Laserfiche WebLink
5) Bob (PUD) diuussed the asbestos investigation on site. The district recently conducted <br />sampling of materials accessible. The results did not indicate the presence of asbestos. <br />Historical records from PSPL indicated that in 1987 6" diameter concrete encased transite pipe <br />(containing asbestos) was removed and disposed of in accordance with the Puget Sound Air <br />pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA) requirements on site as indicated on the plans. To the <br />best of the Districts present knowledge this burial site contains the asbestos material. <br />• During construction there is always the possibility of encountering wmething <br />unexpected. Should ICI encounter anything conceming, stop work in that area and <br />notify Craig DeYoung who will serve as the liaison to coordinate with District personnel <br />to determine appropriate action. <br />• Chris (ICI) notified Will (PUD) that should asbestos be encountered on site this is a <br />situation not included in the contract. The District agrees and should this situation arise <br />we will work with ICI to address it. <br />6) Chris (IC:I) raised concern about installing silt fence through the asbestos disposal area. <br />• Review of the historical records indicates that the 6" diameter asbestos trensite pipe <br />was encased in 2 ft x 2 ft concrete and initially buried at a 1 foot minimum depth <br />beneath compacted soils. PSPL records project the final cap to provide 4-5 feet of cover <br />induding concrete rubble cap. The record is a fuWre projection from 1987, to what <br />would have happened in 1988. If the 1988 work was not performed (we cannot find <br />confirmaiion this attually happened) the cover could potentially range from 12" <br />minimum to 5' maximum. Where appropriate (to he determined on site by Craig <br />DeYoung and ICI's assigned CESCL) the TESC Flan may be adjusted � o substitute <br />construction limits fence for silt fence. <br />7) Cliff �..,� of Everett) spoke about erosion and sediment controi and indicated that if the pian <br />calls for unnecessary items he would not be opposed to making it more efficient. <br />. The TESC plan prepared for construction is a good starting place for minimum <br />conditions. On site conditions can result in changes needing to be made which is why <br />the District requires the contractor to have a CESCL on site. Should ICI wish to alter the <br />7ESC plan contact Creig DeYoung who will coordinate with District and City person�el to <br />discuss the change. <br />8) Mike (PUD) raised safery concerns involving maintaining safe distances from electrical <br />equipment and overhead lines. There was some discussion of if a safety watch will be needed <br />or notforthisjob. <br />• The current budget and plan includes a safety watch who will have authority aver these <br />matters. <br />9) 2ack (ICI) asked if weigh ins could be conducted at the Ag�regates West scale in Everett. He <br />presented a current scale certification from Rays Scale Consulting. <br />• The District accepts use of this scale, tickets must be made available to Craig DeYoung <br />within one day of weigh in. <br />