DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Fullerton November 9, 2020 Well 7 Destruction And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Fullerton November 9, 2020 Well 7 Destruction And CITY OF FULLERTON _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Public Works Department – Engineering Division NOVEMBER 9, 2020 WELL 7 DESTRUCTION AND WELL 7A CONSTRUCTION ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO: ALL PLAN AND SPECIFICATION HOLDERS ADDENDUM NO. 2, AS DESCRIBED BELOW, IS FOR USE OF CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SUBMITTING BIDS ON THIS PROJECT. ALL BIDDERS SHALL INDICATE ON THE BID PROPOSAL FORM THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THIS ADDENDUM NO. 2. CHANGES TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 3.09 WELL CASING AND ACCESSORY TUBING; PART I – GENERAL, SECTION A: Add the new paragraph to the end of the section with the following: 3. All materials associated with the well construction must meet the Indirect Additives requirements of the California Waterworks Standards (CAWS), California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 64591. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SECTION 3.10 FILTER PACK AND FINE SAND; PART I – GENERAL, SECTION A: Add the new paragraph to the end of the section with the following: All materials associated with the well construction must meet the Indirect Additives requirements of the CAWS, CCR, Title 22, Section 64591. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM POTENTIAL BIDDERS: Question #1: Does the City have fill dirt if needed to compact the basin at Well 7, or do you propose the contractor import soil or class 2 base for the backfill. Answer: No, the City does not have fill dirt available. Nonhazardous soil is permissible. Question #2: Is there only one Title 22 test (Table 3), which will be during Constant Rate test, or are there others? Question is asked because “Analyses of the samples shall include the complete list of Title 22 constituents as specified in Table 3 of Appendix F.” This indicates more than one sample. THE EDUCATION COMMUNITY 303 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California 92832-1775 (714) 738-6845 • www.cityoffullerton.com Answer: The Contractor is responsible for collecting an adequate number of groundwater samples, during one sampling event at the end of the constant rate pumping test, to analyze the complete Title 22 suite of analytes required by the California Division of Drinking Water to permit the well as a municipal supply source. Question #3: Does the City want any of the materials from the Well 7 Destruction? Answer: The City will remove the 6” cla-val and the water level gauge prior to mobilization in addition to the motor and shade structure. The other materials, as indicated on Figure 6, shall be removed by the Contractor. Question #4: Does the submersible pump have to be cleaned in-between each aquifer zone test? Answer: Yes. Upon completion of groundwater sampling at an isolated zone, the submersible pump shall be removed from the drill string and steam cleaned at the surface prior to reinstallation into the next zone. Question #5: Where is the City’s potable water distribution system indicated in Tech spec. 1.12? Answer: See the following image for the water source connection: Question #6: The borehole destruction prior to casing install – would this be the pilot borehole or the reamed borehole? (Tech spec 7.02) Answer: Borehole destruction refers to the pilot borehole only, not the reamed borehole. Question #7: Do you know how deep the existing pump is on the well to be abandoned? Answer: The pump bowl depth is around 240 feet below ground surface. 2 Question #8: Can you please clarify if the Equal Employment Opportunity Form is required to be signed by our subcontractors at the time of the bid submittal or if it can be supplied after the award? Answer: The Equal Employment Opportunity Certification (BD-12) shall be signed by and submitted for all applicable subcontractors at the time of the bid opening on November 17, 2020. 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tennessee Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook
    TENNESSEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK A Stormwater Planning and Design Manual for Construction Activities Fourth Edition AUGUST 2012 Acknowledgements This handbook has been prepared by the Division of Water Resources, (formerly the Division of Water Pollution Control), of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Many resources were consulted during the development of this handbook, and when possible, permission has been granted to reproduce the information. Any omission is unintentional, and should be brought to the attention of the Division. We are very grateful to the following agencies and organizations for their direct and indirect contributions to the development of this handbook: TDEC Environmental Field Office