PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING CENTER II CHAPTER 7:
PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING CENTER IICHAPTER 7: HAZARDOUS MATERIALSA.INTRODUCTIONA hazardous material is any substance that poses a threat to human health or the environment. Substancesthat can be of concern include, but are not limited to, heavy metals, volatile and semi volatile organiccompounds, methane, polychlorinated biphenyls, and hazardous wastes (defined as substances that arechemically reactive, ignitable, corrosive, or toxic). According to the City Environmental Quality Review(CEQR) Technical Manual, the potential for significant adverse impacts from hazardous materials canoccur when: a) hazardous materials exist on a site and b) an action would increase pathways to theirexposure; or c) an action would introduce new activities or processes using hazardous materials.This chapter evaluates the potential for hazardous contaminants on the Project Site in soil andgroundwater resulting from previous and existing uses to impact the proposed PSAC II development. TheProject Site and surrounding area currently and historically have been used for commercial, at-gradeparking, institutional, transportation-related, and automotive-related uses. Vacant undeveloped land,parking, and a private roadway currently occupy the Project Site. This chapter summarizes theinvestigations that have been undertaken to date with respect to hazardous materials, their conclusions,and the potential for significant adverse impacts under the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR).To identify the potential for the presence of hazardous materials and contaminated media on the ProjectSite, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared in September 2007 in accordancewith the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-05 that included the following:1 An evaluation of the land use history, using available historical fire insurance maps,topographic maps, and historical aerial photographs, as well as tenant searches;A review of land title records, environmental liens, and/or activity and use limitations;A review of existing data on geology and hydrology of the area;A visual inspection of the Project Site and a fence line visual inspection of adjacentproperties;Interviews with persons knowledgeable about the Project Site; andA review of federal and state environmental regulatory agency databases regardingreleases or spills of potentially hazardous materials, facilities that emit hazardousmaterials to the air or the sewer system, and facilities that generate, treat, or storehazardous wastes.The Phase I ESA concluded that there is potential for encountering hazardous materials at the ProjectSite, and recommended conducting a Phase II Environmental Site Investigation (Phase II ESI) todetermine whether identified recognized environmental conditions have impacted the environmentalintegrity of the Project Site. Subsequently, a Phase II ESI Work Plan was prepared in December 2007,which included the Phase II ESI Subsurface Testing Scope of Work and Health and Safety Plan (HASP)1Biene, Ltd., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- Public Safety Answering Center II, September 28, 2007.7-1
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous Materialsfor the site.2 Following the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s (NYCDEP’s)review and approval of the Phase II ESI Work Plan and HASP, a Phase II Environmental SiteInvestigation (ESI) was prepared in March 2008 that assessed whether the identified recognizedenvironmental conditions identified in the Phase I ESA have the potential to impact the proposeddevelopment.3 The Phase II ESI summarizes the results of the field investigation work and reviews theanalytical results compared to their applicable standards and guidance values to evaluate environmentalimpacts, if any, to the Project Site. Summaries of the Phase I ESA, Phase II ESI Work Plan, and Phase IIESI have been incorporated into the Existing Conditions section below.B.EXISTING CONDITIONSProject Site Location and Current ConditionsThe Project Site is located in the northeastern Bronx near the southwest of the interchange for Pelham andthe Hutchinson River Parkways, and to the east of the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad rightof-way for Amtrak (see Figure 7-1). It consists of an irregular, bell-shaped property (Block 4226, Lot 75and part of Lots 40 and 55) comprising approximately 8.75-acres in the northern portion of theHutchinson Metro Center (HMC) office complex (“proposed development site”); and Industrial Street, aprivate unmapped street (Block 4226, part of Lots 30, 35, and 40) that extends north from Waters Placefor approximately 