EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT · The existing Fire alarm system service has an old fuse block...

SW LIBRARY PRE-DESIGN DUE DILIGENCEDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

22

EXISTING CONDITIONS

ASSESSMENT


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

23

EXISTING CONDITIONS

1. VISUAL OBSERVATION

Overview:

Building Exterior:

• SW Neighborhood Library is located at 900 Wesley Place SW, Washington, DC.

• The irst loor is accessed at ground level on the Western facade from Wesley Street.• The cellar has ground level access from two stairs at the rear of the building.

• Adjacent to the library on the Eastern portion of the site is a parking lot measuring 5,700

square feet.

• The community room is located in the cellar with direct egress to the rear parking lot.

• The existing library is a two story building with a partial cellar.

• The structure is reinforced concrete and a brick and block facade with vertical lancet

windows and a lat roof.• The site is adjacent to the 3rd and I Street park that features a newly renovated

playground, seating and a mature tree canopy.

• The exterior exhibits wear typical of buildings built in this era; however post-installed

modiications and temporary ixes to security measures have resulted in areas of greaterdegradation.

• Broken windows, bird nests, and accumulated debris prevent proper maintenance and

cleaning of the windows.

• The roof construction and assemblies do not meet the standards of current construction

• Metal security mesh and window frames and associated fasteners have degraded over

time resulting in rusting and in some cases failure.

• Existing security grating and window size precludes taking advantage of natural daylighting

strategies.

• Vandalism and the associated temporary ixes have compromised the building envelope atwindow sills, jambs, and window lights.

• The mass wall construction approach lacks moisture management typical in today’s

ventilated rain-screen walls. Moisture iniltration was apparent on all building faces andmore pronounced at the slab line.

• The mechanical unit is located in the parking lot and is protected by a chainlink fence.

Interior Spaces:

Cellar:

• The cellar is a combination of public and back of house functions. The large community

room is located on the loor and accessible via an elevator that is original to the building.The Vertical transportation is out of date and does not meet the requirements for

accessibility.

• The Community room has low ceiling heights with exposed mechanical systems and

inadequate storage to allow for the eficient use of the space.• Lighting, controls and IT are sub-standard.

• There are men’s and women’s bathrooms and a custodian’s ofice located on the loor and


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

24

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Mechanical Systems:

The Existing building is served by a hot water/ chilled water four pipe system. With the

exception of the chilled water and condenser water pumps, most equipment observed appears

to exceed the service life recommended by ASHRAE. Controls are very rudimentary and are

electric (not electronic). Local equipment is controlled by local thermostats and do not appear

to be tied to any central system. The roof equipment was not in service and exceeded the

recommended service life by a decade.

the second means of egress is via a rear exterior stair through a door that is was locked

during site visits.

• The boiler room/ mechanical spaces are located directly off of the elevator lobby with an

area-way lanking the Southeast corner of the building.Reading Area/ Stacks:

• The reading area located on the entry loor is large and open.• Florescent lighting is arranged on a grid and does not provide optimal lighting and causes

glare for computer use.

• The stacks are aligned in an East/West arrangement which promotes visibility from the

main circulation services desk, however the height reduces the overall functionality within

the space

• The lack of natural light admitted to the space is notable.

Work Room:

• The work room is undersized to serve the operational needs of the current library.

• Book processing and storage has overlowed into the general ofice space• The location of the work room lacks natural light

Meeting Rooms / Study Rooms:

• There is one study room on the ground loor. The other study room was converted to housethe IT rack and servers. Spaces that may have been intended to function as meeting

spaces have been converted to storage for arts programs or staging areas for book sale.

Children’s Services:

• Children’s Services is located on the second loor. With public programs, classes, stacksand display located in the primary space, the only differentiation in the types of space is

conveyed through seating clusters.

• Only the library lead classes have a distinct space separate from the general browsing. Set

behind bookshelves, the children’s activity space offers little audible separation and loud

activities are potentially disruptive to other operations on the loor.• The primary access point is via the Northwest stair and the centrally located staff desk

maintains visual control over the children’s services primary space.

Restrooms:

• The restrooms are not ADA compliant

• Maintenance operations (slop sink etc) are combined with public restrooms

• Visual control of bathrooms is not maintained due to the arrangement of the stacks


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

25

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Electrical Systems:

Electrical Service:

Power Distribution:

Lighting:

Fire Alarm System:

Plumbing Systems:

Fixtures appear to be in good working order and of varying ages, but typically do not meet

energy code requirements for water conservation. For instance public lavatories are typically

required to be metering so that shut off automatically occurs within 10-15 seconds. It is

recommended to upgrade to meet current water saving requirements. Additionally, the building

is not currently sprinklered and current code requirements for new construction would require

a sprinkler system.

The existing Fire alarm system service has an old fuse block tapped ahead of the main

switch. The existing Fire Alarm control panel is a Simplex 4100 U Analog system with

no battery backup. There are manual pulls and smoke detectors in the building. All

downstream FA strobe devices are non-adjustable and not in compliance with current ADA

codes.

Manual toggle switches, single and three way, currently control the light ixtures. All exit signs and emergency lighting are tapped ahead of local area switches, with the cellar

exit lights being equipped with battery packs. All of the switches, outlets, and associated

wiring for those devices located in the cellar are old, outdated and in poor condition.

The receptacles in the Library reading rooms are in fair condition, but replacement is

recommended due to new code requirements for receptacle control.

The existing building is served by a PEPCO pad mounted utility transformer and service

voltage is120/208V, three phase. The transformer is located on Wesley Street and incoming

service cables enter the building on the west side of the library cellar and terminate at the

1200A C/T and meter located in the existing main electrical room.

The electrical system downstream of the 1200 amp main distribution panel consists of

several sub panels located in the Main electrical room, and branch receptacle panels at the

corridor stairwell areas for loors 1 and 2. Considering its age, condition, and replacement parts being obsolete, the electrical distribution panels, switches, and feeders are beyond

the end of their serviceable lives. There is no existing emergency generator for the building.

Structural Systems:

The main structural system of the building utilizes a one-way concrete joist system to transfer

all gravity loads to the concrete columns. The typical existing column grid is approximately

20’-0” in the East/West direction with unequal spans in the North/South direction. The

observed existing concrete columns appeared to be in good condition for the buildings age.

The observed existing concrete loor slab system appeared to be in good shape. The existing concrete joists were approximately 6” wide and 14” deep. The existing foundation system

could not be observed and is unknown at this time. If the renovation option is chosen, a third

party testing agency must be hired to determine the existing foundation system and allowable

bearing capacity.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

26

EXISTING CONDITIONS

2. EXTERIOR CONDITIONSView of library looking North East

View of library looking South East

View of library looking North West


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

27

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Photo #1 Broken windows and bird nests along with other debris

prevent proper maintenance and cleaning of the windows.

Photo #2The roof construction and assemblies do not meet the

standards of current construction..

Photo #3 Metal security mesh and window frames/ fasteners

have degraded over time resulting in rusting and in some cases

failure Existing security grillage and window size precludes taking

advantage of natural daylighting strategies.

Photo #6 The mass wall construction approach lacks moisture

management typical in today’s ventilated rain-screen walls.

Moisture iniltration was apparent and more pronounced at the slab line.

(Photo #5) Site access points and associated concrete surfaces

are deteriorating which makes accessibility dificult.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

28

EXISTING CONDITIONS

View of Entry and Teen Area (Ground Floor) looking North East

View of Children’s Play Area (Second Floor) looking North West

View of Children’s Area (Second Floor) looking North East

2. INTERIOR CONDITIONS


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

29

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Photo #1 The community room access is isolated from other program areas and has a ceiling height of only 9’-0”

Photo #2 The irst loor reading room and adult services spaces lack natural light and the variety and type of conferencing and

study rooms are inadequate

Photo #3 The second loor children’s services have been subdivided to achieve the desired functionality. Book sale and

staff areas are also inadequate

Photo #4 Guardrails, toilet rooms, and elevator do not meet

accessibility standards

Photo # 5 Water damage appears at a number of columns

between windows.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

30

EXISTING CONDITIONS

1010 wisconsin ave nw, suite 405washington, dc 20007t 202.466.6116 f 202.466.6235w coredc.com BASEMENT

© core group, pc 2013

16026.00Project NumberPrinted 6/21/16

A1DCPL

SW NEIGHBORHOOD LIBRARY

UP

UP

BOILER

DN

Scale:1/8" = 1'-0"1 Basement

1010 wisconsin ave nw, suite 405washington, dc 20007t 202.466.6116 f 202.466.6235w coredc.com FIRST FL



A2DCPL


UP

UPDN

K ST

WE

SLE

Y P

L S

W

3RD

ST

SW

PARK

PARKING

Scale:1/8" = 1'-0"1 First Floor

BOILER RM

CUSTODIAN

ELEV LOBBY ELEV

MACH RM

HALLWAY

STAIR 1

STORAGE

WOMEN

MEN

CORRIDOR

CURRENTLY NO

PRE-FUNCTION OR

KITCHENETTE/ SERVICE RM

CURRENTLY NO DIRECT

ADJACENCY FROM ENTRANCE

LOBBY TO MEETING RM

CURRENTLY NO DIRECT

ADJACENCY TO PUBLIC

RESTROOMS

CURRENTLY NO DIRECT

ADJACENCY TO CONFERENCE

ROOMS

STORAGE

MEETING RM

1010 wisconsin ave nw, suite 405washington, dc 20007t 202.466.6116 f 202.466.6235w coredc.com BASEMENT



A1DCPL


UP

UP

BOILER

DN

Scale:1/8" = 1'-0"1 Basement

1010 wisconsin ave nw, suite 405washington, dc 20007t 202.466.6116 f 202.466.6235w coredc.com FIRST FL



A2DCPL


UP

UPDN

K ST

WE

SLE

Y P

L S

W

3RD

ST

SW

PARK

PARKING

Scale:1/8" = 1'-0"1 First Floor

adult PC

stacks

STAIR 1

STAIR 2

ELEV

MEN

WOMEN

HALLWAY

ELEV LOBBY

MAIN ENTRY

MAIN ENTRY

circulation

services

CURRENTLY NO

DIRECT

ADJACENCY FROM

ENTRANCE LOBBY

TO MEETING RM

CURRENTLY NO

DIRECT

ADJACENCY

FROM

ENTRANCE

LOBBY TO

PUBLIC

RESTROOMS

CURRENTLY NO

DIRECT

ADJACENCY TO

CONFERENCE RM

CURRENTLY NO

DIRECT

ADJACENCY TO

STUDY ROOMS

VESTIBULE 2

WORK RM

VESTIBULE 1

CLOS

OFFICE

WORK RM

WE

SL

EY

PL S

W

reading

chess

sight and sound

periodicals

copy/print reading

info

materials display lobby

SERVERholds

teen area teen PC teen reading

STUDY

new books

kiosk

reference

reading area

READING ROOM

reading

materials display

1010 wisconsin ave nw, suite 405washington, dc 20007t 202.466.6116 f 202.466.6235w coredc.com SECOND FL