staff Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage University of Tennessee, Tennessee Water Resources Research Center University of Tennessee, Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Georgia Department of Natural Resources California Stormwater Quality Association ~ ii ~ Preface Disturbed soil, if not managed properly, can be washed off-site during storms. Unless proper erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used for construction activities, silt transport to a local waterbody is likely. Excessive silt causes adverse impacts due to biological alterations, reduced passage in rivers and streams, higher drinking water treatment costs for removing the sediment, and the alteration of water’s physical/chemical properties, resulting in degradation of its quality. This degradation process is known as “siltation”. Silt is one of the most frequently cited pollutants in Tennessee waterways. The division has experimented with multiple ways to determine if a stream, river, or reservoir is impaired due to silt.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of "Soil" and "Mineral"
    OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT U.S. Department of the Interior COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 113 June 12, 1989 William O. Roller Division of Mineral Mining P.O. Box 4499 Lynchburg, Virginia 24502 TOPIC: DEFINITIONS OF SOIL AND MINERAL INQUIRY: A permit is required for an operator to extract minerals from the earth. Is clay which is excavated from a borrow pit and used for fill dirt in construction considered a "mineral", requiring a permit, or "dirt" which would not require a permit, for removal? Locate state laws which define "minerals", "soil", or "dirt". SEARCH RESULTS: Research was conducted using the state code files on LEXIS. At the time the research was performed, codes for 32 states were available. Summaries of the identified state code sections are listed in table format below. Excerpts from the identified sections and the list of states searched on LEXIS are included as appendices. Research was also conducted using the state and federal case law files on LEXIS. The decisions identified as a result of the research and the topics they discuss are listed below. Copies of the decisions are enclosed as appendices. STATUTES AND CODES FINDINGS 1. Many mining- or natural resource-related sections include "clay" in the definition of "mineral". In some cases, the definition of mineral is qualified by the phrase "in this Act". 2. Many mining and natural resource sections use the words "soil" and "earth" almost interchangeably; the word "dirt" is virtually never used. 3. When used in state codes, the word "dirt" usually means "foreign substance", "filth", or "stain" and appears in codes dealing with food, agricultural products and dry cleaning.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Retail Price List
    GRASS SEED FIREWOOD 2021 Retail Price List LB BAG Cord (4' x 4' x 8' - 128 Cubic Ft.) $374.99 50/50 (Full/Partial Sun) $4.89 $208.00 2/3 Cord (32" x 4' x 8') $269.95 50% Bluegrass, 50% Rye; Fast establishment with good mix of 1/3 Cord (16" x 4' x 8') $159.95 both types of seed for residential use. For full to partial sun Double Trunk Stack (16" x 4' x 4') $89.95 areas. Trunk Stack (16" x 4' x 2') $49.95 Great Lakes P&A (Sun/Shade Mix) $4.79 $204.00 Camping Bundle (16" x 2' x 2') $29.95 35% Rye, 30% Blue, 35% Fescue; Great all around performer with the ability to be planted in any area from shade to full sun BAGGED ORGANICS Moo-Nure 25 LB $3.49 8997 Columbia Rd, Olmsted Falls, OH 44138 Premium Athletic Mix (Sun) $5.29 $225.00 Compost/Manure 40 LB $4.99 Phone: 440-235-2358 Fax: 440-235-2359 70% Bluegrass, 30% Rye; Slowest to establish, but nicest Peat Moss 3.8 CF $19.99 email: [email protected] residential lawn seed. Full sun. Soil Magic PLUS 1.2 CF $8.95 web: www.mryardoh.com Shade Mix (Shade) $4.79 $204.00 Topsoil 40 LB $4.99 90% Fescue, 10% Bluegrass; good for light to heavy shade areas. YOU PICK UP OR WE DELIVER All prices listed are for pickup at our yard. LAWN/GARDEN CARE There is an additional charge for delivery which varies by 18-24-12 Starter Fertilizer 50LB Bag $29.95 city - see our delivery price list or call for pricing.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Review Committee Meeting Minutes, 2016 03 03
