SW4170502_HISTORICAL FILE_20170614

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
POST -CONSTRUCTION PERMITS
PERMIT NO.
SW �f
DOC TYPE
❑ CURRENT PERMIT
❑ APPROVED PLANS
I HISTORICAL FILE
El COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
DOC DATE
1�1
YYYYMMDD

UG SYNERGETIC
AMMOF
Date:
05/10/2017
Revision:
Client:
Duke Energy— Carolina West
UC SYNERGETIC, LLC.
Project:
Holt Retail Substation
123 N. White street
Fort Mill, SC 29715
[phone]
Specification
No.:
N/A
Calculation Title:
HOLT RETAIL SUBSTATION
PROJECT REPORT
NC Department of
i
Environmental quality
Received
JUN 14 2017
Winston-Salem
t,
Regional Office
LEVEL SPREADER/VEGETATIVE FILTER
STRIP CALCULATIONS

v ' POS r A = 1.84 AC v
c=0.85
BYPASS = 1.02 AC
tol o
j .� f lj �: vl �I� ❑ C 'I I� I� I' � � ��
E+
o
i—_
Ili I' I I, Ij
� �,,. ��. � �/� ti /' ' L �� 'I� I` N� �J a❑� ICI �p/� ��� ��r�'
o
o
------
Y(,
INSET
SCALE: r 30 �.� I POST B — 0.78 AC� t/
\ I C-058,—
I r� 1, V �• � ,���� :;��� � �'' I
�:I oxAaHc scue
MATCHLINC I '.I J \ \\
(SEE INSET ABOVE)
DRAINAGE AREAS POST
g - r / ngpNn
iHOLT RET
Ic`'3
JI I !I" C Q'i�si. Zn NC -SC 3933 2709680GRA 0

non �°`.,x.Eq L
NCDENR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FORM
LEVEL SPREADER - VEGETATED FILTER STRIP (LS-VFS) SUPPLEMENT
This form must be completely filled out, printed, initialed, and submitted.
Project name
Contact name
Phone number
Date
Drainage area number
Holt Retail Substation
Joe Ervin, P.E.
803 835 6154
May 8,2017
1
II .11DESIGN11N F,ORMAT_I.ON
The purpose of the LS-VFS Other. Explained below
Stormwater enters LS-VFS from The drainage area
Type of VFS Engineered filter strip (graded 8 sodded, slope < 8%)
Explanation of any 'Other" responses above control runoff from the site in lieu of stone water pond Within 5 miles of airport
If Stornwater Enters the LS-VFS from the Drainage Area
Drainage area
Impervious surface area
Percent impervious
Rational C coefficient
Peak flow from the 1 ini storm
Time of concentration
Rainfall intensity, 10-yr stone
Peak Bow from the 10-yr storm
Design storm
Maximum amount of flow directed to the LS-VFS
Is a flow bypass system going to be used?
Explanation of any 'Other" responses above
If Stormwater Enters the LS-VFS from a BMP
Type of BMP
Peak discharge from the BMP during the design storm
Peak discharge from the BMP during the 10-year storm
Maximum capacity of a 100-foot long LS-VFS
Peak Bow directed to the LS-VFS
Is a flow bypass system going to be used?
Explanation of any 'Other' responses above
114,041 %'
75,870 F12
66,53 %
0.77
2.02 cfs
5.00 min
7.08 ini
14.27 cfs
Pick one
n (Y or N) A Bow bypass system is required.
Do not complete this section of the form.
cfs
cfs Do not complete this section of the form.
10 cfs
cfs Do not complete this section of the form.
(Y or N)
Form SW401 - LS-VFS - 291 - Rev.10 page 1 of 3

LS-VFS Design
Forebay surface area
Depth of forebay at stonnwater entry point
Depth of forebay at stonnwater exit point
Feet of level lip needed per eta
Computed minimum length of the level lip needed
Length of level lip provided
Width of VFS
Elevation at downslope base of level lip
Elevation at the end of the VFS that is farthest from the LS
Slope (from level lip to the end of the VFS)
Are any draws present in the VFS?
Is there a collector swale at the end of the VFS?
Bypass System Design (if applicable)
Is a bypass system provided?
Is there an engineered flow splitting device?
Dimensions of the channel (see diagram below):
M
B
W
y (flow depth for 10-year storm)
freeboard (during the 10-year storm)
Peak velocity in the channel dunng the 10-yr storm
Channel lining material
Does the bypass discharge through a wetland?
Does the channel enter the stream at an angle?
Explanation of any "Other' responses above
300
sgft Forebay is adequately sized.
12
in
6
in Depth is appropriate.
10
ft/cfs
20
ft
25
It
30
It
501.75
fmsl
500.50
fmsl
4.17
in
(Y or N) ON
in
(Y or N)
y (Y or N)
y (Y or N) Please provide plan details of flow splifter& supporting talcs.
NIA
It
NIA
If
NIA
fl
NIA
It
NIA
It
NIA
ftlsec
Other. Explained below
n (Y or N)
pipe bypass
1 B 1
Form SW401 - LS-VFS - 29June2012 - Rev.10 page 2 of 3

EDIT Please indicate the page or plan sheet numbers where the supporting documentation can be found. An incomplete submittal package will result
in a request for additional information. This will delay final review and approval of the project. Initial in the space provided to indicate the
following design requirements have been met. If the applicant has designated an agent, the agent may initial below. If a requirement has not been
met, attach justification.
Requried Item:
1. Plans (1' - 50' or larger) of the entire site showing:
- Design at ultimate build -out,
-Off-site drainage (if applicable),
- Delineated drainage basins (include Rational C coefficient per basin),
- Forebay (if applicable),
- High flow bypass system,
- Maintenance access,
- Proposed drainage easement and public right of way (ROW), and
- Boundanes of drainage easement.
2. Plan details (1 " = 30'ar larger) for the level spreader showing:
- Faraday (if applicahle),
- High flow bypass system,
One foot topic lines between the level lip and top of stream bank,
- Proposed drainage easement, and
- Design at ultimate buildout.
3. Section view of the level spreader (1' = 20' or larger) showing:
- Underdrain system (if applicable),
-Level lip,
- Upslcpe channel, and
- Downslope filter fabric.
4. Plan details of the flow splitting device and supporting calculations (if applicable).
5, A construction sequence that shows how the level spreader will be protected from
sediment until the entire drainage area is stabilized.
6. If a non -engineered VFS is being used, then provide a photograph of the VFS showing
that no draws are present.
7. The supporting calculations.
8. A copy of the signed and notarized operation and maintenance (0&M) agreement.
Initials Page or plan sheet number and any notes:
SEE ATTACHED DRAINAGE MAP AND SHEET GRA 1 OF 4...NO
EASEMENT REO'D
OF
SHEET 4 OF 4
20F4 STRUCTURE MH 42 IN PROFILE
ERC SHEET 3 OF 4
ATTACHED
Form SW401 - LS-VFS - 29June2012 - Rev.10 page 3 of 3

UC SYNERGETIC®
Innovative Thinking. Engineered Solutions.
,
L
1 1
1
-;V
T
LI-j-
--!-i
-17
A
7—
-
-C--I
-T71
I
L
1
I
- FF-
'
L
L-
- - - - -
T-7IJ
Ll
www.ucseng.com Project:
Date:

