HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-131FILE REFERENCE FORM I 2006-131
X Additional File Exists
Additional File Contains Records Not Public, According to the Public Records Act
Other
FILES Date Initials
First Amendment to Agreement — Ordinance No. 2006-206 07/18/06 )R
Amendment No. 2 [original is attached] 11/17/06 )R
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement — Ordinance No. 2008-169 08/05/08 ) R
\ . fir,
S:\Our Documce ents\Ordinans\06\R.W. Beck.doc
ORDINANCE NO..ZOO6 — /9
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND R. W. BECK, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL DESIGN
AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AT THE CITY'S LANDFILL; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to enter into a Professional Services Agreement
with R. W. Beck, Inc. ("Beck") to provides professional design and engineering services at the
City's Landfill, as described in the Professional Services Agreement which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the City staff has reported to the City Council that there is a substantial need
for the above -described specialized professional services and that limited City staff cannot
adequately perform the services and tasks with its own personnel; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2254 of the Texas Government Code known as the "Professional
Services Procurement Act" generally provides that a City may not select a provider of
professional services on the basis of competitive bids, but must select the provider on the basis of
demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications and for a fair and reasonable price; and
WHEREAS, Beck has provided professional services to the City in the past in a reliable
and competent manner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Agreement is in the public interest and has
provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the
professional services, as set forth in Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE;
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS
SECTION 1. The recitals and findings contained in the preamble of this Ordinance are
incorporated into the body of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement attached as Exhibit A
with Beck for professional design and engineering services at the City's Landfill and authorizes
the Interim City Manager, or his designee, to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. The award of the Agreement (Exhibit A) by the City is on the basis of
demonstrated competence, knowledge and qualifications of the Beck and the ability of Beck to
perform the professional services needed by the City for a fair and reasonable price.
SECTION 4. The Interim City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to exercise all
rights and duties of the City of Denton under the Agreement and make the expenditures provided
for in the Agreement.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\06\R.W. Beck.doc
PASSED AND APPROVED this the
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:+
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
LWA
day of 194L12006.
x,,
ck—
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
Page 2
Exhibit A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the z -A day of May, 2006, by and
between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas municipal corporation, with its principal office at
215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201, hereinafter called "Owner"
and R.W. Beck, Inc., with its corporate office at 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, MN
55121 hereinafter called "Design Professional," acting herein, by and through their duly
authorized representatives.
In consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do
mutually agree as follows:
SECTION 1
EMPLOYMENT OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
The Owner hereby contracts with the Design Professional, a licensed Texas architect or engineer,
as an independent contractor. The Design Professional hereby agrees to perform the services as
described herein and in the Design Professional's Proposal dated November 15, 2005 limited to
those tasks described herein, Exhibit A — "Scope of Work," Exhibit B — "Project Team Financial
Information," the General Conditions, and other attachments to this Agreement that are
referenced in Section. 3, in connection with the Project. The Project shall include, without
limitation, providing professional engineering design and related engineering services to perform
the following tasks:
Task 1: To conduct the Project kickoff meeting.
Task 2: To provide modifications to the City's landfill permit to accommodate biotech
landfill operations.
Task 3: For engineering design of cells 3A-3D as a bioreactor at the City's landfill.
SECTION 2
TERM OF AGREEMENT
Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Design Professional shall begin work immediately
upon the issuance of a notice to proceed from the Owner and shall complete all work in a timely
manner in accordance with the time allotted for each task shown in Figure 1 "City of Denton
Permitting & Design Schedule," which is attached to and made a part of Exhibit A. All tasks are
to be completed within the schedules shown on Exhibit A unless the term of the Agreement is
extended by the Owner.
SECTION 3
COMPENSATION
The Owner shall compensate the Design Professional as follows:
Page 1
S:bor Do tsXConvam\DMW Beck PSAdoe
3.1
3.2
BASIC SERVICES.
3.1.1 For Basic Services the total compensation including reimbursable expenses shall be
$141,200 based on the hourly rates for services shown in Exhibit B and Section
3.2.1. Design Professional services shall be invoiced to the Owner monthly.
3.1.2 Progress payments shall be paid to the Design Professional monthly for the Basic
Services invoiced and satisfactorily completed in accordance to the following phases
of the Project per Exhibit A:
Task 1—Project Kickoff Meeting
Task 2 —Minor Permit Modifications
Task 3 — Design of Cells 3A — 3D
FA 1 1 0 V CC ►... 1D1'
$ 18,600
$ 26,900
95,700
TOTAL 14 2
3.2.1 Compensation for Additional Services is as follows per Exhibit B:
Project Manager
Principals
Senior Engineer/Professional II
Project Engineer
Senior Analyst /Professional
Technician
Word Processor/Administrative
$150 - $175 per hour
$150 - $ 195 per hour
$ 85 - $155 per hour
$ 60 - $ 95 per hour
$100 - $125 per hour
$ 50 - $ 75 per hour
$ 40 - $ 75 per hour
3.2.2 Compensation for Additional Services of consultants, including additional structural,
mechanical and electrical engineering services shall be based on a multiple of 1.0
times the amounts billed to the Design Professional for such additional services.
3.3 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, Reimbursable Expenses shall be a multiple of 1.0 times
the expenses incurred by the Design Professional, the Design Professional's employees and
consultants in the interest of the Project as defined in the General Conditions but not to exceed
a total of $20,000 without the prior written approval of the Owner.
SECTION 4
INDEMNITY
Article 9 of the General Conditions "Indemnity" shall require Design Professional to release,
defend, indemnify and hold the Owner, its elected and appointed officials, officers and employees
harmless from and against all claims, damages, injuries (including death), property damage
(including loss of use), losses, demands, suits, judgments and costs, including attorney's fees and
expenses, in any way arising out of; related to, or resulting from the services provided by Design
Professional under the Agreement or caused by the negligent act or omission or intentional act or
Page 2
SA0a Doc n tsWwtwt XOMW Back PSAdm
omission of Design Professional, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors, licensees, invitees
or any other third parties for whom Design Professional is legally responsible. Provided, however,
Design Professional is not indemnifying Owner, its elected and appointed officials, officers and
employees, for any such claims or damages and injuries caused by Owner's negligent acts, errors or
omissions.
SECTION S
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement includes this executed agreement and the following documents all of which are
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference as if fully set forth herein:
1. City of Denton General Conditions to Agreement for Architectural or Engineering
Services.
2. Exhibit A — Scope of Services .
3. Exhibit B —Project Team Financial -Information .
4. The Design Professional's Proposal dated November 15, 2005.
These documents make up the Agreement documents and what is called for by one shall be as
binding as if called for by all. In the event of an inconsistency or conflict in any of the provisions of
the Agreement documents, the inconsistency or conflict shall be resolved by giving precedence to
this Professional Services Agreement For Architect or Engineer then to the Agreement documents
in the order in which they are listed above.
This Agreement is signed by the parties hereto effective as of the date first above written.
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY: A Q,
Page 3
OWNER:
CITY OF DENTON
BY: "'t U i t
HOWARD MARTIN
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
SAOur Doc==tslCouVawk0ftW Beck PSAdoc
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
*MYCaWA=0FKS14WolCINDY M RIEM-N PICKA
wITNEss: "
N
BY: /liuc' ee e
Page 4
DESIGN FIRM
BY: '�� 4,1
Firm's Officer/Represe e
SAOm Dorn tsZomnU5WaW Beck PSAdw
CITY OF DENTON
GENERAL CONDITIONS
TO
AGREEMgNT FOR ARCHITECTURAL OH ENGINERRING SERVICES
ARTICLE ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S R►SPONSIBDIfIFS
Ins The Architect or Engineers services consist of those saviors fir do Fmject (as defined a the agreement (the "Agmrmean and proposal (the "Pmpnsai^) to which d
re Garmal Conditions aattached) performed by the Amh tea or EogJnar(hereroeBaprled me'Des;g, pmfea im an a Design Pmfcssiemsl's emptoyea and ccaulmra , muossmM in Articles 2 and 3 of time General Conditions as moddud bytbeAgreement and Proposal (the "Service^).
11 The Design Professional will perform an Services m an independaat oeobagor to the ptevelag penfwsaal amdeeds consistent with the level of and skill oedinarily
acUaua(mexcivised ey members"Hegree of Cne"}1be�Savwa shall ke g in IN a®ne locality under similar conditions, in 4nuradottg reasombte, informed judgnrna and prompt timely
Performed as wspedidously n is consistent with Poe Degree of Care necessary for the ordcfly pmVm of ch, pmi,,t
Upon request ofthe Owner, the Deign Rofisaimal shoo submit for Owners approval a achedute for the Perfmamx of the Services which say be adjusood as the project
proceeds, and shall inchade allowances for periods Ti Ina imes' established schedule and of imm required for the Owners review ad far approval ofaubmssioos by autharides having jurisdwtioo ova the Project
adjustments to this schedule abau be nnhtud +fired b' the Owac shelf U' except for reasonable ceusa' he comeded by the Design Professional or Owner, and nay
normally acceptable to bah parties,
ARTICLE 2 SCOPE OF BASIC sutvims
11 BASIC SERVICES DERIDED The Design Professional's Basic Saviors ewsist of those described in Satins 22 through 2.6 of these General Conditions and include
without limitation normal stnschurA civil, mechanical and eiaaicel eagmtaing service and any other engineering sesvioes nary to produce ammpkte and accurate set of
CmsmKtkm Documents, as descr3d by sod mphcd in Section 2.4. The Beeic Services may be modified by the Agreement
21 SCHEMATIC mEsww PDARa:
ZThe Design Pro"ok'aL ID casahmon with the Owner, shall develop a written program for the Project to asuram Owners needs and to ambush the
reS1 qumartma for the Project _
221 The Da"go Professional Shen Provide a prdunuary ewloatim of the Owners Program, ooatructtm schedule and coamuctim budget mquuemmsa, each in
terms of the other, subject to the IuoiaGoa set forth in Subsection 51.1.
223 The Design Pmfmmd shall revtewwhh the Owner dtw tlw appmwbm tod=V3 and conguucponefebe Project
21A Based on the mumaSy agreed-uPon program, schedule and construction budget requirerma, the Design Profewomd shah
Schematic DO* Denaturants consisting of drawings end other documents illustrating the scale ad relationship of Project Part' he Schematic
by the Owner,
aoWNIPldc compliance with all applicable bwa, stases, ordm acts, coda and regulations. V J os• The SCheratic Design shoo
235 The Design Profeaiond shoo submit to the Owner a preliminary detailed estimate of Construction Cost based on current area volume or other snit costs and
which idicdes the cost of each category of work involved in constructing the Project and sablisbe an elapsed time factor for the period of time from the
commatcanam to the completion of conmuutiom
23 DESIGNDEVELOPMENrpHASE
21.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents and any adjashnas authorized by the Owner in the program, schedule or construction budge; the Design
PtoSm-al shall prepare for approver by the Owns, Design Devdapmmt Do=1,cW consisting of drawings ad other doaamens to fix and describe the size and
character of the Pmjat ns to erchaeou"4 souamd, amchamicd and elechiesi syderns, amterials ad Such other demands a may be appmp nx e, which shell comply
with all applicable awn statute, oedamce; coda ad repletion. Notwidusdmg Owners approval ofthe dommcnts, Design Pmfasioml represents that the
Documents ad speai6ntionswill be sufficient ad edegam to ful5u the props® of the project
232 The Design Pmfesioa1 del advise the Ownerofeay adjustments to the preamoary entrance of Con motion Cost a a father Detailed Statement m described
in Section 225.
2A CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE
1A1 Buell m the approved Design Development Documents and my (nether, ad comma in the scope or quality of the pro or or a flue constructiobudge n
authorized by the Owner, the Design professional shell prepack for approval by the Owner, j
Construction Documents consisting of ect Drawings and SpxiSati� budet
Such in deal regauemms froths constructiona, on ofthe Projewhich shell omoply whit ail applicable leas, sales, ordbusaoa, coda and regulations.
2A2 The Deign Peohnsiorml shell assist the Owner to the premium of the necessary bidding or procurement bdia m ion bidd'mg or procurement firm s, the
Conditions ofthe conbaa, ad she four ofAgreementbetwoen the Owner and co moan.
2A3 The Design Pmfessimd shall advise the Owner ofarty ataffiaas to previous preliminary estimates ofCoamuchon Cost indicated by changes in aquircemnts
or grad market conditions.
2AA The Off pecteuiocd shell assist the Owner re coruoctim with the Owara respoas3li y for fiong documents required for the approval of governmental
authorities having jursdictm ovatlm pmjai,
25 CONSTRUCniONCONTRACrPROCUREHIENpf
251 The Design Professional, following the OwaWs app<ovai of the Cmslmolm Documents and of Ina I&M preliminary deaibd estinmI ofConsmntion Cod,
9ha0 assist the Owner in procuring a construction ceouact for the Pmject through any pmmammt method that a legally applicable to the Project including without
Page 5
S:IOur DmumenslCamtactaV06IRWBnck PSAda
lindmtiagdteemupdiUvaw,Wbiddiagprocess. Although the Owner will consider One advice of die lksig,Professional. the award ofthe construction contract is in
the sole di+nedm of the Owner.
2A1 If fire eomtruedm contact amount for the project exceeds die total consimerim cost of she Project as ad forth in the approved DcoWed Statement of Probable
Coram arum Costs of the Project submitted by the Design Professional, than the Design Professional, al its sole cost and expense, will cove the Camstructiom
Documents as nay be requited by the Owner to reduce or modify the quantity or quality of the work so dust the total croswctdm con Of the project will not exceed
the total construction cost adfadh infix approved Detailed Statement of Probable Coamucdes Costs.
2b CONFMUCnON PHASE -ADbMMMMN OFTHE CONSTRUCf10N CONTRACT
2.6.1 The Design flofessionafs responsibility to provide Basic Services for the COOMuctim Phasemder this Agreement commerhca with the award of the Contract
for Construction and terminates at the issuance to the Owner ofdn final Certificate for Payment. unless admded under the terms of Subsection 932.
2A2 The Design professional shall provide detailed admmistralimr of the Connect for Cmstructim as, ad fonh below. For design profic"ionelss the tlhnmittnt n
shad also be in accordance with AIA doamnag A201, Gmaral Conditions of the Contract for Cons uctim, c mast a+ of the date of the Agreement as may be
amended by the City ofDamon spacial cooditons, uness otherwise provided inthe AgeaneoR For cnithros the admmishetim shall also be in accordance with the
Standard Specdncataa for Public Works Consnraim by the Nash Carnal Texas Coursg ofGovammants, cum of as of the date of the Agmernem, unless otherwise
provided in the Agreement
2A3 construction phase duties, raspoos�7ites end limitations of authority of the Design PmRssional shall not be restricted, rnodilld in Wended without written
agreement ofthe Owner and Design holasimwd.
2.6A The Design Professional shall be a representative of and shall advise and consult with the Owner (1) drains cmurnstion, and (2) at the Owners dvectlm from
there an, time during dre correction, orwarrmty, period descnbcd in the Centred for ComWaim. The Design Professional shall have authority to act on behalf of the
Ownaonlyto the extern provided in the Agreement and time General Conditions, umers othenvisemodified by written announced,
2A5 The Design professional shag observe the Mmucow she at Imn oar time a week, while construction is in progress, and as reasonably necessary while
constrhrctbn ds not ion Pa't6ess• to become temigar with the progress and quality of the work completed and to determine if the work is being performed in a mmria
indicating *9 the work when completed will be in accordance with the Contract Documents. Design Professional shall provide Owner a writer report subsequent to
each on•the visit On the basis of on she observations the Design Professional shall keep the Owner informed of the progress and quality of the owh, and shall
exorcise die Degce of Caro and diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the Owner any observable defects or deficiencies in the work of Connector or any
subcontractors. The Design Pmfasslond represents that he will follow Degee of Care inpafomrins erg Servitor Under the Agearent The Design Professional shag
;:.q* correct any defectve design or specifications famished by the Design Professional at an can to the Owner. The Owner's approval, acwptmeey me of or
payment for all or any put of the Design Profess urafs Services hereunder or of the project itself shall in no way alter the Design Professional's obliptons or the
Owners rights hereunder.
ebb The Design f.'rofmsiomd shag not have control over a charge of and shall not be responsible far construction mems, tnuhod% teehnklaes, sequences or
procedures, w for mfery pre andoess and program in connection with the ands The Design Professional shall not be raspmsble for the co badoes schedules a
faihue to Cerny, out the work in accordance with the Ceutract Documents except insofar as inch failure may result four Design Prot'asamPs negligent aka or orris
sutras. The Design Professional shall not have Control over or charge of acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, or their agents or ampbyaes, or of any
aher persons performug porbo rs of the work.
20 'Ire Design Professional shall at all taus hove access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progress.
16.11 Fo xpt as my otherwise be provided in Pre Contract Documents or when direct comrmmiatims Issue beat specially auudurniizedi, the Owner and Contractor
ehnll mrrummi(ate WEDesign Professiesal. Conmmicsdwsbyaadwithtne Design Pmfessimusfsemwdrmdashallbeffimugbds Designpmfubmki.
2b9 Based on the Design Pmfessieoafs observations at the site of she work and evaluations of the CoouacWs Appliwtioos for Payment, the Design Prot'aasimal
shall review and certify the amounts due theCoutzetor.
2AI0 The Design Proil ssicaush certfimtim forpayn next shall constitute a apressitaties to the Owner, based on the Design Professtoned's observations mthe she"
provided in Subsection 2.6.5 and on the data comprising the Contractors Application for Payment, then the work has progressed to The point indicmd and them the
quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contact Documents. The foregoing repramt lion ane subject to minor devimice s from the Contract Documents cor-
rectible prior to competes and to specific qualification expressed by the Design Professional. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shah f tab's constitute a
representation that the Contractor is entitled to payment In the amount mrtfied. Howava, the issuance of a calithate for Payment shall not be a represmatim that
the Design Rofessioud has (1) reviewed construction mesns, medrods, terhalquet sequences or pracedtua, or (2) ascaand bow or for what purpose the Contractor
has and money previously paid on account of the Contract Sum.
2A.11 The Design Professional shag have the taspomhbiEty ad authority, to reject work which does not conform to the Conrad Docmnents. Whenever the Design
Professional considers it necessary or advisable for implementation of the intent of ere Contract Documents, the Design Professional Will have authority to require
additional hupxuon or testing of the wink in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Doanncous. whether a not such Work is fabricated, installed or
completed. 1-knim ,neGhathis autiorityofthe Design Profsionel nor a decision made in god faith eitha n exercisaor not exacd,e such authority shag give rise
to a duty or responsibility of the Design ProlardOn l to the Contractor, Suhmntractoa, materiel ad equipatmit suppliers, then agents or anPbyeat or mho Posotls
performnng portions ofthe work.
2.6.12 The Design Professimel shall review and approve or take odher appirprkne action upon ConmactoA submittals such as Shop Drawngs, Product Data and
Samples for the purpose of (1) determining compliance with applicable laws, satuas, ord'vmncas and coda; and (2) determining whether in not the work, whey
completed, will be in compliance with the requirements offs Contract Doamoma. The Design Prof sdonal shall act with such reasonable promphiess to aurae no
delay in the work or in the construction of the Owner or of eepmele contractors, while allowing sufficient time in the Design Proladonds pofEaionel judgnsm to
permit adequate review. Review ofsuch submitted, is notcarduetd for the purpose ofdetennning the accuracy and completeness Ofodur'aft suchasdimensims
and quantities or for substantiating nswctons for installation a pafonmace of aNWanent a system designed by the Cmlhnetu, all of which remain the
reapoaaubiltlyofthe Contractor m the extern required by the Contend Documents. The Design Pmfessionafs review shag not emaiuue appmvelofsafety precautions
or, unless otherwise specifically sated by die Design Professional, of crostructnn meets, methods, tx/miquas. sequasas or prmcedures. Tux Design Professional's
approval of a specific item daB not ndiateapproval of an assembly ofwkich the kart is a compononR WhenpmfassimWcmtdadmcfperfamaneedraacWdstka
Page 6
S:IOw D ocmmen &TAnmaMsDMW Book PSA.doc
of materials, systwm or K*nx t is required by due Contract Documents, the Design Professional shag be entitled to rely upm such verification to emblish then the
materiels, system a equipnwnt mill meet the p"fonnnce crateria myuuod by the Contract Ieeannesta
2b.13 The Deep Professional $hall prepare Change Orden and Constmcdon Change Drectives, with supporting doaanmtahm and data if deemed by
the PrOkuki al n n°0DS4dry May
Design provided in Subsections 3.1.1 and 333, far the Owner's approval eW eexutioo in accordance with the Contract Doc®Onta, and mry
audwrize mina changes in the work Out involving an adjushme d in the Contract Sum a an edension of the Contract Tuna which are not momsistent with the intent
of the Contract Daarmats.
2.L14 On behalf of the Owner, the Design Pmfe"ioml shall conduct inspections to determine the daces of Substantial Completion and Foal Completion, and if
requested by the Owner shag tissue Catifiates of Substantal and Final Completion. The Design Piolla sioad will reoeiva aW review wri um gumaotaes and related
documents required by the Contract for CoosWctim to be ase®bled by the Conhaaor and shag issue a final certif¢ete for
requirernmts of the Contract Documents. ?aY�t %>On oompluatcc with the
2.415 The Design Aofm'aml shag interpret and provide moommedafian On matters carrcerousg pallor atim ofthe Ownerand Contractor under *a
of the Contract Docamam on written request of either the Owns or Contractor. The Design Pmkssimers response to such requests shag be made with reasonable
Promptness and within my tuns limits agreed upon.
