DOCSLIB.ORG

Addendum No. 1 Geotechnical Reports This

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addendum No. 1 Geotechnical Reports This CITY OF GALVESTON – RFP # 19-29 ADDENDUM # 1 49TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS Date: 8/22/2019 To: Prospective Proposers Subject: Addendum No. 1 Geotechnical Reports This addendum forms part of the proposal and contract documents and modifies the original solicitation documents dated 8/14/2019 Acknowledge receipt of this addendum in the space provided below. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL SUBJECT OFFEROR TO DISQUALIFICATION. The Geotechnical Reports are attached; addendum must be acknowledged and included in the submittal. I hereby certify receipt of this addendum and have incorporated its information or changes in preparation of my submittal. _______________________________ _____________________________ Authorized Signature Date _______________________________ _____________________________ Printed Name Company Name A COPY OF THE ADDENDUM MUST BE SIGNED AND RETURNED WITH YOUR PROPOSAL LIMITED PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 49TH STREET PAVING IMPROVEMENTS FROM AVENUE ‘P’ TO AVENUE ‘S” 1/2 CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS PROJECT NO. 18-104E TO STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. HOUSTON, TEXAS BY GEOTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICING TEXAS, LOUISIANA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA www.geotecheng.com MARCH 2018 TEXAS BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS REGISTRATION NUMBER F-001183 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................................................1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................2 2.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................6 2.1 Purpose ...............................................................................................................................6 2.2 Detailed Scope-of-Services ................................................................................................7 2.3 Credentials of Environmental Professionals ......................................................................8 2.4 Significant Assumptions .....................................................................................................8 2.5 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ........................................................................9 2.6 Special Terms and Conditions ............................................................................................9 2.7 Reliance ..............................................................................................................................9 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................10 3.1 Location and Legal Description .......................................................................................10 3.2 Site and Vicinity Description ...........................................................................................10 3.3 Past and Current Uses of the Property ..............................................................................10 3.4 Description of Structures ..................................................................................................10 3.5 Current Uses of the Adjoining Properties ........................................................................10 4.0 USER - PROVIDED INFORMATION ...................................................................................11 4.1 Reason for Performing the Phase I ESA ..........................................................................11 5.0 RECORDS REVIEW...............................................................................................................11 5.1 Standard Environmental Record Sources, Federal and State ...........................................11 5.1.1 RCRA Database (RCRIS List)...............................................................................12 5.1.2 Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank (LPST) Site ......................................................13 5.1.3 RCRA NonGen / NLR Site ....................................................................................13 5.1.4 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) ...................................................................14 5.1.5 Unexploded Ordnance Site (UXO) ........................................................................15 5.1.6 TX Ind. Haz. Waste Site ........................................................................................16 5.1.7 TX IHW CORR ACTION Site ..............................................................................16 5.1.8 NY MANIFEST site ..............................................................................................17 5.1.9 WI MANIFEST site ...............................................................................................17 5.1.10 MN MANIFEST site..............................................................................................17 5.1.11 EDR Hist. Auto site ...............................................................................................17 5.2 Physical Setting Sources ..................................................................................................18 