0.63 miles to the southern boundary of the proposed development site. In its entirety,the Project Site encompasses approximately 13.08-acres. The Project Site does not support any existingbuildings or structures.The southern portion of the proposed development site is occupied by at-grade accessory parking for theadjacent HMC to the south, and the northern portion is occupied by vacant land that formerlyaccommodated two baseball fields, which are partially enclosed by chain-link fencing (refer to Figure 1-3in Chapter 1, “Project Description”). An asphalt pedestrian walkway cuts through the center of thenorthern portion of the proposed development site providing a pedestrian connection between the PelhamParkway and the HMC.Industrial Street is a two-way private roadway that extends for approximately 0.63 miles from an attendedgatehouse located on the north of side of Waters Place approximately 420 feet east of the intersection ofEastchester Road and Waters Place to the southern boundary of the proposed development site. Thenorthern portion of Industrial Street is currently closed due to ongoing construction at the southwestcorner of the HMC.Surrounding Area DescriptionThe surrounding area consists of the HMC, which supports a mix of commercial and government offices,and large institutional uses, on campus-like settings. The HMC is located at 1200 and 1260 Waters Placeand encompasses approximately 32 acres of land (Block 4226, Lots 35, 40, 55, 70 and 75) directly northof the New York State owned and operated mental health facilities (“Bronx Psychiatric Center”) locatedat 1000, 1400 and 1500 Waters Place. The suburban-style office park campus currently features a large 4story recently retrofitted office building (formerly the New York State-operated Bronx DevelopmentCenter) and a single-story warehouse facility, which is leased by New York State, as well as at-grade23Fleming Lee Shue, Inc., Phase II ESI Work Plan- Public Safety Answering Center II, December 2007.Louis Berger & Associates, PC, Phase II ESI - Public Safety Answering Center II, March 2008.7-2
PSAC II EISSource: Fleming Lee-Shue Inc.Figure 7-1USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous Materialsaccessory parking. The southwest corner of the office complex is currently undergoing construction, andwill be developed with two commercial towers and enclosed accessory parking by the Build year of 2012.Other prevalent land uses in the area consist of open space, warehousing, light industrial, andtransportation-related uses. Residential uses are located north of the Project Site across the PelhamParkway and to the east of the Project Site across the Hutchinson River Parkway. There is also a smallresidential enclave located to the west of Stillwell Avenue across the Amtrak railroad right-of-way.Project Site HistoryFormerly the Project Site contained marshland and the Westchester Creek ran northwest to southeastthrough the southwestern portion of the proposed development site from 1898 to at least 1919, afterwhich the creek was filled in with material of unknown origin.A review of Sanborn Maps indicated that with the exception of a rail spur from the New York, NewHaven and Hartford Railroad (Harlem River Branch) in the western portion of the Project Site, the ProjectSite has remained largely undeveloped from 1898 through at least 1996. Railroad tracks associated withthe New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company’s Freight Yard once extended along presentday Industrial Street. Industrial Street was first noted on the 1929 Sanborn maps as a concrete driveway,which replaced the railroad tracks at its southern end near Waters Place. By 1966, Industrial Streetappeared to be a paved roadway.The proposed development site remained undeveloped, vegetated land until 1974 when the site wascleared. In 1984, the northern portion of the development site was developed with a baseball field and thesoutheast portion of the site was improved with an at-grade parking lot. A second baseball field wasdeveloped in the northern portion of the development site by 1994.Geology and HydrogeologyThe elevation of the proposed development site is approximately 5 feet above mean sea level (amsl)according to a review of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Quadrangle MapFlushing, dated 2000. Based on field visual inspections during the Phase I and Phase II, the highestelevation on the proposed development site is located near the adjacent HMC building at the southeastcorner of the site. The ground surface of the parking lot located in the southeastern portion of theproposed development site slopes upwards toward the adjacent HMC office building to the south,resulting in a approximate 10-foot terrace separating the southeastern