2A 16 interpretations and decisions of the Design Professional shell be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable than the Contract Doamump and shag
be in writing or in the form of drawings. when melting such interpretations and WtW decisions, the Design Pmfmimd shag endeavor, in acc re faithful perfomtanco
by both Owner and CO=Ctor. and stag ant be liable for results" intapraatrons a decisions so tendered in good Litt in accordance with all the provisions of this
Agueensent and in the absanca ofnegggesim
2b.17 The Design Psofessimel shall reader written decisions within a reasonable thm on all claim disputes or other natters in question between the Owner and
CM&0CtW relating an the esecutim or progress of the work as Provided so the Contract Dom aaaM
261E The Design Profimio al (1) shell mod" services under the Agrecaruent in accordance with the Degree of Cam; (2) will =link se the Owner for all damages
caused by the defective designs the Design Professional prepares: and (3) by acknowledging payment by the Owner of any fees due, shall not be released from any
rights the Owner my have under the Agreement adarminh soy of the Design Pmf=mmh oblipaionr thessur. der.
2b39 The Design Professional shall Provide the Owner with fna sets of reproducible prints showing all aignifitzm changes to the Constratiotr Doeunsents dining
the Construction Phases
ARTICLE3 ADDrMNALSERVIM
3.1 GENERAL
3-LI TU $"vices described in this Article 3 are not included in tragic Services unless so identified in the Agrxmant or proposal, ad day, shag be paid for by the
Owner m provided in the Apeaumt, in addition to the compensation for Basic Swiss. The smixs described miler Sections 32 and 3.4 shag only be provided if
authorized a conflinsed in writing by Me Owner. If services described under Contingent Additional Services in Section 33 ere required due to ctrmons anrm beyond
the Design Profmioanfr manul, The Design Pro[mimal shall notify the Owner in writing and shall oat connivance such additioml services smnl it receives wittiest
approval from the Owner to proceed. If the Owner indicates in writing that all a pan of such Contingent Additlmd Services ate not toquhed, the Design profmiaai
shag have no obligation to provide those services. Owner will be responssblc for compensating the Design professional for Cmtmgeat Additimd Swiss Only if
they are not required due to the negligence or trek ofDaign Pmtessimal.
32 PROJFZrREPRESEN[AT10N BEYOND BASIC SERVICES
3M If more estmm representation at the site than is described in Subsection 2.63 is required, the Design ProLSsionel shall preside am a rnom Project
. Represeamtives to assist in carrying out such additional on -ate responsibilities.
722 Project Repoesasruives shall be relaxed, tmployW and directed by the Design Professional, ant the Design Professional shill be compensated therefor as
agreed by the Owverand Design Pro&ssimal.
33 CONTINGENTADDMONALSERVICES
33.1 Makingnmt"idmvisionsinDmwcgMSpa:ifimdmorodu doammtswhmmdurevuiomm:
1. immanent with approvals"IRmallan previously given by the Owner, Including revisions made necessary by adjasnums in the Owner's
propan"Paled budget:
2. required by the enactment a revision of codes, lama regulations subsequent to the preparation of such dommenb,a
3. dstodmaga required naresuhofthe Ownda failure to icdadecisim Ina tune�ymannm.
333 Providing wrA— required besuae of significant changes in the Project including hue out WOW to$�. quality, cmrykzilN or the Owner's schedule, acopt
for services sequued under Subsoction 2.52
3PrConstructeparing Dra ban and other doeumenmtim and $upponmg does, eM providng,oEaa services in Connection wasOrd h Change end an
Change Directives. I
33,4 Providing consultation concerning replacement of work danagod by in a other cause during coustrumm4 red fumisking services mquu W in connection with
the replacemart of scab work.
335 providing SCIVices mWa neassary by tke default of the Cmoaaor, by major defects or de&iacies in the work of the ComaGa, a by More ofp"tmrmsa
ofebbor the Owner a Contraaassod" the Caucuses fai'onst .,ea -
Page 7
S:Wur IecumenblC"stractsb6lRW Beek i'SA.doc
33A RmumgwniasmaahutmgucftmMnumbcofehiousubmiteedbydw Cmuut w&lmmcennectionwfththewmk.
31M Providing services in connection with a public bearing, arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding exaPt where the Design Pro&nsioml is patty thereto
3 ib Providing services in addition to Own required by Article2 for preparing documents fordwmat; separate or sequential bids or providing services in connection
with bidding or construction prim n the completion of Poe Construction Document Phan.
3d9 Notwithamnding anything contained in the Agreement Proposal or these General Ceuditiwa o the contrary, all aerviM described in this Article 3 that aro
caused maauaavfnted in whole or in part dues the negligent act or omission of the Design Professional" beperfossned by the Design Professional as a pan ofthe
Basic Services under the Agramat with no additional compensation above and beyond the Compensation due the Design Professional for the Basic Services. The
mtecvesiog crcomormon negligence of the Owner shag not limit the Design Professional's obligations; under this Subsection 3.3.9.
3A iOMONALADDMONAL SERVICES
3A1 Provid'mg fieancid feenbslilymodnz apocid eendies.
3A.2 Providmgpeming surveys, she evaluations M comparative studies of prospective sites.
3A3 Providing special survrys, environmaval studies and submiuious required for approvals of gowerm ooW authorities or others having itmOicton aver the
Project
3AA Providing services relative to fanner facilities, systens and equillmat
3.1_S Providing services to investigate odstingcoditions or Wilities min make measured drawings cheroot
3.4A Providing services to verify the accuracy ofdrawmgs or other mfmms0on famished by the Owner.
3A7 Providing coordinations of construction performed by separate contract ore or by the Owners own from and coordination of services required in cannegion with
construction performed oil equipment supplied bytes Owner.
3A2 Providing detailed quantity surveys or inventories of material, equipment ad labor.
3.49 Providing aaabscs of operating and maintaance rots.
3,418 Making investigations, invarmies of materiels or equipment, orvaluations and detailed appraisals of existing fecilitiea
3A.12 Providing assistance in the utilization of equipment or system such as testing, adjusting ad bed®cm& Preparation of operation and minimum manuals,
training personnel foroperation and ma me monad consuhetlanduuing operation.
.3A13 Providing interior design and similar services required for or in connection with the selection, procurement or installation of f rmimm grmishings ad related
equipment. .
3A14 Providing services other than as provided in Section 2.15A. after issuance it, the Owner of the final Certificate for Paymcut and expiration of the Warranty
period of the Commit for Construction
3A13 Provid'mgswieesofconminntsfmmherlhmardbiwmra4civil,nmcAuutmechanicaleodelecbicdenginevingpord mofthe Pmjexpmvidedasapertof
Basic Servim,
3A16 Providing any other services not otherwise included in this Agwncnt or not customarily famished in accerdaocc with gaeally accepted amhitaYmd
Practice.
3A37 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings in addition to those required by Subsection 2.6.19, showing significant changes in the work male during con'
struction based on marked W prhm, dmwuW and other data furnished by the Connector othe Design Professional.
3A18 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Agreement Proposal or there General Conditions to the cautery, all services described in this Article 3 that are
caused or necessitated in whole or in pen due to the negligent ad or omission of the Design Professional shall be perfortrod by the Design Professional as a pan of the
Basic Servim miler the Agreement with no additional compensation above and beyaw the compensation due the Design Pmfea*W for the Basic Services. The
intervening aconerrem negligence: of the Owner shag not limit the Design Professional's obWons under lids Subsection 3.4.18.
ARTICLE4 OWNER'SRESPONSIBDSM
4.1 The Owner shell consult with the Design Professional regarding reivibe eats for the Project, inchidmg (1) the Owners objectives, (2) schedule and design
constraints and edm* including space requhemats ad relationships, flexibility. expendability, special equitmtnt syaleus and site regntiretrenta, ns Mons speci-
fically described in Subsection 22.1.
42 The Owns shell establish and update a overall budget for the PReM oehrdmg the Consl uctim Cost the Owners other costs tad reasonable contingencies
related to all ofthese costs.
41 If requested by the Design Professional, the Owner *A furnish evidence that fr encial arrangements have been made to fulfill the Owne s obligatiom under this
Agri
4A'the Owner shill designate a mixtesaumtive authmiad to act on the Owners behalf with respect oche Project the Ownermsuchanthormdepmsematwshill
render decision in a timely manner perishing to documents submitted by the Design ProResionel in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly and sequential
Progress ofthc Design Proteviomfs aervim.
Page 8
S.\Oor Docu®entslContmWlOMW Beck PSA.dm
43 Where applicable, the Owrna shall fimish surveys dedenbngphysical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site ofthe project, and a written
legal description of the site. The surveys and legal infor®tion shall include, as applicable, grades and Imes of Meet%alleys, pavements and 44joining property and
structures : adjacent damage; rights-ofway. restrictions, esemena, emmeahmmd, aonmg derd muncoons, boundaries and comae of the sine loatlona,
dimensions end necessary data perahmrg to exis ing bm7d'mgs, other improvamans and trees; and information concerning arm!" nh7hy services and Imo, both
public and private, above and below grade, including inverts and depths. Mlthemfomuunnlhcsaveysh4bomf=nwdmapmjeabatdnadc.
4b Where applicable, the Owner shill famish the services ofgooteclmical engineers when such services morequested by&a Design Pmfiusieul. Staheavicesmy,
include bed are one limited to test borings, test pits, detammeans ofsell bearing value,pecolmiontests, evaluations ofbesrdau medals, 8rond corrosion and to-
sobvity ug%mdwmg necessaryopoMm for addpatmg subsoiloondirtom with reports aM appmpriateprofessional reoommmdaWm.
43.1 The Owner shall ftpnlsh the a="= ofaher corwbaats when such services are reasonably required by the scope ofIM Project and ara requested by the Design
Professional end are not reamed by the Dodge Professional as pan of hs Basic Services or Additional Services.
4.7 When not a pat of the Additional Services, the Owner shall furnish smrcand, meehsoical, chemical, air and water pollution tests, testa of hazardous meteids,
and other laboratory and envhommentai rah, hopaxiont and reports required by law athe Contract Documents.
4.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, ac ousting and msurena counseling services as may be necessary, at any tine for the Project, including sdifing services the
Owner may require to verify the Connaaots Applications for Payment or to asceain how or fm what purposes the Contractor has used the money paid by a on
behafofthe Owner.
49 The services, kh mWion, surveys and reports required by Owner under Sections 4.5 through 4.8 shall be furnished at the Owsa us expeasq and the Design
Pmfminal shall be entitled to rely Upon the accuracy and completeness thereof in the absence ofany negligence on the pan of the Design Professional
4.10 The Owner shall give prompt written notice to the Desigp Professional if the Owe becomes aware of any fault a defat in the Project or mrcntormeoce with
the Contract Dowrceoa.
4.11 Design Rotessional shall propose language for certificates or certifications to be requested of the Design Rofnssiunal or Design Professiands consultants and
shell submit such to the Owner for review ad approval at least foortav(14) days priorto execution. The Owner agrees not to request comfcatina that would require
knowledge or services beyond the scope of the Agreement
ARTICLES CONS'1RUc T10NCO8f
S.1 coiwrRuenoN COST DFmNE•D
5.1.1 The Cooshuctin Cost shall be the total Dust or estimated costio the Owner of all clenens ofthe Project designed a specified by the Desipp Professional.
S.1.2 The Construction CostahaB mclMelhe ecatateurant market rates of laborand materials famished by the Osvne and aryipmem designed, specified, soloned or
specialty provided for by tha Design Professional, plus a reasonable allowance fen the Cntrachres overhead and prof[ In addition, a reasonable allowance for con-
tingencies shall be included for market nndiaom at the time ofbidding and for changes in the work timing construction
5.13 Cemructien Cost does not include the compmmtin of the Design Professional and Design Profession d s Dominants, the costs of the land. rights -of -way,
financing or other costs which ere the responsibility of the Owe as provided in Article4.
,±c2;a )Q1;a)z(1 i:3�,E aO:TKQ,:AS s 1AK"AlluU: Jt
S21 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget, prdnmwry, estimates of Construction Cost and detailed estates of Construction Cost prepared by the Design
Professional represent the Design Pro&adcada beat judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. It is recognized, however, that neither
the Design Professional nor the Owner has control over the neat of labor, materials or equipment. over the Contractor's methods of elemmioing bid price, or over
competitive bidding or market codttins. Accordingly, the Design Profeasional cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or Dort proposals will out very
from the Owner's Project budget or fine my estimate ofCaumaction Cost or evehatlon prepared or agreed to by the Design Professional.
S= No fad limit of Construction Cast shag be established as a coMitin of the Agreement by the famishing, proposal or establishment of Project budget, amlrss
such fad limit lass been agred upon in writing and sued by the parties thereto. If such fed limit has been established, the Design Pmfissioml shell be pamuttd
to include comuaga ties for deshlpa, bidding and price escalation, to determine what materials, equipment component systems and types of construction ec to be
included in the Contract Documents, to make reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to include in the Contract Documents dtteate hide to adjust the
Cousnucdn Cog to the fixed limit Pbad Und% if my, dull be increased in the unrest ofm increase in the Contract Stan oanmag agar execution of the Cement
for Construction
523 If the Pmnrnnmt Phase but not commenced within 90 days after the Design professional submits the Construction Daarmmtt a the Owmar, say Project
budge or fad limit of Construction Cott shall be adjusted to reflect changes in the gmeal level of prices in the conshuctim industry between the date of submission
ofthe Cons n ction Documents to the Ouster and the date on which proposals arc sought.
n as a a wTu a s s• n r�
6A the Drawings, Spaificatina and other docanats prepared by the Deup Professional for this Project are mshmnmts tithe Design Professional's service and shall
become the property of the Osvne upon termmetia or completion of the Agreemeat The Design Professional is entitled to ream copies of all such documents. Such
documents are inamded only be applicable to this Reject, and Ownce's use of each democrats in other project dull be at Owner's sole risk and expense. In the event the
Owner mess my of the information or materials developed pnsunt to the Agreement in another project or for other putptses than are specified in than Ageermu. the Design
Profissioal is released firm my and all liability relating to their area Inthat project
63 Submission or distribution ofdaumeob totoed othc®1 regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed n publiation
in damption ofthe Design Rofesiaefs rca avd rights.
Page 9
S:10ur D ocumentsiContrects106\RW Bak PSA.da
ARTICLE7 TERMINATION,SOSPHMONOHABANDONMENT
%I *The Design, Professional may terminate the Agreement upon not less than thirty days written notice should the Owner fag substantially to perform in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement through an fault of the Design Pmtesional. Owner may terminate the Agreeurcut or any phase thereof with or without cause upon thirty (30) days
prior written oolia to the Design Professional. All we* end labor being perfemted under the Agreement shall cesse hnmdisted upon Design Profession's receipt of such
notice. Befma the and of the thirty (30) day period, Design Professional shall invoice the Owner for an work it w is6etorily pmfamed prism the too* of such notim. No
amount shall be due for lost in anticipated pmhts. A➢ plans, field surveys, and erhu data related to the Project shall become property of the Owner rpm temnmatiou ofthe
Alpeenaat ad" shall be promptly delivered to the Owner in a inevitably mgeniad form: Should Owner mbsequertlycmtractwith anew, Design Professional for cartmuation
of services onth Project, Deep Professional shall cooperate inp urviding information
7.2:If the Project is suspended by the Owner for more than 30 consecutive days, the Design Professional shall be compensated for services stisftcunily performed prior to
notieeofauchsaspensim When the Project is remmd.&a Design Prifesiomfs compensation drug be equitably at(justed topmvide for expanses incurred in the intermption
and:remmphm ofthe Design Profesionds services
73' The Agreement may be re:mimted by the Owner upon not less then seven days written notice to the Design Professional in the event fill the Pmjact a ponsnently
abandoned IftheProjeet is abandoned by the Owner for more then 90 comocutivedays, the Design Professional or the Owner may termmffie the Agreement by giving written
notice.
7A .Failmoofthe Owverto make payments to the Design Professional f rrwork satisfactorily completed in accordance with the Agreement shall be considered substantial non,
pedmmence and ante fmtarnmatim.
73 �If the Owner fails to make payment to Design Profmdmsl within thirty (30) days of receipt of statement fan service property and aasfacton'ly performed, the Design
Professional may, upon aevmdays written rwdceto the Owner suspend perform ce of services under the Agreement
7A ,fa the event oftemrmadion not the fault of the Design Professional, the Desip Pmfesional shall be compensated satd for stoics properly and stis6cmmb' performed prior to
tmahlaum
AR17CIE9 PAYMENTS TO THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
83 DIRECPPERSONNELEXPENSE
8.1.1 Direct Personnel Expense: is defined as the direct salaries of the Design Pmfessimml's personnel engaged on the Project and the portion of the cat of their
mandatory ad customary conitfbmiom and benefits related theruto, such as employment taxes and other statutory employce beneffm, issranec, sick leave, holidays,
vaation%pensions ad similar contributions and benefits.
gs REMMURcanr.ur ERPPPiSEH
LM Reimbursable Expenses no in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services nd include expenses nwwrd by the Design Professional and
Design Irofassimal's employees and consultants in the interest of the Project,a identified in the following Clowns.
LI U EVeme of transportation in connection, with the Project; expcnus in connection with authorized out fkown travel; long-distance mrmmmucaations;
and fees paid for securing approval of smhorhies having jurisdiction over the Project. .
8.7.1R Expense of reproduction (except the ieptduntion of the new of documents retetenced in Subsection 2.6.191 portage and handling of Drawings,
SpeciScafiens and other documents.
8213 If adhor6ed in advance by the Owner, expeme ofovmime wcetc requiring higher than regular rats.
MIA Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups requested by the Owner.
LUJ Expense ofoomputeraidd design and draftliequipment term when used in connection with the Project
LIIA Otherupmas that am approved in advance in writing by the Owner.
83 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES
93.1 Payments for Basic Servmas "be made muddy and, where applicable, shall be in proportion to services performed within each phase of service, m the
bmis am forth m Scetim3 of goo Agraman end tbeacheduloofwo&
g3.2 Dfed to the cousin that the time initially established in the Agreement is exceeded in extended through to fanit oftheDesign Professional. compensation for my
services tendered during the eddmon it peril often, shell be competed in the simmer son forth in Salim 3 of the Agreement
H33 When mmpeesrioe a based on, a percentage of Cmsmwtion Cat and any portimn ofthe Project aro deleted orotherwise not constructed, compensation for
those portions of the Project $ball be psyabe to the Coosa services taro pmfonned on those pardons, in accordance with the schedule son fixth in Section 3 of the
Agreement bud m (1) the lowest born We bid or (2) Won such bid or proposal is received, the most recent preliminary estimate of Construction Coat or detailed
estimate ofCmmuctim Cost for such portlms ofthe Project
$A PAYhfRMONACCOUNTOFADDMONALSERVICES
L41 Payments on account of the Design Profesiomfs Additional! Services and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be mda monthly within 30 days after the
prsentatim to die Owner ofthe Design Profesional'ssmare mnt of servics randered or experses necumed.
U PAYMENTS WITHIIELD No deductions shall be made from the Desip Aofession0s; compmmetim on account ofpenalty, liquidated denregs mother an, withheld
fiorq payments to tmtrectors, oron atxomt offhe Cos ofch=ps in the work other then those for which the Drip Professional is responsible.
Page 10
S:1Our DocmnenmlContractsVMW Bak PSAdoc
0.6 !MIGN PROFESSIONAL'S AOCOUNMNG RECORDS Design Pmfaaiaal shall make available to owner or Ownces andbormod sei swc aive racorda of
Rehabunable EXPCOSCS and expense perammg to Additional Services and services pesi mod on the basis of a multiple of Direct personnel Bapeme for mspect;on and
oopYMg during regular business how for three years after the data of the find Catifieste of Paytrmen; or until any litigation related to the Projeet s find, whichever date is
later.
I,A•ytf�wA iJi ,runt
9.1 ilhe Design Professional shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the Owner and its officers, agent% and employees from and against any and all liability,
claims, demands, damages, losses, and expenses, including, but not limited to court costs and ressunable attorney fees incurred by the Owner, and imitating, without
limitation, damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, remttmg from the negligent ass or omissions of the Design Professional or its officers,
shmeholders, agents, or employees in the performance of the Agmenmcnt.
93 Nothing herein shall be construed to create a liability to arty person who is not a party to the Agreement, and nothing herein shall waive any ofthe parties' defenses,
both at law or equity, to arty claim cause of action, or litigation filed by anyone not a party to the Agreement, including the defense of gnvemmentti immunity, which
defenses are hereby expressly reserved.
ARTICLE 10 INSURANCE During the Performance of the Services under the Agreement. Design Professional shag maintain the following insurance with an
insurance company licensed or authorized to do business in the State of Texas by the State insurance Commission or any successor agency that has a rating with Best
Rate Carriers of at least an A- or above:
10.1 Comprehensive General Liability Insurancc with bodily injury limits of not loss than S1,000,000 for each occurrence and not less than $2,11f10,000 in the aggregate,
and with property damage limits of not less than S100,000 for each occurrence and not less than S250,000 in the aggregate.
16.2 Automobile Liability mumace with bodily injury limits of not less than S500,000 for each person and not lass than $500.000 for each accident. and with property
damage limits of nor less than $100,000 for each accident
103: Worker's Compensation hrsmance in accordance with statutory requirements, and Employers' Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 for each
accident including occupational disease.
10.4!Profassional Liability lase mce with limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate
10.5'Ihe Design Professional shall fiunish insurance certificates or insurance policies to the Owner evidming insurance in compliance with this Article 10 at the time
of the execution of the Agreement. The Genend Liability and Automobile Liability insurance policies shall was the Owner ss an additional insured, the Workers'
Compensation policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation in favor of the (Tuner, end each policy shall contain a provision that such bamanee shall not be canceled or
modified without thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Owner and Design Professional. In sub even; the Design Professional shall, prior to the effective date of the
change or cancellation, famish Owner with substitute certificates of insurance meeting the requhemena of this Article 10.
ARTICLE It MIS(ELLANEOUSPROVMONS
11,1: The Agreamneat shall be gorernred by the laws ofthe State of Texas. Venue of any suitor cause of action under the Agrmrson shag lie exclusively in Dentoo County,
Taos.
11.2 The Owner and Designs Professional, respectively, bind themselves, their Panders, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the otherpary, to this Agreement and to
the partuaM avaessom assign and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all commands of this Agreement The Design Professional shag not assign its
interests in the Agmamwrt without the wr*w consent ofthe Owner.
