geotechnical data report –wilshire/la brea station

Westside Subway Extension Project, Section 1 Contract C1045

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station

Amendment 2 September 16, 2013

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page 1 Amendment 2 September 16, 2013 May 22, 2013

SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO THE MAY 22, 2013 GDR

Chapter Revisions Page Nos.

Table of Contents Revisions and additions i through iv

Chapter 1 Added information about additional borings drilled at the station entrance area in 2013

1‐1

Chapter 3 Added description of additional borings performed at the station entrance area in 2013

3‐1

Chapter 3, Table 3‐1 Listed additional borings drilled in 2013 and the boring termination depths

3‐2

Chapter 3, Table 3‐2 Added pressuremeter test data in boring G‐319 3‐3

Chapter 3, Table 3‐3 Revised bold to underline and italicized 3‐4

Chapter 3, Table 3‐4 Listed additional geotechnical borings drilled in 2013 in which environmental samples were obtained

3‐5

Chapter 4 Revised Env Data Report reference 4‐2

Chapter 4, Table 4‐2 Added laboratory test data for new borings P‐305, OB‐304, OB‐306

4‐3 to 4‐10

Chapter 5 Added additional corrosion tesing performed in borings drilled in 2013

5‐2

Chapter 5 Added information about pumping test performed at the station in 2013

5‐3

Chapter 5, Table 5‐1 Added groundwater monitoring data in new wells P‐305, OB‐304, OB‐306

5‐5

Appendix A Added boring logs for P‐305, OB‐304, OB‐306

A‐1

Listed driller information for dual rotary‐wash/rock core boring drilled in 2013

A‐3

Listed the use of Shelby tube sampler for field sampling in borings drilled in 2013

A‐3

Listed additional field tests performed in borings drilled in 2013

A‐4

Added description of procedure for borehole acoustic televiewer survey

A‐5

Added description of drilling method and sampling procedure for borings drilled using hollow‐stem auger equipment in 2013

A‐6

Added description of drilling method and sampling procedure for borings drilled using rock core equipment in 2013

A‐6

Listed geotechnical borings drilled in 2013 in which monitoring wells were installed

A‐8

Added description of pumping test performed at Wilshire/La Brea Station

A‐11 A‐12

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Amendment 2 September 16, 2013

May 22, 2013 Page 2

Appendix C Added monitoring well construction diagrams for wells P‐305, OB‐304, OB‐306

Appendix E Added additional direct shear, consolidation, particle size distribution, Atterberg limits test data

Appendix E Added examples of how yield values were picked from stress‐strain curves obtained from direct shear tests

E‐3

Appendix F Added corrosion test data obtained in 2013

Appendix H Added analytical results of groundwater tests conducted as part of pumping test at Wilshire/La Brea Station

Appendix I Added pumping test report for Wilshire/La Brea Station

Plate 1 Added new borings drilled in 2013

Plate 2 Revised geologic contacts and groundwater data based on 2013 borings

Williamsale

Rectangle

Williamsale

Rectangle


Table of Contents

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T

Page i Amendment 2 September 16, 2013 May 22, 2013

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES‐1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1‐1

1.1 Objective and Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 1‐1

1.2 Other Available Data ........................................................................................................ 1‐2

1.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 1‐2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1 Station Description .......................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.2 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................... 2‐1

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................. 3‐1

3.1 Geotechnical Exploration ................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.1.1 Field Testing ........................................................................................................ 3‐2

3.2 Subsurface Gas Explorations ............................................................................................ 3‐3 3.2.1 Summary of Field Measurements ....................................................................... 3‐4

3.3 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ......................................................................... 3‐4

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1 Geotechnical Testing ........................................................................................................ 4‐1

4.2 Subsurface Gas Testing .................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2.1 Summary of Lab Measurements ......................................................................... 4‐1

4.3 Phase II Environmental Testing ........................................................................................ 4‐2

5.0 PROJECT GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 5‐1

5.1 Geologic Setting of Study Area ........................................................................................ 5‐1

5.2 Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.2.1 Artificial Fill (Profile symbol: af) .......................................................................... 5‐3 5.2.2 Alluvium (Profile symbol: Qal) ............................................................................ 5‐3 5.2.3 Lakewood Formation (Profile symbol: Qlw) ....................................................... 5‐3 5.2.4 San Pedro Formation (Profile symbol: Qsp) ....................................................... 5‐3 5.2.5 Fernando Formation (Profile symbol: Tf) ........................................................... 5‐3

5.3 Corrosion Potential of Soils .............................................................................................. 5‐3

5.4 Groundwater .................................................................................................................... 5‐4

5.5 Geologic/Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................ 5‐9 5.5.1 Faults ................................................................................................................... 5‐9 5.5.2 Fault Rupture .................................................................................................... 5‐13 5.5.3 Historic Earthquakes and Seismicity ................................................................. 5‐14 5.5.4 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................... 5‐14


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station Table of Contents

Page ii

5.5.5 Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding ................................................... 5‐14 5.5.6 Gases and Oil Fields .......................................................................................... 5‐14

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 6‐1

List of Figures Figure 5‐1: Geologic Time Scale ................................................................................................................. 5‐2

Figure 5‐2: Regional Geologic Map ............................................................................................................ 5‐7

List of Tables Table 3‐1: Geotechnical Explorations ........................................................................................................ 3‐2

Table 3‐2: Pressuremeter Test Results ...................................................................................................... 3‐3

Table 3‐3: Field and Lab Gas Monitoring Data in ACE Phase Gas Monitoring Wells ................................. 3‐4

Table 3‐4: Summary of Suspect Sources at Phase II Environmental Explorations ..................................... 3‐5

Table 4‐1: Geotechnical Laboratory Tests ................................................................................................. 4‐1

Table 4‐2: Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results (ACE, PE and Adv. PE Phases) .................. 4‐3

Table 4‐3: Summary of Laboratory Test Results (Prior Projects) ............................................................. 4‐11

Table 5‐1: Groundwater Monitoring Data in ACE Phase Wells .................................................................. 5‐5

Table 5‐2: Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California .................................... 5‐10

Table 5‐3: List of Historic Earthquakes with Magnitude greater than 5.5 ............................................... 5‐14

List of Plates

Plate 1: Exploration Plan and Profile Plate 2: Geotechnical Cross‐section Plate 3: Plot of Maximum Recorded Subsurface Gas Data

List of Appendices Appendix A Description of Field Explorations Figure A‐1.1: Unified Soil Classification System Figure A‐1.2: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (ACE Phase) Figure A‐1.3: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (PE Phase) Figure A‐1.4: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure A‐1.5: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (Prior Projects) Figure A‐1.6: Schematic Diagram of Crandall Sampler Figure A‐2: Logs of Subsurface Gas Borings (ACE Phase) Appendix B Figure B‐1: Logs of Sonic Core Borings (PE Phase) Figure B‐2: Photographic Logs of Sonic Core Borings (PE Phase)


Table of Contents


Page iii Amendment 2 September 16, 2013 May 22, 2013

Appendix C Figure C‐1: Groundwater Monitoring Well Diagram (ACE Phase) Figure C‐2: Gas/Groundwater Monitoring Well Diagrams (PE Phase) Figure C‐3: Gas/Groundwater Monitoring Well Diagrams (Adv. PE Phase) Appendix D Figure D‐1: Cone Penetration Test Results (PE Phase) Figure D‐2: Suspension Logging Data (PE Phase) Appendix E Description of Laboratory Testing Figure E‐1.1: Direct Shear Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐1.2: Direct Shear Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐1.3: Direct Shear Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐1.4: Direct Shear Test Results (Prior Projects) Figure E‐2.1: Triaxial Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐2.2: Triaxial Test Results (Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐3.1: Consolidation Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐3.2: Consolidation Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐3.3: Consolidation Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐3.4: Consolidation Test Results (Prior Projects) Figure E‐4.1: Hydroconsolidation Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐4.2: Hydroconsolidation Test Results (Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐5.1: Particle Size Distribution Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐5.2: Particle Size Distribution Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐5.3: Particle Size Distribution Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐6.1: Atterberg Limits Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐6.2: Atterberg Limits Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐6.3: Atterberg Limits Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐6.4: Atterberg Limits Test Results (Prior Projects) Figure E‐7.1: Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐7.2: Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results (Adv. PE Phase) Appendix F Figure F‐1.1: Corrosion Mitigation Report for Wilshire/La Brea Station (2012/2013 Data) Appendix G Figure G‐1: Abrasion Test Results (PE Phase) Appendix H Figure H‐1.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (M‐4) Figure H‐2.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (M‐5) Figure H‐3.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (OB‐304) Figure H‐4.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (P‐305)


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station Table of Contents

Page iv

Appendix I Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station


1.0 – Introduction

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page 1-1 Amendment 2 September 16, 2013

May 22, 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical data report (GDR) has been prepared for the Wilshire/La Brea Station as part of the Advanced Preliminary Engineering (Adv. PE) phase of the Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/La Cienega portion (Section 1) of the proposed Westside Subway Extension project for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). This report is one of the nine GDRs prepared for the following structures and tunnel reaches which together comprise Section 1 of the project:

1. Wilshire/La Brea Station

2. Wilshire/Fairfax Station

3. Wilshire/La Cienega Station

4. Wilshire/Western Retrieval Shaft

5. Tunnel Reach 1 (Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/La Brea)

6. Tunnel Reach 2 (Wilshire/La Brea to Wilshire/Fairfax)

7. Tunnel Reach 3 (Wilshire/Fairfax to Wilshire/La Cienega)

8. Tail Tracks (west of Wilshire/La Cienega Station)

9. Environmental Data Report, Section 1

This report is prepared based on the results of investigations performed by AMEC and AMEC’s predecessor company MACTEC during the Advanced Conceptual Engineering (ACE), Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Adv. PE phases of the project (all referred to herein as current investigations). The results of the ACE and PE phase investigations were previously presented in a Geotechnical and Environmental Report (Metro, 2011). The results of the 2012 Adv. PE phase investigations along with those for the ACE and PE phases included for the Wilshire/La Brea station in this report. In addition, subsurface information from prior investigations performed by AMEC’s predecessor firms LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall and those by other consultants were used in preparing thGDR. Additional explorations were performed at the station entrance area to conduct pumping test in early 2013. This report presents the additional data collected in 2013 as well as data collected in previous phases (2009 through 2012).

1.1 Objective and Scope of Work The objectives of the geotechnical and environmental investigations were to evaluate subsurface soil, groundwater, subsurface gas, and man‐made environmental contamination, for planning, design and construction of the proposed Wilshire/La Brea Station.

AMEC is the primary geotechnical consultant to the Parsons Brinckerhoff Team (PB Team), Metro’s design consultant. AMEC’s predecessor company MACTEC provided geotechnical and environmental services associated with the Alternatives Analysis (AA), Advanced Conceptual Engineering (ACE) phase and Preliminary Engineering (PE) phases of the project in support of preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR). AMEC has also conducted Advanced PE Phase investigations in 2012 and 2013 for Section 1 (Wilshire/Western to Wilshire/La Cienega) of the Westside Subway Extension Project.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 1.0 – Introduction

Page 1-2

The scope of work consisted of reviewing the subsurface data from the ACE, PE and Adv. PE phases along with prior relevant data and to provide:

Evaluation of static physical characteristics of the soil and groundwater conditions

Evaluation of subsurface gas conditions

Evaluation of man‐made environmental contamination

Evaluation of corrosion potential of soils, and

Development of recommendations for foundation design, excavation support, station design, dewatering and groundwater control, and for earthwork

Performing a geologic and seismic hazards evaluation of the site.

This GDR presents the results of the field explorations and laboratory testing, and the results of the geologic and seismic hazards evaluation. Based on the data contained in the GDR, a Technical Memorandum (TM) and a Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) have been prepared to include interpretation of the field and laboratory data, parameters for design and construction, and a discussion of the environmental conditions anticipated at the Wilshire/La Brea station site. Lateral earth pressures for temporary shoring and permanent walls will be included in the TM and on the design drawings.

1.2 Other Available Data AMEC’s predecessors companies (MACTEC, Law/Crandall and LeRoy Crandall and Associates) performed numerous geotechnical investigations along Wilshire Boulevard, including several near the proposed Wilshire/La Brea station site. In addition, prior investigations conducted by Converse Ward Davis Dixon (CWDD) in 1981, 1984, and 1992 for the previously planned subway along Wilshire Boulevard, were also reviewed and compiled as part of this investigation. The relevant reports prepared by other consultants and those by AMEC’s predecessor companies are listed in Section 6, Bibliography.

The locations of the borings from prior investigations that are relevant to the Wilshire/La Brea Station are shown on Plate 1, Exploration Plan. Logs of prior borings and relevant laboratory test results are presented in Appendices A and E, respectively.

In addition to the project‐specific documents referenced above, we have reviewed applicable geologic and environmental references in the literature in preparing this GDR. These documents are also cited within the text and full references are provided in Section 6, Bibliography.

1.3 Limitations The professional services have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this GDR. This GDR has been prepared for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and its design consultants and contractors to be used solely for the evaluation for the Wilshire/La Brea station planned as part of the proposed Westside Subway Extension project. The GDR has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purpose of other parties or other uses.




May 22, 2013

In developing this GDR, AMEC (PB team member) relied on subsurface information obtained in the Adv. PE phase and by its predecessor company MACTEC in the AA, ACE, and PE phase studies and its other predecessor companies, Law/Crandall and LeRoy Crandall and Associates, as well as subsurface information obtained by other firms. Subsurface conditions are, by their nature, uncertain and may vary from those encountered at the locations where visual inspections, borings, surveys, or other explorations were made.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 1.0 – Introduction

Page 1-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


2.0 – Project Description


May 22, 2013

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Station Description A generalized plan of the Wilshire/La Brea Station is presented on Plate 1, Exploration Plan. A profile of the station along with geologic contacts is presented on Plate 2. The Wilshire/La Brea Station structure is about 985 feet long, from about 50 feet east of South Orange Drive to about 250 feet west of La Brea Avenue, and extends to a depth of about 75 to 80 feet below Wilshire Boulevard.

An arch roof module was assumed for the station box. The approximate top of the station box wall is at a depth of about 30 feet bgs. The depth to the top of the arch roof is about 25 feet bgs. Based on the current plans dated May 2013, the station mining shaft is planned northwest of the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and La Brea Avenue. The existing building at 5301 Wilshire Boulevard will be demolished for the mining shaft.

The majority of the station excavation support is expected to be internally braced with struts. However, tieback systems may be selected by the contractor for portions of the station excavation, or station entrances and appendages.

2.2 Existing Site Conditions The existing ground surface within the station footprint is relatively level, with less than 5 feet of topographic difference across the station length. Existing single to multi‐story (up to 11 story) buildings are located north and south of the station box. The subterranean levels for these buildings extend to depths of about 10 to 26 feet bgs. Shoring systems for the deeper basements (more than 15 feet) would have likely consisted of soldier piles braced with tieback anchors. Therefore, tieback anchors from these building basement constructions could protrude into the station excavation at certain locations. More information regarding the existing buildings is shown on Plate 1.

The station site is located within the boundary of the Salt Lake Oil Field. Existing wells in the proximity of the station are shown on Plate 1. Additional details pertaining to oil wells are discussed in Section 5.4.6.

Based on project‐specific utility plans, numerous underground utilities are located within the upper 10 to 20 feet of the ground surface. These utilities will have to be re‐routed or carefully protected in‐place during construction.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 2.0 – Project Description

Page 2-2



3.0 – Field Exploration


May 22, 2013

3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION

The site of the Wilshire/La Brea Station was explored with eight geotechnicaleight rotary‐wash borings, one sonic core boring, two hollow‐stem auger borings, two cone penetration tests (one with seismic testing), two subsurface gas borings, and nine environmental borings as part of the overall investigation for the Westside Subway Extension project during the ACE, PE, and Adv. PE phases. One of these rotary‐wash borings and two hollow‐stem auger borings were performed during the 2013 Adv. PE phase. The explorations were performed primarily to conduct pumping test. However, geotechnical and environmental samples were also obtained in these borings.A description of the field explorations are presented in Appendix A of this GDR.

3.1 Geotechnical Exploration Geotechnical explorations at the Wilshire/La Brea Station site consisted of seven eight rotary wash borings, two hollow‐stem auger borings, one sonic core boring, and two cone penetration tests (CPTs) with seismic measurements at one location, in‐situ pressuremeter tests, and installation of groundwater monitoring wells. A detailed descripton of the drilling and sampling methodology is presented in Appendix A.

The applicable geotechnical borings and depths explored in these boreholes are presented in Table 3‐1. The exploration locations are also shown on Plate 1. In addition, relevant explorations from prior investigations that are located near the station are listed in Table 3‐1.

A groundwater monitoring well was installed in Boring G‐4 drilled during the ACE phase. In addition, groundwater monitoring wells were installed in pumping test boring P‐305 and observation wells OB‐304 and OB‐305 during the 2013 Adv. PE Phase. The logs of rotary‐wash borings, sonic core borings, CPTs are presented in Appendices A, B and D, respectively. The groundwater monitoring well construction diagram is presented in Appendix C.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 3.0 – Field Exploration

Page 3-2

Table 3-1: Geotechnical Explorations

Exploration Phase (Year)

Boring No.* Boring Depth

(feet)

Prior (1989) L89452.AC (5) 59

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-1 64

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-2 95

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-3 161

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-4 95

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-5 96

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-6 80

Prior (1981) CWDD 18-7 80

ACE (2009) G-3 101

ACE (2009) G-4** 95

PE (2011) G-112 121

PE (2011) G-113 106

PE (2011) G-114 120

PE (2011) S-104 116

PE (2011) C-110 75

PE (2011) CB-101 85

Adv. PE (2012) G-308 121

Adv. PE (2012) G-309 121

Adv. PE Phase (2013) OB-304** 102

Adv. PE Phase (2013) P-305/E-110B** 90

Adv. PE Phase (2013) G-315/OB-306/E-110C** 85

*C-series refers to cone penetration tests; CB-series refers to cone penetration tests with BAT sampling; G-series refers to geotechnical borings; S-series refers to geotechnical sonic borings; P and OB-series refers to pumping test borings with geotechncial sampling; E-series refers to borings with environmental sampling; prior borings drilled by AMEC’s predecessor companies identified by the Job No. and boring number shown in parenthesis; CWDD refers to prior borings by Converse Ward Davis Nixon **Groundwater monitoring well installed in the borings

3.1.1 Field Testing

3.1.1.1 Pressuremeter Testing

Pressuremeter tests were performed in Borings G‐112, and G‐309 and OB‐304 to determine the Menard modulus ([Em], Briaud, 1992) and at‐rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of the subsurface soil and bedrock. Tests were performed at depths ranging from 18 to 101 feet bgs. A detailed description of the test procedure is presented in Appendix A.

An average total unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for soil was used in estimating the Menard Modulus (Em) and horizontal stress coefficient (also referred to as at‐rest earth pressure, Ko). The results of the pressuremeter tests are presented in Table 3‐2.




May 22, 2013

Table 3-2: Pressuremeter Test Results

Boring No.

Test Depth (feet) ASTM Soil Classification

Geologic Formation

At-Rest Lateral Earth Pressure

Coefficient, Ko

Menard Modulus, Em (ksf)*

G-112 18 Silty Sand (SM) Lakewood (Qlw) 1.01 245

48 Fat Clay (CH) San Pedro (Qsp) 0.83 790

68 Poorly Graded Sand with Silt San Pedro (Qsp) 0.59 790

G-309 31 Sandy Silt Lakewood (Qlw) 0.80 3245465


101 Siltstone Fernando (Tf) 0.41 6550940

OB-304 23 Silty with Sand (ML) Lakewood (Qlw) 0.57 260

43 Sandy Silt (ML) Lakewood (Qlw) 0.48 385


* ksf – kips per square foot

3.1.1.2 OYO Suspension Logging

Compressional (p‐wave) and shear‐wave (s‐wave) data were obtained in Boring G‐308 by GeoVision using the PS suspension logging system manufactured by OYO Corporation. Suspension logging was performed to a depth of about 146 feet bgs. The s‐wave velocity data was used in performing site response analysis and in computing the racking displacements for the station box for the design level earthquakes. The methodology used for suspension logging is presented in Appendix A. The results of the suspension logging are presented in Appendix D.

3.2 Subsurface Gas Explorations As part of the overall subsurface gas investigation performed for the Westside Subway Extension project, two gas wells (M‐4 and M‐5) were installed at the Wilshire/La Brea station site during the ACE phase. The ACE phase wells were resampled in 2011 and 2012 to monitor the gas measurements and the results are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The monitoring wells typically consisted of four nested soil gas probes and one PVC standpipe installed in a boring. The gas probes were installed at the shallower depths and the PVC standpipes were typically screened at or below the depth of station bottom. This configuration provided a means of measuring soil gas concentrations and pressures within the vadose zone, as well as concentrations of gases dissolved in groundwater at the depth of station excavation. The standpipe installation allowed relatively large quantities of groundwater to be purged prior to sample collection, as well as collection of large‐volume water samples for analysis.

The following types of sampling and monitoring were conducted in the wells:

Gas concentrations were measured in the standpipes and gas probes using hand‐held detectors. The gas pressure in the probe and/or standpipe was also measured along with the barometric pressure.

Confirmatory gas samples were collected in Tedlar bags (bags constructed of clear Tedlar® film) for analysis at a state‐certified laboratory.

The groundwater levels in the standpipes were measured.


May 22, 2013


Page 3-4

Four sets of readings were obtained in the ACE and PE Phase wells from 2009 through 2012 and the measurements are presented in Table 3‐3. A detailed description of the well installation and sampling procedures of monitoring wells, and field and laboratory analysis of the samples are discussed in Appendix A. The boring logs and well construction diagrams of the gas wells are presented in Appendices A and C, respectively. Also presented in Table 3‐3 are the laboratory test results. The laboratory test results of the gas and groundwater samples are discussed in Section 4.2. A bar graph of the gas measurements in a profile view are shown on Plate 3. The readings on Plate 3 indicate the maximum of the field and laboratory data.

Table 3-3: Field and Lab Gas Monitoring Data in ACE Phase Gas Monitoring Wells

Well No.

Location

Sample Probe/PVC

Screen Depth (ft)

Depth to Water (ft)1 Probe Pressure (inches of H2O)2

Field Methane (CH4) (%)3

Lab Methane (CH4) (%)3, 5

Field Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

(ppm)4 Notes

M-4

Wilshire Boulevard & S La Brea Avenue

15 - 0.0/0.3/0.7/0.0 0.6/0.0/0.0/0.0 0.57/-/-/ND 0.1/0.0/0.0/0.0 Above water

25 - 0.0/0.5/0.0/0.0 0.4/0.0/0.0/0.0 - 0.0/0.0/0.0/0.0 In water

65 - 0.0/0.7/0.0/0.0 0.5/0.0/0.0/0.0 - 0.0/0.0/0.0/0.0 In water

100 - 0.0/0.5/0.0/0.0 0.4/0.0/0.0/0.0 - 0.0/0.0/0.0/0.0 In water

95-100 17.78/15.3/15.7/16.7 -/-/-/0.6 -/-/-/0.0 - -/-/-/0.0

M-5

Wilshire Boulevard & S Cloverdale Boulevard

15 - 0.0/0.0/0.2/0.0 0.7/0/0/0 - W/0/0/0 In water

25 - 0.0/0.0/0.3/0.0 0.1/0/0/0 -/-/0.0092/- 0.0/0.0./0.0/0.0 In water

65 - 0.0/0.5/0.8/0.1 0.4/0/0/0 - 0.0/0.0./0.0/0.0 In water

90 - 0.0/0.2/V/0.0 0.3/0/V/0 - 0.0/0.0/V/0.0 In water

85-90 18.3/15.9/16.8/17.5 -/-/-/0.0 -/-/-/0.0 - -/-/-/0.0

Explanation: "V" indicates no reading due to pulling a vacuum in the tubing headspace (sample interval below water) "W" indicates no reading due to water in the tubing (shallow or flowing groundwater) H2O – Water pressure in probe; CH4 – Methane; H2S – Hydrogen Sulfide; ppm – parts per million 1Depth to water measured in 1" or 2" PVC pipe screened at indicated depth. "Flowing" indicates water flowing under artesian conditions from tubing or PVC pipe. 2Readings > 0.5 inch of water in boldunderlined and italicized 3Readings >1.25% (25% LEL) in boldunderlined and italicized 4Readings >5 ppm in boldunderlined and italicized 5Refer to Section 4.2 for lab testing “xx/yy/zz/nn” indicates four readings taken—first on 8/19/09, second on 5/13/11 - 5/14/11, and third on 2/29/12 and last on 5/15/2012 “xx/yy/zz/nn” indicates four readings taken—first on 8/19/09, second on 5/13/11 - 5/14/11, and third on 2/29/12 and last on 5/15/2012 “-“ Indicates no data

3.2.1 Summary of Field Measurements

The highest measured gas pressure in probes and standpipes was 0.8 inches of equivalent water height. The highest measured methane level in probes and standpipes was 0.7 percent and the highest measured hydrogen sulfide was 0.1 parts per million (ppm).

3.3 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Within the station area, nine explorations (E‐108 through E‐111) were performed during the PE and Adv. PE phase using direct‐push sampling CPT equipment. During the 2013 Adv. PE Phase, environmental samples were obtained in two additional explorations performed at the station entrance. The exploration locations were selected based on the findings of previous preliminary environmental site




May 22, 2013

assessment reports that identified suspect sources of environmental concern with the highest likelihood to impact the station. Each exploration location was initially marked as close as possible to the suspect source of concern (e.g., existing dry cleaner or former gasoline station facility) while staying within the public street area under which the proposed station is planned. A summary of the suspect sources at the exploration locations is presented in Table 3‐4. The locations of the environmental explorations are shown on Plate 1, Exploration Plan.

Table 3-4: Summary of Suspect Sources at Phase II Environmental Explorations

Exploration No. Suspect Source

E-108, 108A*, 108B* LUST case (former auto dealership at 5151 Wilshire)

E-109, 109A* SLIC case (5220 Wilshire)

E-110, 110A* Former services stations at intersection and SLIC case (5220 Wilshire)

E-111, 111A* Former service stations7/dry cleaners (5347-5351 Wilshire)

E-110B, 110C Former services stations at intersection, SLIC Case (5304 Wilshire) and SLIC case (5220 Wilshire)

*borings drilled during Adv. PE phase LUST – Leaking underground storage tank SLIC - Spills, leaks, investigation, cleanup

Details of the field explorations including soil and groundwater sampling procedures are presented in the Environmental Data Report (Metro, 2013).


May 22, 2013


Page 3-6



4.0 – Laboratory Testing


May 22, 2013

4.0 LABORATORY TESTING

4.1 Geotechnical Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the geotechnical borings drilled during ACE, PE and Adv. PE phases to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine the pertinent engineering properties of the soil and bedrock. A list of the laboratory tests performed on the samples for this station is presented in Table 4‐1. A detailed description of the laboratory test procedures is presented in Appendix E.

Table 4-1: Geotechnical Laboratory Tests

Laboratory Test Laboratory ASTM Designation

(or other) ACE

Phase PE

Phase Adv. PE Phase

Field Moisture Content AMEC/AP Engineering D 2216 X X X

Field Dry Density AMEC/AP Engineering D 2937 X X X

Sieve Analysis AMEC/AP Engineering D 422 X X X

Passing No. 200 Sieve AMEC/AP Engineering D 1140 X X X

Atterberg Limits AMEC/AP Engineering D 4318 X X X

Direct Shear AMEC/AP Engineering D 3080 X X X

Specific Gravity AMEC/AP Engineering C 127/128 - X X

Triaxial Unconsolidated-Drained AP Engineering D 4767 - X X

Unconfined Compression AP Engineering D 2166 - X X

Consolidation/Hydroconsolidation AMEC/AP Engineering D 2435 X X X

Expansion/Collapse AMEC/AP Engineering D 2435 - X X

Corrosion HDR-Schiff Associates Caltrans method X X X

Abrasion University of Texas, Austin NTNU-SINTEF - X -

The laboratory test results of the ACE, PE and Adv. PE phase investigations are presented in Appendix E. Relevant laboratory test results from prior investigations are also included in Appendix E. A summary of the test results in a tabular form is presented in Table 4‐2 for ACE, PE and Adv. PE phase borings and in Table 4‐3 for prior borings.

4.2 Subsurface Gas Testing The samples of gas collected from gas monitoring wells in Tedlar bags were analyzed at a state‐certified laboratory for hydrogen sulfide, methane, longer chain hydrocarbons (e.g. butane, propane, etc.), and fixed gases using standard EPA testing procedures. The laboratory test results of the samples obtained from the ACE phase wells are presented in Table 3‐3. The laboratory analytical reports are included in Appendix H of this GDR.

4.2.1 Summary of Lab Measurements

The highest recorded methane level in laboratory samples analyzed from probes/standpipes at the station was 0.6 percent. Hydrogen sulfide was not detected in any of the samples analyzed from the probes/standpipes.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 4.0 – Laboratory Testing

Page 4-2

4.3 Phase II Environmental Testing The soil and groundwater samples collected from the explorations were transported under standard chain‐of‐custody protocol and delivered to a state‐certified lab for testing. Depending on the suspect source near which an exploration was performed, the soil and groundwater samples were analyzed for one or more of the following constituents.

Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline/diesel/oil (TPH‐g/d/o) by EPA Method 8015B

Volatile organic compounds and fuel oxygenates (VOCs+Oxy) by EPA Method 8260B

Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by EPA Method 8270C

Title 22 metals (California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4.5) by EPA Methods 6010B/7471A

The summary of the laboratory test results are presented in the Environmental Data Report dated May, 2013 (Metro, 2013).




