2,475 year design earthquake.

• Site Class C can only be used for Foundation Option 2 if ground improvement extends into the dense sand layer estimated to be about 18 to 24 m depth. The corresponding peak ground acceleration at the surface for Site Class C will be 0.448g for the 1:2,475 year design earthquake.

5.4 Concrete Pad The location of the concrete pad is uncertain. Depending on the foundation option selected for the substation, the concrete pad may be founded on unimproved soil, ground improved zone or combination of both. Provided that the subgrade is prepared as recommended in Section 5.7.3,

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 11 of 14

the footing can be designed using a bearing resistance of 150 and 200 kPa under Serviceability and Ultimate Limit States (SLS and ULS) loading conditions, respectively. The concrete pad should be sized with a minimum width of at least 600 mm. Settlement of the concrete pad under non-seismic loading conditions is expected to be relatively small (<25 mm). From a geotechnical perspective, it would be preferable to situate the concrete pad entirely on either the unimproved or improved soils so that it does not straddle the 2 zones. Typically, a depth of cover of 450 mm to underside of footing below exterior grades should be provided for frost protection. Alternatively, consideration could be given to placing a layer of non-frost susceptible soil comprising minus 19 mm crushed sand and gravel or similar below the footing to reduce the minimum required burial depth. Given the minimum burial depth, passive resistance is typically ignored. If necessary, an ultimate (unfactored) sliding resistance can be estimated using a coefficient friction of 0.5 assuming that the concrete pad is founded directly on sand fill. If a 150 mm thick minus 19 mm crushed sand and gravel layer is provided below the underside of the concrete pad, the coefficient friction can be increased to 0.7. 5.5 12 kV Duct Bank In general, we anticipate that the 12 kV duct bank will be designed in general accordance with the latest version of CSA-C22.3 No.7 for Underground Systems. Accordingly, the minimum required burial depth, compaction requirements for backfill, etc. should follow CSA-C22.3 No. 7. Lex indicated that the duct bank may need to be designed to withstand Cooper E80 train loading. From a geotechnical perspective, the system comprising PVC conduits directly buried in granular fill without concrete encasement is considered to be relatively flexible. Accordingly, we do not envisage geotechnical input related to Cooper E80 train loading will be required for the duct bank design. Additional information can be provided, if required. Assuming that there is no change in site grades along the duct bank alignment and that the granular backfill has a similar weight to that of the existing fill, construction of the duct bank will result in no net load increase. Accordingly, we envisage that construction of the duct bank will likely induce relatively small settlement, if any, along the alignment. However, due to the presence of woodwaste or organic matter within zone of the groundwater fluctuation below the duct bank, some settlement due to degradation of woodwaste or organic matter should be anticipated. However, the magnitude of this settlement cannot be confidently estimated. 5.6 Pavement Structure In the absence of site specific traffic loading conditions and a design service life of the pavement structure, we suggest a minimum pavement structure for on-site roads and truck parking areas based on our experience as follows:

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 12 of 14

75 mm Asphalt pavement 150 mm Minus 20 mm crushed gravel base 300 mm Pit run sand and gravel sub-base The pavement subgrade is expected to comprise granular fill. Accordingly, the exposed subgrade should be heavily compacted to a dense and unyielding condition prior to placement of pavement sub-base. The gradation of the imported granular base and sub-base should conform to the Master Municipal Construction Document (MMCD) specifications. The base and sub-base should be compacted to at least 98% SPMDD. 5.7 Construction Considerations

