adec risk assessment procedures manual

The department will determine the cleanup levels for undisturbed tundra or other undisturbed native vegetation on a site-specific basis, depending upon whether a cleanup action would cause more severe or long-term damage than would the discharge or release alone.Although migration to groundwater is not applicable to the Arctic zone, site-specific levels must be protective of migration to surface water. Concentrations of hazardous substances in soil must be calculated and presented on a per dry weight basis. For volatile organic hazardous substances for which toxicity data is not currently available, the cleanup level that applies at a site is the calculated saturation concentration determined using the equations set out inIn Table B1, a blank space means not available or not applicable.With the prior approval of the department, PCBs in soil may be cleaned up toFor commercial or industrial land use, as applied in 18 AACA responsible person may also propose an alternative cleanup level, through a site-specific risk assessment conducted according to theFor soils contaminated with lead more than 15 feet below ground surface, lead cleanup levels will be determined on a site-specific basis.Free product must be recovered as required by 18 AACThe PCB cleanup levels listed in Table B1 are based on cleanup levels referred to in 40 C.F.R. 761.61 for high occupancy areas with no cap.Every effortRecent editions of the Alaska. Administrative Journal may be obtained from the Alaska Lieutenant Governor's. Office on the world wide web. If any errors are found, please e-mail Touch N' Go systems at E-mail. WeCopyright 2006. Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Interested firms shall respond by submitting a SF 330 listing their qualifications in accordance with the instructions below. Submittals must be received at the address indicated above not later than 2:00 pm Alaska time on 31 July 2017. This is not a request for proposal.

• adec risk assessment procedures manual, adec risk assessment procedures manual download, adec risk assessment procedures manual template, adec risk assessment procedures manual free, adec risk assessment procedures manual online, adec risk assessment procedures manual sample, adec risk assessment procedures manual 2016, adec risk assessment procedures manual 2017, adec risk assessment procedures manual form, adec risk assessment procedures manual, adec risk assessment procedures manual, adec risk assessment procedures manual.

Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience. To filter the results by category, simply select the appropriate category button below. No more than 30 days after installation or return to operation (for Upgrades, too) A component of a UST system is defined as any related material or equipment which, if it should fail, could cause a release, or, cause a release to go undetected or uncontained. Work on any component of a UST system requires a state licensed UST installer. Due no later than 30 days after installation or return to operation. However, there is little consensus regarding how HQ results can be used for risk management decision-making at the population, community, and ecosystem levels. Furthermore, stakeholders are reluctant to consider alternatives to HQ results for risk management decisions. Chemical-specific HQs risk characterization should be viewed as only one of several approaches ( i.e., tools) for addressing ecological issues; and in many situations, other quantitative and qualitative approaches will likely result in superior risk management decisions. The purpose of this paper is to address fundamental issues and limitations associated with chemical-specific HQ risk characterization in ERA, to identify when it may be appropriate, to explore alternatives that are currently available, and to identify areas that could be developed for the future. Several alternatives ( i.e., compensatory restoration, performance-based ecological monitoring, ecological significance criteria, net environmental benefit analysis), including their limitations, that can supplement, augment, or substitute for HQs in ERA are presented. Keywords: ecological risk assessment, ecological significance criteria, hazard quotient. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Register via the SAM Internet site at The USACE HTRW program covers investigation, planning and design for cleanup of hazardous, toxic, and radiological wastes (HTRW), debris, military munitions response, and other environmental contaminants at various locations in Alaska.The selected firm(s) must also demonstrate the ability to provide geographic information systems (GIS) deliverables compatible with ArcGIS (ESRI) software. Proficiency with the following GIS work processes is expected: GPS field data collection and processing, datum and coordinate system transformation, georeferencing and rectification, geodatabase development, Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE), and metadata preparation using Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards.Upon request, laboratories must make available to the Department of Defense, the results of all PT samples analyzed by the laboratory during the period of performance. All laboratories are subject to on-site assessments by authorized representatives of the Department of Defense. If the project work is sited in Alaska, the project laboratory must also hold current Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) approval for the appropriate analytes and methods.The MED requires data to be provided in standard formats that can be utilized more easily in the future. All plans and documents shall be submitted in electronic versions consistent with this guidance and as identified in the individual task orders. Submissions shall contain all drawings, photographs, and reports in native and pdf format in accordance with this guidance. A copy of the current MED will be made available to the contract awardees. In some task orders, all MED specifications will not be required; any allowed deviations to the MED will be documented in each task order.The projects listed below are representative of the type of projects contractors should expect.