May 22, 2013

Table 4-2: Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results (ACE, PE and Adv. PE Phases)

Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)

Equivalent SPT Blow Count

(blows/ft)

Moisture Content (%)

Dry Density (pcf)

Grain Size Atterberg Limits Expansion /

Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity

Corrosion Compression

Indices NTNU Soil Abrasion

Index

Direct Shear Poisson's

Ratio

Triaxial Consolidated-Undrained Unconfined

Compression Strength (psi) Gravel

(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)

Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm)

Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

G-3 5.5 CR FILL - CH Fill 14 11 17.7 106 51 17 34

10.5 SPT CL Qalo 8 8 - -

15.5 CR SM Qalo 17 14 16.8 109 30400 40030 0.33

20.5 SPT ML Qalo 11 11 - -

25.5 CR ML Qalo 24 19 21.2 102 241300 130024 0.37

30.5 SPT ML Qalo 21 21 - - 98.7 62.2

35.5 CR ML Qalo 36 29 21.7 103 52.4

40.5 SPT CL Qalo 32 32 - - 43 23 20 8.4 263 11 900

45.5 CR CH Qalo 29 24 26.5 97 53 23 30 241300 130024 0.37

50.5 SPT SM Qalo 35 35 - -

55.5 CR SP Qsp 72 59 23.0 99 2.70 0.056 0.015

60.5 SPT SP Qsp 55 55 - -

65.5 CR SP Qsp 94/9" 78/9" 21.7 99

70.5 SPT SP Qsp 75 75 - -

75.5 CR SP Qsp 75/5" 62/5" 20.1 106

80.5 SPT SM Qsp 76 76 - -

85.5 CR SP Qsp 75/5" 62/5" 25.3 95

90.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 41 41 - -

95.5 CR Siltstone Tf 90/10" 75/10" 37.6 81

100.5 CR Siltstone Tf 90/9" 75/9" 56.5 62

G-112 5.5 CR CL Qal 15 - 15.9 101

10.5 SPT SM Qlw 35 - 16.1 - 7.2 165 69 1640

15.5 CR SM Qlw 7 - 20.8 102 0.00 0 33

25.5 SPT CL Qlw 22 - 29.5 - 2.45 7.4 161 19 1000

30.5 CR CL Qlw 18 - 25.2 97 250 33

35.5 SPT SM/CL Qlw 36 - 19.2 -

40.5 CR SM Qlw 11 - 21.0 105 3 50 47 37 25 12 500 25

45.5 SPT CH Qsp 68 - 20.0 - 51 25 26 7.8 107 15 1520

55.5 CR ML Qsp 12 - 27.2 97 350 31

60.5 SPT ML Qsp 27 - 24.3 -

65.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 27 - 23.9 100 0 92 8 2.58 0.045 0.011 900 29

75.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 76 - 20.5 - 0 91 9 7.8 204 11 2120

80.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 25 - 24.3 99 1200 26


May 22, 2013


Page 4-4

Table 4-2 (Continued): Summary of Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results (ACE, PE and Adv. PE Phases)

Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity



Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

G-112 85.5 SPT SM Qsp 72 - 25.8 - 0 77 23

90.5 CR Siltstone Tf 12 - 28.4 92 2000 31

95.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 43 - 37.6 -

100.5 CR Siltstone Tf 13 - 42.8 76 1800 24

105.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 55 - 45.8 - 7.4 6509 888 244

110.5 CR Siltstone Tf 12 - 36.7 84 0 5 95 59 40 19 2.53 0.107 0.032

115.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 57 - 48.0 -

120.5 CR Siltstone Tf 16 - 57.9 61 4000 8

G-113 6.5 - CL Qlw - 20.3 - 0 37 63 46 16 30

10.5 CR CL Qlw 21 23.1 99

15.5 SPT CL Qlw 11 23.6 -

20.5 CR SM Qlw 31 14.6 - 0 69 31 800 27

25.5 SPT CL Qlw 35 14.5 - 2.78 6.9 14 7 1720

30.5 CR CL Qlw 33 25.7 106 48 15 33 350 33

34.5 SPT ML Qlw 30 31.6 -

40.5 CR CH Qsp 33 34.7 - 0 8 92 69 20 49 900 29

45.5 SPT CH Qsp 38 24.0 - 7.5 101 23 1200

50.5 CR CH Qsp 49 26.1 102 0 16 84 52 18 34 2.79 750 34

55.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 50 24.3 -

60.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 97 - -

65.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 50/3" 15.9 -

70.5 CR SW Qsp 50/1" - -

75.5 SPT SM Qsp 50/5" - - 4.2 2301 20 800

80.5 CR SM Qsp 50/1" 17.7 112 0 61 39 2.73 250 45

85.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 33 47.5 - 5.5 3147 258 400

90.5 CR Siltstone Tf 67 34.1 85 0 1 99 51 28 23 2.57 0.060 0.037

95.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 86 37.0 -

105.5 CR Siltstone Tf 70 41.8 81

G-114 9.5 CR CL Qlw 12 - 20.7 101

14 SPT SM Qlw 10 - 25.6 -

19.5 CR CH Qlw 20 - 24.6 98 60 15 45 400 32

24 SPT CL-ML Qlw 11 - 37.7 -

29.5 CR SM Qlw 20 - 21.1 104




May 22, 2013


Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity



Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

G-114 34 SPT CL Qlw 29 - 24.4 - 7.8 94 20 1080

39.5 CR SC Qlw 29 - 12.4 114 1 77 22 27 19 8 2.81 0.063 0.01 200 35

42 SPT SC Qlw 25 - - -

45.5 CR CH Qlw 34 - 23.6 99 -0.05

48 SPT CH Qlw 29 - - - 0 43 57 52 16 36

51.5 CR CL Qsp 35 - 24.4 98 0 30 70 32 20 12 2.80 300 26

54 SPT CL Qsp 21 - 22.2 - 8.3 171 2 1040

57.5 CR CH Qsp 28 - 30.6 91 0 19 81 74 18 56 2.79 0.102 0.014

60.5 SPT SM Qsp 49 - 18.7 - 0 83 17

63.5 CR SM Qsp 60 - - - 0 39

66 SPT SP Qsp 57 - 19.3 -

69.5 CR SP Qsp 90 - 11.6 107 0 95 5 2.74 0.013 0.004 250 34

72 SPT SP-SM Qsp 68 - 17.4 -

75.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 87 - - -

78 SPT SM Qsp 62 - 20.3 - 2.77 7.9 256 13 1760

80.5 CR SM Qsp 63 - 14.2 104 12 75 13 2.70 0.017 0.004 200 33

83 SPT SM Qsp 58 - 23.7 -

86.5 NR Siltstone Tf 50/1" - - -

89.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 63 - 49.3 - 5.2 5751 285 332

92.5 CR Siltstone Tf 54 - 30.0 89 0 2 98 46 24 22 1200 27

95 SPT Siltstone Tf 44 - 35.6 -

98.5 CR Siltstone Tf 60 - 35.3 86 60

101 SPT Siltstone Tf 51 - 40.4 - 5.9 5688 625 248

104.5 CR Siltstone Tf 38 - 38.5 81


114.5 CR Siltstone Tf 63 - 31.1 89 0 31


G-308 10.5 CR CL Qlw 27 17 23.6 103 500 34

15.5 SPT SC Qlw 19 19 14.2 - 5 48 47 32 23 9

20.5 CR CH Qlw 21 14 20.6 107 1 17 82 50 15 35 1100 29

25.5 SPT CL Qlw 25 25 21.6 - 2.71 7.5 44 11 1440

30.5 CR CL Qlw 51 19 19.9 108 1 48 51 29 21 8

35.5 SPT CL Qlw 37 37 21.8 -


May 22, 2013


Page 4-6


Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity

Corrosion Compression Indices NTNU Soil

Abrasion Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

G-308 40.5 CR SM Qlw 34 22 23.4 104 2.72 0.08 0.01

45.5 SPT ML Qsp 42 42 22.9 - 47 28 19

48.5 CR ML Qsp 65 42 26.9 99 50 30 20 0 33

51.5 SPT ML Qsp 37 37 25.4 - 7.9 85 17 1400

54.5 CR ML Qsp 44 28 22.1 103 2.76 0.139 0.011

57.5 SPT ML Qsp 32 32 31.6 -

60.5 CR CH Qsp 22 14 31.0 90 0 17 83 65 31 34

63.5 NR SP Qsp 83 83 - -

66.5 CR SP Qsp 78 50 19.0 104 2.65 0.033 0.006 29 0 32

69.5 SPT SP Qsp 50/6" 50/6" 19.1 - 7.6 554 10 1480

72.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 88/10" 57/10" 19.7 109 14 79 7 0.01 26.5

75.5 SPT SM Qsp 83 83 19.0 -

78.5 CR SM Qsp 87/9" 56/9" 25.2 99 0 87 13 27.5 0 39

81.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 94/10" 94/10" 21.2 - 7.3 1284 10 1120

84.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 98/9" 63/9" 22.0 104 0 91 9 2.66 0.043 0.007 500 30

87.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 64 64 37.6 -

90.5 CR Siltstone Tf 54 35 36.3 84 0 2 98 47 32 15 2.57 0.138 0.044 800 24

93.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 50 50 34.0 - 7.4 2890 418 384

96.5 CR Siltstone Tf 61 39 25.4 97 11 6 83 42 24 18 2.60 37


102.5 CR Siltstone Tf 66 43 51.1 64


108.5 CR Siltstone Tf 95/8" 61/8" 34.0 85 0 3 97 45 25 20 94


114.5 CR Siltstone Tf 60 39 - -


120.5 CR Siltstone Tf 71 46 39.0 77

G-309 11.5 SPT CL Qlw 12 12 19.5 -

15.5 CR SM Qlw 22 14 20.1 107 500 28

20.5 SPT CL Qlw 12 12 21.7 - 50 25 25 2.76

25.5 CR CL Qlw 22 14 29.5 93

28.5 SPT ML Qlw 20 20 29.1 - 8.4 392 13 720

35.5 CR ML Qlw 25 16 21.6 105 2.70 0.072 0.008




May 22, 2013


Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity



Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

G-309 40.5 SPT CL Qlw 25 25 20.4 - 0 45 55 38 23 15 8.3 431 8 960

45.5 CR CL Qlw 21 14 37.1 84 550 24

50.5 SPT SM Qsp 27 27 23.7 - 2.78

55.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 25 16 19.7 104 0.07

58.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 25 25 17.8 - 0 92 8

61.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 36 23 35.4 89 2.65 250 31

64.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 46 46 18.2 - 8.0 258 12 2160

67.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 62 40 15.7 108

74.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 54 54 20.9 - 0 89 11

77.5 CR SM Qsp 75 48 29.0 95 0 85 15 NP NP NP 2.65 0.045 0.006 0 41

80.5 SPT SM Qsp 56 56 16.6 - 12 4.6 1585 9 1040

83.5 CR SM Qsp 78 50 18.9 107 9 68 23 2.67 0.064 0.009 100 34

86.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 33 33 41.4 - 4.5

89.5 CR Siltstone Tf 39 25 31.9 89 0 2 98 42 24 18 94

92.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 41 41 41.4 - 7.1 2426 474 356 1400 23

95.5 CR Siltstone Tf 37 24 41.6 78 2.57 0.147 0.039


104.5 CR Siltstone Tf 36 23 33.3 87 0 2 98 42 24 18 30.5


110.5 CR Siltstone Tf 50 32 33.3 90


120.5 CR Siltstone Tf 47 30 36.7 83


May 22, 2013


Page 4-8


Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity



Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

P-305 6 SPT ML Fill 5 5 20.7 -

8.5 SPT CL Qlw 10 10 10.2 -

10.5 SPT CH Qlw 4 4 27.5 -

13 SPT CH Qlw 5 5 12.3 -

15.5 SPT SC Qlw 9 9 15.7 - 0 52 48 41 21 20

20.5 SPT CL Qlw 9 9 17.1 -

25.5 SPT CL Qlw 11 11 - -

30.5 SPT ML Qlw 16 16 22.7 -

35.5 SPT SC Qlw 28 28 19.8 - 36 22 14

40.5 SPT SP Qlw 21 21 23.0 -

45.5 SPT ML Qlw 16 16 26.0 -

50.5 SPT ML Qlw 27 27 15.6 -

52.5 CR MH Qsp 36.7 23 36.7 86.5 61 41 20

55.5 SPT MH Qsp 20 20 - -

57.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 45 28 20.1 99 11 0.0144 0.0034

0 34

60.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 12 12 - -

62.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 54 34 17.9 104.7

65.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 19 19 - -

70 CR SP-SM Qsp 61 39 9.6 117.4

75.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 68 68 8.9 -

80.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 48 30 34 90

200 30


90.5 CR Siltstone Tf 37 23 - 85 0.0162 0.0043




May 22, 2013


Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity



Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

OB-304 5.5 SPT CL Fill 9 9 18.8 -

10.5 CR SM Qalo 6 3 21.9 101.7 0 35

15.5 SPT CL Qlw 8 8 21.5 -

20.5 CR MH Qlw 12 7 28.0 94.1 0 20 80 60 32 28

25.5 SPT MH Qlw 20 20 25.6 - 7.7 97 22 920

30.5 CR ML Qlw 25 16 27.7 94.6 3 35 62 0.0223 0.0011 250 25

35.5 SPT ML Qlw 26 26 25.3 - 19 29 52 37 25 12

40.5 CR ML Qlw 36 23 17.9 110.2

45.5 SPT ML Qlw 29 29 25.5 -

50.5 CR SM Qsp 54 34 31.0 97.7 150 25

55.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 53 53 19.2 - 7.6 251 13 2000

60.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 78/11" 85 20.4 105.0 0 92 8 0.0105 0.0021

65.5 SPT SP-SM Qsp 67 67 17.5 -

70.5 CR SP-SM Qsp 77/11" 84 19.5 107.8

75.5 SPT SM Qsp 58 58 12.0 -

80.5 CR SM Qsp 66 42 14.9 108.9 12

85.5 SPT Siltstone Tf 82 82 19.5 - 7.4 2205 1 600

90.5 CR Siltstone Tf 58 37 35.9 86.1 0 2 98 47 34 13 0.0147 0.002 500 31


May 22, 2013


Page 4-10


Boring No.

Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Type

USCS Group

Symbol

Geologic Formation

Raw Blow Count

(blows/ft)


(blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf)


Collapse (%)

Specific Gravity

Corrosion Compression Indices NTNU Soil

Abrasion Index


Ratio



(%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)

LL (%)

PL (%)

PI (%) pH

Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr Cohesion

(psf)

Friction Angle

(degrees)

C' (psf)

ᶲ' (degrees)

OB-306 5.5 SPT CL Qlw 6 6 - -

7.5 CR CL Qlw 13 8 19.1 106.1

900 29

10.5 SPT CL Qlw 14 14 - -

12.5 CR CL Qlw 20 12 17.2 107.7 6 45 49 41 24 17

15.5 SPT CL Qlw 10 10 - -

20.5 CR CL Qlw 17 10 26.3 96 44 24 20 0.0203 0.0016

1000 16

21.5 SPT CL Qlw 20 20 - -

25.5 SPT CH Qlw 10 10 - -

27.5 CR SM Qlw 18 11 27.7 95 29

750 25

30.5 SPT ML Qlw 9 9 - -

35.5 SPT ML Qlw 15 15 - -

37.5 CR CL Qlw 36 23 18.4 105.8 36 20 16 0.0174 0.0011

3400 11

40 SPT CL Qlw 12 12 - -

45.5 CR SC Qlw 57 36 12.8 113.3 0 74 26

47.5 SPT SC Qlw 23 23 - -

50.5 CR MH Qsp 62 39 13.9 -

52.5 SPT MH Qsp 23 23 - -

55.5 SPT SP Qsp 17 17 - -

60.5 SPT SP Qsp 24 24 - -

65.5 SPT SP Qsp 13 13 - -

70.5 SPT SP Qsp 86/11" 86/11" - -

75.5 SPT SP Qsp 69 69 - -

80.5 SPT SP Qsp 78 78 - -

85.5 SPT SP Qsp 50/6" 50/6" - -




May 22, 2013

Table 4-3: Summary of Laboratory Test Results (Prior Projects)

Boring No. Sample Depth (ft) Sample Type USCS Group Symbol Equivalent SPT Blow

Count (blows/ft)

Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Atterberg Limits Corrosion Compression Indices

LL PI pH Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr

A-66260 (1)

1 CR CL

23.1 102

3 CR CL

21.3 104

5 CR CL

17.0 110

7 CR CL/SC

14.3 118

10 CR SC

17.9 111

15 CR SC

21.5 103

20 CR SC

15.0 112

A-66260 (2)

2 CR CL

22.6 102

4 CR CL

19.4 103

6 CR SC

14.8 115

9 CR SC

12.1 119

12 CR SC

17.7 109

16 CR SC

23.3 102

19 CR SC

15.9 114

A-71252 (1)

2 CR ML 13.0 108

4 CR CL-ML

16.2 114

6 CR CL

15.0 114

8 CR SM/ML

16.6 114

10.5 CR SC

13.8 119

14.5 CR SC

21.0 105

A-71252 (2)

2 CR CL-ML 14.6 115

4 CR CL-ML

16.1 116

6 CR SM

7.4 116

8 CR CL

13.1 121

11 CR CL-ML

16.4 113

15 CR CL-ML

18.1 111

A-71252 (3)

1 CR CL-ML

19.9 108

3 CR CL-ML

16.8 112


May 22, 2013


Page 4-12

Table 4-3 (Continued): Summary of Laboratory Test Results (Prior Projects)


Count (blows/ft)


Dry Density (pcf) Atterberg Limits Corrosion Compression Indices

LL (%) PI (%) pH Sulfate (ppm)

Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr

A-71252 (3)

5.5 CR CL-ML 17.5 111

7.5 CR CL

12.2 124

10.5 CR SC

6.7 115

14.5 CR CL-ML

16.7 113

A-71252 (4)

1 CR CL-ML 18.2 112

3 CR CL-ML

19.3 110

5 CR CL-ML

3.7 112

8.5 CR CL-ML

20.4 105

10.5 CR SW

10.8 110

13.5 CR SW/CL

8.4 117

17.5 CR CL-ML

20.1 108

A-71252 (5)

1 CR CL-ML 15.7 112

3 CR CL-ML

18.2 109

5 CR CL-ML

23.1 103

A-71252 (6)

2 CR CL-ML

20.9 100

4 CR CL-ML

17.5 110

A-79292 (1)

5.5 CR CL-ML 20.5 105

10.5 CR ML

15.3 118

15.5 CR SM

24.3 106

20.5 CR ML

24.5 100

25.5 CR ML

24.4 101

30.5 CR ML

25.9 102

35.5 CR ML

20.8 113

40.5 CR ML

18.2 110

45.5 CR ML

32.2 88

50.5 CR ML

25.1 98

55.5 CR SP

21.7 103




May 22, 2013



Count (blows/ft)



Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr

A-79292 (1)

60.5 CR SP 22.5 100

65.5 CR SP

22.8 103

70.5 CR SP

26.2 95

75.5 CR SP

12.3 119

A-79292 (2)

3.5 CR ML 13.4 120

7.5 CR CL-ML

20.7 102

12.5 CR CL-ML

20.5 107

17.5 CR CL-ML

30.4 91

20.5 CR CL-ML

25.0 97

L89452.AEFB (1)

2.5 CR SC 17.3 107

5.5 CR SC

14.4 116

8.5 CR SC

14.3 116

11.5 CR SC

16.8 111

14.5 SPT SC 20 - -

17.5 CR ML

26.8 97

20.5 SPT ML 11 - -

23.5 CR ML

28.5 96

26.5 SPT ML/SP 16 - -

29.5 CR ML

32.1 89

32.5 SPT ML/SP 46 - -

35.5 CR CL-ML

29.3 96

38.5 SPT CL-ML 27 - -

41.5 CR CL-ML/SM

29.0 98

44.5 SPT CL-ML 32 - -

47.5 CR ML

24.8 100

50.5 SPT ML 40 - -


May 22, 2013


Page 4-14



Count (blows/ft)



Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr

L89452.AEFB (1)

54.5 CR OH

37.6 84 59 19

59.5 CR SP

20.0 105

L89452.AEFB (2)

1.5 CR CL-ML 23.2 100

3.5 CR CL-ML

17.3 115

5.5 CR SC

11.8 118

7.5 CR SC

10.7 123

10.5 CR ML

14.9 116

13.5 CR ML

22.8 105

16.5 CR CL-ML

21.2 105

19.5 CR CL-ML

21.2 102

22.5 CR SP

14.5 116

25.5 CR CL-ML

35.5 87

29.5 CR ML

31.2 92 39 8

34.5 CR ML

30.9 89

39.5 CR ML

29.5 89

44.5 CR SM

24.9 96

49.5 CR ML

31.5 90

54.5 CR SP

19.8 104

59.5 CR SP

20.5 105

64.5 CR SP

18.2 107

69.5 CR SP

16.8 111

L89452.AEFB (3)

1.5 CR SM 12.8 114

3.5 CR SM

13.6 113

5.5 CR SC

17.3 104

7.5 CR SC

19.9 106

10.5 CR SC

12.0 120




May 22, 2013


Boring No. Sample Depth (ft) Sample Type USCS Group

Symbol


(blows/ft) Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf)

Atterberg Limits Corrosion Compression Indices


Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr

L89452.AEFB (3)

14 CR SC 15.2 113

16.5 CR CL-ML

19.5 109

19.5 CR SC

15.8 117

22.5 CR SC

14.3 120

25.5 CR SP

15.5 113

29.5 CR CL-ML

22.1 104 31 10

34.5 CR CL-ML

33.9 85

39.5 CR ML

16.2 108

44.5 CR ML/SM

25.3 95

49.5 CR ML

26.7 96

54.5 CR SP

19.4 109

59.5 CR SP

20.0 107

L89452.AC (4)

6.5 CR SC 16.8 108

9.5 CR SC

17.7 107

12.5 CR SC

18.8 110

15.5 CR SC

23.9 103

18.5 SPT CL-ML 31 - -

21.5 CR CL-ML

32.5 89

24.5 SPT CL-ML 44 - -

28.5 CR CL-ML

19.3 113

32.5 SPT ML 61 - -

36.5 CR CL

25.9 99

40.5 SPT CL 54 - -

44.5 CR CL

27.2 97

48.5 SPT CL 37 - -

53.5 CR CL/SC

29.4 96

58.5 CR SP

19.9 106


May 22, 2013


Page 4-16



Count (blows/ft)



Chloride (ppm)


Cc Cr

L89452.AC (5)

2.5 CR SM 20.4 105

6.5 CR SC

18.5 112

10.5 CR SC

16.4 115

14.5 CR SC/SP

16.8 115

17.5 CR CL-ML

26.6 98

20.5 CR CL-ML

31.1 93

23.5 CR CL-ML

29.7 95

28.5 CR SC

21.3 107

33.5 CR SC

26.2 100

38.5 CR CL-ML

36.3 87

43.5 CR CL-ML

22.6 105

48.5 CR CL-ML

25.3 101

53.5 CR CL-ML

38.0 85

58.5 CR SP

20.2 106

Notes: CR Crandall Sample SPT Standard Penetration Test


5.0 – Project Geology


May 22, 2013

5.0 PROJECT GEOLOGY

The following sections provide an overview of the geologic setting, stratigraphic conditions, geologic structure, and groundwater conditions as encountered at the Wilshire/La Brea Station site. Potential geologic and seismic hazards such as fault rupture, tectonic deformation and liquefaction are also discussed.

5.1 Geologic Setting of Study Area The southern California region is comprised of several tectonomorphic provinces characterized by distinct structural fabrics and geomorphic elements. The Wilshire/La Brea Station site is located near the boundary between the northwestern end of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province and the southern margin of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is characterized by elongated northwest‐southeast trending geologic structures such as the nearby Newport‐Inglewood fault zone. In contrast, the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by east‐west trending geologic structures such as the Santa Monica fault, the Hollywood fault, and the Santa Monica Mountains. The Santa Monica and Hollywood faults are considered the boundary between the two geomorphic provinces within the area of the alignment.

The station site is located in the northern portion of the Los Angeles Basin, approximately 1 to 3 miles south of the Santa Monica Mountains. This sedimentary basin occupies the northernmost portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Los Angeles Basin is a major elongated northwest‐trending structural depression that has been filled with sediments up to 31,000 feet thick since the middle Miocene. The geologic time scale is shown in Figure 5‐1 for reference.

The La Brea plain comprises the primary geomorphic surfaces at the station site. The gently sloping alluvial surface extends from the Santa Monica Mountains to south of the site and was formed by accumulation of sediments that had been shed out from the mountain front over the course of the late Pleistocene epoch (Poland et al., 1959). This process was accelerated by tectonic uplift along the eastern portion of the Santa Monica Mountain range front, which has resulted in relatively high rates of erosion down‐cutting in the mountain range. Repeated tectonic uplift and base level changes caused varying rates of channel incision and aggradations of sediments to areas of gentler topographic gradient. The net result of periodic tectonic uplift was the formation of alluvial surfaces at varying elevations and ages adjacent to the mountain front. Older alluvial surfaces are located at generally higher elevations with respect to younger surfaces due to tectonic uplift and also show greater dissection by stream channels.

5.2 Stratigraphy The geologic units that will be encountered in the station excavation are primarily the Pleistocene‐age Lakewood and San Pedro Formations. The Pliocene‐age sedimentary Fernando Formation was encountered at a depth of about 75 to 80 feet bgs, corresponding to about 5 to 10 feet below the station bottom.

The areal distribution of geologic units and major Quaternary faults in close proximity to the alignment and the station site is shown in Figure 5‐2. The interpretation of the subsurface contacts between the geologic units is shown on Plate 1. The general lithologic compositions of the geologic units that are present at the station site are discussed in the following sections.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 5.0 – Project Geology

Page 5-2

Figure 5-1: Geologic Time Scale




May 22, 2013

5.2.1 Artificial Fill (Profile symbol: af)

Localized artificial fill soils were encountered in the borings drilled at the station to a depth of about 5 to 10 feet beneath the existing 12 to 24‐inch thick pavement surface. The fill as encountered in the boring is comprised of silty sand, sandy clay, silt, silty clay and fat clay.

5.2.2 Alluvium (Profile symbol: Qal)

A thin deposit of Holocene alluvium is present in the vicinity of Sycamore Avenue. It is approximately 5 to 6 feet thick and consists of brown clayey sand and clay.

5.2.3 Lakewood Formation (Profile symbol: Qlw)

Beneath the artificial fill and alluvium, the Lakewood formation extends to a depth of about 45 to 5565 feet bgs. The Lakewood Formation, as encountered in the borings, consists of primarily olive brown to yellowish brown sandy clay, clayey sand, sandy silt and silty sand deposits with gravel layers (up to 2 inches thick). Cobbles and boulders were not encountered in the borings drilled at the station site. The Lakewood Formation is generally medium dense where granular and very stiff where consisting primarily of silts and clays.

5.2.4 San Pedro Formation (Profile symbol: Qsp)

Non‐marine and marine deposits of the early to mid‐Pleistocene age San Pedro Formation unconformably underlie the Lakewood Formation to a depth of approximately 85 feet bgs. The San Pedro Formation consists of olive gray to greenish gray very stiff clays and silts and medium dense to very dense sands with local gravel layers (up to 2 inches thick). Although boulders were not encountered, a cobble, 4 inches in diameter, was encountered near the interface of San Pedro and Fernando Formations in one of the borings (G‐4) drilled at the station site.

5.2.5 Fernando Formation (Profile symbol: Tf)

Marine sedimentary bedrock of the Pliocene‐age Fernando Formation unconformably underlies the San Pedro Formation at a depth of about 85 feet bgs. The Fernando Formation, where encountered in the prior and current borings, consists predominantly of massive, stiff to hard dark olive‐gray siltstone and claystone with few to rare thin sandstone interbeds and laminations. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the Fernando Formation as encountered in the borings varies from 25 to 135 psi. Rare thin concretionary layers were locally encountered in borings in the Fernando Formation. Concretionary zones are typically lensoidal and discontinuous. Rare bedding and laminations were observed to dip between 10 and 40 degrees. Strength testing of concretionary deposits was not performed due to inadequate samples of the these materials. However, splitting tensile strength and point load tests were performed on the similar concretionary material in siltstone bedrock of the Fernando Formation for the Metro Regional Connector project in downtown Los Angeles. The siltstone bedrock in downtown Los Angeles is similar to that encountered in borings along the Westside Subway Extension alignment. It is anticipated that the concretionary layers could have splitting tensile strength of 450 to 1700 psi and point load index of 900 to 1500 psi.

5.3 Corrosion Potential of Soils To evaluate the potential for deleterious effects of the on‐site soils on structural concrete and steel and on metal piping, chemical testing was performed on selected soil samples. Based on the corrosion test


May 22, 2013


Page 5-4

results, the on‐site soils are considered to be severely corrosive to ferrous metals, aggressive to copper, and sulfate attack on concrete is considered to be severe. A corrosion mitigation report prepared by HDR/Schiff Associates based on the testing performed from 2009 through 2012 is included in Appendix F of this GDR. Additional corrosion testing was performed during the 2013 Adv. PE phase and the results are also included in Appendix F.

5.4 Groundwater The subject station is located at the boundary between Sections 23 and 24 of Township 1 South, Range 14 West, within the Central Basin hydrogeologic region in Los Angeles County. Groundwater in the Central Basin occurs within several aquifers of the Lakewood and San Pedro Formations. The aquifers consist generally of permeable sands and gravels separated by semi‐permeable to impermeable sandy clay to clay. A groundwater‐level contour map of the Hollywood Quadrangle shows the historically highest groundwater level was at a depth of about 10 feet below ground surface at the station location (CDMG, 1998).

Groundwater in the prior borings drilled in the 1970s and 1980s at the station location was measured at depths of about 11 to 15 feet bgs. Groundwater levels measured in monitoring wells installed during current investigation are presented in Table 5‐1. The depth to groundwater in current monitoring wells varies from about 15½ to 18½ feet bgs. Groundwater levels have only fluctuated about 5 feet or less based on the measurements obtained in about this 40 year period. Groundwater in the shallower well screened between 25 and 30 feet bgs was measured at 13½ to 28 feet bgs. A aquifer pumping test was performed at the station site and the results of the testing are presented in Appendix I of this report.




May 22, 2013

Table 5-1: Groundwater Monitoring Data in ACE Phase Wells

Boring/ Well No.*

Location Date of Groundwater Level Measurement

Screen Depth

(ft, bgs**)

Depth of Water (ft, bgs)

G-4 Wilshire Blvd. and South Cloverdale Ave.

7/20/2009 25 to 30

28

5/26/2011 13.5

7/20/2009 55 to 60

-

5/26/2011 15.5

M-4 Wilshire Blvd and South La Brea Avenue

8/19/2009

95-100

17.8

5/14/2011 15.3

2/29/2012 15.7

5/15/2012 16.7

M-5 Wilshire and South Cloverdale Blvds.

8/19/2009

85 to 90

18.3

5/13/2011 15.9

2/29/2012 16.8

5/15/2012 17.5

P-305 Wilshire Blvd and La Brea Avenue

6/3/2013 50 to 85

18.5

6/11/2013 16.6

OB-304 Wilshire Blvd and La Brea Avenue 6/11/2013 50 to 85 17.05

OB-306 Wilshire Blvd and La Brea Avenue

6/3/2013 50 to 85

17.6

6/11/2013 17.6

Explanation * G-4 is a groundwater monitoring well installed in a geotechnical boring in ACE Phase. M-4 and M-5 are gas monitoring wells installed during ACE phase. P-305 is pumping test well and OB-304 and OB-306 are observation wells installed during Adv. PE Phase. ** bgs = below ground surface


May 22, 2013


Page 5-6





Page 5-7 Amendment 2 September 16, 2013 May 22, 2013

Figure 5-2: Regional Geologic Map


May 22, 2013


Page 5-8






5.5 Geologic/Seismic Hazards

5.5.1 Faults

The numerous faults in Southern California include active, potentially active, and inactive faults. The criteria for these major groups were developed by the California Geological Survey (previously the California Division of Mines and Geology) for the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Program (Hart, 1999). By definition, an active fault is one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. A list of the active faults within approximately 100 kilometers of the station site is presented in Table 5‐2.

A detailed description of the active faults listed above along with the potentially active faults near the station site are presented in the following sections.

5.5.1.1 Active Faults

Hollywood Fault

The active Hollywood fault, trends approximately east‐west along the base of the Santa Monica Mountains from the West Beverly Hills Lineament in the West Hollywood‐Beverly Hills area (Dolan et al., 2000b and Dolan and Sieh, 1992) to the Los Feliz area of Los Angeles. The fault is about 5 kilometers north of the site. Studies by several investigators (Dolan et al., 2000b; Dolan et al., 1997; Dolan and Sieh, 1992; Crook and Proctor, 1992) have indicated that the fault is active, based on geomorphic evidence, stratigraphic correlation between exploratory borings, and fault trenching studies. Additionally, the fault is considered active by the State Geologist (Bryant, 2005).

The location of the Hollywood fault zone in the Hollywood area was identified during prior fault investigations (Earth Technology, 1993) for the Metro Red Line Project at La Brea Avenue and Camino Palmero, north of Franklin Avenue. Geologic profiles developed from continuous core borings drilled for the prior fault investigation revealed a wide zone of stratigraphic offsets of alluvial sediments overlying granitic bedrock along the La Brea Avenue and Camino Palmero transects. Groundwater elevation changes on the order of 40 to 50 feet across the fault were also reported by Earth Technology (1993). Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from about 45 to 55 feet bgs north of the main fault zone and at least 90 feet bgs south of the main fault zone (Earth Technology, 1993). This demonstrates that the fault zone is a barrier to the southward flow of groundwater.

Recent studies by several investigators (Dolan et al., 2000b; Dolan et al., 1997; Dolan and Sieh, 1992; Crook and Proctor, 1992) have indicated that the fault is active based on geomorphic evidence, stratigraphic correlation between exploratory borings, and fault trenching studies. Dolan et al. (1997) evaluated geomorphic elements apparent in the 1926 and 1934 editions of the U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the Hollywood and Sawtelle Quadrangles. These older edition topographic maps have 5‐foot


May 22, 2013


Page 5-10

Table 5-2: Major Named Faults Considered to be Active in Southern California

Fault (in increasing distance)

Maximum Magnitude

Slip Rate (mm/yr.)

Distance From Site (Kilometers)

Direction From Site

Puente Hills Thrust 7.1 (a) BT 0.7 3 ESE

Upper Elysian Park Thrust 6.4 (a) BT 1.3 4 NE

Hollywood 6.4 (a) RO 1.0 5 NNW

Newport-Inglewood Zone 7.1 (a) SS 1.0 5 SSW

Santa Monica 6.6 (a) RO 1.0 7 W

Raymond 6.5 (a) RO 1.5 12 ENE

Verdugo 6.9 (a) RO 0.5 14 NE

Northridge Thrust 7.0 (a) BT 1.5 15 NW

Malibu Coast 6.7 (a) RO 0.3 21 W

Sierra Madre (San Fernando) 6.7 (a) RO 2.0 24 N

Palos Verdes Hills 7.3 (a) SS 3.0 23 SSW

Sierra Madre (San Fernando) 6.7 (a) RO 2.0 24 N

San Gabriel 7.2 (a) SS 1.0 27 NE

Whittier 6.8 (a) RO 2.5 31 SE

Santa Susana 6.7 (a) RO 5.0 31 NNW

Clamshell-Sawpit 6.5 (a) RO 0.5 32 ENE

Anacapa-Dume 7.5 (a) RO 3.0 32 W

Simi-Santa Rosa 7.0 (a) RO 1.0 42 NW

San Jose 6.4 (a) RO 0.5 42 E

Holser 6.5 (a) RO 0.4 43 NNW

Oak Ridge 7.0 (a) RO 4.0 51 NW

San Andreas (Mojave S Section) 7.4 (a) SS 29.0 56 NE

Chino-Central Avenue 6.7 (a) RO 1.0 56 SE

San Joaquin Hills Thrust 6.6 (a) BT 0.5 56 SE

San Cayetano 7.0 (a) RO 6.0 56 NW

Cucamonga 6.9 (a) RO 5.0 60 E

Elsinore (Glen Ivy Section) 6.8 (a) SS 5.0 66 SE

San Jacinto (SB Section) 6.7 (a) SS 6.0 76 ENE

San Andreas (SB Section) 7.5 (a) SS 22.0 82 ENE

Santa Ynez 7.1 (a) SS 2.0 97 NW

(a) CGS, 2008

SS-Strike Slip, RO-Reverse Oblique, BT-Blind Thrust





contours allowing for greater resolution of possible topographic scarps and other geomorphic features. Locations of topographic scarps identified by Dolan et al (1997) in the topographic map were then field checked to see whether they may have been related to cultural modifications rather than geologic processes. Their interpretation was illustrated in a tectonic geomorphology map of landforms in the northern portion of the Hollywood and Sawtelle Quadrangles.

Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone

The active Inglewood fault of the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone is approximately 5 kilometers southwest of the site. This fault zone is composed of a series of discontinuous northwest‐trending en echelon faults extending from Ballona Gap southeastward to the area offshore of Newport Beach. This zone is reflected at the surface by a line of geomorphically young anticlinal hills and mesas formed by the folding and faulting of a thick sequence of Pleistocene‐age sediments and Tertiary‐age sedimentary rocks (Barrows, 1974). In 1933, the southern Los Angeles Basin section of the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone ruptured to produce the M6.4 Long Beach earthquake (Hauksson and Gross, 1991). Fault‐plane solutions for 39 small earthquakes (between 1977 and 1985) show mostly strike‐slip faulting with some reverse faulting along the north segment (north of Dominguez Hills) and some normal faulting along the south segment (south of Dominguez Hills to Newport Beach) (Hauksson, 1987). Recent investigations by Law/Crandall (1993) in the Huntington Beach area indicate that the North Branch segment of the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone offsets Holocene‐age alluvial deposits in the vicinity of the Santa Ana River.

West Beverly Hills Lineament

The West Beverly Hills Lineament (WBHL) is a north‐northwest‐trending topographic feature located west of the site. The WBHL marks a pronounced boundary between uplifted and highly dissected older sedimentary units to the west and a gently sloping, younger alluvial plain in Beverly Hills to the east. Identified by Dolan and Sieh (1992) and Dolan et al. (1997; 2000a) on the basis of this pronounced topographic dissimilarity, the lineament exhibits a semi‐continuous series of east‐facing topographic scarps. These scarps have been eroded and modified by the south‐flowing drainage emanating from Benedict Canyon.