113; The tern Agreement as used herein includes the executed Agreement, the Proposal, these General Conditions and other attachments referenced in Section 3 of the
Agreement which together represent the write and integrated agmemaid between the Own ex and Design Professional and supersedes all prim negodetions, representations Or
agreements, either written or oral. The Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Design ProfesionaL When ireprebng the
Agreement the executed Agreemmn; Prnpoee; them lknaal Conditora and the other attachments refamced in Section 3 of the Agreement shall to the extent that is
resso ably possible be and so as to him rnize the provision. However, should the provisions ofthese documents be in conflict so that they can not be masmably harmonized,
suchdocuments shall be given priority in the following order.
1. Theexecmd Agmmmrwmt
2. Anwhnments mf rcncd m Section 3 ofthe Agreement otha than the Proposal
3. These General provisions
4. The Proposal
11A. Nothing contained in the Agreement shall create a moan ctuxl relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against antra the Owna or Design
Professional.
U.S. Upon receipt of prior written approval of Owner, the Design Professional stag have the right to include repraeaatiew of the design of the Project, including photographs
of the exterior and interior, among the Design Professional's promotional and prollssronsl materials. The Design Profesionds materials shag not include the ownces
confidential or proprietary afwmatlom if the Owner ben previously advised the Design Professional in writing ofthe specific information considered by do Owner to be confi-
deasl or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professimal credit for the Design Professional on th construct"m sign and in the promotional materials for the Project
Ilk Approval by the Owner shall not constitute, nor be deemed a mleam of the responsibility and liability of the Design Professional, is employee, asswintes, agents,
subcenhnetors, and subconsultans for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other wink am shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such
responsibility by the Owner for envy defect in the design or other work prepared by the Design Profassional, is employees, subcontractors, agents, and cousu tens.
11.7: All DOOM, communications, and reports required or permitted under the Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective ponies by depositing
unit in the United Sates mail to the address shown below signature block on the Agreement, certified mail, retum receipt requested, un ers otherwise specified haein.
All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given, or within three (3) days after mailing.
Page 11
5:10or DocumenslConlnctsb6lRW Bock PSA.dnc
114 If my provision of the Agreement is found or deancd by a court of competentjurisdiclion to be invalid or umerforceeble, it shall be considered severable from the
remainder of tla Agremeat and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, the panics shell reform the Agreement to replace such
stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken prevision.
11.9 The Design Professional shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, roles, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they
maynew read or bereina0er be sumended during the term of this Agreement.
11.10 In performing the Services required hesemder, the Design Professional shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, am
national origin or ancestry, age, orphysial handicap.
11.11 The caption ofthe Agreement are for informational purposes only, and shall act in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of the Agreement
Page 12
S:%Our DocumcntalCmnmct310MW Beck PSAdoc
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services Between Beck and City of Denton
Scope of Work — Bio-Tech Landfill Permitting, Design and Construction
Services
Due to the recent solid waste rule adoption, this Scope of Services addresses permitting, design
and construction of a Bio-Technology Landfill (Bio-Tech Landfill) rather than a bioreactor. The
design and operation described will be suitable initially for leachate recirculation but adaptable to
a bioreactor when future rules (or other mechanism) allow. Certain bioreactor aspects (e.g.,
i liquid amendment acceptance plan) will be prepared for the City but not submitted in this permit
modification. These are outlined in the following tasks and can be archived by the City until
submittal is required. Note that the following scope of work has also been modified from that
initially proposed to meet budget constraints. The tasks below focus on constructing Cells 3A
and 3B to meet the City's schedule, along with the related permitting. This scope shall be
amended as to incorporate the other tasks as budget is available and approved by the City.
Task 1— Project Kickoff Meeting
The Project Team will meet with the appropriate City Staff to finalize the approach and Scope of
Services, clarify needs from the City, confirm the schedule and establish lines of communication.
At this meeting the City will furnish appropriate information for this project including: waste
receipt records, as -built drawings of Phases 1 and 2 along with supporting documentation and
electronic files for any conceptual designs '.prepared and permit documents not previously
furnished. The City will also famish a topographic survey of the entire Landfill property that
reflects the current excavation grades in Cells 3A and 313. This will become the basis for design
of the final excavation and grading. The Project Team will provide the City with an information
request prior to the meeting.
Task 2 — Minor Permit Modifications
Two minor permit modifications will be completed by the Project Team: 1) to address liner and
leachate collection design changes necessary.for Bio-Tech Landfill operation and to address
relocation of the Citizen's Drop -Off Area, 2) to address future surface water control and
scalehouse modifications. A textured geomembrane (both sides) is recommended on both the
sideslope and base of Cells 3A-3D. In addition, the current hydraulic capacity of the leachate
collection system should be evaluated to verify its ability to drain the additional liquid
amendments. In conjunction with this hydraulic evaluation, the Project Team will review the
leachate collection pipe diameter for compatibility with landfill gas (LFG) collection. Subtasks
2A and 2B will be completed to evaluate these issues and incorporate required changes into a
minor permit modification. A second permit modification will be completed in Subtask 2C to
address surface water and scalehouse changes.
0 Bak . All Rights Re od
1477; mil
Subtask 2A— Hydraulic Characterization/UG Collection
In this subtask, the Project Team will:
Is Complete Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP, v. 3.07) modeling to:
■ Verify that leachate bead does not exceed 12 inches with the increased liquid
amendment addition under the current leachate collection and liner profile.
■ Determine the minimum permeability of the protective layer and leachate collection
layer (drainage sand, rock and/or triplanar geonet geocomposite) to freely drain the
Landfill.
■ Validate the leachate collection trench and collection sump dimensions to accommodate the
increased leachate generation.
Is Determine that the existing liner and leachate collection systems for Cells 1 and 2 are
suitable for Bio-Tech Landfill operation (HELP modeling and hydraulic capacity) since the
City has installed potential recirculation laterals in those cells.
■ Evaluate preliminary LFG generation estimates and the leachate hydraulics to determine the
necessary leachate collection pipe diameter to facilitate efficient LFG collection from the
landfill base.
■ Prepare recommendations, if any, for modifications to the leachate collection design,
including the potential placement of geonet on the base.
Subtask 2B-Permit Modification Request (#1)
The Project Team will prepare an application for a non -notice minor permit modification for the
recommended changes (i.e., liner and leachate collection changes; Citizen's Drop -Off relocation).
A draft will be presented to the City and TCEQ for review and discussion. Applicable comments
will be added into a final application for submittal to the TCEQ. TCEQ approval should be
received within 60 days.
Subtask 2C —Additional Permit Modification Request (#2)
In this subtask, the Project Team will prepare a second Permit Modification request for other
Modifications that do not directly affect the litter design for the Bio-Tech Landfill. This separate
submittal is recommended to avoid any delay in the Permit Modification approval presented in
Subtask 2B, and thus potentially delay the design and construction of Cells 3A and 3B. These
Modifications are anticipated to be submitted under TAC 305.70 0), which are currently non -
notice Modifications and include the following:
■ Redesign and expansion of the Southeast Pond for surface water storage for the Bio-Tech
Landfill Modification under Section 305.706)(11) related to drainage control of internal run
on/run off.
■ Relocation of the landfill scalehouse-Modification under 305.700)(8).
a Relocation of Site Entrance -Modification under 305.706)(33) as long as access traffic
patterns are not altered. Access will remain from Mayhill Road, with site entrance relocated
south of the existing entry to Foster Road.
0Heck- All Rights Reterved Agrcemeat: Exhibit A - Page 2
EXHIBIT A
■ Change the metes and bounds description of the Permit by elimination of the triangular
section of land where the current scalehouse is located. Modification under 305,700)(14) as
it reduces the size of the facility and does not result in acreage beyond the original permit
boundary.
Task 3 — Design of Cells M and 3B
Subtask 3A—Construction Quantities
In this subtask, the Project Team will estimate the required construction quantities for Cells 3A
and one-half of 3B liner construction, including clay (available on site), geosynthetics, protective
cover (available on site), and drainage media (natural and synthetic). On site soil quantities will
be verified.
Subtask 3B — Complete Design Plans and Construction Documents for Cells 3A and 3B
After completion of Task 2 and in conjunction with an internal Team Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) review, the Project Team will develop draft design plans, specifications, and
construction bid documents for Cells 3A and 313. The schedule for proceeding with bidding and
construction of these Cells will be independent of the Bio-Tech Landfill Permitting at TCEQ.
This independence is based on the expectation that the construction of the liner and leachate
collection system in these Cells can be accomplished under a minor modification of the existing
Permit as described above.
Meetings will be held with the City to present the draft documents and subsequently to discuss
any City comments to the draft documents. Applicable comments will be incorporated into a
final set of plans and specifications. After approval of the final documents by the City, this
construction project would be advertised for bids.
Subtask 3C — Pre -Bid Meeting and Bid Opening
The Project Team will assist the City in answering questions and providing clarification about the
Project Construction Documents during the period of advertisement for bids. We will assist the
City as required during the Pre -Bid Meeting with prospective Contractors and in preparing
Addenda prior to Bid Opening. We will prepare an engineer's cost estimate of the construction.
The Team will attend the Bid Opening, tabulate and evaluate bids and make recommendations to
the City for Contract Award. The Team will also attend the Public Utility Board and City
Council Meetings to assist in the Presentation of the recommended Award of the Construction
Contract.
Subtask 3D — Notice to Proceed and Pre -Construction Meeting
The Project Team will assist the City in issuing a Notice to Proceed to the Contractor and
facilitate a Pre -Construction Conference at the Landfill with the Contractor. The Team will also
contact TCEQ prior to construction start, and provide them with the opportunity to attend the
pre -construction conference as well.
®Beck- All RighU Reserved Agreement: Exhibit A - Page 3
ExtltelT A
Schedule
A schedule outlining this scope of work is provided in the attached Figure 1. Note that project
meetings with the City and with TCEQ are indicated on the schedule.
Fees for Engineering Services
Based on the previously outlined scope of services and schedule, we estimate the total fee for our
engineering services to be $665,500. The total project cost represents a "not to exceed" figure,
which will not be exceeded without written authorization from the City. Cost by task is
delineated in Table 1 below. Additionally, the amount of each task will not be exceeded without
written authorization of the City.
Our estimate assumes that current permit drawings and documents are available electronically
from the City, as well as, a topographic survey of the existing conditions of the Cell 3A/B area.
Table 1- Engineering Fee Estimate
Task Cost
1- Project Kickoff Meeting $18,600
2 - Mirror Permit Modifications 26,900
3 - Design of Cells 3A and 313 95,700
Total $141,200
LL
'a
zl
�
N
j
°
Q
a
C
°
OC
Cc
i
V
l2
-
Ol
0
LL
u!
2
']
!
�LL
E�
E
O !
21=
as
Q
m
I
U
N
I I
I I
i I
I
a
I
�
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
IQ
N
N
I
1
1
I
Q
M
�
o
O
C
_
'
f
I
C
O
U
W
Lu
LLI
O
O_
F i y
7
C1
?
C
v
N
C
.y
{
C
p
m
C
c
t o
-0
C
>
O
a
Q
"O
O)
N
C
O
U
d
U
CZ7 o
a
iL
m
a`
rn
m
i
ac
a
u
o
O
a
.o
Z
W Q
m
U
I
I
m
c �
d
a° E
Ea
:. w
u H
* 4k
EXHIBIT B
Scope of Services Between Beck and City of Denton
City of Denton
Project Team Financial Information
Labor Category
Hourly Rate
Project Manager
$1%175
Principal
150-195
Senior Engineer/Professional II
85-155
Project Engineer
60-95
Senior AnalystlProfessionai
100-125
Technician
50-75
Word Processing/Administrative
40-75
Note:
• Rates vary based on Individuals assigned to the project rates am for 2W6
• Rates will be billed at individual hourly duect cost at a 3.1 mullipfwr.
• New projects and any additional services will not be Initiated without prior City
aulhodatlml.
• Labor aatagarles above blend personnel from R. W. Back and their
wboonwhants on this project.; Supmnsultatd mats will not be marked up on
this pmjed
C:WOCUME—l�i prouty\LOCALS-1 \Temp\RW Beck PSA Exhibit B.dm
November 15, 2005
via Courier
Mr. Tom Shaw, C.P.M., Purchasing Agent
City of Denton
901-B Texas St.
Denton, TX 76209-4354
Subject: Proposal for Landfill Design Consulting Services, RFSP # 3411
Dear Mr. Shaw:
R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck), in association with Alan Environmental, Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc.
(CP&Y), Kleinfelder, and Dan Wittliff Consulting, is pleased to submit the enclosed proposal to perform
Landfill Design Consulting Services for the City of Denton (the City). It is essential for the City to select
a consulting team that understands your objectives, possesses the requisite technical expertise, and
demonstrates a breadth of similar project experience and resources to ensure this project is a success.
With these imperatives in mind, R. W. Beck has assembled a team of highly qualified and locally
experienced professionals to bring their expertise and efficiency to this Project. The depth of our
resources, breadth of experience, and commitment to this project can be summed up with the following:
e ■ National Bioreactor Expertise: As demonstratd, tr ughout our proposal, members of the Project
Team have extensive experience working on bioreactor projects across the United States. Our
proposed Project Manager, Mr. Fred Doran, brings to the project over 20 years of solid waste
engineering and consulting services. He is currently managing two bioreactor projects and two
leachate recirculation projects. Mr. John Baker (Alan Environmental) likewise brings substantial
bioreactor experience, with over a dozen projects including several with "fluids added."
■ Previous Experience with the City of Denton: R. W. Beck has detailed knowledge oft ity,
having recently completed a review of its Solid Waste Operations. In anticipation* the City's
bioreactor project, we performed a site visit (which included the wastewater pla ), reviewed the
City Staff's cost/benefit analysis, and gained an understanding of the Project through initial
communication. Additionally, while with another firm, proposed Assistant Project Manager Bill
Hindman (CP&Y) gained intimate knowledge of the City's landfill while leading previous City of
Denton Landfill projects.
■ Solid Waste Engineering Experience: Lead engineers on the Project Team have a minimum 12
years of landfill comprehensive experience focusing on siting, community involvement, permitting,
construction, operations, closure, leachate management (including recirculation and bioreactors),
and landfill gas management and utilization. Kleinfelder brings specific experience in slope stability
analyses, including the evaluation of bioreactor conditions.
■ Solid Waste Permitting Expertise in Texas: Our Project Team brings a wealth of knowledge
regarding operational and regulatory requirements for solid waste facilities in Texas. Mr. Hindman
has been responsible for more than 75 Texas solid waste permit applications, amendments and
modifications. As the first Chief Engineer for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC, now the TCEQ), Mr. Dan Wittliff had oversight responsibility for not only
solid waste but also water, wastewater and air permitting. In that capacity, Mr. Wittliff, helped
2P2303-L7R-FINAL2.dm
1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite 305 St. Paul, MN 55121 Phone (651) 994-8415 Fax (651) 994-8396
Tom Shaw, C.P.M., Purchasing Agent
November 15, 2005
Page 2
resolve contentious permitting and compliance issues throughout the state. Mr. Baker also has
experience in permit and compliance issues with TCEQ for numerous solid waste landfills and two
hazardous waste landfills in his prior role with Waste Management, Inc.
Now in the final phases of bioreactor permit modification at Dallas' McCommas Bluff Landfill (one
of the largest public landfills in the country and the largest bioreactor proposed to date), our entire
Project Team has been through the TCEQ's permitting process and therefore is better positioned to
meet the City's desired Project schedule.
t Air Permitting Experience in Texas: For McCommas Bluff Landfill in Dallas. and 121 RDF in
Melissa, Mr. Wittliff wrote and secured standard air permit for two of the largest publicly -owned
MSW landfills. in Texas. He also wrote applications for Title V Air Operating Permits and renewals
for 121 RDF, McKinney, and Maxwell Creek Landfills.
Most recently, Mr. Wittliff worked closely with TCEQ regulators in developing §30 TAC 330 `
Subehapter U air permitting rules for MSW landfills, with special regard to how they affect
bioreactors and leachaw recirculation. He wrote an air permit amendment for the McCommas Bluff
Landfill to incorporate changes in emissions and controls caused by implementing bioreactor
technology.
in Project Team Commitment: By teaming with firsts we have collaborated with in the past,
R. W. Beck has created a pool of engineering resources and regional expertise that not only has the
qualifications to respond to the City's needs, but the proven ability to work together as a team. We
understand the importance of this synergy, knowing that having solid working relationships geared
toward a common goal will create better results for the City. We also commit to tout the success of
your bioreactor project, bringing regional and national recognition to the City's effort.
on behalf of the entire K W. Beck team, I provide both a personal and a corporate promise that the key
staff we propose will work with you for the duration of the Project. If you have any questions regarding
the contents of our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at (651) 994-8415 or
fdoran@mbeciccom.
Sincerely,
R. W. BECK, INC.
Fred J. Dolan, P.E.
Senior Director and Project Manager
FJD/sd
21`2303-LTR-FIIJALU.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
SECTION
Background..........................................................................................................1
Organization........................................................................................................2
Experience............................................................................................................ 3
Table 31: Select Bioreador and Leachate Recirculation Experience
ProjectApproach.................................................................................................. 4
in Figure 4-1: City of Denton Permitting & Design Schedule
ProjectTeam........................................................................................................5
Table 5-1: City of Denton Landfill Project Team
Quality Control
r,
Select Project Team Resumes................................................................. Appendix
• John Baker
• Scott Coon
• Fred Doran, P.E.
• Jeffrey Dunn P.E., G.E.
• William Hindman, P.E.
■ Frank Pugsley, E.I.T.
• Michael Shiflet, P.E.
• Dan Wittliff, P.E.
0 Copyright 2r,105, R. W. Beck, Inc., All Rights Reserved
i
SECTION 1
BACKGROUND
Depth of Firm Experience and Proven Credentials Promotes Project Success
R. W.. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) understands how important it is for the City of Denton (the City) to secure
reliable consulting services for its landfill design, permitting, and construction management project (the
Project). We were diligent in forming a Project Team comprised of reputable firms with the credentials
and regional experience to ensure that each phase of the Project is undertaken by undisputed experts.
Our entire Project Team forged a respected relationship while working together on the municipal solid
waste and au permits for the City of Dallas McCommas Bluff Landfill bioreactor project.
Although the firms are unique in specialties, each possess the following requisite qualities to ensure your
Project is a success:
• Municipal solid waste expertise
• Bioreactor technology experience
• Texas regulatory knowledge, including permitting the McCommas Bluff Landfill bioreactor
• Construction management, documentation, and material testing qualifieations
• Commitment to meeting schedules and budgets
• . Strict adherence to quality control measures
The following company profiles describe the history, development, and primary areas of practice of the
firms selected to fulfill integral roles on our Project Team.
R. W. Beck, Inc.
Founded in 1942, R. W. Beck provides management consulting and engineering services in planning,
financing, operating, and designing facilities for solid waste, water, wastewater, electric, and gas utilities.
We provide professional services throughout the United States and in a number of foreign countries, and
have served some of our clients on a continuous basis for over 60 years. In IS offices across the United
States and an office in Singapore, we have approximately 500 employees.
R. W. Beck has built its reputation for excellence and integrity while continually expanding our
capabilities to respond to client needs and changing market conditions. We strive to be on the cutting
edge of technology and one step ahead of industry regulations to help clients understand their business
impacts. Around the world, we have helped clients determine the engineering and economic feasibility
of project development, have provided consultation on project permitting, financing, design and
construction engineering, operations analysis, and continuing consultation to management.
Since 1997, R. W. Beck has been at the forefront of leachate recirculation and bioreactor technology.
We have consistently been included on Engineering News Record' list of top engineering and design
firms.
Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc.
Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. (CP&Y) is a full -service multidiscipline engineering firm, offering its
services to the solid waste, water, wastewater, transportation, and transit industries. Since its inception
25 years ago, the firm has maintained a steady growth in each of these areas by providing clients with.
2P2303-1-6ackgr d.doc 1-1
SECTION 1
innovative solutions to infrastructure needs. CP&Y's engineers are known throughout the industry for
their "can -do" attitude and their ability to meet even the most difficult of client budget and schedule
constraints. Staff has in-depth knowledge of the Dallas Metroplex solid waste market and the Texas
landfill permitting process under current and upcoming Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) rules.
CP&Y is ranked as one of the "Top 500 Design Firms" by the Engineering News Record as well as being
listed in the top five of the "Largest Metroplex Engineering Firms" by the Dallas Business Journal.
CP&Y currently employs more than 190 qualified and trained personnel who offer experience,
dedication, and personal concern for the client's needs by performing a wide range of engineering
services. Additionally, CP&Y has been certified as a minority -owned business enterprise (MBE) by the
North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency.
Alan Environmental, LLC
prior to starting his own company, Alan Environmental, LLC, Mr. Sohn Baker previously worked 23
years for Waste Management, Inc., the final 12 years as the Director of New Technology and the driving
force behind their bioreactor program. Throughout his 31 year career of studying environmental impacts
of landfills and remedial sites, Mr. Baker has developed innovative methods to assess, remediate, and
manage landfills. With over a dozen bioreactor landfill projects to his credit, Mr. Baker was instrumental
in the permitting and design of the nationally recognized Outer Loop Landfill bioreactor in Louisville,
Kentucky working with the and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on a cooperative
research basis.
Mr. Baker is a recognized expert in bioreactor landfills, odor control, alternate caps, groundwater quality,
hydrogeology, and landfill operational efficiencies. He has led numerous state and federal workshops for
bioreactors, groundwater monitoring and assessment techniques, and innovative technologies for
groundwater mmediation, such as constructed wetlands.
Kleinfelder
Founded in 1961, Kleinfelder is an employee -owned, multi -disciplinary, engineering consulting firm,
specializing in geotechnical, environmental, and construction materials engineering and testing.
Kleinfelder's diverse staff includes geotechnical, materials, civil, and environmental engineers;
geologists and hydrogeologists; environmental scientists and toxicologists; regulatory compliance
experts; and engineering and laboratory technicians that cover a broad range of disciplines. They offer
clients a full range of technical expertise and resources for comprehensive analysis and solutions to their
problems. Their customers include federal, state and local governmental, agencies and private industry
including a number of Fortune 500 companies.'