Pile Installation Due to the presence of coarse granular soils comprising gravel, cobbles or boulders, it may be difficult to drive steel pipe piles to the required bearing stratum. The contractor should be made aware that difficult driving conditions may be encountered and that they should have a methodology and equipment capable of installing the piles to the required bearing stratum to develop the required resistance. For planning purposes, pile installation may require a combination of driving and drilling to remove cobbles or boulders where present. Regardless, the piles must be seated using an impact hammer. For the proposed 457 x 15.9 mm steel pipe piles, the driving energy should be limited to 135 kJ to reduce the likelihood of pile damage during driving. For planning purposes, we believe that an APE D30-52 diesel hammer or equivalent could be used to advance the piles. Use of a smaller hammer is not recommended. To confirm the available pile resistance, consideration should be given to conducting high-strain dynamic testing (HSDT), commonly known as Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) testing, at the end of initial driving. For reference, conducting HSDT will allow the use of a geotechnical resistance factor of 0.5. Thurber should be given the opportunity to review the proposed pile driving hammer, driving assembly and methodology prior to mobilization of the equipment to assess compatibility with proposed pile and ground conditions at the site. This information, in conjunction with the HSDT results, will be used to develop the required penetration resistance or termination criteria. Full-time inspection by Thurber will be required during pile installation. It should be noted that pile driving will generate noise, cause vibration and potentially result in settlement. Accordingly, a pre-construction survey should be carried out and vibration and settlement monitoring should be conducted at nearby critical structures such as the existing Neptune/Cargill overpass during pile installation.

Client: Cargill Limited Date: May 13, 2016 File No.: 19-2697-1 E-File: b_cn_ltr_geotechnical report_final Page 13 of 14

Stone Column Installation Installation method, diameter and spacing for the stone columns will be determined by the specialist contractor in order to meet the required performance criteria provided in Section 5.2.1. The specialist contractor should be made aware of the potential presence of cobbles and boulders, which may affect installation of stone columns, and should have equipment capable of installing the stone columns to the minimum required depth. Full-time inspection by Thurber will be required during stone column installation. Similar to piling, stone column installation will also generate noise and vibration. Please see Section 5.7.1 for additional information.

Subgrade Preparation Substation and Concrete Pad Subgrade preparation will be required for the slab on grade if the pile option is selected, the mat foundation upon completion of stone column installation and the concrete pad. In general, the exposed granular subgrade surface should be heavily compacted using a large, smooth drum vibratory roller to a dense and unyielding condition. Any soft, wet or other unsuitable materials at subgrade level should be subexcavated and replaced with well compacted structural fill Structural fill should comprise clean (less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve), well graded sand and gravel, placed in maximum 300 mm thick lifts using heavy equipment and compacted to at least 98% SPMDD. Subgrade preparation, fill placement or compaction should be inspected by Thurber prior to foundation construction. 12kV Duct Bank The bottom of the trench will be at about 1.9 m depth. According to THs 15-3 and 15-4, the duct bank will be immediately underlain by fill comprising sand to sand and gravel with variable amounts of silt, organics, woodwaste or debris. Some of the subgrade soils may be susceptible to disturbance when subject to equipment or foot traffic, especially if the base of the excavation is at or below groundwater level. Accordingly, consideration should be given to placing a nominal thickness (50 mm) of clear crushed gravel or a skim coat of lean-mix concrete for protection purposes. Further, consideration should be given to placing a layer of non-woven geotextile (Nilex 4552 or approved equivalent) at the subgrade level to reduce the potential risk of particle migration due to groundwater fluctuation and “pumping” during compaction of the trench backfill.

STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

1. STANDARD OF CARE

This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering or environmental consulting practices in the applicable jurisdiction. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is intended or made.

2. COMPLETE REPORT

All documents, records, data and files, whether electronic or otherwise, generated as part of this assignment are a part of the Report, which is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Thurber by the Client, communications between Thurber and the Client, and any other reports, proposals or documents prepared by Thurber for the Client relative to the specific site described herein, all of which together constitute the Report.

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN, REFERENCE MUST BE MADE TO THE WHOLE OF THE REPORT. THURBER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR USE BY ANY PARTY OF PORTIONS OF THE REPORT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE WHOLE REPORT.

3. BASIS OF REPORT

The Report has been prepared for the specific site, development, design objectives and purposes that were described to Thurber by the Client. The applicability and reliability of any of the findings, recommendations, suggestions, or opinions expressed in the Report, subject to the limitations provided herein, are only valid to the extent that the Report expressly addresses proposed development, design objectives and purposes, and then only to the extent that there has been no material alteration to or variation from any of the said descriptions provided to Thurber, unless Thurber is specifically requested by the Client to review and revise the Report in light of such alteration or variation.