To the north of its intersection with the Santa Monica fault zone, the WBHL acts as a connection between the Santa Monica and Hollywood fault zones, transferring slip between these two oblique‐slip fault systems (Dolan and Sieh, 1992; Dolan et al., 1997; 2000a).

Based on its orientation and location, the WBHL is considered to be the northern extension of the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone. By virtue of its assumed connection to the active Newport‐Inglewood fault zone, the WBHL is considered by the CGS to be an active fault (Bryant, 2005).

Santa Monica Fault

The 25‐mile‐long Santa Monica fault zone extends westward from the western edge of Beverly Hills across West Los Angeles and Santa Monica to Pacific Palisades where it trends offshore and parallels the Malibu coast to near Point Dume (Dolan and Sieh, 1992; Dolan et al., 1995; 2000a). The fault zone, which exhibits both reverse and left‐lateral components of slip, extends eastward as the Hollywood Fault through a ¾‐mile‐wide left‐step, or tear fault, which coincides with the northern part of the West Beverly Hills Lineament (WBHL) (Dolan and Sieh, 1992; Dolan et al., 1997; 2000a). The Santa Monica and Hollywood fault zones are part of a much longer system of oblique left‐lateral/reverse faults forming the


May 22, 2013


Page 5-12

southern boundary of the Transverse Ranges that extend eastward for more than 150 miles through the northern part of the Los Angeles metropolitan region and to the west offshore (Dolan et al., 2000a). The location of the fault was studied in more detail in the project area as reported in The Century City Area Fault Investigation Report (Metro, 2011); a summary of the main findings is presented in Section 6.0 of that report.

The Santa Monica fault system is related to the Pliocene‐Quaternary structural development of the Santa Monica Mountains. Prior to the late Miocene, the Santa Monica Fault was a normal fault that was reactivated as a reverse fault beginning in the Pliocene (Tsutsumi et al., 2001). In the Century City area, Tsutsumi et al. interpreted the Santa Monica fault zone to consist of three southern strands and one northern strand with only the northern strand being currently active. Other recent studies (Dolan et al., 2000a; Dolan and Pratt, 1997; Hummon et al., 1992, Ziony et al., 1985) indicate that the northern segment of the Santa Monica fault zone is active and offsets or deforms Holocene sediments.

Dolan et al. (2000a) conducted the most detailed studies of the state of activity of the Santa Monica fault zone on the grounds of the VA property just west of the San Diego Freeway, about 1,000 feet south of the proposed Westwood/VA Hospital Station. Trenches revealed a complex zone of faulting that showed evidence for both contractional folding and reverse slip above a north‐dipping thrust strand, as well as faulting on dozens of near‐vertical, left‐lateral strike‐slip fault strands that merge downward with the main strand at a depth of 100 to 150 feet (Dolan and Pratt, 1997; Pratt et al., 1998). The total width of this complicated zone of faulting was more than 300 feet.

Dating based on carbon from offset layers indicated definitive evidence for surface rupture on some of these faults between 10,000 and 17,000 years ago, as well as probable evidence for surface rupture on another strike‐slip strand between approximately 1,000 and 3,000 years ago, consistent with evidence for slip on the main strand in the most recent earthquake approximately 1,000 to 3,000 years before present.

5.5.1.2 Blind Thrust Faults

Several deep, low‐angle blind thrust faults underlie the Los Angeles Basin. These faults are not exposed at the ground surface and do not pose a ground rupture hazard. However, these faults are active features capable of generating future earthquakes. The blind thrust faults postulated to exist within 10 miles of the alignment are included in the following discussion.

Puente Hills Thrust

The Puente Hills Blind‐Thrust (PHT) fault system is defined based on seismic reflection profiles, petroleum well data and precisely located seismicity (Shaw et. al., 2002). This blind‐thrust fault system extends eastward from downtown Los Angeles to Brea in northern Orange County and overlies the Elysian Park Thrust. The PHT includes three north‐dipping segments that are overlain by folds expressed at the surface as the Montebello Hills, the Santa Fe Springs Anticline, and the Coyote Hills. The PHT is believed to be the causative fault of the October 1, 1987, Whittier Narrows Earthquake (ML 5.9) [(Shaw et al., 2002)]. The vertical surface projection of PHT is approximately 6 miles east of the Project alignment at its closest point. Postulated earthquake scenarios for the PHT include single segment fault ruptures capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 6.6 (Mw) and a multiple segment fault rupture capable of producing an earthquake of magnitude 7.1 (Mw). The PHT is not exposed at the ground surface and does not present a potential for surface fault rupture. However, based on





deformation of late Quaternary‐age sediments above this fault system and the occurrence of the Whittier Narrows earthquake, the PHT is considered an active fault capable of generating future earthquakes beneath the Los Angeles Basin.

Upper Elysian Park Thrust

The Upper Elysian Thrust is a blind thrust faultunderlying the central Los Angeles Basin (Petersen et al., 1996). The Upper Elysian Park Thrust, projected vertically to the ground surface, is approximately 4 kilometers east‐southeast of the site at its closest point. As with other blind thrust faults in the Los Angeles area, the Upper Elysian Park Thrust is not exposed at the surface and does not present a potential surface rupture hazard; however, the Upper Elysian Park Thrust should be considered an active feature capable of generating future earthquakes. An average slip rate of 1.5 mm/yr and a maximum magnitude of 6.7 are estimated by Petersen et al. (1996) for the Upper Elysian Park Thrust.

5.5.1.3 Potentially Active Faults

The closest potentially active faults to the site are the Overland fault and the Charnock faultlocated approximately 8 and 10 kilometers southwest of the site, respectively. The Northridge Hills fault is a potentially active fault located approximately 22 kilometers north‐northwest of the site. The potentially active faults located within 10 kilometers of the site are discussed in the following section.

Overland Fault

The potentially active Overland fault is located approximately 8 kilometers southwest of the site. The Overland fault trends in a northwest direction between the Charnock fault and the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone. The fault extends from the northwest flank of the Baldwin Hills to Santa Monica Boulevard in the vicinity of Overland Avenue. Based on water‐level measurements, displacement along the fault is believed to be vertical, with an offset of about 30 feet (Poland, 1959). The west side of the fault has apparently moved downward, relative to the east side, forming a graben (up thrust block) between the Charnock and Overland faults. However, there is no evidence that this fault has offset late Pleistocene or Holocene‐age alluvial deposits (County of Los Angeles Seismic Safety Element, 1990). Ziony and Jones (1989) indicate that the fault is potentially active (no displacement of Holocene‐age alluvium). Additionally, the State Geologist considers the Overland fault to be potentially active (Jennings, 2010).

Charnock Fault

The potentially active Charnock fault is located approximately 10 kilometers southwest of the site. The Charnock fault trends in a northwest‐southeast direction sub‐parallel to the trend of the Newport‐Inglewood fault zone and the Overland fault. Differential water levels across the fault occur in the early Pleistocene‐age San Pedro Formation. However, there is no evidence that this fault has offset late Pleistocene‐ or Holocene‐age alluvial deposits (County of Los Angeles Seismic Safety Element, 1990). Ziony and Jones (1989) indicate that the fault is potentially active (no displacement of Holocene‐age alluvium). Additionally, the State Geologist considers the Overland fault to be potentially active (Jennings, 2010).

5.5.2 Fault Rupture

Based on the available geologic data, there are no known active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface rupture beneath or projecting towards the station site. The station is not within a currently established Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (AP Zone) delineated by the State Geologist


May 22, 2013


Page 5-14

for surface fault rupture hazards. In addition to the earthquake fault zones established by the state, the City of Los Angeles has established "Fault Rupture Study Areas" to delineate zones of potential surface fault rupture hazards within the City. The station site is not in a City of Los Angeles Fault Rupture Study Area. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture at the station site due to fault plane displacement propagating to the surface during the design life of the project is considered low.

5.5.3 Historic Earthquakes and Seismicity

A partial list of historic earthquakes, including the magnitude of the earthquake and the distance of the epicenter, is included in Table 5‐3. Note that only historic earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 5.5 are shown in the table. The list of the historic earthquakes is limited to the earthquakes within 100 kilometers of the station site.

Table 5-3: List of Historic Earthquakes with Magnitude greater than 5.5 (within last 150 years and within 100 Kilometers of the station site)

Earthquakes (Oldest to Youngest) Date of Earthquake Magnitude

Distance to Epicenter

(Kilometers) Direction to Epicenter

Long Beach March 11, 1933 6.4 58 SE

San Fernando February 9, 1971 6.6 40 NNW

Whittier Narrows October 1, 1987 5.9 21 E

Sierra Madre June 28, 1991 5.8 37 NE

Northridge January 17, 1994 6.7 27 NW

5.5.4 Liquefaction

The station site is not within a state of California or city of Los Angeles mapped liquefaction hazard zone. Furthermore, the soils at the station site consist of Pleistocene‐age materials which are relatively stiff or dense and are not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction.

5.5.5 Tsunamis, Inundation, Seiches, and Flooding

According to the City of Los Angeles Safety Element (1996), the station site is not located within a potential inundation area by earthquake‐induced dam failures or seiches (wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi‐enclosed body of water). Therefore, the potential for inundation at the site as a result of an earthquake‐induced dam failure is considered low.

The station site is not in a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. According to the City of Los Angeles Safety Element (1996) and the California Department of Public Works (FEMA map, 2012), the site is not located within 100‐year and 500‐year flood plains. Therefore, the potential for other geologic hazards such as tsunamis and flooding affecting the site is also considered low.

5.5.6 Gases and Oil Fields

The station site is located within an area designated as “Methane Zone” on the 2004 “Methane and Methane Buffer Zone” map published by City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works and there is a potential for methane and other volatile gases to occur beneath the site. Therefore, subsurface gas





investigations were performed at the station site as part of the overall geotechnical and environment study for the project.

According to maps published by the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR, 2006) and Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan (1996), the western portion of the Wilshire/La Brea Station is located within the boundary of the Salt Lake oil field, and there are two abandoned oil wells at a distance of about 100 to 150 feet from the station site (DOGGR Map 118). The abandoned wells are located to the south of the eastern terminus of the station. Based on the discussions with the DOGGR personnel, the locations of oil wells shown on DOGGR maps are approximate and could vary up to 200 feet (see Plate 1). Thus there is a potential that abandoned or undocumented wells may be encountered during construction activities.


May 22, 2013


Page 5-16



6.0 – Bibliography



6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrows, A. G., 1974, “A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport‐Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California,” California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 114.

Bryant, W. A., (compiler), 2005, “Digital Database of Quaternary and Younger Faults from the Fault

Activity Map of California, Version 2.0,” California Geological Survey Web Page, http://www.conrv.ca.gov/CGS/information/publications/QuaternaryFaults_ver2.htm> 8‐13‐07

Bryant, W. A., Hart, E.W., 2007, “Fault‐Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps,” Interim Revision 2007.

Briaud, J. L., 2005, The Pressuremeter, Taylor and Francis/Balkema.

California Department of Water Resources, 1961, “Planned Utilization of the Groundwater Basins of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles County, App. A, Groundwater Geology,” Bulletin 104.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, “State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Hollywood Quadrangle Official Map.”

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Hollywood 7.5‐Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California,” CDMG Open‐File Report 98‐17.

California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, 2006, “Oil and Gas Wildcat Well Maps 116, 117, 118, and W1‐5,” June 29, 2006.

California Geological Survey, 2008, “Appendix A: California Fault Parameters for the National Seismic Hazard Maps and Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2007,” Special Report 203A.

Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Earth Science Associates, and Geo‐Resource Consultants,

(CWDD/ESA/GRC), 1981, “Geotechnical Investigation Report, Volume I and II," for Southern California Rapid Transit Metro Rail Project.

Converse Consultants, Earth Science Associates, and Geo/Resources Consultants, (CC/ESA/GRC), 1984, “Geotechnical Report, Metro Rail Project Design Unit A220, Los Angeles, California,” March 1984, Project Number 503.

Converse Consultants West, 1992, “Preliminary Geotechnical Report Proposed Metro Rail Mid‐ City Segment, Wilshire Blvd.‐Western Station to Pico‐San Vicente Station, Los Angeles Rail Rapid Transit Project, Los Angeles, California” September 14, 1992, Project Number 91‐31‐208‐01.

Crook, R., Jr., and Proctor, R. J., 1992 “The Santa Monica and Hollywood Faults and the Southern Boundary of the Transverse Ranges Province,” in Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California.

Dolan, J. F., Sieh, K., and Rockwell, T. K., 2000a, “Late Quaternary Activity and Seismic Potential of the Santa

Monica Fault System, Los Angeles, California,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 12, No. 10. Dolan, J. F., Stevens, D., and Rockwell, T. K., 2000b, "Paleoseismologic Evidence for an Early to Mid‐Holocene


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 6.0 – Bibliography

Page 6-2

Age of the Most Recent Surface Fault Rupture on the Hollywood Fault, Los Angeles, California," Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 90, p.p. 334‐344.

Dolan, J. F., Sieh, K. E., Rockwell, T. K., Guptill, P., and Miller, G., 1997, “Active Tectonics, Paleoseismology, and

Seismic Hazards of the Hollywood Fault, Northern Los Angeles Basin, California,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 109, No. 12.

Dolan, J. F., Sieh, K., Rockwell, T. K. Yeats, R.S., Shaw J., Suppe, J., Huftile, G., and Gath, E., 1995, “Prospects for

Larger or More Frequent Earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Region, California,” Science, Vol. 267, pp. 199‐205.

Dolan, J. F. and Sieh, K., 1992, “Paleoseismology and Geomorphology of the Northern Los Angeles Basin:

Evidence for Holocene Activity on the Santa Monica Fault and Identification of New Strike‐Slip Faults through Downtown Los Angeles,” EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 73, p. 589.

Earth Technology Corporation, 1993, “Investigations of the Hollywood Fault Zone, Segment 3, Metro

Red Line, Los Angeles, California,” July 1993, Project Number 92‐2038

Engineering‐Science, 1992, “1992 Compilation of Monitoring Data on Gas Probes Along Proposed Metro Rail Alignment Project,” Volume 1 of 2, September 1992, PE 298/211.0921/YO

Hart, E. W., 1973, revised 1999, “Fault‐Rupture Hazard Zones in California,” California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Hauksson, E., 1987, “Seismotectonics of the Newport‐Inglewood Fault Zone in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 77, pp. 539–561.

Hummon, C., Schneider, C. L., Yeats, R., and Huftile, G. J., 1992, “Active Tectonics of the Northern Los Angeles

Basin: An Analysis of Subsurface Data,” in Stout, M. L., ed., Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists, Long Beach, California, pp. 645‐654.

Jennings, C. W., and Bryant. W. A., 2010, "Fault Activity Map of California,” California Geological Survey,"

Geologic Data Map No. 6.

Law/Crandall, 1993, “Report of Potential Fault Displacements, Wastewater Treatment Plant Number 2, Huntington Beach, California, for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County,” Project No. 2661.30140.0001.

Los Angeles, City of, 1996, “Methane and Methane Buffer Zones.”

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1979, “Report of Preliminary Foundation Investigation, Proposed Site Development, Wilshire Blvd. Between La Brea Avenue and Detroit Street, Los Angeles, California” October 5, 1979, Project Number A‐79292





LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1989, “Report of Geotechnical, Investigation, Proposed Building Development Carnation Site, 5055 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California,” June 15, 1990, Project Number LCA L89452.AEFB.

Los Angeles, City of, GIS Mapping, 2004, “Methane and Methane Buffer Zones,” http://www.meredithassociates.com/pdf/Methane_Zone_Map.pdf

Los Angeles, City of, 1996, “Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan,” Department of City Planning, Los Angeles, California.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: Environmental Engineering Service, 1996, “Phase II‐ Western Extension Reassessment Study, Los Angeles, California,” report dated March 29, 1996, Project Number ENO27‐011.

Los Angeles, County of, 1990, "Technical Appendix to the Safety Element of the Los Angeles County General Plan," Draft Report by Leighton and Associates with Sedway Cooke Associates.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2007, “Navigate Los Angeles, California” http://navigatela.lacity.org/index.cfm

Metro, 2010, “Final Geotechnical and Environmental Report for Advanced Conceptual Engineering, Proposed Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California,” November 15, 2010, Project Number 4953‐09‐0472.

Metro, 2010, “Seismic Design Criteria, Section 5: Structural/Geotechnical,” report dated January 19, 2010.

Metro, 2011, "Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Report, Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California, Volumes 1 through 3,” report dated December 21, 2011.

Metro, 2011, "Century City Area Fault Investigation Report, Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California, Volumes 1 and 2,” report dated October 14, 2011.

Metro, 2012, “Seismic Design Criteria, Section 5: Structural/Geotechnical,” report dated October 16, 2012.

Metro, 2013, "Environmental Data Report, Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California,” report dated May, 2013.

Petersen, M. D., Bryant, W. A., Cramer, C. H., Cao, T., Reichle, M. S., Frankel, A. D., Lienkaemper, J. J., McCrory, P. A., and Schwatz, D. P., 1996, “Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California,” California Division of Mines and Geology Open File Report 96‐08.

Poland, J. R., Garrett, A. A., and Sinnott, A., 1959, “Geology, Hydrology, and Chemical Character of Ground

Waters in the Torrance–Santa Monica Area, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1461.

ROCTEST, Texam Pressuremeter Instruction Manual, 2010.


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station 6.0 – Bibliography

Page 6-4

Shaw, J. H., Plesch, A., Dolan, J. F., Pratt, T. L. and Fiore, P., 2002, “Puente Hills Blind – Thrust System, Los Angeles, California,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp. 2946‐2960.

Tsutsumi, H., Yeats, R.S., and Huftile, G.J., 2001, “Late Cenozoic Techtonics of the Northern Los Angeles

Fault System,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp. 454‐468.

Ziony, J. I., and Jones, L. M., 1989, “Map Showing Late Quaternary Faults and 1978–1984 Seismicity of the Los Angeles Region, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF‐1964.

Ziony, J. I., ed., 1985, “Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region–An Earth Science Perspective,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360.


APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS

Description of Field Explorations Figure A‐1.1: Unified Soil Classification System Figure A‐1.2: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (ACE Phase) Figure A‐1.3: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (PE Phase) Figure A‐1.4: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure A‐1.5: Logs of Geotechnical Borings (Prior Projects) Figure A‐1.6: Schematic Diagram of Crandall Sampler Figure A‐2.1: Logs of Subsurface Gas Borings (ACE Phase)


Appendix A – Field Explorations


Page A-1 Amendment 2 September 16, 2013 May 22, 2013

A.1 DESCRIPTION FIELD EXPLORATIONS A.1.1 General

The following descriptions of field procedures and methods are applicbale for the entire Section 1 of the Westside Subway Extension project and hence are not repeated in the reports for other stations or tunnel reaches.

The planning and execution of field explorations consisted of several steps that had to be performed in sequence almost on a daily basis, to ensure that approvals from necessary government agencies were received on‐time to plan the field schedule, notify the public of road closures several days prior to field work, and to ensure field work was done safely and to meet Metro’s schedule. A work plan was prepared by AMEC (at that time as MACTEC) and submitted to Parsons Brinckerhoff for review, including exhibits that showed proposed explorations. The field explorations were performed in general accordance with the approved work plan, with minor amendments, as suggested or approved by Parsons Brinckerhoff. Some of the key elements of the field program and planning are described below.

A.1.2 Health and Safety Plan

Before the field exploration program was performed, a project‐specific health and safety plan (HASP) was prepared to identify potential health and job safety issues and to outline the safe procedures to be followed by the field personnel. The HASP was made available to AMEC’s subcontractors for review and to be briefed about the safety hazards and safe practices for hazards expected in the field. In addition, AMEC’s subcontractors were briefed about the daily field activities by their respective AMEC field team leader prior to the start of the day’s work.

A.1.3 Permits

Permits were obtained from different agencies, as listed below, depending on location of the field work, type of field activities and the hours of field operations:

City of Los Angeles – Department of Transportation (LADOT), Bureau of Engineering (BOE)and Bureau of Street Services (BSS)

City of Beverly Hills – Department of Public Works

County of Los Angeles – Department of Health Services

Regional Water Quality Control Board

Los Angeles Police Department (for night work)

The following section provides a brief description of the permitting process followed for the project.

After researching existing utilities from plans obtained electronically from the cities of Beverly Hills or Los Angeles, the locations of the explorations were selected to avoid conflicts with existing utilities and were marked in the field. Accordingly, traffic control plans (TCPs) showing planned traffic lane closures in order to accommodate the exploration activities were submitted to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) or the City of Beverly Hills for review and approval. In addition, utility maps prepared for each exploration along with the TCPs were submitted to the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE) for an E‐Permit or to the City of Beverly Hills. After receiving approval from the agency and paying necessary fees, a permit (designated an E‐permit in the City of Los Angeles) was


May 22, 2013

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station Appendix A – Field Explorations

Page A-2

obtained. If field work required no‐parking signs for lanes with paid parking, LA DOT or the City of Beverly Hills was contacted for posting of these signs during field work hours.

In the City of Los Angeles, the E‐permit covers a single lane closure, but if two or more lanes required closure, an application was submitted to the Bureau of Street Services (BSS) for multiple lane closures. The approved TCPs and LA DOT sign control numbers were submitted to BSS for further review and approval. After receiving approval from BSS, a necessary fee was paid online to obtain the street use permit. For most explorations, a two‐lane closure was sufficient to perform drilling.

Finally, prior to the field work in the City of Los Angeles, a Los Angeles City inspector was notified of impending work on a weekly basis. In addition, in the City of Los Angeles, the Police and Fire Departments were notified of street access restrictions that were expected to be caused by drilling activities. For night work in the City of Los Angeles, an approval from the Police Commission was obtained prior to field work.

A.1.4 Mark Borings and Underground Service Alert (Dig Alert)

Before starting the exploration program, a field reconnaissance was conducted to observe site conditions and to mark locations of planned explorations. Electronic versions of utility maps were used in planning exploration locations.

In addition, considering that most of the explorations were within Wilshire Boulevard, and based on our prior drilling experience, a relatively large potential exploration area was marked out on the streets. As required by the State of California, Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified of locations of planned explorations at least 48 hours prior to drilling activities. During this timeframe, based on the USA notification, the utility stakeholders marked out their utilities in the field and provided notification regarding potential utility conflicts affecting exploration locations. The majority of the explorations have been performed within about 50 feet of the planned exploration locations. However, few of the explorations had to be moved to a greater distance from the originally planned locations to avoid conflict with utilities.

A.1.5 Utility Clearance

USA services are only helpful in identifying potential conflicts with certain utilities in the public right‐of‐way. For example, non‐pressurized sanitary sewers are often not marked by the City of Los Angeles. To further identify potential utilities below exploration locations and to further reduce the risk of damaging utilities, a private utility locator (GeoVision) was subcontracted to locate potential conflicts of underground utilities with exploration locations using geophysical equipment. As a supplemental precaution, explorations were typically performed at least 2 to 3 feet away from the utilities identified with this geophysical method. Finally, the upper 5 to 10 feet of the explorations were excavated using hand and/or vacuum auger equipment. Excavations using hand auger and/or air‐vacuum equipment continued until natural soils were encountered.

A.1.6 Traffic Control Measures

Traffic control measures were implemented by A Cone Zone, Inc. of Corona, California (under subcontract to AMEC), when closing traffic or parking lanes during field work. Based on the exploration location and site conditions and governing city requirements, site‐specific traffic control plans (TCPs) were prepared by A Cone Zone, Inc. and submitted to the specified agency for approval of traffic control





measures. The approved traffic control plans provided procedures for closing lanes and directing street traffic in the field activity area.

A.1.7 Public Notification of Field Work

As requested by Metro, public notifications were prepared detailing field activities, such as the field work area, duration of field activities, types of equipment and traffic lane closures. The notifications were distributed to stakeholders through specified Metro personnel on a weekly basis, prior to the field work.

A.2 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATIONS A.2.1 Rotary-Wash Borings

The borings for the geotechnical explorations during ACE, PE and Adv. PE phases were performed using rotary‐wash drilling technique under the supervision of AMEC personnel. Subcontractors used for the drilling consisted of C&L Drilling, Fugro Consultants, and Tri County Drilling. C&L performed all of the ACE, PE and 2012/2013 Adv. PE phase borings while the other two subcontractors were primarily used for the PE phase. Tri County Drilling was used for a dual rotary‐wash/rock core boring in 2013.

The types of drilling rigs used by different subcontractors and the hammer weights and hammer drop used to drive the Crandall and SPT samplers are noted on the respective logs. C&L used a 300 to 380 pound hammer with 18‐inch drop for driving the Crandall sampler during the ACE, PE and Adv. PE phases unless specified in the logs that a 140 pound hammer with 30‐inch drop was used for driving both the Crandall and SPT samplers. Tri County and Fugro used 140‐pound automatic hammer and 30‐inch drop to drive the Crandall sampler. For SPT sampler, all drillers used 140‐pound automatic hammer and 30‐inch drop as required by ASTM D 1586. The hammer energy ratios (ER) of C&L, Fugro and Tri County SPT hammers were 0.60, 0.86, and 0.81, respectively.

Bulk samples and relatively undisturbed Crandall ring samples of soil materials were collected at selected depth intervals (about 3 to 5‐foot) during drilling activities. The Crandall sampler is similar to the modified California sampler, but has less sample disturbance due to the larger diameter of the Crandall sampler. The Crandall sampler has an inside diameter of 2.625 inches and an outside diameter of 2.75 inches. The Crandall sample barrel contains six one‐inch thick brass rings. A three‐dimensional schematic of the Crandall sampler is shown on Figure A‐1.6 included in Appendix A. Shelby tube sampling was also performed in select borings during the 2013 Adv. PE phase.

In addition to obtaining undisturbed samples, standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the borings. The number of blows required to drive the Crandall and SPT sampler 12 inches, the hammer weight, and the hammer drop are indicated on the boring logs.

After each Crandall sample was retrieved from the borehole and brought to the ground surface, a photo ionization detector (PID) or a four‐gas meter was used to measure the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the headspace of the samples. The OVA readings are indicated on the boring logs.

Selected Crandall and SPT samples were submitted to the laboratory for testing to evaluate relevant engineering properties. Logs of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were prepared in the field by AMEC field personnel. The soils are classified in the accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure A‐1.1 included in Appendix A. The samples were further


May 22, 2013


Page A-4

reviewed in the laboratory by an engineer and/or a geologist and the logs were revised based on the results of the laboratory tests.

Upon completion of drilling activities, the borings were backfilled with cement/bentonite mix and patched with asphalt concrete. Groundwater monitoring wells were also installed in select sonic core borings. Details of the groundwater well installation are presented in Appendix C.

A.2.2 Testing in Rotary-Wash Borings

Pressuremeter testing, Noise/vibration testing, OYO suspension logging and borehole acoustic televiewer (BATV) survey were performed in selected rotary‐wash borings. Pressuremeter testing was performed by AMEC personnel. Noise/vibration testing was performed by ATS Consulting, Inc. OYO suspension logging and BATV survey was performed by GEOVision, Inc. Details of these tests are discussed below.

A.2.3 Pressuremeter Testing

Pressuremeter tests were performed in the ACE, PE and 2012/2013 Adv. PE phases. The testing in the PE and Adv. PE phases was more substantial than the testing in ACE phase. Even the limited testing in ACE phase was not applicable for the revised tunnel alignment and station locations considered in the PE and Adv. PE phases.

Pressuremeter tests were performed to determine the Menard modulus (Em) and at‐rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of the soil and bedrock expected along the tunnel and at the stations locations. The pressuremeter tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 4719‐07 using the TEXAM model and an N‐size probe that has a diameter of 70 millimeters and is 46 centimeters long.

To conduct a pressuremeter test, the probe was lowered to the test zone, which typically was a 5‐foot run, drilled using a 2‐7/8 inch diameter tricone auger bit. The rate of penetration of the auger and the drilling mud was controlled such that a clean borehole was achieved and that the borehole diameter met ASTM requirements. The probe was lowered to the test depth, as soon as the drilling of the pressuremeter test hole was completed. A longer delay between drilling and testing could potentially allow sufficient time for caving of borehole, particularly in fine‐grained granular soils below groundwater.

A strain controlled test was conducted by applying equal increments of volume (typically 40 cubic centimeters) and taking pressure readings at about 15 second intervals. The test was terminated after the soil reached its plastic zone. In several of the pressuremeter tests, a unload re‐load cycle was also performed within the pseudo‐elastic zone to evaluate the rebound modulus of the soil and bedrock.

Pressuremeter tests were performed at depths roughly corresponding to the top, center and invert of the tunnel. At station locations, pressuremeter tests were performed at various depths within which station box was planned. The test depths were adjusted in the field, depending on how the drilling program progressed and soil types encountered at these depths. Tests were not performed, if gravelly soils were encountered, since the borehole diameter would be enlarged and would likely not meet the ASTM requirements for borehole size and would also pose a greater risk of damage to the probe in these soils. The estimated Menard modulus (Em) and at‐rest lateral earth pressure coefficient (Ko) are presented in the report.





A.2.4 Noise/Vibration Testing

Noise/vibration testing was performed in 2 of the rotary‐wash borings by ATS Consulting, Inc. The vibration propagation tests were performed to assist in predicting the levels of groundborne vibration and noise level that would be generated by the proposed Subway.

The borehole noise/vibration tests were performed by generating vibration at the bottom of the hole using the 140‐pound hammer that was supplied by the drilling rigs. The impulsive forces transmitted into the soil at the bottom of the borehole were measured using a special load cell and the resulting surface acceleration measured on the ground at varying distances (25, 37, 50, 75, 100, and 150 feet) from the hole. The load cell was lowered to the test depth and then ground surface vibration at several horizontal distances from the boring was recorded. Since the size of the load cell was less than about 4 inches, unlike pressuremeter testing, special drilling diameters were not required for noise/vibration testing. Noise/vibration tests were performed at desired depths as the drilling progressed using a 4‐7/8 inch diameter auger.

The 2 sites were selected for the vibration survey based on two criteria. The first consideration was to select test sites based on their proximity to previously identified vibration‐sensitive sites. The second was to select locations that would provide reasonably uniform sampling along the proposed subway alignment. The results of the noise/vibration testing are presented in Geotechnical and Environmental Report (Metro, 2011).

A.2.5 OYO Suspension Logging

Compressional (p‐wave) and shear‐wave (s‐wave) data were obtained in select PE and Adv. PE phase borings by GeoVision, Inc., using the PS suspension logging system manufactured by OYO Corporation. The suspension logging was performed to supplemental the shear‐wave data obtained in seismic Cone Penetration Tests.

The suspension logging system consists of two receivers (biaxial geophones) spaced at about 1 meter (3.3 feet) apart and connected to a probe. The probe is lowered into the borehole using a cable after the completion of the drilling of the borehole to the termination depth. The source to generate a wave is located near the tip of the probe. The source creates a horizontally propagating impulsive pressure wave in the fluid filling the borehole and surrounding the source. The pressure is converted to a primary (p‐wave) and shear‐wave (s‐wave) in the surrounding medium (soil and rock) as the pressure wave impinges upon the borehole wall. The waves propagate up through the surrounding medium and create a pressure wave in the drilling fluid surrounding the receivers. Knowing the arrival times of the waves between the two receivers separated by a distance of 3.3 feet, average p and s‐wave velocity of the medium is computed. The probe is subsequently lowered to the next depth increment and the process is repeated. The results of the suspension logging are presented in the report.

A.2.5A Borehole Acoustic Televiewer Survey

GeoVision, Inc., was retained to perform borehole acoustic televiewer (BATV) surveys in core boring G‐317 within the bedrock zone. The primary purpose of the BATV survey was to obtain joint orientation and joint frequency data. The acoustic televiewer is a rotating ultrasonic device that images the surface of the uncased core boring wall. The images are created from the reflected signal amplitude and two‐way travel time as the tool travels up the core boring. The resulting amplitude recording is dependent on the rigidity of the exposed material in the borehole wall, whereas the travel time recording provides information of the


May 22, 2013


Page A-6

borehole geometry such as fracture openings, break‐outs, and borehole rugosity. The BATV logs and further details of the methodology are presented in the appendix.

A.2.5B Hollow-Stem Auger Borings

Two of the borings for the pumping test during 2013 Adv. PE phases were performed using hollow‐stem auger drilling technique under the supervision of AMEC personnel. Martini Driling was the primarily hollow‐stem auger drilling subcontractor. A 140‐pound automatic hammer and 30‐inch drop was used to drive both SPT and Crandall sampler. The hammer energy ratio (ER) of Martini SPT hammer was reportedly 0.87.

Bulk samples and relatively undisturbed Crandall ring samples of soil materials were collected at selected depth intervals (about 3 to 5‐foot) during drilling activities. The Crandall sampler is similar to the modified California sampler, but has less sample disturbance due to the larger diameter of the Crandall sampler. The Crandall sampler has an inside diameter of 2.625 inches and an outside diameter of 2.75 inches. The Crandall sample barrel contains six one‐inch thick brass rings. A three‐dimensional schematic of the Crandall sampler is shown on Figure A‐1.6 included in Appendix A.

In addition to obtaining undisturbed samples, standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the borings. The number of blows required to drive the Crandall and SPT sampler 12 inches, the hammer weight, and the hammer drop are indicated on the boring logs.

After each Crandall sample was retrieved from the borehole and brought to the ground surface, a photo ionization detector (PID) or a four‐gas meter was used to measure the concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the headspace of the samples. The OVA readings are indicated on the boring logs.

Selected Crandall and SPT samples were submitted to the laboratory for testing to evaluate relevant engineering properties. Logs of subsurface conditions encountered in the borings were prepared in the field by AMEC field personnel. The soils are classified in the accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described on Figure A‐1.1 included in Appendix A. The samples were further reviewed in the laboratory by an engineer and/or a geologist and the logs were revised based on the results of the laboratory tests.

Upon completion of drilling activities, groundwater monitoring wells were also installed in the borings. Details of the groundwater well installation are presented in Appendix C.

