2006-131FILE REFERENCE FORM 2006-131
X Additional File Exists
Additional File Contains Records Not Public, According to the Public Records Act
Other
N'1LE S Date Initials
First Amendment to Agreement -Ordinance No. 2006-206 07/18/06 )R
Amendment No. 2 [original is attached] 11/17/06 JR
Amendment No. 3 to Agreement -Ordinance No. 2008-169 08/05/08 ) R
.. '"' 1\
S:\Our Documents\Ordinanoes\06\R.W. Bcck.doc
t
\
ORDINANCE NO. .2(}Of;- /.3 /
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND R. W. BECK, INe. 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 I. 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 /6 t!J. day of
ifl!/~
C~~J(
,2006.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 2
Exhibit A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR ARl;WTECI' OR ENGINEER
TIllS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the S~f" 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 i).ereby 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 3;
To conduct the Project kickoff meeting.
To provide modifications to the City's landfill permit to accommodate biotech
landfill operations.
For engineering design of cells 3A-3D as a bioreactor at the City's landfill.
Task 1:
TaSk 2:
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 I "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:\Qur Documcnts\Co.trIl:l5I061RW Beck PSA.dClC
3.1 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 Projeet per ExIn'bit A:
TOTAL
$ 18,600
$ 26,900
$ 95.700
$141.200
Task 1- Project Kickoff Meeting
Task 2 - Minor Permit Modifications
Task 3 -Design ofCells3A - 3D
3.2 ADDmONAL SERVICES.
3.2.1 Compensation for Additional Services is as follows per Exhibit B:
Project Manager
Principals
Senior Engineer/ProfessionallI
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 attomey's fees and
expenses, in any way arising out ot: 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
s:\Qur DDc:urnentsICDDtractslO6lRW BecIc PSA.dClC
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, officeis and
employees, for any such claims or damages and injuries caused by Owner's negligent acts, errors or .
omissions.
SECllON 5
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement includes this executed agreement and the following documents all of which are
attached hereto and made a part bereofby reference as iffully set forth herein:
1. City of Denton General Conditions to Agreement for Architectural or Engineering
Services.
2. Exhibit A - Scope of Services
'f.
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.
OWNER:
CITY OF DENTON
BY 1bJM~~
HOWARDMARTlN
IN1ERIM CITY MANAGER
A1TEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY~~I~' \In Q1uu-,
Page 3
S:\OJ.r Documents\CODtract!I~W Beck PSAdoc
APPROVED As TO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
BY ItJIIIdf
.-
~.~ CINDYMARIEPICKA
? HOTARYPUlILlC-MINNESOI'A
~ MYCXM~EXFHS1~O
,,.,
WITNESS:
I,
BY: t~ /ll~ I!c/Cq
S:101U Doc.....1SIContIulS\06\RW BeeI: PSAdoc
Page 4
DESIGN FIRM
BY: ~f-1tt/
Finn's Officer/Represe
'ViLU (J
'(2 V 11u1e. 0.-c
CITY OF DENTON
GENERALCONDmONS
TO
AGlIEEMENT FOR ARCIII1'ECTVRAL OR. ENGINEERING SERVICES
AR'\"IClE L ARcmn:cr OR ENGINEER'S III'.SPONSIIIIUrlI:s
1.1 The An:hite<:t or Enginocr'. services coosist of_ scsvices fur 1110 Project (as defined iD Ibe agroemenl (1be"Agrccmmt") aDd proposal (1be "i'roposar') 10 which _
GcnetaJ CoIlditio.. ... atlached) pcrlinmcd by the An:hi1lx:t or EnlIiDeer(hereiDder called III. ~ -al") or Design Professional's ~ Illd conauIWm as
..~ iD Anicles 21lld 3 of these General CouclitlOllS as modiIitd bytheAgJe<matt Illd ~ (Ibe "Services").
1.2 ibe Design Profcssicaal wiD perfunn aD Services aa au ~I 001I_" Ibe...,..nmg pro_ _ coeaisten.with1l1o leYd of""" llItd sId1I ordinariJy
~ised by D1OO1beIll ofllle oame profbsioo CIU'lOlIl!y pncliciog iD the oame locality uodcr similar eooditloas, includiDg _Ie, iDformecljudgmems and prompIlimeIy
acti.... (the "ilegJae of Caro"). The Services shall be perfonoed as expeditiously as is coosista1lwith1be IlegRe of ear. I1CCCSSa1y fur the 0Jdaly progress of the Project.
