The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03762'' r I· I I I I I I ! r •' '· GARFl.ELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springe, Colorado 81601 Phone (303) 945 -8212 N,.. Permit -3762 AHeHor'• Parce l No. ) ----------~-! ·{ ~ t INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT II =~:.::::.rx 1m~/p:~ ·~l£ 1, This does not constitute a building or use permit. I 1 ,, "' •· • • System Location 3'1$ ~JQ.:5 ~ Leg~DNcrl~~n~Aneuo(ePa~~No .~~~~~~·~~\~~-~~~~~~~~b~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~·~~·\u~~~~~ ' SYSTEM DESION t ,, I 1 t 'i Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) _3_9.._ ___ Percolation Rate (m inutes/Inch) Required Absorption Area • See Attached Special Setback Requirements : ______ Other Number of Bedrooms (or other) 3 B.R. 3 I u A.I.-( n 38 l-ILl-rr-) 1.)1 l/~rs 7 (://:Al( >K.) p /&[) 3' '} (, I 2 ' v_g Date ____________ Inspector-------------------------- . i . ' ". ' ' i FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as Installed) ~ Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation , System Inst aller th 11 SI > \ \ ~ f f f ~ 4 ~ ' , ' t ~ t i' f i i ~ • ~ ~ 4 • '• ' ~ ~- i , Septic Tank Capaclty_..l:....OO.:..<.. ... O'-"'lr'-'Au.--"----------------------------- Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name _ _.·i~:~..,"'"'-;t._:'JZ-'-~-· ~·-'------------------------- Septic Tank Acce88 within 8" of surface _ _./-:"""'·"'"''·c.../,;;J'---=--,-------'-------------------- --/ ..P ./A A I .-\· Absorption Area I r:. -6' "'-'['./ ' • 4 ,, , . v c?CtlJ . . ... ;/ I ·. . ' . . I . Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name-~-""'-"':_..··''-"'-/--'.'-. ....c.."-'·.;._.' ""~"-· ' .... ' .... ,..""'~------~-------- Adequate compliance with County and State regulatl~r:ie/requlrementeM AIJ.V '/< tS ~$ · ll • l O · O 2. . \ A ·~e.+wt4t l ~ Other . <, \. " · '. Date I 2. -l 1 I· ('.J 2...: in11pecto~-...... 1:n=~J.· ~..:.....-;._._,6"'".(2-'-"-t?-'-b'°".z""·V=z""'~ ......... _____________ _ /;)._ -)._ y-O~eT~IN. WITH ~ECE IPT RECORDS AT CO~UCTION SITE •CONDITIONS: . "· • t f, ' 1. A!l lns,alla,loh must comply ~It~ all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems ChllPter · ,~ 25, Article 10 ~.~.s .. 197.~: Revl~d ·1984. . · l' 2 . Thia permit Is valid only fot connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and bulldlng requirements. Con-· 11 nection to or use with any dwell Ing or structures not approved by the Bull di ng and Zoning office shall automatically be a vlolatlon or a t requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit. , 3. Any person who constructs, alter•, or I nstalls an Individual sewage disposal ayetem In a manner which Involves a knowing and material ~ variat i on from the terms or 1peclflcatlons contained In the eppllcation of permit commits a Claas I. Petty Offense ($500.00 fine·.:...:-6 '· months In )all or both). : t White • APPLICANT Yellow. DEPARTMENT ~ INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION OWNER ~MS/ ,&,.~fG-/£.-...v l;:;>lf.9c.J<Nt... ADDRESS 23'2 &.M4,&M-';)f ~ eo ~fi'ms~ ,:56>~ 'i;'3/ !;>j;~8" CONTRACTOR ADDREss?Ulu~~:f!:JAttf.ci~LC-PHONE .54!)5 8"~/ ~~~8" 15? to__ _ <>4'L eo '&-.P z.1 K PERMIT REQUEST FOR ()4 NEW INSTALLATION ( )ALTERATION ( )REPAIR Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4). LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: Near what City of Town eALfofM) JA {e.,, Size of Lot Legal Description or Address ~ ........ .f.., R.,{ :Ii-/ {),3 WASTES TYPE: ()() DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE ( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES ( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Number of Bedrooms J f~ t Z JJ..u,ge,. Number of Persons .:<, /µ ~ f' Z. .f .J.u.1 ~ Garbage Grinder · ()¢ Automatic Washer.{>"'~"....._ (X) Dishwasher .f.,,4,.,c,c.,. SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ()<) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: ..vA Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? N/A A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances: Leach Field to Well: 100 feet Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet Septic System (septic tank & disposal field) to Property Lines: 10 feet YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT A SITE PLAN. GROUND CONDITIONS: Depth to first Ground Water Table 15!