A.2.5C Rock Core Boring

Tri‐County Drilling mobilized a CME‐75 HT drill rig to perform a rock core drilling in Boring G‐317. Rock coring in this boring was performed from depths of 81 to 135 feet below ground surface. The NQ‐3 wire‐line method was utilized to core bedrock. In the NQ‐3 wire‐line core drilling technique, the inner core barrel is lined with stainless steel split‐sleeves and retrieved from the outer core barrel using a sub‐assembly latching tool and wire cable. The NQ‐3 method cuts a 3‐inch diameter boring and approximately 1¾‐inch diameter rock core. A 5‐foot long core barrel and a synthetic diamond drill bit were utilized for coring. The drilling circulation fluid consisted primarily of water with minor addition of an inert mud polymer. Core runs were generally advanced in 2 to 5 feet increments depending upon core recovery.





The bedrock materials encountered in the core boring was logged by an AMEC California licensed Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG) or Professional Geologist (PG). Rock lithology and discontinuities were described in accordance with a classification system (with minor modification) outlined in the Engineering Geology Field Manual (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1998). Review of the rock core was conducted by an AMEC CEG in the laboratory. The rock cores collected from individual runs were photographed in their respective core boxes inside AMEC core storage facility. Summary logs of the rock core borings are provided in Appendix A and rock core photographs are presented in Appendix B.

A.2.6 Sonic Core Borings

Sonic core borings were performed in the PE and Adv. PE phases. The sonic core borings were performed using sonic coring drilling equipment by Boart Longyear. Sonic drilling employs the use of high‐frequency, resonant energy to advance a core barrel or casing into subsurface formations. The sonic drilling method advances a casing as the borehole is drilled to prevent caving of the borehole. A 4‐inch diameter core barrel was used to retrieve samples. The drilling was performed in 5‐foot runs and the samples were collected in bags or 4‐inch diameter acrylic tubes.

For the ACE phase sonic core explorations, the entire core was collected in bags. For the PE phase sonic core explorations, samples within a depth range from 10 feet above the tunnel to 20 feet below the tunnel invert were collected in acrylic tubes; the samples outside of this zone were collected in bags. The soils encountered were logged by AMEC field personnel and the samples were transported to the AMEC laboratory for visual inspection, further logging of soil stratigraphy and for laboratory testing. During the visual inspection of bag and tube samples in the laboratory, AMEC personnel also took photographs of the samples and documented them. The photographs of the sonic core borings are also presented in the report.

Upon completion of drilling activities, the borings were backfilled with cement/bentonite mix and patched with asphalt concrete. Groundwater monitoring wells were also installed in select sonic core borings. Details of the groundwater well installation are presented in Appendix C of the report.

A.2.7 Cone Penetration Testing

Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) were performed in the PE and Adv. phases of the project. The CPTs were performed using a 30‐ton truck‐mounted CPT rig and a 15 cm2 piezocone (CPTu) with enhanced capability of measuring pore water pressures and seismic velocities. The subcontractors used for performing the CPTs for the PE phase were:

(1) Kehoe Testing and Engineering, Inc (Kehoe);

(2) Gregg Drilling and Testing, Inc (Gregg); and

(3) Fugro Consultants (Fugro).

The CPTs were terminated upon reaching the planned exploration depth or upon reaching refusal from hard subsurface conditions. When time permitted, pore pressure dissipation tests were performed at depths below the expected groundwater level to evaluate the static piezometric pressure and to estimate the groundwater level in selected CPTs. Downhole seismic velocity measurements were collected in several of the CPTs at 5‐foot intervals. Upon completion of the CPTs, the holes were


May 22, 2013


Page A-8

backfilled with cement bentonite mix, unless the boring was converted into a groundwater monitoring well.

A.2.8 BAT® Groundwater/Gas Sampling in CPTs

BAT® groundwater sampling CPTs were performed in the PE phase of the project. The BAT® procedure allows obtaining of groundwater samples while maintaining the in‐situ pressure so that the dissolved gases will not evolve from the groundwater prior to the laboratory testing.

The BAT® groundwater monitoring system (BAT‐GMS) sampling is performed first by advancing the CPT to the desired sampling depth and then lowering the BAT® sampler down the CPT drill rods using an extension cable onto the BAT® filter tip. Then, by gravity, the double‐ended needle penetrates both the septum in the filter tip and the septum of the sample tube to collect both water and gas samples. The action of both the groundwater pressure and the suction in the sample tube draws groundwater and/or soil gas into the sample tube. Upon lifting the BAT® sampler, the flexible septa in both the filter tip and the sample tube automatically reseal. The liquid and/or gas sample is thereby kept hermetically sealed from the point of sampling to the laboratory. In each sampling run, water and/or gas samples can be collected in up to three 35 milliliter glass tubes.

The collected water samples were stored in an ice chest and transported to environmental labs for analytical testing. Analytical testing of gas tubes (no water/liquid) was performed by Air Technology, Inc. to determine concentrations of Ethane, Methane and Butane in soil gas. Analytical testing of water samples was performed by Orange Coast Analytical to determine concentrations of dissolved volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and fixed gases in groundwater. The results of the analytical testing are presented in the report.

A.2.9 Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Groundwater wells were installed in select geotechnical borings in the ACE, PE and 2012 Adv. PE phases. Monitoring wells were installed in additional sonic core boring S‐301during the 2013 Adv. PE phase. The purpose of the groundwater monitoring program was to measure the depth to groundwater for an extended period of time. The purpose of installing nested well pairs was to monitor partially or fully hydraulically isolated groundwater bearing intervals within the alluvial deposits (i.e., perched water zones or variable pressure zones at depth). In addition, some of the monitoring wells were also “developed” to permit collection of groundwater samples for water quality testing and to measure concentrations of gases collected in the headspace of the wells.

The groundwater monitoring wells were installed in accordance with requirements set forth in California Well Standards Bulletin 74‐90. The monitoring wells for the current exploration were installed using the following procedure:

The boring was drilled to its target depth; subsequently, the drilling mud was thinned to a level considered feasible by re‐circulating clean water through the boring, while using caution to prevent the borehole from caving.

1‐ and/or 2‐inch diameter, Schedule‐40 PVC pipes with a screened (slotted) depth interval were lowered into the borings. The monitoring well details are provided in Appendix C of the report.





Monterey #3 sand filter pack sand was then placed in the annular space between the PVC pipe and the soil to a depth range from approximately two feet above the top of the screened depth interval to two feet below the bottom of the screened interval.

Bentonite pellets were placed in the annular space, from the top of the sand filter pack up to the depth of installation for the upper well screen and casing. The bentonite pellets were hydrated in place. The placement of the sand filter pack and bentonite pellet placement was similar for the upper well placement.

Traffic‐rated flush‐mounted well‐head boxes were installed above the PVC well casing riser and cap. The boxes were set approximately ½ to 1 inch above grade and set in concrete to prevent surface water accumulation.

Well installation and construction details for monitoring wells installed are presented in well construction diagrams included in the report. The groundwater wells installed in the ACE, PE and Adv. PE phases were monitored from 2009 through 20122013. The monitoring data is included in the report.

A.3 SUBSURFACE GAS EXPLORATIONS A.3.1 Gas Monitoring Wells

Gas monitoring wells installed in the ACE, PE and 2012/2013 Adv. PE phases of the project. Well locations were chosen in consultation with Metro and Parsons Brinckerhoff and were typically selected to be in areas where information on methane and hydrogen sulfide gases was needed.

The monitoring wells were installed by first drilling the boreholes to the required depth using a hollow‐stem auger drilling technique. However, gas monitoring wells also installed in few of the borings that were drilling using rotary‐wash drilling technique. When drilling mud wa used for drilling, the mud was flushed out with water prior to the installation of the wells.

The monitoring well installations typically consisted of two nested soil gas probes and two PVC standpipes within a single boring. The soil gas probes were installed at shallower depths above the groundwater level encountered at the time of drilling. The PVC standpipes were typically screened at, and below, the proposed depth of the tunnel. This configuration provided a means of measuring soil gas concentrations and pressures within the vadose zone, as well as concentrations of gases dissolved in groundwater at the depths of proposed tunneling. The standpipe installations allowed relatively large quantities of groundwater to be purged prior to sample collection, as well as collection of large volume of water samples for analysis. Both of these capabilities were considered important with respect to the accurate measurement of dissolved hydrogen sulfide levels. The gas sampling probes consisted of 1/4‐inch diameter polyethylene tubing with a 6‐inch long stainless steel screen attached at the bottom. The standpipes typically consisted of 2‐inch diameter PVC casings with 5‐ to 10‐foot long screened sections. A traffic‐rated well box was set in concrete at the surface to house and protect the installations.

The gas monitoring wells were installed by AMEC’s subcontractors, Jet Drilling, Inc., Martini Drilling Inc., and Gregg Drilling and Testing, Inc. The drillers provided services under direct supervision of a licensed geologist. In most cases, a dual casing nested well was installed in an 11.25‐inch outside diameter (OD) hole with 5‐ to 10‐foot long screens. A few of the wells consisted of a single 2‐inch diameter PVC casing placed in a 7.25‐inch diameter hole (with 10‐ to 20‐foot long screened intervals in the casing). The specific well configuration (i.e. number of gas probes, depth of gas probes, number of standpipes, and


May 22, 2013


Page A-10

depth of screened intervals) was determined in the field by the geologist based on the conditions that were logged at the time of installation. Samples of soil were retrieved during drilling at 5‐foot intervals using a Standard Penetration Test barrel to enable lithologic description. Stratigraphic logs and installation schematics for each monitoring well are included in the report. An effort was made to place standpipe screens within saturated zones present near the invert of the proposed tunnel and stations. The screen intervals were adjusted at some locations to avoid oil or tar‐bearing sands.

The standpipes were immediately sealed (with a PVC cap, equipped with a ¼‐inch tubing and a quick connect fitting for head‐space gas measurement) following their installation and subsequently developed using nitrogen air lift methods to reduce introduction of oxygen to the subsurface. The introduction of nitrogen into the casing prevented any additional atmospheric oxygen from entering the standpipe during the development process. The standpipes were purged in this manner until the effluent water was relatively clear and without observable suspended solids or sediment.

A.3.2 Sampling Procedures

The following types of sampling and monitoring were performed:

1. Gas concentrations were measured in the standpipes (head‐space measurement) and gas probes using hand‐held detectors. The gas pressure in the probe or standpipe was also measured along with the barometric pressure.

2. Confirmatory gas samples were collected for analysis at a state‐certified laboratory.

3. The groundwater levels in the standpipes were measured.

4. Groundwater samples were collected for analysis of dissolved gases, hydrocarbons, metals, and other substances.

5. Large volume groundwater samples were collected for extraction and analysis of dissolved gases from PE phase wells.

The concentrations of methane, hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide in each standpipe and gas probe were measured and recorded during the monitoring events using hand‐held infrared gas analyzers (such as Landtec GEM‐200 Plus or GA‐90 and/or Qrae Plus). The gas probe pressures and the barometric pressure were also recorded during each monitoring event. The gas pressure within the standpipe or gas probe was initially measured using a Magnehelic gauge with a resolution of approximately 0.05 inch of water. This measurement was typically made through a quick‐connect fitting that was fixed to the standpipe or gas probe to prevent the loss of gas and potential dissipation of pressure. A multi‐gas infrared analyzer was then connected to the installation through a quick‐connect fitting. The gas analyzer contained an integral pump that extracted gas from the installation at the rate of approximately 500 cubic centimeters per minute during sampling. The methane, hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide levels were monitored continuously while a minimum of one liter of gas was purged from the installation. Significant variations in the indicated gas concentrations generally did not occur during measurement. In each case, the highest indicated gas concentration was recorded. If the recorded highest hydrogen sulfide was in excess of 100 ppm, then a confirmatory reading was obtained using a Draeger tube sampler. In some cases, the gas probes could not be sampled due to accumulation of tar or perched groundwater at the tip depth.





At selected locations, gas samples were collected in Tedlar bags for analysis at a state‐certified laboratory.

Following the pressure and gas concentration measurements, the caps were removed from the standpipes and the groundwater level was measured using a conductivity‐based water level indicator. For some of the standpipes that were installed in the vicinity of the La Brea Tar Pits, oil or tar accumulation prevented the groundwater levels from being recorded.

A.3.3 Sampling of Groundwater for Analysis of Dissolved Gases

After standpipes were developed and purged, groundwater samples were collected for fixed lab analysis of dissolved hydrogen sulfide, methane, and other gases (CO2, ethane, etc.). In some cases groundwater samples were collected for analyses of volatile organic compounds, metals, and other substances per the request of Parsons Brinckerhoff/Metro. A dedicated pneumatic pump was installed in each standpipe to facilitate collection of groundwater samples for dissolved gas analysis. The pumps were driven with compressed nitrogen to prevent introduction of air (oxygen) into the standpipes. The nitrogen feed and groundwater effluent lines for in‐casing pumps extended to gas‐tight fittings at the standpipe cap such that the installations could be purged, and groundwater samples could be collected, without removing the caps. The groundwater samples were collected in sealed, clear, Schedule 40 PVC sampling containers that were 18‐inches long by 2‐inches in diameter. A gas‐tight quick‐connect fitting on one end of the container was connected to the pump discharge line at the well cap. Another gas‐tight quick‐connect fitting on the other end of the container was connected to an adjustable back‐pressure valve. Prior to sampling, the valve was adjusted to maintain a back‐pressure equivalent to the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom of the standpipe. Several volumes of groundwater were then purged through the container using the nitrogen driven pneumatic pump. After a minimum of three casing volumes was pumped through the sampling container, the quick‐connect fittings were detached and the container was transported to a State‐certified laboratory under chain‐of‐custody protocol. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in the report.

A.3.4 Dissolved Gas Extraction

Relatively large volume groundwater samples were collected from the standpipes in 5 to 10 liter Tedlar bags. The bags were evacuated and sealed prior to sample collection. The groundwater was purged from the standpipes using the same dedicated nitrogen‐driven pneumatic pumps described above. The groundwater was maintained at, or above, its in‐situ hydrostatic pressure until it entered the Tedlar bag. Once filled, the sealed bag was transported to a fixed laboratory and placed in a vacuum chamber. The pressure in the chamber was reduced to less than 1% of atmospheric pressure and the dissolved gases in the sample were allowed to evolve over a period of several hours. At that point, atmospheric pressure was restored and the volume of accumulated gas was measured. The evolved gas was then extracted from the Tedlar bag using a large volume syringe and injected into a train of infrared gas analyzers to quantify methane, hydrogen sulfide, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. The results of this testing are presented in the report.

A.4 HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS An aquifer pumping test was performed at Wilshire/La Cienega station in the PE phase to provide information for planning temporary ground water pumping during station excavation. An aquifer


May 22, 2013


Page A-12

pumping test was also performed at Wilshire/La Brea Station during the 2013 Adv. PE phase investigation. An aquifer pumping test is planned at Wilshire/Western shaft.

As part of the pumping test at Wilshire/La Cienega Station, three wells (P‐101, OB‐102, OB‐103) were installed at the station. The data from the pumping test were used to estimate hydraulic parameters of the aquifer in the area of the proposed excavation and for estimating flow rates, evaluating dewatering options, and to provide design parameters for a dewatering program. The details of the pumping test and the results are presented in Geotechnical and Environmental Report (Metro, 2011).

As part of the pumping test at Wilshire/La Brea Station, three wells (P‐305, OB‐304, OB‐305) were installed at the station. The data from the pumping test were used to estimate hydraulic parameters of the aquifer in the area of the proposed excavation and for estimating flow rates, evaluating dewatering options, and to provide design parameters for a dewatering program. The details of the pumping test and the results are presented in Appendix I of this report.

5 - 82 - 4

SILT & CLAY

LooseVery Loose

3 - 78 - 1314 - 2325 - 47Over 47 Hard

Very StiffStiff

Medium StiffSoft

Very Soft

SPT Sampler (140-lb hammer, 30-inch drop)

BouldersCobblesCoarseFineCoarse

GRAVELSAND

Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - claymixtures.

GW

NV

PMT

Very DenseDense

Medium Dense17 - 4748 - 77Over 77

0 - 2TAR IMPACTED SOILS

SAND & GRAVELNo. of Blows

0 - 45 - 1011 - 3031 - 50Over 50 Very Dense

DenseMedium Dense

Loose

Relative DensityVery Loose

No. of Blows0 - 1

ConsistencyVery Soft

SoftMedium Stiff

StiffVery Stiff

HardOver 3016 - 309 - 15

SILT OR CLAYFine Medium

12"3"3/4"No.4No.10No.40No.200U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE

0 - 7

Reference: The Unified Soil Classification System, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army TechnicalMemorandum No. 3-357, Vol. 1, March, 1953 (Revised April, 1960)

Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands,little or no fines.

CL

Clayey sands, sand - clay mixtures.

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rockflour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayeysilts and with slight plasticity.Inorganic lays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays,lean clays.

Well graded gravels, gravel - sandmixtures, little or no fines.

Poorly graded gravels or grave - sandmixtures, little or no fines.

Auger Cuttings

Bulk Sample

Correlation of Penetration Resistancewith Relative Density and Consistency (continued)

ML

CH

MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUPSYMBOLS

SW

SP

No Recovery

Dilatometer

(Appreciableamount of fines)

COARSEGRAINED

SOILS(More than 50% of

material isLARGER than No.

200 sieve size)

FINEGRAINED

SOILS

Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little orno fines.

Crandall Sampler

Water Table at time of drilling

OL

(Little or no fines)

SANDS WITHFINES

GC

(Liquid limit LESS than 50)

0 - 5

CRANDALL Sampler (300-lb hammer, 18-inch drop)2

Silty sands, sand - silt mixtures

GP

GM

CLEANGRAVELS

(Little or no fines)

GRAVELSWITH FINES

(Appreciableamount of fines)

CLEANSANDS Correlation of Penetration Resistance

with Relative Density and Consistency

6 - 1112 - 3233 - 53Over 53

0 - 12 - 56 - 9

10 - 1617 - 32Over 32

SAND & GRAVEL SILT & CLAYNo. of Blows Consistency

Very SoftSoft

Medium StiffStiff


2For sampling performed by C & L Rig #1

Very StiffHard

0 - 42 - 45 - 89 - 1415 - 29Over 29

SAND & GRAVEL SILT & CLAYConsistencyVery Soft

SoftMedium Stiff

StiffVery Stiff

Hard

No. of BlowsRelative DensityVery Loose

LooseMedium Dense

DenseVery Dense

No. of Blows

Relative DensityVery Loose

LooseMedium Dense

DenseVery Dense

No. of Blows

5 - 1011 - 2930- 47

Over 47

0 - 1

6 - 1213 - 3637 - 60Over 60

0 - 23 - 56 - 1011 - 1819 - 36Over 36

SAND & GRAVEL SILT & CLAYNo. of Blows Consistency

Very SoftSoft

Medium StiffStiff

Very StiffHard

Medium DenseLoose

DenseVery Dense

0 - 5Relative Density

Very LooseNo. of Blows

SAND & GRAVEL SILT & CLAYNo. of Blows

(More than 50% ofmaterial is

SMALLER thanNo. 200 sieve size)

Split Spoon Sample

Undisturbed Sample

SILTS AND CLAYS(Liquid limit GREATER than 50)

Pressuremeter

MH

Organic silts and organic silty clays of lowplasticity.Inorganic silts, micaceous ordiatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,elastic silts.

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

SILTS AND CLAYS

Noise/Vibration

(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction isSMALLER thanthe No. 4 Sieve

Size)

Silty gravels, gravel - sand - silt mixtures.

SANDS

(More than 50% ofcoarse fraction is

LARGER than theNo. 4 sieve size)

GRAVELS

SM

SC

Water Table after drilling

Rock Core

ConsistencyRelative DensityNo. of Blows

8 - 16Tar sand

BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATIONS: Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated bycombinations of group symbols.

TYPICAL NAMES


NOTES:


3For sampling performed by C & L Rig #2 prior to 3/8/20114For sampling performed by C & L Rig #2 after 3/8/2011

Figure A-1.1

KEY TO SYMBOLS AND DESCRIPTIONSFOR GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION LOGS

1For sampling performed by Tri-County in 2011 and 2013, Fugro Rigs in 2011, C&L Rigs in 2012 and 2013, and Martini in 2012 and 2013.

hari.ponnaboyina

Polygon

11-inch thick Asphalt Concrete over 4-inch thick Base Course

FILL [Af]SANDY LEAN CLAY - moist, dark gray to black, very finesand, some organic odor, small rootlets

Becomes dark brown, fine to medium sand, trace asphalt andbrick fragments

QUATERNARY OLDER ALLUVIUM [Qalo]SANDY LEAN CLAY - moist, light brown, fine sand

Becomes brown, fine to coarse sand

SILTY SAND - very loose, moist, brown, fine tomedium-grained

LAKEWOOD FORMATION [Qlw]SANDY LEAN CLAY - medium stiff, moist, light brownish todark bluish gray, fine to medium sand, some interbeddedSILTY SAND layers

Becomes light brown

ELASTIC SILT with SAND - medium stiff, moist, lightgreenish gray with trace olive gray mottling, fine to coarsesand, some calcium carbonate nodules

Becomes very stiff, pale olive to light brownish gray, fine sand,some calcium carbonate nodules

SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, bluish to greenish gray, fineto medium sand, trace coarse, some calcium carbonatenodules, some clay, trace fine gravel (up to 3/8 inch in size)

SANDY SILT with GRAVEL - very stiff, moist, greenish grayto dark bluish gray, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel (up to 3/4inch in size), some calcium carbonate nodules

6

12

25

-

102

-

94

-

95

-

9

8

20

26

18.8

21.9

21.5

28.0

25.6

27.7

25.3

80

62

52

CL

CL

SM

CL

MH

ML

ML

3.0

5.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.

Sta 478+35, Lt 10 feet (WilshireBlvd, West of La Brea)HOLE DIAMETER8 inches

GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**

Ground-water level measured at 17.05 feet below the ground surface inmonitoring well on 6/11/2013. See last page of this boring log for details.

BOREHOLE LOCATION

DRILLING COMPANY/DRILLING EQUIPMENT

196 feet

C & L Drilling / Mayhew 1000

DRILLING METHODRotary Wash

DATES DRILLED5/7/2013 - 5/8/2013

GROUND-WATER READINGS

OB-304

(CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING FIGURE)

Figure: A-1.4.3aMTA Westside Subway Extension

Los Angeles, California Project No.: 4953-11-1423

EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Field Tech: ARPrepared/Date: JF 6/11/2013Checked/Date: LT/HP 7/22/2013

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

PM

T

SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, greenish gray, fine tomedium sand, some coarse, trace fine gravel

SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, dark bluish gray, some clay,fine sand

SAN PEDRO FORMATION [Qsp]SILTY SAND - dense, very moist, greenish to dark bluishgray, fine to medium-grained

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT - very dense, verymoist to wet, greenish gray, fine to medium-grained

Some bluish gray

Trace fine gravel (up to 1/4 inch in size)

Occasional fine gravel, trace manganese stains at bottom ofsample

SILTY SAND - very dense, very moist, greenish gray, fine tomedium-grained, trace fine gravel

36

54

78/11"

77/11"

110

-

98

-

105

-

108

-

29

53

67

58

17.9

25.5

31.0

19.2

20.4

17.5

19.5

12.0

8

ML

ML

SM

SP-SM

SM

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

2.0

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet



DATES DRILLED5/7/2013 - 5/8/2013


(Continued)

OB-304


Figure: A-1.4.3bMTA Westside Subway Extension


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

155

150

145

140

135

130

125

120

DE

PT

H (

ft)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

PM

TP

MT

Thin layer of Well Graded Sand with Silt at top of sample,dense, wet, dark greenish gray, fine to coarse-grained, somemanganese stains

Very fine-grained, abundant shell fragmentsFERNANDO FORMATION [Tf]SILTSTONE - hard, moist, dark greenish gray, trace very finesand, some clay, unoxidized, some manganese stains, traceiron oxide stains

END OF BORING AT 102 FEET

NOTES:Hand augered upper 6 feet to avoid damage to utilities.Monitoring well was installed on 5/8/2013. See wellconstruction diagram for OB-304.

"N" Value Standard Penetration Test: Number of blows required to drive the SPT sampler 18 inches using a 140 pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches

*Number of blows required to drive the Crandall Sampler 12 inches using a 140 pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches

**Photo Ionization Detector used for OVA readings

Downhole Test: PMT = Pressuremeter

66

58

109

-

86

82

14.9

19.5

35.9

12

98

110.0

15.0

0.0

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet



DATES DRILLED5/7/2013 - 5/8/2013


(Continued)

OB-304

Figure: A-1.4.3cMTA Westside Subway Extension


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

DE

PT

H (

ft)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

FILL [Af]SILT- stiff, moist, black, some clay

LAKEWOOD FORMATION [Qlw]LEAN CLAY - stiff, moist, dark yellowish brown, some finesandFAT CLAY - soft to medium stiff, very moist, dark yellowishbrown

CLAYEY SAND - loose, moist, dark yellowish brown, fine tomedium-grained, trace coarse

LEAN CLAY - stiff, moist, pale olive to olive, trace fine sand

SILT with SAND - very stiff, wet, light olive brown, fine tomedium sand, trace coarse, some clay

CLAYEY SAND - medium dense, wet, light olive brown, fineto medium-grained

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

10

4

5

9

9

11

16

28

20.7

10.2

27.5

12.3

15.7

17.1

-

22.7

19.8

48

ML

CL

CH

SC

CL

ML

SC

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.

Sta 478+20, Rt 50 feet (5301Wilshire Blvd)HOLE DIAMETER11 inches

GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet

Martini Drilling / CME 75

DRILLING METHODHollow Stem Auger

DATES DRILLED5/28/2013- 5/29/2013


P-305/E-110B




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Field Tech: IC/PKPrepared/Date: LH 6/18/2013Checked/Date: LT/HP 7/22/2013

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, wet, olive

SANDY SILT - very stiff, wet, dark greenish gray, fine sand

Trace fine gravel

SAN PEDRO FORMATION [Qsp]ELASTIC SILT - very stiff, moist, dark bluish gray, some finesand, some clay

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT - very dense, wet, darkgreenish gray, trace gravel, fine to medium grained

Becomes dark yellowish gray

Trace coarse, trace fine gravel (up to ½ inch in size)

Trace gravel

33

45

54

61

-

-

-

87

-

99

-

105

-

117

-

21

16

27

20

12

19

68

23.0

26.0

15.6

36.7

-

20.1

-

17.9

-

9.6

8.9

11

SP

ML

MH

SP-SM

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet



DATES DRILLED5/28/2013- 5/29/2013


(Continued)

P-305/E-110B




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

155

150

145

140

135

130

125

120

DE

PT

H (

ft)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

FERNANDO FORMATION [Tf]SILTSTONE - moist, dark olive gray, some clay, some veryfine sand

END OF BORING AT 90½ FEET

NOTES:Hand augered upper 6 feet to avoid damage to utilities.Monitoring well was installed on 5/29/2013. See wellconstruction diagram for P-305.




48

37

90

-

85

46

34.0

13.4

33.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet



DATES DRILLED5/28/2013- 5/29/2013


(Continued)

P-305/E-110B



EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

DE

PT

H (

ft)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

11-inch thick Asphalt Concrete over 3-inch thick PortlandCement concrete and 3-inch thick Base CourseFILL [Af]FAT CLAY - moist, light gray to black, abundant rootlets,slight organic smell

LAKEWOOD FORMATION [Qlw]SANDY LEAN CLAY - medium stiff to stiff, moist, dark olivegray, fine sandBecomes yellowish brown

Sand layers at 10 to 10.5 feet

Becomes light brownish gray to olive, some manganese stains,some calcium carbonate nodules, layers of Clayey Sand, fineto coarse-grained, some fine gravel (up to 3/8 inch in size)

Becomes olive to olive gray, some fine sand, abundant calciumcarbonate nodules

Becomes very stiff

FAT CLAY - stiff, moist to wet, pale olive

SILTY SAND - medium dense, moist, olive, fine to mediumgrained, some fine gravel (up to ¼ inch in size), trace clay,trace iron oxide stains

SANDY SILT - stiff, moist to wet, olive, fine to medium, tracefine gravel

Increased medium to coarse sand content

SANDY LEAN CLAY - very stiff, moist to wet, pale olive, fineto medium sand, some calcium carbonate nodules, tracecemented layers

13

20

17

18

36

-

106

-

108

-

96

-

-

95

-

-

106

6

14

10

20

10

9

15

-

19.1

-

17.2

-

26.3

-

-

27.7

-

-

18.4

49

29

CH

CL

CH

SM

ML

CL

0.0

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet



DATES DRILLED5/31/2013


OB-306/E-110C/G-315




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160

DE

PT

H (

ft)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

Becomes stiff

Becomes light olive, fine sand, trace iron oxide stainsCLAYEY SAND - medium dense to dense, very moist, olive,fine to medium-grained, trace coarse, some silt, trace ironoxide stains

SAN PEDRO FORMATION [Qsp]ELASTIC SILT - very stiff to hard, very moist, very darkgreenish gray

(SPT samples from depths of 53 to 86.5 feet were sent toenvironmental laboratories for analytical testing)

POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, wet, darkgreenish gray, fine to medium-grained

Becomes very dense

57

62

-

113

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12

23

23

17

24

13

86/11"

69

-

12.8

-

13.9

-

-

-

-

-

-

26 SC

MH

SP

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet





(Continued)

OB-306/E-110C/G-315




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

155

150

145

140

135

130

125

120

DE

PT

H (

ft)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

Trace gravel

END OF BORING AT 86½ FEET

NOTES:

Hand augered upper 6 feet to avoid damage to utilities.Monitoring well was installed on 5/29/2013. See wellconstruction diagram for OB-306.




-

-

78

50/6"

-

-

0.1

0.2

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

ES

TD

.PE

N.T

ES

T

SA

MPL

E L

OC

.


GROUND EL.

MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PE

RC

EN

T P

ASS

ING

No.

200

SIE

VE

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


196 feet





(Continued)

OB-306/E-110C/G-315



EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

DE

PT

H (

ft)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115


TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13


APPENDIX E LABORATORY TESTING

Description of Laboratory Testing Figure E‐1.1: Direct Shear Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐1.2: Direct Shear Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐1.3: Direct Shear Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐1.4: Direct Shear Test Results (Prior Projects) Figure E‐2.1: Triaxial Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐2.2: Triaxial Test Results (Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐3.1: Consolidation Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐3.2: Consolidation Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐3.3: Consolidation Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐3.4: Consolidation Test Results (Prior Projects) Figure E‐4.1: Hydroconsolidation Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐4.2: Hydroconsolidation Test Results (Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐5.1: Particle Size Distribution Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐5.2: Particle Size Distribution Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐5.3: Particle Size Distribution Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐6.1: Atterberg Limits Test Results (ACE Phase) Figure E‐6.2: Atterberg Limits Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐6.3: Atterberg Limits Test Results (2012/2013 Adv. PE Phase) Figure E‐6.4: Atterberg Limits Test Results (Prior Projects) Figure E‐7.1: Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results (PE Phase) Figure E‐7.2: Unconfined Compression Strength Test Results (Adv. PE Phase)


Appendix E – Laboratory Testing

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T Page E-1 Amendment 2 September 16, 2013 May 22, 2013

E LABORATORY TESTING

The following descriptions of laboratory procedures and methods are applicbale for the entire Section 1 of the Westside Subway Extension project and hence are not repeated in the reports for other stations or tunnel reaches.

E.1 Geotechnical Testing

Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings to aid in the classification of the soils and to determine pertinent engineering properties of the soils. A list of the laboratory tests performed on the samples is presented in Table E‐1.

Table E-1: Laboratory Tests Performed for ACE, PE and Adv. PE Phases

Laboratory Test Laboratory ASTM Designation

(or) other ACE Phase

PE Phase Adv. PE Phase

Field Moisture Content AMEC/AP Engineering D 2216 X X X

Field Dry Density AMEC/AP Engineering D 2937 X X X

Sieve Analysis AMEC/AP Engineering D 422 X X X

Passing No. 200 Sieve AMEC/AP Engineering D 1140 X X X

Atterberg Limits AMEC/AP Engineering D 4318 X X X

Tar Content AMEC Modified D 6307 - X X

Direct Shear AMEC/AP Engineering D 3080 X X X

Consolidation AMEC/AP Engineering D 2435 X X X

Expansion/Collapse AMEC/AP Engineering D 2435 - X X

Triaxial Unconsolidated-Drained AP Engineering D 4767 - X X

Soil Abrasion University of Texas, Austin NTNU-SINTEF - X X

Specific Gravity AMEC D 854 - X X

Corrosion HDR-Schiff Associates Caltrans method X X X

Unconfined Compression AP Engineering D 2166 - X

Creep Geokinetics D 7181 and D 5202 - - X

Gas/Water Permeability Geokinetics D 2434-68R06, D 4525, and D 5084 - - X

Tar Density/Viscosity Geokinetics D 1298, D 1475, D 445, and D 341 - - X

Petrographic Analysis Maxxam

Dean Stark Analysis (tar content and saturation percent

by weight) Tar Viscosity (ASTM D445), Flashpoint (ASTM D 92) and Hydrocarbon Identification

- - X

Cyclic Simple Shear GeoTesting D 6528 - - X

Resonant Column and Torsional Shear University of Texas, Austin - - - X

Field Moisture Content and Dry Density

Field moisture content and dry density of undisturbed ring and pitcher tube samples were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM D 2216. For disturbed samples obtained from SPT sampling and


May 22, 2013 Page E-2

Geotechnical Data Report –Wilshire/La Brea Station Appendix E – Laboratory Testing

sonic core borings, only moisture content was determined. The results of the tests are shown on the boring logs and in the lab summary tables included in the report.

Sieve Analysis and Passing No. 200 Sieve

Sieve analysis and tests to determine the percentage of fines (material passing through No. 200 sieve) were performed on selected samples collected from the rotary‐wash and sonic core borings to determine the size of the different particles in the samples, in accordance with ASTM D 422. The percentage of fines passing No. 200 sieve is shown to the left on the boring logs. The gradation curves obtained from sieve tests are presented in the report. The percentage of fines, sand, and gravel in each sample tested are presented in lab summary tables included in the report.