5.2.1 Topography ............................................................................................................18 5.2.2 Soils/Geology .........................................................................................................18 5.2.3 Surface Water Hydrology ......................................................................................18 5.2.4 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................18 5.3 Oil and Gas Wells .............................................................................................................19 5.4 Water Wells ......................................................................................................................19 5.5 Flood Insurance Rate Map ...............................................................................................19 5.6 Historical Use Information on the Project Site and Adjoining Properties .......................19 i GEOTECH ENGINEERING AND TESTING 5.6.1 Historical Aerial Photographs ................................................................................20 5.6.2 Historical Topographic Maps ................................................................................20 5.6.3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps ................................................................................21 5.6.4 Vapor Encroachment Screening Summary ............................................................21 5.6.5 Historical Use Information Summary ....................................................................21 5.7 NEPA Search Description, Federal and State ..................................................................21 6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ....................................................................................................22 6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions ............................................................................22 6.2 General Site Setting ..........................................................................................................22 6.3 Exterior and Interior Observations ...................................................................................22 6.3.1 Current Use(s) of the Property ...............................................................................22 6.3.2 Hazardous Substances ............................................................................................22 6.3.3 Storage Tanks.........................................................................................................22 6.3.4 PCBs ......................................................................................................................22 6.3.5 Wells ......................................................................................................................23 6.3.6 Septic Systems .......................................................................................................23 6.3.7 Drums/Containers ..................................................................................................23 6.3.8 Odors ......................................................................................................................23 7.0 INTERVIEWS .........................................................................................................................23 8.0 FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................24 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND OPINIONS ........................................................................................24 10.0 STANDARD OF CARE ..........................................................................................................24 11.0 DEFINITIONS .........................................................................................................................24 APPENDICES Appendix A – Site Maps Appendix B – Site Photographs Appendix C – Regulatory Records Documentation – Executive Summary Appendix D – Physical Setting Information – Summary Appendix E – Historical Records Documentation E-1 – Historical Aerial Photographs E-2 – Historical Topographic Map E-3 – Historical Sanborn Fire Insurance Map E-4 – Vapor Encroachment Screen Appendix F – NEPA Search Description Appendix G – Interview
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Galveston, Texas
    Galveston, Texas 1 TENTATIVE ITINERARY Participants may arrive at beach house as early as 8am Beach geology, history, and seawall discussions/walkabout Drive to Galveston Island State Park, Pier 21 and Strand, Apffel Park, and Seawolf Park Participants choice! Check-out of beach house by 11am Activities may continue after check-out 2 GEOLOGIC POINTS OF INTEREST Barrier island formation, shoreface, swash zone, beach face, wrack line, berm, sand dunes, seawall construction and history, sand composition, longshore current and littoral drift, wavelengths and rip currents, jetty construction, Town Mountain Granite geology Beach foreshore, backshore, dunes, lagoon and tidal flats, back bay, salt marsh wetlands, prairie, coves and bayous, Pelican Island, USS Cavalla and USS Stewart, oil and gas drilling and production exhibits, 1877 tall ship ELISSA Bishop’s Palace, historic homes, Pleasure Pier, Tremont Hotel, Galveston Railroad Museum, Galveston’s Own Farmers Market, ArtWalk 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS • Barrier Island System Maps • Jetty/Breakwater • Formation of Galveston Island • Riprap • Barrier Island Diagrams • Town Mountain Granite (Galveston) • Coastal Dunes • Source of Beach and River Sands • Lower Shoreface • Sand Management • Middle Shoreface • Upper Shoreface • Foreshore • Prairie • Backshore • Salt Marsh Wetlands • Dunes • Lagoon and Tidal Flats • Pelican Island • Seawolf Park • Swash Zone • USS Stewart (DE-238) • Beach Face • USS Cavalla (SS-244) • Wrack Line • Berm • Longshore Current • 1877 Tall Ship ELISSA • Littoral Zone • Overview