    Kingm County Department of Permitting and Environmental Review 35030 SE Douglas St., Ste. 210 Snoqualmie, WA 98065-9266 206-296-6600 TTY Relay: 711 www.kingcounty.gov REGULATORY REVIEW COMMITTEE - MINUTES - MEETING DATE: March 3, 2016 Minutes finalized December 9, 2016 TO: Jim Chan Steve Bottheim Wally Archuleta Chris Ricketts Sheryl Lux Steve Roberge Ty Peterson Scott Smith John Starbard, Director Lisa Verner, Legislative Coordinator and RRC Co-Chair Devon Shannon, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office FM: Randy Sandin, Resource Product Line Manager and RRC Co-Chair Present: Ty Peterson, Devon Shannon, Wally Archuleta, Randy Sandin, Chris Ricketts, Sheryl Lux, Steve Roberge 1. Is topsoil mixing permitted in the Mining (M) zone? Background This question was reviewed by the RRC on May 30, 1997. Topsoil screening or mixing includes importing sand, sawdust, finish compost, peat, and dirt and mixing and blending of the materials into topsoil mixtures. Standard Industrial Code (SIC) Major Group 14 is allowed in the M zone. (K.C.C. 21A.08.090) Major Group 14 includes peat screening and fill dirt pits, (SIC 1499) The group therefore concluded that topsoil mixing is allowed in the M zone. There were two subsequent RRC decisions from 2000 that, when taken together, would suggest a different conclusion. RRC Minutes 10-27-16 Discussion Topsoil production involves a variety of activities that, when not being done in conjunction with a mine or quarry, are more closely related to industries categorized under Major Group 32: Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Produces. For example, SIC 3295: Minerals and Earth, Ground or Otherwise Treated covers “establishments operating without a mine or quarry and primarily engaged in crushing, grinding, pulverizing, or otherwise preparing clary, ceramic, and refractory minerals; barite; and miscellaneous nonmetallic minerals…” This activity falls under Division D: Manufacturing.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavation of a Fort Fisher Bombproof
    Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives & History Department of Cultural Resources Kure Beach, NC 1981 Excavation of a Fort Fisher Bombproof By Gordon P. Watts, Jr. Mark Wilde-Ramsing Richard W. Lawrence Dina B. Hill Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Division of Archives and History 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES___________________________________________________iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS _______________________________________________ iv INTRODUCTION ______________________________________________________ 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ___________________________________________ 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK __________________________________________ 4 METHODS____________________________________________________________ 5 CONDITION OF STRUCTURAL REMAINS ________________________________ 9 ARCHITECTURAL AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ____________________ 21 ARTIFACTS__________________________________________________________ 26 CONCLUSIONS ______________________________________________________ 27 UAB 1981 Watts, Wilde-Ramsing, Lawrence, Hill ii TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Location of excavation site______________________________________________________ 1 Figure 2: Excavation site in 1971 ________________________________________________________ 7 Figure 3: Cave-in at the excavation site____________________________________________________ 7 Figure 4: Overburden being removed by hand ______________________________________________ 8 Figure 5: Mobile crane utilized during excavation ___________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • The Puget Lowland Earthquakes of 1949 and 1965
    THE PUGET LOWLAND EARTHQUAKES OF 1949 AND 1965 REPRODUCTIONS OF SELECTED ARTICLES DESCRIBING DAMAGE Compiled by GERALD W. THORSEN WASHINGTON DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES INFORMATION CIRCULAR 81 1986 • •~.__.•• WASHINGTONNatural STATE Resources DEPARTMENT OF Brian Boyle - Commissioner ol Public Lands -- Ar1 Stearns • Supervuor • J I·' • F ront oove r : Falling parapets and ornamentation, rooftop water tanks, chimneys, and other heavy objects caused widespread damage during both the 1949 and 1965 events. Such falling debris commonly damaged or destroyed fire escapes, such as the one in the upper left. This Seattle Times photo shows Yesler Way on April 13, 1949. (Photo reproduced by permission of Seattle Times) Back cover: A. Earthquake-triggered landslides cut rail lines in both the 1949 and 1965 events. This slide occurred between Olympia and Tumwater. (1965 Daily Olympian photo by Greg Gilbert) B. "Sand boils" were created by geysers of muddy water escaping from saturated sediments along Capitol Lake. Soil liquefaction, such as occurred here, was a common source of damage in low-lying areas of fill underlain by flood plain, tide flat, or delta deposits. Sidewalk slabs in this 1965 Oivision staff photo provide scale. C. Suspended fluorescent light fixtures, such as this one in an Olympia school, commonly sustained damage du ring the 1965 quake . Three mail sorters were injured in the newly completed Olympia post office when similar fixtures fell. (Daily Olymp ian photo by Del Ogden) WASHINGTON DIVISION Of GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES Raymond Lasmanis. State Geologist THE PUGET LOWLAND EARTHQUAKES OF 1949 AND 1965 REPRODUCTIONS OF SELECTED ARTICLES DESCRIBING DAMAGE Compiled by GERALD W.