Atterberg Limits

Atterberg Limits were performed on selected samples collected from rotary‐wash borings and sonic core borings to determine the plasticity of the materials in accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of the tests are presented in the report. The summary of the test results (liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index) are presented in lab summary tables included in the report.

Tar Content

Tar content tests were performed to determine the percentage of tar in the tar‐impacted soil samples collected from the borings. An ASTM standard for determining tar content on soil samples was not available. Therefore, a modified version of ASTM D 6307 (Asphalt Content of Hot‐Mix Asphalt by Ignition Method) was used. About 600 grams of sample were placed in steel pans, weighed, and put in an oven. The temperature of the oven was set to 250 degrees Fahrenheit and the sample was left in the oven for about 24 hours. During this period, the majority of the fluids (water and volatile compounds) from the samples evaporated. The sample was removed from the oven and weighed to estimate its moisture content. Next, the sample was placed in a sample tray with a catch pan and the initial weight was recorded before placing it in an N‐Cat oven. The temperature inside the oven was set to 995 degrees Fahrenheit to burn off the tar and other hydrocarbons present in the sample. The N‐cat oven has an automatic read out for sample weight during the burning process. When the dry weight reached a nearly constant value, the tray was removed from the oven and weighed to estimate the percentage of tar content in the sample. The tar content represents the percentage of tar by weight of the total dry weight of soil. The results of the tar content tests are presented in the report.

For purposes of classifying the soil samples based on the percentage of tar content, a classification system was developed as presented in Table E‐2.

Table E‐2: Tar Content Classification

Tar Content Classification

< 5% Slightly Infused Tar

5% ‐ 15% Moderately Infused Tar

>15% Saturated with Tar




This scheme was used in classifying the remaining tar‐impacted samples in which tar content tests were not performed. The percentage of tar was estimated for the boring logs based on visual inspection and using the qualifiers presented in the above table.

Direct Shear

Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples obtained from rotary‐wash borings to determine the strength of the soils in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The tests were performed after soaking to near‐saturated moisture content and at three surcharge pressures. The yield‐point values determined from the tests were taken as the shear strength of the sample. The direct shear test results are presented in the report.

The determination of the yield point on a stress‐strain curve is subjective and could vary between two different users. Some examples of how the yield values are picked are illustrated in the figure below. For stress‐strain curve 1, the yield point is picked on the initial straight‐line portion of the curve; for curve 2, the yield point is picked at the first yield beyond which the strength behavior becomes non‐linear; for curve 3, the yield point is picked at a shear strain of 5 percent.

The rate of shearing varied depending on the type of soil tested (fine‐grained versus granular material). The rate of shearing was estimated using the time‐consolidation rate reading taken from one‐


May 22, 2013 Page E-4


dimensional laboratory consolidation tests performed in accordance with ASTM D 2435. The rate of shearing for different materials is listed in Table E‐3.

Table E‐3: Direct Shear Rate of Shearing

Test Material Rate of Shearing

(inch/minute) Test Duration

(minutes)

Fine-Grained 0.01 45

Coarse-Grained 0.02 25

Tar Sand 0.005 100

Petroliferous Silt/Clay 0.002 180

Consolidation

Confined consolidation tests were performed on undisturbed (ring) samples obtained from rotary‐wash borings to determine the compressibility of the soils in accordance with ASTM D 2435. Water was added to the samples during the tests to illustrate the effect of moisture on the compressibility. The results of the tests are presented in the report. The estimated compression and the recompression indices are presented in lab summary tables included in the report.

Expansion/Collapse

In addition to the confined consolidation tests, “quick” consolidation tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples obtained from rotary‐wash borings to determine the hydrocompaction potential of the soils in accordance with ASTM D 2435. The tests were performed by confining the sample under a surcharge pressure of 1,800 pounds per square foot, allowing the sample to consolidate at its field moisture content, and then saturating the sample and measuring the consolidation resulting from the addition of water. The estimated expansion/collapse potential as percentage of test sample height are presented in lab summary tables included in the report.

Triaxial Consolidation-Undrained

Triaxial consolidated‐undrained (CU) tests with pore pressure measurements were performed on selected undisturbed samples obtained from rotary‐wash borings to determine the strength of the soils in accordance with ASTM D 4767. A three‐stage load test method was used by testing the sample at three confining pressures. The results of the tests are presented in the report. The estimate cohesion and friction angle for each sample tested are presented in lab summary tables included in the report.

Unconfined Compression

Unconfined compression strength (UCS) tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples of siltstone bedrock of the Fernando Formation to determine the strength of the soils in accordance with ASTM D 2166. The estimated UCS value in pounds per square inch (psi) is presented in lab summary tables included in the report.




Soil Abrasion

Soil abrasion testing (SAT) was performed on selected samples of predominately granular material collected from sonic core borings. Samples obtained from rotary‐wash borings did not provide sufficient quantity of sample to perform abrasion testing. The soil abrasion tests were performed in accordance with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) test procedure by the rock mechanics laboratory at the University of Texas, Austin.

The SAT method was developed by the NTNU and the associated SINTEF organization as a modification of the Abrasion Value Steel (AVS) test. The purpose of the test is to quantify the abrasivity of soils in soft ground tunneling. The test consists of measuring the weight loss in a steel piece caused by soil grinding. Transported by a wheel that rotates at 20 revolutions per minute, the soil passes underneath the test piece, which is subject to one kilogram (about 2.5 pounds) of soil or rock. The SAT value is the weight loss in milligrams (e.g., SAT = 5 means that the steel test piece lost 5 milligrams (mg) after 20 revolutions. Therefore, a higher SAT value indicates that the soil or rock is more abrasive.

Based on the NTNU/SINTEF test database, a classification of abrasivity of soil and rock was developed by the University of Texas, Austin, as presented in Table E‐4, to provide guidance on evaluating the SAT test values.

Table E‐4: Classification of Abrasivity of Soil and Rock

Abrasivity Category SAT Value

Extremely Low < 1

Very Low 2 – 3

Low 4 – 12

Medium 13 – 25

High 26 – 35

Very High 36 – 44

Extremely High > 45

The results of the abrasion tests are presented in lab summary tables included in the report.

Corrosion

To evaluate the potential for deleterious effects of the on‐site soils on structural concrete and steel and on metal piping, chemical testing was performed on selected soil samples from rotary‐wash and sonic core borings. The corrosion tests were performed by HDR‐Schiff Associates. The results of the corrosion tests are presented in the report. The pH, sulfate and chloride content and minimum resistivity of samples tests are summarized in the lab summary tables included in the report.

The corrosion test results were reviewed for each station, and a separate report for each station summarizing the test results, conclusions regarding the corrosivity, and recommendations for mitigation procedures were prepared by HDR‐Schiff Associates. The corrosion mitigation reports are included as an appendix in the reports.


May 22, 2013 Page E-6


Creep

Drained triaxial tests were performed on three relatively undisturbed samples of tar‐impacted sand to establish the creep characteristics of that material. The samples tested were from the borings drilled at the location of the exploratory shaft planned to the southeast of the proposed Wilshire/Fairfax Station.

The tests were performed under constant stress conditions in substantial conformance with ASTM D7181‐11 and D5202‐08 protocol. Each sample was confined at its estimated in‐situ lateral pressure and loaded with a deviator stress corresponding to 80 percent of the estimated short‐term peak strength. The estimated peak strength was based upon consolidated‐drained triaxial tests performed previously on other samples collected from the site. For the creep tests, the deviator stress was progressively increased over a period of approximately 48‐hours until the 80 percent stress level was attained. The deviator stress was maintained at the 80 percent stress level for a minimum of 48 hours during which the axial deformation of the sample was periodically recorded with a resolution of 0.001 inches. If the sample exhibited ongoing creep during this period, the deviator stress was maintained at the 80 percent level until the steady state rate of deformation was established. If the sample did not exhibit creep deformation, or once the rate of creep had been established, the deviator stress was increased by 5 percent and the process was repeated until failure of the sample occurred.

The results are presented in graphical form as a plot of the steady state creep rate (percent strain per day) against the stress level (100 percent x imposed stress / short term peak strength) in the report.

Gas and Water Conductivity

Conductivity or permeability testing were conducted on two relatively undisturbed samples of tar‐impacted sand using both water and methane. The samples tested were from the borings drilled at the location of the exploratory shaft planned to the southeast of the proposed Wilshire/Fairfax Station.

The tests will be performed in a triaxial cell under confining pressures comparable to in‐situ conditions in substantial conformance with ASTM D2434‐68R06, D4525‐08, and D5084‐03 protocol. The gas conductivity for each sample was initially determined using methane as the test fluid under a pressure gradient of 10 (centimeters of water pressure/centimeters of sample length). Once steady state flow rates have been established, the procedure was repeated using water as the test fluid. The steady state was reached in about 5 days for the methane conductivity test and hydraulic conductivity test was performed for 20 days. The permeability test sheets are included in the report.

Tar Density and Viscosity

The tar density and viscosity tests were performed on samples of tar‐impacted sands from select borings. A plot of kinematic viscosity versus temperature for test samples is presented in the report. The tar density test results are presented in the report.

Cyclic Direct Simple Shear

Consolidated undrained cyclic direct simple shear tests were performed on samples of tar‐impacted soils to obtain modulus degradation and damping data. The tests were performed by GeoTesting Express. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 4767. The samples were consolidated at a given pressure prior to applying shear load. Cyclic shear load was applied at 2 Hertz (Hz) frequency at a given




cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and for a given number of cycles. A confining pressure of 25 pounds per square inch (psi) was applied to the sample prior shearing the sample.

Due to limited knowledge of cyclic behavior of tar‐impacted soils, three tests were performed on a sample from boring G‐123 at a depth of about 52 feet. The test conditions were adjusted to obtain as much data as possible in small (0.01 percent) to large strain (10 percent) range.

The first test was performed at a CSR of 0.25 and for 500 cycles which resulted in shear strains of about 1.5% to 11.2%. To obtain data at lower strains, the second test was performed at a CSR of 0.1 and for 500 cycles which resulted in shear strain of 0.2% to 0.5%. To obtain more complete data from small to large shear strains, third test was performed at different CSRs, starting from 0.1 to 0.3 at 0.025 increments. A composite modulus degradation and damping plots were generated based on the third test for shear strain range of 0.2% to 6%. The results of the cyclic direct simple shear tests are presented in the report.

Combined Resonant Column and Torsional Shear

A combined resonant column and torsional shear test (RCTS) was performed on a sample obtained at a depth of 40.5 feet from boring G‐311. The RCTS testing was performed by Prof. Kenneth Stokoe of University of Texas at Austin. The effect of confining pressure on shear modulus and damping were evaluated by testing the sample at confining pressures of 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 psi. To evaluate the effect of loading frequency, the samples were tested at different frequencies of 0.1 to 100 Hertz. Using the data, a composite modulus degradation and damping plots were generated. The results of the RCTS testing are presented in the report.

E.2 Subsurface Gas Testing

The samples of gas collected from soil gas wells were analyzed at a state‐certified laboratory for hydrogen sulfide, methane, longer chain hydrocarbons (e.g. butane, propane, etc.), and fixed gases using standard EPA testing procedures. The results of these analyses are presented in the report; the associated laboratory analytical reports are provided in Appendix G of the December 21, 2011 report (Metro, 2011).

For testing of groundwater sampled from the soil gas wells, the sampling container remained under pressure until the analytical laboratory extracted the water for analysis through the quick‐connect fittings. These groundwater samples were analyzed for dissolved methane, hydrogen sulfide, and other fixed gases using standard EPA analytical procedures. The results of these analyses are presented in the report; the associated laboratory analytical reports are provided in Appendix G of the December 21, 2011 report (Metro, 2011).

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

SHEAR STRENGTH in Pounds per Square Foot

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

SURCHARGE PRESSURE in Pounds per Square Foot

OB-304@90½

OB-304@90½

OB-304@90½

OB-304@10½

OB-304@10½

OB-304@30½

OB-304@30½

OB-304@30½

OB-304@50½

OB-304@50½

OB-304@50½

Boring Number andSample Depth (ft.)

Prepared/Date: LH 6/19/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/19/2013

Natural

Samples soaked to a moisture content near saturation

DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATAProject No.: 4953-11-1423

Figure E-1.3.3

Bedrock

Wilshire/La Brea Station

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000


12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

SU

RC

HA

RG

E P

RESSU

RE in P

ounds per

Squar

e Foot

P-305@57½

P-305@57½

P-305@57½

P-305@80½

P-305@80½

P-305@80½



Natural



Figure E-1.3.4


0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000


6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

SURCHARGE PRESSURE in Pounds per Square Foot

OB-306@20½

OB-306@20½

OB-306@20½

OB-306@27½

OB-306@27½

OB-306@27½

OB-306@37½

OB-306@37½

OB-306@7½

OB-306@7½

OB-306@7½





Figure E-1.3.5

Samples tested at field moisture content

Natural


CONSOLIDATION TEST DATAProject No.: 4953-11-1423

Figure E-3.3.6

Prepared/Date: WL 7/1/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/19/2013

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

CONSOLIDATION IN INCHES PER INCH

1.0 10.02.0 4.0 6.0 8.00.80.60.4

LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT

Note: Samples tested at field moisture content

OB-304@60½'

POORLY GRADED SANDwith SILT

OB-304@30½'

SANDY SILT

MTA Westside Subway ExtensionLos Angeles, California


Figure E-3.3.7


0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00


1.0 10.02.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 20.00.80.60.4


OB-304@90½'

SILTSTONE

MTA Westside Subway ExtensionLos Angeles, California

Note: Sample tested at field moisture content


Figure E-3.3.8

Prepared/Date: JF 7/18/2013Checked/Date: LH 7/19/2013

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00


1.0 10.02.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 20.00.80.60.4


Boring P-305 @ 90½'

SILTSTONE

Boring P-305 @ 57½'

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT



Figure E-3.3.9

Prepared/Date: JF 7/18/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/22/2013

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00


1.0 10.02.0 4.0 6.0 8.00.80.60.4


Boring OB-306 @ 20½'

SANDY LEAN CLAY

Boring OB-306 @ 37½'

SANDY SILT


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100

D30 (mm)D60 (mm)D100 (mm)BORINGSYMBOL

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

PI (%)*PL (%)*LL (%)*

OB-304

OB-304

OB-304

OB-304

4.75

9.52

19.10

4.75

0.028

--

0.118

0.300

--

--

0.025

0.193

--

--

--

0.099

19.9

35.2

29.0

91.9

% Sand

DEPTH (ft)

DEPTH (ft)

1.5 3/4

Cu

OB-304

OB-304

OB-304

OB-304

BORING

PE

RC

EN

T R

ET

AIN

ED

BY

WE

IGH

T

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

coarse fine coarse medium fine

GRAVEL SANDSILT OR CLAY

CLASSIFICATIONSYMBOL

60

% Silt or % Clay% GravelD10 (mm)

Cc

100

HYDROMETER

20040

COBBLES

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

20.5

30.5

35.5

60.5

80.1

62.1

52.4

8.1

43/8

Laboratory Test Method: ASTM D 422

U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

60

--

37

--

32

--

25

--

28

--

12

--

--

--

--

1.3

--

--

--

3.0

20

U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

6 3 10

Project No.: 4953-11-1423MTA Westside Subway ExtensionLos Angeles, California

0.0

2.7

18.6

0.0

Prepared/Date: JF 6/20/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/1/2013Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:

*As determined by ASTM D 4318; see attached Atterberg Limits Test Results.

20.5

30.5

35.5

60.5

MA

CT

EC

LA

GR

AIN

SIZ

E L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

ELASTIC SILT with SAND (MH)

SANDY SILT (ML)

SANDY SILT with GRAVEL (ML)

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM)

Figure: E-5.3.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100



PI (%)*PL (%)*LL (%)*

OB-304 1.98 0.021 0.005 -- 2.3

% Sand

DEPTH (ft)

DEPTH (ft)

1.5 3/4

Cu

OB-304

BORING

PE

RC

EN

T R

ET

AIN

ED

BY

WE

IGH

T

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




60


Cc

100

HYDROMETER

20040

COBBLES


90.5 97.7

43/8


U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

47 34 13 -- --

20


6 3 10


0.0

Prepared/Date: JF 6/20/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/1/2013


90.5

MA

CT

EC

LA

GR

AIN

SIZ

E L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

SILTSTONE

Figure: E-5.3.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100



PI (%)*PL (%)*LL (%)*

P-305/E-110B 4.75 0.203 0.007 -- 52.4

% Sand

DEPTH (ft)

DEPTH (ft)

1.5 3/4

Cu

P-305/E-110B

BORING

PE

RC

EN

T R

ET

AIN

ED

BY

WE

IGH

T

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




60


Cc

100

HYDROMETER

20040

COBBLES


15.5 47.6

43/8


U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

41 21 20 -- --

20


6 3 10


0.0



15.5

MA

CT

EC

LA

GR

AIN

SIZ

E L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

Figure: E-5.3.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.0010.010.1110100



PI (%)*PL (%)*LL (%)*

OB-306/E-110C

OB-306/E-110C

9.52

4.75

0.161

0.290

0.004

0.096

--

0.003

45.0

74.2

% Sand

DEPTH (ft)

DEPTH (ft)

1.5 3/4

Cu

OB-306/E-110C

OB-306/E-110C

BORING

PE

RC

EN

T R

ET

AIN

ED

BY

WE

IGH

T

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




60


Cc

100

HYDROMETER

20040

COBBLES


12.5

45.5

49.3

25.8

43/8


U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

41

--

24

--

17

--

--

10.6

--

96.5

20


6 3 10


5.7

0.0

Prepared/Date: WL 7/10/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/22/2013Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:


12.5

45.5

MA

CT

EC

LA

GR

AIN

SIZ

E L

:\70

131

GE

OT

EC

H\G

INT

W\L

IBR

AR

Y A

ME

C J

UN

E20

12.G

LB

G:\

PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\4

953\

2011

\111

432

WE

ST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

AS

E 2

\3.2

AL

L F

IEL

D N

OT

ES

\GIN

T L

OG

\495

3-11

-142

3 (R

OT

AR

Y W

AS

H).

GP

J 7

/22/

13

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

Figure: E-5.3.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PI(%)

9

35

8

19

20

34

15

18

20

25

15

NP

18

18

28

12

13

20

14

20

23

15

21

28

30

31

32

24

25

25

23

NP

24

24

32

25

34

21

22

41

32

50

29

47

50

65

47

42

45

50

38

NP

42

42

60

37

47

41

36

61

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CL-ML


CLASSIFICATION

"NP" indicates Non-Plastic

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

%)

PL(%)

LL(%)

BORING

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-308

G-309

G-309

G-309

G-309

G-309

OB-304

OB-304

OB-304

P-305/E-110B

P-305/E-110B

P-305/E-110B

SYMBOL

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Prepared/Date: JF 6/12/12Checked/Date: LT 6/15/2012Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

FAT CLAY with SAND (CH)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILT with SAND (ML)

SILT with SAND (ML)

FAT CLAY with SAND (CH)

SILTSTONE

SILTSTONE

SILTSTONE

LEAN CLAY (CL)


SILTY SAND (SM)

SILTSTONE

SILTSTONE

ELASTIC SILT with SAND (MH)

SANDY SILT with GRAVEL (ML)

SILTSTONE

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

CLAYEY SAND (SC)

ELASTIC SILT (MH)

15.5

20.5

30.5

45.5

48.5

60.5

90.5

96.5

108.5

20.5

40.5

77.5

89.5

104.5

20.5

35.5

90.5

15.5

35.5

52.5

Figure: E-6.3.1

DEPTH(ft)


MA

CT

EC

LA

_A

TT

ER

BE

RG

_LIM

ITS

L:\

7013

1 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

.GL

BG

:\P

RO

JEC

T_D

IRE

CT

OR

IES

\495

3\20

11\1

1143

2 W

ES

TS

IDE

FA

UL

T P

HA

SE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH

).G

PJ

7/2

2/13

CL or OL CH or OH

ML or OL MH or OH

hari.ponnaboyina

Polygon

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PI(%)

17

20

16

24

24

20

41

44

36

ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS

CL-ML


CLASSIFICATION

"NP" indicates Non-Plastic

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IN

DE

X (

%)

PL(%)

LL(%)

BORING

OB-306/E-110C

OB-306/E-110C

OB-306/E-110C

SYMBOL

LIQUID LIMIT (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Prepared/Date: WL 7/10/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/22/2013Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:Prepared/Date:Checked/Date:

CLAYEY SAND (SC)



12.5

20.5

37.5

Figure: E-6.3.2

DEPTH(ft)


MA

CT

EC

LA

_A

TT

ER

BE

RG

_LIM

ITS

L:\

7013

1 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

.GL

BG

:\P

RO

JEC

T_D

IRE

CT

OR

IES

\495

3\20

11\1

1143

2 W

ES

TS

IDE

FA

UL

T P

HA

SE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH

).G

PJ

7/2

2/13

CL or OL CH or OH

ML or OL MH or OH


APPENDIX F CORROSION MITIGATION REPORT

Figure F‐1.1: Corrosion Mitigation Report for Wilshire/La Brea Station (2012/2013 Data)

431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711Phone: 909.626.0967 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 2

www.hdrinc.com Corrosion Control and Condition Assessment (C3A) Department

Sample ID P-304@ 85'

SM

G-318@ 80'

Tar Sand

G-318@ 30'

CL

P-304@ 25'

ML/CL

G-318@ 60'

Tar Sand

Resistivity Unitsas-received ohm-cm 1,120 11,600 3,200 920 26,400saturated ohm-cm 600 800 760 920 2,760

pH 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.7 5.5

ElectricalConductivity mS/cm 1.33 0.27 0.66 0.20 0.20

Chemical AnalysesCationscalcium Ca2+ mg/kg 792 59 108 91 37magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 225 16 142 25 23sodium Na1+ mg/kg 368 186 388 101 135potassium K1+ mg/kg 135 7.0 15 14 4.4Anionscarbonate CO3

2- mg/kg ND ND ND ND NDbicarbonate HCO3

1- mg/kg 537 18 140 369 NDfluoride F1- mg/kg 1.5 ND 1.8 5.1 NDchloride Cl1- mg/kg 0.6 141 35 22 56sulfate SO4

2- mg/kg 2,205 317 1,242 97 307phosphate PO4

3- mg/kg ND ND ND ND ND

Other Testsammonium NH4

1+ mg/kg 22 2.4 ND ND 3.2nitrate NO3

1- mg/kg 33 ND ND ND NDsulfide S2- qual na na na na naRedox mV na na na na na

Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivoltsND = not detectedna = not analyzed

Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples

Westside Subway StationYour #4953-11-1423, HDR|Schiff #13-0528LAB

19-Jun-13

AMEC

Figure F-1.28

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

431 West Baseline Road ∙ Claremont, CA 91711Phone: 909.626.0967 ∙ Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 2 of 2

www.hdrinc.com Corrosion Control and Condition Assessment (C3A) Department

Table 1 - Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples

Westside Subway StationYour #4953-11-1423, HDR|Schiff #13-0528LAB

19-Jun-13

AMEC

Sample ID P-304@ 55'

SP-SM

G-318@ 50'

Tar Sand

Resistivity Unitsas-received ohm-cm 2,760 16,800saturated ohm-cm 2,000 3,000

pH 7.6 7.1

ElectricalConductivity mS/cm 0.18 0.07

Chemical AnalysesCationscalcium Ca2+ mg/kg 118 23magnesium Mg2+ mg/kg 21 15sodium Na1+ mg/kg 53 40potassium K1+ mg/kg 18 2.8Anionscarbonate CO3

2- mg/kg ND NDbicarbonate HCO3

1- mg/kg 116 NDfluoride F1- mg/kg 1.1 NDchloride Cl1- mg/kg 13 19sulfate SO4

2- mg/kg 251 89phosphate PO4

3- mg/kg ND ND

Other Testsammonium NH4

1+ mg/kg ND 1.7nitrate NO3

1- mg/kg 5.6 NDsulfide S2- qual na naRedox mV na na

Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1:5 soil-to-water extract.mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivoltsND = not detectedna = not analyzed

Figure F-1.29

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle

jimmy.francisco

Rectangle


APPENDIX H ANALYTICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

Figure H‐1.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (M‐4) Figure H‐2.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (M‐5) Figure H‐3.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (OB‐304) Figure H‐4.1: Analytical Laboratory Test Results (P‐305)

June 21, 2013

ELAP No.: 1838

NELAP No.:

CSDLAC No.:ORELAP No.:

02107CA

10196CA300003121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine, CA 92617

Anthony Marino

Tel: (949) 224-0050

Fax:(949) 224-0073

AMEC E & I

T104704502TCEQ No.:

Re: ATL Work Order Number :

Client Reference :

1301728

Enclosed are the results for sample(s) received on June 12, 2013 by Advanced Technology

Laboratories. The sample(s) are tested for the parameters as indicated on the enclosed chain of

custody in accordance with applicable laboratory certifications. The laboratory results contained

in this report specifically pertains to the sample(s) submitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the needs of your company. If you have any questions,

please feel free to contact me or your Project Manager.

Sincerely,

Laboratory Director

MTA Westside Extention, 4953111423.2.8

Eddie Rodriguez

3275 Walnut Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90755 � Tel: 562-989-4045 � Fax: 562-989-4040

www.atlglobal.com

The cover letter and the case narrative are an integral part of this analytical report and its absence renders the report invalid.

Test results contained within this data package meet the requirements of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation

Conference and/or applicable state-specific certification programs. The report cannot be reproduced without written permission

from the client and Advanced Technology Laboratories.

Page 1 of 87Figure H-4.1

121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I

Certificate of Analysis

Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received

SUMMARY OF SAMPLES

P-305 / La Brea Station 1301728-01 Groundwater 6/12/13 9:00 6/12/13 10:55

The sample for SM 5210B (BOD) and SM 5540C (MBAS) analyses was subcontracted to AETL with ELAP Cert.# 1541.

Results were J-flagged. "J" is used to flag those results that are between the PQL (Practical Quantitation Limit) and the

calculated MDL (Method Detection Limit). Results that are "J" flagged are estimated values since it becomes difficult to

accurately quantitate the analyte near the MDL.

CASE NARRATIVE

3275 Walnut Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90755 � Tel: 562-989-4045 � Fax: 562-989-4040 � www.atlglobal.com Page 2 of 87Figure H-4.2

121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01

Client Sample ID P-305 / La Brea Station

Notes

Date/Time

AnalyzedPreparedBatchDilution(ug/L)

MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Total Metals by ICP-MS EPA 200.8 Analyst: SB

Antimony ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.250.50

Arsenic 0.55 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:36 J0.491.0

Beryllium ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/19/13 11:240.180.50

Boron 89 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/19/13 11:243.150

Cadmium ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.120.50

Chromium ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.500.50

Copper 0.84 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:36 J0.241.0

Lead ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.271.0

Nickel 2.7 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.171.0

Selenium 1.7 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.490.50

Silver ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.170.50

Thallium ND 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:360.190.50

Zinc 100 1 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:363.510

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Hexavalent Chromium by EPA 218.6 Analyst: PT

Hexavalent Chromium ND 1 B3F0384 06/12/2013 06/19/13 09:520.060.20

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Trivalent Chromium by Calculation Analyst: SB

Trivalent Chromium 0.0 1 B3F0415 06/19/2013 06/19/13 16:17NANA

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Mercury by AA (Cold Vapor) EPA 245.1 Analyst: VV

Mercury ND 1 B3F0372 06/18/2013 06/18/13 15:570.030.20

Notes

Date/Time

AnalyzedPreparedBatchDilution(mg/L)

MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Anions Scan by Ion Chromatography EPA 300.0 Analyst: PT

Chloride 96 20 B3F0307 06/13/2013 06/13/13 13:571.010


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Anions Scan by Ion Chromatography EPA 300.0 Analyst: PT

Nitrate as N ND 1 B3F0307 06/13/2013 06/13/13 12:250.020.10

Nitrite, as N ND 1 B3F0307 06/13/2013 06/13/13 12:250.030.10

Sulfate 16 1 B3F0307 06/13/2013 06/13/13 12:250.121.0

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Perchlorate by Ion Chromatography EPA 314.0 Analyst: AG

Perchlorate ND 1 B3F0254 06/12/2013 06/12/13 15:400.912.0

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Pesticides Analysis by EPA 608 Analyst: BB

4,4´-DDD ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.05

4,4´-DDE ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0030.05

4,4´-DDT ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.05

Aldrin ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0030.02

alpha-BHC ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0030.02

Aroclor 1016 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.070.50

Aroclor 1221 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.071.0

Aroclor 1232 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.070.50

Aroclor 1242 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.070.50

Aroclor 1248 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.070.50

Aroclor 1254 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.070.50

Aroclor 1260 ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:110.070.50

beta-BHC ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.02

Chlordane ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.050.25

delta-BHC ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0030.02

Dieldrin ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.05

Endosulfan I ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.02

Endosulfan II ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.05

Endosulfan sulfate ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.05

Endrin ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0030.05

Endrin aldehyde ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0050.05

gamma-BHC ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.02

Heptachlor ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0030.02


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Pesticides Analysis by EPA 608 Analyst: BB

Heptachlor epoxide ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.0040.02

Toxaphene ND 1 B3F0303 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:390.362.5

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 113 % 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:11B3F030339 - 129

Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl 88.8 % 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:39B3F030339 - 129

Surrogate: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 79.1 % 06/14/2013 06/14/13 14:11B3F030350 - 118

Surrogate: Tetrachloro-m-xylene 240 % 06/14/2013 06/14/13 13:39B3F030350 - 118 S1

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA 624 Analyst: SL

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.250.50

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.430.50

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.310.50

1,1-Dichloroethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.300.50

1,1-Dichloroethene 0.86 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.330.50

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.440.50

1,2-Dichloroethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.450.50

1,2-Dichloropropane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.250.50



2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.270.50

Acrolein ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:132.010

Acrylonitrile ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:132.510

Benzene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.230.50

Bromodichloromethane 0.39 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:13 J0.200.50

Bromoform 1.5 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.370.50

Bromomethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.490.50

Carbon tetrachloride ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.320.50

Chlorobenzene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.190.50

Chloroethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.440.50

Chloroform 0.33 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:13 J0.320.50

Chloromethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.340.50

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.180.50

Dibromochloromethane 0.89 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.230.50

Ethylbenzene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.170.50

m,p-Xylene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.431.0


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte


Methylene chloride ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.301.0

o-Xylene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.230.50

Tetrachloroethene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.270.50

Toluene 1.5 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.200.50

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.310.50

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.210.50

Trichloroethene ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.350.50

Vinyl chloride ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.280.50

Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4 116 % 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:13B3F031270 - 130

Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 97.1 % 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:13B3F031270 - 130

Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 105 % 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:13B3F031270 - 130

Surrogate: Toluene-d8 88.9 % 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:13B3F031270 - 130

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 625 Analyst: MFR

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.22.0

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.92.0

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.310

2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.15.0

2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.05.0

2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:385.620

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.85.0

2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.75.0

2-Chloronaphthalene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.510

2-Chlorophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.65.0

2-Nitrophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.810

3,3´-Dichlorobenzidine ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:383.35.0

4,6-Dinitro-2-methyphenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.920

4-Bromophenyl-phenylether ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.75.0

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.45.0

4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.55.0

4-Nitrophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:380.735.0

Acenaphthene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.62.0

Acenaphthylene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.62.0

Anthracene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.82.0


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte


Benzidine (M) ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.25.0

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:380.232.0

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.92.0

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.62.0

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:380.302.0

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.82.0

bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.45.0

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.25.0

bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.22.0

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.15.0

Butylbenzylphthalate ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.210

Chrysene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:380.302.0

Di-n-butylphthalate ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.210

Di-n-octylphthalate ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.010

Diethyl phthalate ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.010

Dimethyl phthalate ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.910

Fluoranthene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.62.0

Fluorene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.62.0

Hexachlorobenzene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.75.0

Hexachlorobutadiene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.15.0

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:380.585.0

Hexachloroethane ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.15.0

Isophorone ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.85.0

N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.65.0

N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.610

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.95.0

Naphthalene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.42.0

Nitrobenzene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.410

Pentachlorophenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:382.320

Phenanthrene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.82.0

Phenol ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:380.7810

Pyrene ND 1 B3F0263 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:381.62.0

Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4 84.9 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026337 - 93

Surrogate: 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 115 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026346 - 125

Surrogate: 2-Chlorophenol-d4 73.3 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026336 - 83

Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl 96.6 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026351 - 100

Surrogate: 2-Fluorophenol 53.0 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026317 - 56


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte


Surrogate: 4-Terphenyl-d14 118 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026358 - 113 S1

Surrogate: Nitrobenzene-d5 118 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026339 - 95 S1

Surrogate: Phenol-d5 40.2 % 06/13/2013 06/15/13 05:38B3F026313 - 45

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Oil & Grease, Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) EPA 1664A Analyst: LA

Oil & Grease, HEM ND 1 B3F0388 06/19/2013 06/19/13 14:222.22.4

Notes

Date/Time

AnalyzedPreparedBatchDilution(NTU)

MDLPQL

(NTU)

Result

(NTU)Analyte

Turbidity by EPA 180.1 Analyst: RD

Turbidity 6.7 1 B3F0318 06/12/2013 06/12/13 16:350.100.10

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Hardness by Calculation by SM 2340B Analyst: SB

Hardness Total (As CaCO3) 430000 20 B3F0337 06/17/2013 06/18/13 17:5026005000

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filterable) by SM 2540C Analyst: PT

Residue, Dissolved 700 1 B3F0353 06/17/2013 06/18/13 09:151010

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Total Suspended Solids (Residue, Non-Filtrable) by SM 2540D Analyst: PT

Residue, Suspended ND 1 B3F0349 06/17/2013 06/17/13 09:061.01.0


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time

AnalyzedPreparedBatchDilution(mL/L)

MDLPQL

(mL/L)

Result

(mL/L)Analyte

Residue, Settleable by SM 2540F Analyst: AG

Residue, Settleable ND 1 B3F0255 06/12/2013 06/12/13 16:140.100.10

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Total and Free Chlorine DPD Colorimetric Analyst: RD