> .f+ Percent Ground Slope TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED: 2 ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT (>(} ' SEPTIC TANK ( ) VAULTPRIVY ( ) PITPRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE RECYCLING, OTHER USE ( ) CHEMICAL TOILET( ) ( ) INCINERATIONTOILET ( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FINAL DISPOSAL BY: ( ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( } ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( )() OTHER-DESCRIBE JAl-l11+Mk&. C!.hA,.,. ~egs ~(6 £.W°"' IN A be.c:{ ( ) EV APOTRANSPIRA TION ( ) SAND FILTER ( ) WASTEWATERPOND .JI u,u:t., w -f•.edlr)..._<i. 6llL WILL STATE? EFFLUENT No BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, ifthe Engineer does the Percolation Test) Minutes 6.0 per inch in hole No. I Minutes • % per inch in hole NO. 3 Minutes .2.G. per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes _____ _ Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil abso "" Name, address and telephone of RPE responsible for design of the system: ----------- Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the pennit is subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made, information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based upon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law. PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!! 3 SEP-04-2002 09•44 H-P GEOTECH August 30, 2002 Carey Bringle 73 7 Clarkson Slreet Denver, Colorado 80218 Hepworth~P'•wtakGeotechnical, lac. 5020 County Road 154 Glen,..... Sprlnp. Color1do8l60l Pho•: t'lll-9.fS. 7988 Paa:: 9f0..HS..8454l •eceo@llPll..UCh.oo"' Job No. 102 562 Subject: Subsoil Study for foundation Design and Percolation Testing, Proposed Residence, Lot 1, Ltinsburgh Subdivision, C.ounty Road 103, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Bringle: As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Ocotcchnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and percolation testing for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for gcotechnical engineering servi"s to you dalcd July S, 2002. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurfll(:e conditions encountered are presented in this report. Evaluation of potential geologic haz.ard impacts on the site are beyond the . scope of this study. Proposed Coaatraetlon: The proposed residence will be a two story "superior wall" structure and located on the site as shown on Fig. I. Ground floors are proposed to be slab-on-grade. Cut depths arc CXJlectcd to range between about 4 to 8 feet. Foundation loadinss for this type of construction arc assumed. to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of constnlction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located downhill and south of the residence. If building conditioos or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Coadltlo11s: Lot 1 Is located on the north side of County Road 103 west of Its intersection with County Qoad 100 and was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground surface in the building area ls steeply sloping down to the south. There Is about l O feet of elevation difference across the building area. An irrigation ditch which was dry at the time of our field work bisects the lot from cast to west. Scattered basalt cobbles and boulders were observed on the ground surface in the upper part of the Jot. Vegetation consists of pi non and juniper forest with a ground cover of grass and weeds above the irrigation ditch and grass pasture below the ditch. Subsurfaee Conditions: . The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits (Pits 2 and 3) in the building area, one pit near County Road I 03 along the proposed driveway alignment and one profile pit (Pit I) in the septic SEP-E\4-2002 09•44 Carey Bringle Augusl 30, 2002 Page2 H-P GEOTECH disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. I. The logs of the pits are presenled on Fig. 2. The subsoils enco1111tered, below abDut one foot of topsoil, consist of sandy clay overlying basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders in a clayey silty sand matrix. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the sandy clay, presented on Fig. 3, indicate low compressibility under existing mois!Ul'e conditions and light loading and a low expansion potential when wetted. Pit 4 was located about 25 feet north of County Road I 03 in an access easement between Lots 1 ands 2. The pit was excavated to evaluate subsoil conditions for driveway grading. There was about I foot of topsoil overlying medium stiff sandy silty clay in Pit 4. The subsoil profile encountered in Pit 1 is described in the "Percolation Testlngtt section of this report No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slighlly moist to moist. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratoiy pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend foundations pl.aced on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil hewing pressure of 2,000 psf for support of the proposed res.idence. Typically, the clay soils tend to compress after wetting and there could be some post-construction foundation settlement. The more clayey matrix soils may expand upon wetting but the basalt rock content should reduce the overall expansion potential. We should observe the foundation excavation subgrade prior to footing construction to evaluate the expansion potential of the bearing soils. Loose and disturbed soils encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should he removed and the bearing level e"tendcd down to the undisturbed natural soils. Exterior foundations should be provided with adequate cover above their bearina elevations for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below .the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should bo reinfon:ed top and bouom to span IOC11I anomalies such as by asswning an unsupponed length of at least 12 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining stnlctUJ'es should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for the on-site soil 11s backfill. Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab-on-11rade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with e"pansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joi11ts should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for j(lint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based 011 H-PGEOTfCH SEP-04-2002 03:44 Carey Bringle August 30, 2002 Page 3 H-P CiEOTECH experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of fr«-draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitste drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 illCh aggregare with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid ofVogetatlon, topsoil and overs\7.cd rock. Underdrain System: Although ftec water was not encountered during our exploration. iL has been our experience In mountainous areas that local pen:hed groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspaoe and basement areas, be protc<:tcd from wetting and hydroststic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain should be plaoed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent finish grade and sloped at 11 minimum I% to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve, less than SO% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of 2 inches. The drain gravel bacldlll should be 111 least I Y, feet deep. Surface Dnlnap: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: I) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increYSe the expansion potential of the sandy clay matrix soils. 2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We recommend a minimum slope of 12 Inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved ----------- -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - SEP-04-2002 09•45 H-P GEOTECH Carey Bringle August 30, 2002 Page 4 areas and a minimum slope of3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and walkway areas. A swale may be needed uphill to direct surface 111noff around the residence. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. S) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet fiom the building. Consideration should be given to the use ofxeriscape to limit potential wetting due to irrigation. Percol•tion Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on August 23, 2002 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. The tested area was over I 00 feet from the water well and over SO feet from the irrigation ditch. One profile pit and three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Pig. I. The test boles (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 Md consist of topsoil overlying sandy silty clay. The percolation test results ranged from 26 to 60 minutes per inch and are presented in Table JI. The average percolation rate of the three tests was 39 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report ore based upon the data obtained from the exploratoiy pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. I, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrepolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratoiy pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident w1til excavation is perfnnned. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this repor1, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the ex.elusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verity that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design H-PGEOTECH SEP-04-2002 09:45 Carey Bringle August 30, 2002 Page 5 H-P GEOTECH chllngcs may require additional analysis or modifical.ions 10 the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of li.uther assislBnce, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. /~~~-"~/ D:.