    [Show full text]
  • UNIFORM STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS for PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
    UNIFORM STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS for PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION SPONSORED and DISTRIBUTED by the 1998 ARIZONA (Includes revisions through 2010) FOREWORD Publication of these Uniform Standard Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction fulfills the goal of a group of agencies who joined forces in 1966 to produce such a set of documents. Subsequently, in the interest of promoting county-wide acceptance and use of these standards and details, the Maricopa Association of Governments accepted their sponsorship and the responsibility of keeping them current and viable. These specifications and details, representing the best professional thinking of representatives of several Public Works Departments, reviewed and refined by members of the construction industry, were written to fulfill the need for uniform rules governing public works construction performed for Maricopa County and the various cities and public agencies in the county. It further fulfills the need for adequate standards by the smaller communities and agencies who could not afford to promulgate such standards for themselves. A uniform set of specifications and details, updated and embracing the most modern materials and construction techniques will redound to the benefit of the public and the private contracting industry. Uniform specifications and details will eliminate conflicts and confusion, lower construction costs, and encourage more competitive bidding by private contractors. The Uniform Standard Specifications and Details for Public Works Construction will be revised periodically and reprinted to reflect advanced thinking and the changing technology of the construction industry. To this end a Specifications and Details Committee has been established as a permanent organization to continually study and recommend changes to the Specifications and Details.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Laredo Engineering Department
    ADDENDUM No.1 Page 1 of 46 CITY OF LAREDO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT lARED�, T�Xp.$ 1755 ADDENDUM No.1 November 30, 2017 PROJECT: Riverbank Drive Extension All contractors, holders of plans and specifications, plan rooms and all interested parties on the above identified project are hereby notified of the following revisions taking precedence over all previous declarations and notes made on this project. This addendum is to clarify comments brought up during the pre-bid meeting held on November 29, 2017. 1. Street Lights (2) are by others. A $12,500.00 "Street Lights System" allowance was added through Item 42 in attached Bid Schedule ( 4 pages) which shall be submitted with the bid documents properly signed and showing the total base bid amount written with numbers and words. 2. Attached is the Geotechnical Report and its Addendum #1 (32 and 7 pages respectively). 3. There is a $750,000.00 total budget for this project. 4. Regarding the availability of Type "A" HMAC, if this material cannot be found, the Contractor may submit an alternate similar material for approval. 5. About "Partial Monthly Payments" please read section C-9.06 for information on this subject and the retainage. 6. Pavement striping and markings by others. This addendum is being submitted to all contractors, holders of plans and/or specifications, plan rooms, and all interested parties to the project and acknowledgement of same is required by inserting its number and date in the proposal form. --''o''''' City of La edo Engineering D art.m��1J.... f..tf-t''• , * ..• t ,, *.. •.v·\ I , ...
    [Show full text]
  • Introgression and Monitoring of Wild Helianthus Praecox Alien Segments
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Introgression and monitoring of wild Helianthus praecox alien segments associated with Sclerotinia basal stalk rot resistance in sunflower using genotyping-by-sequencing 1 1 2 2 2 Zahirul I. Talukder , Yunming Long , Gerald J. SeilerID , William Underwood , Lili QiID * 1 Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, United States of America, 2 Sunflower and Plant Biology Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Edward T. a1111111111 Schafer Agricultural Research Center, Fargo, North Dakota, United States of America a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract Sclerotinia basal stalk rot (BSR) and downy mildew are major diseases of sunflowers world- wide. Breeding for BSR resistance traditionally relies upon cultivated sunflower germplasm OPEN ACCESS that has only partial resistance thus lacking an effective resistance