Precipitation Frequency Data Server
Page I of 4
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3 GRAHAM 2
ENE
Station ID: 31-3555
Location name: Graham North Carolina USA'
0
Latitude: 38.0503°, Longitude:-79.3728°
�`v„�,
l�J Elevation:
Elevation (station metadata): 660 ft'•
'source: ESRI Maps
"source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
G.M. Bonnin. D. Mal B. Lin, T. Parzybok, MYokla, and D. Riley
kill National Weather service, sever Spring, Maryland
PF tabular i PF graphical i Maps & aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)'
Average
recurrence Interval
(years)
DurationO
2 O 10
25 50
100 200 500 1000
5-min
0.393
0.468
0.541
0.590
0.643
0.675
0.703,
0.723
0.743
0.754
0.358-0.430)
(0.426-0.511
(0.494-0.593)
(0.538-0.646)
(0.583-0.702)
(0.610-0736)
(0633-0]68)
(0.646.0.792)
(0.658.0.813
0.664-0.825)
10-min
0.572.0886
0.62-0817
0.791---094B
2El.l..03
0.9291.12
0.972-11.18
1.01.122
1.03-1L26
1.04429
1.054930
15-min
11-1
0.715-0858
0.85]403
1,00-120
1.08131
1.1183A2
1.231A9
1.27454
1.W-158
(1.314862
1314.63
30-mm
108
1.29
1.56
1.-Z
2.05
241(0980.1.i
B)
1.18-1.42)
1.42-1.]1
1.58-1.88
8-1.
1.75-2.10
1.862.24
2.09-2.58)
9-2.
(2.12-2.64)
60-min
1 34
1.62
(1.49-1 ]B)
2.00
(1.82-219)
2.25
(2. 46)
2.56
(2.32-180)
2.78
(2.51-3.04)
ffl[M]
316
(283-3.46)
3.38
(3.00-3.69)
352(1.22-147)
(3.10385)
2-hr
1.
72-11
71
t.45-1872
1.]52'09
2.172b9
2.472094
2.833.39
3. 94372
3.33-00d
3.55134
3. 244]1
4.00590
3-hr
1 55-61984
1.89 223)
2.34 2.76)
2.66 3,15
3.06 3863
(3. 539.99)
1 (3.61-0.4) 11
(3.87-4468)
1 (4.175311
4.39-5.43)
6-hr
(1.902.23)
2.29-2.69)
2,84-334
124-182
3. 5-14.44)
(4.144.93
(4.515?42)
(4.B7S?90
5.326b5)
(5.64-7?05)
�
5.02
(d.56-543)
5.62
(5.086.0])
�
6.P6
(5.59-6.]3)
6.26
6.91
(6.10.7.42)
6.91
7.80
7.80
(6.]5-8.38)
8.502-3.21)(3.384.00)(3.89461)
(7.24-9.13)3.46
g2t[M]ffir-l2.953.674.26
4.97
586
6.56
9.75.233.71)(4.02482)
(4.635.32)
(5.436.28)
(6.06-7.04)
(6.70-7.82)
(].34-882)
(8.21-9.71)
(8.87-10.6)
.]]4.31
485-5.32
5.316809
-31
6.176.12
6.847?93
(7. 0.8.74
8,169.59
(9: 5-10.]
9.73-11.6)
3.53
4.24
5.22
5.97
6.98
7.76
8.55
9.36
10,5
11.3
3-da y
3.313J8
198-4.54)
4.09-559
5.54fl
6.50-7.48
.20.8.33
Q.91.9.21
(B.62-10A)
1 (9.57-11.3)
10.3-12.3)
3.72
4.46
5.48
6.27
7.32
8.15
8.99
9.85
1t.0
11.9
4-day
(3.49-388)
4.19-0.77)
(5.13-585
(5.86-6.70)
6.82-7.Bd
(7.56.8.]4)
(8.31-9 fi])
(9.07-10.6
t0.t-11.9)
(10.9-130)
7-tlay
4 4,27
(.03-0.54)
5.08
(4.79-1.41)
fi.16
(5.80-6.56)
7.00
(6.59-7.4G)
8.14
Q.646.69)
9.05
(l).4G-9.fi7)
9.96
(92]-10.7)
10.9
(10.1-i 1.7)
12.2
(1L2-73.1
13.1
12.0-14.2
(13.11-
10-0ay
11
11
4.5]5.14
5.43'6.11
6. 0-09.33
.34�8.29
lA5A59
9.30--110.6
102-191.7
1L0-12]
122-14.2)
5.4)
20-tla
6.45
7.67
8.99
10.1
71.6
12.8
14.0
15.2
16.9
18.2
y
6.11-8.83
.216.05
(8.50-9.51)
1 (9s5 10.7)
1 (10.9-12.3
12.0.13.E
13.1-14.9
14.1-16.3
15.E-18.1
16.7-19.6)
8-00
9.41
10.9
12.1
13.6
14.8
16.0
17.2
18.8
20.0
30-da y
(].616.43
8.94-9.90)
(10.4-11.5)
(11.5-12.7)
(12.9.14.4)
(14.0-15.6)
(15.1-18.9)
(16.1-18.2)
(7.5-20.0)
08.6-21.3)
45-day
1 0-1-1
9.67-10.6)
11.9
11.3-124)
13.6
(12.9-14.2)
74.9
(14.2-15.7)
16.7
(153-17.5)
18.1
(17.1-19.0)
19.4
(18.3-20.4)
20.7
(19.5-21.9)
21.5
(21.0.23.8) 11
23.8
(22.2-253)
60-day
11]--12J
136d4.e
153-i6J
16'618.2
18�3-20.1
19Z521.5
207�229
2123ii)2
233-6
243527.3
t Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates In this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration sodas (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 0% confidence Interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates
(for a given tlumtion and average recurrence Interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds
are not chocked against probable maximum precipitatlon (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information.
Beck to ToD
http://dipper.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_printpage.html?st=nc&sta=31-3555&data=dept... 3/27/2017

UC SYNEZGETIC
123 North White Street, Fort Mill, SC 28279
DATE: May 23, 2017
TO: Mike Randall
Storm Water Permitting Program
NCDEMLR
1612 Mail Service Ctr
Raleigh, NC 27699
�r
NC Department of RECEIVED
Environmental Quality
,. Received MAY 2 6 1017
k> JUN 14 2017
s
f'
Winston-Salem LAND QUALITy SECTION
Regional Office
Distribution:
Richard Geer
PROJECT NAME: Holt Retail Substation
The Following is Transmitted: [ X ] Attached [ ] Under Separate Cover
[ ] For Bid [ ] For Review and comments
[ ] For Correction and Resubmittal
[X] Normal Procedure [ ] Your Letter [ ] Your Telegram or Fax [ ] Telephone Request
REMARKS: Initial Submittal for State Storm Water pennit for Flolt Retail Substation, Alamance County, NC
If you have any questions, please contact Joe Ervin at 803-835-61543 or [e-mail].
PREPARED BY: JEE

September 23, 2016
Mr. Mayur Patel
Duke Energy
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Subject: Report of Geotechnical Subsurface Investigation 47 NC Department of
Environmental Quality
Holt Retail Substation V Received
3523 Bellemont-Mt Hermon Road
Burlington, North Carolina zz JUN 14 2017
Shield Project No. 1160154-01
Winston-Salem
i
Dear Mr. Patel: i _ Regional Of ,ce
Shield Engineering, Inc., (Shield) has completed the geotechnical exploration for the Holt Retail
Substation project in Burlington, North Carolina. Authorization to proceed with this study was
provided by Mr. Mayor Patel of Duke Energy. This report contains a brief description of the
project information provided to us and general subsurface soil conditions revealed during our
geotechnical study.
Seven (7) borings (B-01 through B-07) were performed near the staked location of the proposed
structure selected by Duke Energy personnel. The borings were extended to depths ranging from
7.5 to 30 feet below the ground surface. Generally, dense to very dense Clayey SAND, Silty
SAND and SAND were encountered in the borings. Auger refusal was encountered in B-02
through B-07 at depths ranging from 7.5 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface due very
dense sands. Please refer to Section 6.0 for geotechnical recommendations.
We are available to review with you the subsurface observation we have presented herein and
answer any questions you may have. We have enjoyed working with youjtailiforward to our
\O
hIr
continued association as your geotechnical consultant on the remain Jgik, t and any
future projects you may have. J�A�. •' e e 1 _ /9c
Sincerely,
X
` a SEAL
SHIELD ENGINEERING, INC.
— _—
Sean M. Brickner, E.I.
mstt K. budu, P.E.
Project Manager
Principal Engineer
I I:NmJ=oVOI at 160194-01 Hall R uil Goo Imh EnluuionOutt- Hop Raall - gootwh doc
V141/
4301 Taggart Creek Road Telephone [phone]
Charlotte, NC 2820E www.shieldengineenng.wrn Fox 704.394.6968
a

Report of Geotechnical Exploration
Holt Retail Substation
Burlington, North Carolina
Prepared_ for:
Duke Energy Corporation
526 S. Church Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Prepared hy:
HI�LD
ENGINEERING, INC.
INOVATION-INTECRI TY-EXPERIENCE
Providing Common Sense and Cost -Effective Solutions
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208 September 23, 2016
[phone] main www.shieldengincering.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................3
1.1 Purpose of Study.................................................................................................3
1.2 Project Location..................................................................................................3
1.3 Proposed Construction........................................................................................3
1.4 Scope of Work....................................................................................................3
2.0
GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................4
2.1 Site Description and Topography.......................................................................4
2.2 Regional Geology .............................................. :................................................
4
3.0
FIELD EXPLORATION...............................................................................................5
3.1 Subsurface Exploration Procedures....................................................................5
4.0
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS....................................................................................5
4.1 Soil Profile..........................................................................................................5
4.2 Groundwater Observations.................................................................................6
5.0
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM....................................................................7
5.1 Summary of Laboratory Testing Program..........................................................7
5.2 Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing.......................................................7
6.0
GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................8
6.1 General................................................................................................................8
6.2 Discussion...........................................................................................................8
6.3 Site Preparation...................................................................................................8
6.4 Subgrade Preparation..........................................................................................9
6.5 Cut/I'ill Recommendations .................................................................................9
6.6 Excavation Recommendations..........................................................................
10
6.7 Fill Material and Placement Recommendations...............................................
10
6.8 Surface Drainage...............................................................................................
11
6.9 Groundwater Control........................................................................................
11
6.10 Utility Installation.............................................................................................
12
6.11 Foundation Recommendations..........................................................................
12
6.12 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations.......................................................
13
7.0
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE..........................................................14
7.1 Recommendations for Construction Monitoring ..............................................
14
8.0
LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................15
A"rTACHMENTS
Appendix A
Figure I: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Boring Location Plan
Figure 3: Duke Map 10 1264-202412
Appendix B
Key to Soil Classification
Soil Classification Chart
Geotechnical Boeing Logs (B-01 through B-07)
Appendix C
Laboratory Results