and southwestern parking lotsoccupying the southern portion of the development site. There is also an approximate 10-foot dip at thenorthern portion of the development site where the two abandoned ball fields are located. In thenorthwestern portion of the proposed development site, there are a series of debris piles (soil, concrete,asphalt) each approximately 5 to 8 feet tall.Industrial Street is relatively flat with no significant elevation change. The elevation of Industrial Streetwas observed to be approximately 10 to 15 feet lower than the proposed development site.Bedrock at the Project Site was not encountered during the Phase II ESI, and is expected to consist ofManhattan Schist that is uncomfortably overlain by glacial ground moraine deposits (a dense glacialdeposit typically consisting of sand, silt, gravel, cobbles, and boulders) that have been reworked by anetwork of streams and rivers, resulting in fluvial and march deposits. Soils encountered during the PhaseII ESI were mainly composed of medium to fine sands, some silt, gravel and a layer or organic peat at the7-3
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous Materialsproposed development site. Soil analyzed along Industrial Street were similar to those characterized at thedevelopment site with coarse to fine sands, some silt, gravel and an organic peat layer. Soil lithologyfollowed a general pattern of sandy non-native fill existing from the top of each boring to approximately 5to 15 feet below ground surface (ftbgs) depending on surface elevation. Fill was generally characterizedby a yellowish-brown, medium to fine sand with little silt, little gravel and various construction debrisinterspersed throughout (brick, ceramics, wood fragments). Directly below the fill layer (between 16 and24 ftbgs) interpreted native soil was observed, indicated by alluvial deposits and organic peat layers.Native alluvial deposits were generally characterized by medium to dark gray coarse sands with silt andtrace gravel. The observed peat layer measured between 1 to 5.5 feet in thickness.Groundwater in the vicinity of the Project Site is anticipated to occur in the fluvial and marsh deposits at adepth corresponding with the mean sea level (approximately 5 ftbgs in most portions of the Project Site).A review of historical fire insurance and topographic maps indicated that the Project Site was formerlymarshland and the Westchester Creek ran through it. Based on a review of topography and locations ofsurface water bodies shown on the most recent topographic map (USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map,Flushing, NY, dated 2000), groundwater is anticipated to generally flow northeast toward the HutchinsonRiver. The estimated groundwater elevation and/or directional flow may vary due to seasonal fluctuationsin precipitation, geology, underground structures, and ore dewatering operations (if present). It is alsoexpected that the former stream, which ran through the Project Site, has been filled with urban fillmaterial (potentially containing construction and demolition debris, gravel, brick, wood, concrete, andasphalt).During the Phase II ESI, Groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed development site was observed tooccur at the native soil layer or up to 6 feet above the native soil layer in non-native fill. Depths of thegroundwater table at the proposed development site ranged from 8 to 18 ftbgs, and along Industrial Street,the depth of the water table ranged from 4 to 8 ftbgs.There are no surface water bodies or wetlands located on the Project Site. The nearest surface waterbodies to the Project Site are the Hutchinson River (located approximately 0.75 miles northeast of theProject Site) and the Westchester River (located approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project Site). Areview of information presented in the GeoCheck section of the Environmental Data Resources, Inc.(EDR) Radius Map indicates that federally mapped wetlands are located southeast of the Project Site.According to the Phase I, storm water infiltrates the vegetated northern portion of the proposeddevelopment site and flows to catch basins located within the parking lot in the southern portion of thedevelopment site, which are expected to be connected to the City’s sewer system. Based on a review ofFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood data, the Phase I concluded that the westernportion of the development site, along the New York, New Haven and Hartford railroad right-of-way forAmtrak, is located within the 100-year floor zone (Zone AE [EL 14]) (see Figure 8-2, in Chapter 8,“Waterfront Revitalization Program”). Additionally, portions of the western and southeastern areas of theProject Site, including the proposed street, are located within Zone X.A review of radon data maintained by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) indicatesthat average indoor radon concentrations in the vicinity of the Project Site are below the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA) action level of 4.0 pCi/L. Therefore, it is unlikely thatelevated levels of radon gas are present at the Project Site.Recognized Environmental ConditionsThe Phase I revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the ProjectSite, except for the following:7-4