This Indefinite Delivery contract(s) is being procured in accordance with the Brooks A-E Act as implemented in FAR Subpart 36.6. Firms will be selected for negotiation based on demonstrated competence and qualifications for the required work. To receive award contractors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). If a large business is selected for this contract, it must comply with FAR 52.219-9 regarding the requirement for a subcontracting plan for that part of the work it intends to subcontract. The FY 2017 subcontracting goals for this contract are a minimum of 41.50% of the contractor's intended sub-contract amount be placed with small businesses, with 25% of that to small disadvantaged businesses, 5% to woman-owned small businesses, 7% to HUB Zone small businesses, and 5% to service disabled veteran-owned small businesses. The subcontracting plan is not required with this submittal. More than one (1) contract is anticipated, but no more than four (4) contracts will be awarded. Because these contracts will share a pool of contract capacity, the contracts will be awarded concurrently. The first contract award is anticipated for the 2nd quarter of FY 2018. This District currently has contracts in place for like services. In accordance with FAR 36.602, orders placed under any resultant contract(s) will be issued based upon contractor qualifications, following the procedures specified by the evaluation criteria provided below. All responders are advised that this contract may be revised or canceled at any time during the solicitation, selection, evaluation, negotiation and final award. In addition, no projects are yet authorized (see FAR 52.232-18). This solicitation does not guarantee work to selected firms. To be eligible for contract award, a firm must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM).

The CANOL project consists of the former pipeline right of way, possible dumps, staging areas and camps associated with construction of the pipeline; and valves, pump stations and maintenance facilities associated with operation of the pipeline. Operation of the CANOL pipeline ended in 1955, and since then much of the pipeline and associated facilities have been removed or demolished by contractors working for the Federal government or private individuals acting on their own. Fuel leaks and spills from operation of the pipeline may pose a risk to local residents. Contaminant sources include pipeline appurtenances associated with fuel storage and distribution, as well as sources associated with ancillary service of the CANOL pipeline (personnel camps and infrastructure, 55-gallon drums, oil cans, miscellaneous debris). Suspected contaminated media includes soil (surface and subsurface), groundwater, surface water, and sediment.General fieldwork, sampling methodology, frequency, and standards shall conform to ADEC guidance documents, 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC 78, and ADEC UST procedures manual. Direct push and hollow-stem drilling methods typically achieve necessary soil sampling and groundwater well requirements, although air-rotary capabilities may be necessary in extreme cases. Typical contaminants of concern (COCs) include gasoline ranges organics (GRO), DRO, RRO, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), and RCRA metals. Additional analytes may include ethylene dibromide (EDB), dichloroethane (DCA), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) certification will be required for all appropriate analytical methods. Appropriate detection limits, limits of detection, and limits of quantitation to evaluate ADEC promulgated cleanup levels will be required.

The intent is to award each of these projects on this Indefinite Delivery Architect-Engineer contract (IDA-E). The following is a brief scope for each of these projects:Soil and groundwater are contaminated with a mixture of Bunker C and heating oil, deposited during WWII.This analysis will be used to formulate a conceptual site model for the site. Additionally, three samples each of groundwater and product will be collected and analyzed for volatile petroleum hydrocarbons (VPH) and extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH), to determine the aromatic, aliphatic and polar compound concentrations in the NAPL and groundwater. These data will be used to assess dissolved phase migration downgradient of the source area toward the Buskin River using a model to characterize fate and transport of contaminants through time and potential ecological risk to the Buskin River. The fate and transport calculations will be compared to previously-measured concentrations in the downgradient monitoring wells. Additionally, an effort will be undertaken to delineate the eastern edge of the boundary of the plume. 12 borings will be advanced in this effort. Two soil samples, one from near the water table and one from the vadose zone, will be collected from each boring and analyzed for diesel range organics (DRO) and residual range organics (RRO) via ADEC methods AK102 and AK103. Four of the borings will be completed as monitoring wells. One groundwater sample will be collected from each of the four wells and analyzed for DRO and RRO via methods AK102 and AK103. All locations of borings and samples will be surveyed for horizontal coordinates only.In accordance with the Manual for Electronic Deliverables (MED).About 296 miles of the pipeline are in Alaska. The pipeline located in Canada is not eligible for DERP-FUDS funding. Along the 296 miles of pipeline, there are 1,079 tracts of land, owned by approximately 444 landowners.