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 3 of 15
1.0
1.1 Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to obtain information regarding the subsurface conditions within
the vicinity of the proposed substation pad and transmission to be constructed within an
undeveloped 7.35 acre parcel of land on Bellemont-Mt Hermon Road. Additionally, this study
was undertaken to conduct pertinent field tests to assess the engineering characteristics of the
subsurface materials. This report contains the following items:
• Boring Logs;
• A review of the encountered existing subsurface conditions with comments on the
aerial geology;
• Description of subsurface soils; and
• Recommended soil parameters.
1.2 Project Location
The site is located immediately northwest of the
intersection of Southern high School Road and
Bellemont-Mt Hermon Road in Burlington, North
Carolina. Please refer to attached Figure I, Site
Vicinity Map for a general location of the project
limits. Additionally, the project vicinity is reference
on Duke Energy Map No. I01264-202412.
1.3 Proposed Construction
The proposed project includes construction of a new
200000 foot substation pad, transmission lines and distribution circuit. The boring locations
were directed by Duke personnel and the structures were staked by surveyors prior to Shield's
arrival on site. Boring locations are shown in Figure 2, Boring Location Plan and Figure 3, Duke
Energy Map No. 10 1264-202412.
1.4 Scope of Work
The scope of service included field testing, as well as evaluating the existing subsurface
conditions with regard to the proposed construction. This report contains a brief description of
the field testing procedures performed for this study and a discussion of the soil conditions
encountered at the project site.
Our approved scope of service did not include an environmental site assessment of the property.
Consequently, this report does not contain information regarding the presence or absence of toxic
or hazardous wastes or the presence of pollutants in the soils, rock or groundwater of the site.

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 4 of 15
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Site Description and Topographv
Based on our site reconnaissance, the
site is an undeveloped 7.35 acre parcel
of land, heavily wooded in areas with
slightly rolling topography.
2.2 Regional Geology
Approxinmle site Location
The referenced site is
located in the Carolina
Slate Belt of the Piedmont j
Physiographic Province.
Ground elevations within
the Piedmont Province vary
from approximately 400 O Blue anBeBell Qi lialeigh Belt ® cneneaaBelt B
feet above sea level in the Coaem Plan Q Conlin. state Belt ❑ [Inq Bnerteln Belt
east to 2,000 feet In the ® nnei Pledmont ® Liaain Bean Q Moon, Belt
west. The topography of the E EatemBlaeBelt ❑ Milt. Belt
Piedmont Plateau consists
of well-rounded hills and long rolling ridges with a northeast -southwest trend. This rolling
topography is the result of streams flowing across and acting on rocks of unequal hardness. The
Piedmont Plateau region is underlain by older crystalline (metamorphic and igneous) rock
formations that trend northeast -southwest and vary greatly in their resistance to weathering and
erosion. The major streams generally flow across these rock structures without regard to their
northeast -southwest tending structures.
The typical residual soil profile consists of fine-grained soils (clays/silts) near the surface, where
soil weathering is more advanced, underlain by more coarse -grained soils (sandy silts/silty
sands). The boundary between soil and rock is not sharply defined. This traditional zone, termed
weathered rock, is normally found overlying the parent bedrock. The degree of weathering is
facilitated by fractures, joints and by the presence of less resistant rock types. Therefore, the
profile of the weathered rock and hard rock is quite irregular and erratic, even over short
horizontal distances. Lenses and boulders or hard rock and zones of weathered rock are often
encountered within the soil mantle, well above the general bedrock level.
According to the Geologic Map of North Carolina by The North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources, NC Geological Survey
(1998), the site is underlain by Mafic Metavolcanic rock (CZmv), described as metamorphosed

Bolt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield ['reject No. 1160154-01 Page 5 of 15
basaltic flows and tuffs, dark green to black, interbedded with felsic and intermediate
metavolcanic rock and metamudstone.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
3.1 Subsurface Exuloratimt Procedures
On September 8, 2016, seven (7) soil test borings (B-01 through B-07) were performed within
the proposed construction area. An ATV -mounted CME-550X drill rig was used by Shield's
subcontractor, IIPC Land Services, to advance the boring into the ground and obtain samples for
an engineering evaluation.
The soil test boring was performed using hollow -stem, continuous flight auger drilling
techniques in general accordance with ASTM Practice D-6151. Soil samples were obtained at the
soil test boring during our field exploration in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-
1586. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at designated intervals in the soil test
boring as the augers were advanced. The SPT (N-value) represents the number of blows required
to drive a split -barrel sampler 12 inches with a 140-pound automatic trip hammer falling from a
height of 30 inches. The N-value provides a general indication of in -situ soil conditions and has
been correlated with certain publishedengineering properties of soils.
The results of the subsurface exploration arc depicted graphically on the "Geotechnical Boring
Log" at the respective test depths. A "Key to Soil Classification" and "Soil Classification Chart"
is also included at the end of this report.
The split -spoon soil samples collected during the field testing were visually examined and
classified in the field by a member of our gcotcchnical staff in general accordance with ASTM
Practice D-2488 using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The "Soil Classification
Chart" illustrates the USCS classification symbols depicted on the "Geotechnical Boring Logs".
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.1 Soil Profile
General subsurface conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration are described
herein. For more detailed soil descriptions and stratifications at a particular boring location, the
respective "Geotechnical Boring Log" should be reviewed. The geotechnical boring log
represents our interpretation of the field log based on engineering observations of the sampled
soils. The horizontal stratification lines designating the interface between various strata represent
approximate boundaries. Transitions between different strata in the field may be gradual in both
the horizontal and vertical directions.

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 6 of 15
Boring Summary
Boring
Location
Boring Depth
(feet)
Auger
Refusal
(feet)
Water
Encountered'
(feet)
B-01
NW Corner — Pact
30
No
No
B-02
W Side / Center - Pad
14
Yes
No
B-03
SW Corner — Pad
21
Yes
No
B-04
SE Corner — Pad
23
Yes
No
B-05
E Side / Center — Pad
17
Yes
No
B-06
NE Corner — Pad
25
Yes
No
B-07
Center - Pad
7.5
Yes
No
'Water level below existing ground surface during drilling operations
Possible Fill: Possible fill soils were encountered in B-03 through B-06 to depths ranging from
3%2 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. The possible fill soil generally consisted of
Sandy CLAY, Clayey SAND and Silty SAND. Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) in
the fill soil ranged from 12 to 24 blows per foot (bpf) with the majority ranging from 12 to 15
bpf, indicating medium dense relative densities.
Residuum: Residual soils were encountered just below the topsoil in borings B-01, 13-02, B-07
and at depths ranging from 3 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface in B-03 through B-06.
The residual soils generally consisted of Clayey SAND, Silty SAND, Sandy SILT and SAND.
Standard Penetration Resistances (N-values) in the residuum ranged Prom 13 bpf to 50 blows per
0 inch with the majority ranging from 35 bpf to 50 blows per 3 inches, indicating dcnse to very
dense relative densities.
Auger Refusal: Auger refusal was encountered in borings B-02 through B-07 ranging in depths
from 7.5 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Auger refusal is defined as material that
could not be penetrated with the drill rig and auger equipment used on the project. Auger refusal
material may consist of very dense soils, large boulders, rock ledges, lenses, seams or the top of
parent bedrock, and is indicative of materials which will likely require rock excavation
techniques for their removal.
4.2 Groundwater Observations
Groundwater readings were performed for the test boring during drilling operations. Due to
safety concerns, the borings were backfilled after the completion of coring operations, making
subsequent water level readings unobtainable. Groundwater was not encountered during drilling
operations.
It should be noted that water levels tend to fluctuate with seasonal and climatic variations, as
well as with some types of construction operations. Therefore, water may be encountered during
construction at depths not indicated during this study.

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 7 of 15
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
5.1 Summary of Laboratory Testint Proeram
The purpose of the laboratory testing program was to evaluate the mechanical and index
properties of the subsurface soils encountered, and to assist in the soil classification and relative
strength evaluations. Representative soil samples were obtained, at various depth intervals,
within each of the test borings for laboratory testing and analysis. These samples were divided
into groups of similar samples according to color and visual classification. The laboratory testing
program was performed in general accordance with applicable American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) test procedures. The laboratory test program included the following tests:
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
• Moisture Content of Soils ASTM D-2216
• Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, ASTM D-4318
Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index)
• Grain Size Analysis ASTM D-422
5.2 Results of Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
For additional information regarding results of the laboratory testing, refer to the appropriate
geotechnical boring log in Appendix B, and the detailed laboratory test results in Appendix C.
Moisture content testing was performed on 20 samples collected at various depths throughout the
borings. Testing indicated moistures ranging from 6.4 to 27.3 percent, indicating relative
moisture contents ranging from dry to damp. Please refer to the attached boring log for specific
moisture content results including depths and borings.
Atterberg Limits testing was performed to assist in the classification and characterization of the
.encountered soils. Atterberg Limits testing on five (5) soil samples collected from B-01, I3-03,
B-04 and B-06 at depths ranging from 1'h to 10 feet below existing ground surface indicated
Liquid Limits (LL) ranging from 17 to 53 and Plasticity Indices (PI) ranging from non -plastic
"NP" to 25.
Grain Size testing was performed on five (5) soil samples collected from B-01, 13-03, B-04 and
B-06 at depths ranging from 1'/z to 10 feet below existing ground surface. The results indicated
varying amounts of Sand in samples, ranging from 22.2 to 56.3 percent, indicating Sandy
CLAY/SILT to SAND.
For additional information regarding results of the laboratory testing, refer to the appropriate
geotechnical boring log in Appendix B, or the laboratory data included in Appendix C.

