ARCHIVED REPORTS XR0010073 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i February 2, 2001 Wright Environmental Services, Inc Page 3 The suspected vent line was traced out from the exposed vent stand pipes at the northeast comer of the muffler building trending to the east within the asphalt covered area Approximately 55 feet east of the building, we could no longer detect this line, indicating its possible termination We did not detect any lateral extension from the cut-off pipe at the northwest comer of the welding building, suggesting that it was merely a post and not related to a UST However, the reinforced concrete apron interfered with ail of our instrumentation in that area Additional Utilities The suspected water line was detected toward the north end of the survey area It was located with the EIVILL instruments and is labeled as a "suspected" water line because it is aligned with an observed water valve near the southwest comer of the camort Two of the detected undifferentiated utilities lie immediately west of the concrete apron of the welding building Another undifferentiatea utiiity trends north south oetween two of the trailers and is probably related to those res,dencas The fourtn uncifferentiated utility trenas aporoximately • east/west immediately north of the welding building We did not detect the large irrigation pipeline reported to trend through the survey area ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Wright Environmental Services brougnt to our attention a capped pipe at the southwest comer of the muffler building (not shown on Plate 1), outside the limits cr our derined survey area It may be a possible fiil oort, however limited ohysicai access and interference due to the parked cars and the chain barricade located around the oipe precludea our exoleration for any subsurface extension of this oipe or potentially related UST LIMITATIONS The depth of detection of the GPR method is dependent on site specific conditions These conditions include the electrical properties of the subsurface soils, and the surface conditions over the suspected target Typically, the GPR depth of detection will be reduced as the clay content of the subsurface increases In some cases, the ceoth of detect,en will also be affected by the degree of soil saturation We estimate the GPR depth of detection at tnis site to range from 3 to 5 feet UST's occumng at greater depths would not be detected in addition, since locating utilities was not the primary objective of this survey, not all utilities may have been detected This includes non-metallic lines such as those constructed of PVC, non-reinforced concrete,fiberglass, or vitrified clay It should also be noted that utilities within 2 to 3 feet of the builaing walls, fences, railings, and other surface features shown on Plate 1 may go unaetected due to interference from, and the inability to effectively maneuver the instruments around, those objects