Kleinfelder's experienced professionals understand the needs of businesses and municipalities who have
the responsibility to meet the demands of the ever -changing regulations that have become a complex
aspect of their daily operations. Kleinfelder has a team of specialists qualified in an array of solid waste
management areas including:
• Landfill permitting
■ Slope stability analysis
• Landfill construction quality assurance/quality control
• Regulatory compliance environmental investigations and monitoring
1-2 2P23011-13acWround.dw
BACKGROUND
• Landfill gas and leacbate control systems
• Landfill operations management
■ Land use development and community relations
Dan Wittliff Consulting, PLLC
Mr. wttliff is a professional engineer with 32 years of wide-ranging and comprehensive solid waste and
engineering experience in Texas. He is the former Chief Engineer of the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC, now TCEQ) and is Principal of Dan Wittliff Consulting, PLLC — a
firm providing professional engineering services in environmental engineering, regulatory affairs, and
energy systems.
Mr. Wittliff keeps complex and multi -phase projects on schedule and within budget. He maintains
regular contact with the client, regulatory agencies, engineers, and contractors involved in a project.
Because of his experience in government and industry, Mr. Wittliff is a skilled consensus builder who
proactively engages the community on behalf of clients to address relevant issues early and
economically. on behalf of his clients, he is an advocate for cutting edge technology (e.g., bioreactors
and leachate recirculation) to improve operation, compliance, and finances.
In the area of air permitting and compliance for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, he wrote and
secured Title V Operating Permits for three MSW Landfills and New Source Review Air Permits for two
MSW landfills (one with a bio-technology amendment). Mr. Wittliff also conducted high volume
sampling of dust emissions from several materials processors at a MSW landfill and obtained a permit
for a rock crusher. He personally coordinated the regulatory interface on the development of bio-
technology at McCommas Bluff Landfill with both the MSW and Air Permitting staff at TCEQ.
Additionally, Mr. Wittliff developed a public outreach program and materials for bio-technology at
McCommas Bluff Landfill. He honed his outreach skills at TNRCC where he represented environmental
agency Executive Director at contentious public meetings on sensitive environmental issues that included
air and water pollution as well as contamination cleanups.
R. W. Beds, Inc. 1-3
i
SECTION 2
ORGANIZATION
In response to the required firm organizational structure descriptions in RFSP 93411, this section
includes organizational charts for R. W. Beck,. CP&Y and Kleinfelder. Alan Environmental and Dan
VTittliff Consulting are individually operated companies.
The following organization charts illustrate overall corporate structure by department, naming key
personnel and demonstrating the depth of resources employed by each firm beyond the staff proposed for
this Project in Section 5. Specific staffing details for each firm are as follows:
• R. W. Beck —Approximately 560 employees; Technical and support staff are broken out into the
Energy and Water & Waste Resources Sectors as illustrated below.
• . CP&Y — Approximately 190 employees; Technical and support staff members are numbered by
department in the organizational chart on the following page.
■ Meinfelder—Approximately 1800 employees; Detailed leadership overview is shown in the
organizational chart on the following page; Technical and support staff are dispersed throughout the 6.
beige -colored departments.
R. W. Beck, Inc. .
Sector and Practice Organization Chart
Executive V'ke President
Tin CorriM
Examrnve Yca Presidna
Ed Wetud
E.M Aunt Cwndmp
M••9ameme
Sodd Wew
UUTey Smi.
j NW amoral. VP
Emeomic COMN'R
PbMcr."&VP
add CauhmW
Jaa Meni"M VP
Why Enh•emq
VY Baminw
SM.&Pngnrs
J®Batex VP
Jee schuk VP
Den Jociis,VP
Seniory=President -'
Seim Mu Presidan
- . BM Reynolds
- Stew Dates
Mennspa.VP
Brsrn Thaetw, VP ,. �'.
.Shoe Data; VP ..
DMYnin VP
Aw Fadwd VP
Frei Gaffw VF
.- Ed MU*L VP
-Chd. DOB. VP
. ..
..,.
-. Dan JOPJdm,VP ,.-
tyls ahm VP
2P2303-2-0IganizaSon.da
Appmximetdy
29U Tad Employes
Appmximamly
275 Total Employees �
2.1
SECTION 2
MbfWdw Group Olgantragon Chad
August 2005
,,yNA�Yq
dtllLa Jwoms
YB�KW�
SaLNaC
J
JOMCW
Owts Mom
KfaYOma
Minvi Nlalm
Rnh Ml
NktWan�
A96
N4, EaM1f
HIaNYhbD
G�OdY�
WbD'ImNa
BVYm INey M
SaYii YJIXDIM
jay
BI Roa�hma
hbmNa l%MdNA
®ypq
de+
aX.a®ene
ryplvbW CORtprt�l
Don laeliN
aTMAp
OnOm
JHKLEINFELDER
.XIHCE XORE
CPBY Organizational Chart
Elan ft.
PeNpY
r..X arya
CmEav MrKOa'
XNWY
IMhIYM
vmaaseron
ar
MEN EaW
YvbXLIO'
9!ppbUNaNnLW
Nbl:Sacbr
FWal n
ama Oar
G+Jn Coma
L➢nmvnkNbu C.
W(IDDYJ FOtWd'CY
YaJ lgbaW
feticd
!D
AXb Va nY
Rm dEO�
mim..
M41 Ntlm
fdNpltllentl
Dan JwtW
F.oWomaetl
.YQOm
Sob NfNa
CMt�ANtlaa
Only MaepaneR
J116y tSlm
OIb,W+laa 6NtlCb
2-2 2P2303-2-OrganL-1 w.doc
SECTION 3
EXPERIENCE
Broad Solid Waste Experience Ensures Big Picture Awareness and
Detail -Driven Results
Our Project Team provides nationally -recognized consultants with the critical skills necessary to
successfully deliver comprehensive landfill design services to the City. By teaming together on this
Project, we have created a pool of engineering resources and regional expertise that not only has the
qualifications to respond to the City's needs, but the proven ability to address critical project issues as
they arise.
As demonstrated by the project descriptions included in this section, our Project Team has extensive
experience performing multi -faceted municipal landfill and solid waste management services. We
understand the big picture of what it entails to successfully design an environmentally sound landfill,
while simultaneously focusing on construction management, proactive communication with regulatory
agencies, and managing schedule and cost issues.
Based on the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) list of bioreactors sites, Project Team
members have played a role in almost 30 percent of recognized bioreactors. Table 3-1 provides a matrix
of select Project Team member bioreactor projects, indicating team members involved and project
outcomes.
Additionally, of the projects tabled on the following page:
• Five have added liquid amendments, with two pending
• Fifteen are considered full-scale operations, with footprints exceeding 10 acres
■ Three sites are earning additional revenue through acceptance of commercial liquid wastes
• Ten are considered bioreactors, since the combination of leachate and liquid amendments added allows the
waste moisture content to attain field capacity
• All have extensive monitoring and reporting requirements to meet permit conditions and research goals
The Project Team also has numerous innovative "firsts" and notable successes, including:
• Permitting the first bioreactor landfill in Texas and the largest bioreactor in the United States
• The only known leachate land application system on the cap of a closed, unlined landfill
• Several instances where proactive communication and permitting were required to meet critical client
construction schedules, or reduce construction/operation cost
Use of waste tire shreds or chips for leachate collection or recirculation media
• Perimeter erosion and landfill gas (LFG) control using geomembranes
• Use of large area permeable beds for leachate and liquids recirculation
• Use of alternating diameter recirculation pipe to accommodate waste settlement
• Modified vertical LFG well design to minimize liquid blinding
• Design of proactive LFG emission controls for bioreactor
• Investigation and approval of alternate or evapotranspiration caps for landfill closure
2a2303-3-Expe`ienceAa 3-1
SECTION 3 .
Atlantic Landfill VA �:Soll(1%ieriLlqukfWaste
.Baker 6!
'1988-2001.r
J L FL,
•.
StormyFatar
j
Coun Landflli NJ [„-Canpoe[Runoff�Samtagl
Burlington.. ty ,
<F
Baker ;
- 'll°`S
Fu
8 P{asent.
I
., ` .. r.
aWate�rftomResearcba, w;
.:��_ti'e'n .Faal�tiea.-..-, ti_,_
%:•.
.." '
Central Disposal, IA '
GrPundweier s a
f6aker -
1994-20M
tales
,"
�.
RD§1) permit jf7TCDrrI ICIe`I
"�
Countryside Landfill JL
, , , 1(�e`stevarters , r
B"
� Aker -
�� ;2005
Countrywide Landfill, OH
S '4l '` J995.1997 :
•
Doran, Baker Coon .j.:
Crull';
:1997
Crow Win County,
tY MN
Evans, Baumgart
rSoale
Present'
_9
fi...
0.SWA Central Landfill, DE
Baker
2900 2003,.
East Central Solid Waste j
"` t t
Doran, Coon, Evans, c
Pibt`°
".'2003-
Commiseton MN
"Baumgarl, Tipton i
°,.
Present ;
Evergreen Landfill, OH
',;
I �, .Baker
pP11e'.�,
199420Dn
�i
"
GROWS Landfill, PA
•.
i Baker
>le
2000-2003
High
h Acres Landfill,,
Pending IJSEPA RR&D
i
i"BakerbrY
2001; 2003
;: P.romulgaeon
Live Oak Landfill, GA
7.
-. Baker.
Prlote2D00-
(Aerobic) .
Presem' .
L on County, MN
tY,
Doran, Coon, Evers,
Pi
2004-
Present
Y
BaU an
resent
..
"� PertnitUn9.forbiosolids .:...I
Doran Baker, Hindman,
WdtkiF, BaumgarL Coon,
•r;
Fuil %{
4 .. "
Currently "
McCommas Bluff Landfill TX
. surface yiater commeraal-:I
:.
Dunn, Pugsley, Scott,
Soale",.
Permitting
wastewater .,:;
�. •
{ Shiflett, Tipton
McGill Landfill, MI
Baker
Pno2:
Present
Metro Landfill, WI
': Blosolids -.:11
Baker
ScasFulle:
199e
Mid -Peninsula Landfill, VA
I ""
Baker
'Full :'
Scale
1998-20DO
Northem Michigan Landfill, MI
..".* ..
:
Baker
:Full":
, Scale
2000-
' Present
Northam Oaks Landfill, MI
j *
Baker
Pilot -�
zoo().
Present
Outer Loop Landfill, KY
f "� Biosolids, commercial,'
wastewaterI
Baker
'Full
Scab
I 1998-
Present
Spruce Ridge Landfill, MN
i
i Baker, Doren, Coon,
i Evans,
i Full
Scale
2002-
Present
i` Waste at field capacity due to volume of leachate recirculated & considered a biomactor.
Outcomes:
1) Airspace Recapture 2) Enhanced LFG 3) Construction Savings 4) Leachate Disposal Savings
5 Waste & Leachate Stabili 6 Extended Llfe Revenue from Supplemental Fluids
xpecreul
112,416
2,4,5,6,7
2,4,5,E
2,3,4,5,6
1,2,3,4,6
2,3,4,5,6,
7
,2,3,4,5,E
3.2 21`2303-3-6ryerience.doc
EXPERIENCE
The following project descriptions for R W. Beck, CP&Y and Meinfelder demonstrate the experience of
the staff members proposed to perform similar services for the City of Denton. We are committed to
using only these selected team members, whose previous relevant experience is critical to effectively
managing the City's Project Additional relevant project experience for Alan Environmental (John
Baker) and Dan Wittliff Consulting are provided in the appendix to this proposal.
Bioreactor Landfill Permit Modification
McCommas Bluff Landfill
City of Dallas, TX
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: WA (Still under permitting)
On -time Construction Performance: MIA (Still underpermltting)
The City of Dallas, Texas wants the McCommas Bluff Landfill to be permitted as a bioreactor landfill
beginning with Cell 6, scheduled for construction in late 2006. As owner of the largest public landfill in
Texas, the City is interested in reuse of biosolids from Dallas' Water Utility, as well as other liquid
_ amendments, to speed waste degradation. To accomplish its goal, the City hired R W. Beck (in
conjunction with proposed Project Team members CP&Y, Alan Environmental, Dan Wittliff Consulting,
and Kleinfelder) to continue its engineering services at the landfill, which began with an operations study
in 2000 and a landfill gas model developed in 2003.
R. W. Beck is managing a team of engineering, environmental, and regulatory experts to obtain the
permit modification to implement bioreactor technology for Cell 6, as well as possible use with other
qualifying cells. R. W. Beck's team has reviewed existing bioreactor projects and has visited comparable
benchmark facilities with City staff. The team developed a list of parameters for consideration that
would qualify a landfill in Texas to be a suitable candidate for bioreactor technology, as well as to
evaluate site compatibility for a bioreactor. From this list of requirements, the team has developed a
conceptual plan for design, operation, and monitoring for the bioreactor, including a costfbenefit analysis
of the selected anaerobic bioreactor methods. Regulatory experts on the team have meet with state
permit staff to research the permitting requirements (both MSW and air permits) and plan the permitting
framework of the bioreactor project. The end product of this project will be a permit modification
application to allow the construction of Cell 6 (approximately 120 acres) as a bioreactor cell. The notice
permit modification is scheduled for submittal, on schedule, in late 2005.
Throughout this project, consideration has been given to the importance of community acceptance in
gaining approval of this permit modification. During the next upcoming phase of the project, the team
will gather feedback from project stakeholders (regulatory, city officials, and civic organizations) and
provide information to these stakeholders through organized presentations and an informational meeting.
As tools, the Project Team developed a brochure, an animated three-dimensional video of the bioreactor,
and a one -page informational flyer for the TCEQ.
Solid Waste Operations Review
City of Denton, TX
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: N/A (Non -construction project)
On -time Construction Performance: N/A (Non -construction project)
In March 2005, the City of Denton retained the services of R W. Beck to complete a Solid Waste
Operations Review. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the operations of the City's landfill and
solid waste services, with the primary goal being to ensure that the City was operating in the most cost
effective and efficient manner possible. Through a combination of staff interview, extensive field
P W. Beck. Inc. 3-3
SECTION 3
operations, and experience conducting similar assessments for other cities, R. W. Beck expected to
identify several opportunities for the City of Denton to improve the cost effectiveness of their operations.
R. W. Beck made recommendations across the solid waste operation that had the potential to reduce cost
savings or increase net revenue by a combined $1.7 million. One of the recommendations was for the
City to transition all residents to cart -based collection using automated and semi -automated collection
vehicles. Shortly after K W Beck completed the review, Denton's City Council approved cart -based
collection for the entire City. 1L W. Beck became very familiar with landfill design and operation during
this project, discussing the potential bioreactor with City staff.
Landfill Engineering, Permitting, Construction, Hydrogeology and Reporting
Crow Wing County MMSW Landfill
crow wing County, MN
BudgetsId/Actual construction Costs: $3.5 million since 1991)Projects within Budget
on -time Construction Performance: All construction projects to date have been completed on -lime
Members of the proposed Project Team have provided comprehensive, site -specific landfill engineering
services at the second largest public landfill in Minnesota for 15 years, and continue to provide landfill
engineering and consulting services to the County on an ongoing basis. Our services have encompassed
all phases of solid waste planning and landfill development for the County.
The Crow Wing County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MMSW) Landfill is located on 480 acres owned
by the County, in North Central Minnesota Engineering services have included:
• Siting permitting, and construction management of the first Subtitle D compliant landfill in
Minnesota
• Closure of an adjacent, unlined MMSW landfill, including an LFG control system and flaring facility
• Permitting and closure construction management of an adjacent unlined demolition debris landfill
• Permitting construction management, and operations assistance of a full-scale bioreactor
• Development of a "Recirculation -to -Energy" or RTE project to utilize the LFG generated at a local
wood products company; the bioreactor has created a feasible energy project at a landfill that
otherwise would not require active LFG control
• Design and construction management of three leachate pretreatment ponds
• Design and construction management of an operator's maintenance shop
• Quarterly and annual regulatory reporting
Landfill Engineering Services
East Central Solid Waste Commission
Mora, MN
Budgete&Actual Construction Costs: $1.5 million since 2003, Projects within budget
on -time Construcdon Performance: Ali construction projects to date have been completed on -time
R W. Beck was awarded an on -call service contract for the East Central Solid Waste Commission
(ECSWC) Landfill near Mora, Minnesota, the largest public landfill in the State. R. W. Beck has or is in
the process of completing a number of tasks including: construction of an expansion cell, preparation of
a re -permit application, and investigation and remediation of migrating landfill gas. In addition, we are
3d 2p2303.3-FxpiermAx
EXPERIENCE
assisting the Commission in evaluating and permitting their landfill expansion options and establishing a .
leachate recirculation system.
R. W. Beck designed and provided construction management for the Phase 5 landfill cell expansion at the
ECSWC Landfill. Due to the rapidly decreasing amount of available air space, the new Phase 5 cell had
to be constructed in an expedited time frame. The challenge was to get the cell constructed during the
2003 construction season, which required plans and specifications to be completed and the contractor
selected by May 2003 — only two months after R. W. Beck was awarded the on -call service contract.
Plans and specifications were completed on time and the phase was constructed in the summer of 2003.
R. W. Beck also completed a permit reissuance application for the ECSWC Sanitary and Demolition
landfills. As part of the permit, R. W. Beck recommended removal of final cover from closed areas of
the Sanitary Landfill in order to recapture airspace with steeper 3:1 slopes. This innovative approach
will allow. East Central to gain several more years of life out of the landfill in its current footprint. As
part of the application, R. W. Beck has recommended excavation of the current Demolition Debris
landfill with waste placement in the lined vertical expansion. This will allow MMS W landfill expansion
flexibility in the future. Leachate pretreatment ponds were also approved in the application.
In addition, R.. W. Beck successfully entered ECSWC into the MPCA Phase II recirculation pilot
program with an RTE project Recirculation of leachate at East Central is projected to provide $3.3
million in benefits within the next five years and provide landfill gas reuse benefits.
Additionally, R. W. Beck is assisting East Central in evaluating its future landfill expansion options.
Future landfill layout options being evaluated include: the shape of the landfill footprint, the location of
leachate treatment ponds, the viability of mining the area to be developed for sand and gravel, and the
feasibility of excavating the unlined MMSW phase to minimize environmental risk and increase lined
capacity. Permitting work will include completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.
In 2005, R. W. Beck designed and provided construction management of both a leachae treatment pond
and an active LFG control system.
Solid Waste Engineering Services
Lyon County
Marshall, MN
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs., $387,000 (2004 recirculation system expansion); Project completed under
budget at $295,350
On -time Construction Performance: All construction projects to date have been completed on -time
The Lyon County Regional Landfill is currently the fourth largest public landfill in Minnesota,
representing a large geographic customer base in the southwestern part of the state. R. W. Beck was
hired to provide Lyon County with a variety of engineering services to assist the County in the continual
development and expansion of its solid waste management and disposal facilities.
Current services have focused on the County's Phase 7 Leachate Recirculation System Expansion.
These services include design calculations and materials determination for pumping and piping the
leachate; preparation of draft and final construction plans and specifications for the recirculation system;
a contractor pre -bid meeting, bid review, and recommendations; review of contractor submittals;
contractor pre -construction meeting; construction documentation; and preparation of the documentation
report. The leachate recirculation system will consist of laterals in Phase 7 with a manifold system
within the cell footprint. The system was sized for expansion as Phase 7 is filled.
R W. Beck, Inc. 35
SECTION 3
In addition, R. W. Beck has begun planning for a major expansion permit. Recent work has included
preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet and wetland delineation. The 50-year expansion
permitting will incorporate wetland mitigation, an inward gradient design, reconfiguration of the current
leachate management system, and leachate recirculation.
LFG and Leachate Extraction System
City of Sioux Falls, SD
Construction Costs: The City Budgeted $1,153,800; Project completed under budget at $1,106,253
On -time Construction Performance: Ali construction projects to date have been completed on -time
During 2005, R. W. Beck designed and documented construction and start-up of a dual extraction system
in the pre -Subtitle D portion of the City of Sioux Falls Landfill. The system consists of 19 (of
approximately 100 eventual) dual extraction wells, connecting laterals and headers, leachate drains, and
Lift stations to dewater the fast of three phases of the landfill. Historically high leachate levels needed to
be drawn down in order to meet regulatory closure requirements and allow LFG collection and recovery.
R. W. Beck designed a unique dual extraction system utilizing a single well casing and drain system
combining both gas and liquids recovery. Pneumatic leachate pumps were installed in each well,
discharging leachate to the LFG collection network which was then separated using vacuum breaks and a
series of six lift stations. The system has worked as expected and the fast phase of the landfill is
currently undergoing dewatering. In conjunction with the anticipated increase in leachate generation,
R- W. Beck is currently designing a double composite lined leachate treatment pond; construction is
scheduled for 2006. Also, with the fast phase of the LFG collection system installed, we have
completed the plans and specifications for a blower/flare system. Construction is set for 2006 with
subsequent performance testing.
Sanitation Department Program Management
City of Dallas, TX
Budgete&Actuai Construction Costs: N/A: No construction costs associated with this project
CP&Y is providing engineering assistance and program management services to the Sanitary Department
of the City of Dallas. In this role, CP&Y is responsible for monitoring and coordination of the activities
of design fares and contractors engaged in multiple construction projects at the City's McCommas Bluff
Sanitary Landfill and the City's three solid waste transfer stations.
Current projects are: 1) construction of a new waste cell including excavation, liner and leachate
collection system construction; 2) levee and slurry wall construction, and 3) relocation of a 66-inch
wastewater line.
CP&Y reviews all plans and specifications prepared by the design teams, monitors construction
activities, documents progress, reports to City staff, and prepares appropriate annual and quarterly
reports for submission to the TCEQ. CP&Y provided a financial assurance analysis for the landfill and
transfer stations, and long range planning is underway to predict landfill cell development.