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 8 of 15
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMNIENDATIONS
6.1 General
Our evaluations and recommendations are based on the project information previously outlined
and from the data obtained from the field testing program. If the structural loading, geometry or
the proposed structure locations are known or differ from those outlined herein, or if conditions
are encountered during construction that differ from those encountered at the soil test borings,
Shicld requests the opportunity to review our recommendations based on the new information
and the necessary changes.
6.2 Discussion
Based on our subsurface investigation, it is Shield's professional opinion that the site is suitable
for the construction of the proposed project from a geotechnical standpoint. However, the
conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated in the design
and construction of the project to minimize possible geotechnical problems.
MFAD Parameters: We understand that lateral load capacity for drilled shafts or direct
embedment will be analyzed using the MFAD 5.0 program at each transmission pole/tower
structure foundation location. The soil parameters'used in the analysis is the moist unit weight
(y,,,), cohesion (c), angle of internal friction (�) and the deformation modulus (ED). It should be
noted that the recommended soil strength parameters are not factored. Therefore, appropriate
safety factors should be applied to the foundation design. Additionally, lateral pile capacity
analysis programs typically require input of moist unit weight above the groundwater table and
submerged or effective unit weight below the groundwater table. Pressuremeter testing was not
performed as part of this project, and the elastic modulus values were obtained from correlations
presented in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) manual [EPRI, 1990]. Estimates of the
required parameters were developed based on the results of our site reconnaissance, field
exploration program, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, literature research, and our
professional judgment. Based on our findings, we recommend the following values for the soils
encountered at this site:
Moist
Angle of
Depth Below Ground
Unit
Ln
Internal
Cohesion, c
Surface
Material
Weight,
(ksi)
Friction
(list)
(feco
9
(degrees)
c
3.5 — 13.5
Stiff to very stiff
130
1-2
30
1000
Sandy SILT (ML
0-3.5
Stiff
120
1
28
I800
Sandy CLAY (CL) Low Plasticity
0-3.5
Stiff
120
1
19
2150
Sandy CLAY (CI I) Ili gh Plasticity
0 — 23.5
Medium Dense to Very Dense Silty
130
1
35
1050
SAND (SM)
3.5 — 13.5
Medium Dense to Very Dense Clayey
130
1
30
1550
SAND (SC)
3.5 — 23.5
Dense to Very Dense Poorly Graded
135
2
38
0
SAND SP

I lolt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 9 of 15
6.3 Site Preparation
The proposed structure and/or fill areas should be stripped of any construction debris, organic
laden materials, trash, and other organic materials to a minimum of 10 feet outside the structural
limits. Depressions or low areas resulting from stripping should be backfilled with approved soil
and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report.
During grading operations, hidden features in the substratum, such as organic laden materials,
existing utilities or other deleterious materials may be encountered within the proposed
construction area. Generally, such features will require removal. Details regarding removal of
deleterious material must be determined on a case -by -case basis and, therefore, contract
documents should include a contingency cost for the removal of subsurface features. Excavated
areas should be backfilled in general accordance with the compacted fill recommendations
presented herein.
6.4 Subzrade Preparation
Site preparation monitoring by Shield personnel is recommended. Upon completion of the
stripping operations, we recommend that areas to provide support for the proposed structures or
structural fill be proof rolled under the supervision of a geotechnical staff professional prior to
fill placement and/or at -grade construction. Proof rolling should be performed with a loaded
tandem axle dump truck or similar piece of rubber -tired equipment (minimum loaded weight of
20 tons).
The purpose of the proof rolling is to detect the existence of marginal or loose near -surface
materials or unsuitable soils that may require undercutting. Areas which deflect, rut or pump
excessively during proof rolling, and which cannot be densified in -place, should be undercut to
suitable soils and backfilled as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Where these soils appear
to be shallow in nature, they can either be removed in their entirety or be scarified, dried and re -
compacted. These areas can be addressed during the earthwork preparation phase of
construction. Proof rolling should not be performed on saturated or frozen subgrades, or daring
wet weather conditions.
6.5 Cut/Fill Slope Recommendations
Slope Stabilitv: Permanent project slopes that have grass placed on them should be designed at a
3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:IV) or flatter. The tops and bases of all slopes should be located a
minimum of 10 feet from structural limits and a minimum of five (5) feet from pavement limits.
Fill slopes should be benched into existing slopes, where applicable, and compacted in
accordance with the compacted fill recommendations contained in this report. Project slopes
Should be seeded and maintained immediately after construction.
If excavations are anticipated at the site, shoring and bracing or flattening (laying back) of the
slopes may be required to obtain a safe working environment. Excavations should be sloped or
shored in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, including OSHA (CFR Part 1926)
excavation trench safety standards. We recommend that all excavated soils be placed away from

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 10 of 15
the edges of the excavation, at a distance equaling or exceeding the depth of the excavation, In
addition, surface runoff should be diverted away from the crest of the excavated slopes to
prevent erosion and sloughing.
Slope Protection: Un-braced excavations may experience some minor, localized instability (i.e.,
sloughing). To reduce potential sloughing, excavated slopes should be covered with polyethylene
for protection from rainfall and moisture changes. It should be emphasized that continuous
observations by personnel from our office are important during trenching or excavation
operations at the site.
It is also not uncommon for groundwater seepage to occur in the sides of an excavation after
periods of heavy rainfall. Usually, such seepage is minimal and can be effectively handled by
conventional pumping and dewatering techniques.
6.6 Excavation Recommendations
Based on the results of the soil test borings, we anticipate stiff and medium dense to very dense
soils will be encountered during general site excavation. We anticipate that the soils can be
excavated using pans, scrapers, backhoes and front end loaders. Final design grades are not
known at this time. Auger refusal due to very dense sand was encountered within every boring
except B-01.
Although bedrock, boulders and rocks were not encountered the depth to and thickness of rocks,
boulders, rock lenses or seams, can vary dramatically in short distances and between boring
locations. Therefore, bedrock, rock seams and/or boulders may be encountered during
construction at locations or depths, between boring locations, not encountered during this
exploration.
It has been our past experience in this geologic area that materials having Standard Penetration
Resistances of less than 50 blows per 6 inches of penetration can generally be excavated using
pans and scrapers by first loosening with a single tooth ripper attached to a suitable sized dozer,
such as a Caterpillar D-8 or D-9. On earthwork projects requiring ripping a controversy
sometimes develops as to whether the materials can be removed by ripping or whether blasting is
required. It should be noted that ripping is dependent on the equipment and techniques used, as
well as the operator's skill and experience. The success of the ripping operation is dependent on
finding the proper combination for the conditions encountered. Excavation of the weathered
rock is typically much more difficult in confined excavations. Based on the depth of rocks and
boulders encountered within the borings we do not anticipate that jack hammering and/or
blasting will be required for this project.
6.7 Fill Material and Placement Recommendations
In general, soils comprising the following ASTM classifications and having a Plasticity Index
(PI) of less than 25 can be used for structural fill: well -graded GRAVEL (GW), poorly -graded
GRAVEL (GP), Silty GRAVEL (GM), Clayey GRAVEL (GC), well -graded SAND or Gravelly
SAND (SW), poorly -graded SAND or Gravelly SAND (SP), Silty SAND (SM), Clayey SAND