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous Materials The review of historical maps indicated that the Project Site was formerly marshland andthat Westchester Creek ran through it from north to south. Sometime between 1897 and1947, the Project Site was filled-in with material of an unknown origin and character. Thefill material may contain hazardous materials and/or petroleum products. The placement of fill over organic-rich sediments in Westchester Creek may result in thepresence of elevated concentrations of methane in soil gas. During the site reconnaissance, the northwest part of the proposed development sitecontained a series of debris mounds (e.g., soil, concrete, asphalt), which are of unknownorigin and character. Railroad tracks were located on the Project Site from 1898 through at least 1996. IndustrialStreet was historically developed with a rail yard. These uses may have resulted in releasesof petroleum, metals, PCBs, and applications of pesticides or herbicides. The review of aerial photographs indicated that the proposed development site wasundeveloped, vegetated land until 1974, when it was cleared. No fences were noted aroundthe site’s perimeter prior to the 1984 photograph and unpaved roads appeared to provideaccess to the site from neighboring properties in the 1966 photograph. Due to the absenceof site controls, hazardous materials and/or petroleum products may have been disposed ofon-the Project Site. The northern portion of the proposed development site is presently overgrown; however,pesticides or herbicides may have been historically applied to the baseball fields. The properties along Industrial Street were historically developed with a motor repair shop(1919 map), three repair shops (1919 maps), coal yards (1929 and 1950 maps), WesternElectric and N.Y. Telephone yards (1929 maps), gasoline tanks (1950 maps), a woodfinishing company (1950 maps), a truck repair shop (1977 through 1996 maps), a powerhouse with oil tanks (1966 through 1996 maps), and manufacturing operations (1954through 1996 maps). Undocumented releases of hazardous materials and/or petroleumproducts at these facilities have the potential to impact soil and groundwater at the ProjectSite. Approximately 150 feet south of where Industrial Street intersects the proposeddevelopment site (at the northwest corner of the Bronx Psychiatric Center TransportationBuilding [1-story warehouse]), a filling station was noted and at least one undergroundstorage tank (UST) was present. The station appeared in disrepair and at least four (4)groundwater monitoring wells were noted in its vicinity. An inspection of one of themonitoring wells indicated that groundwater is approximately 2 to 3 feet below groundsurface in that area. Based on a review of the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks(LTANKS) database, a 3,000-gallon diesel UST located at the Bronx DevelopmentalCenter (1200 Waters Place) failed a tightness test in 1988 and spill case 8807432 wasassigned. The spill case was closed on October 16, 1997; however, there is no indicationthat any petroleum-contaminated soil or groundwater associated with this release wasremediated. Along Industrial Street, approximately 1,500 feet north of Waters Place, two (2)approximately 20-foot diameter aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed to be in7-5
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous Materialspoor condition. The ASTs were located within a concrete secondary containment structurethat was overgrown. A review of New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (NYSDEC) records indicated that these ASTs were associated with the BronxPsychiatric Center located at 1500 Waters Place (PBS No. 2-600750). These 183,120gallon ASTs were installed in 1959, formerly contained No. 6 fuel oil, and were reportedlyin contact with soil. Undocumented releases of petroleum from the storage tanks may haveimpacted soil and groundwater beneath the roadway of Industrial Street. Adjacent and nearby properties with the potential to impact soil and groundwaterconditions at the proposed development site and beneath the roadway of Industrial Streetwere identified