Laserfiche WebLink
FI2OM :CITY OF RIPON 209-S99-2695 1999,03-11 08:20 #041 P.04/0S <br /> iYll� 1�sHlw <br /> Mt.vale Raney.PE <br /> March 10. 1499 <br /> Pagc 3 <br /> 3. It is important to remember that shoring is for worker health axed safety, not for rxcavatiott sin <br /> maximization. <br /> Section 3 3. FXCavataorl of Im Soil,Pa e 7 <br /> 1. The depth of the excavation 3bould be 2%tact bawd on avtaeble data. 1;vary effort ahould bo remade <br /> not to over-excavate. This will r9qui�re diliga#field management. <br /> Section 3.4: mvation I)e utexi ,Pate 7 <br /> 1. 1 air+ concerned about the approach in this section. The depth of exc8 gjtot1 should not be <br /> mnxiznizcd, <br /> but litztitca tv 20 feet,based on exiating data. Dewatering,should be minintwd to TdUce <br /> potentially significant disposal costs. Dewatering should ower to protect workers,and allow saMple <br /> collection at the bottom of the pit. <br /> 2. How dewatering will oescur is not discussed- Again,this should be the contractor's responsibft. <br /> 3. Sampling 4f the stored water is nit mentiomd. Upon completion of work,a composite VA t f sample <br /> ftorn the storage vessel should be taken. Next, a gWCk comparison of off-haul Vcrsus O'Wte <br /> treatment should ba Made. Both off-haul and onsite txL-=cnt air costly. Onsite tfeabnent is <br /> labor/tirne:lsamplixag intensive. another tank will be needed, as the local sewer plant will vMA a <br /> composite sample of the cleaned wat+cr prior to discharge. Hors Wright checked to rose if the"wer <br /> plant will even consider taking this water'? <br /> Section 3.5: Excstvation Soil Sam lin and Anil . P e S <br /> 1. The proposed soil Sampling is utimerited and potentially wasteful. I do not believe that PHS/EHD <br /> required this number of samples'in thele previous comments, acid it is extensive by any standard- <br /> Analysis of all types is expensive and should be minimized. Four to six samples from the bottotri of <br /> the excavation via the excavator est baelchoe will suffice,based on PHSIEHD's input. <br /> 2. from a health and safety view, worker time in the pit should be minirntxcd, including sample <br /> collection, <br /> 'l Section 3.6: Site Restoratio l' e S <br /> 1. Compaction criteria should not Lie proposed if testing would not ocetir. A mnsiblea approach is 1.5 <br /> feet of!+-inch gravel or Class 11 aggregate base in tho bottom of the hole; geogrid liner on top; and <br /> compaction via a sheepsfoot roller attached to the excavator in 1-foot lifts. We have used this <br /> method suecessfUlly on many sates. <br /> are-Pr 5G/Wi 050-1 MSIUasir is 83NI ah SMAMJ� oast 66-014vo <br />