), experience with remote Alaska projects, and experience with the Formerly Used Defense Site Program (FUDS), Army or Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP), and other Federal agencies is preferred.This person will be responsible for management of one or more task orders issued on the HTRW contract. Having current professional registration (PE, PG, PMP, etc.), experience with remote Alaska projects, and experience with the Formerly Used Defense Site Program (FUDS), Army or Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP), and other Federal agencies is preferred.The Senior Chemist must show experience communicating with subcontracted laboratories to ensure samples are run for the required methods and level of quality. Experience related to performing EPA test methods in an analytical laboratory is preferred. Experience with Environmental Resources Program Information Management System (ERPIMS) is preferred. Experience with remote Alaska projects is preferred.All engineers must demonstrate a background in at least one of the following phases of work: investigations to characterize nature and extent of contamination in soil and groundwater or preparation of treatability or feasibility studies. Experience with multiple phases of work is preferred. Experience with remote Alaska projects is preferred.The geologist shall meet the requirements of an ADEC qualified person as defined by 18 AAC 75.990(100). The Professional Geologist must demonstrate experience overseeing different drilling methods. Experience with Alaska projects is preferred.Include staff that will assist the PMs on awarded tasked orders. These staff can include scientists (chemists, geologists, environmental scientists, biologists) and engineers (environmental, civil, geotechnical, etc.) that fill out the remainder of the project team not mentioned above. Staff shall meet the requirements of an ADEC qualified person as defined by 18 AAC 75.990(100).

These staff must show recent ( Experience preparing MED compliant deliverables is preferred.The key personnel requirements may be met by either one person with experience in both human health and ecological risk assessment, or two (2) persons with experience in either human health or ecological risk assessment. Demonstrated experience with CERCLA regulated sites is required. Experience preparing risk assessments for ADEC regulated sites is preferred. Experience with Alaska projects is preferred.Field experience with Alaska projects is preferred.Experience with Alaska projects is preferred.Responding firms must address each discipline, clearly indicate which shall be subcontracted, and provide a separate SF330 Part II for each subcontractor. The first resume(s) presented in the proposal will be considered for each subject position. Additional resumes beyond the number requested above for Criteria (A) will not be reviewed. Resumes for positions not listed above will not be considered. A multi-disciplined AE firm with limited dependency on subcontracted personnel is preferred.AE firms and their subcontractors shall show technical competence in the following areas (experience with Alaska projects is preferred).Documents prepared for CERCLA pre-decisional tasks is preferred.Limit each project to a single site or task order. Where experience gained over an entire contract is presented as project experience, the experience will not be considered.Demonstrated experience in the development and maintenance of project schedules utilizing software programs such as Microsoft Project is required.The secondary selection criteria in descending order of importance are:Describe nature of work performed for each contract and the dollar amount.Section H shall include no more than 20 pages.

Analyses of historical documents, georeferencing of as-built drawings and historical photos necessary to locate sites and site features may be required. Coordination with SHPO for permitting may be required. GPS capabilities that adhere to the requirements of the MED are necessary.Deliverables will include draft and final work plans, updated ecological and human health conceptual site models and draft and final Site Investigation reports.Under the Formerly Used Defense Sites Program, the former Fort Morrow is eligible for environmental restoration funding. A remedial investigation is required under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act prior to performing extensive remediation activities. A contractor conducted remedial activities between 2011 and 2015, and submitted a Final Phase II Remedial Investigation Report in November 2016. Additional investigation will be required to fully characterize the site.As a result of RI activities performed to date, the former Fort Morrow was divided into 13 Areas of Concern (AOCs), A through M, based on military activities that occurred within each area. A total of 195 features were screened for petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) contamination between AOC B (21 features), AOC M (171 features), AOC E (one feature), and AOC F (two features).Additional RI work will include surface and subsurface soil sampling (up to 100 samples) and the installation and sampling of additional monitoring wells (up to six). It is possible that additional geophysical surveys may need to be conducted (three areas) with subsequent test pits dug (up to two per survey area). Anticipated deliverables include a draft and final UFP-QAPP, Health and Safety Plan, project Fact Sheets, and draft and final reports in compliance with the MED. The contractor will host a public meeting in Port Heiden to present the status of the RI. The contractor will compare existing data from previous RI work against applicable cleanup levels.