4. USE OF THE REPORT

The information and opinions expressed in the Report, or any document forming part of the Report, are for the sole benefit of the Client. NO OTHER PARTY MAY USE OR RELY UPON THE REPORT OR ANY PORTION THEREOF WITHOUT THURBER’S WRITTEN CONSENT AND SUCH USE SHALL BE ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THURBER MAY EXPRESSLY APPROVE. Ownership in and copyright for the contents of the Report belong to Thurber. Any use which a third party makes of the Report, is the sole responsibility of such third party. Thurber accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages suffered by any third party resulting from use of the Report without Thurber’s express written permission.

5. INTERPRETATION OF THE REPORT

a) Nature and Exactness of Soil and Contaminant Description: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, geological units, contaminant materials and quantities have been based on investigations performed in accordance with the standards set out in Paragraph 1. Classification and identification of these factors are judgmental in nature. Comprehensive sampling and testing programs implemented with the appropriate equipment by experienced personnel may fail to locate some conditions. All investigations utilizing the standards of Paragraph 1 will involve an inherent risk that some conditions will not be detected and all documents or records summarizing such investigations will be based on assumptions of what exists between the actual points sampled. Actual conditions may vary significantly between the points investigated and the Client and all other persons making use of such documents or records with our express written consent should be aware of this risk and the Report is delivered subject to the express condition that such risk is accepted by the Client and such other persons. Some conditions are subject to change over time and those making use of the Report should be aware of this possibility and understand that the Report only presents the conditions at the sampled points at the time of sampling. If special concerns exist, or the Client has special considerations or requirements, the Client should disclose them so that additional or special investigations may be undertaken which would not otherwise be within the scope of investigations made for the purposes of the Report.

b) Reliance on Provided Information: The evaluation and conclusions contained in the Report have been prepared on the basis of conditions in evidence at the time of site inspections and on the basis of information provided to Thurber. Thurber has relied in good faith upon representations, information and instructions provided by the Client and others concerning the site. Accordingly, Thurber does not accept responsibility for any deficiency, misstatement or inaccuracy contained in the Report as a result of misstatements, omissions, misrepresentations, or fraudulent acts of the Client or other persons providing information relied on by Thurber. Thurber is entitled to rely on such representations, information and instructions and is not required to carry out investigations to determine the truth or accuracy of such representations, information and instructions.

c) Design Services: The Report may form part of design and construction documents for information purposes even though it may have been issued prior to final design being completed. Thurber should be retained to review final design, project plans and related documents prior to construction to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of the Report. Any differences that may exist between the Report’s recommendations and the final design detailed in the contract documents should be reported to Thurber immediately so that Thurber can address potential conflicts.

d) Construction Services: During construction Thurber should be retained to provide field reviews. Field reviews consist of performing sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions in order to confirm and document that the site conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of the report. Adequate field reviews are necessary for Thurber to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities.

6. RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Geotechnical engineering and environmental consulting projects often have the potential to encounter pollutants or hazardous substances and the potential to cause the escape, release or dispersal of those substances. Thurber shall have no liability to the Client under any circumstances, for the escape, release or dispersal of pollutants or hazardous substances, unless such pollutants or hazardous substances have been specifically and accurately identified to Thurber by the Client prior to the commencement of Thurber’s professional services.

7. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS OF CLIENT

The information, interpretations and conclusions in the Report are based on Thurber’s interpretation of conditions revealed through limited investigation conducted within a defined scope of services. Thurber does not accept responsibility for independent conclusions, interpretations, interpolations and/or decisions of the Client, or others who may come into possession of the Report, or any part thereof, which may be based on information contained in the Report. This restriction of liability includes but is not limited to decisions made to develop, purchase or sell land.

HKH/LG_Dec 2014

15-4

15-1

15-3

15-2

S:\D

ata\P

rojects\19\2000-2999\2697\1\D

rafting\V

ED

03412.dw

g

CA

NC

EL P

RIN

TS

B

EA

RIN

G E

AR

LIE

R LE

TT

ER

Plotted: M

ay 11, 2016

ABTHIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF THURBER AND MAY CONTAIN PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. WRITTEN APPROVAL MUST BE GIVEN BY THURBER PRIOR TO ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN BEING USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH IT WAS ISSUED.