A3DCPL


DN

DN

Scale:1/8" = 1'-0"1 Second Floor

computers

reading area

large craft table

young children area

MEN

WOMEN

ELEV

STAIR 1

STAIR 2

ELEV LOBBY

HALLWAY

MEN

stacks

children’s program room

CHILDREN’S INFO

ADDITIONAL STORAGECHILDREN’S TOILET

STORAGE

DINING

EMERGENCY

canopy roof

canopy

roof

storage

computers

CHILDREN’S READING ROOM AND STACK AREA

stacks

stacks

info

stacks

STORAGE

Second Floor Adjacency Diagram

First Floor Adjacency Diagram

Cellar Floor Adjacency Diagram


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

47

APPENDIX A

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PLANS


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

48

EXISTING FLOOR PLANS

3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

8

8

A A

B B

G G

F F

D D

E E

1

1

2

2

C C

19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

27'-3 1

/2"

19'-4 1

/4"

10'-0 3

/4"

18'-7"

39'-6 3

/4"

5'-0 3/4" 13'-10 1/4"

36'-9"

9'-3"

9'-0 1

/2"

12'-0 1

/4"

7'-3 3

/4"

6'-6"

15'-1 1/4" 5'-7 1/4"

37'-8"

15'-8 3/4"

10'-1 1/2"

21'-10 3

/4"

21'-5 1

/2"

6'-9"

19'-9 1/2"

15'-2 3/4"

5'-0"

5'-0"

46'-2 1/2"

UP

UP

BOILER

BOILER

DN

S�� B-11

A: 1,454.15 sq ft

H� ��

��B-2

A: 89.32 sq ft

H� ��

Wo��B-3

A: 87.2 sq ft

H� ��

S�o��B-4

A: 101.79 sq ft

H� ��

S�� B-7

A: 121.66 sq ft

Mach RmB-5

A: 95.83 sq ft

E��B-9

A: 40.86 sq ft

E��o� �o��B-8

A: 110.99 sq ft

H� ��

Bo�� oo�B-10

A: 1,445.81 sq ft

��B-6

A: 203.73 sq ft

H� ��

Co��o�B-1

A: 260.9 sq ft

H� ��

C��o��B-14

A: 139 sq ft

H� ��

S�o��B-12

A: 186.75 sq ft

H� �� 10'-7 1/2"

21'-4 1/2"

5'-10 1

/4"

6'-0"

6'-0 3/4" 15'-8 3/4"

To��B-13

A: 49.51 sq ft

H� ��

• Plans drafted from historic documents provided by DCPL at project kickoff.

• All information and dimensions shall be conirmed by Project Architect• Drawings scaled to it report


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

49


3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

8

8

A A

B B

G G

F F

D D

E E

1

1

2

2

C C

8 1/2" 21'-6 1/2" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

8 1/2" 21'-6 1/2" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

6'-3 1

/2"

6'-10 3

/4"

6'-8"

21'-3 3

/4"

6'-8"

5'-1 3

/4"

7'-4"

6'-4"

9'-4"

6'-4"

6'-0"

5'-9 3

/4"

76'-0"

20'-4 1/2"

26'-7"

11'-9"

10'-6"

21'-8 3

/4"

7'-3 3

/4"

15'-5"

4'-1 3

/4"

15'-5"6'-0 3

/4"

13'-10 1/4" 5'-3 1/4"6'-1"

15'-5"

74'-8"

5'-11"

48'-10"

UP

UPDN

PA��

AREAWAY

R !"#$% R&&'105

A: 5,793.4 sq ft

() *+,-. */01

V e2#345 6102

A: 40.29 sq ft

() *+,-. */01

W&78 R'103

A: 214.47 sq ft

() *+,-. */01

V e2#345 9101

A: 40.78 sq ft

() *+,-. */01

:5&e116

A: 37.74 sq ft

Office106

A: 408.52 sq ft

() *+,-. */0 1

W&78R'107

A: 118.98 sq ft

() *+,-. */01

;2!#7 9108

A: 232.29 sq ft

Hallway109

A: 204.93 sq ft

() <,-+1

=5 >!2&7 ?&33@110

A: 120.21 sq ft

() <,-+1

=5 >.111

A: 38.57 sq ft

D4F2e

A: 63.72 sq ft

M $112

A: 91.47 sq ft

() <,-+1

W&' $113

A: 91.7 sq ft

() <,-+1

5'-5 1/2"4'-0 1/4"

18'-8 3

/4"

8'-10 1/4" 10'-3 1/2"

;2!#7 6104

A: 82.65 sq ft

R F&7" R'115

A: 34.33 sq ft

() <,-+1

R F&7" R'114

A: 37.64 sq ft

() <,-+1




SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

50


3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

8

8

A A

B B

G G

F F

D D

E E

1

1

2

2

C C

8 1/2" 21'-6 1/2" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

8 1/2" 21'-6 1/2" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

8'-0" 70'-3"

19'-1 1

/4"

76'-0"

20'-4 1/2"

10'-7 1

/2"

15'-7 1

/2"

21'-6"

10'-3 1/2"8'-10 1/4"

8'-4 1/2"

7'-7 1

/4"

7'-6 1

/4"

20'-4 1/2"

15'-5"4'-1 3

/4"

13'-10 1/4"

4'-9 3

/4"

7'-6 1

/4"

DN

DN

CANOPY

ROOF

CANOPY

ROOF

GIJKLNOPQT UOVLJPX UYYZ VPL [\V]^ _NOV202

A: 5,840.53 sq ft

à bcdfg bhij

Office203

A: 216.48 sq ft

à bcdfg bhij

kZONXOP]l211

A: 63.7 sq ft

à bcdfg bhij

mJPJPX204

A: 247.43 sq ft

à bcdfg bhij

Hallway205

A: 204.57 sq ft

à ndfcj

[\V JN p206

A: 221.08 sq ft

Elev.208

A: 39.77 sq ft

kKOqV\YN rYssl207

A: 128.59 sq ft

à ndfcj

mt]\T

A: 63.72 sq ft

uOP209

A: 94.04 sq ft

à ndfcj

WYZOP210

A: 91.7 sq ft

à ndfcj

15'-5" 6'-2 3

/4"

6'-1"

15'-5"

[\VJN v201

A: 152.88 sq ft




SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

51

3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

8

8

A A

B B

G G

F F

D D

E E

1

1

2

2

C C

8 1/2" 21'-6 1/2" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

8 1/2" 21'-6 1/2" 19'-6" 19'-6" 19'-6" 21'-6 1/2"

8 1

/2"

14'-10 1

/2"

13'-0"

22'-10"

27'-10 1

/2"

8 1

/2"

80'-0"

103'-7 1/2"

14'-8"

50'-1 1

/2"

4'-8 3/4"

5'-8 3

/4"

RD

RDRD

RD

RD

RD

wxyz{| }zz~

A: 642.83 sq ft

Roof

A: 8,292.82 sq ft

wxyz{|}zz~

A: 27.05 sq ft





SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

108

Hazardous Builidng Materials Survey DCPL – Southwest Library

900 Wesley Place SW Washington, DC 20024

Hillis-Carnes Project Number 16339A

Prepared For:

Mr. Sanath Kalidas Senior Project Manager Brailsford & Dunlavey

1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington DC 20036

Prepared By:

Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. 10975 Guilford Road, Suite A Annapolis Junction, Maryland 20701

July 15, 2016


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

109

Corporate Headquarters – Annapolis Junction, MD

Maryland Washington, DC Delaware Pennsylvania Virginia Caribbean

100 M Street SE, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20003

Phone (202) 791-3788

Fax (202) 379-7784

www.hilliscarnesdc.com

CA

PITO

L S

ER

VIC

ES

July 15, 2016

Mr. Sanath Kalidas Senior Project Manager Brailsford & Dunlavey 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington DC 20036

RE: Hazardous Building Materials Survey DCPL – Southwest Library 900 Wesley Place SW Washington, DC 20024 Project No. 16339A

Dear Ms. Kalidas:

Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. (Hillis-Carnes) has conducted a Hazardous Building Materials Survey at the above-referenced property, hereafter referred to in this report as the “Site”. Hillis-Carnes’ methodologies and findings for the survey are included in the attached report.

If you have any questions in regard to this report, please feel free to contact us at (410) 880-4788.

Very truly yours,

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Robert W. Pushman Environmental Scientist

Gina L. Galimberti, REM Environmental Services Manager


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

110

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 General Site Description ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Qualifications and Limitations ............................................................................. 1

2.0 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS SURVEY .............................................. 3 2.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Suspect ACMs .................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Laboratory Results ............................................................................................. 4

3.0 LEAD PAINT SCREENING SURVEY ................................................................... 6 3.1 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Findings .............................................................................................................. 6

4.0 EQUIPMENT POTENTIALLY CONTAINING PCB ................................................ 8 4.1 Transformers and Capacitors ............................................................................. 8 4.2 Light Ballasts ...................................................................................................... 8

5.0 UNIVERSAL WASTES .......................................................................................... 9 5.1 Mercury Vapor Lights/Lamps .............................................................................. 9 5.2 Liquid Mercury .................................................................................................... 9 5.3 Pesticide Containers ......................................................................................... 10 5.4 Lead-Acid Containing Batteries ........................................................................ 10

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 11 6.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials Survey ............................................................. 11 6.2 Lead Paint Screening Survey ........................................................................... 12 6.3 Equipment Potentially Containing PCBs .......................................................... 13 6.3.1 Transformers and Capacitors ...................................................................... 13 6.3.2 Light Ballasts ................................................................................................ 13 6.4 Universal Wastes .............................................................................................. 13 6.4.1 Mercury Vapor Lights/Lamps ........................................................................ 13 6.4.2 Liquid Mercury .............................................................................................. 13 6.4.3 Pesticide Containers ..................................................................................... 14 6.4.4 Lead-Acid Containing Batteries .................................................................... 14

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Bulk Asbestos Analysis Reports and Chains of Custody Forms

Appendix B - XRF Data Sheets


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

111

DCPL – Southwest LibraryHazardous Building Materials Survey

Hillis-Carnes Project No. 16339A

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES PAGE 1 OF 13

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. (Hillis-Carnes) was retained by Brailsford & Dunlavey (Client) to provide a Hazardous Building Materials Survey of the structure located at 900 Wesley Place, Southwest, Washington DC, 20024, hereafter referred to as the “Site”. Specifically, Hillis-Carnes conducted an asbestos-containing materials survey, a lead paint screening survey, a visual inspection for equipment potentially containing PCBs (i.e., electrical transformers and capacitors, and fluorescent light fixtures that would include ballasts), and a visual inspection for universal wastes (i.e., light bulbs/lamps potentially containing mercury vapor, thermostats potentially containing liquid mercury, and pesticide containers).

Hillis-Carnes performed the Hazardous Materials Survey on the interior and exterior of the on-site building described in Section 1.1. Hillis-Carnes understands that the Client requested the Hazardous Materials Survey in association with the District of Columbia Public Library’s feasibility study.

Hillis-Carnes’ methodologies, findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the environmental services are included in the appropriate sections of this report.