3-6 2PNM-33-Expedenw.doc
EXPERIENCE
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permitting, Design and Construction Management
City of Del Rio, TX
Construction Costs: $1,450,000 was budgeted; Project completed under budget at $1,360,000
On-dme Construction Performance: All construction schedule milestones met
Permitting: CP&Y prepared the permit modification to bring Del Rids Type I Solid Waste Municipal
Landfill into compliance with the Subtitle D regulations. Through thorough investigation, quality
engineering, and close cooperation with the client and the TNRCC, CP&Y was able to save the City
approximately $300,000 on a typical 5-acre cell by receiving approval for an Alternate Liner Design
(ALD). Considering both the liner and final closure cover, overall savings for the permitted landfill will
be approximately $2 million. Additional savings were achieved by obtaining a waiver of groundwater
monitoring requirements.
Design: The ALD consists of two feet of compacted clay liner and a leachate collection system. Because
of the unavailability of local gravels meeting the•maximum calcium carbonate content, shredded tire
chips were used for the drainage layer and the protective cover for the clay liner. Crushed stone, trap
rock from Knippa, Texas, was used for the drainage material around the collector pipe.
Side slopes are 3H to 1V, with two feet of compacted clay liner overlaid by a geonet/geotextHe drainage
composite and two feet of protective soil cover. The cell bottom slopes at I percent to a leachate
collection sump and a submersible leachate sump pump.
Construction: Construction management provided by CP&Y included review and approval of all
submittals and pay requests, onsite construction progress review meetings, and general consultation to
the City. Construction was completed ahead of schedule and within budget.
Engineering and Environmental Services
LRI Landfill Facilities
Pierce County, Washington
Budgeted/Actual Costs: Project is on -going; there Is no concrete budget
On-tlme Construction Performance: Project Is on -going; Performance to date has been on schedule
Pierce County Recycling, Composting and Disposal (PCRCD), a subsidiary of Waste Connections, Inc.,
retained Kleinfelder to perform engineering and environmental monitoring services for the LRI Landfill,
located in Pierce County, Washington.
Since the LRI Landfill opened in 1999, Kleinfelder has provided engineering design services, permitting
services, construction quality assurance services; and environmental monitoring and reporting services.
Beginning in 2002, Kleinfelder has assisted LRI with the construction of four new waste disposal cells
and one phase of closure. Kleinfelder prepared the plans, specifications, and construction quality
assurance manuals for submittal to and approval by the local jurisdictional health department. During
construction, Kleinfelder provided Construction,Quality Assurance (CQA) services for earthwork and
geosynthetics construction. CQA services included the identification, laboratory testing, and segregation
of on -site soils for use as the compacted clay liner. Testing services included field density/moisture
content of soils, on and off site laboratory soils testing, and on and off site geosynthetics testing.
Kleinfelder also provided engineering support and at the conclusion of each project, Kleinfelder prepared
a documentation report and certified that the construction was completed in accordance with the design
intent.
R. W. Beck, Inc. 3.7
SECTION 3
In 2002, Kleinfelder developed a Work Plan for pilot testing leachate recirculation at the LRI Landfill.
The Work Plan included goals and objectives for evaluating effective leachate recirculation delivery
systems, leachate volumes that can be recirculated, changes in leachate quality (if any), reduction of
leachate volumes to be truck -hauled off -site, and effective management procedures for odor and seepage
control. At the completion of the pilot test, Kleinfelder prepared a full-scale system design. To date, the
recirculation has reduced site operation costs by reducing the volume of leachate that is truck -hauled off
site for treatment, and increased landfill airspace by promoting accelerated decomposition of the waste.
Slope Stability Analysis
McCommas Bluff Landfill
City of Dallas, TX
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: NIA (Still underpermltang)
On -time Construction Performance: N/A (Still underpermitting)
Kleinfelder conducted slope stability analyses for a bioreactor cell design at the McCommas Bluff
Landfill in Dallas, Texas. Existing data from the McCommas Bluff permit documents and published
information on bioreactor landfills were used during the slope stability analyses. The conditions unique
to bioreactors, including increased moisture content due to leachate recirculation, increased
decomposition and compression of the waste, and increased landfill gas production, were considered in
the calculations.
The slope stability analyses included: side slope, liner stability, interim waste slope stability, final waste
slope stability, and final cover stability. The stability of the side slope liner system was analyzed by
calculating stresses on the individual components of the liner system when loaded with waste. An
infinite slope analysis was also conducted to determine the side slope liner stability prior to waste
deposition. Several key items were given for consideration in the design, construction, and operation of
the bioreactor landfill.
3-8 2P23CM-Expeflencadoc
SECTION 4
PROJECTAPPROACH
Introduction
It is our understanding that the City needs to have Cells 3A and 3B approved by TCEQ for filling
operations by the end of April 2007. In addition, the City desires to permit these cells (along with Phases
1, 2, and Cells 3C and 3D) to operate as an anaerobic bioreactor, providing such potential benefits as:
• Airspace optimization
• Enhanced landfill gas (LFG) generation
• Leachate treatment and storage
■ Reduced long-term risk to human health and the environment
• Lowered leachate management and financial assurance costs
• Ultimate waste stabilization
This time schedule does not allow adequate time for a MSW Noticed Permit Modification process for a
bioreactor to be completed prior to the need to start construction to meet this schedule. Approval of a
Noticed Permit Modification by the TCEQ for this project is expected to require at least six months,
which will not be completed until early in 2007.
The cell construction that will be required in order to receive approval to place waste will include: (1)
excavation and final grading of the cells, (2) placement of the clay liner, (3) placement of the
geomembrane liner, and (4) construction of the leachate collection system and protective cover. The
later element is currently permitted as a one -foot drainage layer, a filter geotextile, and a one -foot
protective layer on the base; and a geonet geocomposite and a two -foot protective layer on the sideslope.
Based upon our recent slope stability and hydraulic analysis of a similar proposed bioreactor in Dallas,
the City may need to slightly modify the current liner design as a result of bioreactor operations. Our
analysis for the McCommas Bluff Landfill recommends that the geomembrane component of the
composite liner should be textured on both sides for the sideslope, and on the bottom liner as well. It
was also demonstrated that the geonet installed on the base will successfully drain the increased
moisture. This design is a departure from the City's current design but is recommended for the
bioreactor.
There is an innovative solution to this permit modification process scheduling dilemma, because a dual
track permitting approach can still achieve the April 30, 2007 goal for Cell 3A operation. Initially, the
Project Team will prepare a request for a minor permit modification for MSW Permit 1590A to adjust the
liner system to the required textured design and improve the leachate collection system permeability, if
necessary. This can be completed without delving into the bioreactor specifics. Upon approval
(expected 60 days) Cell 3A and 3B design and construction activities can be completed under
the existing permit with this minor modification. In concert with cell design, the Project Team
would complete the Noticed Permit Modification, incorporating the specifics for the design, operation,
and monitoring for a bioreactor. Thus, the schedule for cell construction can be independent of the
_ bioreactor permitting process.
Construction of any recirculation piping or distribution beds would not occur until waste has been placed
to a defined depth, and thus would not be delayed by the permit Modification process. The Construction
of liquid storage facilities, force mains, or pumping facilities for the recirculation system could be
2P2303-4-Appmxh.doc 47
SECTION 4
delayed until approval of the MSW Permit Modification without affecting the ability to start filling Cells
3A and 3B on schedule. With the above innovative approach, we have developed the following Scope of
Work, in order to meet the City's needs. A schedule outlining this scope of work is provided in
Figure 4-1 at the end of this section. Note that project meetings with the City and with TCEQ are
indicated on the schedule.
Scope of Work
Task 1 — Project Kickoff Meeting
The Project Team will meet with the appropriate City Staff to finalize the approach and Scope of Work,
clarify needs from the City, confirm the schedule and establish lines of communication. At this meeting
the City will furnish appropriate information for this project including: waste receipt records, as -built
drawings of Phases I and 2 along with supporting documentation and electronic files for any conceptual
designs prepared and permit documents not previously furnished. The City will also furnish a
topographic survey of Cells 3A and 3B that reflects the current excavation grades. This will become the
basis for design of the final excavation and grading. If the City is unable to furnish this survey, the
Consultant can provide a topographic survey as an additional service. The Project Team will provide the
City with an information request prior to the meeting.
The City and Project Team will also begin initial discussion of the conceptual bioreactor design, and the
MSW and air permit modification (see Tasks 3 and 6 below).
Subtask 1A- Public Awareness and Stakeholder Outreach (Optional)
Based on the Project Team's previous experience with MSW landfills and bioreactor projects, as well as
anecdotal information received during the City's pro -submittal meeting, MSW landfills generate
significant public interest in site activities. As a recommended addition to the Scope of Work in City of
Denton's RFSP Number 3411, the Project Team offers to provide a pro -active approach in reaching out
to stakeholders by sharing information on the planned bioreactor project and addressing stakeholder
concerns.
Our experience with McCommas Bluff indicates that the TCEQ will process bioreactors as a "notice
modification" to a landfill's existing MSW permit. To enhance the public's understanding of bio-
technology and any changes they may expect, engaging stakeholders before the formal public
notification occurs can prevent misperceptions, discover (and resolve) public concerns about the
proposed project, and help expedite the process.
During the kickoff meeting, therefore, the Project Team and the City will discuss the development of a
Public Awareness Program to determine the level of effort that is anticipated. Based upon these
discussions, the Team would develop a Program to be implemented throughout the bioreactor project as
an additional task. As an example, the Project Team assisted the City of Dallas in a community outreach
program for their proposed bioreactor that included preparation of an informational brochure and an
animated video showing site -specific bioreactor development. This Program has been a helpful tool to
educate individuals, politicians, and stakeholder groups on the bioreactor concept.
Task 2 — Minor Permit Modification for Liner Modification
Based on our slope stability experience for bioreactors, a textured geomembrane (both sides) is
recommended on both the sideslope and base of Cells 3A-3D. In addition, the current hydraulic capacity
4-2 2P23034AVMarhA0C
PROJECT
of the leachate collection system should be evaluated to verify its ability drain the additional liquid
amendments.
Subtask 2A— Hydraulic Characterization
In this Subtask, the Project Team will:
• Complete Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP, v. 3.07) modeling to:
• Verify that leachate head does not exceed12 inches with the increased liquid amendment addition
under the current leachate collection and liner profile
Determine the minimum permeability of the protective layer and leachate collection layer
(drainage sand, rock and/or triplanar geonet geocomposite) to freely drain the Landfill
• Validate the leachate collection trench and collection sump dimensions to accommodate the increased
leachate generation
• Determine that the existing liner and leachate collection systems for Cells 1 and 2 are suitable for
bioreactor operation (HELP modeling and hydraulic capacity) since the City has installed potential
recirculation laterals in those cells
Prepare recommendations, if any, for modifications to the leachate collection design, including the
potential placement of geonet on the base
Subtask 213 — Permit Modification Request
The Project Team will prepare an application for a minor permit modification for the recommended
changes. A draft will be presented to the City and TCEQ for review and discussion. Applicable
comments will be added into a final application for submittal to the TCEQ. TCEQ approval should be
received within 60 days.
Task 3 — Conceptual Design of Cells 3A-3D as a Bioreactor
The City has conducted technical and financial research and determined that an anaerobic bioreactor will
be the preferred process for future Landfill development. Based upon our Project Team experience, we
also believe that an anaerobic bioreactor should be the preferred process to be utilized by the City. In
this task, the Project Team will develop a conceptual design of an anaerobic bioreactor based upon
existing and anticipated waste receipts, moisture of received waste in place, additional liquid
requirements, storage requirements, and anticipated generated gas quantities. We will examine various
methods of recirculation of leachate and additional liquid amendments, verify the hydraulic capacity of
the leachate collection systems, and identify the design and sizing of the recirculation and gas collection
systems. It will be necessary to develop an estimate of the potential gas quantities that will be generated,
and at what rate. The Project Team will develop a site -specific LFG generation model for that purpose.
In addition, the Project Team will complete calculations for flow rate, head, and storage capacity for the
hydraulic aspects of the bioreactor.
Subtasks of this conceptual design will include:'
Subtask 3A—Additional Liquid Amendments
Based on our bioreactor experience, the magnitude of benefits realized is directly related to the amount
of leachate and liquid amendments recirculated back into the waste. The volume of liquid can range
from 25 to over 50 gallons per ton of waste received per day, depending on existing moisture conditions
of waste in place. In this subtask, we will investigate the potential sources of liquid amendments that
R W. Beck, Inc. 4_3
SECTION 4
could be used to supplement the leacbate recirculation quantities. Since the Landfill receives about .
125,000 tons per year (tpy) but is anticipated to grow to 143,000 tpy, the optimum liquid volume
required will range from 8,400 to over 19,600 gallons per day. Based on our knowledge of the site, it
will be necessary to supplement the leachate quantity generated by providing additional moisture from
other sources in order to bring the waste up to the moisture content for optimum bioreactor operation.
Potential sources include the adjacent City of Denton Pecan Creek Wastewater Management Facility,
local industries, surface water retaining ponds, etc.
In this subtask, the Project Team will evaluate the liquid options available and in particular, the synergy
of teaming with the City's wastewater plant. That plant could provide the quantity of process water or
biosolids required for the bioreactor. The current capacity of the digester facilities at the wastewater
plant is one of the limiting factors of total plant throughput capacity. By diverting some of the sludge to
the bioreactor prior to digestion, the overall throughput capacity of the plant could be increased.
Subtask 3B — Slope Stability Analysis
The Project Team will complete a slope stability analysis of the liner components of Cells 3A-3D (as
well as Cells I and 2), the intermediate waste slope, and final cover slope for bioreactor conditions,
including increased waste density and pore pressure.
Subtask 3C — Construction Quantities
In this subtask, the Project Team will estimate the required construction quantities for Cells 3A and one-
half of 3B liner construction, including clay (available on site), geosynthetics, protective cover (available
on site), and drainage media (natural and synthetic). On site soil quantities will be verified. Based on our
knowledge of the site geology, the sand available for the protective layer should provide the elevated
permeability required to drain the additional liquid amendments in the bioreactor without buildup of
excessive head on top of the protective cover.
Subtask 3D — Landfill Gas Modeling
One of the well documented benefits of bioreactor technology is the increase in LFG generation rate. Air
regulations require that, gas collection and control systems be in place when the bioreactor begins
operation and become active either wben 40-percent waste moisture is achieved or after 180 days, which
ever is later. The type, number and size of LFG controls will depend on the LFG generated. Innovative
gas extraction designs will be utilized that can handle additional moisture in MSW and also withstand
substantial settlement. Air permitting (Task 6) will also require knowledge of LFG generation in order to
estimate emissions. In this subtask, the Project Team will use an R. W. Beck proprietary model to
estimate LFG generation through the life of the Landfill, incorporating the bioreactor in Cells 1 thin 3D,
as well as Cells 1-6. The model can also support the City's evaluation of beneficial reuse of the gas; the
increased LFG generation should improve the economics of a reuse project.
Subtask 3E — Infrastructure Layout and Sizing
Once the hydraulic and LFG characteristics of the bioreactor are understood, the Project Team will
review and prepare a conceptual layout of the following infrastructure:
Leachate and liquid amendment storage and delivery systems (e.g., tank, force main).
o
Methods of recirculation (e.g., laterals, permeable beds, surface application).
Recirculation lateral and/or permeable bed dimensions (length, perforation size, and frequency),
media used (e.g., tire shreds, gravel, geonet, etc.), location, and other innovative methods and
designs.
4-0 2P23034-ADpmach.doc
PROJECTAPPROACH
• Manifolding from the force main to the latter, systems
■ LFG collection system dimensions and locations. These could include horizontal laterals, innovative
side slope collectors using temporary geomembrane for outside slopes, and vertical wells
■ Pump sizing based on system flow and head characteristics
• Intermediate Cover Alternatives: Examine alternatives for intermediate cover that would enhance the
bioreactor operations by providing additional moisture, controVeapture the landfill gas production
and control odors more effectively (particularly at the perimeter), and protect the erosion of slopes.
As an example these alternatives could include gcomembrane, higher permeable soils, compost, wood
chips, etc. The City is very interested in utilizing a 20-mil HDPE cap as intermediate cover for
erosion protection, to enhance LFG collection efficiency, and for potential leachate seep control.
■ Examine existing daily cover and approved alternates (ADC) and provide recommendations for.
addition/modification
Subtask 3F — Design Report
A summary of the information collected and the analyses conducted to date for the conceptual design
will be prepared in the form of a Preliminary Design Report. This Report will outline the basis for
design of all of the Cells in Phase 3 as a bioreactor landfill. It will also present the suitability and limits
of operating existing Phases 1 and 2 as a bioreactor. It will further define the items necessary for the
design and construction of Cells 3A and 3B that can be conducted in accordance with the existing Permit,
and independent of the bioreactor Permit Modification. The items necessary for the bioreactor Permit
Modification will be outlined, the preliminary design of the recirculation and gas collection systems will
be presented, and the Air Permitting requirements will be defined (Input from Subtask 6A). This Report
will also define the anticipated independent schedules for: (1) Design and Construction of Cells 3A and
3B to meet the City's landfill space needs and (2) Preparation of the Permit Modification Application and
required Air Permit(s), and the TCEQ Approval Process for the Bioreactor development. The
Preliminary Design Report will be presented to the City Staff for review and comment. Applicable
comments will be incorporated by the Project Team and the Design Report will be finalized.
Subtask 3G — Landfill Gas Markets (Optional)
LFG beneficial reuse is a key aspect to the success and public acceptance of a bioreactor landfill. This
-
subtask is proposed as part of the conceptual design but will be completed outside the Design Report and
Permit Modification effort.
Based on a SWANA E-Session and the pre -submittal meeting, we are aware that the City is currently
pursuing a reuse project with DTE Biomass. Working with City Staff, the Project Team offers to
represent your interests in this project development. It is key that the LFG quantities that are projected in
Subtask 3D from the proposed bioreactor are compared to projections currently being used for the reuse
project. Our project team has participated in numerous LFG reuse projects and can assist the City in
developer/customer procurement, determinationof specifications for LFG sale (e.g., energy demand,
connection requirements, contaminant limits), financial analysis, and negotiation of power or gas
purchase agreements. We can also look at use of LFG for the joint Landfill and Treatment Plant energy
or heating needs, or the potential of combining reuse of the treatment plant biogas with the LFG.
R. W. Bede, Inc. 4-5
SECTION 4
Task 4 — Design and Construction of Cells 3A and 313
Subtask 4A— Complete Design Plans and Construction Documents for Cells 3A and 3B
After completion of Task 2 and in conjunction With an internal Team Quality Assurance/Quality.Control
(QA/QC) review, the Project Team will develop draft design plans, specifications, and construction bid
documents for Cells 3A and 3B. The schedule for proceeding with bidding and construction of these
Cells will be independent of the Bioreactor Permitting at TCEQ. This independence is based on the
expectation that the construction of the liner and1eachate collection system in these Cells can be
accomplished under a minor modification of the existing Permit as described above.
Since the Preliminary Design Report for the Conceptual Bioreactor will be completed at the end of May
2006, the Project Team will have a good idea of certain aspects (e.g., force main size and placement) of
the bioreactor that can be incorporated into the Cell 3A/3B contract documents. At that time, the City
and Project Team need to. decide which aspects to include and which to defer until after permitting. If
possible, the construction bid documents should include line item bids for these deferred items in order
to allow for Change Orders during construction.
Meetings will be held with the City to present the draft documents and subsequently to discuss any City
comments to the draft documents. Applicable comments will be incorporated into a final set of plans and
specifications. After approval of the final documents by the City, this construction project would be
advertised for bids.
Subtask 4B - Pre -Bid Meeting and Bid Opening
The Project Team will assist the City in answering questions and providing clarification about the Project
Construction Documents during the period of advertisement for bids. We will assist the City as required
during the Pre -Bid Meeting with prospective Contractors and in preparing Addenda prior to Bid
Opening. We will prepare an engineer's cost estimate of the construction. The Team will attend the Bid
Opening, tabulate and evaluate bids and make recommendations to the City for Contract Award. If
requested, the Team will attend the Public Utility Board and City Council Meetings to assist in the
Presentation of the recommended Award of the Construction Contract.
Subtask 4C — Notice to Proceed and Pre -Construction Meeting
The Project Team will assist the City in issuing a Notice to Proceed to the Contractor and facilitate a Pre -
Construction Conference at the Landfill with the Contractor. It will also be necessary to contact TCEQ
prior to construction start, and provide them with the opportunity to attend the pre -construction
conference as well.
Subtask 4D — Construction Administration and Material Testing
During Cell 3A and 3B construction, the Project Team will assist the City with the administration of the
construction contract by reviewing submittals, answering questions and providing clarifications,
reviewing monthly pay requests, and acting as the City's Authorized Representative. Duties will include
coordination and completion of the required material testing of the liner materials and documentation of
their appropriate placement in accordance with the construction documents. This testing will be in
accordance to the permitted Soil and Liner Quality Control Plan (SLQCP) and will be the basis for the
preparation of the Soil Liner Evaluation Report (SLER) and the Geomembrane Liner Evaluation Report
(GLER) that will be submitted to TCEQ upon completion of the liner construction. As dictated by the
Contractor schedule, the Project Team anticipates regular construction progress meetings and resident
observation/documentation.
4E 2P2303-4-ADPmch.doc
PROJECT APPROACH
Construction administration will includureparation of any Change Orders, if required, to incorporate
required changes as a result of the Bioreactor Permit Modification approval. Based on the schedule
(Figure 4-1), the Project Team should receive the Notice of Deficiency from the TCEQ around October
15, 2006..This is just prior to the contractor's Notice to Proceed. At that time, the Project Team will
should know what remaining aspects of the bioreactor project should be incorporated into the Cell 3A/3B
construction. Change orders will be prepared at that time address these needed additions, if any.