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. It 60154-01 Page I I of 15
(SC), Sandy SILT (ML) or Sandy or lean CLAY (CL).
Prior to fill placement, representative samples of each engineered fill material should be
collected and tested by Shield to determine the material's moisture -density characteristics —
including the maximum dry density, optimum moisture content and plasticity index. These tests
are needed for quality control of the structural fill and to determine if the fill material meets
project specification requirements. Backfill in structural areas should contain no more than five
(5) percent (by weight) organic material, have a plasticity index (PI) no more than 25, and should
have a maximum dry density not less than 90 pounds per cubic foot as determined in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D-698. Soil not meeting these criteria may be used in
nonstructural areas.
Once fill placement begins, field density tests should be performed by a qualified soils technician
to document the degree of compaction being obtained in the field. Fill material should be placed
in loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. The moisture content of the fill soils should be
within plus or minus three (3) percentage points of the optimum moisture content based on the
Standard Effort Maximum Dry Density Test (ASTM Test Method D-698). Regular one -point
proctors should be conducted to ensure that the most representative Proctor curve is being
selected. The in -place dry density should equal or exceed 95 percent of the Standard Effort
Maximum Dry Density, unless otherwise specified. The upper 12 inches of fill beneath building
pads and roadways should be compacted to 100 percent of the same index for improved support.
6.8 Surface Drainage
Care must be exercised by the contractor after subgrade soils are exposed and/or fill materials
have been compacted. If water is allowed to stand on the surface, these soils may become
saturated. Movement of construction traffic on saturated subgrades causes nutting that may
destroy the integrity of the fill. Once the integrity of the subgrade is destroyed, mobility of
construction traffic becomes difficult or impossible. Therefore, the fill surface should be sloped
to achieve positive drainage and to minimize water from ponding on the fill surface. "Scaling"
the exposed subgradc soils by smooth steel -drum rolling or other acceptable means in the event
of forecasted inclement weather and to facilitate the drainage of surface water is also
recommended.
If the surface becomes excessively wet, fill operations should be halted and a Shield geotechnical
engineer should be consulted for- guidance. Testing of the fill material and compaction
monitoring by our soils technician is essential to achieve acceptable structural fill.
6.9 Groundwater Control
It is not anticipated that ground water will be encountered during construction activities.
However, if ground water is encountered, Shield should be contacted for further
recommendations. In auger drilling operations, water is not introduced into the borehole,;, and
the groundwater position can often be determined by observing water flowing into or out of the
boreholes. Furthermore, visual observations of the soil samples retrieved during the auger
drilling exploration can often be used in evaluating the groundwater conditions. The highest

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 12 of 15
groundwater observations are normally encountered in the late winter and early spring.
Variations in the location of the long-term water table may occur as a result of changes in
precipitation, evaporation, surface water runoff, and other factors not immediately apparent at
the time of this exploration.
6.10 Utility Installation
Utility trench and retaining wall backfills within ten (10) feet of the building footprints should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with the Standard
Effort Maximum Dry Density Test (ASTM Test Method D-698); however, to minimize the
potential for damage to below -grade walls due to compaction -induced lateral stresses, heavy.
compaction equipment should not be allowed within five (5) feet of retaining walls. The use of
lighter weight compaction equipment such as mechanical tampers (wackers), walk behind
rollers, etc. is expected to be required during utility trench and retaining wall backfill operations
in order to achieve adequate compaction results.
6.11 Foundation Recommendations
Based on the results of the soil test borings performed, the proposed structure can be adequately
supported on shallow foundations bearing on existing fill and residual soils or newly placed
structural fill, provided the site preparation and compacted fill recommendations outlined in this
report are implemented. An allowable net bearing pressure of up to 3,000 pounds per square foot
(psi) can be used for design of the foundations bearing on the residual soils exhibiting Standard
Penetration Resistances (N-values) of 12 blows per foot (bpf) or greater, or on new structural fill
compacted to at least 95 percent of its Standard Effort Maximum Dry Density. The in -place
bearing pressure of the foundation sub -soils should be verified at the time of installation by a
footing inspection reviewed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. It is important to note that the
design foundation pressure provided above is for the preliminary sizing of footings only, and the
in -place bearing pressure will need to be verified by Shield for our recommendations to be
considered valid.
In order to avoid a local shear or "punching" failure of the footings, we recommend the shallow
wall and column footings should have a minimum width of 18 and 24 inches respectively,
regardless of loading. The footings should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below
external grades for frost protection.
Exposure of the subgrade materials to the environment may weaken these soils at the foundation
bearing level. If the foundation excavations remain open for long periods of time, or during
inclement weather, re-evaluation of the subgrade materials by a geotechnical staff professional
must be performed prior to steel, concrete or stone placement. If the foundation excavation
subgrade soils must remain exposed overnight or during inclement weather, we recommend that
a 2 to 4 inch thick "mud -mat' of "lead' (2,000 psi) concrete or flowable fill be placed on the
bearing soils. The foundation bearing areas should be free of any loose or soft material, standing
water and debris. Concrete should not be placed on soils that have been softened by precipitation
or frost heave.

I lolt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 13 of 15
We recommend that the bearing surface be evaluated by personnel with Shield using hand auger
borings with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing equipment or other suitable methods
prior to foundation installation. The purpose of the footing evaluation is to locate any unexpected
marginal soil areas or deleterious material which may require undercutting and backfilling.
Unsuitable soil detected during this evaluation should be undercut as directed by the
geotechnical engineer. It is important to note that the foundation recommendations described
above should not be considered valid unless a footing evaluation is conducted at the time of
foundation installation.
6.12 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations
Retaining walls should be designed to resist both ultimate lateral earth pressures and any
additional lateral loads caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining, ground surface. Retaining
walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures of the compacted backfill soils
provided the recommended fill soils described in Section 6.7, "Fill Material and Placement
Recommendations" of this report, are utilized as retaining wall backfill soils. The appropriate
design values should be chosen based on the condition of the wall (restrained or unrestrained).
Unrestrained wall pressures should only be considered applicable where it would be structurally
and architecturally acceptable for the wall to laterally deflect 2 percent of the wall height. The
retaining walls may be designed utilizing the following equivalent fluid pressures:
Condition
Rankine Garth
Pressure Coefficient
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure
Unrestrained (Active)
0.38
45 psf/ft
Restrained (At -Rest)
0.53
60 psf/ft
Passive
2.77
320 psf/ft
-psf/ft = pounds per square foot per foot of wall/retained soil height
-Assumes the slope behind the wall is less than 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5:1 H:V)
-Above values were determined based on a moist unit weight of 115 pcf and an effect
internal angle of friction of 28 degrees
Retaining wall information was not provided at the time of this report. Shield has assumed the
maximum expected exposed wall height of retaining walls onsitc will be 4'/a feet. For surcharge
loads, increase the ultimate design pressures behind the wall by an additional uniform pressure
equivalent to one-half (for restrained condition) or one-third (for unrestrained condition) of the
maximum anticipated surcharge load applied to the surface behind the wall.
These design parameters do not account for any build-up of hydrostatic pressure resulting from
the infiltration of water behind the retaining walls (i.e, based on the assumption that all backfill is
continuously drained). A permanent drainage system should be incorporated into the design of
the retaining walls in order to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures.
Backfill material behind retaining walls shall be placed in accordance with all applicable
recommendations in Section 6.7, "Fill Material and Placement Recommendations," of this
report. To minimize potential damage to retaining walls, we recommend that care should be
taken when compacting backfill close to the wall. Light weight compaction equipment with a
maximum weight of one (1) ton (i.e. hand-held tamper or walk behind compactors) should be

Holt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1 160154-01 Page 14 of 15
utilized to compact backfill material within a lateral distance of five (5) feet from the wall or
within 45 degrees of the base of the wall, whichever is greater, to prevent shock to the wall.
Sliding resistance at the base of the retaining walls should also be considered in its design. Based
on the encountered soils during this investigation, the following coefficients of fiction (f) are
recommended as a function of the material at the soil/concrete interface:
Foundation Subgrade
Friction (f)
Material -
Fill Soils
0.28
Residual Soils
0.30
(Clays)
Residual Soils
Fine to Medium Sand
0.35
7.0 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE
Our technical staff should work closely with you throughout the site development phases of
construction. It is particularly important for our personnel to monitor placement and compaction
of all engineered fill, and to witness the stripping and proof rolling of the subgrade soils.
Additionally, all foundations should be reviewed by personnel from our office in order to
compare the conditions evaluated with those found during our field exploration and to establish
conformance with the project specifications requirements. We look forward to the opportunity to
provide these services, as well as construction monitoring and materials testing.
7.1 Recommendations for Construction Monitorint
We recommend that Shield be employed to monitor soil excavations and to report the
recommendations concerning till placement and foundation support are completed in a
satisfactory manner. Our continued involvement on the project helps provide continuity for
proper implementation of the recommendations discussed herein. The following is a
recommended scope of service:
• Review project plans and construction specifications to assess the interpretation of
this report;
• Observe the excavation process to document that subsurface conditions encountered
during construction are consistent with the conditions anticipated in this report;
• Observe the subgrade before placing fill;
• Observe the placement and compaction of any engineered fill soils and perform
laboratory and field compaction testing of the fill soils; and
• Observe all foundations for conformance with recommended bearing stratum.

Halt Retail Substation September 23, 2016
Shield Project No. 1160154-01 Page 15 of 15
8.0 LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practice for the exclusive use of Duke Energy Corporation and/or its assignees, specifically for
this project. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our assessment and
recommendations are based on information furnished to us or assumed, the data from this
geotechnical exploration and generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. The
evaluations and recommendations do not reflect variations in subsurface conditions which could
exist intermediate of the boring locations or in unexplored areas of the site. Should such
variations become apparent during construction, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our
evaluations and recommendations based upon on -site . observations or the conditions
encountered.
Regardless of the thoroughness of the subsurface exploration, there is the possibility that
conditions between borings will differ from those at the boring locations, that conditions are not
as anticipated by the designers, or that the construction process has altered the soil conditions.
Therefore, an experienced staff professional working under the supervision of a geotechnical
engineer should evaluate earthwork and foundation construction to verify that the conditions
anticipated in design actually exist. Otherwise, we assume no responsibility for construction
compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations.
If this report is copied or transmitted to a third party, it must be copied or transmitted in its
entirety, including test, attachments and enclosures. Interpretations based on only a part of this
report may not be valid.