The site was used by the United States Army as a suspected supply and storage area from 1957 to 1971. Widespread chlorinated solvent contamination has been identified in the site soils and groundwater. Hydrogeology at the site is extremely complex due to the Eklutna River, Chugach Mountains, and Cook Inlet. The Phase III RI will include the installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells, a tidal influence study, groundwater modelling, additional soil gas and sediment sampling, and a complete human health and ecological risk assessment that evaluates all likely future land use scenarios.Some wells will extend to more than 150 feet bgs. The Contractor will also collect approximately 10 sediment samples and 25 soil gas samples that will be used to support the risk assessment. The tidal study will be complex and likely include evaluating tidal influences on 10 monitoring wells. Deliverables from the Phase III RI will include an RI work plan, risk assessment work plan, RI report, and Risk assessment Report prepared according to the MED.The task orders delivered under this contract will have low to high risk levels of complexity, pace, novelty, and technology. The A-E will likely be required to simultaneously complete multiple task orders.The following selection criteria are listed in descending order of importance. Criteria (A)-(D) are primary selection criterion:AE Firms need to show the organization of the team that will support the HTRW contract as well as the qualifications of the staff on that team. The same person can meet the experience requirements of more than one position by submitting a resume specific to each position. The following are experience requirements for various positions on the team:This person will be responsible for overall management of the HTRW contract, including quality assurance and quality control of all deliverables. Having current professional registration (PE, PG, PMP, etc.

The latest available edition of the SF330 MUST be used, and may be obtained from the Government Printing Office at: or from commercial software suppliers for use with personal computers and laser printers in both Adobe Acrobat PDF and Form Flow formats. Part I-H of the SF 330, describe the firm's overall Quality Management Plan. A detailed contract-specific Quality Management Plan, which includes quality control and quality assurance plans, must be prepared for Government approval as a condition of contract award, but is not required with this submission. Part I of the SF 330 must be submitted. It is preferred that Part II of the SF330 be submitted with Part I however, the Part II will be considered submitted if a current version (updated within the 36-month period prior to the date for receipt of submissions) of the Part II information has been uploaded to the SAM website. Offerors must mail or deliver SF330 packages to be received no later than the date and time stated on the Presolicitation Notice. Requests forwarded after this date will not be considered. No additional information shall be provided, and no faxed or e-mailed submittals shall be accepted. This is not a request for proposal.Offerors are advised to plan accordingly. Day-pass procedures will not be used for delivery purposes nor are there pick-up services. No escort services will be provided. It is incumbent on the offeror to plan for unanticipated delays in delivery of SF330 package proposals. Due to heightened security at Government installations, visitors to the Elmendorf Air Force Base (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) as of 1 Oct 2010) must use the Boniface Gate or Fort Richardson Gate (Visitor Centers). All visitors to JBER will be required to show REAL ID compliant identification.Submitters are advised that the Alaska District Corps of Engineers building has limited access. Room 30 is located on the basement level of the building (turn right if using the main stairs or elevator).

To self-register, go to the aforementioned web page and click on the BID tab. Select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, and enter the Bidder Inquiry Key for this solicitation listed below, your email address, and then click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify that information on next screen is correct and click continue.The telephone number for the Call Center is 800-428-HELP.Questions sent via e-mail will not be answered. Received March 5, 2006. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, 2007, 6(5): 587-609, Abstract The health implications and remediation obligations of contaminated soils are significant issues in many urban areas of North America. For commercial and industrial sites, health concerns impact brownfield redevelopment and the conversion of fallow private land into public resources. To help manage health risks, regulatory agencies provide guidance values to identify maximum acceptable levels of contamination. Currently, these guidance values differ by as much as 5 orders of magnitude for some metals. The variability in North American guidance for Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn surface soil contamination at commercial and industrial sites is examined. Ordered column diagrams illustrate the magnitude and dispersion of guidance values. Statistical analysis is used to investigate the significance of variations. Results indicate that commercial and industrial site guidance is more variable than residential site guidance and that even when the values are treated as lognormal random variables, some appear to be “uncharacteristic” outliers. The most significant regional trends are differences between US and Canadian guidance, but individual jurisdiction differences dominate over regional trends. When current guidance values sets were used in Hazard Index analysis applied to 20 sample urban brownfield sites, the results varied by 2 orders of magnitude. Google Scholar AzDEQ (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality).