    [Show full text]
  • Raised Wood Floor Foundations Design & Construction Guide
    RAISED WOOD FLOOR FOUNDATIONS DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION GUIDE RaisedFloorLiving.com Building to a Higher Standard Satisfying the higher expectations of today’s The Raised Wood Floor Process homebuyer presents new challenges. Meeting these challenges begins with a raised wood ING S TT TA floor foundation that enhances curb appeal E R G T and provides many other benefits. E D With raised wood floor foundations, P building professionals stay… A GE1 3 SITE CONDITIONS SOIL PROPERTIES Noticed. Builders of raised wood floor homes distinguish themselves from the competition PIER AND BEAM NDATIO by establishing a reputation for being green OU N and progressive. F S Competitive. The aesthetics and amenities of raised floor P A homes make a positive impression on G2E homebuyers, which may result in faster, 4 WOOD PILING MASONRY PIER more profitable sales. A raised wood floor CONTINUOUS STEMWALL foundation can also be the cost-competitive solution, especially in locations with elevation requirements, problematic soils, sloping terrain or where extensive site preparation is needed. On Schedule. WOOD MASONRY Lengthy concrete slab delays – due to poor weather, time-consuming forming and curing, trade scheduling problems, extra inspections, R F GIRDERS or hauling and compacting of fill dirt – can be OO RA FL M avoided with raised wood floor foundations. I N G On The Upgrade. Homebuyers appreciate features of a raised P A foundation – a front porch, screened back G E3 porch or sunroom, or a backyard deck. 9 GLULAM LUMBER Building professionals who elevate with raised JOISTS floors framed with strong, renewable wood products create value for themselves and their clients.
    [Show full text]
  • Bartlesville Skate Park at Lee Lake Bid # 2019-2020-026
    Bartlesville Skate Park at Lee Lake Bid # 2019-2020-026 ADDENDUM NO. 1 14 APR 2020 ISSUED TO ALL BID DOCUMENT HOLDERS OF RECORD: This Addendum forms a part of the Contract Documents and Specifications described above. The original Contract Documents and Specifications remain in full force and effect, except as modified by the following, which shall take precedence over any contrary provisions in the prior documents. I. ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Addendum Acknowledgement included at the back of this Addendum must be signed and returned with your bid proposal. Failure to return this form acknowledging receipt of the addendum shall be grounds to reject the bid proposal. II. SPECIFICATION REVISIONS: A. Section: Summary of Work For Bid Packages: 1. ADDED Bid Package 1 Bid Alternate 2 for the Diamond Grind Coping, DG-50 in lieu of Steel Coping as shown on Sheet SP-7. 2. MODIFIED Bid Package 2 General Scope of Work Note 8 to include estimated earthwork quantities for the Base Bid and also an Alternate Bid for the Peanut Bowl earthwork. 3. DIVIDED Bid Package 2 into a Base Bid item and an Alternate Bid Item. The Base Bid item covers Clearing, Grubbing, Earthwork & Drainage for the Bid Package 1 Base Bid Item (Skate Park Fish Bowl and Street Section). The Alternate Bid Item covers Clearing, Grubbing, Earthwork & Drainage for the Bid Package 1 Alternate Bid Item (Peanut Bowl). 4. Pages BPF-1 thru BPF-9 have been included with this Addendum and shall replace BPF-1 thru BPF-8 that were included with the original documents.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Landscape Construction Standards
    City of Charlotte Engineering & Property Management Landscape Management Division 2017 Landscape Construction Standards Landscape Construction Standards to be used on all city-funded construction (Capital Improvement and/or Maintenance Funding). City of Charlotte Landscape Management living life green Tree Save, 2005: Willow Oak at VMF Revision 11, June 2017 Table of Contents Table of Contents STANDARD SPECIFICATION …………………………………………………………………………………….. Pages 1-7 SECTION 01000 – TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION ……………………………………. Pages 1-9 SECTION 02000 – LANDSCAPE GRADING AND DRAINAGE ……………………………………… Pages 1-8 SECTION 02100 – SOILS …………………………………………………………………………………………. Pages 1-6 SECTION 03000 – LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM ……………………………………………… Pages 1-11 SECTION 04000 – SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER PLANTING …………………………………… Pages 1-13 SECTION 04100 – TREE PLANTING ………………………………………………………………………… Pages 1-15 SECTION 04200 – SEEDING AND SODDING TURFGRASS ……………………………………….. Pages 1-10 SECTION 04300 – PRUNING AND REMOVAL OF ESTABLISHED TREES ……………………. Pages 1-8 SECTION 04400 – FERTILIZATION OF ESTABLISHED TREES ……………………………………. Pages 1-5 Table of Contents Page 1 Standard Specifications and Guidelines STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND GUIDELINES Revision 11, June 2017 Introduction Page 1 Standard Specifications and Guidelines Table of Contents Page 3 List of Referenced Professional Organizations Page 4 Referenced Professional Organizations’ Acronyms Definition of Terms Page 7 Use of Street Right-Of-Ways Revision 11, June 2017 Introduction Page 2 Standard Specifications