9
0
SOURCE: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC USGS TOPO MAP
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 1,a�oo 2,000
SCALE: 1 in. = 2,000 ft.
0
r.
SHIELD
iR TA GGART CHEEK ROAD
LiL\\/\p• CIIARLOI E. NO 28208
7
a, >
.» .,..
ENGINEERING, INC.
SITE LOCATION PLAN
3523 BELLEMONT - MT. HERMON ROAD
HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVALUATION
BURLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
SHIELD N 1160154 01
DATE : 09/07/16 DRAWN BY: RIBS
SCALE : AS SHOWN FIGURE : 1

LEGEND
w o.
-
off a:m : rto
♦PmW
mn
.,
{
'
I
I
i
(i�®iuomnmueo®oan
ilF3-dz
xY
a
�o
m
�7y1V1:�iw,
\
-714 -218
m.
OisVibul:en dreuits
..nn. Pma .e mT.o
�
x.:osvH
Rwsrnw wei+w ra
�'�
T�xvuvq YNYY.w
ulrl \
v:n xum.
N.IMYY ICRRnW,SP1
TransmSsTaBld�e4
m+.
_����-
f
g
NETM COTE MNSHAW
P•„ /
r
1722
CEL ]22AOB80 - 8.A8{ A
I
s . i
d
ter%
AREA IR9DE ROAD
�R/W - O.tEg4 AOS
�cm
• HoO GUGSTATION
200' x 300' SUBSTATION
ElH COTE HWSHAW
JtCEl 722A1891 - 1.1883ACRES \
IfW'A�
I -�
I x x.
J
Soil Dorir:9 bra�ion
� HOI� Pataa
ryA SCd�����
wi
``
P=a 58722409M - 6./81}ACRES
PARC0.
M.PMM07/1Y16
SN. YG ]a] OB �599. GG 1J9
x I
i
8872241891 . 1.1882ACRES
TOTAL SURVEY AREA - 7.8323 ACRES
DUKE E
. -
wnuces u¢x wmR xo.o mar-or-wAr
eee
b. M Yx
.ne7rs
,9.
rMo Tn
Duke
IE rWe
w9 s. amR sraE,
ro as ,ror
,6EM64 MO G 3a201-IpJI
pwtaz-ease

s ;_ ,, , ��� �1• �d,� N
1 <✓,� B rl. Y 4
B-5-®
1•
n �• c 1 �, f. �.� � •� i �� $-$ 7 � LVI r � .tn
yr {!t rB2� L�
olilk IV.
x
}B-4Co
4 p �41
'•; "�, _, i� 1. " �rv.k 1 .yeti �, i
r, �1 q j7 �• "1 , r•. �,.;
'�• `B
/ I1
l I ♦ 1
,
, 4
[I`

KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Correlation of Penetration Resistances with
Relative Density and Consistency
Sands and Gravels
Silts and Clays
Standard
Standard
Penetration
Relative
Penetration
Resistance
Density
Resistance
Consistency
0-4
Very Loose
0-2
Very Soft
5 - 10
Loose
3-4
Soft
11 - 30
Medium
5 - 8
Firm
31 -50
Dense
9 - 15
Stiff
Over 50
Very Dense
16 - 30
Very Stiff
31 -50
Hard
Over 50
Very Hard
Particle Size identification
(Unified Classification System)
Boulders - Diameter exceeds 12 inches
Cobbles - 3 to 12 inches diameter
Gravel - Coarse - 3/4 to 3 inches diameter
Fine - 4.76 turn to 3/4 inch diameter
Sand - Coarse - 2.0 mm to 4.76 mm diameter
Medium - 0.42 mm to 2.0 nun diameter
Fine - 0.08 mm to 0.42 mm diameter
Silt & Clay - Less than 0.074 mm (particles cannot be seen with naked
eye)
Secondary Modifiers
The second modifiers are generally included when a soil type comprises less than 35
percent of the entire sample.
Percent of Sample Modifier
0 — 10 Trace
11 - 20 Little
21-35 Some
H:\GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL(0120)WASTER LET 17ltS\GEOTI°CH\SOII.KEY.DOC

*__ EffmLDG, -INC.
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART
COARSE -GRAINED SOILS
(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size,)
' Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)
►�.1 Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand
)� GW
�'mixtures, little or no fines
�.
GRAVELS
More than 50% - GP Poortygreded gmvels, gravel -sand
of coarse mixtures. little or no lines
fraction larger Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)
than No. 4 —
sieve size :N GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -sill mixtures
's GC Clayey gravels; gravel -sand -clay
d mixtures
Clean
Sands Less then 5% fines
SW
Well -graded santls. gravelly sands,
little or no fina9
SA NDS
50 % or more
1'+--
I
Sp
I Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,
of coarse
L
little or. no fines
fraction smaller
Sands will) lines (More than 12%lines)
then No.4
'
sieve size
I
SM
Silly sands, sand -silt mixtures
SC
iii
Clayey sands, saw •cley mixtures
FINE-GRAINED SOILS
(50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)
Inorganic sills and very fine sands, rock
SILTS
I ML
flour, silly of clayey fine sands or clayey
AND
silts wlih slight plasticity
Inorganic Gays of low to medium
CLAYS
Liquid limn
CL
plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,
lass than
silty clays, lean clays
sB%
OL
Organic sills and organic silty clays of
low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous at
10
MH
diatomaceous fine sandy or silly soils.
SILTS
elastic silts
AND
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, (at
CLAYS
Liquid limit
clays
50%
lr
Organic clays of medium to high
or greater
OH
plasticity, organic sills
HIGHLY
ORGANIC
PT
I Peal and other highly organic soils
SOILS
UNIFIED SOIL
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
DSO D30
GW
Cu = I greater than 4; Cc _ between 1 and 3
D10 D10 xD60
GP
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
GM
Atterberg limits below "A"
line or P.I. less than 4
Above 'A" line with P.I. between
4 and 7 are borderline cases
GC
Allerberg limits above "A"
requiring use of dual symbols
line with P.I. greater than 7
DSO D30
Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3
SW
D10 DlaxD60
Sp
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
SM
Alterberg limits below "A"
I Limils plotting In shaded zone
line or P.I. less Ihan 4
with P.I. between 4 and 7 are
borderline cases requiring use
SC
Aderberg limits above "A"
line with P.I. greater than 7
of dual symbols,
Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain•size curve. Depending
on percentage of lines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size).
coarse -grained soils are classified as follows:
Less than 5 percent .................................... GW. GP. SW, Sp
More than 12 percent .... I ............................. GM. GC, SM. SC
5 to 12 percent ................... Borderline cases requiring dual symbols
PLASTICITY CHART
60
50
a CH
c40 ALINE'
i 30 PI = 0.73 LL-20
CL MH8OH
u 20
N
10
a "° ML&OL
OO 10 20 '30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)
Reference- VirginiaDepartment of Transportation, Unified Soil Classification System
H:Geo-Environmental\MASTER LETTERS\Unified Soil Classification System.pdf

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Report Data 9/8/16 Boring No.: B-W
Boring Method: HQ(19w-Stem-Auger Hammer Type: Automatic— ip Hammes Sheet: L of:
Logged By: _SMB Driller: HPC Date Started: 9/6/16
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16
L
as
o
a
L N
a s
$
SPT
blows per
Surface Elevation: +/-
DESCRIPTION OP MATERIALS
(Classification)
b
a
o
o
U
^
w
COMMENTS:
6 in.
foot
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TOP SOIL------------------ .
Medium Dense Light Reddish Brown and Black
Silty SAND (SM), moist (RESIDUAL)
Medium Dense Light Reddish Brown and Black 3.51
Clayey SAND (SC) with fine gravel, moist
Dense White and Light Brown Silty SAND 6.0
(SM), damp
Ilard Light Brown & Black Sand SILT ML 8'S
a y ( )�
damp
Very Dense White, Black and Light Brown 13.5,
SAND (SP) with trace silt, damp
Dense White, Black and Light Brown SAND 18.5
(SM) with trace silt, damp
Very Dense White and Light Brown SAND vs
(SP), damp
IS
17
12
17
1
"'
44
1
10
EF
15
2
11
17
3
14
41
4
12
34
.
5
la
79
6
to
1
30
. .17
i
7
8
5014
8
12
5 166
Boring Terminated at 30 fee[. 30.0
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER
DATA:
Datum:
North:
East:
V
ff
]a
17
During Drilling: Dry Feet
At Completion: Dty_Feet
Caved: 16.5 Feet
After 24 Hours: Feet
4301 SHIELD Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone:
Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
' Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: BA-2
Boring Method: ltoalkw-Stctxtllugcr-- hammer Type: AtuQulatic-Trip Uanuner Shect: of
Logged By: SM13 Driller: IJEC Date Started: 9/6/16
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16 .
a
o
>
G
SP'h
blows per
6 in. foot
Surface Elevation:
DESCRIPTION OF MATL'RIALS
(Classification)
H
c
0
v
U
2
COMMENTS:
5
10
IS
20
25
30
35
1
12
32
TOP SOIL------------------ 0.3
be Tan and Light Brown Silty SAND (SM)
with trace Clay, damp (RESIDUAL)
Very Dense Tan, Brown and Gray Mottled 3.5
'Y Y
Clayey SAND (SC), damp
Very Dense Light Brown SAND SP dam - 6.0
rY g ( )� P
-- 8.5
No Recovery
... ,
- -
r .
19
z
13
smb
3
a
4-
sofa
4
0
50/3
5013
5
0
5012
50/2
Auger Refusal @ 14 feel Due Dense SAND 14.0
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER
DATA: 11
Datum:
North:
East:
V
7At
li:l
17
During Drilling: Dry Feet
Completion: Dry_Fect
Caved: 7 Feet
After 24 Hours: Fcet
Charlotte, NC 28209
S�IIELD 4301 Taggart Creek Road
Tcicphonc:704-394-6913
Telephone:
ele
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield projectNo.: 1160154-01