on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information SystemGenerators/Transporters (RCRIS Gen/Trans), the New York State Solid WasteManagement Facilities (SWMF), the New York State Leaking Storage Tank (LTANKS),the New York State Petroleum Bulk Storage Tanks (PBS) Underground Storage Tanks(UST) and Above Ground Storage Tanks (AST), and the Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS)AST databases.Hazardous Building MaterialsNo asbestos-containing materials (ACM) or PCB-containing equipment was noted at the Project Site. Thefence structures associated with the former baseball fields may have been painted with lead-based paint(LBP).Subsequent Environmental StudiesPhase II Environmental Site Investigation Work PlanA Phase II Environmental Site Investigation (ESI) Work Plan was prepared in December 2007 to assesswhether recognized environmental conditions (e.g., hazardous materials and/or petroleum productcontamination) identified in the Phase I ESA have the potential to impact the proposed development. Allactivities conducted at the Project Site will follow the New York City Department of EnvironmentalProtection (NYCDEP) protocols presented in the CEQR Technical Manual.The Work Plan called for two (2) test pits, thirty-two (32) soil borings, eighteen (18) temporary wellpoints (TWPs), and twenty (20) temporary soil gas probes to be installed at the Project Site. The soilboring locations would be concentrated within the general area of the proposed building footprints andalong the proposed public street segment as well as along the emergency access pathway to the north ofthe proposed site. The two test pits and 18 soil borings would be advanced within the proposeddevelopment site to assess the presence of hazardous materials and/or petroleum product contamination atthe site. The test pits would be advanced to a depth of approximately 10 feet below ground surface toassess the characteristics of the fill historically placed on the Project Site. Soil borings located within thegeneral area of the footprint of the proposed PSAC II building would be advanced to a depth ofapproximately 25 ftbgs, and the soil borings located within the footprint of the proposed accessory garagewould be advanced to the depth of groundwater (approximately 5 ftbgs). The remaining soil boringswould be advanced in the vicinity of the recognized environmental conditions identified adjacent toIndustrial Street and to the north of the proposed development site. The soil borings located in IndustrialStreet and to the north of the proposed PSAC II building would be advanced to a depth of approximately12 ftbgs.7-6
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous MaterialsSoil from each test pit/soil boring location would be screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)along the vertical length of the soil column using a photoionization detector (PID). One surface soilsample would be collected from the two-foot interval immediately below ground surface. A second soilsample would be collected from the depth interval exhibiting the highest VOC reading, or from the depthof the interval directly above the groundwater table (i.e., if no elevated PID readings are present). Inaddition, three composite soil samples would be collected from the debris mounds in the northwesternportion of the proposed development site.Eighteen of the soil borings would be converted into temporary well points to permit groundwatersamples including 6 of the soil borings advanced within the proposed development site, as well as in all12 soil borings advanced along Industrial Street. Groundwater samples would be collected at 5 ftbgs thewater table from each of the temporary well points and analyzed. A soil gas survey would be conducted at20 locations within the vicinity of the footprints of the proposed buildings to evaluate methane levelsgenerated by an organic layer beneath the urban fill.The soil and groundwater samples would be submitted to a New York State Department of Health(NYSDOH) approved Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) laboratory. The soil andgroundwater samples would be analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) volatile organic compounds(VOCs) by USEPA Method 8260, TCL semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by USEPA Method8270, Target Analyte List (TAL) metals by USEPA Method 6010, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) byUSEPA Method 8081, and pesticides by USEPA Method 8082. The laboratory results of the soil sampleswould be compared to the NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM)Recommended Soil Cleanup Objectives (RSCOs). The laboratory results of the groundwater sampleswould be compared to the NYSDEC Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance values(AWQSGVs).A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) has also been prepared in accordance with OccupationalSafety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency ResponseStandard (29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65) and other OSHA requirements for job safety and healthprotection. The HASP would be implemented by the designated Site Health and Safety Officer (SHSO)during work activities at the site, including soil boring, soil sampling, monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, geophysical survey, soil gas activities, and other environmental assessment activities, andother environmental activities related to the redevelopment of the site, to provide for worker safety,including a construction HASP and any other plans (e.g., Remedial Action Plan) as requested byNYCDEP.NYCDEP has reviewed and determined that the Phase II ESI Work Plan and HASP are acceptable.Subsequently, a Phase II ESI was conducted to characterize the physical and chemical characteristics ofthe soil, groundwater, and soil gas within the Project Site following the parameters established in thePhase II EIS Work Plan and HASP.Phase II Environmental Site InvestigationBased on the results of a geophysical survey conducted in the field, less than ten (10) of the proposed soilborings, test pits and soil gas survey point locations identified in the Phase II Work Plan were shifted 1 to2 feet based on subsurface anomalies. Figures 7-2 and 7-3 identify the locations of all test pits, soilborings, debris pile composite samples, and temporary well points.Thirty–two (32) soil borings were advanced at varying depths using a Geoprobe direct push drill rigacross the entire Project Site (maximum depth 25 ftbgs; depth and location based on locations ofproposed buildings and expected depth of utilities within proposed street). Two test pits were also7-7
PSAC II EISSource: Fleming Lee-Shue Inc.Figure 7-2Sample Location Plan for the Proposed Mapped Street
PSAC II EISFigure 7-3Sample Location Plan for the Proposed Development SiteSources:Preliminary Site Plan prepared by Urbahn Architects(site plan has since been updated)Sampling Locations prepared by Fleming Lee-Shue Inc.
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous Materialsexcavated within the vicinity of the proposed PSAC II building footprint using a backhoe to depth of 10ftbgs.Field screening consisted of visual and olfactory indicators of impacts, as well as screening with aphotoionization detector (PID). In addition, all soil was classified in the field by soil type and color basedon the modified Burmister soil classification system. A total of 68 soil samples were collected from soilborings and test pits throughout the proposed development site and Industrial Street. Two soil sampleswere collected from each of the 31 soil borings and two test pits, including a sample that assessed surfaceand near surface conditions and a second sample based on visual and olfactory observations and/orelevated PID readings or the deepest sample directly above the water table.4In total, 17 temporary well points (TWPs) were installed in completed soil borings for groundwatersampling (including 3 within the vicinity of the proposed PSAC II building footprint, 3 near the proposedaccessory garage footprint, and eleven within Industrial Street).5 Three (3) composite soil samples werecollected from the debris piles in the northwestern portion of the proposed development site that exhibitedgrass growth and vegetation (i.e., older piles unrelated to the current construction debris piles that existnear the western portion of the site). A total of 20 temporary soil gas probes were performed in thevicinity of the proposed building footprints to determine if the placement of fill over organic-richsediments may result in the presence of elevated concentrations of methane in soil gas. Soil gas readingswere collected at depths of 3 ftbgs at all locations using GEM 2000 Landfill Gas Monitor.All soil samples collected from soil borings, test pits, and composite debris piles, as well as thegroundwater samples collected from temporary well points were analyzed for the presence of TCL VOCs,TCL SVOCs (base neutrals and acid extracts), pesticides/ PCBs, and TAL metals. Groundwater sampleswere analyzed for both filtered and unfiltered TAL metals. Soil and groundwater samples were analyzedby NYSDOH-ELAP certified, Hampton-Clark/Veritech (HCV) Laboratory. Quality Assurance/QualityControl (QA/QC) samples were analyzed as per NYSDEC Division of Remediation (DER)-10 guidance.Soil Quality InvestigationVisual/olfactory signs and/or elevated PID reading indicative of petroleum contamination were observedduring the soil boring advancement efforts at