SEAL

DWG. No.PROJECT No. REV.

DATE SCALE

DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVEDCLIENT

CARGILL LIMITED

TEST HOLE LOCATIONS

CARGILL POWER UPGRADENORTH VANCOUVER, BC

CN JJP CN

MAY 11, 2016 AS SHOWN

19-2697-1-11

LEGEND: NOTES:

1. BASE PLAN TAKEN FROM DWG. A1-15019-C001

RECEIVED BY LEX ENGINEERING LTD. ON APRIL 8,

2016.

2. TEST HOLE LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

TEST HOLE

0025 50 75m

N

Rev 1. Updated base plan.

Compact to dense, brown GRAVEL and SANDwith a trace of silt (Fill).

Compact to dense, grey-brown, gravelly SANDwith a trace of silt (Fill).

Grey-brown SAND with some gravel.

End of hole at auger refusal.

Dynamic ConePenetration Test(DCPT)

DCPT refusal at238 blows/300 mm

GW-GM/SW-SM

SW-SM

SP-SM

SP-SM

North Vancouver Facility - Power Upgrade

SOILS DESCRIPTION

See Dwg. 19-2697-1-1

COMMENTS

15-1

Remolded

TEST HOLE NO.

Passing #200 sieve GASTECH reading

Sheet 1 of 1

Solid Stem Auger

(blows/300 mm)

PENETRATION

LiquidPlasticDisturbedUndisturbed Peak

Limit

WATERCONTENT (%)

WATER LEVEL

October 30, 2015

19-2697-1

ResidualNo Recovery

METHOD:

DRILLING CO.:

INSPECTOR: SRC

CLIENT:PROJECT:

DATE:

On-Track Drilling Inc.

GRAIN SIZE (%)

Passing #4 sieve

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PID reading

FILE NO.:

Undisturbed

Disturbed

UNDRAINED SHEARSTRENGTH (kPa)

SAMPLES

LOCATION:

Limit

SOIL HEADSPACE READING (ppm)

Cargill Ltd.

TOP OF HOLE ELEV: N/A

LOG OF TEST HOLELOG OF TEST HOLE

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LOG

OF

TE

ST

HO

LE (

DE

PT

H O

NLY

) 1

9-26

97-1

.GP

J T

HU

RB

ER

BC

.GD

T 2

/12/

15-

TH

UR

BE

R B

C.G

LB

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DRAFT

Grey, gravelly SAND with some silt.

- grey-brown below 1.8 m

- grey with occasional sandy silt zones below2.7 m

Compact, dark grey SAND with some silt, a traceto some organics, a trace of gravel andoccasional red brick fragments.

Compact, grey-black mixture of SILT, SAND andORGANICS with a trace to some gravel.

Grey SAND and GRAVEL with traces of silt andshell fragments.

Loose to compact, grey, shelly SAND with somesilt and gravel and a trace of organics.

Grey, gravelly SAND with some shell fragmentsand silt and a trace of organics.

Grey-brown SILT and fine SAND with someorganics and traces of gravel and shell fragments.

Compact, grey-brown SAND with some gravel andsilt and traces of organics and shell fragments.

SM

SM

SM

SM

SM/OL

GW-GM

SM

SM

ML/SM

SM

North Vancouver Facility - Power Upgrade

SOILS DESCRIPTION

See Dwg. 19-2697-1-1

COMMENTS

15-2

Remolded

TEST HOLE NO.

Passing #200 sieve GASTECH reading

Sheet 1 of 2

Solid Stem Auger

(blows/300 mm)

PENETRATION

LiquidPlasticDisturbedUndisturbed Peak

Limit

WATERCONTENT (%)

WATER LEVEL

October 29, 2015

19-2697-1

ResidualNo Recovery

METHOD:

DRILLING CO.:

INSPECTOR: SRC

CLIENT:PROJECT:

DATE:

On-Track Drilling Inc.