against the pathogen. In Citation: Talukder ZI, Long Y, Seiler GJ, this study, we report the transfer of BSR resistance from sunflower wild species, Helianthus Underwood W, Qi L (2019) Introgression and praecox, into cultivated sunflower and molecular assessment of the introgressed segments monitoring of wild Helianthus praecox alien segments associated with Sclerotinia basal stalk potentially associated with BSR resistance using the genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) rot resistance in sunflower using genotyping-by- approach. Eight highly BSR-resistant H. praecox introgression lines (ILs), H.pra 1 to H.pra sequencing. PLoS ONE 14(3): e0213065. https:// 8, were developed. The mean BSR disease incidence (DI) for H.pra 1 to H.pra 8 across doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213065 environments for four years ranged from 1.2 to 11.1%, while DI of Cargill 270 (susceptible Editor: Sujan Mamidi, HudsonAlpha Institute for check), HA 89 (recurrent parent), HA 441 and Croplan 305 (resistant checks) was 36.1, Biotechnology, UNITED STATES 31.0, 19.5, and 11.6%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Alhaji Alhassan Adejumo Umar Geomate 17 63
    Articles (2019 / volume 17 / issue 63) (Pages 297-385) APPLICATION OF DIGITAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGY FOR DETERMINING GEOMETRY, STRATIGRAPHY, AND POSITION OF CRACKS INSIDE EARTH SLOPE Pages (297-306) Dewi Amalia, Indrasurya Budisatria Mochtar and Noor Endah Mochtar FLOOD ROUTING ANALYSIS OF THE WAY SEPUTIH RIVER, CENTRAL LAMPUNG, INDONESIA Pages (307-314) Andojo Wurjanto, Trika Agnestasia Tarigan and Julfikhsan Ahmad Mukhti SOIL TREATMENT BY BENTONITE AND FLY ASH FOR LINERS OF WASTE LANDFILL: A CASE STUDY IN VIETNAM Lan Chau Nguyen, Hai Long Chu and Lanh Si Ho Pages (323-330) SEEPAGE FAILURE IN FOUNDATION OF WEIR WITH CUT-OFF WALLS BY MODEL EXPERIMENTS AND ELASTO-PLASTIC FEMKenji Okajima Pages (331-339) DETERMINE THE VULNERABILITY OF URBAN SURFACE WATER RESOURCES IN RACH GIA CITY, VIETNAM USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM Pages (340-346) Dinh Tuan Hai and Trinh Thi Phin COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONVENTIONAL SEISMIC SURVEY WITH PASSIVE SEISMOELECTRIC EXPLORATION AT GAS CONDENSATE FIELD Pages (347-352) V. S. Potylitsyn, G. Y. Shaydurov, D. S. Kudinov, E. A Kokhonkova and P. V. Balandin STRENGTH OF SOFT CLAY REINFORCED WITH 10 MM SINGLE CRUSHED COCONUT SHELL (CCS) COLUMN Muzamir Hasan, Ieszaliana Ali and Masayuki Hyodo Pages (353-359) LABORATORY AND FIELD EVALUATION OF A-6 LATERITIC SOIL TREATED WITH RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT AND ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT Pages (360-370) Mustapha Mohammed Alhaji, Musa Alhassan, Taiye Waheed Adejumo and Awwal Tanko Umar ANALYSIS OF EROSION USING HYDROSEEDING ON POST COAL MINING IN MELAK SITE Pages (371-377) Waterman Sulistyana Bargawa and Arisdiansyah Putra, M. Nurcholis MEASUREMENT OF ANTI-STRIPPING AGENT CONTENT IN ASPHALT MIXTURE WITH COLORIMETRIC TEST Zulkarnain Abdul Muis, Meriani Batubara, Adina Sari Lubis and Renita Manurung Pages (378-385) Introduction The "International Journal of GEOMATE" is a Scientific Journal of the GEOMATE International Society that encompasses a broad area in Geotechnique, Construction Materials and Environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation Sheet 5010.65
    Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. "P.O.Box C4010, La Crosse, WI 54602-4010 Phone 303-741-7009 Fax: 303-741-7806 John L. Donnell, P.E., Project Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 19, 2000 ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 SUBMITTAL OF COMMITMENT RESOLUTION LETTER #34 INFORMATION DOCKET NO. 72-22 / TAC NO. L22462 PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE FACILITY PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C. Reference: PFS Letter, Donnell to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Commitment Resolution Letter # 34, dated June 2, 2000 In the referenced letter, Private Fuel Storage (PFS) committed to provide the NRC with information on tipover of a cask transporter, propane vapor cloud dispersion, and a revised calculation package associated with bearing capacity and sliding stability of the cask storage pads and the Canister Transfer Building. This letter provides the informational commitments and the calculation package. Attachment 1 contains the calculation package that addresses bearing capacity and sliding stability analyses of the cask storage pads and the Canister Transfer Building. The package consists of the following three calculations which have been revised to address issues discussed in the referenced letter: PFSF Calculation No. 05996.02-G(B)-4, Stability Analysis of Storage Pad, Rev. 6, Stone & Webster. PFSF Calculation No. 05996.02-G(B)-5, Bases for Geotechnical Parameters Provided in Geotechnical Design Criteria, Rev. 2, Stone & Webster. PFSF Calculation No. 05996.02-G(B)-1 3, Stability Analyses of the Canister Transfer Building Supported on a Mat Foundation, Rev. 3, Stone & Webster. IQ rPL~s)jCb U.S. NRC 2 June 19, 2000 Attachment 2 provides the results of an evaluation of the stability of the cask transporter when carrying a storage cask, assuming it is subjected to the PFSF design basis ground motion, or to the design tornado-driven missile.
