Laserfiche WebLink
Appendix C Ground Penetrating Radar Investigation <br /> Phase II ESA Muiti-Modal Station"Six-Block ProJeCC <br /> January 6,2003 <br /> Page 3 of 9 <br /> . greater than five feet bgs In some cases, boring locations were moved or additional borings advanced <br /> after the completion of the GPR investigation These boring locations were not investigated directly by <br /> GPR, but were often inferred to be clear for drilling based on GPR data collected nearby <br /> In addition to investigating the selected boring locations for possible buried utilities, GPR data were <br /> collected on a broader scale for selected properties that were suspected as possible locations of other <br /> buried features of environmental concern, such as oil sumps and USTs Properties were selected for more <br /> extensive investigation based on observed conditions at the time of the visit, as well as past and current <br /> property uses Some selected properties were investigated to the full extent possible based on <br /> accessibility, while others were only investigated in areas that were identified as suspicious GPR data <br /> lines were generally positioned with the intent to gather as much information regarding the subsurface <br /> conditions of the site as possible in a time-effective manner <br /> GPR Imes were traversed from west to east or south to north unless otherwise indicated on the included <br /> figures Lines were walked at an approximate pace of 1 5 feet per second and data were collected <br /> continuously using a Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc (GSSI) SIR-2000 GPR system with a 400 Mega <br /> Hertz (MHz) antenna The antenna was either pulled along the lines of interest or was pushed along the <br /> lines as part of a cart-mounted operation, depending on property conditions Based on soil type and <br /> conditions, a data collection range of 40 0 to 60 0 nanoseconds was selected in order to investigate the <br /> subsurface to an estimated depth of six to eight feet bgs The GSSI software package RADAN NT was <br /> used to process the raw data collected at the site Processing methods including deconvolution,migration, <br /> and spatial filtering were employed to suppress noise,multiple reflections, and antenna ringing <br /> 13 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR INVESTIGATION RESULTS <br /> A total of 936 GPR data lines were collected from 28 of the private properties within the site For the <br /> purposes of this report, only 66 of the 936 collected data lines are discussed A map of the GPR study area <br /> and data line locations is provided in Figure 4, Appendix A GPR Imes were traversed from west to east <br /> or south to north unless otherwise indicated on the included figures Most of these lines were selected <br /> based on the presence of some feature of note in their respective radargrams At least one radargram from <br /> each property is included For properties with no notable radargram features, a"representative"radargram <br /> for the property is included <br /> Radargrams for data lines 1-66, and an index grouping the radargrams by property and block and <br /> providing the corresponding data file number for each radargrarn is included at the end of this Appendix <br /> Each data file number represents a walked line for a given property <br /> 1.3.1 Block 1 <br /> 722 E Miner Avenue <br /> On May 28, 2002, a total of 10 potential boring locations were selected for the eight borings proposed for <br /> the property The boring locations were investigated by 60 GPR data lines Two of the potential boring <br /> locations were located on a recently poured concrete slab east of the garage and were eliminated at the <br /> request of the property owner Radargram 1 shows a typical line of data collected at the property Rebar <br /> and a possible buried object are evident in Radargram 2, collected from the concrete slab Radargram. 3 <br /> depicts another possible buried object This feature was not evident in adjacent radargrams and the boring <br /> location was marked to avoid this possible object The features in Radargrams 2 and 3 appear to be <br /> indicative small-scale buried objects and do not suggest the presence of buried pipes or USTs Radargram <br /> 4 shows a vertical conduit that had no surface indicators of its presence and was avoided when the <br /> location was marked <br />