GRAIN SIZE (%)

Passing #4 sieve

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PID reading

FILE NO.:

Undisturbed

Disturbed

UNDRAINED SHEARSTRENGTH (kPa)

SAMPLES

LOCATION:

Limit

SOIL HEADSPACE READING (ppm)

Cargill Ltd.

TOP OF HOLE ELEV: N/A

LOG OF TEST HOLELOG OF TEST HOLE

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LOG

OF

TE

ST

HO

LE (

DE

PT

H O

NLY

) 1

9-26

97-1

.GP

J T

HU

RB

ER

BC

.GD

T 2

/12/

15-

TH

UR

BE

R B

C.G

LB

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DRAFT

Compact, grey-brown SAND with some gravel andsilt and traces of organics and shell fragments.

Loose to compact, grey, shelly SAND with somesilt and traces of gravel and organics.

Compact, grey, silty SAND with some shellfragments and traces of gravel and organics.

Loose to compact, grey, fine SAND and SILT withtraces of gravel, shell fragments and organics.

Compact, grey-brown, silty SAND with some shellfragments and a trace of gravel.

Compact, brown, silty, gravelly SAND.- soil inferred from 13.7 to 15.2 m

- dense below 14.3 m

End of hole due to very difficult drilling (augerrefusal).

Very poor recoveryfrom 13.7 to 15.2 m

SM

SM

SM/ML

SM

SM

North Vancouver Facility - Power Upgrade

SOILS DESCRIPTION

See Dwg. 19-2697-1-1

COMMENTS

15-2

Remolded

TEST HOLE NO.

Passing #200 sieve GASTECH reading

Sheet 2 of 2

Solid Stem Auger

(blows/300 mm)

PENETRATION

LiquidPlasticDisturbedUndisturbed Peak

Limit

WATERCONTENT (%)

WATER LEVEL

October 29, 2015

19-2697-1

ResidualNo Recovery

METHOD:

DRILLING CO.:

INSPECTOR: SRC

CLIENT:PROJECT:

DATE:

On-Track Drilling Inc.

GRAIN SIZE (%)

Passing #4 sieve

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PID reading

FILE NO.:

Undisturbed

Disturbed

UNDRAINED SHEARSTRENGTH (kPa)

SAMPLES

LOCATION:

Limit

SOIL HEADSPACE READING (ppm)

Cargill Ltd.

TOP OF HOLE ELEV: N/A

LOG OF TEST HOLELOG OF TEST HOLE

DE

PT

H (

m)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

LOG

OF

TE

ST

HO

LE (

DE

PT

H O

NLY

) 1

9-26

97-1

.GP

J T

HU

RB

ER

BC

.GD

T 2

/12/

15-

TH

UR

BE

R B

C.G

LB

DE

PT

H (

m)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10

DE

PT

H (

m)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10

DRAFT

Grey-brown, woody SAND with some gravel andsilt.

Grey GRAVEL and SAND with some silt and atrace of organics.

Grey, fine SAND with some silt and a trace ofgravel.Grey-black mixture of ORGANICS, SAND andGRAVEL with some silt and traces of organic siltand red brick fragments.

Grey-brown, woody SAND with some silt andgravel.

Grey-brown mixture of WOOD and SAND withsome silt and gravel.

End of hole at required depth.

SM

GM/SM

SM

WOOD/SM/GM

OL/SM

WOOD/SM

North Vancouver Facility - Power Upgrade

SOILS DESCRIPTION

See Dwg. 19-2697-1-1

COMMENTS

15-3

Remolded

TEST HOLE NO.

Passing #200 sieve GASTECH reading

Sheet 1 of 1

Solid Stem Auger

(blows/300 mm)

PENETRATION

LiquidPlasticDisturbedUndisturbed Peak

Limit

WATERCONTENT (%)

WATER LEVEL

October 30, 2015

19-2697-1

ResidualNo Recovery

METHOD:

DRILLING CO.:

INSPECTOR: SRC

CLIENT:PROJECT:

DATE:

On-Track Drilling Inc.

GRAIN SIZE (%)

Passing #4 sieve

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PID reading

FILE NO.:

Undisturbed

Disturbed

UNDRAINED SHEARSTRENGTH (kPa)

SAMPLES

LOCATION:

Limit

SOIL HEADSPACE READING (ppm)

Cargill Ltd.