-·. ,____ Louis E. Eller / Reviewed by: I Daniel E. Hardin, P.E LEF.lksw attachments cc: A4 Architecture -Attn: Michael Hassii H-P GEOTECtt SEP-04-2002 09:45 H-P GEOTECH \ \ 1030 I I I / ---- 1020 DRY /' DRAINAGE \ \ APPROXIMA '!£ SCALE , .. = 50' 102 562 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ' P.07"11 1040 \ ' ' \ ' ' ' ' PIT 2 1050 ' ' ' ' ..... PROPOSED'-... RESIDENCE: ...._ , ' ..... ..... -- ' ..... Ill ..... ' ' ' ' ' ' LOT 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --1000 ' ' ' ' ' ..... ..... PIT 3 '~ 1040 ..... .... ' ' .... 10l0 1020 ..... 1010 ----400 FEET- TO PIT 4 LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS ANO PERCOLATION TEST HOLES Fig. SEP-04-2002 09:45 H-P GEOTECH -3l ... £ ! 0 5 \0 PIT I (Profile Pit) PIT 2 ELEV.= 1046' _,,,3 00•?6 -200-39 Pll 3 PIT 4 ELEV.: 1 OJ8' W0-$.7 00•98 -200-4& LEGEND: NOTES: TOPSOIL; sondy •lit and cloy, organic, form, slightly moist, dark brown. CLAY (CL); sandy, •illy, medium still, slightly moist, liqht brown, eolcoreous. GRAVEL (G~-GC); sandy, allty lo cla)'ly. with basalt cobbles and boulder•. rlcnse, slightly moist lo moist, tight brown, oa1ccreous. 2• Diameter hand driven liner sample. I. E•plaratory Pita 1 and 4 wcro excavated on Augu•l 22, 2002 wltl\ o Cose 488E backhoe. 0 5 10 E•plorotory Pits 2 and J were e•cavated on August 2J, 2002 wlth o John Deere 690 trocknoe. 2. locations of exploratory pit~ were meaeured approximately by pacing from features on the •ite plan provided. ! I f.j ! 3. Elevations of exploratory Pits 2 ond 3 were obtained by interpoloti<>n between contours on the site pion provided. 4. The ••plorotory pit locations end elevations ehould be con1idered accurate only to the de9ree Implied by the method us.d. 5. The linos between mo\erials 9hown on the exploratory r.lt logs represent tho oppro•lmote boundaries between material t~cs and tronsitione may be gtodua . 6, No free woter was enciountered in the pitl!t al the time of e~cavoting. Ftuetuottans in woter love! may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Waler Content ( 71 ) DD "' Dry Density ( pcf ) -200 = Percent possing No. 200 sieve 102 562 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 SEP-04-2002 09:45 H-P GEDTECH P.09/11 • Moioture Content ~ 11.3 percent Dry Density -76 pcf 0 ---· Sample of: Cla~y Snnd Matrix r-;-.. From: Pit 2 ol 4 Foe\ t-,..,,.., 1 -r-. t-~ ~ 2 ""' Compretalon upon 8 3 wetlln9 'in ' I 4 " u ' '\ 5 \~ 6 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf •.. Moia\ure Content = 5.7 percent Dry Density = 95 per Sample of: Clo~y Sand Molri• !-! From: Pit 3 al 4 F'eet c 2 .. 0 c a ~ --.., !!' ..... "' ..... LJ 1 ) I Expansion ..,, ~ ~ upon 2 wetllM ~ E 8 3 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIEO PRESSURE -ksf 102 562 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ~ SAMP'~E U)Cf!.l;Cn !'IA,U't~l. l ......... I ,,, °"""' "'""""' """ . ..., C°"Tf.Nf OEN511'f "" ""' 2 4 11.3 76 3 4 S.7 98 1 i l l l HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS D:'tA.JJATIOAI i PE~CEhT AT>[Jt*l'l:G-\.'f/CTS I \.l.'t':C"FtMfl;) i ~a.vt:L .... .... ...,. LQ>O "'"'"" \ COJlft.E5Sf'ff "" .... ....... ......... ..... STRE!fCTit ..... '"' "" ..... , 39 ' 46 I ' ' I • i ' J06 NO. 102 5€2 $01" .... 0ft' MORQCll:,Tl"e cfayev sand matrix clayey sand matrix • ! ~ I ~ m lJl "' CJ'> 'f .,, ! ..., -~ -- SEP-04-201il2 09•46 H-P GEOTECH P.11/Jl HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECl-INICAL. INC. TABLE: II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 102 562 HOlE NO, HOLE DEPTfi lfNGTH OF WArfR DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE !INCHES! INTERVAL AT START OF AT ENO Of WATER PERCOLATION I (MINI INT~RVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE I ~----· -llNCHESI llNCHESJ (INC'!~'~I IMIN.llNCHI p.1 42 15 11 1/4 11 1/4 11 10 112 112 I 10 112 9 3/4 314 g J/4 9 1/2 1/4 ' ' 9 1/2 9 1/4 114 I I , I • 9 114 9 1/4 ' ··- 9 8 3/4 1/4 8 3/4 a 112 114 6~:2-----l/ P-2 I 41 15 10 112 9 1/4 1 1/4 I ! ' 9 1/4 a 112 314 . ·- a 112 8 114 1/4 I .____._~ 1/4 7 3/4 11!_ .. ___ 7 3/4 7 112 1/4 ii 7 112 7 112 i 7 6 1/4 3/4 8 1/4 5 3/4 112 2611 p.3 39 15 10 9 1 I 9 8 112 1/2 ·- 8 112 7 314 3/4 I 1 3/4 7 1/2 114 ·- wa1e1 added 10 314 10 1/4 112 10 114 !.1 314 112 9 314 _j 114 112 I 9 1/4 8 314 112 30/1 __jl ' -·-· ___ ./ Note: Percolation teat holes were hand dug in 'the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on Augu~t 22, 2002. Piircolatlon tests were conducted on August 23. 2002. The average pe1cola1ion rate Is based on the last three readings of each test. TOTAL P.11