    [Show full text]
  • Abandonment of Wells and Boreholes
    ROCKYFLATS ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGY SITE PRO-1620-AW B REVISION0 ABANDONMENT OF WELLS AND BOREHOLES Environmental Media Responsible K-H Organization: Management Effective Date: May 27,2002 Approved By: MANAGER, WATER PROGRAMS Title Stephen Singer / Print Name Not Applicable Print Name of Responsible Manager (N/A if RM is Approval Authority) "be Responsible Manager Has Determined "he Following Organiutions' Review Is Required. Review Documentation Is Contained In The Document History File: K-H EnvironmentalMedia Management I IMPORTANT NOTES Periodic Review Frequency: 4 years from Effcctive Date I -FOR CLASSIFICATION/ urn (If Required) By: Al,c h,J, ,w JQwlwc: ADMlN RECORD SW-A-006149 ABANDONMENT OF Wl S AND BOREHOLES PRO-1620-AWB Revision 0 Dak Effective: 5/27/02 Page 2 of 22 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Effective Date Page Effective Date 1-22 5/27/02 Total number of pages: 22 The following changes are active for this document None ABANDONMENT OF W1 S AND BOREHOLES PRO-1620-AWB Revision 0 Date Effective: 5/27/02 Page 3 of22 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1 .0 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................4 2.0 SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Personnel Qualifications..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Investigations of the Mcmartin Preschool Site E. Gary
    McMartin Preschool site Archaeological Investigations of the McMartin Preschool site , Manhattan Beach, California by E. Gary Stickel, Ph.D. Executive Summary BACKGROUND METHOD HYPOTHESES AND TEST EXPECTATIONS Part II FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS SUMMATION Executive Summary During the month of May 1990 an archaeological project was conducted at the McMartin Preschool site to determine, once and for all, whether or not there had ever been tunnels under the building, as described by various children. Excavation was carried out according to established scientific conventions with a careful research design defining what might prove or disprove the existence of "an underground feature that would connect to the surface of the site and extend underground for some distance..(with) dimensions large enough to accomodate adult human movement through it." (p 24) The project unearthed not one but two tunnel complexes as well as previously unrecognized structural features which defied logical explanation. Both tunnel complexes conformed to locations and functional descriptions established by children's reports. One had been described as providing undetected access to an adjacent building on the east. The other provided outside access under the west wall of the building and contained within it an enlarged, cavernous artifact corresponding to children's descriptions of a "secret room". Both the contour signature of the walls and the nature of recovered artifacts indicated that the tunnels had been dug by hand under the concrete slab floor after the construction of the building. Whatever the purpose of this elaborate enterprise, even more effort must have been devoted to filling the tunnels back in and trying to conceal any evidence of their existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevating Your House
    CHAPTER 5 Elevating Your House Introduction One of the most common retrofitting methods is elevating a house to a required or desired Flood Protection Elevation (FPE). When a house is properly elevated, the living area will be above all but the most severe floods (such as the 500-year flood). Several elevation techniques are available. In general, they involve (1) lifting the house and building a new, or extending the existing, foundation below it or (2) leaving the house in place and either building an elevated floor within the house or adding a new upper story. During the elevation process, most frame, masonry veneer, and masonry houses are separated from their foundations, raised on hydraulic jacks, and held by temporary supports while a new or extended foundation is constructed below. The living area is raised and only the foundation remains exposed to flooding. This technique works well for houses originally built on basement, crawlspace, and open foundations. When houses are lifted with this technique, the new or extended foundation can consist of either continuous walls or separate piers, posts, columns, or pilings. Masonry houses are more difficult to lift, primarily because of their design, construction, and weight, but lifting these homes is possible. In fact, numerous contractors throughout the United States regularly perform this work. A variation of this technique is used for frame, masonry veneer, and masonry houses on slab-on-grade foundations. In these houses, the slab forms both the floor of the house and either all or a major part of the foundation. Elevating these houses is easier if the house is left attached to the slab and both are lifted together.
    [Show full text]