Subtask 4E — Construction Completion and TCEQ Authorization to Fill in Cells 3A and 313
The Project Team will assist in the evaluation of the completed liner and leachate collection system in
accordance with the design and construction documents, conduct a final inspection and submit the
completed SLER and GLER to TCEQ. The Team will meet with TCEQ as required to discuss and
modify the SLER or GLER in order to receive timely authorization to fill these Cells
Task 5 — MSW Notice Permit Modification
Subtask 5A— Determine Applicable Modifications
Initially, the Project Team will review the current MSW Landfill Permit for the facility to determine what
Modifications to the Permit will be necessary to conduct the bioreactor operations. A list will be
developed of the necessary modifications and determine what, if any, impact they would have on the
initial design and construction of Cells 3A and 3B. Impacted permit attachments could include:
• Liner Design
• Leachate and Contaminated Water PIan
• Site Operating Plan
• Landfill Gas Management Plan
Typical additions/modifications to the permit include:
• A liquids acceptance plan establishing the criteria for liquid amendments
• A general list of acceptable liquid amendments (e.g., surface water)
• Monitoring methods to gauge success of the bioreactor (e.g., leachate and LFG flow/quality
settlement, waste moisture content, leachate head)
• Recirculation design and operation plan
• Gas collection design, control, and operation plan
• Odor management plan
• Records management
• Contingency action planning
Subtask 513 — Notice Modification Application
While the City Staff is reviewing the Preliminary Design Report, the Team will prepare the Draft MSW
Permit Modification Application. These documents will also be presented to the City Staff for review
and comment It will be beneficial at that time for the City Staff and Team to meet with appropriate
TCEQ staff to discuss the Project and conform their current Application(s) submittal requirements.
R. W. Beck, Inc. 47
SECTION 4
After incorporating comments from the City Staff review, the Team QA/QC review, and discussions with
TCEQ staff, the MSW Permit Modification Application will be finalized and submitted to TCEQ for
review and approval. Based upon current practice at TCEQ this MSW Permit Modification Application
will be processed under 30TAC 305.70 (k) which will require proper notice in accordance with 39.106
and to all persons listed in 39.413. (Note that 30 TAC 305.70 is currently in the process of potential
revision, which may affect this Application dependent upon date of submission).
Subtask 5C — MSW Notice of Deficiency (NOD)
TCEQ by statute is required to complete their technical review of the MSW Permit Modification
Application within 60 days of submittal unless the executive director extends the review period to
resolve outstanding notice of deficiencies. In practice, most, if not all Noticed Permit Modification
applications are not technically complete after initial review by the TCEQ staff, and it is necessary to
clarify issues or provide additional information to allow the TCEQ staff to complete their technical
review. In order to receive all of the information that the TCEQ staff requires, they will issue a Notice of
Deficiency(ies) (NOD) requesting that information. In almost all cases the review period is extended and.
the Notice of Deficiency is issued near the 60 day review period. The Project Team intends to meet with
TCEQ at that time to understand the NOD.
Subtask 5D — Response to NOD
Subsequently, the Project Team will prepare responses to the TCEQ MSW NOD to provide the requested
additional information and clarification. These responses will be reviewed by the City and submitted to
TCEQ. In some cases TCEQ will respond with'an additional NOD requesting additional information or
further clarification, and the response process is repeated. However, with our experience of bioreactor
permitting with TCEQ, it is anticipated that this Project can be handled through only one NOD through
pre -submission meetings and discussions during the review process.
Subtask 5E — MSW Permit Notice Process and Comment Period
Upon completion of the acceptable MSW Technical Review by TCEQ in accordance with 30 TAC
39.106, the City will be required to prepare and'provide a Notice of Application and Preliminary
Decision. This Notice must be mailed to a list of current landowners as noted in 305.70(e)(5), and to
others noted in 39.413(1), and the City must provide an Affidavit to TCEQ that proper Notice was mailed
and the date of mailing. The Project Team will assist the City in the process.
A person may provide written comment to the TCEQ within 23 days after the date the Notice was mailed
by the City. The executive director is required to review the comments, but is not required to file a
response. If no comments are received, the executive director may issue approval on the 28 ° day after
Notice was mailed. If comments were received, the executive director has until the 45 h day after Notice
was mailed to make a decision to approve or deny the application, issue a NOD, or determine that the
request cannot be processed as a MSW Modification and must be resubmitted as a MSW Permit
Amendment.
Upon approval of the MSW Permit Modification, any remaining permit changes that will affect the
construction of Cells 3A and 3B will be incorporated into the construction documents by Change Order
or additional designs will be prepared to construct these facilities (e.g., storage, recirculation force mains,
gas collection lines, gas treatment facilities, etc.) under one or more separate construction contracts.
4-6 M3034Approsch.doc
PROJECTAPPROACH
Task 6 —Air Permit Modification
We understand that the current landfill operation does not have a separate TCEQ New Source Review
(NSR) Air Permit, but claims an emissions authorization under the TCEQ Air "Permit- by- Rule
106.534." To construct and operate a bioreactor,at the City of Denton Landfill, the City must obtain
appropriate NSR Permits and Title V Operating Permits. The NSR provides an air permit to construct
and emit while the Title V air permit authorizes operations at the site.
NSR Authorizations - A bioreactor accelerates the rate of LFG production dramatically over a more
conventional MSW facility. The NSR program addresses the landfill itself as well as a flare. When the
quantity of LFG becomes sufficient to sustain beneficial reuse of the gas either as conversion to a
"green" fuel or in the production in electricity, the City or its agent will also need to secure an
appropriate NSR authorization for the energy facility.
Landfill Standard Air Permit- When the emissions of non -methane organic compounds (NMOC) exceed 50
tons per year (tpy) in the Dallas -Fort Worth Non -Attainment Area, the facility would be required to
implement appropriate emissions controls that include landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS).
In addition, the combined size and emissions of the bioreactor and conventional portions of the landfill
are likely to require a standard air permit (SAP) under the new §30 TAC 330, Subehapter U rules.
Flare Permit By Rule (PBR) - The City is currently installing a flare facility. To avoid exceeding the 50 tpy
fugitive NMOC emissions, the landfill will need an active GCCS. In its earliest development on site, the
GCCS will likely be connected to an appropriately sized flare. This flare would likely be registered
under the PBR in §30 TAC 106.492.
Title V Operating Permit- The TCEQ issued the City a general operating permit under §30 TAC 122.517 in
2000. The renewal of this permit in 2005 was generally an abbreviated process because TCEQ is
developing a revised MSW General Operating Permit (GOP) to be promulgated in 2006. While the
Denton Landfill should be covered under the permit renewal application shield in the interim, the City is
required to submit any changes (when they occur) to site conditions on the appropriate forms to TCEQ
and will be required to submit a complete Title V application for the new landfill air operating permit
package that demonstrates compliance with the new GOP.
Although not part of the original anticipated Scope outlined in the City's Request for Proposal, it is
anticipated that the City will be required to apply for these Air Permits to construct and operate the
bioreactor, and the Team is prepared to assist in this endeavor.
Subtask 6A — Determine Required Additions or Changes to Landfills Air Permit(s)
Working with City Staff and TCEQ regulators, the Project Team will evaluate the regulatory
requirements as they exist at the time of contract award and impact of any regulatory changes on the air
permitting for the City of Denton Landfill. Within 30 days of Contract Start Date, Project Team will
develop and submit to the City a list of required air permits) along with appropriate regulatory
justification(s).
Subtask 613 — Develop and Submit NSR Permit Application
Based on the details of the past conventional MSW operations and the proposed bioreactor, Project Team
will within 45 days of City's concurrence with the permit list developed in Subtask 6A:
Develop a comprehensive estimate of air emissions from the landfill
Determine the appropriate NSR permits (e.g., SAP under §30 TAC 330, Subpart U and PBR for flare
under §30 TAC 106.492)
R. W. Beck, Inc. 49
SECTION 4
■ Draft an application for the appropriate NSR permits and meet with the TCEQ NSRpermit staffon
the City's behalf to discuss the draft
■ Present to City Staff any changes made necessary as a result of meeting with TCEQ staff
• Finalize the final NSR permit applications and submit to the TCEQ with appropriate permit fees
From the time that the applications for NSR authorizations are submitted, the TCEQ NSR staff has 45
days to issue a permit or an NOD for either a SAP or a PBR Current TCEQ rules do not require public
notice for either a SAP or PBR
Given our past experience on MSW NSR authorizations, Project Team does not expect to receive an
NOD. However, should one be issued, Project Team will respond with necessary corrections within 15
days of NOD receipt to minimize disruption to the project schedule. Upon receipt of an adequate
response to the NOD, TCEQ has 30 days in which to issue the appropriate NSR authorization.
Subtask 6C — Develop and Submit Update to Current Title V Permit
Under the Title V Operating Permit Program, owners/operators are required to submit timely notice to
TCEQ of any material changes to the operations of the landfill. Material changes would include
changing from a conventional MSW landfill to a bioreactor as well as adding or changing flares.
Within 90 days of City's concurrence of the air permit requirements identified in Subtask 6A, Project
Team will submit the forms and documentation appropriate to amending the City's current General
Operating Permit (GOP) issued under §30 TAC'122.517.
Subtask 6D — Develop and Submit New Title V GOP Application
As noted earlier in this section, TCEQ is in the process of replacing the current GOP with a new one that
reflects compliance with the terms of the new GOP. Based on current agency information, the new GOP
will be issued in mid-2006. Once issued, permittees have 180 days to submit the appropriate documents
to apply for the new permit.
Within 120 days from the adoption date of the new GOP, Project Team will prepare the appropriate
package that will include the changes from Subtask 6C as well as any new requirements that may have
been added in the interim.
In the past, the TCEQ took fall advantage of the 12-month review time available to them before
approving GOP. Therefore, the City should not expect to receive an actual new GOP earlier than 12
months from TCEQ receipt of the GOP application. In the meantime, the landfill operations would be
covered under the application shield.
4.10 21`2303-4-Appioach.doc
kil
[
Rrw
I
I
-09
all
al
RIM
i
1
0
R I
1A
o l
1:7
7F,
L-1
t. . . . . . . . . . .
1
r;4
P1
ON
Jvl
hn �
773
IN
�lld
l
Rl
F T�
71
IN
M
r! j:
All-
r.111 rK
K3
ol Er
P It
it
kj
Wl
t
SECTION 5
PROJECT TEAM
Experienced, Driven & Innovative Project Team Ensures Landfill Improvement
To ensure the success of this project, we are committing, on au ongoing basis, a dynamic team of
consultants who understand the complexities of permitting, planning, engineering design, and
construction management facing landfill expansion and bioreactor operation today. We have a
multidisciplinary team, with strong project leadership and in-depth knowledge of both the business and
technical issues associated with enhancing the functional efficiency of municipal landfills.
The Project Team will serve as an extension of the City's staff, wonting collaboratively throughout the
Project. The team will be led by Mr. Fred Doran, a Senior Director and Project Manager with
R. W. Beck. Mr. Doran has a long history overseeing large solid waste projects, has hands-on experience
working with the City, and is project manager for the landfill bioreactor project currently being permitted
for the City of Dallas. He will provide overall guidance throughout the project, assuring that the permit
_ and design are developed in accordance with best practices and industry standards We have also
assigned CP&Y's Vice President and Solid Waste Program Director, Bill Hindman, as Assistant Project
Manager. Mr. Hindman's local presence, knowledge of the landfill and City staff and TCEQ Advisory
Council and TxSWANA memberships will allow him to provide valuable insight and direction as the
project moves forward. Mr. Hindman and Mr. Mike Shiflett from Kleinfelder will be the design
professionals during contraction, with field testing and documentation personnel provided by
Kleinfelder.
The following organizational chart depicts the structure of our Project Team. Additional team member
information can be found in Table 5-1 on the following pages, which summarizes our project Team
members' background, proposed project role, select current projects, and related expertise —beginning
with proposed senior management staff and followed by the remainder of the team in alphabetical order.
Project Team OrgantmUonal Chart
2P230WmJWTm
5-1
SECTION 5
c
�eePreslderrtand5o!(d ., • TransterSgtion_irtlprovements ■y, q ,
Waste PrAgram Director „ CFty of�Universrty park, TX '�' °q
CP&Y r ■ • Infiasimaure Fafiies Design �z
Dallis, - a Hunter. Ferteil Landfill City a [• d •>
Protect Afloeaton 25% ��• Coanty SoOd WastBManagctneM,i
Plan-CgNn County TX t v"
,. � r a Transfer;Station Operadons � k? �-�
`Eraldation—City
" g$IP $. ?9 •'Central Regional Wastewater ,� PJl�e
Dawn Anderson, P.E. _ grpfyi
`9K., ;System Stage Vll Odor Control.Dpe •' �YY
Improvements-TdmtyRiver f£rT'e.
Associate 43,.. Authority a Texas; Fort Worth' TX a "'• r
DCoaxallas Tl( rr • Central Regional Wastewater 1I
r, System Aeration Optimization +?:'Aaetpe
` t Testin Trio RNerAumo Y
ProjeaAtlocation 5%. • , b ,§� 9— kY illy,
Fort Worth, TX Arocq�ure
kF4g`7�«tjrb� ■.:Central Wastewater Treatment
'Plant Fllter Evaluation & Expansion 3h sl j,
4.t .r,..•, i •, ;a.>, = Dallas Water t WOW. Dallas, TX .i
:: yBl��rg2aot f , • Recently Provided Methods for. ■ C0nsulgngS01g
John Baker ETept�olggy : Reinjecting Liquids in Landflll, 1S Bioi�aktorrof
President '•t `r . ", `K {fyi k f . Induding Conceptual Desgn & ■ InnovalHot4Bs01
_r.hsiC n ` �y Operation Methods—McCommas Treatr�ent,��etjlo;
Alan Envfronmerdal, LLC Bluff Landfill, Dallas, TX
Dovmers Grove, IL,',t _.• Peer Review RDBD Permit ■10 reectorCornnj
Project Allocation: 30% side Liquid
Addition for 5ioreaaor Landfill
- Design & Operations —Countryside
Landfill, Waste Management, Inc.,
Grayslake, IL
Stephen Baumgart P.E. ' Eggine.gdng & . Cheyne Road Landfill, Cell 2 ■ 13 Years of Solid
N. Permltfjnq: -, Permitting and Design Yakima Management FxE
WaterB Waste Resources 'r' jlydmulics- County, WA ■ Planning, PermRt
Project Manager Characterization In Leachate, Pond Design —City of & Construction
Sioux Falls, SD of Landfill Vertiee
R. W. Back, Inc. ■Tenses Heights Landfill Expansions & Gl,
Project Allocation: 5% ` .. ,, � YOakima Co nity, Planning
Support Leadiatet Man g
2P230.3S-PmJectTeam.doc
R W. Beck, Inc
53
ION 5
'Pits, Yakma; W,4'...
Michael 'Shiflstl,P.E
zig��pyy
a Siop9$tab%lity Analysisior
;SloreactorCell.Design
Principe/ & Senor
�2.04*+5 N -
McCommas Bluff Blgreactor
Geotephnlca/Consultant
." nM- -
pt�`'rr
Dallas TX
&
-.
:'Cgs
f
Quality Assurance Testing
Documentationfoi SUW Ittel to -:
Fort Worth, TX
"s: dr e
dsuri t+f
:TCEQ Casde Road Lsndfitl City
P ed Allocation 5%.
�n�g�"p
of Gerlend
�i-W
t zr5Y�4.,.
Subtitle DTJner-Mirdon Lsndtgl;
city
Rory Tipton, E I.T.
' Engi(taerlpg.4'
w1Tng 'r ST,
• Limited Purpose Landfin
Limited(p
Recta ssrfication-"fsltlitas County,
�� &f J. pier
Yice'b�iftoj iNater.
water & Waste Resources
:`}Tyd(ap11c"�4io
WA
WA
;s a u apsjNeg04
._
��
Clv#Engineer
;laracteriz'�+Vs%_ Am2 Penmittlng at Cheyne Road
Landfill —Yakima County WA..-
h
•rERgfn£el'ffT?S�19^�
R. W. Back Inc _
WA -
- 1: -
- . HELP Modeling for MCCommas
$�
P�dUng
tall
6P,{oduSgoR.
Seattle
r
Bluff BbreaGorPennft, Dal)as,
?X
r�i aN
Project Allocation: 5%
;:
- � .
`i
• an�:�_
*cCoordination
Dan Wittliff, P.E.
AirPpnWng
Regulatory
aAir Permitting&Community
Outreach for McConumas Bluff
.=Years ofEngknagripg
Experience ;<
Principal
" Coordinatbn &
:- Bioreactor—Dallas, TX
■ Formers ls g
Gh CEm %neerof
I: Publrc Outreach:;
. Recently Wrote & Secured Title V
Texo3. Resource .:
Dan Wlttllff Consulting
I{
Operating Permits for 3 MSW
Con;rjrvation Cm>njission
Austin, TX
Landfills with Combined Capacity
(,novi TCEQ) r
ProlexAibeafJon: 20%
V
of 68 Million ns on To
�
■ past State President of Texas
- a Recently Wrote & Secured New
I Society of Professignal
1
Source Review Air Permits for 2
-Engineers
MSW Landfills (i with a Blo-
a Lad mul"dis -
.
technology Amendment) with
Environmental Compliance &
.�
Combined Cape cRy of 208 Minion
Pennitbpg TeamsTons '
■ Cor1sensus-Building &
Corn ntty Outreach
5-4 - 2P2303-"ect Teamdm
PROJECT TEAM
Recent Project Team Collaboration Fosters Synergistic Approach
In addition to the number of assignments our Project Team members have worked on together within
their respective firms (please see table on preceding pages), our team as a whole has significant
experience collaborating as a group on multiple other projects, including:
■ Dallas McCommas Bluff Bioreactor Evaluation and TCEQ Permitting Project our entae proposed Project
Team has participated in this project. We understand the importance of this synergy, knowing that
having solid working relationships geared toward a common goal creates better results for our clients.
Within the past three years, R W. Beck and CP&Y Project Team members have collaborated on the
following projects located in Northern Texas:
■ Bioreactor Evaluation and TCEQ Pem dng —Dallas McCommas Bluff
• Rural and Underserved Area Disposal Assistance Needs Study -North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG)
• Metroplex Area Sub -Regional Solid Waste Study—NCTCOG and Dallas County
• _ County Solid Waste Facility Siting and Service Needs Study—NCTCOG
■ Evaluation of Waste Transfer Station Operations — Dallas Solid Waste Transfer Stations
• Solid Waste Management Plan — Collin County
Project Team members CP&Y and Kleinfelder have collaborated on the following projects:
• Ralph Hall Dam Preliminary —Dallas, TX
2
■ Bloomdale Road and Bridge —McKinney, TX f..
■ MDA Wastewater Project— Fort Worth, TX
• ]damichi Energy Facility — Oklahoma
■ GPAFRC Utility Improvements— Grand Prairie, TX
■ Del Rio Landfill Phase III —Del Rio, TX
• Collin County Justice Center — Collin County, TX
• Cell No. 4 Improvements — Fort Worth, TX
■ CR673 and CR429 Bridges and Geotechnical —_Blue Ridge, TX
■ Apollo Pump Station — Garland, TX
History with TCEQ and Other Federal Regulations Provides Invaluable Insight
Our Project Team members have conducted a series of meetings with the TCEQ MSW and Air
Permitting staff members as a part of their activities on the Dallas McCommas Bluff Bioreactor Project.
In these meetings, we have made presentations that provided technical data from operating projects and
literature review of academic research, further, educating TCEQ staff about bioreactors. As a result of
these meetings, the procedures and modifications required to permit a bioreactor have been identified.
R. W. Beck, Inc.
5S
SECTION 5
r
TCEQ Rules and Regulations
In addition to having worked with TCEQ staff on previousProjects, we have a uniquer
TCEQrules and regulations throw direct TCEQ vantage point of
guru through Q involvement Mr. Dan' Wmttliffwas heavily involved
in developing, implementing, and interpreting environmental regulations and policy as the former Chief
Engineer of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC, now known as the TCEQ).
.He led manyof the agency's multi -media permit initiatives including consolidated permits and unified
permitting process. In addition, he served on numerous core committees at the agency to restructure
compliance and enforcement, reduce environmental risk, improve water quality, and promote licensure.
Finally, Mr. Wittliff left the team that developed and implemented the agency's technical peer review
process..
As Vice Chairman of the TCEQ MSW Resource Recovery and Advisory Council, Mr. Bill Hindman
partakes in reviews and provides input to the TCEQ Commissioners on all developed or modified TCEQ
MSW Regulations. He.has regular interface with key. TCEQ MSW leaders and staff members, and has
been directly involved with the rewrite of the TAC 305.70 Permit Modification Rules and the current
rewrite of the TAC 330 MSW Rules. All of these regulations were developed to comply with Subtitle D
Rules. Additionally, Mr. Hindman is a long standing member of the Board of Directors of TxSWANA
which provides comment and input on regulations, works directly with TCEQ staff and interacts as an
industry stakeholder.
Federal Subtitle D MSW Landfill Regulations
The Project Team experience outlined m Sections 3 and 5 highlight an extensive background in
permitting, design, and construction of MSW landfills under these regulations, including:
• Design of composite liners with leachate collection
Hydrogeologic characterization and groundwater monitoring
• Leachate management .
• Leachate and condensate recirculation
• Final cover systems
• Post -closure planning
• Financial assurance calculations
• Surface water management
• LFG control
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act Experience
As indicated in Section 3 and thus far in Section 5, the Project Team has extensive experience
completing Clean Air and Clean Water Act services for our clients. For example, Mr. Wit= both
during his tenure at the TCEQ and recently in private consulting, has:
• Successfully drafted several landfill standard air and Title V projects
• Worked with TxSWANA legal team and Metroplex area members to craft a strategy to comply with
off -road diesel emissions at landfills
• Served on committee to rewrite the TNRCC wastewater rules
5$ 2P2303-5-PmJ9aTeamdoc
PROJECT TEAM
• Represented the TNRCC during public meetings address groundwater, surface water; and air
emissions issues
• Orchestrated the inter -disciplinary development of Texas' alternative proposal to USEPA's eight -hour
ozone standard
in addition, the proposed R. W. Beck staff have experience in Clean Air Act permitting and compliance
at MSW landfills.
MSW landfill permits state that facility design and operation shall be completed to protect surface water
and groundwater resources in accordance with the Clean Water Act Construction QualityAssurance for
liner construction, design of surface water detention basins, and groundwater monitoring programs are
all part of this compliance, as included in our comprehensive experience. In addition, CP&Y staff
members have been involved in several National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
efforts for wastewater treatment plants and are familiar with the processes used to meet these discharge
requirements.