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: 13-03
Boring Method: Ho11Qw_Stem AueeL Hammer Type: Automatic Trio Hammer Sheet: I oL I
Logged By: SMR Driller: I-IPC Date Started: 916/I6
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16
o
>
`✓
d
7'�'�
°—
> a
° L
G
SP'I'
blows per
6 if
Surface Elevation:
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification)
E
.b
c
c?
U
2
COMMENTS:
5
10
IS
20
25
30
35
0.
T_O_PSO_I_I- _______________
Stiff Reddish Brown and Black Sandy CLAY
(CH), moist (POSSIBLE FILL)
— 3.5
Medium Dense Light Brown Clayey SAND
(SC), moist (POSSIBLE FILL)
Medium Dense Brown, White and Pink Clayey 6.0
SAND (SC), damp (RESIDUAL)
Medium Dense Li ht Brown Cla e SAND ss
g Y Y
(SC), damp
13.5
very Dense Light Brown SAND (Sp), damp
Auger Refusal @ 21 feet Due to Dense SAND 21.0
/
i
ra
28
15
n
6
53
25
78
1
10
12
2
8
24
3
10
28
4
12
zo
5
s
50/2
.....
6
6
50/6
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER DATA:
Datum:
North:
East:
SZ
I
tta
--V
During Drilling: Dry Feet
At Completion: Dry —Feet
Caved: 10.5 Feet
After 24 hours: Feet
Charlotte, NC 28208
-SHIELD 4301 Taggart Creek Road
Telephone:
Telephone:[phone]
'fall Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: 3[_ Q4
Boring Method: I11211aw Stein -Auger Hammer Type: Automatic-Irip-E-Lmwer Sheet: 1 of: —I—
Logged By: _SMB Driller: L1, Date Started: 9/6/16
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16
o
m
'✓
q
o
z'
a
rn
> a
o c
a'-
SP I
blows per
6 in, foot
Surface Elevation: +/-
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification)
p
i
Cn
ti
.b
c
'o
U
V)
COMMENTS:
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TOP SOIL - oa
Medium Dense Orangish Brown Silty SAND J
(SM) with trace Clay, moist (POSSIBLE FILL)
Dense Light Brown and Black Silty SAND 3.5
b tY
(SM), moist (RESIDUAL)
Vc Dense Tan and Gray Sand SILT ML 6.0
!Y Y Y ( ),
mold
No Rccovcry 3s
20
IS
13
34
9
49
62
1
10
12
2
12
It
30
3
10
as
4
14
36
5
0
- i-
50/1
6
0
50/2
7
0
5010
Auger Refusal @ 23 feet Due to Dense SAND 23.0
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER
DATA:
Datum:
North:
East:
a
y
It
17
During Drilling: Dry_Fcct
At Completion: Dry_Fcet
Caved: 9.2 Feet
Aficr 24 Hours: Fect
4301 SHIELD Taggart Creck Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
=� Tcicphonc: 704-394-394-6913
Telephone:
Toll Free:800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: 13-05
Boring Method: HaUQw�lem Auger Hammer Type: Aut4madc-1rip-Uammer_ Sheet: I of.
Logged By: _SMB Driller: UPC Date Started: 9/6/16
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16
o
m
w
"
.Y
q
d
'4
a
E
Ln
> a
G
04
SPT
blows per
6 in. foot
Surface Elevation: +/-
DESCRIPTION OF MATF'RIALS
(Classification)
�C
c
U
_
U
a
s
z
a.
COMMENTS:
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TOPSOIL— --- — 0.3
Dense Light Reddish Brown Silty SAND (SM),
moist (POSSIBLE FILL)
Vet Dense Brown SAND SP moist — 3.5
(RFSIDUAL) ( ),
17
7
1
10
12
2
10
as
. .
z0
3
9
52
4
7
50/3
5
9
50/5
Auger Refusal @ 17 feet Due to Rock or Dense 17.0
SAND
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER DATA:
Datum:
North:
East:
a
V
]i
V
During Drilling: Dry --Feet
At Completion: Dry Feet
Caved: Feet
After 24 Hours: Feet
Taggart Qcc4-39 6913Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone: [phone]
SHIELD Telephone:
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Report Date: 9/8/16 Boring No.: B-06
Boring Method: Hollow Stem Auger Hammer Type: Automatic -Rip Hamme Sheet: I of: 1
Logged By: SMI3 Drillcr: HPC Date Started: 9/6/16
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/ 16
a°
o
>
>
W
,w°1,,
n
Ca
o
z'
a
g
cn
•
>
° o
❑
cC :.
SPT
blows per
p
6 in. foot
Surface Elevation: +/-
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification)
B
yr
''
a
o
C3
a
a
w
w
COMMENTS:
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TOP SOIL
Stiff Dark Red Sandy CLAY (CL), moist
(POSSIBLE FILL)
VeryStiff Light Brown Sand SILT ML 3.5
mot(RESIDUAL) y ( )
Light ht Brown and White Sand " 6.0
g Y SILTML ( ),
moist
Stiff Light Brown Sandy SILT ( ML with trace ss
Sti g )
Clay, moist (RESIDUAL)
Dense Light Brown Silty SAND (SM), moist 3.5
FIX
ra.
zz
a
20
20
33
33
12
5
bz
1
10
15
2
8
9
—u
3
10
13
4
12
IS
5
to
34
6
12
44
7
8
43.5
50/3.5
Auger Refusal @ 25 feet Due to Dense SAND 25.0
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER
DATA:
-
Datum:
North:
East:
SZ
-
WL
I
During Drilling Dry Fcet
At Completion: Dry —Feet
Caved: 11.3 Feet
After 24 Hours: Feet
Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephonc:704-394-6913
SHIELD Telephone:
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield project No.: 1160154-01

GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG
Rcport Date: 9/9/16 Boring No.: B-07
Boring Method: Hollow Stern -Auger— Hammer Type: Automaticsrip-Hammer Sheet: I of: I
Logged By: _SMB Driller: HPC Date Started: 9/6/16
Boring Location: Date Finished: 9/6/16
fs]
°
Ca
o
"
a
rn
> v
� c
cue v
SPT
blows per
6 in. foot
Surface Elevation: +/-
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS
(Classification)
E
in
b
c
C7
�_
U
5
.5
E
Z
D.
COMMENTS:
5
l0
IS
20
25
30
35
3" TOPSOIL 0.3
Very Dense Light Brown and Black Silty
SAND (SM), damp (RESIDUAL)
ua
16
27
I
to
39
2
7
50/5.5
17
5015 5
3
5
5015.5
Auger Refusal @ 7.5 feet. Offset 10 feet 7.5
Re-Augered, Auger Refusal cr 5 feet after
Offset. Refusal Due to Dense SAND
GENERAL REMARKS:
GPS DATA:
GROUNDWATER
DATA:
Datum:
North:
East:
SZ
]a
-V-
During Drilling: Dry Fect
At Completion: DIy Feet
Caved: 5.4 Feet
Aftcr 24 H0Urs: Fect
hone:Tagg7 Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone:
TollFree::004-394-6913
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01

100
95
90
85
80
75
70
= 65
C)
60
}
of 55
Z 50
LL
Z 45
U
w 40
a
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 112318 3 4 6 8 10 14 16 20 30 40 5060 100 140 200
IL
inn
10
1
n
1
not
0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND __
SILT OR CLAY
"'�' vn �.�n 1
coarse fine
coarse I__ medium fine
ISpecimen Identification I Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu
• B-01 9.3
_Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
0B-01 9.3 9.525 0.16 0.1 56.3 43.6
4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation
SHIELD Charlotte, NC 4-398 (DUKE BNGRGY)
Telephone: [phone] Burlington, NC
Toll Free: 800-395-5220 �
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax [phone] Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
HOLT RETAIL GEOTEGH EVALUATIONWRING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJB-019TQ0164', 1131 PM