1.1 General Site Description

The approximately 22,000 square-foot Site is located north of K Street SW, between Wesley Place SW and 3rd Street SW, in Washington DC Southwest. The address for the Site is 900 Wesley Place SW, Washington, DC 20024. The Site includes a library currently known as the Southwest Neighborhood Library. The library structure is approximately 7,500 square feet in size and was constructed in the 1960s. The areas of the Site not occupied by the structure include an asphalt-paved parking area west of the structure, and grass-covered/landscaped areas.

1.2 Qualifications and Limitations

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our conclusions and recommendations prepared in accordance with customary principles and practices in the field of environmental science.

The findings and conclusions in this report are based upon conditions that were observed on the date of the referenced survey. Hillis-Carnes and this report make no representation or assumptions as to past conditions or future occurrences.

This report was prepared for the sole use of the Client. The scope of services performed for this project may not be appropriate to satisfy the needs of other users, and use or re-use of this document or the findings, conclusions, or recommendations is at the risk of said user.

The quantities of items and materials observed during the survey were estimated for informational and reference purposes only. All quantities must be verified by a licensed abatement contractor(s) prior to demolition activities. Under no circumstances is this report to be utilized as an abatement bidding document.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

112




A limited number of representative areas behind hard walls, ceilings, floors, etc. were inspected. However, per the contract for this project, Hillis-Carnes did not access all of the areas behind hard walls, hard ceilings, and hard floors. In addition, interiors of mechanical/electrical equipment were not accessed or inspected.

Analysis of floor tile or other resinously bound non-friable material by EPA Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) using EPA Methods 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 may yield false-negative results because of method limitations in separating closely bound fibers from matrix material and in detecting fibers of small length and/or diameter. When analysis of such materials by the PLM Method yields negative results for the presence of asbestos, alternative methods of identification such as Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) may be appropriate.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

113




2.0 ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS SURVEY

The purpose of the Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM) Survey was to identify interior and exterior ACMs associated with the on-site structure (as described in Section 1.1). The ACM Survey was performed on June 23, 2016, by Mr. Robert Pushman and Mr. Sean Harkins, accredited asbestos inspectors.

2.1 Methodology

The ACM Survey was conducted in accordance with the following scope of work:

Accredited asbestos inspectors conducted the ACM Survey for accessible buildingmaterials suspected to contain asbestos. The survey included both friable and non-friable interior and exterior building materials.

Hillis-Carnes began the on-site activities by conducting a visual inspection of thebuilding. The purpose of the visual inspection was to: a) compile an inventory of suspectmaterials; b) determine the condition of identified suspect materials; and c) provide anestimated quantity of suspect materials present (refer to Section 1.2).

After completion of the visual inspection, samples of suspect materials identified in theinventory were collected. Sampling of suspect materials was generally sufficient innature to satisfy the regulatory requirements of the EPA NESHAP regulations (40 CFR61) and the OSHA Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1101).

The samples were analyzed for asbestos fiber content at a laboratory accredited under theNational Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. The samples were analyzed bypolarized light microscopy (PLM) using EPA methodology.

2.2 Suspect ACMs

The following is a list of building materials that were suspected to contain asbestos at the on-site structure:

Floor tile and associated mastics (several variations)

Window and door caulking

Wall system (drywall and joint compound)

Cove base and associated mastics (several variations)

Ceiling tile

Glue dots

Pitch pot/roof sealant

Silver roof coating

Exterior parging and stucco

A total of 56 bulk samples of suspect ACMs (some with more than one layer of suspect material) were collected from the on-site structure. Each bulk sample was placed in an


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

114




individual sealed bag, which was labeled with the sample number corresponding to the information logged onto the Bulk Sample Collection Form by the inspector.

2.3 Laboratory Results

A package containing the samples of suspect ACMs and the Bulk Sample Collection Form was shipped to Scientific Analytical Institute (SAI) for analysis. SAI analyzed all bulk samples using polarized light microscopy (PLM) in accordance with EPA Methods 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020. SAI participates in the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, a qualityassurance program for polarized light microscopy (NVLAP ID #200664-0).

The laboratory’s Report of Analysis, which contain a listing of all analyzed layers/samples, sample locations, analytical results, and the Bulk Sample Collection Form (which tracks custody of the samples from the time of collection to the time of receipt by the analytical laboratory) is included in Appendix A.

Any material that contains greater than one percent of any type of asbestos (e.g., chrysotile, amosite, tremolite, etc.) is considered an ACM and must be handled according to OSHA, EPA and applicable local regulations. In addition to the percent of asbestos (when detected), common non-asbestos components (cellulose fiber, etc.) may be noted in the analytical report.

A total of 56 bulk samples were collected; however, due to the multiple layers of materials in some of the samples, a total of 77 layers/samples were analyzed using PLM. Of the 77 layers/samples analyzed, five (5) were determined to be ACMs via PLM (Table 1, on the following page). Laboratory analysis of the remaining layers/samples revealed no detectable levels of asbestos. Hillis-Carnes’ conclusions and recommendations regarding the identified ACMs are included in Section 6.1.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

115




Table 1 - Asbestos-Containing Materials – 900 Wesley Place, SW

EPA Category Material Description Sample

Number(s) Sample Location

Asbestos Content

Condition Observed Locations (1) Approximate

Quantity (2)

Category I Non-Friable Materials

12”x12” white floor tile 5

Foyer at employee entrance

4% Chrysotile

Fair Under the beige floor tile located at the employee

entrance Not quanitfiable

(3)Black mastic assocaited with the above floor tile

6-B 3% Chrysotile

12”x12” tan floor tile 13-B Near the southern main

entrance

5% Chrysotile

Fair Under carpet of main library room (first and second floor)

3,200 square feet Black mastic associated with the above floor tile

13-C 6% Chrysotile

Category II Non-Friable Materials

Gray interior window sealant

9 Southeastern wall window 3% Chrysotile Poor In the main library area 200 linear feet

(1) This column provides a listing of locations within the on-site building where the specified material was observed during Hillis-Carnes’ survey. The listings in this column are not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all locations of the building that include these materials as these materials could be present in areas not accessed and inspected by Hillis-Carnes (e.g., beneath other floor tile, behind or above plaster).

(2) This column provides the approximate quantities for locations in which the material was observed. The quantities provided in Table 1 are for informational and reference purposes only. All quantities must be verified by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor(s) prior to disturbance of ACMs. Under no circumstances is this report to be utilized as an asbestos abatement bidding document or abatement specification document.

(3) The quantity of this material was not practically measurable at the time of the ACM survey since it is a tile underlying other finishing materials.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

116




3.0 LEAD PAINT SCREENING SURVEY

A Lead Paint Screening Survey was conducted at the Site on June 23, 2016. The survey was performed by Mr. Robert Pushman, a District of Columbia/EPA certified and licensed Lead Inspector. As described in Section 3.1, the survey was performed using an X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer (XRF). Utilization of in situ XRF provides a numerical reading on the instrument that can be compared to the District of Columbia’s regulatory standards.

District of Columbia regulations define a lead-based paint as any paint or other surface coating containing lead or lead in its compounds in any quantity exceeding 0.5% of the total weight of the material or more than one milligram per square centimeter (1.0 mg/cm2), or such more stringent standards as may be specified in federal law or regulations promulgated by EPA or HUD, which shall be adopted by the Mayor by rule.

Federal regulations define a lead-based paint as any paint or other surface coating containing lead or lead in its compounds in any quantity greater than 0.50% lead by weight or more than 1.0 mg/cm2. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates lead present in the work place in any concentration (i.e., lead-containing paint).

3.1 Methodology

A. A District of Columbia/EPA certified and licensed Lead Inspector trained in samplingprotocols and use of the NITON XLp 300 AW X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzer (XRF)conducted a survey of accessible representative painted surfaces at the structure.

B. Use of the XRF analyzer was in accordance with the Performance Characteristic Sheet(PCS) methodology for the NITON XLp 300 AW dated September 24, 2004. The PCS isprovided as supplemental guidance to the US Housing and Urban Development (HUD)“Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing”, 1997Revision, and is a joint product of HUD and EPA. XRF instrument calibration checks wereperformed according to the PCS, indicating that the instrument was operating within theparameters defined in the PCS.

C. Test locations were identified by substrate type, component, and color. Surfaces testedincluded representative accessible, painted building components such as walls, doorcomponents, and window components. These surfaces are further identified in the XRFdata sheets included in Appendix B.

3.2 Findings

Seventy four (74) surfaces, excluding calibration checks, were tested with the XRF. Of the 74 readings, four (4) indicated a presence of lead in excess of 1.0 mg/cm2 (lead-based paint as defined in Section 3.0). The XRF data sheet attached to this report contains the data obtained from the XRF testing, including XRF values and a positive or negative classification (with respect to the threshold for lead-based paint) for each reading.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

117




XRF testing revealed lead concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/cm2 on the following surfaces:

Interior

White metal rail

Black metal rail

Exterior

Gray metal rail

White metal flagpole

In addition, of the 74 XRF readings, several indicated a presence of lead at a concentration less than 1.0 mg/cm2 but greater than the limit of detection for the instrument. As indicated in Section 3.0, OSHA regulates lead present in the work place in any concentration; therefore, for the purpose of this report, materials with concentrations of lead greater than the limit of detection, but less than 1.0 mg/cm2 are referred to as materials with “lead-containing paint”.

Interior

Black metal doorframe

Gray metal doorframe

Pink metal doorframe

Gray metal door

Gray metal door frame

Black metal elevator door

Black metal elevator doorframe

Green metal door frame

Yellow metal stair

Tan concrete block wall

Orange metal elevator doorframe

Exterior

Gray metal fence

All other surfaces tested at the Site, as identified in the XRF data sheets attached to this report (Appendix B), had no detectable lead. Hillis-Carnes’ recommendations regarding this survey are included in Section 6.2.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

118




4.0 EQUIPMENT POTENTIALLY CONTAINING PCB

4.1 Transformers and Capacitors

No on-site electrical or hydraulic equipment known to contain PCBs, or likely to contain PCBs, was observed on the date of the site visit. An elevator is operated at the Site; however, it was reported to Hillis-Carnes that the elevator operates on electricity and not hydraulics.

4.2 Light Ballasts

Fluorescent light ballasts (associated with fluorescent light fixtures) manufactured prior to 1979 potentially contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Table 2 summarizes the fluorescent light fixtures observed in the on-site structure. No staining was observed on or in the vicinity of the light fixtures on the date of the site visit.

Table 2 – Lights Ballasts Potentially Containing PCBs

Type of Fixture Approximate Number of Fixtures

Observed

Typical Number of Ballasts per

Fixture (1)

Approximate Number of

Ballasts

Two 4-foot tubes per fixture 87 1 87

Two 2-foot ‘U’ tubes per fixture 43 1 43

Total Approximate Number of Ballasts Potentially Containing PCBs (2)

130

(1)The number of ballasts per fixture was not confirmed in the field. The estimates presented inTable 2 are based on the number of ballasts typically associated with the types of fixturesobserved. This survey did not include removal of fixtures to inspect actual ballast numbers or PCB labeling on the ballasts. The number of ballasts could vary, thereby affecting thenumbers of ballasts presented in the last column.

(2)The quantities provided in Table 2 are for informational and reference purposes only. Allquantities must be verified by a licensed abatement contractor(s) prior to demolition activities.Under no circumstances is this report to be utilized as an abatement bidding document orabatement specification document.