1999. Arizona Administrative Code Title 18. Google Scholar Duffus JH. Google Scholar Jennings, A.A. 2003. Risk analysis of legacy heavy metal contamination in Cleveland area commons, Final Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Google Scholar Jennings AA, Petersen EJ.Jennings, A.A., Ma, J., and Petersen, E.J. 2002 b. Heavy metal contamination and burden sequestering in Cleveland area brownfield soils. Conference, An International Perspective on Environmental Engineering, Niagara Falls, Canada (on CD). Google Scholar Krumholz, M., and Jennings, A.A. 1996. Electrokinetically enhanced remediation of “old contamination” soil. In-situ remediation of contaminated sites, the 4th Great Lakes geotechnical and geoenvironmental conference. Google Scholar McBean, E.A., and Rovers, F.A. 1998. Statistical procedures for analysis of environmental monitoring data and risk assessment. Prentice Hall PRT, New Jersey. Google Scholar Pfaff, L.M., and Jennings, A.A. 1996. Analysis of lead contamination in brownfield soils. In In-situ remediation of contaminated sites, the 4th Great Lakes geotechnical and geoenvironmental conference. Google Scholar USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk assessment guidance for superfund. Vol. I. Human health evaluation manual (part A). COVID-19: Get the latest updates, take a self-assessment or learn about the COVID Alert exposure-notification app. JavaScript is required to view this site Ontario.ca needs JavaScript to function properly and provide you with a fast, stable experience. To have a better experience, you need to: Go to your browser's settings Enable JavaScript JavaScript est necessaire pour ce site Le site Ontario.ca exige JavaScript pour fonctionner comme il faut, avec rapidite et stabilite. Learn about the browsers we support. Vous utilisez un navigateur desuet qui n’est plus accepte par Ontario.ca.

Les navigateurs desuets ne disposent pas de caracteristiques securitaires permettant d’assurer la securite de vos renseignements. En savoir plus sur les navigateurs que nous supportons. Superior Patient Experience. Optimal Access. It ensures patient comfort even during long procedures. Request a demo. Unassumingly responsive. Predictable and intuitive. Experience the next level. Coupled with the virtual pivot, which synchronizes movement with the natural motion of the patient, there’s no readjusting when the chair is reclined or returned. The ultra-thin back allows you to work in a comfortable position—legs under the patient, elbows at your side. Access angles can make the difference between a long day and a good day. The headrest adjusts on the fly with the press of a lever for an optimal view of the oral cavity. Flip the patient chair armrests out of the way, and the shape of the baseplate allows you (and your team) to roll in closer to the patient and work in a comfortable, natural position. Supports patient weight when they need it, and moves out of the way when they don’t. All your patient feels is relaxed. Allows the doctor, regardless of height, to work comfortably. Handpieces—even electrics—feel light. Eliminates pull-back on the handpiece resulting in less fatigue. Easily retrieve and return handpieces and other instruments without taking your focus away from the oral cavity. The A-dec 500 12 o’clock duo delivery system supports left- and right-handed positioning for multiple operators and keeps instrumentation out of sight. With the A-dec 300 delivery system, the look is orderly and clean, yet accessible. A clearer view of tooth surfaces. Reduced eyestrain. Less fatigue. Increase case acceptance when you incorporate the use of an intraoral camera with a chairside monitor. Programmable cup fill and bowl rinse timers.Request a demo to experience everything the new A-dec 500 has to offer.

With proper maintenance and service, A-dec dental chairs are designed and tested for a “service life” of 20 years under normal use. Please review A-dec’s customer warranty for complete details, including applicable disclaimers and limitations of liability. The A-dec 500 dental chair is rated to 500 lb (227 kg) maximum patient load.Hydraulic dental chairs offer quiet operation with lots of power. The A-dec 500 dental chair has a robust hydraulic base lift and back tilt system which results in gentle stops and starts during patient positioning. You can customize your dental chair with many different equipment options. Request a quote from your local A-dec dealer. A-dec is pleased to offer a 5-year warranty for all dental equipment and furniture purchased from an authorized A-dec dealer. Additionally, A-dec offers a 10-year warranty on hydraulic dental chair cylinders (tilt and lift). See Regulatory Information, Specifications, and Warranty for full warranty information. A-dec recommends cleaning the upholstery using a solution of mild, non-ionic detergent and water, or commercially available cleaners containing no alcohol, bleach, or ammonia. Get more information in the A-dec Upholstery Maintenance Guide. Replacement upholstery can be ordered through your local A-dec dealer. Get upholstery color and replacement upholstery information. To order replacement parts, please contact your local A-dec dealer. Daily and preventative maintenance will help keep your dental equipment running smoothly. Use the Dental Equipment Maintenance checklist for easy reference. Reference the A-dec 511 Dental Chair Instructions for Use for information about chair operation and adjustments.