    [Show full text]
  • Concrete Ship - Wikipedia Page 1 of 6
    Concrete ship - Wikipedia Page 1 of 6 Concrete ship From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Concrete ships are built of steel and ferrocement (reinforced concrete) instead of more traditional materials, such as steel or wood. The advantage of ferrocement construction is that materials are cheap and readily available, while the disadvantages are that construction labor costs are high, as are operating costs. (Ferrocement ships require thick hulls, which means extra mass to push and less space for cargo.) During the late 19th century, there were concrete river barges in Europe, and during both World War I and World War II, steel shortages led the US military to order the construction of small fleets of ocean-going concrete ships, the largest of which was the SS Selma.[1] Few concrete ships were completed in time to see wartime service during World War I, but during 1944 and 1945, concrete ships and barges were used to support U.S. and British invasions in Europe and the Pacific. Since the late 1930s, there have also been ferrocement pleasure boats. Contents ◾ 1 History ◾ 2 Today ◾ 2.1 Remaining wartime ships ◾ 2.1.1 Americas ◾ 2.1.2 Europe ◾ 2.1.3 Other ◾ 3 References ◾ 4 External links History The oldest known ferrocement watercraft was a dinghy built by Joseph-Louis Lambot in Southern France in 1848. Lambot's boat was featured in the Exposition Universelle held in Paris in 1855. Beginning in the 1860s, ferrocement barges were built in Europe for use on canals, and around 1896, an Italian engineer, Carlo Gabellini, began building small ships out of ferrocement.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Characteristics That Influence Maritime Pocket Gopher Densities
    The Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources 26:14-24 (2013) 14 © Agricultural Consortium of Texas Habitat Characteristics That Influence Maritime Pocket Gopher Densities Jorge D. Cortez1 Scott E. Henke*,1 Richard Riddle2 1Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, MSC 218, Texas A&M University- Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363 2United States Navy, 8851 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78419-5226 ABSTRACT The Maritime pocket gopher (Geomys personatus maritimus) is a subspecies of Texas pocket gopher endemic to the Flour Bluff area of coastal southern Texas. Little is known about the habitat and nutritional requirements of this subspecies. The amount and quality of habitat necessary to sustain Maritime pocket gophers has not been studied. Our objectives were to assess the habitat, vegetation, and nutritional parameters available to Maritime pocket gophers at four different levels of gopher mound density. We chose study sites with zero, low (25-50 mounds/ha), intermediate (75-150 mounds/ha), and high (>200 mounds/ha) gopher mound densities. Vegetation and soil samples were collected using 0.25 m2 quadrats; vegetation was divided into above- and below-ground biomass for analysis. Maritime pocket gophers avoided areas of clay soils with high levels of calcium, magnesium, sulfur, and sodium compounds. A direct relationship existed between gopher activity within an area and vegetation biomass. However, nutritional quality of an area did not appear to be a determining factor for the presence of Maritime pocket gophers. KEY WORDS: Population density, Geomys personatus maritimus, habitat selection, Maritime pocket gopher, preference INTRODUCTION The Maritime pocket gopher (MPG, Geomys personatus maritimus) is endemic to the coastal areas of Kleberg and Nueces counties of southern Texas, between Baffin Bay and Flour Bluff (Williams and Genoways 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Galveston Military Tourism Itinerary
    GALVESTON MILITARY TOURISM ITINERARY Few destinations have weathered the test of time through war, colonization and natural disaster and lived to tell the tale like Galveston. Steeped in American history, the island offers veterans and history buffs alike a chance to discover remnants of its fascinating past. USS Cavalla and USS Stewart Check out Seawolf Park for a quick brush up on Texas naval history. The park serves as the berthing place of the WWII submarine the USS Cavalla, a memorial to the lost submarine USS Seawolf. The Cavalla was commissioned in February 1944 by the Electric Boat Company and is known for sinking Shokaku, a 30,000-ton aircraft carrier and Pearl Harbor veteran. In 1971, the USS Cavalla was delivered to her permanent berth in Galveston. Alongside the USS Cavalla at Seawolf Park lies the USS Stewart, one of only two surviving destroyer escorts in the country. You’ll have a chance to examine Stewart’s artillery and even peer through grates with views into the engine room. Seawolf Park’s remarkable history will have you yearning to learn more, so plan on spending an hour or two here. S.S. SELMA Steel shortages during World War I led the United States to build experimental concrete ships, the largest of which was the SS Selma. Today, the ship is partially submerged in Galveston Bay. Built in Mobile, Alabama, the ship was launched the same day Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, officially ending World War I. As a result, the 7,500-ton ship never served during the war but instead was placed into service as an oil tanker in the Gulf of Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • An Improved California Bearing Ratio Test Procedure
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1119 91 An Improved California Bearing Ratio Test Procedure COLIN A. FRANCO AND K. WAYNE LEE The California bearing ratio (CBR) test is one of the most BACKGROUND common strength tests conducted to evaluate subgrade quality of soils and the suitability of soils for sub base and base courses A statewide investigation at the California Division of High­ in pavements. Yet there are variations in the procedures used ways was conducted to determine local drainage conditions and by various transportation agencies; this results in confusion among highway engineers. To Improve the existing CBR pro­ other factors that affect the stability of pavement during 1928 cedures, an alternative method has been employed successfully and 1929. The study indicated that pavement failures could be to obtain CBR-values of soil and to evaluate the moisture ·. traced directly to poor compaction during construction or was susceptibility of soils. This method is not only easier to perform brought about by insufficient thickness of pavement and by the but also requires less effort because only four samples need be existence of a base course over soils inherently weak in shear compacted and tested. There are also fewer sources of error in strength. Therefore a static field load test was first tried for that obtaining the "correct" optimum moisture content for compaction is not required because the test Is considered an establishing the density that should be used in the construction extension of the compaction tests (i.e., AASHTO T99 and of subgrades and the shear strength that was required. Tl80). This method has been used successfully on various soil However, it was practically impossible to moisten the soil types as well as on soil-cement mixtures.