Hillis-Carnes’ recommendation regarding light ballasts potentially containing PCBs is included in Section 6.3.2.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

119




5.0 UNIVERSAL WASTES

5.1 Mercury Vapor Lights/Lamps

Hillis-Carnes inspected the on-site structure (interior and exterior) for fluorescent light tubes that typically contain mercury vapor. Table 3 presents an inventory of the approximate number of fluorescent light tubes observed by Hillis-Carnes within the interior of the on-site structure.

Table 3 –Fluorescent Light Tubes Potentially Containing Mercury Vapor

Type of Fixture Approximate Number of Fixtures Observed

Approximate Number of Fluorescent Light Tubes

Two 4-foot tubes per fixture 87 174

Two 2-foot ‘U’ tubes per fixture 43 86

Total Approximate Number of Fluorescent Light Tubes

(1)260

(1)The quantities provided in Table 3 are for informational and reference purposes only. Allquantities must be verified by a licensed abatement contractor(s) prior to demolition. Underno circumstances is this report to be utilized as an abatement bidding document or abatement specification document.

In addition to fluorescent lights, Hillis-Carnes inspected the on-site building for other light fixtures with lamps/globes that potentially contain mercury vapor. Table 4 presents an inventory of the approximate number of additional lamps/globes that potentially contain mercury vapor within the interior and exterior of the on-site structure.

Table 4 – Additional Interior and Exterior Lamps/Globes Potentially Containing Mercury Vapor

Type of Fixture Approximate Number of Fixtures Observed

Approximate Number of Lamps/Bulbs

Emergency lights with one halogen bulb 33 33

Exit signs with two halogen bulbs 14 28

Fire alarm box with strobe light 31 31

Orange and blue strobe lights 8 16

Building-mounted exterior lights with two bulbs 7 14

Total Approximate Number of Interior & Exterior Lamps/Bulbs (1)

122

(1)The quantities provided in Table 4 are for informational and reference purposes only. Allquantities must be verified by a licensed abatement contractor(s) prior to demolition. Underno circumstances is this report to be utilized as an abatement bidding document or abatement specification document.

Hillis-Carnes’ recommendation regarding fluorescent light tubes and other light fixtures with lamps/globes that potentially contain mercury vapor is included in Section 6.4.1.

5.2 Liquid Mercury

Hillis-Carnes inspected the on-site building for thermostats that potentially contain liquid mercury. On the date of the survey, Hillis-Carnes did not observe any mercury containing thermostats in the on-site structure.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

120




5.3 Pesticide Containers

On the date of the survey, Hill-Carnes did not observe evidence of containers currently used to store pesticides at the Site.

5.4 Lead-Acid Containing Batteries

Hillis-Carnes inspected the on-site building for batteries that potentially contain lead-acid. On the date of the survey, Hillis-Carnes did not observe any such batteries (e.g. batteries associated with alarm systems, etc.).


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

121




6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. (Hillis-Carnes) was retained by Brailsford & Dunlavey (Client) to provide a Hazardous Building Materials Survey of the DCPL Southwest Library located at 900 Wesley Place, SW, Washington, D.C. Specifically, Hillis-Carnes conducted an asbestos-containing materials survey, a lead paint screening survey, a visual inspection for equipment potentially containing PCBs (i.e., electrical transformers and capacitors, and fluorescent light fixtures that would include ballasts), and a visual inspection for universal wastes (i.e., light bulbs/lamps potentially containing mercury vapor, thermostats potentially containing liquid mercury, and pesticide containers).

Based on the findings of this survey, Hillis-Carnes concludes and recommends the following.

6.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials Survey

Hillis-Carnes conducted an ACM Survey of the on-site structure. A total of 56 bulk samples (a total of 77 layers/samples) were collected from the building. In summary, five of the samples collected from the building were determined to be ACMs. Table 1 included in this report provides a summary of the five materials determined to be ACMs via PLM. The ACMs identified during the survey are discussed as follows.

The floor tiles and mastics (as described in Table 1) identified as ACMs are classified asCategory I nonfriable materials by the EPA. The EPA regulates Category I nonfriablematerials only when they are rendered friable.

Due to the types of materials and the limited potential to release asbestos fibers duringnormal renovation/demolition activities, these materials could possibly be left in-placeduring renovation/demolition, should such renovation/demolition occur. Hillis-Carnesrecommends that the Client discuss the method of renovation/demolition as it relates tothe Category I nonfriable ACMs identified with their General Contractor/DemolitionSubcontractor/Asbestos Abatement Contractor to determine if the renovation/demolitionmethod will render the material friable.

Alternatively, if the floor tiles and mastics will not be disturbed in the future, and thematerials are maintained in good condition, the materials could be incorporated into anOperations and Maintenance (O&M) Program. According to the EPA’s website(www.epa.gov/asbestos), an O&M program is a formulated plan of training, cleaning,work practices, and surveillance to maintain ACMs within buildings in good condition.The goal is to minimize exposure of all building occupants to asbestos fibers. Toaccomplish this objective, EPA recommends that an O&M program include workpractices to: maintain ACM in good condition; ensure proper cleanup of asbestos fiberspreviously released; prevent further releases of asbestos fibers; and monitor thecondition of ACM.

The interior window sealant (as described in Table 1) identified as an ACM is classifiedas a Category II nonfriable material by the EPA.

The material should be removed by a licensed abatement contractor and disposed of asa regulated waste prior to renovation/demolition activities, should such


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

122




renovation/demolition occur. If renovation/demolition does not occur, due to the fair condition of the material, it is Hillis-Carnes’ opinion that the material not be incorporated into an O&M Program, but instead, be properly abated.

Hillis-Carnes recommends that the Client’s General Contractor/Demolition Subcontractor/Asbestos Abatement Contractor confirm Hillis-Carnes’ understanding of the abatement and disposal regulations as they apply to this material.

OSHA Construction Asbestos Standard

The OSHA Construction Asbestos Standard requires building and/or facility owners to notify the following persons of the presence, location and quantity of ACM or material presumed to be ACM, at the work sites in their buildings and facilities:

1) Prospective employers applying or bidding for work whose employees reasonably canbe expected to work in or adjacent to areas containing such material;

2) Employees of the owner who will work in or adjacent to areas containing such material;3) On multi-employer worksites, all employers of employees who will be performing work

within or adjacent to areas containing such materials; and4) Tenants who will occupy areas containing such material.

In accordance with the OSHA Construction Asbestos Standard, Hillis-Carnes recommends that all contractors and custodial and maintenance workers who could come in contact with ACMs during the course of their normal duties be informed of the location of the ACMs.

6.2 Lead Paint Screening Survey

Hillis-Carnes conducted a Lead Paint Screening Survey of the on-site structure. Based on the findings of this survey, Hillis-Carnes presents the following conclusions and recommendations.

With respect to lead-based paint, removal of lead-based painted items as a result ofdemolition activities does not necessarily constitute a lead-based paint abatementprovided that their removal has not been included in the demolition plans to reduce oreliminate the presence of lead-based paint or a lead-based paint hazard. However, iflead-based paint is removed with the intention of reducing or eliminating lead-basedpaint or a lead-based paint hazard, then the removal must be performed by a District ofColumbia licensed lead abatement contractor.

Materials containing lead in any concentration must be handled in accordance with 29CFR 1926.62, the OSHA Lead Exposure in Construction Standard. The OSHAStandard requires the employer to ensure that no employee is exposed to lead atconcentrations greater than 50 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air (µg/m3)averaged over an eight-hour period. The standard further requires the employer tomake a determination of its employees' potential exposure to lead. The standard detailspresumed exposure levels for various construction activities. The employer mustprovide adequate personal and respiratory protection to match the presumed exposurelisted in the standard. Deviation from the presumed exposure is typically achieved byperforming personal monitoring during various representative construction activities.The level of personal and respiratory protection can then be modified based upon theresults of the monitoring.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

123




Hillis-Carnes recommends notifying contractors of all materials known to contain lead (refer to bulleted lists in Section 2.2) prior to bidding on work at the Site that may disturb the materials.

If materials containing lead at any concentration are impacted duringrenovation/demolition activities at the Site, representative demolition waste streamsamples should be collected and submitted for analysis by the EPA's ToxicityCharacteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Should TCLP results reveal leadconcentrations of 5 parts per million or higher, the waste stream should be handled anddisposed of as hazardous waste.

Alternatively, if the painted items containing lead will not be disturbed in the future, andthe materials are maintained in good condition, the materials could be incorporated intothe Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program.

6.3 Equipment Potentially Containing PCBs

6.3.1 Transformers and Capacitors

No on-site electrical or hydraulic equipment known to contain PCBs, or likely to contain PCBs, was observed on the date of the site visit.

6.3.2 Light Ballasts

Hillis-Carnes observed fluorescent lights that include ballasts potentially containing PCBs within the on-site structure (Table 2). Specifically, Hillis-Carnes estimates that approximately 130 ballasts potentially containing PCBs could be located in the on-site structure. Hillis-Carnes recommends that fluorescent light ballasts not labeled as “non-PCB” be removed from the structure prior to demolition activities. Such light ballasts should be handled and disposed in accordance with EPA requirements as well as applicable state and local regulations.

6.4 Universal Wastes

6.4.1 Mercury Vapor Lights/Lamps

Hillis-Carnes observed approximately 260 fluorescent light tubes that potentially contain mercury vapor within the on-site structure (Table 3). In addition, Hillis-Carnes observed approximately 122 lamps/globes that potentially contain mercury vapor within the interior and exterior of the on-site structure (Table 4). Hillis-Carnes recommends that these materials that potentially contain mercury vapor be removed from the structure prior to renovation/demolition activities. These items should be handled and disposed/recycled in accordance with EPA requirements as well as applicable state and local regulations.

6.4.2 Liquid Mercury

On the date of the survey, Hill-Carnes did not observe evidence of thermostats potentially containing liquid mercury bulbs.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

124




6.4.3 Pesticide Containers

On the date of the survey, Hill-Carnes did not observe evidence of containers currently used to store pesticides at the Site.

6.4.4 Lead-Acid Containing Batteries

On the date of the survey, Hillis-Carnes did not observe any batteries potentially containing lead-acid in the building.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

125

Bulk Asbestos AnalysisBy Polarized Light Microscopy

EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190

SW DC Library ACMProject:

Sample IDLab Sample ID

DescriptionLab Notes Asbestos Fibrous

ComponentsNon-FibrousComponents

AttributesTreatment

Robert PushmanAttn:Customer: Hillis-Carnes Eng. Inc.10975 Guilford Rd. Ste AAnnapolis Junction, MD 20701

Analysis ID: 1612545_PLM

Date Reported: 6/28/2016Date Received: 6/27/2016

Lab Order ID: 1612545

None Detected1 - Ablack cove base with tanmastic

cove base

BlackNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_1

Other 100%

None Detected1 - Bblack cove base with tanmastic

mastic

TanNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_57

Other 100%

None Detected2 - Ablack cove base with tanmastic

cove base


Ashed1612545PLM_2

Other 100%

None Detected2 - Bblack cove base with tanmastic

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_58

Other 100%

None Detected3 - Abeige 12x12 FT with tanmastic

tile

BeigeNon FibrousHomogeneous

Dissolved1612545PLM_3

Other 100%

None Detected3 - Bbeige 12x12 FT with tanmastic

mastic

YellowNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

None Detected4 - Abeige 12x12 FT with tanmastic

tile

BeigeNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

None Detected4 - Bbeige 12x12 FT with tanmastic

mastic



Other 100%

Disclaimer: Due to the nature of the EPA 600 method, asbestos may not be detected in samples containing low levels of asbestos. We strongly recommend that analysis of floor tiles, vermiculite, and/orheterogeneous soil samples be conducted by TEM for confirmation of “None Detected” by PLM. This report relates only to the samples tested and may not be reproduced, except in full, without the writtenapproval of SAI. This report may not be used by the client to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the U.S. government. Analytical uncertainty available upon request. ScientificAnalytical Institute participates in the NVLAP Proficiency Testing program. Unless otherwise noted blank sample correction was not performed. Estimated MDL is 0.1%.