Chlorine, Total ND 1 B3F0374 06/12/2013 06/12/13 16:00 H10.050.10

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Cyanide, Total by SM4500-CN E Analyst: LA

Cyanide, Total 3.3 1 B3F0347 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:350.460.50

Notes

Date/Time

AnalyzedPreparedBatchDilution(pH Units)

MDLPQL

(pH Units)

Result

(pH Units)Analyte

pH by SM 4500H+B Analyst: RD

pH 7.1 1 B3F0319 06/12/2013 06/12/13 00:00 H10.100.10

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(mg/L)

Result

(mg/L)Analyte

Sulfide, Total by SM 4500-S=D Analyst: LA

Sulfide, Total 5.9 50 B3F0375 06/18/2013 06/18/13 11:090.120.50

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte


1,2-Dibromoethane ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:130.320.50

2-Butanone ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:132.110

Acetone ND 1 B3F0312 06/17/2013 06/17/13 12:132.010


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Lab ID: 1301728-01


Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270C Analyst: MFR

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 1 B3F0376 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:280.6510




Surrogate: 2,4,6-Tribromophenol 80.2 % 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:28B3F037633 - 149

Surrogate: 2-Chlorophenol-d4 73.6 % 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:28B3F037637 - 99


Surrogate: 2-Fluorophenol 47.6 % 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:28B3F037617 - 69

Surrogate: 4-Terphenyl-d14 78.2 % 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:28B3F037640 - 165

Surrogate: Nitrobenzene-d5 67.7 % 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:28B3F037638 - 117

Surrogate: Phenol-d5 38.2 % 06/18/2013 06/20/13 15:28B3F03765 - 60

Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270/SIM Analyst: MFR

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ND 1 B3F0268 06/13/2013 06/17/13 14:280.040.20

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ND 1 B3F0268 06/13/2013 06/17/13 14:280.030.20





Notes

Date/Time


MDLPQL

(ug/L)

Result

(ug/L)Analyte

1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270/SIM: Isotope Dilution Technique Analyst: MFR

1,4-Dioxane 1.3 1 B3F0268 06/13/2013 06/17/13 14:280.130.20






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


QUALITY CONTROL SECTION

Total Metals by ICP-MS EPA 200.8 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit(ug/L) (ug/L) Notes

Batch B3F0337 - EPA 200.8

Blank (B3F0337-BLK1) Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Antimony ND 0.50 NR

Arsenic ND 1.0 NR

Beryllium ND 0.50 NR

Boron 9.64728 50 NR J

Cadmium ND 0.50 NR

Chromium ND 0.50 NR

Copper ND 1.0 NR

Lead ND 1.0 NR

Nickel ND 1.0 NR

Selenium ND 0.50 NR

Silver ND 0.50 NR

Thallium ND 0.50 NR

Zinc ND 10 NR

LCS (B3F0337-BS1) Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Antimony 10.2120 0.50 10.0000 102 85 - 115

Arsenic 9.69397 1.0 10.0000 96.9 85 - 115

Beryllium 9.39730 0.50 10.0000 94.0 85 - 115

Boron 101.949 50 100.000 102 85 - 115

Cadmium 9.63091 0.50 10.0000 96.3 85 - 115

Chromium 9.98302 0.50 10.0000 99.8 85 - 115

Copper 10.1006 1.0 10.0000 101 85 - 115

Lead 9.48479 1.0 10.0000 94.8 85 - 115

Nickel 9.94822 1.0 10.0000 99.5 85 - 115

Selenium 9.74624 0.50 10.0000 97.5 85 - 115

Silver 9.76132 0.50 10.0000 97.6 85 - 115

Thallium 9.68378 0.50 10.0000 96.8 85 - 115

Zinc 95.8798 10 100.000 95.9 85 - 115

Matrix Spike (B3F0337-MS1) Source: 1301728-01 Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Antimony 10.1536 0.50 10.0000 ND 102 70 - 130

Arsenic 10.1113 1.0 10.0000 0.548760 95.6 70 - 130

Beryllium 7.06115 0.50 10.0000 ND 70.6 70 - 130

Boron 157.140 50 100.000 88.8009 68.3 70 - 130

Cadmium 9.18737 0.50 10.0000 ND 91.9 70 - 130

Chromium 8.93376 0.50 10.0000 ND 89.3 70 - 130

Copper 8.89733 1.0 10.0000 0.842606 80.5 70 - 130

Lead 9.30868 1.0 10.0000 ND 93.1 70 - 130

Nickel 10.9228 1.0 10.0000 2.69857 82.2 70 - 130

Selenium 3.05189 0.50 10.0000 1.68148 13.7 70 - 130 M1


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total Metals by ICP-MS EPA 200.8 - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0337 - EPA 200.8 (continued)

Matrix Spike (B3F0337-MS1) - Continued Source: 1301728-01 Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Silver 8.90348 0.50 10.0000 ND 89.0 70 - 130

Thallium 9.09064 0.50 10.0000 ND 90.9 70 - 130

Zinc 92.0055 10 100.000 102.572 -10.6 70 - 130 M1

Matrix Spike (B3F0337-MS2) Source: 1301728-01RE1 Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Antimony 10.5006 10 10.0000 ND 105 70 - 130

Arsenic 10.5343 20 10.0000 0.548760 99.9 70 - 130 J

Beryllium 8.41032 10 10.0000 ND 84.1 70 - 130 J

Boron 304.061 1000 100.000 88.8009 215 70 - 130 J

Cadmium 9.43632 10 10.0000 ND 94.4 70 - 130 J

Chromium 10.0655 10 10.0000 ND 101 70 - 130

Copper 10.8184 20 10.0000 0.842606 99.8 70 - 130 J

Lead ND 20 10.0000 ND NR 70 - 130

Nickel 12.1844 20 10.0000 2.69857 94.9 70 - 130 J

Selenium ND 10 10.0000 1.68148 -16.8 70 - 130

Silver 9.45768 10 10.0000 ND 94.6 70 - 130 J

Thallium 9.39862 10 10.0000 ND 94.0 70 - 130 J

Zinc 85.2176 200 100.000 102.572 -17.4 70 - 130 J


Antimony 9.83709 0.50 10.0000 ND 98.4 70 - 130

Arsenic 9.71237 1.0 10.0000 0.547724 91.6 70 - 130

Beryllium 6.92939 0.50 10.0000 ND 69.3 70 - 130 M1

Boron 151.194 50 100.000 88.9982 62.2 70 - 130 M1

Cadmium 8.84662 0.50 10.0000 ND 88.5 70 - 130

Chromium 8.58675 0.50 10.0000 ND 85.9 70 - 130

Copper 8.53896 1.0 10.0000 0.816116 77.2 70 - 130

Lead 8.85352 1.0 10.0000 0.289576 85.6 70 - 130

Nickel 10.8708 1.0 10.0000 2.83572 80.4 70 - 130

Selenium 2.95402 0.50 10.0000 1.84598 11.1 70 - 130

Silver 8.61733 0.50 10.0000 ND 86.2 70 - 130

Thallium 8.64444 0.50 10.0000 ND 86.4 70 - 130

Zinc 89.1428 10 100.000 101.405 -12.3 70 - 130

Matrix Spike Dup (B3F0337-MSD1) Source: 1301728-01 Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Antimony 10.1683 0.50 10.0000 ND 102 70 - 130 0.144 20

Arsenic 10.0620 1.0 10.0000 0.548760 95.1 70 - 130 0.489 20

Beryllium 6.74999 0.50 10.0000 ND 67.5 70 - 130 4.51 20

Boron 156.777 50 100.000 88.8009 68.0 70 - 130 0.231 20

Cadmium 9.13025 0.50 10.0000 ND 91.3 70 - 130 0.624 20

Chromium 8.97884 0.50 10.0000 ND 89.8 70 - 130 0.503 20

Copper 8.69491 1.0 10.0000 0.842606 78.5 70 - 130 2.30 20


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total Metals by ICP-MS EPA 200.8 - Quality Control (cont'd)


Matrix Spike Dup (B3F0337-MSD1) - Continued Source: 1301728-01 Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Lead 9.16717 1.0 10.0000 ND 91.7 70 - 130 1.53 20

Nickel 10.8522 1.0 10.0000 2.69857 81.5 70 - 130 0.648 20

Selenium 2.98981 0.50 10.0000 1.68148 13.1 70 - 130 2.05 20 M1

Silver 8.81668 0.50 10.0000 ND 88.2 70 - 130 0.980 20

Thallium 8.98170 0.50 10.0000 ND 89.8 70 - 130 1.21 20

Zinc 100.301 10 100.000 102.572 -2.27 70 - 130 8.63 20 M1

Matrix Spike Dup (B3F0337-MSD2) Source: 1301728-01RE1 Prepared: 6/17/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Antimony 9.85732 10 10.0000 ND 98.6 70 - 130 6.32 20 J

Arsenic 10.1633 20 10.0000 0.548760 96.1 70 - 130 3.58 20 J

Beryllium 8.27850 10 10.0000 ND 82.8 70 - 130 1.58 20 J

Boron 262.841 1000 100.000 88.8009 174 70 - 130 14.5 20 J

Cadmium 8.88748 10 10.0000 ND 88.9 70 - 130 5.99 20 J

Chromium 13.4005 10 10.0000 ND 134 70 - 130 28.4 20

Copper 10.1331 20 10.0000 0.842606 92.9 70 - 130 6.54 20 J

Lead ND 20 10.0000 ND NR 70 - 130 20

Nickel 13.2342 20 10.0000 2.69857 105 70 - 130 8.26 20 J

Selenium ND 10 10.0000 1.68148 -16.8 70 - 130 20

Silver 8.99398 10 10.0000 ND 89.9 70 - 130 5.03 20 J

Thallium 9.12595 10 10.0000 ND 91.3 70 - 130 2.94 20 J

Zinc 156.588 200 100.000 102.572 54.0 70 - 130 59.0 20 J


Antimony 9.83570 0.50 10.0000 ND 98.4 70 - 130 0.0141 20

Arsenic 9.79848 1.0 10.0000 0.547724 92.5 70 - 130 0.883 20

Beryllium 6.73068 0.50 10.0000 ND 67.3 70 - 130 2.91 20 M1

Boron 154.929 50 100.000 88.9982 65.9 70 - 130 2.44 20 M1

Cadmium 8.93480 0.50 10.0000 ND 89.3 70 - 130 0.992 20

Chromium 8.42863 0.50 10.0000 ND 84.3 70 - 130 1.86 20

Copper 8.28872 1.0 10.0000 0.816116 74.7 70 - 130 2.97 20

Lead 8.73961 1.0 10.0000 0.289576 84.5 70 - 130 1.29 20

Nickel 10.7500 1.0 10.0000 2.83572 79.1 70 - 130 1.12 20

Selenium 3.10768 0.50 10.0000 1.84598 12.6 70 - 130 5.07 20

Silver 8.65609 0.50 10.0000 ND 86.6 70 - 130 0.449 20

Thallium 8.42138 0.50 10.0000 ND 84.2 70 - 130 2.61 20

Zinc 97.6467 10 100.000 101.405 -3.76 70 - 130 9.11 20


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Hexavalent Chromium by EPA 218.6 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0384 - No_Prep_IC_3


Hexavalent Chromium ND 0.20 NR


Hexavalent Chromium 5.02565 0.20 5.00000 101 90 - 110

Duplicate (B3F0384-DUP1) Source: 1301728-01 Prepared: 6/14/2013 Analyzed: 6/19/2013

Hexavalent Chromium ND 0.20 ND NR 10


Hexavalent Chromium 4.82306 0.20 5.00000 ND 96.5 90 - 110


Hexavalent Chromium 5.02473 0.20 5.00000 ND 100 90 - 110 4.10 10


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Mercury by AA (Cold Vapor) EPA 245.1 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0372 - EPA 245.1/7470


Mercury ND 0.20 NR


Mercury 11.1569 0.20 10.0000 112 85 - 115


Mercury ND 0.20 ND NR 20


Mercury 10.5030 0.20 10.0000 ND 105 70 - 130


Mercury 10.6376 0.20 10.0000 ND 106 70 - 130 1.27 20

Post Spike (B3F0372-PS1) Source: 1301728-01 Prepared: 6/18/2013 Analyzed: 6/18/2013

Mercury 5.24364 5.00000 -0.041886 106 70 - 130


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Anions Scan by Ion Chromatography EPA 300.0 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit(mg/L) (mg/L) Notes



Chloride ND 0.50 NR

Nitrate as N ND 0.10 NR

Nitrite, as N ND 0.10 NR

Sulfate ND 1.0 NR


Chloride 1.00730 0.50 1.00000 101 90 - 110

Nitrate as N 0.961600 0.10 1.00000 96.2 90 - 110

Nitrite, as N 0.970200 0.10 1.00000 97.0 90 - 110

Sulfate 1.99760 1.0 2.00000 99.9 90 - 110


Chloride 131.208 0.50 130.698 NR 0.390 20

Nitrate as N ND 0.10 ND NR 20

Nitrite, as N ND 0.10 ND NR 20

Sulfate 16.1480 1.0 16.0949 NR 0.329 20

Duplicate (B3F0307-DUP2) Source: 1301728-01RE1 Prepared: 6/13/2013 Analyzed: 6/13/2013

Chloride 97.2320 10 96.4060 NR 0.853 20

Nitrate as N ND 2.0 ND NR 20

Nitrite, as N ND 2.0 ND NR 20

Sulfate 53.8780 20 53.8200 NR 0.108 20


Chloride 106.864 0.50 2.50000 130.698 -953 80 - 120

Nitrate as N 3.34310 0.10 2.50000 ND 134 80 - 120 M1

Nitrite, as N 3.98420 0.10 2.50000 ND 159 80 - 120 M1

Sulfate 21.2367 1.0 5.00000 16.0949 103 80 - 120


Chloride 97.8960 10 2.50000 96.4060 59.6 80 - 120 M1

Nitrate as N 31.0840 2.0 2.50000 ND 1240 80 - 120

Nitrite, as N 25.1060 2.0 2.50000 ND 1000 80 - 120

Sulfate 59.7440 20 5.00000 53.8200 118 80 - 120


Chloride 107.100 0.50 2.50000 130.698 -944 80 - 120 0.220 20

Nitrate as N 3.34860 0.10 2.50000 ND 134 80 - 120 0.164 20 M1

Nitrite, as N 4.00860 0.10 2.50000 ND 160 80 - 120 0.611 20 M1

Sulfate 20.8186 1.0 5.00000 16.0949 94.5 80 - 120 1.99 20 M1



121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Anions Scan by Ion Chromatography EPA 300.0 - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0307 - No_Prep_IC_1 (continued)

Matrix Spike Dup (B3F0307-MSD2) - Continued Source: 1301728-01RE1 Prepared: 6/13/2013 Analyzed: 6/13/2013

Chloride 97.8220 10 2.50000 96.4060 56.6 80 - 120 0.0756 20 M1

Nitrate as N 31.3300 2.0 2.50000 ND 1250 80 - 120 0.788 20

Nitrite, as N 25.2660 2.0 2.50000 ND 1010 80 - 120 0.635 20

Sulfate 58.7700 20 5.00000 53.8200 99.0 80 - 120 1.64 20


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Perchlorate by Ion Chromatography EPA 314.0 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




Perchlorate ND 2.0 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Perchlorate by Ion Chromatography EPA 314.0 - Quality Control (cont'd)



Perchlorate 25.7033 2.0 25.0000 103 85 - 115


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Perchlorate ND 2.0 ND NR 15


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Perchlorate 102.091 2.0 100.000 ND 102 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Perchlorate 95.5015 2.0 100.000 ND 95.5 80 - 120 6.67 15


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Pesticides Analysis by EPA 608 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0303 - GCSEMI_PCB/PEST


4,4´-DDD ND 0.05 NR

4,4´-DDD [2C] ND 0.05 NR

4,4´-DDE ND 0.05 NR

4,4´-DDE [2C] ND 0.05 NR

4,4´-DDT ND 0.05 NR

4,4´-DDT [2C] ND 0.05 NR

Aldrin ND 0.02 NR

Aldrin [2C] ND 0.02 NR

alpha-BHC ND 0.02 NR

alpha-BHC [2C] ND 0.02 NR

beta-BHC ND 0.02 NR

beta-BHC [2C] ND 0.02 NR

Chlordane ND 0.25 NR

Chlordane [2C] ND 0.25 NR

delta-BHC ND 0.02 NR

delta-BHC [2C] ND 0.02 NR

Dieldrin ND 0.05 NR

Dieldrin [2C] ND 0.05 NR

Endosulfan I ND 0.02 NR

Endosulfan I [2C] ND 0.02 NR

Endosulfan II ND 0.05 NR

Endosulfan II [2C] ND 0.05 NR

Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.05 NR

Endosulfan Sulfate [2C] ND 0.05 NR

Endrin ND 0.05 NR

Endrin [2C] ND 0.05 NR

Endrin aldehyde ND 0.05 NR

Endrin aldehyde [2C] ND 0.05 NR

gamma-BHC ND 0.02 NR

gamma-BHC [2C] ND 0.02 NR

Heptachlor ND 0.02 NR

Heptachlor [2C] ND 0.02 NR

Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.02 NR

Heptachlor epoxide [2C] ND 0.02 NR

Toxaphene ND 2.5 NR

Toxaphene [2C] ND 2.5 NR

0.3805 0.500000 76.1 39 - 129Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl

0.4198 0.500000 84.0 39 - 129Surrogate: Decachlorobiphenyl [2C]

0.4227 0.500000 84.5 50 - 118Surrogate: Tetrachloro-m-xylene

0.4378 0.500000 87.6 50 - 118Surrogate: Tetrachloro-m-xylene [2C]


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Pesticides Analysis by EPA 608 - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0303 - GCSEMI_PCB/PEST (continued)


Aroclor 1016 ND 0.50 NR










121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





4,4´-DDT 0.316170 0.05 0.500000 63.2 56 - 111

4,4´-DDT [2C] 0.352640 0.05 0.500000 70.5 56 - 111

Aldrin 0.455160 0.02 0.500000 91.0 56 - 113

Aldrin [2C] 0.428190 0.02 0.500000 85.6 56 - 113

Dieldrin 0.420355 0.05 0.500000 84.1 55 - 113

Dieldrin [2C] 0.421080 0.05 0.500000 84.2 55 - 113

Endrin 0.442685 0.05 0.500000 88.5 55 - 101

Endrin [2C] 0.500745 0.05 0.500000 100 55 - 101

gamma-BHC 0.467835 0.02 0.500000 93.6 61 - 110

gamma-BHC [2C] 0.446970 0.02 0.500000 89.4 61 - 110

Heptachlor 0.468085 0.02 0.500000 93.6 67 - 110

Heptachlor [2C] 0.485145 0.02 0.500000 97.0 67 - 110






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Aroclor 1016 4.20870 0.50 5.00000 84.2 64 - 102

Aroclor 1260 4.59073 0.50 5.00000 91.8 68 - 100




121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




LCS Dup (B3F0303-BSD1) Prepared: 6/14/2013 Analyzed: 6/14/2013

4,4´-DDT 0.302985 0.05 0.500000 60.6 56 - 111 4.26 20

4,4´-DDT [2C] 0.338335 0.05 0.500000 67.7 56 - 111 4.14 20

Aldrin 0.438200 0.02 0.500000 87.6 56 - 113 3.80 20

Aldrin [2C] 0.412955 0.02 0.500000 82.6 56 - 113 3.62 20

Dieldrin 0.404645 0.05 0.500000 80.9 55 - 113 3.81 20

Dieldrin [2C] 0.403840 0.05 0.500000 80.8 55 - 113 4.18 20

Endrin 0.430635 0.05 0.500000 86.1 55 - 101 2.76 20

Endrin [2C] 0.478150 0.05 0.500000 95.6 55 - 101 4.62 20

gamma-BHC 0.454675 0.02 0.500000 90.9 61 - 110 2.85 20

gamma-BHC [2C] 0.433500 0.02 0.500000 86.7 61 - 110 3.06 20

Heptachlor 0.452500 0.02 0.500000 90.5 67 - 110 3.39 20

Heptachlor [2C] 0.468955 0.02 0.500000 93.8 67 - 110 3.39 20






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Aroclor 1016 4.21170 0.50 5.00000 84.2 64 - 102 0.0711 20

Aroclor 1260 4.59506 0.50 5.00000 91.9 68 - 100 0.0943 20




121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA 624 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0312 - MSVOAW_LL


1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 0.50 NR

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 0.50 NR

1,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 0.50 NR

1,1-Dichloroethane ND 0.50 NR

1,1-Dichloroethene ND 0.50 NR

1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 0.50 NR

1,2-Dichloroethane ND 0.50 NR

1,2-Dichloropropane ND 0.50 NR



2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ND 0.50 NR

Acrolein ND 10 NR

Acrylonitrile ND 10 NR

Benzene ND 0.50 NR

Bromodichloromethane ND 0.50 NR

Bromoform ND 0.50 NR

Bromomethane ND 0.50 NR

Carbon tetrachloride ND 0.50 NR

Chlorobenzene ND 0.50 NR

Chloroethane ND 0.50 NR

Chloroform ND 0.50 NR

Chloromethane ND 0.50 NR

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.50 NR

Dibromochloromethane ND 0.50 NR

Ethylbenzene ND 0.50 NR

m,p-Xylene ND 1.0 NR

Methylene chloride ND 1.0 NR

o-Xylene ND 0.50 NR

Tetrachloroethene ND 0.50 NR

Toluene ND 0.50 NR

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 0.50 NR

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 0.50 NR

Trichloroethene ND 0.50 NR

Vinyl chloride ND 0.50 NR

29.30 25.0000 117 70 - 130Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane-d4

25.32 25.0000 101 70 - 130Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene

27.22 25.0000 109 70 - 130Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane

23.64 25.0000 94.6 70 - 130Surrogate: Toluene-d8


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA 624 - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0312 - MSVOAW_LL (continued)


1,1-Dichloroethene 18.8000 20.0000 94.0 70 - 130

Benzene 36.7500 40.0000 91.9 70 - 130

Chlorobenzene 18.5300 20.0000 92.6 70 - 130

Toluene 37.1900 40.0000 93.0 70 - 130

Trichloroethene 18.4200 20.0000 92.1 70 - 130



23.17 25.0000 92.7 70 - 130Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane



121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





1,1-Dichloroethene 16.8100 20.0000 84.0 70 - 130 11.2 20

Benzene 34.7600 40.0000 86.9 70 - 130 5.57 20

Chlorobenzene 17.5600 20.0000 87.8 70 - 130 5.38 20

Toluene 36.3300 40.0000 90.8 70 - 130 2.34 20

Trichloroethene 17.2400 20.0000 86.2 70 - 130 6.62 20






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 625 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0263 - MSSEMI


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 2.0 NR

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ND 2.0 NR

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ND 10 NR

2,4-Dichlorophenol ND 5.0 NR

2,4-Dimethylphenol ND 5.0 NR

2,4-Dinitrophenol ND 20 NR

2,4-Dinitrotoluene ND 5.0 NR

2,6-Dinitrotoluene ND 5.0 NR

2-Chloronaphthalene ND 10 NR

2-Chlorophenol ND 5.0 NR

2-Nitrophenol ND 10 NR

3,3´-Dichlorobenzidine ND 5.0 NR

4,6-Dinitro-2-methyphenol ND 20 NR

4-Bromophenyl-phenylether ND 5.0 NR

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol ND 5.0 NR

4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether ND 5.0 NR

4-Nitrophenol ND 5.0 NR

Acenaphthene ND 2.0 NR

Acenaphthylene ND 2.0 NR

Anthracene ND 2.0 NR

Benzidine (M) ND 5.0 NR

Benzo(a)anthracene ND 2.0 NR

Benzo(a)pyrene ND 2.0 NR

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ND 2.0 NR

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene ND 2.0 NR

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ND 2.0 NR

bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane ND 5.0 NR

bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether ND 5.0 NR

bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether ND 2.0 NR

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ND 5.0 NR

Butylbenzylphthalate ND 10 NR

Chrysene ND 2.0 NR

Di-n-butylphthalate ND 10 NR

Di-n-octylphthalate ND 10 NR

Diethyl phthalate ND 10 NR

Dimethyl phthalate ND 10 NR

Fluoranthene ND 2.0 NR

Fluorene ND 2.0 NR

Hexachlorobenzene ND 5.0 NR

Hexachlorobutadiene ND 5.0 NR

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ND 5.0 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 625 - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0263 - MSSEMI (continued)

Blank (B3F0263-BLK1) - Continued Prepared: 6/13/2013 Analyzed: 6/15/2013

Hexachloroethane ND 5.0 NR

Isophorone ND 5.0 NR

N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine ND 5.0 NR

N-Nitrosodimethylamine ND 10 NR

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND 5.0 NR

Naphthalene ND 2.0 NR

Nitrobenzene ND 10 NR

Pentachlorophenol ND 20 NR

Phenanthrene ND 2.0 NR

Phenol ND 10 NR

Pyrene ND 2.0 NR

38.14 50.0000 76.3 37 - 93Surrogate: 1,2-Dichlorobenzene-d4

51.99 50.0000 104 46 - 125Surrogate: 2,4,6-Tribromophenol

33.76 50.0000 67.5 36 - 83Surrogate: 2-Chlorophenol-d4

44.58 50.0000 89.2 51 - 100Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl

23.55 50.0000 47.1 17 - 56Surrogate: 2-Fluorophenol

52.80 50.0000 106 58 - 113Surrogate: 4-Terphenyl-d14

53.48 50.0000 107 39 - 95Surrogate: Nitrobenzene-d5 S1

18.08 50.0000 36.2 13 - 45Surrogate: Phenol-d5


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 42.2700 2.0 50.0000 84.5 57.3 - 129.2

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 52.3650 5.0 50.0000 105 47.5 - 126.9

2-Chlorophenol 36.0900 5.0 50.0000 72.2 36.2 - 120.4

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 54.3350 5.0 50.0000 109 40.8 - 127.9

4-Nitrophenol 23.8400 5.0 50.0000 47.7 13 - 106.5

Acenaphthene 44.3550 2.0 50.0000 88.7 60.1 - 132.3

N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine 52.8750 5.0 50.0000 106 13.6 - 197.9

Pentachlorophenol 49.8300 20 50.0000 99.7 38.1 - 151.8

Phenol 20.3700 10 50.0000 40.7 16.6 - 100

Pyrene 48.6350 2.0 50.0000 97.3 69.6 - 100




51.09 50.0000 102 51 - 100Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl S3






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 44.4650 2.0 50.0000 88.9 57.3 - 129.2 5.06 20

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 56.8100 5.0 50.0000 114 47.5 - 126.9 8.14 20

2-Chlorophenol 38.4250 5.0 50.0000 76.8 36.2 - 120.4 6.27 20

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 58.2150 5.0 50.0000 116 40.8 - 127.9 6.89 20

4-Nitrophenol 27.3650 5.0 50.0000 54.7 13 - 106.5 13.8 20

Acenaphthene 48.7550 2.0 50.0000 97.5 60.1 - 132.3 9.45 20

N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine 56.2600 5.0 50.0000 113 13.6 - 197.9 6.20 20

Pentachlorophenol 55.3550 20 50.0000 111 38.1 - 151.8 10.5 20

Phenol 22.9350 10 50.0000 45.9 16.6 - 100 11.8 20

Pyrene 54.1100 2.0 50.0000 108 69.6 - 100 10.7 20 L5




50.46 50.0000 101 51 - 100Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl S3






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Oil & Grease, Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) EPA 1664A - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0388 - Prep_WC_2_W


Oil & Grease, HEM ND 2.0 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Oil & Grease, Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) EPA 1664A - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0388 - Prep_WC_2_W (continued)


Oil & Grease, HEM 36.9000 2.0 40.0000 92.2 78 - 114


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Oil & Grease, Hexane Extractable Material (HEM) EPA 1664A - Quality Control (cont'd)



Oil & Grease, HEM 37.5000 2.0 40.0000 93.8 78 - 114 1.61 20


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Turbidity by EPA 180.1 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit(NTU) (NTU) Notes

Batch B3F0318 - No Prep-Sample Control


Turbidity ND 0.10 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit(NTU) (NTU) Notes

Turbidity by EPA 180.1 - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0318 - No Prep-Sample Control (continued)


Turbidity 6.60000 0.10 6.70000 NR 1.50 10


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Hardness by Calculation by SM 2340B - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0337 - EPA 200.8


Hardness Total (As CaCO3) ND 250 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Hardness by Calculation by SM 2340B - Quality Control (cont'd)



Hardness Total (As CaCO3) 3190.94 250 3306.80 96.5 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Hardness Total (As CaCO3) 421104 5000 3306.80 426093 -151 80 - 120 M1


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Hardness Total (As CaCO3) 413554 5000 3306.80 426093 -379 80 - 120 1.81 20 M1


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filterable) by SM 2540C - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0353 - No_Prep_WC_1


Residue, Dissolved ND 10 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filterable) by SM 2540C - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0353 - No_Prep_WC_1 (continued)


Residue, Dissolved 998.000 10 970.000 103 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filterable) by SM 2540C - Quality Control (cont'd)



Residue, Dissolved 702.000 10 699.000 NR 0.428 10


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Total Suspended Solids (Residue, Non-Filtrable) by SM 2540D - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




Residue, Suspended ND 10 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total Suspended Solids (Residue, Non-Filtrable) by SM 2540D - Quality Control (cont'd)



Residue, Suspended 113.000 10 96.6000 117 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total Suspended Solids (Residue, Non-Filtrable) by SM 2540D - Quality Control (cont'd)



Residue, Suspended 12.3333 3.3 11.6667 NR 5.56 10


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Residue, Settleable by SM 2540F - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit(mL/L) (mL/L) Notes



Residue, Settleable ND 0.10 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Total and Free Chlorine DPD Colorimetric - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




Chlorine, Total ND 0.10 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Total and Free Chlorine DPD Colorimetric - Quality Control (cont'd)



Chlorine, Total 0.940000 0.10 0.999940 94.0 90 - 110


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Chlorine, Total 0.920000 0.10 0.999940 92.0 90 - 110 2.15 20


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Chlorine, Total ND 0.10 0.999940 ND NR 80 - 120 H1


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Chlorine, Total ND 0.10 0.999940 ND NR 80 - 120 20 H1


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Cyanide, Total by SM4500-CN E - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




Cyanide, Total ND 0.50 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Cyanide, Total by SM4500-CN E - Quality Control (cont'd)



Cyanide, Total 4.84300 0.50 5.00000 96.9 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Cyanide, Total 7.70300 0.50 5.00000 3.27100 88.6 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Cyanide, Total 8.41800 0.50 5.00000 3.27100 103 80 - 120 8.87 20


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


pH by SM 4500H+B - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD

Limit(pH Units) (pH Units) Notes



pH 7.98000 0.10 7.94000 NR 0.503 10 H1


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Sulfide, Total by SM 4500-S=D - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




Sulfide, Total ND 0.010 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Sulfide, Total by SM 4500-S=D - Quality Control (cont'd)



Sulfide, Total 0.101500 0.010 0.100000 102 80 - 120


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Sulfide, Total 11.0700 0.50 0.100000 5.89000 5180 70 - 120 M2


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





Sulfide, Total 10.8550 0.50 0.100000 5.89000 4960 70 - 120 1.96 20 M2


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8260 - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0312 - MSVOAW_LL


1,2-Dibromoethane ND 0.50 NR

2-Butanone ND 10 NR

Acetone ND 10 NR


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





1,1-Dichloroethene 18.8000 20.0000 94.0 70 - 130

Benzene 36.7500 40.0000 91.9 70 - 130

Chlorobenzene 18.5300 20.0000 92.6 70 - 130

MTBE 20.5700 20.0000 103 70 - 130

Toluene 37.1900 40.0000 93.0 70 - 130

Trichloroethene 18.4200 20.0000 92.1 70 - 130






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD





1,1-Dichloroethene 16.8100 20.0000 84.0 70 - 130 11.2 20

Benzene 34.7600 40.0000 86.9 70 - 130 5.57 20

Chlorobenzene 17.5600 20.0000 87.8 70 - 130 5.38 20

MTBE 20.8000 20.0000 104 70 - 130 1.11 20

Toluene 36.3300 40.0000 90.8 70 - 130 2.34 20

Trichloroethene 17.2400 20.0000 86.2 70 - 130 6.62 20






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270C - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Batch B3F0376 - MSSEMI_ISOTOPEDILN


1,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 10 NR




76.89 100.000 76.9 33 - 149Surrogate: 2,4,6-Tribromophenol




79.94 100.000 79.9 40 - 165Surrogate: 4-Terphenyl-d14

70.85 100.000 70.8 38 - 117Surrogate: Nitrobenzene-d5



121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270C - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0376 - MSSEMI_ISOTOPEDILN (continued)


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 72.9600 10 100.000 73.0 61 - 108

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75.1500 10 100.000 75.2 54 - 98

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 91.3600 10 100.000 91.4 79 - 130

2-Chlorophenol 82.8600 10 100.000 82.9 54 - 91

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 84.7400 50 100.000 84.7 75 - 109

4-Nitrophenol 41.0200 50 100.000 41.0 31 - 69 J

Acenaphthene 95.5900 10 100.000 95.6 76 - 118

N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine 72.8800 10 100.000 72.9 52 - 119

Pentachlorophenol 84.1000 50 100.000 84.1 74 - 128

Phenol 44.2500 10 100.000 44.2 23 - 49

Pyrene 94.0000 10 100.000 94.0 75 - 135










121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270C - Quality Control (cont'd)

Batch B3F0376 - MSSEMI_ISOTOPEDILN (continued)


1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 71.2900 10 100.000 71.3 61 - 108 2.32 20

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 73.3800 10 100.000 73.4 54 - 98 2.38 20

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 92.5500 10 100.000 92.6 79 - 130 1.29 20

2-Chlorophenol 79.9000 10 100.000 79.9 54 - 91 3.64 20

4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 85.0500 50 100.000 85.0 75 - 109 0.365 20

4-Nitrophenol 41.3000 50 100.000 41.3 31 - 69 0.680 20 J

Acenaphthene 95.1900 10 100.000 95.2 76 - 118 0.419 20

N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine 69.7600 10 100.000 69.8 52 - 119 4.37 20

Pentachlorophenol 85.7700 50 100.000 85.8 74 - 128 1.97 20

Phenol 43.3400 10 100.000 43.3 23 - 49 2.08 20

Pyrene 96.3600 10 100.000 96.4 75 - 135 2.48 20










121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270/SIM - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.05716 0.20 NR J

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.06613 0.20 NR J






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270/SIM - Quality Control (cont'd)



Acenaphthene 0.582960 0.20 1.00000 58.3 49 - 99

Phenanthrene 0.726330 0.20 1.00000 72.6 57 - 108

Pyrene 0.808220 0.20 1.00000 80.8 69 - 102






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


Semivolatile Organic Compounds by EPA 8270/SIM - Quality Control (cont'd)



Acenaphthene 0.550890 0.20 1.00000 55.1 49 - 99 5.66 20

Phenanthrene 0.685940 0.20 1.00000 68.6 57 - 108 5.72 20

Pyrene 0.769960 0.20 1.00000 77.0 69 - 102 4.85 20






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270/SIM: Isotope Dilution Technique - Quality Control

Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD




1,4-Dioxane ND 0.20 NR


1.018 1.00000 102 48 - 121Surrogate: 2-Fluorobiphenyl


1.148 1.00000 115 27 - 151Surrogate: Nitrobenzene-d5


121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270/SIM: Isotope Dilution Technique - Quality Control (cont'd)



1,4-Dioxane 1.19073 0.20 1.00000 119 58 - 151






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Analyte

Result PQL Spike

Level

Source

Result % Rec

% Rec

Limits RPD

RPD


1,4-Dioxane by EPA 8270/SIM: Isotope Dilution Technique - Quality Control (cont'd)



1,4-Dioxane 1.25872 0.20 1.00000 126 58 - 151 5.55 20






121 Innovation Dr.

Irvine , CA 92617

Project Number :

Report To :


Anthony Marino

Reported : 06/21/2013

AMEC E & I


Notes and Definitions

S3 Surrogate recovery outside of laboratory acceptance limit. Unable to confirm matrix effects.