    [Show full text]
  • 1607251122141St Prah
    P: ISSN No. 0976-8602 RNI No.UPENG/2012/42622 VOL.-V, ISSUE-II, April-2016 E: ISSN No. 2349 - 9443 Asian Resonance Effect of Petroleum Sludge on Shear Strength of an Acidic Clay Soil Abstract Many infrastructure projects such as highways, railways, water reservoirs, reclamation etc. require huge earth material. Various techniques of soil stabilization are widely used for the construction of road Barnapratim Sarma pavement and foundation construction to enhance engineering properties Student, such as strength, volume, stability and durability. In this context, shear Deptt.of Civil Engineering, strength of soil deserves importance. Soil is a peculiar material. Some Royal School of Engineering & waste materials such as fly ash, rice husk ash, pond ash may be used to Technology, improve the stability of soil. Addition of such materials increases the Guwahati, Assam physical properties of it. With a view to utilise another waste material (petroleum sludge) in this work, effect of petroleum sludge on shear strength of soil is examined in a limited time period of ten weeks. It has been found that shear strength of a slightly acidic clay soil Banakshi Bora is remarkably enhanced by petroleum sludge. The change in Unconfined Student, Compressive Strength ranges from (-) 16.17% to 542.89% in this 70 days Deptt.of Civil Engineering, period of experiment. 3% petroleum sludge in soil gradually increases the Royal School of Engineering & shear strength of a soil from 0.31% in first week to 495.67% in ten weeks. Technology, Further, it has been found that the pH of the soil, containing 7% of the petroleum sludge, slightly decreases with time indicating possibility of Guwahati, Assam degradation of remaining hydrocarbons.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Supporting the Proposed Carrizo Springs Traffic Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion
    Final Environmental Assessment Supporting the Proposed Carrizo Springs Traffic Checkpoint Renovation and Expansion Dimmit County, Texas August 2015 Abbreviations and Acronyms µg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter NPDES National Pollutant Discharge ACM asbestos-containing materials Elimination System AIRFA American Indian Religious NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Freedom Act Service ARHA Archaeological and Historic NRHP National Register of Historic Preservation Act Places AST aboveground storage tanks O3 ozone AT/FP Anti-terrorism/force protection OSHA Occupational Safety and Health B.P. before present Administration BMPs best management practices OSH occupational health and safety CAA Clean Air Act P.L. Public Law CBP Customs and Border Protection Pb lead CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls Response, Compensation and percent g percent of the force of gravity Liability Act PM2.5 Aerodynamic size less than or CEQ Council on Environmental equal to 2.5 microns Quality PM10 Aerodynamic size less than or CFR Code of Federal Regulations equal to 10 microns CO carbon monoxide PMO Program Management Office CO2 carbon dioxide PPE personal protective equipment CWA Clean Water Act ppb parts per billion dBA A-weighted decibel ppm parts per million DHS Department of Homeland PSD Prevention of Significant Security Deterioration EA Environmental Assessment RCRA Resources Conservation and EIS Environmental Impact Statement Recovery Act EO Executive Order SALs State Antiquities Landmarks ESA Endangered Species Act SO2 sulfur
    [Show full text]