Page 1 of 10

Approved SignatoryAnalystScientific Analytical Institute, Inc. 4604 Dundas Dr. Greensboro, NC 27407 (336) 292-3888

Megan Javonovich (77)

P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

126


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





4% Chrysotile5 white FT with black mastic

tile only

WhiteNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 96%

Not Analyzed6 - A white FT with black mastic

tile1612545PLM_6

3% Chrysotile6 - B white FT with black mastic

mastic; small sample



Other 97%

None Detected7 - A black CB with brown mastic

cove base


Ashed1612545PLM_7

Other 100%

None Detected7 - B black CB with brown mastic

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_62

Other 100%

None Detected8 - A black CB with brown mastic

cove base


Ashed1612545PLM_8

Other 100%

None Detected8 - B black CB with brown mastic

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_63

Other 100%

3% Chrysotile9 gray window sealantGrayNon FibrousHomogeneous

Crushed1612545PLM_9

Other 97%


Page 2 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

127


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





Not Analyzed10 gray window sealant

1612545PLM_10

None Detected11 gray door caulkGrayNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_11

Other 100%


Ashed1612545PLM_12

Other 100%

None Detected13 - Atan FT with black mastic andcarpet mastic

mastic 1

GreenNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

5% Chrysotile13 - Btan FT with black mastic andcarpet mastic

tile



Other 95%

6% Chrysotile13 - Ctan FT with black mastic andcarpet mastic

mastic 2



Other 94%

None Detected14 - Atan FT with black mastic andcarpet mastic

mastic 1

GreenNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

Not Analyzed14 - Btan FT with black mastic andcarpet mastic

tile1612545PLM_66


Page 3 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

128


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





Not Analyzed14 - Ctan FT with black mastic andcarpet mastic

mastic 21612545PLM_67


Ashed1612545PLM_15

Other 100%


Ashed1612545PLM_16

Other 100%

None Detected17 12x12 CT with pinholesWhiteNon FibrousHomogeneous

Crushed1612545PLM_17

Other 100%

None Detected18 12x12 CT with pinholesWhiteNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

None Detected192x4 CT with pinholes andgouges

GrayFibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_19

Cellulose Mineral Wool

Perlite Other

40% 30%

25% 5%

None Detected202x4 CT with pinholes andgouges

GrayFibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_20

Cellulose Mineral Wool

Perlite Other

40% 30%

25% 5%

None Detected21 12x12 CT with pinholesYellow, WhiteFibrousHomogeneous

Teased1612545PLM_21

Mineral Wool Other 90% 10%


Page 4 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

129


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





None Detected22 12x12 CT with pinholesYellow, WhiteFibrousHomogeneous

Teased1612545PLM_22

Mineral Wool Other 90% 10%

None Detected23 - Ablack tread on stairs withmasitc

tread


Ashed1612545PLM_23

Other 100%

None Detected23 - Bblack tread on stairs withmasitc

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_68

Other 100%

None Detected24 - Ablack tread on stairs withmasitc

tread


Ashed1612545PLM_24

Other 100%

None Detected24 - Bblack tread on stairs withmasitc

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_69

Other 100%

None Detected25 - A tan tread on stairs with mastic

tread


Ashed1612545PLM_25

Other 100%

None Detected25 - B tan tread on stairs with mastic

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_70

Other 100%

None Detected26 - A tan tread on stairs with mastic

tread


Ashed1612545PLM_26

Other 100%


Page 5 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

130


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





None Detected26 - B tan tread on stairs with mastic

mastic


Ashed1612545PLM_71

Other 100%

None Detected27 - A blue 12x12 FT with mastic

tile

BlueNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

None Detected27 - B blue 12x12 FT with mastic

mastic



Other 100%

None Detected28 - A blue 12x12 FT with mastic

tile



Other 100%

None Detected28 - B blue 12x12 FT with mastic

mastic



Other 100%

None Detected29 - A gray 12x12 FT with mastic

tile



Other 100%

None Detected29 - B gray 12x12 FT with mastic

mastic



Other 100%

None Detected30 - A gray 12x12 FT with mastic

tile

GrayNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%


Page 6 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

131


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





None Detected30 - B gray 12x12 FT with mastic

mastic



Other 100%

None Detected31 clear window caulkTransparentNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_31

Other 100%

None Detected32 clear window caulkTransparentNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_32

Other 100%

None Detected33 - A blue CB with mastic

cove base


Ashed1612545PLM_33

Other 100%

None Detected33 - B blue CB with mastic

mastic

TransparentNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_76

Other 100%

None Detected34 - A blue CB with mastic

cove base


Ashed1612545PLM_34

Other 100%

None Detected34 - B blue CB with mastic

mastic

TransparentNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_77

Other 100%

None Detected35 tan caulkTanNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_35

Other 100%


Page 7 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

132


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





None Detected36 tan caulkTanNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_36

Other 100%

None Detected37 roof sealant and silver coatingBlack, SilverNon FibrousHeterogeneous


Synthetic Fibers Other 10% 90%

None Detected38 roof sealant and silver coatingBlack, SilverNon FibrousHeterogeneous


Synthetic Fibers Other 10% 90%

None Detected39 glue dotsBrownNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

None Detected40 glue dotsBrownNon FibrousHomogeneous


Other 100%

None Detected41 tan floor caulkTanNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_41

Other 100%

None Detected42 tan floor caulkTanNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_42

Other 100%

None Detected43 gray exterior door caulkGrayNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_43

Other 100%


Page 8 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

133


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





None Detected44 gray exterior door caulkGrayNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_44

Other 100%

None Detected45 gray exterior windo caulkGrayNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_45

Other 100%

None Detected46 gray exterior windo caulkGrayNon FibrousHomogeneous

Ashed1612545PLM_46

Other 100%

None Detected47 off-whit stucco pargingBrownNon FibrousHeterogeneous


Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%


Page 9 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

134


EPA Method: 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020

LAB #173190





AttributesTreatment





None Detected52 with stuccoGrayNon FibrousHeterogeneous


Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%



Other Quartz

70% 30%


Page 10 of 10



P-F-002 r15 1/15/2018


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

135


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

136

DCPL ‐ SOUTHWEST Red = Lead Based Paint

Lead Screening Results Green = Lead Containing PaintHCEA Project Number 16339a

Reading No COMPONENT SUBSTRATE COLOR ROOM FLOOR Results PbC

1 CALIBRATION Negative 0

2 CALIBRATION Positive 3.7

3 CALIBRATION Positive 1

4 CALIBRATION Positive 2

5 CALIBRATION Negative 0.8


7 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK WHITE FIRST Negative 0.01

8 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK BLUE FIRST Negative 0

9 DOOR FRAME METAL BLACK FIRST Negative 0.18

10 DOOR METAL BLACK FIRST Negative 0.01

11 THRESHOLD WOOD BLACK FIRST Negative 0

12 WINDOW FRAME METAL BLACK FIRST Negative 0.04

13 COLUMN CONCRETE WHITE FIRST Negative 0.02

14 WINDOW SILL WOOD WHITE FIRST Negative 0

15 INFO DESK WOOD BLACK FIRST Negative 0

16 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK OFF WHITE BATHROOM FIRST Negative 0.02

17 CEILING DRYWALL OFF WHITE BATHROOM FIRST Negative 0

18 DOOR METAL ORANGE FIRST Negative 0.03

19 DOOR FRAME METAL ORANGE FIRST Negative 0.04

20 WINDOW FRAME METAL ORANGE FIRST Negative 0.03

21 DOOR METAL GRAY FIRST Negative 0

22 DOOR FRAME METAL GRAY FIRST Negative 0.09

23 DOOR FRAME METAL WHITE FIRST Negative 0.01

24 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK BLUE SECOND Negative 0

25 DOOR FRAME METAL WHITE SECOND Negative 0.05

26 DOOR METAL WHITE SECOND Negative 0.04

27 DOOR METAL PINK SECOND Negative 0.03

28 DOOR FRAME METAL PINK SECOND Negative 0.13

29 WINDOW METAL PINK SECOND Negative 0.04

30 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK PINK SECOND Negative 0.02

31 DOOR METAL OFF WHITE SECOND Negative 0

32 DOOR FRAME METAL OFF WHITE SECOND Negative 0.04

33 COLUMN CONCRETE PURPLE SECOND Negative 0.01

34 COLUMN CONCRETE GRAY SECOND Negative 0.02

35 DOOR METAL BLACK SECOND Negative 0.01

36 DOOR FRAME METAL BLACK SECOND Negative 0.01

37 CEILING DRYWALL WHITE SECOND Negative 0.01

38 ELEV DOOR METAL WHITE SECOND Negative 0.02

39 ELEV DOOR FRAME METAL WHITE SECOND Negative 0.03

40 RAIL METAL WHITE SECOND Positive 1.2

41 DOOR METAL GRAY FIRST Negative 0.07

42 DOOR FRAME METAL GRAY FIRST Negative 0.08

43 WINDOW METAL GRAY FIRST Negative 0.02

44 ELEV DOOR METAL BLACK FIRST Negative 0.08

45 ELEV DOOR FRAME METAL BLACK FIRST Negative 0.08

46 RAIL METAL WHITE BASEMENT Positive 3.9

47 STAIRS CONCRETE WHITE BASEMENT Negative 0

48 DOOR METAL ORANGE BASEMENT Negative 0.04


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

137

Reading No COMPONENT SUBSTRATE COLOR ROOM FLOOR Results PbC

49 DOOR FRAME METAL ORANGE BASEMENT Negative 0.03

50 DOOR FRAME METAL GREEN BASEMENT Negative 0.12

51 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK PEACH BASEMENT Negative 0.03

52 WALL CONCRETE PEACH BASEMENT Negative 0.03

53 BASEBOARD CONCRETE ORANGE BASEMENT Negative 0.01

54 BASEBOARD CONCRETE TAN BASEMENT Negative 0.02

55 CLOSET DOOR FRAME CONCRETE WHITE BASEMENT Negative 0.03

56 CEILING DRYWALL WHITE BASEMENT Negative 0

57 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK GREEN BASEMENT Negative 0.02

