SHAW Environmental, Inc. - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---' --. F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT (Present as many prOjects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, If not specified. Complete one Section F for each project.) r---. . . . 1. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State) Site Assessment Pear Park Property, Lake County, Florida 20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER 008 22. YEARS COMPLETED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONSTRUCTION (If Applicable) Ongoing 23. PROJECT OWNER'S INFORMATION Lake County Environmental Services 13130 County Landfill Rd. P.O. Box 7800 Tavares, FL 32778-7800 24. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost) I I I a. PROJECT OWNER b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER 352-343-3776 In collaboration with Lake County, Shaw designed a site assessment plan to investigate the impacts from arsenic at site being developed for planned recreational property. Shaw was initially tasked with the oversight (shadowing/auditing) of another consultant representing the former property owner in their completion of site investigation tasks designed by Shaw. Shaw was later assigned the contract for the design and implementation of a source removal and natural attenuation/monitoring only plan. The scope of work for this investigation included: Be Sure to Notice · Phase I and II ESAs Audit · Familiarity in working with Regulatory Agencies · Source removal design and execution I · Florida County service provider . Site Survey . Subsurface Investigation . Existing Well Sample Collection and Analysis . Soil Sampling . Groundwater Assessment . Quarterly Monitoring . Source Removal As one of the objectives was to identify the presences of a former cattle dip vat a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey was performed. This survey was restricted to the west by the property boundary and to the north by surface water in the vicinity of the Palatlakaha River. The GPR investigation identified four subsurface anomalies that were further investigated through the excavation of test pits. A pre-existing on-site well was used as part of this investigation '. ~" for groundwater sample collection purposes. A groundwater sample was collected from the well for analysis of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic. The results of this analysis indicated that OCPs and arsenic are not present in the groundwater above the test method detection limits or the groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs) established in Chapter 62-777, of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). In addition, four shallow monitoring wells were constructed in the area of the suspect cattle dip operations. These wells were surveyed and sampled. The water table elevation was determined, documenting a groundwater flow direction toward the northwest. Groundwater samples collected from these newly installed wells were analyzed for arsenic, 1 ,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) and OCPs. Again, none of the analyzed compounds were detected above the test method detection limits or the GCTLs. Shaw returned to the site to collect soil samples to vertically delineate total arsenic. Four sample boring locations were selected. Soil samples from these borings were collected at various vertical depths and analyzed for total arsenic. The results of these analysis indicated that total arsenic concentration is in excess of the State's current Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs), as established in FAC 62-777, of 0.8 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (residential) and 3.7 mg/kg (industrial) in two of the four borings at all depths. The residential standard was exceeded in all locations and depths in each boring with the exception to one sample (1 to 6 feet below land surface) and another at all depths. Applying the proposed new SCTLs of 2.1 mg/kg residential and 12 mg/kg industrial, one boring location exceeded the residential standard at 0.5-, 2- and 5-foot depths and the industrial standard at 1- and 2-foot depths. In another boring the residential standard was exceeded at all depths while the industrial standard was over the SCTL at 0.5- and 1-foot depths. Emilio Burma STANDARD FORM 330 (6/2004) PAGE F-1