S1 Surrogate recovery was above laboratory acceptance limit. No target analyte was detected in the sample.

M2 Matrix spike recovery outside of acceptance limit due to possible matrix interference. The analytical batch was validated by the laboratory

control sample.

M1 Matrix spike recovery outside of acceptance limit. The analytical batch was validated by the laboratory control sample.

L5 Laboratory Control Sample high biased. Sample result/s was non-detect (ND) for the target analyte; therefore reanalysis was not necessary.

J Analyte detected below the Practical Quantitation Limit but above or equal to the Method Detection Limit. Result is an estimated

concentration.

H1 Sample was received past holding time.

ND Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit

PQL Practical Quantitation Limit

MDL Method Detection Limit

RPD Relative Percent Difference

Not ReportedNR

CA-NELAP (CDPH)CA1

CA2 CA-ELAP (CDPH)

OR-NELAP (OSPHL)OR1

TX1 TX-NELAP (TCEQ)

Notes:

(1) The reported MDL and PQL are based on prep ratio variation and analytical dilution.

(2) The suffix [2C] of specific analytes signifies that the reported result is taken from the instrument's second column.


Job Number Order Date Client

69801 06/12/2013 ATL

Number of Pages 3

Date Received 06/12/2013

Date Reported 06/21/2013

Advanced Technology Laboratories

3275 Walnut Avenue

Signal Hill, CA 90755-5225

Project ID:

Project Name:

1301728PO# SC08055

Ordered By

Attention: Rachelle AradaTelephone: (562)989-4045

Enclosed please find results of analyses of 1 water samplewhich was analyzed as specified on the attached chain ofcustody. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate tocall.

2834 & 2908 North Naomi Street Burbank, CA 91504 • DOHS NO: 1541, LACSD NO: 10181Tel: (888) 288-AETL • (818) 845-8200 • Fax: (818) 845-8840 • www.aetlab.com

American Environmental Testing Laboratory Inc.

Cyrus Razmara, Ph.D.

Laboratory Director

Approved By:Checked By:


Job Number Order Date Client

69801 06/12/2013 ATL

Project ID: 1301728




3275 Walnut Avenue


Ordered By

Attention: Rachelle Arada

Telephone: (562)989-4045

Page: 1 A

AETL received 1 samples with the following specification on 06/12/2013.

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

CASE NARRATIVE

2834 & 2908 North Naomi Street Burbank, CA 91504 • DOHS NO: 1541, LACSD NO: 10181

Tel: (888) 288-AETL • (818) 845-8200 • Fax: (818) 845-8840 • www.aetlab.com


Lab ID Sample ID Sample Date Matrix Quantity Of Containers

69801.01 1301728-01 06/12/2013 Aqueous 2

Method ^ Submethod Priority TAT UnitsReq Date

SM-5540C 2 Normal mg/L06/19/2013SM5210B 2 Normal mg/L06/19/2013

The samples were analyzed as specified on the enclosed chain of custody.

No analytical non-conformances were encountered.


Laboratory Director



QC Batch No: 061213-1

69801 06/12/2013 ATL

AETL Job Number Submitted Client

Advanced Technology Laboratories3275 Walnut AvenueSignal Hill, CA 90755-5225

Project ID:Project Name:

1301728

PO# SC08055

2Page:

Ordered By

Attn: Rachelle Arada

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (562)989-4045

Method: SM-5540C, Methylene Blue Active Substances (MBAS)



Date Sampled 06/12/2013

Dilution Factor 1 1

Units mg/L mg/L

Matrix Aqueous AqueousDate Analyzed 06/12/2013 06/12/2013

Date Prepared 06/12/2013 06/12/2013

1301728-01Client Sample I.D.

Analytes MDL Results ResultsPQL

Preparation Method SM5540C SM5540C

Our Lab I.D. 69801.01Method Blank

0.05Surfactants (MBAS) 0.05 ND ND

Analytes

Sample MSMS MS MS DUP MS DUP MS DUP RPD MS/MSD MS RPD

Result RecovConcen % REC Concen Recov % REC % % Limit % Limit

QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

QC Batch No: 061213-1; Dup or Spiked Sample: B061213; LCS: Clean Water; QC Prepared: 06/12/2013; QC Analyzed: 06/12/2013;

Units: mg/L

Surfactants (MBAS) 80-120 <15 0.00 0.500 0.422X 84.4 0.500 0.420X 84.0 <1

Analytes

SM RPDSM DUP SM RPD

Result %Result % Limit


Units: mg/L

Surfactants (MBAS) ND ND <1 <15


QC Batch No: 061413

69801 06/12/2013 ATL




1301728

PO# SC08055

3Page:

Ordered By


ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (562)989-4045

Method: SM5210B, Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5 days, @ 20C (Standard Methods)




Dilution Factor 1 1

Units mg/L mg/L

Matrix Aqueous AqueousDate Analyzed 06/19/2013 06/19/2013

Date Prepared 06/14/2013 06/14/2013



Preparation Method SM5210B SM5210B


5.0Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5.0 ND ND

Analytes

SM RPDSM DUP SM RPD LCS LCS LCS LCS/LCSD

Result %Result % Limit Concen Recov % REC % Limit


QC Batch No: 061413; Dup or Spiked Sample: 69800.02; LCS: Clean Water; LCS Prepared: 06/14/2013; LCS Analyzed: 06/19/2013;

Units: mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ND ND <1 <15 198 186 93.9 80-120


of 87Figure H-4.83

hari.ponnaboyina

Line

of 87Figure H-4.84

hari.ponnaboyina

Line

of 87Figure H-4.85

hari.ponnaboyina

Line

of 87Figure H-4.86

hari.ponnaboyina

Line

of 87Figure H-4.87

hari.ponnaboyina

Line


APPENDIX I PUMPING TEST REPORT

Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station

W E S T S I D E S U B W A Y E X T E N S I O N P R O J E C T September 16, 2013

Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2



Table of Contents


Page i September 16, 2013

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES‐1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1‐11‐1

1.1 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................ 1‐11‐1

1.2 Limitations and Basis for Recommendations............................................................. 1‐11‐1

2.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS ...................................................................................................... 2‐12‐1

2.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 2‐12‐1

2.2 Health and Safety Plan ............................................................................................... 2‐12‐1

2.3 Permits ....................................................................................................................... 2‐12‐1

2.4 Mark Borings and Underground Service Alert (Dig Alert) ......................................... 2‐12‐1

2.5 Utility Clearance ......................................................................................................... 2‐12‐1

2.6 Traffic Control Measures ........................................................................................... 2‐22‐2

2.7 Public Notification of Field Work ............................................................................... 2‐22‐2

2.8 Well Installation ......................................................................................................... 2‐22‐2

2.9 Groundwater Well Development .............................................................................. 2‐32‐3

3.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND NPDES PERMITTING ..................................................... 3‐13‐1

3.1 Groundwater Sampling – May 2013 (Well OB‐304) .................................................. 3‐13‐1

3.2 Groundwater Sampling – June 2013 (Well P‐305) ..................................................... 3‐13‐1

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF PUMP TESTS ....................................................................................... 18‐14‐1

4.1 Step‐Drawdown Pumping Test ................................................................................ 18‐14‐1

4.2 Constant‐Rate Pumping Test ................................................................................... 18‐14‐1

4.3 Summary of Results ................................................................................................. 18‐24‐2

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 53‐15‐1

6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 54‐16‐1

List of Figures Figure 1: Location of pumping and observation wells

Figure 2: Generalized soil profile for the Wilshire/La Brea Station

Figure 3: Step‐Drawdown Test Procedure – Pumping Well

Figure 4: Constant Rate Test Procedure – Pumping Well


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 Table of Contents

Page ii

List of Tables Table 3‐1: List of Analytes and Analytical Methodology ...................................................................... 3‐13‐1

Table 4‐1: Water Quality Analytical Test Results ............................................................................... 18‐34‐3

Table 4‐2: Water Quality Analytical Test Results ............................................................................... 18‐54‐4

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Los Angeles County Department Of Public Health Well Permit and City Of Los Angeles Public Right‐Of‐Way Use Permit

Appendix B: Boring Logs and Well Construction Details

Appendix C: Non‐Hazardous Waste Data Forms

Appendix D: Laboratory Analytical Reports

Appendix E: Time‐Drawdown Plots


Executive Summary


Page ES-1 September 16, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of aquifer pumping tests conducted as part of the professional geotechnical and environmental services for the Advanced Preliminary Engineering (Adv. PE) phase of the proposed Westside Subway Extension (WSE) project (the Project). The Project is a proposed extension of the Metro Purple Line subway westward from the Wilshire/Western Station to the Veterans Administration West Los Angeles Hospital via Century City. The 9‐mile subway will consist of heavy rail transit operated in a twin‐tunnel configuration with seven passenger stations and cross passages along the alignment, serving the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. Section 1 of the Project includes the first 3.9 miles from the existing Wilshire /Western Station to Wilshire/La Cienega Station. The Wilshire /La Brea Station will be constructed using cut‐and‐cover methods. Dewatering is expected to be required as part of the cut‐and‐cover construction for the station.

AMEC as a primary geotechnical consultant to the Parsons Brinkerhoff Team (PB Team) previously submitted the Geotechnical Data Report (GDR) for the Station titled “Geotechnical Data Report for Wilshire/La Brea Station, Section 1 Report” dated May 22, 2013. This report serves as an addendum to the May 22, 2013 report and presents the results of the Hydrogeologic Study at the Wilshire/La Brea Station location.

Three groundwater wells were installed within the area of the proposed Wilshire/ La Brea Station. One pumping well (P‐305) and two observation wells (OB‐304 and OB‐306) were placed within the area where groundwater extraction for dewatering purposes would be expected. During drilling of the borehole for P‐305 the soil was described as wet at approximately 25 feet below ground surface (bgs). The standing water level in the well after completion was between 15 and 20 feet bgs. Based on the boring log for well P‐305, the predominant water‐bearing zone was observed to be about 31 feet thick and was encountered from approximately 54 feet to 85 feet bgs in alluvial aquifer materials consisting primarily of sand and silt, and sand and silt mixtures.

Based on a step‐drawdown pumping test conducted on June 4, 2013, a target pumping rate for the constant‐rate pumping test was established at approximately 16 gallons per minute (gpm). A constant‐rate pumping test was conducted on June 12‐13, 2013 for a pumping period of 24 hours. The pump was set at the target rate of 16 gpm; however, the average pumping rate over the length of the test was calculated to be approximately 15 gpm. Following the pumping period, water level recovery was monitored for an additional 24‐hour period. Water level drawdown and recovery curve data from the three wells were analyzed using the Hantush leaky‐aquifer‐with‐storage solution and the Cooley‐Case leaky‐aquifer solution methods. The estimated transmissivity (T) values using the two methods were 500 feet squared per day (ft2/d) and 590 ft2/d. Assuming a saturated unit thickness of 70 feet, and partial penetration of the pumping well, the hydraulic conductivity (Kh) values were estimated at 7.2 and 8.4 feet per day. The Storativity (S) values were estimated at 4.7X10‐6 and 4.7x10‐7.


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 Executive Summary

Page ES-2





Page 1-1 September 16, 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of an aquifer pumping test performed as part of hydrogeologic studies for the proposed Wilshire/La Brea Station as part of the Advanced. PE phase of the proposed Westside Subway Extension Project. The Westside Subway Extension is a proposed extension to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) subwayto the west from the Wilshire/Western Station to the Veterans Administration West Los Angeles Hospital. The subway will consist of heavy rail transit operated in a twin tunnel configuration with seven new passenger stations along the alignment, serving the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. Section 1 of the project includes the first 3.9 miles from the existing Wilshire/Western Station to the Wilshire/La Cenega Station.

AMEC Environment and Infrastructure (AMEC) prepared this report on behalf of Parsons‐Brinckerhoff (PB) and Metro. Two hydrogeologic studies have been completed to date as part of the PE and Adv. PE phases for the purpose of obtaining hydrogeologic data from pumping tests that can be used in planning for dewatering during station construction, groundwater inflow along tunnel reaches, and other hydrogeologic data requirements. A hydrogeologic study was previously conducted for the proposed Wilshire/La Cienega Station. Results of the Wilshire/La Cienega Station hydrogeologic study were presented in the December 21, 2011 Final Draft – Preliminary and Environmental Report and the April 5, 2012 Pump Test Report – Wilshire/La Cienega Station, respectively.

Metro currently is enrolled in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program that includes coverage for the Wilshire/La Cienega Station under NPDES Permit No. CAG994004, CI‐9741. The revised permit coverage under the existing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board‐ Los Angeles Region (RWQCB) on October 17, 2011, covering Wilshire/La Cienega Station. The pump testing at Wilshire/La Brea Station will be added to the NPDES permit.

1.1 Scope of Work A pumping test was performed at the Wilshire/La Brea Station to obtain data that can be used in planning for dewatering of the station during construction.At the pumping test location, a pumping well and two observation wells were installed. The pumping and observation wells were screened across a vertical interval within the primary water bearing zone of the planned excavations so that representative hydrogeologic units could be evaluated. The pumping testing included a step‐drawdown test and a 24‐hour constant‐rate pumping test. The pumping test was conducted in general accordance with procedures presented by the United States (US) Bureau of Reclamation in the Groundwater Manual (US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1995) Pumping test results were evaluated to estimate the groundwater inflows expected into the station excavation.

1.2 Limitations and Basis for Recommendations The professional services summarized herein have been performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report has been prepared for Metro, and their design consultants to be used solely for the evaluation of the proposed Westside Subway Extension. The report has not been prepared


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 1.0 – Introduction

Page 1-2

for use by other parties, and may not contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or other uses.

In developing the interpretations and recommendations presented in this report, AMEC (PB team member) relied partly on subsurface information obtained by its predecessor company MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. (MACTEC) in the ACE, PE and Adv. P.E. phase studies and its other predecessor companies, LeRoy Crandall and Associates and Law/Crandall, and from information obtained by other firms. Subsurface conditions are, by their nature, uncertain and may vary from those encountered at the locations where visual inspections, borings, surveys, or other explorations were made.


2.0 – Field Explorations



2.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS

2.1 General Prior to conducting the pumping test, a work plan was prepared by AMEC and submitted to PB for review, including exhibits that showed proposed explorations. The pumping test was performed in general accordance with the approved work plan, with minor amendments, as suggested or approved by PB. Some of the key elements of the planning and the field program are described below.

2.2 Health and Safety Plan Before the groundwater pump testing was performed, a site‐specific health and safety plan (HASP) was prepared to identify potential health and job safety issues and to outline the safe procedures to be followed by the field personnel. The HASP was made available to AMEC’s subcontractors for review and for the subcontractors to be briefed about the safety hazards and safe practices for hazards expected in the field. In addition, AMEC’s subcontractors were briefed by their respective AMEC field team leader about the anticipated daily field activities prior to the start of each day’s work.

2.3 Permits Prior to well installation, applications for well permits for the three groundwater wells were submitted to and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH). A public right‐of‐way use permit was approved by the City of Los Angeles (City). A copy of the LACDPH and City permits are attached as Appendix A to this report. An NPDES permit was not required for the pumping test work because water from the well installations and the testing was discharged to a permitted disposal facility and not to the storm drain system.

2.4 Mark Borings and Underground Service Alert (Dig Alert) Before starting the exploration program, a field reconnaissance was conducted to observe site conditions and to mark locations of planned explorations. Electronic versions of utility maps were used in planning exploration locations.

As required by the State of California, Underground Service Alert (USA) was notified of locations of planned explorations at least 48 hours prior to the start of drilling activities. During this timeframe, based on the USA notification, the utility stakeholders marked out their utilities in the field and provided notification regarding potential utility conflicts affecting exploration locations.

2.5 Utility Clearance USA services are only helpful in identifying potential conflicts with certain utilities in the public right‐of‐way. To further identify potential underground utilities at exploration locations and to further reduce the risk of damaging utilities, a private utility locator (GeoVision) was subcontracted to locate potential exploration location conflicts with existing underground utilities using geophysical equipment. As a supplemental precaution, exploration locations were typically placed at least 2 to 3 feet away from the utilities identified by GeoVision. Finally, the upper 5 to 10 feet of the explorations were excavated using hand auger drilling equipment. As needed, excavation using hand auger equipment continued below 5 feet depth until natural soils were encountered.


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 2.0 – Field Explorations

Page 2-2

2.6 Traffic Control Measures When closing traffic or parking lanes during field work, traffic control measures were implemented by AMEC subcontractor A Cone Zone of Corona, California. Based on the exploration location and site conditions and governing city requirements, site‐specific traffic control plans (TCPs) were prepared by A Cone Zone and submitted to the specified agency for approval of traffic control measures. The approved traffic control plans provided procedures for closing lanes and directing street traffic in the field activity area.

2.7 Public Notification of Field Work As requested by Metro, public notifications were prepared detailing pump test activities. Information provided in the notifications included: the work area, duration of testing, types of equipment to be used, and traffic lane closures. The notifications were distributed to stakeholders by Metro personnel on a weekly basis, prior to the field work.

2.8 Well Installation Three groundwater wells, P‐305, OB‐304, and OB‐306, were installed at the proposed Wilshire/La Brea Station location. The general location of wells in relation to the Wilshire/La Brea Station location is presented in Figure 1.

The pumping test was conducted at the Metro Customer Center located at 5301 Wilshire Boulevard between South La Brea Avenue and South Detroit Street in Los Angeles, California. The Metro Customer Center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and South La Brea Avenue.

The bottom of the proposed Wilshire/La Brea Station will be established at approximately 75 bgs. Based on the planned station depth, and a review of other well and boring data for the area, the planned depths for the wells were established between 85 and 100 feet bgs.

On May 7 and 8, 2013, observation well OB‐304 was drilled and converted into a well using a rotary‐wash drilling rig operated by C&L Drilling under AMEC supervision. On May 28, 29, and 31, 2013, pumping well P‐305 and observation well OB‐306 were drilled and converted into wells using a hollow‐stem‐auger drilling rig operated by Martini Drilling, Inc. under AMEC supervision. The soil conditions encountered were logged by an AMEC geologist and are summarized on boring logs in Appendix B‐ Boring Logs and Well Construction Details. During drilling, the borings were logged following the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and the well screen intervals were selected based upon the findings during drilling, including the stratigraphy (e.g., soil types and layering) and the presence of saturated conditions. The wells were screened across the vertical extent of the sandier sediments in the proposed excavation depth interval that would produce the most water during dewatering.

The pumping well, P‐305, was installed to a depth of 90 feet bgs and was constructed of 4‐inch‐diameter Schedule 40‐PVC casing with 0.020‐inch slotted screen. The screen interval was 35 feet in length, extending from approximately 50 feet to 85 feet bgs. Five feet of blank casing was placed below the screened interval to provide a reservoir during the pumping test.

Observation wells OB‐304 and OB‐306 were installed to depths of 102 and 85 feet bgs, respectively. OB‐304 was constructed of 4‐inch‐diameter Schedule 40‐PVC casing with a 0.020‐inch slotted screen from


2.0 – Field Explorations



approximately 50 feet to 85 feet. Fifteen feet of blank casing was placed below the screened interval. OB‐306 was constructed of 2‐inch‐diameter Schedule 40‐PVC casing with a 0.020‐inch slotted screen from approximately 50 feet to 85 feet bgs. Wells OB‐304 and OB‐306 are located approximately 85 feet south and 60 feet north of P‐305, respectively (Figure 1).

Based on the boring logs for the three wells, the generalized soil profile for the Wilshire/La Brea Station can be described as primarily alluvial desposits in the upper 85 feet underlain by Fernando Formation as presented in Figure 2. Further details are summarized below:

0 to 15 feet bgs: primarily dark yellowish‐brown clay, some fill material. 15 to 30 feet bgs: dark yellowish‐brown sandy clay. 30 to ~58 feet bgs: light olive‐brown/ dark yellowish‐brown silt, clayey sand, sand and sandy silt. ~58 to 85 feet bgs: dark greenish‐gray/yellowish‐gray sand with a trace of gravel. ~85 feet and below: dark greenish‐gray siltstone (Fernando Formation).

During the drilling for OB‐304, groundwater was first observed at approximately 54 feet bgs. In P‐305, the soil was described as wet at a depth of 25 feet bgs. Based on the sediment types observed and the occurrence of groundwater, the depth interval that may produce the most water during dewatering is believed to be approximately 31 feet thick: from 54 to 85 feet bgs and consists primarily of sand and silt, and sand and silt mixtures. Appendix B contains further details on drilling and well construction, including soil descriptions, screened intervals, blank casing, sand pack, and seals.

2.9 Groundwater Well Development On May 14, 2013, OB‐304 was developed by Gregg Drilling & Testing of Signal Hill, California under AMEC supervision. The static depth to water was measured in OB‐304 at approximately 18.8 feet below top of casing. After removing approximately 300 gallons of water from the well, the water appeared very cloudy and greenish‐gray in color. On June 3, 2013, OB‐304 was redeveloped by Martini Drilling. After approximately 400 gallons of water were removed, the water appeared light gray in color. It was concluded that the development was adequate to proceed with the pump tests. Martini Drilling, using surge, bail, and pumping techniques under AMEC supervision, developed well P‐305 on June 3, 2013. The depth to water was measured in P‐305 at approximately 18.5 feet below top of casing. The purged water appeared clear after purging approximately 300 gallons from the well (P‐305). After removing approximately 550 gallons from P‐305, the water appeared clear. A water sample was obtained for testing and transported to laboratory for analytical testing. On June 3, 2013, well OB‐306 was developed by Martini Drilling using surge, bail, and pumping techniques. The depth to water was measured at approximately 17.6 feet below top of casing. Approximately 250 gallons of water was removed from the well. Following development, the water appeared clear.


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 2.0 – Field Explorations

Page 2-4



3.0 – Groundwater Sampling and NPDES Permitting



3.0 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND NPDES PERMITTING

3.1 Groundwater Sampling – May 2013 (Well OB-304) A grab groundwater sample was collected from well OB‐304 on May 14, 2013. The sample was collected for analysis for the NPDES permit supplemental requirements that would apply to groundwater extracted and discharged to the storm drain system during subway construction. The groundwater sample was analyzed by Advanced Technology Laboratories (ATL) for the pollutants listed in the NPDES supplemental requirements and also for RWQCB Ballona Creek constituents. A list of the analytes and analytical methodology is included in Table 3‐1.

3.2 Groundwater Sampling – June 2013 (Well P-305) The May 2013 groundwater sample from well OB‐304 was used for initial consideration of the groundwater quality. The groundwater sample from OB‐304 was not considered representative of water quality because the well could not be properly developed due to the limited time available to develop a well installed using a rotary‐wash drilling technique. The subsequent groundwater sample, however, was collected from well P‐305 on June 5, 2013. This grab groundwater sample was collected during the constant‐rate aquifer test. This sample was collected from well P‐305 because it is considered representative of the groundwater quality at the proposed station location based on the parameters measured during well development and because the sample was collected after many hours of pumping. The sample was transported to ATL and analyzed for the same constituents as the May 2013 groundwater sample from well OB‐304.

Table 3-11: List of Analytes and Analytical Methodology

4.0 Analyte 5.0 Analysis Method 6.0 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 7.0 EPA 624,8260

8.0 Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 9.0 EPA 625,8270C

10.0 1, 4 – Dioxane (Isotope Dilution Technique) 11.0 EPA 8270/SIM

12.0 Oil & Grease (Hexane Extractable Material) 13.0 EPA 1664A

14.0 Title 22 Metals + Boron 15.0 EPA 200.8,245.1

16.0 Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs) 17.0 EPA 608

Total Hardness (as calcium carbonate) SM 2340B Total Cyanide SM 4500-CN E Perchlorate EPA 314.0 pH SM 4500H+B Total Suspended Solids (TSS) SM 2540D Turbidity EPA 180.1 Hexavalent Chromium EPA 218.6 Settleable Residue SM 2540F

Analyte Analysis Method Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) SM 5210B Methylene Blue Active Substances (MBAS) SM-5540C Total Chlorine DPD Colorimetric Total Sulfide SM 4500-S=D Anions (Chloride, Nitrate as N, Nitrite as N, Sulfate) EPA 300.0 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) SM 2540D


3.0 – Groundwater Sampling and NPDES Permitting





18.0 – Description of Pump Tests



18.0 DESCRIPTION OF PUMP TESTS

18.1 Step-Drawdown Pumping Test On June 11, 2013, a step‐drawdown pumping test was conducted to establish a pumping rate for the constant‐rate pumping test. The step‐drawdown test consisted of pumping groundwater from well P‐305 using three sequential steps where the pumping rate was increased incrementally for each successive step. Prior to conducting the test, pressure transducers were placed in pumping well P‐305 and observation wells OB‐304 and OB‐306 to record water level changes over both the pumping and recovery phases of the test. Groundwater levels were also measured from the top of casing in two of the wells using an electronic water‐level meter to the nearest 0.01 foot (USBR, 1995). The depth to water in well P‐305 was measured at 16.60 feet below top of casing prior to starting the test. The depth to water in well OB‐306 was 17.60 feet below top of casing prior to starting the test. The depth of water in well OB‐304 prior to starting the step testing was 17.05 feet below the top of the well casing. Well P‐305 was pumped using a 4‐inch diameter Grundfos submersible pump at steps of 9.5 gallons per minute (gpm), 15 gpm, and 19 gpm. Based on the test results, it was determined that 16 gpm would be the target pumping rate for the constant‐rate test. A graph showing the water level changes in the pumping well during the step‐drawdown test is presented as Figure 3. Based on the test results of a groundwater sample from OB‐304, the pumped groundwater was contained in a 16,400 gallon double‐walled tank. The double‐walled tank was temporarily placed on the site near the pumping well.

18.2 Constant-Rate Pumping Test The constant‐rate pumping test involved extracting groundwater from well P‐305 while observing the effects of the pumping on the surrounding groundwater system. The pumping phase was conducted for 24 hours between June 12 and 13, 2013. Time‐drawdown data was collected at one‐minute (or 30 second) intervals using the pressure transducers during the pumping and recovery phases of the pumping test. Manual depth‐to‐water readings were also taken to calibrate the digital pressure transducer data. The depth to groundwater was measured from the top of casing using an electronic water‐level meter prior to conducting the test. In Well P‐305, the depth to groundwater was measured at 16.65 feet below top of casing and in well OB‐306, 17.66 feet below top of casing. Initially, well P‐305 was pumped at the target rate of 16 gpm, based on the reading on the flow meter sight glass and totalizer readings. Approximately 18 hours into the test, the flow rate was observed to decrease slightly from the target rate. A total of 21,531 gallons (based on the flow totalizer reading) was removed during the 24‐hour test which equals an average pumping rate of 14.95 gpm. The discharge water was observed to be clear with a hydrogen sulfide odor and was pumped into a 16,400‐gallon capacity double‐walled tank. According to the non‐hazardous waste data forms submitted for the water disposal from the pumping test, approximately 25,550 gallons (including the water pumped during the step‐drawdown test) were removed from the tank using vacuum trucks and transported to DeMenno/Kerdoon in Compton, California a permitted waste treatment facility. The non‐hazardous waste data forms are attached as Appendix C‐ Non‐Hazardous Waste Data Forms.


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 18.0 – Description of Pump Tests

Page 18-2

The maximum drawdown measured in the pumping well was 6.36 feet. The maximum drawdown in observation well OB‐306 was 1.55 feet.

18.3 Summary of Results

Water Quality Analytical Results (OB-304) – May 2013 Water quality analytical results for the May and June 2013 groundwater samples are summarized in Table 4‐1. Based on the analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from well OB‐304, eight constituents were detected above the RWQCB Ballona Creek daily maximum discharge limitations. The constituents exceeding the limitations were total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, settleable solids, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total maximum daily loads (TDMLs) for all four Ballona Creek Heavy Metals: copper, lead, selenium, and zinc. TSS was detected above the daily maximum of 150 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at 3,600 mg/L; turbidity above the daily maximum of 150 NTU at 2,800 NTU; settleable solids above the daily maximum of 0.3 mg/L at 67 mg/L; BOD above the daily maximum of 30 mg/L at 57.6 mg/L; copper above the daily maximum of 24 µg/L at 130 µg/L; lead above the daily maximum of 13 µg/L at 26 µg/L; selenium above the daily maximum of 5 µg/L at 6.6 µg/L and zinc above the daily maximum of 304 µg/L at 420 µg/L. Five additional constituents were detected above NPDES screening levels; 1,1‐Dichloroethene, benzene, chromium, nickel and mercury. The laboratory results are attached as Appendix D‐ Laboratory Analytical Reports.

Water Quality Analytical Results (P-305) – June 2013 Based on the analytical results of the groundwater sample collected from well P‐305 (see Table 4‐2), no constituents were detected above Ballona Creek daily maximums, TDMLs or NPDES screening levels. These laboratory results are also included in Appendix D. Analytical results of a groundwater sample collected from P‐305 showed that no chemical or constituent concentrations were detected above the California Regional Water Quality Control Board‐ Los Angeles Region Ballona Creek daily maximum effluent limitations and Total Maximum Day Loads, (TMDLs) or NPDES screening levels. Since there was ample time to fully develop well P‐305, it is anticipated that the analytical test results obtained from this well would be representative of the water to be pumped during station construction. Therefore, it is anticiapted that the groundwater collected during Station dewatering operation may be disposed of into a storm drain. However, the NPDES permit obtained for construction dewatering discharge to the storm drain system may also include requirements related to storm drain capacity, periodic confirmatory testing and other factors.





Table 18-11: Water Quality Analytical Test Results

mg/L – milligrams per liter NTU – nephelometric turbidity unit µg/L – micrograms per liter Bold indicates concentration above daily maximum effluent limitation or screening level BOD – biochemical oxygen demand

Step-Drawdown Pumping Test Results The three pumping steps used during the step test provided sufficient information to select a pumping rate for the constant‐rate test. In well P‐305, the drawdown after 30 minutes at 9.5 gpm was 3.28 feet. After pumping another 2 hours at 15 gpm, the drawdown was another 2.62 feet to 22.50 feet below top of casing.

19.0 Constituents 20.0 Units21.0 May

2013 23.0 June

2013

25.0 Daily Maximum Limit

26.0 Total Suspended Solids 27.0 mg/L 28.0 3,600 29.0 ND 30.0 150

31.0 Turbidity 32.0 NTU 33.0 2,800 34.0 6.7 35.0 150

36.0 BOD5 20°C 37.0 mg/L 57.6 ND 30

Settleable Solids mg/L 67 ND 0.3

Residual Chlorine mg/L ND ND 0.1

Methylene Blue Active mg/L 0.0 0.0 0.5

Ballona Creek Heavy Metals TMDL

Copper µg/L 130 0.84 24

Lead µg/L 26 ND 13

Selenium µg/L 6.6 1.7 5

Zinc µg/L 420 100 304

Screening Level

1,4‐Dioxane µg/L 1.2 1.3 3

Volatile Organic Compounds

1,1‐Dichloroethane µg/L 0.65 ND 5

1,1‐Dichloroethene µg/L 5.4 0.86 3.2

Benzene µg/L 0.72 ND 0.66

Chloroform µg/L 0.96 0.33 100

Toluene µg/L ND 1.5 8.85

Other Metals

Antimony µg/L 0.39 ND 4300

Arsenic µg/L 20 0.55 36

Beryllium µg/L 2.7 ND 4

Cadmium µg/L 3.8 ND 9.4

Chromium µg/L 180 ND 50

Hexavalent Chromium µg/L ND ND 50

Nickel µg/L 150 2.7 8.3

Silver µg/L 0.64 ND 2.2

Thallium µg/L 1.2 ND 6.3

Mercury µg/L 0.25 ND 0.051



Page 18-4

After pumping for 80 additional minutes at 19 gpm, the drawdown was another 1.3 feet to 23.80 feet below top of casing. At the end of the three pumping steps the drawdown measured in well OB‐306 was 1.38 feet and 0.7 feet in well OB‐304. The drawdown observed in the two monitoring wells indicated that during the 24‐hour constant‐rate pumping test, there would be sufficient drawdown in the two monitoring wells on which to perform the hydraulic analyses. Based on the test results, it was determined that a pumping rate of approximately 16 gpm would be used for the constant‐rate pumping test.