58 DOOR METAL GREEN BASEMENT Negative 0.01

59 DOOR FRAME METAL GREEN BASEMENT Negative 0.09

60 FLOOR CONCRETE GRAY BASEMENT Negative 0

61 STAIR CONCRETE GRAY BASEMENT Negative 0

62 STAIR METAL YELLOW BASEMENT Negative 0.08

63 RAIL METAL BLACK BASEMENT Positive 1.9

64 WALL CONCRETE TAN BASEMENT Negative 0.01

65 WALL CONCRETE BLOCK TAN BASEMENT Negative 0.07

66 COLUMN CONCRETE TAN BASEMENT Negative 0

67 CONCRETE PAD CONCRETE BLACK BASEMENT Negative 0

68 SERVICE PANEL METAL WHITE BASEMENT Negative 0.01

69 ELEV DOOR METAL ORANGE BASEMENT Negative 0.02

70 ELEV DOOR FRAME METAL ORANGE BASEMENT Negative 0.06

71 RAIL METAL GRAY EXTERIOR Positive 2.7

72 CAGE METAL BLACK EXTERIOR Negative 0

73 FLOOR CONCRETE GRAY EXTERIOR Negative 0

74 PARKING STRIPS ASPHALT WHITE EXTERIOR Negative 0

75 FENCE METAL GRAY EXTERIOR Negative 0.21

76 FLAG POLE METAL WHITE EXTERIOR Positive 1.2

77 SECURITY FENCE METAL GRAY EXTERIOR Negative 0.01

78 COLUMN METAL GRAY EXTERIOR Negative 0

79 WINDOW FRAME WOOD WHITE EXTERIOR Negative 0

80 WALL CONCRETE WHITE EXTERIOR Negative 0

81 CALIBRATION Negative 0







SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

682

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

139

Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study DCPL – Southwest Library

900 Wesley Place, SW Washington, DC 20024 HCEA Job No. 16339A

Prepared for:

Brailsford & Dunlavey 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

140

Corporate Headquarters - Annapolis Junction, MD

Maryland Washington, DC Delaware Pennsylvania Virginia Caribbean

10975 Guilford Road, Suite A

Annapolis Junction, MD 20701

Phone (410) 880-4788

Fax (410) 880-4098

www.hcea.com

EN

GIN

EER

ING

ASSO

CIA

TES

August 15, 2016

Brailsford & Dunlavey 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036

Attention: Mr. Mahboud Nobakht

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study DCPL – Southwest Library 900 Wesley Place, SW Washington, D.C. HCEA Job No. 16339A

Gentlemen:

Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. (HCEA) is pleased to submit this report concerning the preliminary subsurface exploration and subsequent preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed library construction that is to be located in Washington, D.C.

We wish to advise you that the boring samples will be stored at our Annapolis Junction, Maryland office for a period of 30 days from the date of this letter. Should you wish the samples to be stored for a longer period of time or to be delivered to you or another party, please advise us in writing prior to the end of the 30-day period. Otherwise, the samples will be discarded at the end of the 30-day storage period.

HCEA appreciates having had the opportunity to provide the geotechnical consultation for this project, and we will remain available for further consultation during the various design stages. In order to provide complete professional services, we strongly recommend that inspection of the geotechnical aspects of construction be conducted by HCEA. This will help to verify that the construction operations are performed in accordance with the design recommendations of this report and the overall project plans and specifications. Should you have any questions concerning the contents of this report, or require additional consultation, design, inspection, or testing services, please contact our Office.

Very truly yours, HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Michael P. Johnson, P.E. Timothy B. Hill, P.E.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

141

DCPL – Southwest Library Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study

HCEA Project No. 16339A

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ....................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................... 1

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................... 1

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .............................................................................. 2

4.1 Site Geology ....................................................................................................... 3

4.2 Man-Placed Fill Materials ................................................................................... 3

4.3 Natural Materials ................................................................................................ 3

4.4 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... 3

5.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 4

5.1 General Site Preparation .................................................................................... 4

5.2 Fill Selection, Placement and Compaction......................................................... 5

5.3 Foundations ....................................................................................................... 6

5.4 Ground-Supported Slabs ................................................................................... 7

5.5 Groundwater and Drainage ................................................................................ 7

6.0 REMARKS ............................................................................................................. 8

TABLES

Table 1: Boring Summary Table ...................................................................................... 4

FIGURES (Contained in the Appendix)

Figure 1: Project Location Map Figure 2: Boring Location PlanRecords of Soil Exploration Particle Size Distribution Reports Field Classification Sheet


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

142



HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 1

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this preliminary study was to determine the general subsurface conditions at the boring locations and to provide preliminary evaluations with respect to concept and design of foundation systems and floor slabs for the proposed construction.

The preliminary evaluations and recommendations presented in this report were developed from an analysis of project characteristics and an interpretation of the general subsurface conditions at the site based on the boring information. The stratification lines indicated on the boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In-situ, however, the transitions may be gradual. Such variations can best be evaluated during construction and, if necessary, any minor design changes can be made at that time.

An evaluation of the site with respect to potential construction problems and recommendations dealing with the earthwork and inspection during construction are also included. This inspection is considered necessary to verify the subsurface conditions and to verify that the soils-related construction phases are performed properly. The Appendix contains a summary of the field and laboratory work on which this report is based.

2.0 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project site is located at 900 Wesley Place, SW in Washington D.C. as shown on the Project Location Map (Figure 1) in the Appendix.

Based on information provided by the Client, we understand that the proposed construction at the site is to include is to include a new library building. The site is currently occupied by an existing library structure that is to be removed prior to new construction.

Additional details concerning the proposed construction were not available at the time that this report was being prepared. Should any of the project characteristics differ from those outlined above, then this office should be contacted for a re-evaluation of the site.

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

In order to preliminarily determine the general subsurface conditions at the project site, four geotechnical Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings were drilled to depths of 45 ft below existing site grades in accessible areas of the site. Approximate boring locations were staked in the field by HCEA using existing site features as reference. Therefore, boring locations should be considered


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

143




approximate. The approximate boring locations are shown on the Soil Boring Location Plan, found in the Appendix.

The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers and the subsurface soils were generally sampled at 2.5 ft. and 5.0 ft. intervals. Samples were taken by driving a 1-3/8-inch I.D. (2-inch O.D.) split-spoon sampler in general accordance with ASTM D-1586 specifications. The sampler was first seated 6 inches to penetrate any loose cuttings and then was driven an additional 12 inches with blows of a 140-pound hammer, falling 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is designated as the "Penetration Resistance" or "N" value. The penetration resistance (N-value) can be used as an indication of the soil strength and compression characteristics.

Portions of each SPT soil sample were placed in glass jars and transported to HCEA's laboratory. All of the jarred samples were visually examined in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer and visually-manually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM D-2488. The Unified Soil Classification Symbols appear on the Records of Soil Exploration (boring logs) and the system nomenclature is described in the Appendix.

Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples, which consisted of Atterberg limits, sieve analysis, moisture content, and Standard Proctor tests. The laboratory test results were used in general accordance with ASTM D-2487 to obtain the USCS classification of the soils tested. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the Appendix and the USCS classifications presented on the Records of Soil Exploration were reviewed based on the laboratory testing results.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Details of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on the Records of Soil Exploration. Strata divisions shown have been estimated based on visual examinations of the recovered boring samples and the collection intervals. In the field, strata changes could occur gradually and/or at different levels than indicated on the boring logs.

Groundwater conditions indicated on the boring logs are those observed during the subsurface exploration. Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected and are typically influenced by changes in seasons, grading, runoff, infiltration rates, and may be influenced by other factors.

Generalized subsurface conditions and pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils based on the results of the current exploration are discussed below:


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

144




4.1 Site Geology

Available geologic maps indicate that the project site is located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain Region, where near surface natural soils are sedimentary materials, usually consisting of interbedded layers of granular and semi cohesive to cohesive soil deposits.

4.2 Man-Placed Fill Materials

Man-placed fill or possible fill materials were identified in the subsurface at the several of the boring locations and to the approximate depths as noted in Table 1, the Boring Summary Table. Since the size of the samples obtained is relatively small in comparison to the areal extent of the site and since the fill materials could be of similar composition to the natural soils encountered at the site, it is often difficult to determine the presence and composition of fill materials from the SPT samples. It should be anticipated that man-placed fill materials may be encountered at other locations and to different depths across the site.

Fill and suspected fill onsite consisted primarily of granular soils, silty and clayey sands (SM and SC, respectively). These materials were generally medium dense to very dense in density. The encountered fill materials contained trace amounts of organic material and brick fragments.

Cohesive fill soils were encountered largely at borings B-3 and B-4 and consisted of clay and sandy clay (SC and CL/SC, respectively). Cohesive fill materials ranged in consistency from medium stiff to hard.

4.3 Natural Materials

The natural soils encountered in the borings generally consisted of poorly-graded sand (SP), silty sand (SM), clayey sand (SC), clayey gravel and sand (GC-SC), clay (CL) and sandy clay (CL/SC). The encountered natural materials were largely consistent with the site geology noted above.

The SPT N-values recorded in the borings generally indicate relative densities of the more granular materials ranging from very loose to medium dense. The more fine-grained materials typically exhibited consistencies in the soft to very stiff range.

4.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was observed at the depths noted on the Records of Soil Exploration, which are summarized in Table 1, the Boring Summary Table.

A more accurate determination of the hydrostatic water table would require the installation of perforated pipes or piezometers which could be monitored over


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

145




an extended period of time. The actual level of the hydrostatic water table and the amount and level of perched water should be anticipated to fluctuate throughout the year, depending on variations in precipitation, surface run-off, infiltration, site topography, and drainage.

Table 1: Boring Summary Table

Boring No.

Drilled Depth (ft)

Depth of Fill/Possible Fill (ft)

Shallowest Measured GW Depth

(ft)

B‐1 45.0 23.5 15.0 B‐2 45.0 28.5 21.0 B‐3 45.0 18.5 27.0 B‐4 45.0 23.5 19.5

5.0 PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Our findings indicate that the site can be developed for the proposed structure. The presence of existing fill/possible fill materials to estimated depths of 18.5+ ft to 28.5+ ft below existing site grades could have a significant impact on design and construction operations. Footings should not be constructed on or over any existing fill materials. It is recommended that additional borings be drilled and test pits be excavated to better define the composition and consistency of the existing fill materials. The feasibility of utilizing a spread footing foundation can better be determined once this additional exploration is performed. Should the existing fill materials be determined to be not suitable for foundation support, then the proposed structure likely need be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of either augered, cast-in-place concrete piles or drilled shafts. Alternatively, it may be possible to utilize alternative subgrade modification techniques (such as rammed-aggregate piers) in order to provide a shallow foundation alternative for the structure.

The following preliminary recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions. If there are any changes to the project characteristics or if different subsurface conditions are encountered during construction, HCEA should be consulted so that the recommendations of this report can be reviewed and revised accordingly.

5.1 General Site Preparation

All existing structures (including all above and below ground construction) within the areas to be developed should be removed prior to the initiation of new construction. We suggest that all available information regarding the existing utilities at the site be reviewed prior to construction.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

146




Removal should include all underground pipes, utilities, and underground structures that might interfere with the new construction. If abandoned underground utilities are to be removed prior to the initiation of construction, provisions should be made in the construction specifications and budget to restore the subgrade to stable condition. Restoration should include backfilling and compaction of any excavation areas.