TOP OF HOLE ELEV: N/A

LOG OF TEST HOLELOG OF TEST HOLE

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LOG

OF

TE

ST

HO

LE (

DE

PT

H O

NLY

) 1

9-26

97-1

.GP

J T

HU

RB

ER

BC

.GD

T 2

/12/

15-

TH

UR

BE

R B

C.G

LB

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DRAFT

Brown SAND and GRAVEL with a trace of silt.

Brown SAND with a trace to some silt and tracesof gravel and organics.

- grey-brown with a trace of silt below 2.1 m

Grey woody, gravelly SAND with some silt.

- some wood/organics and gravel below 3.5 m

Grey-brown SAND with some silt to silty, somegravel and a trace of organics.

- silty with some gravel and organics below 4.6 m

End of hole at required depth.

SP-SM/GP-GM

SM

SP-SM

OL/SM

OL/SM

SM

OL/SM

North Vancouver Facility - Power Upgrade

SOILS DESCRIPTION

See Dwg. 19-2697-1-1

COMMENTS

15-4

Remolded

TEST HOLE NO.

Passing #200 sieve GASTECH reading

Sheet 1 of 1

Solid Stem Auger

(blows/300 mm)

PENETRATION

LiquidPlasticDisturbedUndisturbed Peak

Limit

WATERCONTENT (%)

WATER LEVEL

October 30, 2015

19-2697-1

ResidualNo Recovery

METHOD:

DRILLING CO.:

INSPECTOR: SRC

CLIENT:PROJECT:

DATE:

On-Track Drilling Inc.

GRAIN SIZE (%)

Passing #4 sieve

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PID reading

FILE NO.:

Undisturbed

Disturbed

UNDRAINED SHEARSTRENGTH (kPa)

SAMPLES

LOCATION:

Limit

SOIL HEADSPACE READING (ppm)

Cargill Ltd.

TOP OF HOLE ELEV: N/A

LOG OF TEST HOLELOG OF TEST HOLE

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

LOG

OF

TE

ST

HO

LE (

DE

PT

H O

NLY

) 1

9-26

97-1

.GP

J T

HU

RB

ER

BC

.GD

T 2

/12/

15-

TH

UR

BE

R B

C.G

LB

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DE

PT

H (

m)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

DRAFT

Maximum Depth = 14.30 meters Depth Increment = 0.05 meters

1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material 3 clay

4 silty clay to clay 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt

7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand 9 sand

10 gravelly sand to sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) 12 sand to clayey sand (*)

Operator: Schwartz Soil Technical Sounding: CPT15 - 02 at TH15-02 Cone ID: DPG1190

Date: October 29, 2015 Site: Cargill, N. Vancouver Thurber project no: 19 - 2697 - 1

Thurber Engineering

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 50 100 150 200 250

TIP RESISTANCEqt (Bar)

Dep

th (m

)

0 1 2 3

SLEEVE FRICTION (Bar)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

FRICTION RATIO (%)

-10 10 30 50

U2 Pp (Meter)

0 12Robertson et al, 1986Soil Behavior Type*

CONE TIP GEOPHONE INTERVALDEPTH DEPTH VELOCITY

(m) (m) (m/sec)1.25 1.00

1772.25 2.00

1373.25 3.00

1584.25 4.00

2025.20 4.95

2056.25 6.00

2777.25 7.00

21810.25 10.00

25011.25 11.00

21012.25 12.00

19413.25 13.00

23114.25 14.00

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY DATA Client: Thurber Engineering Ltd. Test: CPT15 - 02 at TH15-02 Site: Cargill N, Vancouve B.C.

Date: October 29, 2015 Cone ID: DPG1190 10 Ton Source offset: 0.35 m Source: Beam

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY - Vs (m/sec)

DEP

TH (m

eter

)SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY PROFILE

Client: Thurber Engineering Ltd. Test: CPT15 - 02 at TH15-02 Site: Cargill N. Vancouver, B.C.