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
1 1 1. I I I I I I: I II I I I I I I I
1131111111111
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification Classification ILL PL PI Cc CU
01 B-03 1.3 FAT CLAY with SAND(CH) 53 28 I 25
ISpecimen Identification I D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel I %Sand I %Silt %Clay
013-03 1.3 4.75 1 om--T-2-2-2—T 77.8
4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation
*4k ELDTel phon NC 4-394 (DUKE ENERGY)
Cha hone: C 282 4-6913
Toll Free: 800-395-5220 Burlington, NC
ERING, INC. Fax [phone] Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
Hi RP lFfT.1MIFl11 MlLAl HM T HFT111 f.MTFf.HFV<IIATI(1NIMHINf.I Ml1MPINf.I MCC.GIPA:14MlMlfi1. 11 :tt LM

f-
00
w
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 1123/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
11. I I I I I I I I. I I I I: I I I I
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
n�ool oo
i.vuuuuo
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
coarse medium fine
Specimen Identification Classification I LL PL I PI Cc CIL • B-04 1.3 SILTY SAND(SM) 1 34 25 9
Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
0 B-04 1.3 9.525 0.143 0.2 51.1 48.7
4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation
SEHIELD Charlotte, NC 4-394 (DUKE ENERGY)
Telephone: [phone] I3urlin *ion, NC
Toll Free: 800-395-5220 b
NINC. Fax:[phone] Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
PROIECTS361V 11601N 01 HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVA UATnNSORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJBMMG016 <'.1131 PM

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 314 112318 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
11 1 I I 1 I I I 11: I I I I I I I I
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
�.vool_w
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT �r< CLAY
OR C
coarse I fine
coarse medium fne
Specimen Identification Classification ILL PL PI Cc Cu
• B-04 9.3
ISpecimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel I %Sand %Silt %Clay
013-04 9.3 1 9.525 0.1 37.5 62.4
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte NC
Holt Retail Substation
(DUKE ENERGY)
SHIELD
Telephone: [phone]
Burlington, NC
ENGINEERING, INC.
Tall Free: 800-395-5220 '
395-5
Fax [phone]
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
11 VP(11FCTCVIIIfi\I Ifi01 V O1 HOLT DETAIL GEOTEO. EVALNATION%ORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJBL M20164'. 11'. 31 PM

70
35
30
35
30
75
70
35
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1123/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100 140 200
11. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
HYDROMETER
COBBLES
GRAVEL
I SAND
SILT OR CLAY
coarse fine
I coarse I medium I fine
Specimen Identification Classification LL PL I PI Cc Cu
• B-06 1.3 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) 1 33 21 1 12 1
ISpecimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel � %Sand � %Silt I %Clay
• B-06 1.3 2 0.0 38.1 61.9
4301 Taggart Creek Road Holt Retail Substation
SHIELD NC 28208 (DUKEENERGY)
Telephone
e: 70Burlington, NC
Toll Free: 800-395-5395-5220 20 urn �'
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone] Shield Project No.: 1160154-01

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
60
CL CH
7z
50
P
L
s 40
T
I
C
T 30
Y
I
N 20 —
D
E
X
10
CL-ML ML MH
0
0 20 40 60, 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
Fines
Classification
•
B-01 1.3
17
24
NP
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Telephone::[phone]
SHIELD Charlotte, 28208
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
0EN GIN EE RIN G,INC. Fax: [phone]
I lolt Retail Substation
(DUKE' GNHRGI')
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVALUATIOMBORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJB419R 164'. 11:31 PM

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
60
CL CH
50
P
L
s
40
T
I
C
T 30
Y
I
N 20
D
E
X
—
10
CL-ML � ML MH
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
Fines
Classification
•
B-03 1.3
53
28
25
78
FAT CLAY with SAND(CH)
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Telephone: [phone][3urlin
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
WLDCharlotte 00 395-5
INC. Fax [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
(DUKE ENERGY)
*[on, NG
Shield Project No.: 1 160154-01
�EERING,
MTRWECT=nOIIWI16 1 HOLT RUAILGEOTECH WV UA➢OMBORWGLOGSBORINGLOGSGPJ9L39 164;11:31 PM

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
60
CL CH
50
P
L
S
40
T
I
C
T 30
Y
I
N 20
D
E
X
10
0
—
ML
MH
CL-ML
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
Fines
Classification
•
B-04 1.3
34
,25
9
49
SILTYSAND(SM)
4301 Taggart Creek Road
Telephone: [phone]
SHIELD Charlotte, NC 4-394
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
I Jolt Retail Substation
[3uY11n (DUKE ENERGY)
S toil, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
H \PROJECTS3016111E@1 1-91 HOLT RETAIL GEOTECH EVALUATIOM90RING LOGS9ORING LOGS GPJS 049OQ016 <-.11 31 PM

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
60
CL CH
50
P
L
s
40
T
I
C
T 30-
v
I
z4
N 20
D
E
X
•
—
10
0
ML
MH
CL-ML
� �
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
Fines
Classification
•
B-06 1.3
33
21
12
62
SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL)
Charlotte, NC Greek
SHIELD 4301 Taggart Creek Road
O Telephone: [phone]
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINEERING, INC. Fax: [phone]
Molt Recall Substation
(DUKE ENERGY)
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
HWROIECTS IO11MHU5 1 HOLT RETAILGEOTECHEV UATIONIBORINGLWG RINGLOGSGPJB-069 i64', 1131 PM

ATTERBERG LIMITS' RESULTS
60
CL CH
50
P - Zr4
L
s
40
T
I
C
T 30
Y
I
N 20 —
D
E
X
10
CL-ML ML MH
01 1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
LIQUID LIMIT
Specimen Identification
LL
PL
PI
Fines
Classification
•
B-06 9.3
33
28
5
Taggart Creek Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Telephone: [phone]
SHIELD Telephone*
Toll Free: 800-395-5220
ENGINES RIN G,INC. Fax: [phone]
Holt Retail Substation
(DUKE ENERGY
Burlington, NC
Shield Project No.: 1160154-01
H WROJECTM016V 16015 01110LT li4TAIL GEOTEOII LVALOATIONOORING LOGSBORING LOGS GPJB'06WW0164;11;31 PM

NWS15llELD
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
Project Name: Holt Retail Project No: 1160154-01
Technician Name: JRS Sample #: 16-101 Date: 9/20/16
Boring No.
B-1
B-1
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-3
B-3
B-3
Sample No.
S-1
S-2
S-4
S-2
S-1
S-3
S-4
S-5
Depth No.
0.5-2'
3.5-5'
8.5-10'
3.5-5'
0.5-2'
6-7.5'
8.5-10'
13.5-15'
Wt. of cup + wet soil
82.68
161.80
979.30
173.23
747.93
198.43
165.86
177.25
Wt. of cup + dry soil
74.04
142.39
903.89
149.66
642.14
176.25
145.34
168.18
Wt. of cup
25.55
25.34
279.77
25.69
258.52
25.36
24.95
25.66
Wt. of dry soil
48.49
117.05
624.12
123.97
383.62
150.89
120.39
142.52
Wt. of water
8.64
19.41
75.41
23.57
105.79
22.18
20.52
9.07
Water Content, %
17.8
16.6
12.1
19.0
27.6
14.7
17.0
6.4
Boring No.
B-4.
B-4
B-4
B-5
B-5
B-5
Sample No.
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-1
S-2
S-3
Depth No.
0.5-2'
3.5-5'
6-7.5'
0.5-2'
3.5-5'
6-7.5'
Wt. of cup + wet soil
912.18
153.90
186.83
159.08
193.11
146.44
Wt. of cup + dry soil
802.63
137.46
168.74
139.72
182.41
138.90
Wt. of cup
262.50
25.72
25.39
24.84
25.61
25.50
Wt. of dry soil
540.13
111.74
143.35
114.88
156.80
113.40
Wt. of water
109.55
16.44
18.09
19.36
10.70
7.54
Water Content, %
20.28
14.71
12.62
16.85
6.82
6.65
9(LW2016123 PM HVmjttb=Ml 1601541 Hdt Fetid Geo hNaWa'liwLLe a'Wry Oats isWrekl1 ID1.xisN iisW2G tent

$HIELD
ENGINEERING, INC.
MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION
Project Name: Holt Retail Project No: 1160154-01
Technician Name: JRS Sample #: 16-101 Date: 9/20/16
Boring No.
B-6
B-6
B-6
B-6
B-7
B-7
Sample No.
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-1
S-2
Depth No.
0.5-2'
3.5-5'
6-7.5'
8.5-10'
0.5-2'
3.5-5'
Wt. of cup + wet soil
918.21
139.36
173.06
1116.66
151.62
218.32
Wt. of cup + dry soil
799.60
123.73
148.46
971.39
134.18
176.89
Wt. of cup
252.41
25.68
25.24
256.78
25.79
25.39
Wt. of dry soil
547.19
98.05
123.22
714.61
108.39
151.50
Wt. of water
118.61
15.63
24.60
1 145.27
17.44
41.43
Water Content, %
21.7
15.9
20.0
20.3
16.1
27.3
Boring No.
Sample No.
Depth No.
Wt. of cup + wet soil
Wt. of cup + dry soil
Wt. of cup
Wt. of dry soil
Wt. of water
Water Content,
92N201612M PM HVrojocee=1M116616Cd1 Hot Reu it Geolecin Evaluton"¢ taryDn�Woistuee16101zlsV sWre Content