Removal should also include topsoil; unapproved man-placed materials; frozen, wet, soft or very loose soils; and any other deleterious materials. These operations should be performed in a manner consistent with good erosion and sediment control practices.

After the initial stripping and removal process is completed, areas of the site to receive fill, or areas of the site at-grade where the structure will be located, should be proofrolled. The proofrolling operations should be performed using a 20-ton, fully-loaded dump truck or another pneumatic-tire vehicle of similarsize and weight. The purpose of the proofrolling will be to locate any near-surface pockets of soft or loose soils requiring undercutting. A GeotechnicalEngineer or experienced Soils Inspector should witness the proofrollingoperations and should determine which areas need further undercutting and/orstabilization. All unsuitable material should be completely removed and thesubgrade observed, tested and proofrolled before any new fill is placed.

5.2 Fill Selection, Placement and Compaction

All material to be used as fill or backfill should be inspected, tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer or his authorized representative. In general, the on-site soils which are free from organic and other deleterious components can be re-used. Materials suitable for various construction purposes can be identified by an experienced Soils Inspector during grading operations.

Moisture conditioning (that is, wetting or drying) of the soils should be anticipated to achieve proper compaction. The moisture contents of the soils should be controlled properly to avoid extensive construction delays. If imported fill material is required, those materials should have Unified Soil Classifications of SM or more granular.

The traffic of heavy equipment, including heavy construction equipment, could create pumping and a general deterioration of these soils, if conducted in the presence of water. If exposed to water, these soils can deteriorate and become difficult to work. The grading should therefore, if at all possible, be carried out during a dry season. This should minimize these potential problems, although they may not be eliminated. If such problems arise, the


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

147




Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted for an evaluation of the conditions.

All fill should be placed in relatively horizontal 8-inch (maximum) loose lifts and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698) maximum dry density. Fill materials in landscape and other non-structural areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the Standard Proctor maximum dry density, if significant subsidence of the fill under its own weight is to be avoided. Field moisture contents should be maintained within 2 percentage points of the optimum moisture content in order to provide adequate compaction. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be performed by an experienced Engineering Technician on a full-time basis to verify that the proper degree of compaction is being obtained

Structural fill should extend a minimum of 10 feet beyond building lines where floor slabs are to be constructed on the fill. Fill slopes no steeper than 2(H):1(V), or flatter, should be used. New fills should be properly benched into existing slopes.

5.3 Foundations

As stated previously, existing fill/possible fill materials were encountered to estimated depths of 18.5+ ft to 28.5+ ft below existing site grades at the site. As such, foundations for the proposed structure will require special consideration.Foundations should not be supported on or over any existing fill materials unless the fill materials are specifically observed, tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer or his designated representative in the field during construction.

It is recommended that additional borings be drilled and test pits be excavated during the final geotechnical study to better define the composition and consistency of the existing fill materials. The feasibility of utilizing a spread footing foundation can better be determined once this additional exploration is performed. It is recommended that the additional borings (that are to be drilled during the final study once the existing structure has been removed) be drilled to greater depths below existing site grades to be able to better evaluate the most economical foundation system for the structure. Should the existing fill materials be determined to be not suitable for foundation support, then the proposed structure likely need be supported on a deep foundation system consisting of either augered, cast-in-place concrete piles or drilled shafts. Alternatively, it may be possible to utilize alternative subgrade modification techniques (such as rammed-aggregate piers) in order to provide a shallow foundation alternative for the structure.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

148




5.4 Ground-Supported Slabs

Floor slabs should be supported on approved, firm natural soils, or on new compacted structural fill. The slab subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the procedures outlined in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report. In particular, the slab subgrade should be heavily proofrolled to delineate any soft or loose areas requiring undercutting and/or stabilization. Slabs should not be supported on or over any existing fill materials unless the fill materials are specifically observed, tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer or his designated representative in the field during construction.

It is recommended that the slab be directly supported on a minimum 4-inch layer of clean granular materials such as washed sand, clean sand and gravel, or screened, crushed stone. A suitable moisture/vapor barrier (that is, polyethylene sheeting) should also be provided. These procedures will provide a moisture break that will help to prevent capillary rise, dampness of the floor slabs and also help to cure the slab concrete. It is also recommend that construction joints on the slab surface and isolation joints between the slab and structural walls be provided (such that the slab would be ground-supported).

On most projects, there is a significant time lag between initial grading and a point when the contractor is ready to pour the slabs-on-grade. Environmental conditions and construction traffic often disturb the subgrade soils. Provisions should be made in the construction specifications for the restoration of the subgrade soils to a stable condition prior to the placement of the concrete for the floor slabs.

5.5 Groundwater and Drainage

Groundwater was encountered at various depths across the site but generally at depths between 15± ft and 27± ft below existing site grades. Therefore, major groundwater-related problems are not anticipated during building construction. See Table 1, the Boring Summary Table, for a summary of the shallowest groundwater encountered at each boring location. A more accurate determination of the hydrostatic water table would require the installation of perforated pipes or piezometers, which could be monitored over an extended period of time. The actual level of the hydrostatic water table and the amount and level of perched water should be anticipated to fluctuate throughout the year, depending on variations in precipitation, surface run off, infiltration, site topography, and drainage.

Any water infiltration resulting from precipitation, surface run-off, or perched water should be able to be controlled by means of sump pits and pumps, or by gravity ditching procedures. If any conditions are encountered which cannot be handled in such a manner, the Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

149




Adequate drainage should be provided at the site to minimize any increases in the moisture contents of the foundation soils. All pavement or parking areas should be sloped away from the structure to prevent ponding of water around the building.

6.0 REMARKS

This report has been prepared to aid in the preliminary evaluation of the site for the proposed library construction. It is considered that adequate recommendations have been provided to serve as a basis for preliminary site analysis. Additional recommendations can be provided as needed.

These preliminary analyses and recommendations are, of necessity, based on the information made available to us at the time of the actual writing of the report and the on-site conditions, surface and subsurface, that existed at the time the exploratory borings were drilled. Further assumption has been made that the limited exploratory borings, in relation both to the areal extent of the site and to depth, are representative of conditions across the site. The preliminary evaluations and recommendations contained herein have been based on relatively widely spaced soil borings. Actual subsurface conditions encountered could vary from those outlined in this report.

If subsurface conditions are encountered which differ from those reported herein, this Office should be notified immediately so that the analyses and recommendations can be reviewed and/or revised as necessary. It is also recommended that:

1. We are given the opportunity to review any plans and specificationsprepared subsequent to the final geotechnical study in order to commenton the interaction of the soil conditions as described herein and the designrequirements.

2. A Geotechnical Engineer or experienced Soils Inspector is present at thesite during the construction phase to verify installation according to theapproved plans and specifications. This is particularly important duringexcavation, placement, and compaction of fill materials.

Please note that successful completion of the project is dependent on your compliance with all of the recommendations provided in this report. While represented separately, the recommendations represent work that is intertwined. The successful completion of the project is specifically conditioned on your complying with all recommendations.

Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

150




principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either implied or expressed. Hillis-Carnes Engineering Associates, Inc. assumes no responsibility for interpretations made by others based on work or recommendations made by HCEA.


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

151




APPENDIX

Figure 1. Project Location Map

Figure 2. Boring Location Plan

Records of Soil Exploration (Boring Logs)

Particle Size Distribution Reports

Compaction Test Report

Field Classification Sheet


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

152

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Scale: Date: Figure: 1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

153

B-1

B-4 ��

B-2

SOUTHWEST

LIBRARY

LEGEND�

SOIL BORING LOCATION

�� © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS

user community, DC GIS �� ¡¢£¤¥¦§ ¨¥©§ª «¡¢¬ ® ®¯ ©̄°¥£¢± ²¡¯³¬¢¥¯ª ´©¦µ £©¯§¶·¸ ¹º��» ¼¼�½º�¼¼ ¾¾¾¿ÀÁÂ®¿ÁÃ´ Ä©Å¸ ¹º��» ¼¼�½º��¼

DCPL - SOUTHWEST LIBRARYÆÇÇ ÈÉÊËÉÌ ÍËÎÏÉÐ ÊÈ ÈÎÊÑÒÓÔÕÖÓÐ ×Ï

BORING LOCATION PLAN

MPJ

AM

1

ØÙ Ú ÛÜÝ

06/27/16

16339A


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

154

7.5

15

22.5

30

37.5

45

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

D

D

D

D

Brown, moist, dense to mediumdense silty SAND with brickfragments, gravel (SM; FILL)

Red-Brown, moist, medium denseclayey SAND with brick fragments(SC; FILL)

Brown, moist, medium dense siltySAND (SM; FILL)

Multicolored Brown/Gray, moist,very dense silty SAND with angulargravel (SM; FILL)

Brown/Bluish-Gray to Brown,moist, dense to loose clayeyangular GRAVEL and SAND (GC-SC)

Brown/Gray to Tan, moist, mediumstiff to very stiff CLAY with sand(CL)

Red-Brown, wet, medium denseSAND with clay and silt (SP)

Bottom of Boring at 45.0 ft

3" of Concrete

Groundwaterencountered at 23.5 ft

Auger Chatter at12.0 ft

Boring backfilled withgrout at completion.

10"

14"

18"

18"

18"

18"

10"

9"

18"

18"

18"

18"

9-19-18

17-11-8

8-6-8

7-9-11

9-12-14

6-9-12

17-36-45

14-18-25

8-4-4

6-3-6

5-9-12

5-7-11

37

19

14

20

26

11

81

43

8

9

21

18

81

HILLIS - CARNESENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

RECORD OF SOIL EXPLORATION

Project Name DCPL - Southwest Library Boring No. B-1

Location Washington DC, SW Job # 16339A

SAMPLER

Datum MSL Hammer Wt. 140 lbs. Hole Diameter 6" Foreman Chris L.

Surf. Elev. +/-16.0 ft Hammer Drop 30 in. Rock Core Diameter N/A Inspector W. Harris

Date Started 7/21/16 Pipe Size 2.0 in. Boring Method HSA Date Completed 7/21/16

GROUND

WATER

CAVE IN

DEPTHSAMPLER TYPE SAMPLE CONDITIONS BORING METHOD

DRIVEN SPLIT SPOON UNLESS OTHERWISE D - DISINTEGRATED AT COMPLETION 15.0 ft. 35.0 ft. HSA - HOLLOW STEM AUGERS

PT - PRESSED SHELBY TUBE I - INTACT AFTER 24 HRS. ft. ft. CFA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGERS

CA - CONTINUOUS FLIGHT AUGER U - UNDISTURBED AFTER HRS. ft. ft. DC - DRIVING CASING

RC - ROCK CORE L - LOST MD - MUD DRILLING

STANDARD PENETRATION TEST-DRIVING 2" O.D. SAMPLER 1' WITH 140# HAMMER FALLING 30": COUNT MADE AT 6" INTERVALS.