SB34, which is located in the northeastern portion of theproposed development site. A faint petroleum odor was observed where the PID measured 15 ppm at 14ftbgs and a soil sample was collected (SB34B). At 23-24 ftbgs, a strong hydrogen sulfide odor wasobserved and PID measurement of 551 ppm was taken. A supplemental sample was collected (SB34C) atthis interval due to elevated PIS measurement and no exceedences were found for VOCs. In every soilboring where a peat layer was encountered, a strong hydrogen sulfide odor was observed and elevatedPID reading encountered at the depth of the peat layer. It is expected that organic peat would exhibit thesequalities due to naturally occurring bacteriological activities and these observations should not be aconcern.TCL VOCs were detected in soil above regulatory standards at 8 samples (SB03A, SB04B, SB11B,SB34B, SB34C, SB35B, SB39B, TP1B). Acetone was the only compound detected at elevatedconcentrations above Unrestricted Use (Track 1) Soil Cleanup Objectives (SCOs) and Technical andAdministrative Guidance Memorandum #4046 (TAGM) Recommended Soil Cleanup Objectives(RSCOs), and is attributed to laboratory contamination.45A third sample was collected at SB34 due to a second distinct area on the core that exhibited elevated PID readings. Only onesoil sample was collected from SB01 due to the lack of recovery from 2 to 5 ftbgs.An 18th TWP was attempted at the southern end of Industrial Street near Waters Place (SB01) but could not be installed due torefusal at 5 ftbgs, a depth that was above the water table.7-8
PSAC II FEISChapter 7: Hazardous MaterialsTCL SVOCs were detected in the soil above regulatory standards at samples collected throughout theproposed development site and along Industrial Street. The compounds of TCL
2 Fleming Lee Shue, Inc., Phase II ESI Work Plan- Public Safety Answering Center II, December 2007. 3 Louis Berger & Associates, PC, Phase II ESI - Public Safety Answering Center II, March 2008. PSAC II EIS Figure 7-1 USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Source: Fleming Lee-Shue Inc.
These include long-form question answering (answering why ques-tions, or other questions that require generating a long answer), community ques-tion answering, in which we make use of datasets of community-created question-answer pairs like Quora or Stack Overflow. Finally, question answering is an impor-
The people and businesses that hire an answering service are called. the clients. Dr. Bratworst is a client-of Imperial Answering Service. Dr. Bratworst, in fact, has never met the owner of Imperial Answering. Service in person. When Dr. Bratworst decided to use an answering service she called-Imperial on the telephone. The owner explained the .
Turn the answering system on or off You must turn on the answering system for answering and recording messages. To turn on or off with the telephone base: 1. Press /ON/OFF LINE 1 and/or /ON/OFF LINE 2 to turn on the corresponding answering system. The telephone base announces and shows, "Calls will be answered." The /ON/OFF LINE 1 light and/or
encoding general knowledge. Knowledge-based Visual Question Answering. There has been interest in the natural language processing community in answering questions based on knowledge bases (KBs) using either semantic parsing [37–47] or information re-trieval [48–54] methods. However, knowledge based visual question answering is
Answering Essay Questions 8 Features of strong answers 9 Likely problems with Unit 1 responses 13 Unit 2 Assessment Overview 14 Answering Short essay questions 15 Features of strong answers 15 Answering Essay Questions 17 . required to answer one. The essay will be worth 20 marks and will test AO1. ev istor 1 2 3 5 ev istor
ANSWERING THE CALL Examining God s Call to Christian Service PUBLISHED BY MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY KANSAS CITY, MO. 1-800-944-MBTS (6287) www.mbts.edu. ANSWERING . service becomes acceptable and prepared for service (2 Timothy 2:15). Although there are many good reasons
After Hours Answering Services Housing Authority of the Birmingham District The Housing Authority of the Birmingham District (HABD) is seeking proposals from firms/individuals to provide After Hours Answering Services. Issue Date: August 17, 2020 Time: 9:00 a.m. CST Submission Deadline: September 11, 2020 Time: 2:00 p.m. CST Contracting Officer:
Abrasive jet Machining consists of 1. Gas propulsion system 2. Abrasive feeder 3. Machining Chamber 4. AJM Nozzle 5. Abrasives Gas Propulsion System Supplies clean and dry air. Air, Nitrogen and carbon dioxide to propel the abrasive particles. Gas may be supplied either from a compressor or a cylinder. In case of a compressor, air filter cum drier should be used to avoid water or oil .