TCEQ Permitting Experience .
Within the past three years, Project Team members have been involved in the following TCEQ
permitting projects:
• Noticed Permit Modification for Bloreactor at McCommas Bluff SLF - City of Dallas; Permit modification
requirement discussions have been conducted with TCEQ; Permit Modification to be filed in
December 2005
• Permit Modification for Alternate Daily Cover at Hdnter - City of living; Ferrell Landfill; Permit approved
Noticed Permit Amendment / Site Operating Plan Update - City of Irving; Hunter Ferrell Landfill; Permit
pending
• Temporary Use of Alternate Daily Cover- City of Irving; Hunter Ferrell Landfill; Permit approved
■ Permit Amendment for a New Transfer Station - Arlington; Republic Waste Systems; Permit approved
1
■ Type 4 Closed Landfill - SeGo-Arlington; Revised closure plan approved
• Permit Modification for City SLF / Alternate Leachate Collection System - City of Del Rio; Permit approved
• MSW Construction Permit for 121 RDF - Melissa, TX; Provided assistance with NTMWD design team
and the TCEQ on design policy determinations; Permit approved
■ New Source Review Permit for McCommas Bluff Landfill -Dallas, TX; Wrote and submitted SAP under
§30 TAC 116.621; Permit approved
• New Source Review Permit for 121 RDF - Melissa, TX; Wrote and submitted SAP under §30 TAC
116.621; Permit approved
• Title V Operating Permit for Maxwell Creek Landfill - Sachse, TX; Wrote and submitted original Title V
application as well as renewal
• Title V Operating Permit for McKnney Landfill - McKinney, TX; Wrote and submitted original Title V
application as well as renewal
• Title V Operating Permit for 121 RDF - Melissa, TX; Wrote and submitted original Title V application as
well as renewal
R. W. Beck, Inc. 5-7
SECTION 5
■ Amendment to SAP for,McCommas Bluff Landfill —Dallar, TX; Wrote and submitted amendment to SAP
under §30 TAC 116.621thatincbrpora" changes caused by the incorporation of bio-technology at
the. landfill; Submitted November 2005
■ Permit By Rule for Rock. Crusher at 121 RDF —Melissa, T74 Wrote and submitted application as well as
renewal under §30 TAC 106.142; Permit approved
NSR Renewal for Unit 2 Fort Phantom Power Station — Abilene; TX; wrote and submitted application to
renew NSR permit for 200 MW electric power under §30 TAC 116; Renewal approved
Wastewater Permit for OOTW —. Simon, Tx; Coordinated regulatory inteT&ce including a face-to-face
meeting with senior TCEQ staff on this permit
■ Wastewater Permit for WWTP — Farwell, TX; Coordinated regulatory interface on contentious issues
M 2P403-5-Pr*ct TearrLdoc
SECTION
QUALITY CONTROL.
,Quality Control Philosophy
Establishing and then maintaining an appropriate level of quality must start at the beginning of a project.
R- W. Beck begins this process by establishing clear definition of the work product needed by the
client, including the level of detail, accuracy, and quality of information.needed. With this in mind, one
of the first things the Project Manager and project Team members will do is establish a level of quality
for the project, and then plan and budget the work to achieve this standard. of course, the City needs to
be made aware o� and be in agreement with, this standard. Reaching this understanding is an important
part of contract negotiations.
R. W. Beck strongly believes that quality on a project results from doing the right thing the first time, on
time, on budget and in a manner that provides the client with added value. The project staff that produce
the work control the quality level and assure that the appropriate level is reached. It is the Project
— Manager's responsibility to ensure that this happens.
Responsibility for Quality
Given R. W. Beck's philosophy that quality is primarily built into a project, it becomes every project
team member's responsibility to see that their work product meets the quality standard, project Team
members understand that they are expected to produce their work correctly the fast time, and should not
expect that someone else will catch and correct their mistakes or lapses in quality. The experience of
Project Team members listed in Section 5 is commensurate with this expectation. Guiding and
motivating staff to this end is the responsibility of the Project Manager, with active support from the
technical leads.
Ultimately, however, it is the Project Manager who is responsible for the quality of a project The Project
Manager develops and directs the project work plan and is responsible for the adequacy of the project
budget. No one else shares these responsibilities with the project Manager. In this project, Mr. Doran
will utilize Mr. Hindman's landfill design and TCEQ experience to support this responsibility.
Project Team Communication and information Exchange
Regardless of when or where project communications occur, it is important that technical supervisors and
managers of the work clearly communicate expectations (what, when, where how, and why) to those
who are carrying out the work. Equally important, team members must communicate any uncertainty
they have about those expectations to the appropriate technical supervisor.
To ensure complete buy -in during the planning and design phases of a project, it is our standard of
practice to proactively communicate with both the project owners and operators. Once mutual consensus
is achieved amongst all three parties, we will perform the same process as the project moves forward into
the construction phase. During this phase, consensus must be attained by the construction contractor in
addition to the engineers, owners and operators. This communication ensures client priorities and
schedule milestones are being met and minimizes occurrence of changes orders during construction.
Additionally, R. W. Beck promotes proactive communication with the regulatory agencies during project
planning and permit preparation. This allows the regulator to know what already is in the permit
application when received, and minimizes the number of review deficiencies.
2P2303-6-OualRy cmtroukx
6-1
SECTION 6
R- W. Beck utilizes guidelinestchecklists such as the following throughout design and construction:
Design Project Planning and implementation.
■ What are the phases of your design project (pre -design, design, permitting, etc.)?
■ What will your deliverables be for each phase (pre -design report, basis of design, drawings,
specifications, construction documents front end, etc.)?
• What are the submittal and review milestones in your design phase (30%, 60°/y 90%, etc.)?
• What drawing format/styles will be followed on this project (R. W. Beek standards, client standards,
etc.)?
■ Does your budget include sufficient time for QC checks for the drawing work?
• What format will be used for project specifications (CSI or a client -specified format)? .
• What guide specification will be used (AIA's MASTERSPEC, CSRF's SPECTEXT, etc.)?
• When (at which design milestones) will cost estimates be submitted and does work scope and
schedule adequately account for cost estimate preparation?
• What methods will be used to prepare cost estimates (may differ at each project milestone)?
• What contingency will be used in cost estimates? How will the contingency change (i.e., be reduced)
at different design milestones?
• Is each discipline lead maintaining an up -to -.date workbook containing original calculations?
Design Project Checking Procedures
• Does your Project Management Plan (PMP) define Quality Control (QC) responsibility for specific
project elements?
• Are formal QC checks scheduled for major project milestones?
• Do you maintain a QC record that documents formal QC checks?
■ Has each drawing been checked by a qualified person other than the design engineer?
• Does evidence of the formal drawing check appear on each drawing?
■ Have interdisciplinary cross checks been performed prior to key submittals (30%, 60%, 90%, Issued
for Bid, Issued for Construction)?
• Have subconsultants been fully advised of the requirements for interdisciplinary cross checks?
■ Will you use a single interdisciplinary check set or multiple sets of drawings?
• Have reviewed sets of drawings been retained until project closeout?
• Has each set of calculations been checked"prior to 90% review?
• Have original calculations been retained in the permanent project file?
• Have all specifications been read cover to'cover by a designated reviewed
• Has the reviewer checked all cross references in the specifications?
■ Has a senior person reviewed all cost estimates to see that they are sensible, complete, and consistent
with project specifications?
6-2 2a23036-Witt' Co tml.dw
APPENDIX
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER
RESUMES
This appendix consists of resumes presented in alphabetical order for select project Team members,
highlighting experience that is relevant to the City's landfill design project .
John A. Baker
Alan Environmental, LLC / President
University of 1111nois: M.S. in Environmental Engineering 8 B.S. in Biology/Chemistry
Mr. Baker provides over 31 years experience in studying environmental impacts of landfills and remedial
sites. He previously worked 23 years for Waste Management, Inc. most recently as the Director of New
Technology. In this role, Mr. Baker was responsible for developing innovative methods for
environmental assessment, remediation, and proactive management of active and closed landfills. He
developed and managed over 18 bioreactor landfill demonstrations and helped in the permitting and
conceptual design of the Outer Loop Landfill bioreactor in Louisville working with the State of
Kentucky and USBFA on a cooperative research basis. At this facility, alternate covers of clay and
compost (bi000ver) was demonstrated to attenuate methane, VOCs, and odors. Nk. Baker implemented
innovative remedial technologies for Superf and sites, hazardous waste landfills, and solid waste sites.
He also developed innovative monitoring and assessment techniques for fingerprinting sources of
contamination and is an expertin demonstration landfill gas to groundwater contamination for solid
waste sites. New statistical techniques were developed for evaluating monitoring data for hazardous and
solid waste facilities and participated in petitioning for the regulatory rule change for the RCRA
groundwater regulations for statistical analyses of data He has demonstrated alternate technologies,
such as vertical wetlands, to manage leachate and contaminated groundwater.
Mr. Baker is a recognized expert in bioreactor landfills, alternate caps, groundwater quality,
bydrogeology, and landfill operational efficiencies. He has lead numerous State and Federal workshops
for groundwater monitoring and assessment techniques, bioreactors, and innovative technologies for
groundwater remediation.
Relevant Experience
Partl6pated in 18 Bioreactor Landfill Demonstrations - Helped permit and develop conceptual design,
operation, and monitoring of 18 bioreactor landfills, most notably in Louisville, Kentucky
Demonstrations are to provide data to USEPA to justify regulatory changes to encourage this
technology. Showed that bioreactors generate more gas and control more during the operation
compared to post -closure, improve leachate quality by in -situ treatment within the landfill, increase
airspace by accelerating settlement, show that a RCRA cap is not necessary after closure, and post -
closure care should be reduced to 10 years or less. The following are a list of bioreactor and
significant leachate recirculation sites:
• City of Dallas, TX- Selected as Consultant'to City of Dallas McCommas Landfill to assist in
planning, design, and permitting as bioieactor landfill to increase gas generation, airspace,
leachate recirculation, and alternate cap'
• Evergreen Landfill, OH- first leachate recirculation demonstration using horizontal permeable
blanket and one injection pipe. 2 acre area injected 500,000 gallons/year for 7 years without any
seeps or problems. Degraded waste sampled to depth of just above liner
2PM-Appandimbc
A-t
APPENDIX
i
r
L
I_.
Countywide Landfill, OH- Peer reviewed detailed design for horizontal injection trenches with pipes
and gas collection while dormant, cheaper version developed on -site at much less cost. Both
versions worked well. 1
Live Oak Landfill, GA- Researched and funded 3 acre pilot aerobic landfill bioreactor. Degraded
waste in 9 months to compost like quality, -acceptable to States compost standards for off -site use.
Scaled up later to 10 acre site.
L&D Superiund Landfill- Funded and conceptually designed experimental bench scale and full scale
method of aerobically treating groundwater plume by injecting back into aerobic landfill
Spruce Ridge Landfill -MN- Funded and provided technical oversite of leachate recirculation project
that had control cell. Comprehensive data on gas quality and quantity, leachate quantity and
quality, settlement, cover dynamics, geophysics, and waste analyses with depth collected over 5
year period. .
Mid -Peninsula Landfill, VA- Funded and monitored leachate quality, quantity, gas production, and
alternate recirculation methods. Data collection on density and settlement of landfill
A.banbc Landfill, VA- Funded and monitored leachate quality, quantity, gas production, altemate
recirculation methods, settlement, density, and affects of sludge addition.
■ High Aces Landfill , NY- Funded and technical oversight of design, operation, and data collection on
leaebate quantity, quality, gas production and settlement. Next step is liquids addition pending
RD&D rule promulgation.
■ DSWA Sandtown LF, DE- Funded and directed study on summarizing 20 years historical data for
leachate quality, quantity, water balance, settlement, density, gas production at the only site known
to have this much historical data. Also funded study on 2 small test cells measuring same
parameters comparing biowactor to control.
Northern Oaks, LF- Funded geotechnical instruments to measure in -situ settlement, density,
stability, strain, and stress of waste. Served as technical advisor to MSU who collected data on
leachate quality, quantity, gas quality and quantity, and degradation. Conceptual design and
operation of facility.
Metro Landfill, WI- Funded project, participated in conceptual design, assisted in permitting,
operational review, and data collection for settlement, density, gas production, leachate quantity
and quality. Helped gain acceptance for liquid biosolids as research project with EPA Reg. V.
Outer Loop Landfill, KY- Funded initial project, assisted in EPA and KY acceptance and CRDA,
technical advisor on conceptual design and operation.
Burlington County Landfill, NJ -Funded project, technical advisor to county on design, operation, data
collection for waste characterization, gas production, leachate quality and quantity, settlement and
density.
■ GROWS Landfill, NJ- Funded project, collaborated with Geosynthetic Research Institute for
monitoring of liner and within waste for temperature, leachate and gas quality. Leacahte quantity
and density measured.
Central Disposal, IA- Funded and involved in conceptual design of bioreactor, innovative gas
collection, leachate quality, quantity, gas quantity, quality, density and settlement
A-2 V2303-Apperd'a.dw
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
McGill Landfill, MI- Funded and involved in conceptual design of innovative method of leachate
injection using horizontal blankets of 3 different materials -tire chips, glass cullet, and geonet.
Results show more efficient and cheaper than horizontal trenches. Settlement and gas production
being measured.
Confidential Landfill- Evaluate settlement, density, waste composition (15-20% biosolids by weight)
leachate quality and quantity, and gas production data Project objective was to determine if
leachate recirculation practices resulted in characteristics of landfill acting as a bioreactor.
Scott F. Coon
R. W. Beck Inc.! Water & Waste Resources Senior Mechanical Engineer
University of Wisconsin -Platteville: B.S. In Mechanical Engineering
Mr. Coon is a recognized expert in the field of biogas utilization. His 22 years of experience
encompasses all aspects landfill gas systems, including system design, project financing reviews,
Predictive modeling, operations and regulatory review. He has lead the design of landfill mechanical and
binges systems throughout the United States, as well as many international locations.
Mr. Coon also possesses extensive experience in Landfill leachate and wastewater system design for both
industrial and municipal applications. He has led the design of numerous leachate recirculation systems
resulting in advanced biodegradation, reclaimed airspace, enhanced.LFG generation and significantly
reduced operations cost.
Relevant Experience
■ Bioreactor Development, McCommas Bluff Landfill, Dallas, Texas. Modeled the LFG generation and
collection system to forecast expected LFG production under bioreactor conditions. Developed a
design plan to expand, renovate and improve the LFG collection system, and recirculate leachate and
liquid amendments throughout future cells. Led design work for liquids and LFG mechanical
systems.
Recirculation to Energy, Crow Wing County, Brainerd, Minnesota. Conducted LFG generation field
extraction test leading to development of LFG energy recovery facility. Designed critical systems for
leachate recirculation, spray irrigation and flow metering systems. Modeled LFG generation and
developed recirculation to energy concept
■ LFG and Leaohate Extraction System, City of Sioux Falls Landfill, South Dakota. Designed and oversaw
construction and start-up of a dual extraction system at the active landfill portion of the City of Sioux
Falls Landfill. The LFG collection system is operational and due to begin performance testing this
winter with the installation of a blower/flare system. Completed hydraulic design and specifications
for supporting leachate treatment and storage pond.
■ LFG Extraction System and Leachate Recirculation, East Central Solid Waste Commission, Mora, Minnesota.
Designed and oversaw construction and start-up of a LFG collection and control system at the
ECS WC Landfill in Mora Minnesota during the summer of 2005. Designed a leachate recirculation
system, which was installed in 2004 and 2005, which re -distributes leachate across Phases 4 and 5 of
the active landfill.
■ Portfolio Review of LFG Recovery Project, GE Capital, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Conducted a thorough
independent engineering assessment of the LFG collection and control systems, gas treatment, and
containerized engine -generator packages proposed for the project. The most critical aspect of the
projects was the LFG generation and recovery forecasts utilizing R. W. Beck's over twenty years of
R. W. Beds, Inc. .
A-3
APPENDIX
empirical and theoretical LFG production data and proprietary gas model.. The projects are currently
under final review and expected to be constructed in 2006.
Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, King County, Washington. Project manager and lead mechanical engineer for
development of one of the largest and most complex LFG control and management systems in the
country. Performed predictive LFG generation modeling and conducted extensive manifold network
analysis leading to major improvements in collection manifolds and flare station flow dynamics.
Designed horizontal collection system capable of extracting LFG almost immediately after waste
placement.
• Independent Review of Landfill Gas Projects, NewCourt Credit Group, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Independent
review for financing of 13 existing landfill gas projects. Included review of project operations,
environmental risk, site visits, equipment inspection, predictive modeling of gas recovery, pro forma
review.
■ Turbine Generation Review, Houston, Texas. Performed a comprehensive review of several combustion
turbine generation scenarios for a proposed 20+MW LFG project at a large landfill in the northwest.
Developed capital and O&M costs for five different plant configurations and a provided a summary
of the latest developments in LFG combustion and pretreatment systems.
• LFG Recovery Model, Apex Regional Landfill, Las Vegas, Nevada. Modeled the LFG recovery potential
and determined the collection system requirements. Developed estimates of the size of power plant
needed for the recovered LFG and developed cost estimates for the LFG collection system.
• McLeod Landfill Gas -to -Energy, McLeod County, Glencoe, Minnesota. Conducted testing to establish size
and type of power generation equipment for LFG recovery facility, including predictive LFG "
generation modeling. Developed project technical scope, contracts, cost analysis and power purchase
agreement between the County, a large private waste firm, and the local electric cooperative.
• Landfill Gas Recovery, Little Rock, Arkansas. Developed landfill gas control, recovery and beneficial use
system for the new landfill, reducing odor complaints. Assisted with the cosh benefit analysis for the
landfill gas recovery system.
• Landfill Gas Generation Independent Review, Gazmont Recovery Project, Probyn and Company, CTED
Montreal, Canada. Developed landfill gas generation model, projected gas availability, provided risk
assessment reports, and refined forecast of long term project revenues for the proposed second largest
landfill gas fired power plant in the world.
■ Landfill Gas Emissions/ Migration Control System, Kauai, Hawaii. Conducted predictive landfill gas
generation and flux modeling and designed landfill gas emissions and control system to function with
a golf course and housing complex built directly on top of the closed Halehaka landfill.
■ Landfill Gas Recovery Facility Independent Review, Allstate Project Finance, Suffolk County Landfill, Virginia.
Modeled landfill gas generation, provided independent engineering review of the site and landfill gas
recovery system design, monitored construction and oversaw performance and reliability testing,
■ Landfill Gas Extraction/ Migration Control System, Racine, Wisconsin. Designed and assisted installation of
landfill gas recovery system expansion, designed to eliminate gas migration and account for needs of
hazardous waste unit at the site.
Ad
2P23OUppendix.doo
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Fred Doran, P.E.
F;L W. Back, Inc./ Senior Director & Project Manager.
University of Wisconsin, Madison: B.S. and M.S. in Civil and Environmental Engineering
Mr. Doran is a Senior Environmental Engineer and Project Manager with R. W. Beck working with solid
waste clients, providing clients with innovative solutions to technical and financial challenges. His
projects have won engineering awards and earned recognition within the industry. His experience
includes feasibility studies, facility siting and design, permitting, hydrogeologic investigations, leachate
and landfill gas system design, environmental reporting and construction management. Mr. Doran is
successful in keeping complex and multi -phase projects on schedule due to regular contact with the
client, regulatory agencies and all otherinterested parties in a project. Mr. Doran is also a frequent
speaker at environmental engineering conferences and seminars and has published articles in several
industry periodicals.
_ Relevant Expertise
Landfill Gas and Leachats Control
Mr. Doran developed both active and passive landfill gas and leachate monitoring and control systems as
Part of landfill siting projects, landfill closure activities and regulatory.requirements of operating
landfills. His work has included emergency response to explosive methane concentrations migrating into
residential areas, innovative bioreactor and recirculation programs and redesign of existing landfill gas
control systems to reduce operating costs.
■ City of Dallas, Texas -Managed the permitting effort to secure both air and MSW permits for the
McCommas Bluff Landfill to operate as a full-scale bioreactor. Included conceptual design to
determine liquid amendments, distribution systems, and LFG collection methods. incorporated a
benchmarldng study and community outreach program.
• Crow Wing County MMSW Landfill, Minnesota - Developed leachate recirculation bioreactor program, and
provides assistance with construction and operation. Developing recirculation -to -energy (RTE)
project from enhanced gas generation Engineer of record for all permitting, design and construction
efforts.
• East Central Solid Waste Commission, Mora, Minnesota -Evaluated existing conditions and implemented
emergency response to control landfill gas migration from the unlined landfill. Served as Project
Manager for the design and implementation of a LFG extraction system and leachate recirculation
system. Engineerbf record for permitting, design, and construction projects.
• City of Sioux Falls Landfill, South Dakota - Provided technical support and quality assurance for the
design and construction of a unique dual extraction system that utilizes a single well casing and drain
system for both gas and liquids recovery.
• Lyon County Regional Landfill, Minnesota. - Managed and was lead engineer for an expansion of a
leachate recirculation system. Currently developing expansion plan for facility that will include
permitting, EAW preparation, and wetland mitigation.
■ USEPA, Washington, D.C. - Provided Office of Solid Waste staff with a technical review of public
comments concerning leachate recirculation on alternate liners and bioreactor operation.
Recommended potential revisions to Subtitle D to incorporate these technologies.
P W. Bede, Inc.
AS
APPENDIX
Facility Permitting, Design, and Construction
Mr. Doran has managed projects to close existing landfills, as well as perform all the steps needed to
construct new landfill facilities. These projects have included closure, groundwater monitoring, annual
reporting, applications for solid waste, air quality and water quality permits, liaison with state regulatory C
agencies, Environmental Impact Reports (Ea),.Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW), design
of lined and unlined landfill cells, financial assurance requirement calculations and preparation of
leachate management plans.
• Crow Wing County MMSW and Demolition Landfills, Minnesota — Permit work included EAWs, permit
applications, plans and specifications for cell construction and closure, and annual reporting.