Elevation/

Depth

SOILSYMBOLS/SAMPLE

CONDITIONS

DescriptionBoring and Sampling

NotesRec. NM% SPT Blows

N

SPT Blows/Foot

C u r v e

10 30 50


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

155

7.5

15

22.5

30

37.5

45

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

D

D

D

D

Dark Brown, moist, loose siltySAND with brick fragments, gravel(SM; FILL)

Gray, moist, very dense siltyangular GRAVEL (GM; FILL)

Tan/Yellow-Brown, moist, very stiffCLAY (CL; FILL)

Brown, moist, medium dense siltyfine-grained SAND (SM; FILL)

Dark Brown/Yellow-Brown to RedBrown, moist, medium denseclayey SAND with clay seams,organics (SC; FILL)-Odiferous

Yellow-Brown, very moist, mediumdense SAND with clay, silt (SP)

Yellow-Brown/Red-Brown/Orange-Brown, very moist very denseSAND with some clay (SP-SC)


6" of Asphalt6" of Gravel Base

Bulk sample taken at0.0-5.0 ft



10"

4"

12"

18"

18"

5"

18"

18"

18"

18"

18"

18"

6-5-3

50/4"

12-11-9

6-9-11

7-10-10

7-8-8

4-7-8

7-10-9

4-5-7

12-26-31

10-20-27

11-23-29

8

50+

20

20

20

16

15

19

12

57

47

52





SAMPLER




GROUND

WATER

CAVE IN







Elevation/

Depth

SOILSYMBOLS/SAMPLE

CONDITIONS



N

SPT Blows/Foot

C u r v e

10 30 50


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

156

7.5

15

22.5

30

37.5

45

D

D

D

D

D

I

D

D

D

D

D

D

Mottled Tan/Yellow-Brown/Brown,moist, medium stiff to hard CLAYwith some silt and sand (CL; FILL)

Reddish-Brown, moist, stiff sandyCLAY with gravel and traceorganics (CL-SC; FILL)

Redish Brown, moist, mediumdense clayey SAND with some silt(SC/SM; FILL)

Brown, moist, loose SAND with silt(SP)

Brown, very moist, soft sandyCLAY (CL-SC)

Brown, very moist, very looseclayey SAND (SC)

Tan/Brown, moist, dense clayeySAND with clay seams (SC)

Yellow Brown, wet, dense SAND(SP)


6" of Asphalt6" of Gravel Base



18"

8"

14"

18"

18"

18"

18"

18"

18"

10"

12"

15"

6-5-5

5-50/3"

9-11-14

3-6-9

4-6-7

5-6-6

5-3-3

3-2-1

1-2-3

17-16-25

15-19-31

9-12-20

10

55+

25

15

13

12

6

3

5

41

50

32





SAMPLER




GROUND

WATER

CAVE IN







Elevation/

Depth

SOILSYMBOLS/SAMPLE

CONDITIONS



N

SPT Blows/Foot

C u r v e

10 30 50


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

157

7.5

15

22.5

30

37.5

45

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

D

D

D

D

D

Brown, moist, medium stiff to verystiff CLAY with silt (CL; FILL)

Red Brown, moist, medium denseclayey SAND with organics (SC;FILL)

Yellow-Brown, moist, stiff CLAYwith gravel and sand (CL)

Reddish-Brown, moist, mediumdense silty SAND (SM; FILL)Brown, moist, medium stiff CLAYwith organics (CL; FILL)

Brown, moist, medium denseclayey SAND (SC; FILL)

Brown, moist, very dense siltyGRAVEL and SAND (GM-SM;Possible FILL)

Yellow-Brown, very moist, denseclayey GRAVEL and SAND (GC-SC)

Brown, wet, medium dense clayeySAND with gravel (SC)

Yellow-Brown, moist, stiff sandyCLAY (CL-SC)

Tan, wet, medium dense SAND(SP)


6" of Topsoil


Auger Chatter at16.0 ft

Auger Grinding at 19.0ft

Hard Drilling from 16-22.0 ft


14"

18"

18"

6"

18"

18"

6"

18"

18"

18"

18"

18"

1-3-6

4-8-9

3-4-7

5-7-7

3-3-5

3-5-9

21-50/6"

19-15-16

3-6-9

3-7-10

3-5-9

3-6-9

9

17

11

14

8

14

71+

31

15

17

14

15

71+





SAMPLER




GROUND

WATER

CAVE IN







Elevation/

Depth

SOILSYMBOLS/SAMPLE

CONDITIONS



N

SPT Blows/Foot

C u r v e

10 30 50


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

158

HILLIS-CARNES

ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Annapolis Junction, MD

08/03/16

(no specification provided)

PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown silty, clayey sand

3"2"

1 - 1/2"1"

3/4"3/8"#4#10#40

#100#200

100.0100.0100.0100.0

98.597.194.491.279.658.849.9

18 24 6

1.3783 0.6374 0.16040.0756

SC-SM A-4(0)

Moisture content: 4.7%

Brailsford Dunlavey

DCPL - Southwest Library

16339A

Material Description

Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B-1, Bulk-1Sample Number: 1 Depth: 0.0'-5.0' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure

SIEVE PERCENT SPEC.* PASS?

SIZE FINER PERCENT (X=NO)

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100

% +3" % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay

0.0 5.6 44.5 49.9

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in

.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00

Particle Size Distribution Report


SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

159

HILLIS-CARNES



08/03/16


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown sandy lean clay

3"2"

1 - 1/2"1"

3/4"#4#10#40

#100#200

100.0100.0100.0100.0

87.387.387.285.365.354.3

18 29 11

20.1732 0.4148 0.1105

CL A-6(3)


Brailsford Dunlavey


16339A


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B-1, S-3Sample Number: 2 Depth: 5.0'-6.5' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100


0.0 12.7 33.0 54.3

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in

.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00



SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

160

HILLIS-CARNES



08/03/16


PL= LL= PI=

D90= D85= D60=D50= D30= D15=D10= Cu= Cc=

USCS= AASHTO=

*

Brown sandy lean clay

3"2"

1 - 1/2"1"

3/4"3/8"#4#10#40

#100#200

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

99.997.976.763.9

18 27 9

0.2726 0.2176

CL A-4(3)


Brailsford Dunlavey


16339A


Atterberg Limits

Coefficients

Classification

Remarks

Location: B-4, S-5Sample Number: 3 Depth: 10.0'-11.5' Date:

Client:

Project:

Project No: Figure



PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GRAIN SIZE - mm.

0.0010.010.1110100


0.0 0.0 36.1 63.9

6 in

.

3 in

.

2 in

.

1½

in

.

1 in

.

¾ in

.

½ in

.

3/8

in

.

#4

#1

0

#2

0

#3

0

#4

0

#6

0

#1

00

#1

40

#2

00



SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

161

COMPACTION TEST REPORT

Dry

density

, pcf

102

107

112

117

122

127

Water content, %

5.5 8 10.5 13 15.5 18 20.5

ZAV forSp.G. =2.70

Test specification: AASHTO T 99 Method C Standard

0.0'-5.0' SC-SM A-4(0) 2.70 24 6 1.5 49.9

Brown silty, clayey sand

16339A Brailsford Dunlavey

08/03/16

Elev/ Classification Nat.Sp.G. LL PI

% > % <

Depth USCS AASHTO Moist. 3/4 in. No.200

TEST RESULTS MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Project No. Client: Remarks:

Project:

Date:

Location: B-1, Bulk-1 Sample Number: 1

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

Annapolis Junction, MD Figure

Maximum dry density = 117.7 pcf

Optimum moisture = 12.4 %



SEPTEMBER 27, 2016

162

HILLIS-CARNES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, Inc.

10975 Guilford Road, Suite A Annapolis Junction, Maryland 20701

Phone: (410)880-4788 Fax: (410)880-4098

Description of Soils – per ASTM D2487 Major Component Component Type Component Description Symbol Group Name

GW Well Graded Gravel Clean Gravels <5% Passing No. 200 sieve GP Poorly Graded Gravel

GM Silty Gravel

Gravels – More than 50% of the coarse fraction is retained on the No. 4 sieve. Coarse = 1” to 3” Medium = ½” to 1” Fine = ¼” to ½”

Gravels with fines, >12% Passing the No. 200 sieve GC Clayey Gravel

SW Well Graded Sand Clean Sands <5% Passing No. 200 sieve SP Poorly Graded Sand

SM Silty Sand

Coarse-Grained Soils,More than 50% is retained on the No. 200 sieve

Sands – More than 50% of the coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve.Coarse = No.10 to No.4 Medium = No. 10 to No. 40 Fine = No. 40 to No. 200

Sands with fines, >12% Passing the No. 200 sieve SC Clayey Sand

ML SiltInorganic

CL Lean Clay

Organic silt

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit is less than 50 Low to medium plasticity Organic OL

Organic Clay

MH Elastic Silt Inorganic

CH Fat Clay

Organic Silt

Fine Grained Soils,More than 50% passes the No. 200 sieve

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit of 50 or greater Medium to high plasticity Organic OH

Organic Clay

Highly Organic Soils Primarily Organic matter, dark color, organic odor PT Peat

Proportions of Soil Components Particle Size Identification Component

FormDescription Approximate percent

by weight Particle Size Particle dimension

Noun Sand, Gravel, Silt, Clay, etc. 50% or more Boulder 12” diameter or more

Adjective Sandy, silty, clayey, etc. 35% to 49% Cobble 3” to 12” diameter

Some Some sand, some silt, etc. 12% to 34% Gravel ¼” to 3” diameter

Trace Trace sand, trace mica, etc. 1% to 11% Sand 0.005” to ¼” diameter

With With sand, with mica, etc. Presence only Silt/Clay (fines) Cannot see particle

Cohesive Soils Granular Soils Field Description No. of SPT

Blows/ft Consistency No. of SPT Blows/ft Relative Density

Easily Molded in Hands 0 – 3 Very Soft 0 – 4 Very Loose

Easily penetrated several inches by thumb 4 – 5 Soft 5 – 10 Loose

Penetrated by thumb with moderate effort 6 – 10 Medium 11 – 30 Medium Dense

Penetrated by thumb with great effort 11 – 30 Stiff 31 – 50 Dense

Indented by thumb only with great effort Greater than 30 Hard Greater than 50 Very Dense

Other Definitions:

Fill: Encountered soils that were placed by man. Fill soils may be controlled (engineered structural fill)or uncontrolled fills that may contain rubble and/or debris.

Saprolite: Soil material derived from the in-place chemical and physical weathering of the parent rockmaterial. May contain relic structure. Also called residual soils. Occurs in Piedmont soils, found west ofthe fall line.

Disintegrated Rock: Residual soil material with rock-like properties, very dense, N = 60 to 51/0”.

Karst: Descriptive term which denotes the potential for solutioning of the limestone rock and thedevelopment of sinkholes.

Alluvium: Recently deposited soils placed by water action, typically stream or river floodplain soils.

Groundwater Level: Depth within borehole where water is encountered either during drilling, or after aset period of time to allow groundwater conditions to reach equilibrium.

Caved Depth: Depth at which borehole collapsed after removal of augers/casing. Indicative of loosesoils and/or groundwater conditions.

Date post:	18-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT · The existing Fire alarm system service has an old fuse block...

Documents