Constant-Rate Pumping Test Results The major objective of the pumping test data analysis is to quantify site hydrogeologic parameters such as transmissivity (T), hydraulic conductivity (Kh), and aquifer storativity (S). To estimate the hydraulic properties of subsurface materials, the observed field data (time‐drawdown and time‐recovery plots or curves) are matched to theoretical curves derived from mathematical equations which represent specific groundwater extraction conditions with “ideal” aquifers using the AQTESOLV® software program. Water level drawdown and recovery data from the three wells were used to generate the plots used in the analyses. Based on an analysis of the cross‐section of the Wilshire/La Brea Station, it appears that the site hydrogeology consists of a “leaky‐aquifer1” type system with approximately 70 feet of saturated thickness. The pumping and observation wells are partially penetrating in the lower portion of this system. During the 24‐hour constant‐rate pumping test, pump well P‐305 had approximately 4.5 feet of drawdown in the first minute due to well inefficiency (pressure head loss as water enters a pumping well). A review of the pumping test data collected at wells P‐305, OB‐304 and OB‐306 yield results that are consistent with site conditions (predominantly sand and mixtures of sands and silts)2. Curve‐fitting of the drawdown and recovery data using the Hantush leaky‐aquifer with storage solution3 and by the Cooley‐Case leaky‐aquifer with storage solution4 yielded the following results for T, Kh and S (See Table 4‐2).

1 An aquifer that receives a significant inflow from adjacent beds

2 The calculated permeability (hydraulic conductivity values for the sediments are between 6 and 9 feet/day, which is representative of a silty

sand and fine sand materials, and silt and sand mixtures (Groundwater, 1979, Freeze, R.A, and Cherry, J.A., Prentice‐Hall, Inc. publishers.)

3 Hantush, M.S., 1960. Modification of the theory of leaky aquifers, Jour. of Geophys. Res., vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 3713‐3725. 4 Cooley, R.L. and C.M. Case, 1973. Effect of a water table aquitard on drawdown in an underlying pumped aquifer, Water Resources Research,

vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 434‐447.





Table 18-22: Water Quality Analytical Test Results

38.0 Solution Method

39.0 Transmissivity (T)

40.0 (feet2/day)

41.0 Storativity

42.0 (S)

43.0 Hydraulic conductivity Kh

44.0 (feet/day)

45.0 Hantush 46.0 500 47.0 4.7 x 10‐6 48.0 7.2

49.0 Cooley‐Case 50.0 590 51.0 4.7 X 10‐7 52.0 8.4

Time‐drawdown and recovery plots are presented in Appendix E‐ Time‐Drawdown Plots. Results of the pumping test analyses reflect the same pumping conditions, and assume fully penetrating screened intervals at both the pumping and observation wells within an approximately 70‐foot thick“leaky‐aquifer”type unit. The selected solutions for drawdown in a leaky‐aquifer is a well‐established curve‐fitting solution that assumes a homogeneous, uniformly thick aquifer of infinite areal extent, where flow to the pumping well is radial. As this analytical solution adequately fit the drawdown data at each monitoring well, it is not considered necessary to evaluate the effect of well bore storage or aquifer/aquitard leakance5. The estimates for Kh were internally consistent between each test, and are within the range of the interbedded sand and silt materials encountered. The estimates for S are within the range expected for a leaky‐aquifer sand and silt water‐bearing unit.

Estimated Dewatering Flow Rates Dewatering flow rates were estimated assuming that they would be similar to freely flowing groundwater into an open trench. Groundwater inflow estimates for the dewatering trench at the Station were made using an analytical element model. The analytical element model was constructed for the proposed trench using the WINFLOW® software package. This application solves two‐dimensional steady‐state groundwater flow in a horizontal plane by using a combination of commonly‐used analytical solutions for drawdown. In the model developed here, a 1,000 ft long line sink representing the proposed trench was placed in a homogeneous, isotropic aquifer. A gradient of 0.0029, with groundwater flow directed perpendicular to the length of the trench was applied to the model, representative of average flow conditions within the aquifer in the vicinity of the proposed trench, and, based on a transmissivity value of 590 ft2/day and a saturated aquifer thickness of 70 feet, a hydraulic conductivity of 8.4 ft/day was used. It should be noted that the WINFLOW® model does not account for flow into the short sides of the trench, as it is simulated as a one‐dimensional line sink (i.e. water is removed from the sink assuming a unit thickness).

5 Leakance is water that flows out of an aquitard into an aquifer during a pumping test or other stress on an aquifer



Page 18-6

The results of the analytical element modeling indicated that if the water level in a 1,000‐foot long trench were lowered from the current depth to water of 15 feet to a depth of 80 feet, the groundwater inflow would be approximately 200 gpm. Considering the uncertainties regarding changes and variations in subsurface materials at various locations along the proposed trench alignment, groundwater inflow into the proposed excavation may likely exceed 200 gpm. Additionally, there is some potential for static groundwater conditions to be shallower than at present (May 2013), which would result in a thicker saturated interval to be dewatered. Such conditions would result in greater groundwater inflow to the excavation than modeled. Consequently, groundwater inflows into the excavation will likely be between 200 and 300 gpm . The dewatering contractor should perform an independent evaluation of the water inflows anticipated into the station excavation.


53.0 – Summary and Conclusions



53.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Three groundwater wells (one pumping well and two observation wells) were installed within the proposed location for the Wilshire/La Brea Station where groundwater extraction for dewatering purposes would be expected. Saturated alluvial sediments were encountered from a depth of approximately 15 feet to 85 feet bgs where the top of the Fernando Formation siltstone was encountered. The Fernando Formation siltstone is below the planned excavation depth, relatively consolidated, fine grained, and is not thought to yield significant amounts of groundwater. Within the saturated alluvial sediments a more‐permeable water‐bearing zone approximately 31 feet thick was encountered from approximately 54 feet to 85 feet bgs and it consists primarily of sand, silt, and sand and silt mixtures. Based on a step‐drawdown pumping test conducted on June 11, 2013, a target pumping rate of approximately 16 gpm was selected for the constant‐rate pumping test. A constant‐rate pumping test was conducted on June 12‐13, 2013 with a pumping period of 24 hours. The pump was set at the target discharge rate of 16 gpm but, after steady pumping for approximately 18 hours, the rate slowly began to decrease slightly below the target rate. The average pumping rate over the length of the test was approximately 14.95 gpm. Waterlevel drawdown and recovery curve data from the three wells were analyzed using two solution methods. The T values were estimated at 590 and 500 feet per day squared. Assuming a saturated thickness of 70 feet, the Kh values were estimated at 7.2 and 8.4 feet per day. The S values were estimated at 4.7 X 10‐6 and 4.7 x 10‐7. Approximately 25,550 gallons of groundwater generated from the step‐rate test, constant–rate test and tank cleaning were removed and transported to the Demenno‐Kerdoon facility in Long Beach, California for recycling. Analytical results of a groundwater sample collected from well P‐305 indicated that no analyte concentrations were detected above RWQCB Ballona Creek daily maximum effluent limitations and TMDLs or NPDES screening levels. The groundwater inflow to the proposed excavation is estimated to be 200 to 300 gpm during station excavation. The dewatering contractor should perform an independent evaluation of the water inflows anticipated into the station excavation. If Metro wishes to continue their enrollment under the NPDES general permit, quarterly reports should be submitted, even if there is no discharge, to avoid a notice of noncompliance from the RWQCB. The Second Quarter 2013 Quarterly Summary report was submitted on July 1, 2013. A notice of Intent sould be submit to the RWQCB to comply with General WDR and NPDES permit requirements with a request to Include Coverage for the Wilshire/La Brea Station under NPDES Permit No. CAG994004, CI‐9741.


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 53.0 – Summary and Conclusions

Page 53-2






54.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cooley, R.L. and C.M. Case, 1973. Effect of a Water Table Aquitard on Drawdown in an Underlying Pumped Aquifer, Water Resources Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 434‐447.

Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Earth Science Associates, and Geo‐Resource Consultants, (CWDD/ESA/GRC), 1981, “Geotechnical Investigation Report, Volume I and II," for Southern California Rapid Transit Metro Rail Project.

Converse Consultants, Earth Science Associates, and Geo/Resources Consultants, (CC/ESA/GRC), 1984, “Geotechnical Report, Metro Rail Project Design Unit A220, Los Angeles, California,” March 1984, Project Number 503.

Converse Consultants West, 1992, “Preliminary Geotechnical Report Proposed Metro Rail Mid‐ City Segment, Wilshire Blvd.‐Western Station to Pico‐San Vicente Station, Los Angeles Rail Rapid Transit Project, Los Angeles, California” September 14, 1992, Project Number 91‐31‐208‐01.

Groundwater, 1979, Freeze, R.A, and Cherry, J.A., Prentice‐Hall, Inc. publishers

Hantush, M.S., 1960. Modification of the Theory of Leaky Aquifers, Journal of Geophys.ics Research., vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 3713‐3725.

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1979, “Report of Preliminary Foundation Investigation, Proposed Site Development, Wilshire Blvd. Between La Brea Avenue and Detroit Street, Los Angeles, California” October 5, 1979, Project Number A‐79292

LeRoy Crandall and Associates, 1989, “Report of Geotechnical, Investigation, Proposed Building Development Carnation Site, 5055 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, California,” June 15, 1990, Project Number LCA L89452.AEFB.

Metro, 2010, “Final Geotechnical and Environmental Report for Advanced Conceptual Engineering, Proposed Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California,” November 15, 2010, Project Number 4953‐09‐0472.

Metro, 2011, "Preliminary Geotechnical and Environmental Report, Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California, Volumes 1 through 3,” report dated December 21, 2011.

Metro, 2013, "Environmental Data Report, Westside Subway Extension, Los Angeles, California,” report dated May, 2013.

US Department of the Interior‐ Bureau of Reclamation, 1995, Groundwater Manual, 2nd Edition, 661 pages.


September 16, 2013

APPENDIX A LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF PUBLIC HEALTH WELL PERMIT AND CITY OF LOS ANGELES PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 Appendix A – LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF PUBLIC HEALTH WELL PERMIT AND CITY OF LOS ANGELES PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT


____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure A-1

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure A-2____

__

__

________________________________________________


September 16, 2013

APPENDIX B BORING LOGS AND WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMS


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 Appendix B – Boring LOGs and WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMS


____

__

__

________________________________________________

11-inch thick Asphalt Concrete over 4-inch thick Base Course

FILL [Af]SANDY LEAN CLAY - moist, dark gray to black, very finesand, some organic odor, small rootlets

Becomes dark brown, fine to medium sand, trace asphalt andbrick fragments

QUATERNARY OLDER ALLUVIUM [Qalo]SANDY LEAN CLAY - moist, light brown, fine sand

Becomes brown, fine to coarse sand

SILTY SAND - very loose, moist, brown, fine tomedium-grained

LAKEWOOD FORMATION [Qlw]SANDY LEAN CLAY - medium stiff, moist, light brownishto dark bluish gray, fine to medium sand, some interbeddedSILTY SAND layers

Becomes light brown

ELASTIC SILT with SAND - medium stiff, moist, lightgreenish gray with trace olive gray mottling, fine to coarsesand, some calcium carbonate nodules

Becomes very stiff, pale olive to light brownish gray, fine sand,some calcium carbonate nodules

SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, bluish to greenish gray, fineto medium sand, trace coarse, some calcium carbonate nodules,some clay, trace fine gravel (up to 3/8 inch in size)

SANDY SILT with GRAVEL - very stiff, moist, greenish grayto dark bluish gray, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel (up to 3/4inch in size), some calcium carbonate nodules

6

12

25

-

89

-

94

-

95

-

9

8

20

26

CL

CL

SM

CL

MH

ML

ML

3.0

5.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

18.8

34.0

21.5

28.0

25.6

27.7

25.3

80

62

52

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**

Monitoring well was installed on 5/8/2013.

BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet



DATES DRILLED5/7/2013 - 5/8/2013


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E OB-304


Figure: B-1.1aMTA Westside Subway Extension


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160

DE

PTH

(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

Field Tech: ARPrepared/Date: JF 6/11/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/16/13

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

PMT

____

__

__

________________________________________________

SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, greenish gray, fine tomedium sand, some coarse, trace fine gravel

SAN PEDRO FORMATION [Qsp]SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, dark bluish gray, some clay,fine sand

SILTY SAND - dense, very moist, greenish to dark bluishgray, fine to medium-grained

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT - very dense, verymoist to wet, greenish gray, fine to medium-grained

Some bluish gray

Trace fine gravel (up to 1/4 inch in size)

Occasional fine gravel, trace manganese stains at bottom ofsample

SILTY SAND - very dense, very moist, greenish gray, fine tomedium-grained, trace fine gravel

36

54

78/11"

77/11"

110

-

98

-

-

108

-

29

53

67

58

ML

ML

SM

SP-SM

SM

3.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

2.0

17.9

25.5

31.0

19.2

17.5

19.5

12.0

8

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet



DATES DRILLED5/7/2013 - 5/8/2013


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E (Continued)OB-304


Figure: B-1.1bMTA Westside Subway Extension


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

155

150

145

140

135

130

125

120

DE

PTH

(ft

)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

PMT

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Thin layer of WELL GRADED SAND with SILT at top ofsample, dense, wet, dark greenish gray, fine to coarse-grained,some manganese stains

Very fine-grained, abundant shell depositsFERNANDO FORMATION [Tf]SILTSTONE - hard, moist, dark greenish gray, trace very finesand, some clay, unoxidized, some manganese stains, trace ironoxide stains


NOTES:Hand augered upper 6 feet to avoid damage to utilities.Montoring well was installed. See well construction diagramfor OB-304.




66

58

109

-

86

82

110.0

15.0

0.0

14.9

19.5

35.9

12

98

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet



DATES DRILLED5/7/2013 - 5/8/2013


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E (Continued)OB-304

Figure: B-1.1cMTA Westside Subway Extension


EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

DE

PTH

(ft

)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

FILL [Af]SILT- stiff, moist, black, some clay

LAKEWOOD FORMATION [Qlw]LEAN CLAY - stiff, moist, dark yellowish brown, some finesandFAT CLAY - soft to medium stiff, very moist, dark yellowishbrown

SANDY LEAN CLAY - stiff, moist, dark yellowish brown,fine sand, layers of clayey sand

Becomes light olive brown

SILT with SAND - very stiff, wet, light olive brown, fine tomedium sand, trace coarse, some clay

CLAYEY SAND - medium dense, wet, light olive brown, fineto medium grained

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

10

4

5

9

9

11

16

28

ML

CL

CH

CL

ML

SC

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

20.7

10.2

27.5

12.3

15.7

17.1

22.7

19.8

48

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet



DATES DRILLED5/28/2013- 5/29/2013


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

P-305/E-110B




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160

DE

PTH

(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.

Field Tech: IC/PKPrepared/Date: LH 6/18/2013Checked/Date: LT 7/16/13

LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, wet, olive

SANDY SILT - very stiff, wet, dark greenish gray, fine sand

Trace fine gravel

SAN PEDRO FORMATION [Qsp]SANDY SILT - very stiff, moist, dark bluish gray, some finesandSome clay

POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT - very dense, wet, darkgreenish gray, trace gravel, fine to medium grained

Become dark yellowish gray

Trace coarse, trace fine gravel (up to ½ inch in size)

Some gravel

33

44

54

61

-

-

-

87

99

105

117

-

21

16

27

20

12

19

68

SP

ML

MH

SP-SM

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

23.0

26.0

15.6

36.7

20.1

17.9

9.6

8.9

11

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet



DATES DRILLED5/28/2013- 5/29/2013


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

(Continued)

P-305/E-110B




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

155

150

145

140

135

130

125

120

DE

PTH

(ft

)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

FERNANDO FORMATION [Tf]SILTSTONE - moist, dark olive gray, some clay, some veryfine sand


NOTES:Hand augered upper 6 feet to avoid damage to utilities.Monitoring well was installed on 5/29/2013. See wellconstruction diagram for P-305/E110B.

For groundwater measurements, see monitoring level readingsin the report.


48

37

90

-46

0.0

0.0

0.0

34.0

13.4

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet



DATES DRILLED5/28/2013- 5/29/2013


MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

(Continued)

P-305/E-110B



EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

DE

PTH

(ft

)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

11-inch thick Asphalt Concrete over 3-inch thick PortlandCement concrete and 3-inch thick Base CourseFILL [Af]FAT CLAY - moist, light gray to black, abundant rootlets,slight organic smell

LAKEWOOD FORMATION [Qlw]SANDY LEAN CLAY - medium stiff to stiff, moist, darkolive gray, fine sandBecomes yellowish brown

Sandier seams

Becomes light brownish gray to olive, some manganese stains,some calcium carbonate nodules, layers of clayey sand

Becomes olive to olive gray, some fine sand, abundant calciumcarbonate nodules

FAT CLAY - stiff, moist to wet, pale olive

SILTY SAND - medium dense, moist, olive, fine to mediumgrained, some fine gravel (up to ¼ inch in size), trace clay,trace iron oxide stainsSANDY SILT - stiff to very stiff, moist to wet, very moist,olive, fine to medium, trace fine gravel

More medium to coarse sand

Becomes pale olive, some clay, some fine to medium sand,some calcium carbonate nodules, more plastic, trace cementedlayers

13

20

17

18

36

108

96

95

6

14

10

20

10

9

15

CH

CL

CH

SM

ML

0.0

0.3

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17.2

26.3

28.5

49

29

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet





MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

OB-306/E-110C/G-315




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160

DE

PTH

(ft

)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Becomes light olive, fine sand, trace iron oxide stainsCLAYEY SAND - dense, very moist, olive, fine to coarsegrained, some fine gravel, some silt, trace iron oxide stainsMore coarse grained

SILT - very stiff, very moist, very dark greenish gray

SAN PEDRO FORMATION [Qsp]POORLY GRADED SAND - medium dense, wet, darkgreenish gray, fine to medium grained

Becomes very dense

57

62

113

-

12

23

23

17

24

13

86/11"

69

SC

ML

SP

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.8

13.9

26

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet





MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

(Continued)

OB-306/E-110C/G-315




EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

155

150

145

140

135

130

125

120

DE

PTH

(ft

)

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Trace gravel

END OF BORING AT 85 FEETNOTES:Hand augered upper 6 feet to avoid damage to utilities.Monitoring well was installed on 5/29/2013. See wellconstruction diagram for OB-306/E110C.

For groundwater measurements, see monitoring level readingsin the report.


78

50/6"

0.1

0.2

LOG OF BORING

BORING NO.

BL

OW

CO

UN

T*

(blo

ws/

ft)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y(p

cf)

"N"

VA

LU

EST

D.P

EN

.TE

ST

SAM

PLE

LO

C.


GROUND EL.

DO

WN

HO

LE

TE

STS

OV

A (

ppm

)**


BOREHOLE LOCATION


197 feet





MO

IST

UR

E C

ON

TE

NT

(% o

f dr

y w

t.)

PER

CE

NT

PA

SSIN

GN

o. 2

00 S

IEV

E

(Continued)

OB-306/E-110C/G-315



EL

EV

AT

ION

(ft

)

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

DE

PTH

(ft

)

85

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

TH

IS R

EC

OR

D I

S A

N I

NT

ER

PR

ET

AT

ION

OF

SU

BS

UR

FA

CE

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

AT

TH

E E

XP

LO

RA

TIO

N L

OC

AT

ION

. LA

TIT

UD

E A

ND

LO

NG

ITU

DE

OF

BO

RIN

G L

OC

AT

ION

SH

OW

N O

N L

OG

S A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

.S

UB

SU

RF

AC

E C

ON

DIT

ION

S A

T O

TH

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NS

AN

D A

T O

TH

ER

TIM

ES

MA

Y D

IFF

ER

. IN

TE

RF

AC

ES

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A A

RE

AP

PR

OX

IMA

TE

. T

RA

NS

ITIO

NS

BE

TW

EE

N S

TR

AT

A M

AY

BE

GR

AD

UA

L.


LA

ME

TR

O P

B L

:\701

31 G

EO

TE

CH

\GIN

TW

\LIB

RA

RY

AM

EC

JU

NE

2012

- C

OPY

.GL

BG

:\PR

OJE

CT

_DIR

EC

TO

RIE

S\49

53\2

011\

1114

32 W

EST

SID

E F

AU

LT

PH

ASE

2\3

.2 A

LL

FIE

LD

NO

TE

S\G

INT

LO

G\4

953-

11-1

423

(RO

TA

RY

WA

SH).

GPJ

7/1

6/13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

GROUND SURFACE(ASPHALT CONCRETE)

CAST IRON TRAFFIC COVER

3' H

GROUNDWATER PUMPING TEST WELL P-305

0

5

10

3'

C: NA

4" PVC BLANK 0'-50'

BENTONITE CHIPS

11" HOLLOW STEM AUGER BORING

90'

35'

I2

G

1'

D

90'

A

B

CA

SIN

G

50'

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85'

4'I 1

40'

43'

J

46'

4'

50'

F

11"

E4"

85

90'90

86'

# 3 FILTER PACK SAND

4" PVC 0.020" WELL SCREEN 50'-85'

4" PVC BLANK 85'-90'

BENTONITE CHIPS 86'-90'

WELL CONSTRUCTIONDETAIL

Groundwater Pumping Test Wellat Wilshire / La Brea Station

Vertical Scale: 1" = 10'-0"Horizontal Scale Exaggerated

Pat

h: G

:\495

3_G

eote

ch\2

011\

1114

23 W

ests

ide

- P

ost A

PE

\CA

D\D

WG

\La

Bre

a S

tatio

n P

ump

Tes

t\495

3-11

-142

3_P

ump-

Tes

t-W

ells

.dw

g [P

305]

Dat

e: J

uly

15, 2

013

- 2:

50pm

B

y: v

o.ng

uyen

MTA WESTSIDE SUBWAY EXTENSION

FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

4953-11-1423

Key

'

BGS

Feet" Inches

Below Ground Surface

A. TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING: 90' BGS

B. DIAMETER OF BORING: 11"ØDRILLING METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER

C. TOP OF BOX ELEVATION: NA

D. CASING LENGTH: 90'MATERIAL: SCHEDULE 40 PVC

E. CASING DIAMETER: 4"Ø

F. DEPTH TO TOP OF SCREEN: 50'

G. PERFORATION LENGTH: 35'PERFORATION SIZE: 0.020" SLOTS

H. SUBSURFACE SEAL: 3' CONCRETE, 46' GROUT

I. SEAL: 3'-46', 86'-90' (BGS)MATERIAL: HYDRATED BENTONITE (CHIPS)

I1 3'-46': BENTONITE CEMENT GROUT OVER 1' OF BENTONITE CHIPS HYDRATED

I2 86'-90': BENTONITE CHIPS HYDRATED

J. FILTER PACK: 46'-86' (BGS)MATERIAL: # 3 SAND PACK

TOC Top Of Casing

Note: Actual depth may vary based on field conditions.

PROJECT NAME:

INSTALLED:

WELL LOCATION:

SCALE:

WELL NO.: P-305

MTA Westside Subway Extension

DATE:

DRAWN:

CHKD:

July 10,2013

VMN

1" = 10' Vertical

FIELD PERSONNEL:

DRILL CO.: TECHNIQUE: Hollow Stem

AMECEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.6001 Rickenbacker Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90040Phone (323) 889-5300 Fax (323) 721-6700

AM

P. KaneMartini Drilling

May 29, 2013

Wilshire W. of S. La Brea Ave., Los Angeles, CA

____

__

__

________________________________________________



3' H

GROUNDWATER TEST OBSERVATION WELL OB-304

0

5

10

3'

C: NA

4" PVC BLANK 0'-50'

BENTONITE CHIPS

8" ROTARY WASH BORING

I2

1.5'

B

80

86.5'

15.5

'

8"

85

102'

90

95

100

105

# 3 FILTER PACK SAND 48'-86.5'

4" PVC 0.020" WELL SCREEN 50'-85'

4" PVC BLANK 85'-100'

BENTONITE CHIPS 86.5'-102'

85'

100'

35'

2'

GD

102' A

CA

SIN

G

48'

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

I38

.5'

45'

J

50'

50'

F

E4"

WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILGroundwater Pumping

Observation Test Well

at Wilshire / La Brea Station


Pat

h: G

:\495

3_G

eote

ch\2

011\

1114

23 W

ests

ide

- P

ost A

PE

\CA

D\D

WG

\La

Bre

a S

tatio

n P

ump

Tes

t\495

3-11

-142

3_P

ump-

Tes

t-W

ells

.dw

g [O

B30

4]D

ate:

Jul

y 15

, 201

3 -

2:55

pm

By:

vo.

nguy

en


FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

4953-11-1423

Key

'

BGS

Feet" Inches



B. DIAMETER OF BORING: 8"ØDRILLING METHOD: ROTARY WASH






H. SUBSURFACE SEAL: 3' CONCRETE, 45' GROUT

I. SEAL: 3'-48', 86.5'-102' (BGS)MATERIAL: HYDRATED BENTONITE (CHIPS)

I1 3'-48': BENTONITE CEMENT GROUT OVER 1' OF BENTONITE CHIPS HYDRATED

I2 86.5'-102': BENTONITE CHIPS HYDRATED

J. FILTER PACK: 48'-86.5' (BGS)MATERIAL: # 3 SAND PACK

TOC Top Of Casing


Rotary - Wash Boring

PROJECT NAME:

INSTALLED:

WELL LOCATION:

SCALE:

WELL NO.: OB-304


DATE:

DRAWN:

CHKD:

July 10, 2013

VMN

1" = 10' Vertical

FIELD PERSONNEL:

DRILL CO.: TECHNIQUE:


AM

A. RecioC & L Drilling

May 8, 2013


____

__

__

________________________________________________



1.5' H

GROUNDWATER TEST OBSERVATION WELL OB-306

0

5

10

1.5'

C: NA

2" PVC BLANK 0'-50'

BENTONITE CHIPS

8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER BORING

85'

35'

G

D85'

A

CA

SIN

G

85'

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

I39

'44

.5'

J

46'

4'

50'

F

70

75

80

8"B

E2"

85

50'

# 3 FILTER PACK SAND

2" PVC 0.020" WELL SCREEN


WELL CONSTRUCTIONDETAIL

Pumping Test Observation Wellat Wilshire / La Brea Station


Pat

h: G

:\495

3_G

eote

ch\2

011\

1114

23 W

ests

ide

- P

ost A

PE

\CA

D\D

WG

\La

Bre

a S

tatio

n P

ump

Tes

t\495

3-11

-142

3_P

ump-

Tes

t-W

ells

.dw

g [O

B30

6]D

ate:

Jul

y 15

, 201

3 -

2:51

pm

By:

vo.

nguy

en

Hollow Stem


FIGURE NO.

PROJECT NO.

4953-11-1423

Key

'

BGS

Feet" Inches



B. DIAMETER OF BORING: 8"ØDRILLING METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER






H. SUBSURFACE SEAL: 1.5' CONCRETE

I. SEAL: 1.5'-46' (BGS)MATERIAL: MEDIUM HYDRATED BENTONITE (CHIPS)

J. FILTER PACK: 46'-85' (BGS)MATERIAL: # 3 SAND PACKw/ TRANSITION SAND AT TOP

TOC Top Of Casing


PROJECT NAME:

INSTALLED:

WELL LOCATION:

SCALE:

WELL NO.: OB-306


DATE:

DRAWN:

CHKD:

July 10, 2013

VMN

1" = 10' Vertical

FIELD PERSONNEL:

DRILL CO.: TECHNIQUE:


AM

P. KaneMartini Drilling

May 31, 2013

____

__

__

________________________________________________


September 16, 2013

APPENDIX C NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA FORMS


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 Appendix C – NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE DATA FORMS


____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure C-1.1____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure C-1.2____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure C-1.3____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure C-1.4____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure C-1.5____

__

__

________________________________________________

Figure C-1.6____

__

__

________________________________________________


September 16, 2013

APPENDIX D LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 Appendix D – LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS


____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-1

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-2

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-3

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-4

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-5

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-6

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-7

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-8

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-9

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-10

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-11

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-12

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-14

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-15

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-16

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-17

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-18

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-19

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-20

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-21

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-22

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-23

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-24

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-25

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-26

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-27

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-28

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-29

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-30

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-31

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-32

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-33

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-34

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-35

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-36

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-37

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-38

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-39

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-40

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-41

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-42

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-43

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-44

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-45

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-46

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-47

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-48

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-49

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-50

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-51

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-52

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-53

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-54

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-55

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-56

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-57

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-58

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-59

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-60

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-61

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-62

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-63

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-64

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-65

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-66

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-67

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-68

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-69

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-70

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-71

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-72

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-73

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-74

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-75

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-76

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-77

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-78

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-79

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-80

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-81

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Job Number Order Date Client 69516 05/15/2013 ATL

Number of Pages 3 Date Received 05/15/2013 Date Reported 05/23/2013



1301408PO# SC08007

Ordered By





Cyrus Razmara, Ph.D.Laboratory Director


Page 82 of 90

Figure D.1-82

____

__

__

________________________________________________


Project ID: 1301408




3275 Walnut Avenue


Ordered By


Page: 1 A


CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISCASE NARRATIVE



Lab ID Sample ID Sample Date Matrix Quantity Of Containers69516.01 1301408-01 05/14/2013 Aqueous 2



The samples were analyzed as specified on the enclosed chain of custody.Analytical non-conformances have been noted on the report.


Laboratory Director


Page 83 of 90

Figure D.1-83

____

__

__

________________________________________________


69516 05/15/2013 ATL




1301408PO# SC08007

2Page:

Ordered By


ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (562)989-4045





Dilution Factor 1 1Units mg/L mg/LMatrix Aqueous AqueousDate Analyzed 05/15/2013 05/15/2013

Date Prepared 05/15/2013 05/15/2013






Analytes





Units: mg/L

Surfactants (MBAS) 80-120 <15 0.00 0.500 0.423X 84.6 0.500 0.433X 86.6 2.3

Analytes

SM RPDSM DUP SM RPD



Units: mg/L


Page 84 of 90

Figure D.1-84

____

__

__

________________________________________________


69516 05/15/2013 ATL




1301408PO# SC08007

3Page:

Ordered By


ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (562)989-4045






Date Prepared 05/15/2013 05/15/2013





5.0Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5.0 ND 15.6

Analytes




QC Batch No: 051513-1; Dup or Spiked Sample: 69503.01; LCS: Clean Water; LCS Prepared: 05/15/2013; LCS Analyzed: 05/20/2013;

Units: mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 57.6 57.3 <1 <15 198 187 94.4 80-120

Page 85 of 90

Figure D.1-85

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-86

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-87

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-88

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-89

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 90

Figure D.1-90

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-1

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-2

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-3

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-4

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-5

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-6

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-7

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-8

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-9

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-10

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-11

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-12

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-13

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-14

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-15

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-16

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-17

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-18

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-19

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-20

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-21

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-22

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-23

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-24

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-25

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-26

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-27

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-28

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-29

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-30

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-31

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-32

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-33

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-34

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-35

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-36

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-37

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-38

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-39

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-40

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-41

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-42

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-43

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-44

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-45

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-46

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-47

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-48

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-49

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-50

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-51

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-52

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-53

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-54

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-55

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-56

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-57

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-58

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-59

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-60

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-61

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-62

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-63

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-64

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-65

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-66

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-67

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-68

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-69

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-70

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-71

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-72

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-73

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-74

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-75

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-76

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-77

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-78

____

__

__

________________________________________________


Number of Pages 3 Date Received 06/12/2013 Date Reported 06/21/2013



1301728PO# SC08055

Ordered By





Cyrus Razmara, Ph.D.Laboratory Director


Page 79 of 87

Figure D.2-79

____

__

__

________________________________________________


Project ID: 1301728




3275 Walnut Avenue


Ordered By


Page: 1 A


CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSISCASE NARRATIVE



Lab ID Sample ID Sample Date Matrix Quantity Of Containers69801.01 1301728-01 06/12/2013 Aqueous 2



The samples were analyzed as specified on the enclosed chain of custody.No analytical non-conformances were encountered.


Laboratory Director


Page 80 of 87

Figure D.2-80

____

__

__

________________________________________________


69801 06/12/2013 ATL




1301728PO# SC08055

2Page:

Ordered By


ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (562)989-4045






Date Prepared 06/12/2013 06/12/2013






Analytes





Units: mg/L

Surfactants (MBAS) 80-120 <15 0.00 0.500 0.422X 84.4 0.500 0.420X 84.0 <1

Analytes

SM RPDSM DUP SM RPD



Units: mg/L


Page 81 of 87

Figure D.2-81

____

__

__

________________________________________________

QC Batch No: 061413

69801 06/12/2013 ATL




1301728PO# SC08055

3Page:

Ordered By


ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Telephone: (562)989-4045






Date Prepared 06/14/2013 06/14/2013





5.0Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 5.0 ND ND

Analytes




QC Batch No: 061413; Dup or Spiked Sample: 69800.02; LCS: Clean Water; LCS Prepared: 06/14/2013; LCS Analyzed: 06/19/2013;

Units: mg/L

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ND ND <1 <15 198 186 93.9 80-120

Page 82 of 87

Figure D.2-82

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-83

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-84

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-85

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-86

____

__

__

________________________________________________

of 87

Figure D.2-87

____

__

__

________________________________________________

____

__

__

________________________________________________


September 16, 2013

APPENDIX E TIME-DRAWDOWN PLOTS


Pumping Test Report – Wilshire/La Brea Station-Amendment 2 TIME-DRAWDOWN PLOTS


____

__

__

________________________________________________

Fig

ure

E.1

-1

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Fig

ure

E.1

-2

____

__

__

________________________________________________

Fig

ure

E.1

-3

____

__

__

________________________________________________


PLATES

Plate 1: Exploration Plan and Profile Plate 2: Geotechnical Cross‐sections Plate 3: Plot of Maximum Recorded Subsurface Gas Data

Williamsale

Line

geotechnical data report –wilshire/la brea station

Documents