■ . East Central Solid Waste Commission, Mora, Minnesota — Directed development of a permit application
for a vertical expansion, implementing 3:1 slopes and final cover removal to increase capacity over
existing footprint. Prepared plans and specifications and documented construction of composite lined
cell and leachate treatment pond.
Scepter Industries Industrial Waste Landfill, Bicknell, Indiana —Directed design of composite liner with
leachate collection, provided quality assurance on construction and managed development of landfill
expansion plans, as part of permit modification.
• Woodlake Sanitary Landfill, Browning -Fends Industries, Inc., Medina, Minnesota —Developed closure plan,
including clay cover design, slope stability analysis and combined leachate-gas extraction system
design, reviewed documentation and certification report for closure, designed environmental
monitoring system as part of permit application.
• Northeast Ottertail Sanitary Landfill, Minnesota _ Design of a lined ash and MS W landfill, closure of
existing facilities, draft EAW, industrial waste management plan, financial assurance calculation, and
leachate management plan.
R..Jeffrey Dunn, P.E.
KlelnfeiderI Senior Principal Engineer Solid Waste Specialist
University of California, Berkley: Ph.D., M.S. in Geotechnical Engineering & B.S. in Civil Engineering
Dr. Dunn has over 28 years experience as a geotechnical engineer with major focus on solid waste and
landfill design, construction, operations, remediation, and post -closure development At Kleinfelder, he is
leader of the solid waste practice for the company and is responsible for technical quality of Kleinfelder's
solid waste practice and program management, Dr. Drum is nationally known for his expertise in design
and construction of landfill liner and cover systems and particularly for his practical and responsive
solutions to field issues and problems. As a specialist in geotechnical soil behavior he is highly
experienced and has a thorough understanding of characteristics and associated performance issues for
soil and geosynthetic materials that correlate to successful landfill performance. He has worked on over
50 landfill projects and performed in a Program or Project Manager and Senior Consultant role on a
wide variety of landfill projects including those for municipal solid waste (MSW), hazardous waste and
low-level mixed radioactive waste. He is highly experienced with innovative designs including leachate
reinjection, bioreactor landfills, and inward -gradient landfills. Through his experience he has also
developed strong relationships with many regulatory agencies throughout the United States at the
Federal, state, and local level.
A-6 2PZ303Appendb:doc
i
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Relevant Experience
McCommas Bluff Landfill Bioreactor Design — Dallas, Texas; Senior Consultation: Bioreactor
operations are proposed for future cells at this landfill operated by the City of Dallas Texas. Dr. Dunn
provided senior consultation and review of geotechnical analyses of the stability of the landfill
bottom liner, interim and final waste fill slopes and final cover. Specific emphasis was placed on
evaluation of the impact of leachate buildup within bioreactor cells and analysis of landfill gas
pressure impacts on the stability of the slopes. Findings emphasized the importance of proper
leachate application, as well as leachate and landfill gas recovery efficiency.
• Land Recovery Incorporated Landfill - Graham, Washington; Dr. Donn has served as a senior
technical consultant for landfill design, construction and operations of this MS W landfill located near
Graham, Washington. Services have included design and permitting of leachate reinjection in
bioreactor disposal cells, lining system consultation on geosynthctic clay liner alternative liners clay
liner evaluation and field testing and landfill gas conformance.
• Casmalia Resources Site — Five Hazardous Waste Landfill Closures; As Project Manager, Dr. Dunn
was in. charge of this difficult closure project of five hazardous waste landfill units located in a highly'
seismic region with a potentially active fault at the facility. He led the closure design of innovative .
cover systems, which met the RCRA equivalence requirements and is compatible with future
remediation activities at the facility. The use of state-of-the-art exploratory and design techniques
resulted in significant cost savings by eliminating the need for large stabilizing buttresses at several of
the.landfills. All cover systems were fine-tuned to the materials available at the site.and utilized
contaminated materials in the low -permeability foundation layer. All design work was reviewed by
the USEPA and multiple state and local agencies. In order to facilitate design review the project team
worked in an "over -the -shoulder" review mode to keep the regulatory agencies apprised of design
assumptions and details throughout the process. He also managed construction quality assurance
services.
William R. Hindman, P.E.
Chiang, Petal, & Yerby, Inc.1 Vice President and Sojld Waste Program Director
Texas A&M Univerafty: M. S. & B.S. in Civil Enginecdng
During his 36-year career, Mr. Hindman has been responsible for business operations, personnel
supervision, project design, permitting and execution, and business development He has developed
extensive Strategic Business Development Plans to effectively utilize the coordinated efforts of key
personnel and provide leadership in the implementation of various projects.
His experience in project management and coordination has been utilized in a broad range of civil,
environmental, and solid waste projects. Mr. Hindman's personal involvement in significant projects and
client relationships includes design review of work performed and support of project team members in
the performance of their tasks. Under his direction, professional engineering services have been provided
to public and private clients in all areas of transportation, waste management and water/wastewater
facilities. Mr. Hindman has supervised and coordinated the work of professional engineers and architects
in maintaining quality control and time and budget schedules.
As a managing principal, he has served as liaison between clients, regulatory permitting agencies, and
planning and design teams; established policy control procedures, design criteria and project goals; has
ensured appropriate project staffing is available; and has served as quality control program officer for
review of project work. The following projects represent his experience directly related to this project.
I
R. W. Beck, Inc. ,.
A-7
APPENDIX
Relevant Experience
i"
C
C
■ Denton Sanitary Landfill —City of Denton, Texas: Project Principal responsible for TCEQ Permit
Amendment and Initial Subtitle D Cell design and overall QA/QC. He directed design and provided
resources, served as client contact and regulatory liaison for permitting and approvals. Initial design r
included Subtitle D Cell, liner; and leachate collection system
■ *Commas Bluff Sanitary Landfill Bareactor Permit Modificafron — City of Dallas, Texas; Project
Principal/Project Manager responsible for preparation of a Noticed Permit Modification application to
TCEQ to allow development of a portion of the McCommas Bluff Landfill as a bioreactor. Met with
TCEQ staff (MS W and Air Quality) to provide technical information and assist in development of the
TAC 330 Rule rewrite to properly utilize the bioreactor technology effectively.
• Hunter Ferrell Sanitary Landfill Permit Modification — City of Irving; Project Principle/Project Manager
responsible for preparation and submittal of Permit Modification requests to 1) upgrade the existing
Site Operating Plan, 2) authorize use of an Alternate Daily Cover (ADC)'on a permanent basis, and 3)
Authorize use of another ADC on a temporary basis.
• Hunter Ferrell Sanitary Landfill Permit Modifications — City of Irving, Project PrincipallPioject Manager for
preparation of plans/specifications for construction of a Maintenance Facility, a Citizen Collection
Station, and a Fueling Facility at the landfill
■ Sanitary Landfill Assistance — City of Dallas, Texas; Project Principal; Provided on -calf engineering
services to the City Deportment of Sanitation related to construction and operation of the city owned
McCommas Bluff Sanitary Landfill..
• Garland Sanitary Landfill — City of Garland, Texas; Project Principal/Project Manager for TCEQ Permit
and Initial Site Development. He served as day -today client contact, and provided overall QA/QC,
directed design efforts, and served as regulatory liaison for permitting and approvals. Initial
development included entrance roadways, scale house, demudding facility, maintenance facility,
Subtitle D Cell, liner leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, and levee design.
• Lubbock Sanitary Landfill — City of Lubbock, Texas; Project Principal responsible for TCEQ Permit and
Initial Site Development, and schematic design and overall QA/QC. He directed design and provided
resources, and served as client contact and regulatory liaison for permitting and approvals. Initial
development included entrance roadways, scale house, citizen collection area, maintenance facility,
Subtitle D Cell design, liner, and leachate collection system.
• SH 30 Sanitary Landfill — BVSWMA— College Station, Texas; Project Principal responsible for siting
study activities and site evaluation of the SH 30 Landfill in Grimes County. Responsible for initial
TCEQ Permit activities including public meetings and land use only hearing. Provided guidance to
consultant staff to develop overall site conceptual plan to address permit technical issues (fire
training, aggregate storage, container repair.).
• Sanitary Landfill Permit Amendment— City of Commerce, Texas; Project Principle responsible for
preparation of a permit modification and subsequently a permit amendment to reopen the closed city
Sanitary Landfill and upgrade it to Subtitle D standards. Coordinated all regulatory activities to
complete the application submission prior to a legislative mandated deadline.
• Sego Sanitary Landfill, Closure Modification — Shred -Tech, Lewisville, Texas; Project Manager for
preparation of notification of changes and supporting plans and narrative to modify the final closure
of the Sego Sanitary Landfill. Notification Documents were prepared and submitted to TCEQ and
approved.
A-8 2P230MWnd4.doc
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Frank E. Pugsley, EIT
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, Inc. / Environmental & Civil Engineer
Texas Tech University: M.S. & B. S. In Environmental, Engineering
Frank Pugsley has three years of experience on a variety of municipal inSastrac4se projects. He has
been a design engineer for projects including solid waste.transfer and disposal facilities water treatment
plant renovations to municipal water and wastewater systems. His engineering design experience
includes sanitary landfills, citizen collection facilities, wastewater collection systems; potable water
supply rehabilitation, chemical systems for water treatment, pump station design, construction
management, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit applications. Projects representing Mr. Pugsley's
experience directly related to this project include:
Relevant Experience
■ Sego Sanitary Landfill, Closure Modification — Shred -Tech, Key Designer, Assisting in the preparation of
notification of changes and supporting plans;and narrative to modify the final closure of the Sego
Sanitary Landfill located in Euless, Texas. The Notification Documents were prepared and submitted
to the TCEQ for approval. Also, he is assisting in obtaining the approval for the site changes.
• McCommas Bluff Sanitary Landfill Bloreactor Permit Modification — City of Dallas, Texas; Project Engineer
Assisting in the preparation of a Noticed Permit Modification application to TCEQ to allow
development of a portion of the McCommas Bluff Landfill ass bioreactor. Met with TCEQ staff
(MSW and Air Quality) to provide technical' information and assist in the development of the'TAC
330 Rule rewrite to properly utilize the bioreactor technology effectively.
• Hunter Ferrell Sanitary Landfill Permit Modifications - City of Irving, Project Engineer for the preparation
and submittal of Permit Modification requests to 1) Upgrade the existing Site Operating Plan, 2)
Authorize the use of an Alternate Daily Cover (ADC) on a permanent basis, and 3) Authorize the use
of another ADC on a temporary basis.
• Hunter Ferrell Sanitary Landfill Permit Modifications —City of Irving; Project Engineer for the preparation
of Plans and Specifications for the construction of a Maintenance Facility, a Citizen Collection
Station, and a Fueling Facility at the Landfill.
Solid Waste Transfer Station Master Plan —North Texas Municipal Water District (NTWMD): Key
Designer, Assisted in the preparation of a master plan for transfer station facilities and other solid
waste activities (citizen collection station, recycling, HHW collection, etc.), in conjunction with city
of Richardson's municipal activities at the Lookout Drive site.
■ Solid Waste Management Plan — Collin County, Texas: Key Designer, Assisted in developing a
countywide plan to provide solid waste services to all areas of the county not currently served with an
organized collection system.
Michael M. Shiflett, P.E.
KleinfelderI Principal & Senior Geotechnical Consultant
University of Taxas at Arlington: M.S. & B. S.In Civil Engineering
Michael M. Shiflett, P.E., is a Principal of Kleinfelder and is located in the Fort Worth office, serving as
North Texas Regional Manager. He has 30 years of consulting experience, with this being mostly in the
North Central Texas area.
Mr. Shiflett has been providing geotechnical engineering consulting services since 1975 on a wide range
of public works and private projects. He has served as the principal investigator, project manager and
R. W. Bede, Inc. A-9
APPENDIX
consultant for many geotechnical projects. The scope of these projects and assignments has varied from
the routine to the complex requiring sophisticated geotechnical analysis. Projects have included solid
waste permitting, slope stability analysis, settlement evaluation, levee evaluations, commercial retail
centers, office buildings, high-rise office towers, manufacturing plants, educational facilities, industrial
facilities and public works projects.
I& Shiflett has investigated sites for municipal and industrial solid waste disposal facilities providing
geotechnical analysis, liner designs, groundwater monitoring systems, quality assurance programs and
permit hearing testimony. He has performed numerous slope stability analyses, lateral load analyses, and
high capacity pier/pile studies including field load testing. He has investigated sites for highway bridges,
ground storage tanks, elevated water storage tanks, pipelines and water and wastewater treatment plants.
He has provided expert witness testimony based on his experience as a practicing geotechnical engineer.
Mr.. Shiflett has gained comprehensive experience and expertise in dealing with the geotechnical issues
and challenges associated with construction in the various and varied geologic settings in this area
including loose sand, soft clays, desiccated and highly expansive clay, and hard rock.
Mr. Shiflett has provided geological and geotechnical consultation for waste disposal facilites throughout
North Texas. He has assisted in siting and permitting landfills, has performed groundwater and .
hydrogeologic assessments, and has evaluated constructed clay liners. Representative projects and
services performed are as follows: .
Relevant Experience
■ McCommas Bluff Landfill Bioreaetor Design —Dallas, Texas; Geotechnical Engineer. Conducted slope
stability analysis for a bioreactor cell design -at McCommas Bluff Landfill. The slope stability
analysis included: side slope liner stability, interim waste slope stability, final waste slope stability,
and final cover stability.
• Arlington Landfill —Arlington, Texas; Geotechnical Engineer: Performed groundwater study at an
existing facility to evaluate the effectiveness of a slurry wall barrier system. The study occurred over
a 2-year interval measuring the impact of site flooding, rainfall, dewatering operations, and geologic
continuity within the proposed landfill bottom.
Waste Control Specialists, LLC —Andrews County, Texas; Geotechnical Engineer. Provided geotechnical
engineering analysis for portions of the landfill design during permit renewal by the permitting
consulting firm. Services included: Liner System Design, Stability Analysis of Berm and Cut Slope,
Interim Slope Stability Analysis, Hazardous Waste Settlement Analysis, Strain of Final Cover System,
Loading calculations and thickness determinations for Temporary Storage Pads, CQA testing and
documentation of new cell liner construction.
Dan J. Wittliff, P.E., DEE
Dan Wittliff Consulting, PLLC f Principal
southern Methodist University: B.S. in Mechanical, Engineering
University of Oklahoma: Master of Business Administration
Mr. Wittliff, former Chief Engineer of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality — TCEQ) is Principal of Dan Wittliff Consulting, PLLC. This
firm provides professional engineering service's in environmental engineering, regulatory affairs, and
energy systems. Before service with TNRCC, Mr. Wittliff served in several supervisory positions with
West Texas Utilities Company, Abilene, TX managing and monitoring power station performance to
include issues related to air pollution, water treatment, industrial hygiene, and solid waste disposal. Mr.
A-10 2P2303-Appe kdw
Y
SELECT PROJECT Tear,
Wittliff keeps complex and multi -phase projects on schedule and within budget He maintains regular
contact with the client, regulatory agencies, engineers, and contractors involved in a project. Because of
his experience in government and industry, Mr. Wittliff is a skilled consensus builder who pro
engages the community on behalf of clients to address relevant iactively
ssues early and economically On behalf
Of his clients, he is an advocate for cutting edge technology (e.g., bioreactors and leachate recirculation)
to improve operation, compliance, and finances.;
Relevant Experience
Air Permitting
• McCommas Bluff Landfill —Dallas, TX; Wrote and secured from TCEQ a New Source Review Standard
Air Permit (SAP) Number 74705 for this 146' million ton MSW Landfill; TCEQ issued the SAP
without any notices of deficiency. Worked with TCEQ and Dallas Air Control program to resolve
enforcement issues. Wrote and submitted an application to amend the McCommas Bluff Landf
SAP Number 74705 to account for effects of implementing bio-techaology at this landfill.
■ 121 Regional Disposal Facility (RDF)-Molissa, TX; provided essential support to Permitting team and
Provided key testimony before state officials to secure a MSW permit for this 60 million ton green
field site in Collin County Wrote and secured from state regulators a SAP Number 55513 for this
facility. Modeled landfill gas emissions and developed a compliance timeline for relevant LPG
control systems. Wrote application for a Title V Air operating permit for this facility.
• Maxwell Creek Landfill — Sachsa, TX Wrote application for a Title V Air Operating permit for this 4.5
and enforcement issues.
million ton MSW facility in Collin County, Worked with client and legal team to resolve compliance
■ McKinney Landfill — McKinney, TX Wrote app
million ton MSW facility, Worked with clientlication for a Title V Air Operating Permit for this 4.4
and legal team to resolve compliance and enforcement
issues.
• NSR Renewal for Unit 2 Fort Phantom Power Station —Abilene, TX; Wrote and submitted application to
renew NSR permit for 200 MW electric power under §30 TAC 116. Renewal approved.
Environmental RemedialJon and Public Outreach
• Sunset Depot Cleanup Issues — San Antonio, Tx; In the aftermath ofAlamo Iron Works el
to
make way for the Alamodome, angry local citizens raised concerns eanup
about the cleanup of the adjacent
Sunset Depot site and its potential impact on ground water and public health. Represented the
TNRCC Executive Director at a televised public meeting between owners, regulators, politicians, and
Environmem), Defused the volatile situation,
concerned citizens (Residents Organized for a Safe
explained the environmental issues to neighbors and arranged for the active participation of the
concerned citizens' leadership in the Sunset Depot planning process.
• American Ecology Disposal Site Compliance Issues— Winona, TX; Represented the Executive Director of
TNRCC at public meetings on proposed permits for air, hazardous waste, and deep well injection.
Worked with angry neighbors who were suspicious of the activities and safety of the plant
Coordinated a multi -media permitting approach to address the neighbors' concerns, bring the plant
into compliance, and keep it from closing. ;f
• Conroe Creosote Site Cleanup — Conroe, TX; Represented the Executive Director at public meetings on
the controversial use of an innovative technol
Issues for the angry neighbors included: grouoff to cleanup an abandoned creosote treating site.
ndwater migration of contaminants, air emissions from
the remediation approach, and adverse property value impacts.
R W. Beck, Inc.
A•11
t
APPENDIX
Multi•Medla Permitting and TCEQ Experience
Texas Proposal on 8-Hour Ozone Standard — Orchestrated the inter -disciplinary, development of the
state's alternative proposal to USEPA's eight -hour ozone NAAQS standard. Included toxicologists,
air -shed modelers, permit engineers, compliance and enforcement staff, and meteorologists in the
development process. Represented the TNRCC Commissioners in presenting this issue in meetings
in five Texas cities as well as in Washington, D.C.
Multi -Media Environmental Compliance and Permitting -Managed the efforts of a professional, multi-
media (air, waste, water, wastewater, spills, and industrial hygiene) environmental staff and a million
phis dollar budget used in securing permits, determining fees, reporting compliance, and maintaining
Awareness for company's nine power stations; eight service facilities, and 1,100 employees.
Texas Emissions Reductions for Oft -Road Diesel Engines —Worked with TxSWANA legal team and
Metroplex area members to craft a strategy for complying with an off -road diesel equipment ban
while keeping area landfill operations open. Surveyed 47 DFW MSW facilities including: 17
landfills, 15 transfer stations, 6 composters, and 9 recyclers. Developed equipment counts and air
emissions by facility type (345 Total): 228 at landfills; 32 at transfer stations, 57 at composters, and
28 at recyclers. Presented findings to Commissioner and senior staff at TNRCC.
• §30 TAC 317, Wastewater Rules Rewrite —Served on TNRCC's Core Committee for the rewrite of the
agency's wastewater rules. Effort resulted in more understandable rules with accompanying
regulatory guidance.
A-12
2P23034Wnft.dx
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DENTON §
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER
The Professional Services Agreement (the "Agreement") was entered into by and
between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas Municipal Corporation (the "City") and R.
W. Beck, Inc., a Corporation ("Beck") with its corporate office at 1380 Corporate Center
Curve, Eagan, Minnesota 55121, which Agreement was dated May 5, 2006, which
Agreement was approved by Ordinance No. 2006-131, in the amount not to exceed
$141,200; and
The First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of
Denton and R.W. Beck, Inc. was later entered into on July 18, 2006 ("Amendment No.
I") in order to add additional tasks, design and engineering services to the Agreement
which included the conceptual designs of Cell 3A and 3B as a bio-tech landfill, the
engineering services for the municipal solid waste (MSW) permit modification and
feasibility of lateral landfill expansion, as well as the design and construction of the
citizen's drop-off area which additional services were in an additional amount not to
exceed $524,300 to provide professional design and engineering services; ' which
Amendment No. 1 was approved by Ordinance No. 2006-206, in the additional amount of
not to exceed $524,300; with the total amount approved by the Agreement and the
Amendment No. 1 being $665,500; and
After further discussions, and further consideration, the City and Beck have
agreed that there are additional professional design and engineering services that need to
be included in the scope of work, and accordingly desire to further amend the Agreement
and Amendment No. 1, by this Amendment No. 2, by an amount not to exceed an
additional $35,000 in professional services, thereby totaling $700,500; which additional
services include providing excavation design services and preparing a modification
application of the City's solid waste landfill permit (No. 1590A) to the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality for approval. A true and correct copy of the letter
dated August 18, 2006 from William R. Hindman, P.E. and Fred J. Doran, P.E. of Beck
to David Dugger, City of Denton Landfill Manager contains the scope of services for the
additional $35,000 in professional services to be performed by Beck, which letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herewith by reference; and
All other provisions of the Agreement and Agreement No. 1 are in full force and
effect, and shall remain in full force and effect.
This Amendment No. 2 shall be attached to the
Amendment No. 1 described above, by the City Secretary.
This Amendment No. 2 shall become effective on the date that the final signature
is affixed to this Amendment No 2.
SIGNED this the)day of 2006.
"CITY"
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
A Texas Municipal Corporation
By:
4--
George KCampbell, Cit Manager
ATTESTED:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
By:
APPR VEDtATO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
By:
"BECK"
R.W. BECK, INC.
A Corporation
I
t ��
i�
VA
�O
ATTEST:
v�
S:\Our Documents\Contracts\06\Amendment No 2 to PSA-COD-R W Beck-Addnl Svcs-SW-gc.doc