Date: October 29, 2015 Cone ID: DPG1190 10 Ton Source offset: 0.35 m Source: Beam

2010 National Building Code Seismic Hazard CalculationINFORMATION: Eastern Canada English (613) 995-5548 francais (613) 995-0600 Facsimile (613) 992-8836

Western Canada English (250) 363-6500 Facsimile (250) 363-6565

Requested by: SNC,

Site Coordinates: 49.306 North 123.056 West

User File Reference: 801 Low Level Road

January 23, 2015

National Building Code ground motions:2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (0.000404 per annum)Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA (g)

Ground motions for other probabilities:Probability of exceedance per annumProbability of exceedance in 50 yearsSa(0.2)Sa(0.5)Sa(1.0)Sa(2.0)PGA

0.01040%

0.002110%

0.0015%

0.903 0.619 0.326 0.170 0.448

0.2200.1500.0780.0390.112

0.4740.3210.1680.0860.237

0.6460.4390.2300.1190.321

Notes. Spectral and peak hazard values are determined for firm ground (NBCC 2010 soil class C - averageshear wave velocity 360-750 m/s). Median (50th percentile) values are given in units of g. 5% dampedspectral acceleration (Sa(T), where T is the period in seconds) and peak ground acceleration (PGA) valuesare tabulated. Only 2 significant figures are to be used. These values have been interpolated from a 10km spaced grid of points. Depending on the gradient of the nearby points, values at this locationcalculated directly from the hazard program may vary. More than 95 percent of interpolated valuesare within 2 percent of the calculated values. Warning: You are in a region which considers the hazardfrom a deterministic Cascadia subduction event for the National Building Code. Values determined for highprobabilities (0.01 per annum) in this region do not consider the hazard from this type of earthquake.

References

National Building Code of Canada 2010 NRCCno. 53301; sections 4.1.8, 9.20.1.2, 9.23.10.2,9.31.6.2, and 6.2.1.3Appendix C: Climatic Information for BuildingDesign in Canada - table in Appendix C starting onpage C-11 of Division B, volume 2

U s e r ’ s G u i d e - N B C 2 0 1 0 , S t r u c t u r a lCommentaries NRCC no. 53543 (in preparation)Commentary J: Design for Seismic Effects

Geological Survey of Canada Open File xxxxFourth generation seismic hazard maps of Canada:Maps and grid values to be used with the 2010National Building Code of Canada (in preparation)

See the websites www.EarthquakesCanada.ca andwww.nationalcodes.ca for more information

Aussi disponible en francais 123.5˚W 123˚W 122.5˚W

49˚N

49.5˚N

0 10 20 30

km

Thurber Engineering Ltd.

Figure 1Deflection, Shear Force and Bending Moment Profiles from LPILE using Peak Soil Strength Parameters for a 457 x 15.9 mm Steel Pipe Pile

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

De

pth

(m

)

Deflection (m)

100 200 300 400 500

600 700 800 900 1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000

De

pth

(m

)

Shear Force (kN)

100 200 300 400 500

600 700 800 900 1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

De

pth

(m

)

Bending Moment (kN-m)

100 200 300 400 500

600 700 800 900 1000

LPILE Results

19-2697-1

HMW

08/04/2016

Notes:1) Ground surface = 0 m depth2) Shear force of 100 to 1000 kN applied at pile head3) Pile head fixed in rotation4) Epile = 200 GPa5) Ipile = 4.4 x 10-4 m4

Figure 2Deflection, Shear Force and Bending Moment Profiles from LPILE using Reduced Soil Strength Parameters for a 457 x 15.9 m Steel Pipe Pile

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350

De

pth

(m

)

Deflection (m)

100 200 300 400 500

600 700 800 900 1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000

De

pth

(m

)

Shear Force (kN)

100 200 300 400 500

600 700 800 900 1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

De

pth

(m

)

Bending Moment (kN-m)

100 200 300 400 500

600 700 800 900 1000

LPILE Results

19-2697-1

HMW

08/04/2016

Notes:1) Ground surface = 0 m depth2) Shear force of 100 to 1000 kN applied at pile head3) Pile head fixed in rotation4) Epile = 200 GPa5) Ipile = 4.4 x 10-4 m4