UpoQ "'Iuest of the Owner, the DesignProlOssiooaJ shall submit fur1be Own.... ~. _. for IIIe ""fi>,__ ofllle _ which moy be SlljuslOd as the Plqjoc:t
proceeds, llItd shall iDcIude aDo_ fur periods of time "'11Im fur the 0wnlI'. miew aDd fur approval of submissloas by autIrorilies havlngjurisdiotioo .....1IIe Proj....
Time limits established by this - and IpplOVed by the Owner shall DOt, 0lrDept for reasoaable cauae, be exceeded by the Design Professional or Owner, aod auy
adjuslmenls., this scI1eduIe shall be IIlII1uaIIy acceplable., botb porties.
ARTI<LE 2 SCOPE OF BASIC SERVICES
:1.1 BASIC SERVICES DEFINED The Design Proli:ssiollsJ', Bask Sorvices COllSist of_ d..cribed iD Soc:ti.... 2.211uougb 2.6 of these General CeoditlOllS ood iDelude
withGutlimitation tulTllllll sIrul:IuIaI,civil, _il:aI aDd eJocIrica1 ~ smicesllldonyolhereogineering smicesl1CCCSSa1y" produoeacomplete Illd_ set of
C.._ Oocumalos, as described by ood roquimI in Section 2.4. The Basic _ may be modified by Ibe ~
2.2 SOIEMATICDESlGNPIIASE
2.2.J Th. Design Proli:ssiona~ iD ron~_ with the Owner, sbsIl _op . wriuon _ for IIIe Projoc:t ., _ Own.... needs and ., establish the
r<quiremalls fur the Proj....
2.2.2 The Design Proli:ssinnal shall provide. preIiminaJy eva1oation oflbe 0wnlI'. _ cooslIUcIion schedule and c:oosttuction budget "'Iuiremalts, eacb iD
Ierms of the other, sub]oc:t., the limitations set fortb iD Subsoc:tioo 5.2.1.
2.2.3 Th. Design ProkssiOllll! shall review withlhe Owner aItemotiva approacb.. 10 design IUd consuuction of1be ProjecL
:I.2A Based onllle IIlII1uaIIy ageed-upon program, _Ie IUd COIISIluCtion budget "'Ioiremalts, the Design ProfessiOllll! sban prepatt. fur approval by lbo Owner.
Scb_ Design 00cumal1S COIlSisting of dJawinss and oIber doc:uments ilIostmling lbo .ad. and rdatioosbip of Project c:cmpc>na1IS. The Scberoalic Design &baD
coDlemplatc compliaocc with oil applicable laws, _ onIinanoes, codos IUd rosuIations.
:us The Design ProIi:ssiolls1 shall submit., Ibe Owner a p1diminary detailed _ ofConsbuclion Cost based 00 cuncnt ..... volwnc or other unit costs IUd
whicb indicates the cost of each category of work involYM in CODStructing the Project and establishes an elapsed time factor fur the period of time from the
commencemcnc to the completion of construction. -
:l.3 DF&1GNDEVELOPMENTPIIASE
:1.3.1 Based on the approwd Sc:bematil: Design Documonls IUd ony Sllj_ authorized by 1be Owner in lb. _ sd1edule or _ budget, lbo Design
Proli:ssional .baD pr<pe>e fur approval by lbo Owner. Design Devdupmcot Oocumalts ocmsisliJJJl of dJawiDss and oilier doc:ument:i ., fix and "-ibc Ihe .ize and
character of the Projcd: as to 8Id1itcctura1, struc:tuIal. ~Ju...;""J and electrical systems. materials and audt othw elements ItS may be appropriate, which sha11 comply
wilh oil applicabl. laws, .....,.., onIioaoces, codes and tOgu1atioos. Notwid1standiDg Owner'. approval of the documaUs, Design ProIi:ssiolls1 -" that Ihe
Doc:umeo1s and specilicatioos wiD be _ and ad~ 10 fidfin the _ ofllle Project.
2.J.2 Th. Design Prof...ionai &baD advise III. Ownerofony ~., the p1diminary estimate of Construction Cost 10 a fio1her De1ailed SlalaDent as described
in Section 2.2.5. .
2.4 doNSTRucnON DOCUMEN1'S PHASE
2.4.l Based 00 111. IpplOVed D<oign Development Oocumalts and auy fiuther Sllj_ iD Ibe scope or qualily of !be Project or in !be COIISttUCIioo budget
authorized by IIIe Owner, 111. D<oign Professional &baD prepare, for approval by the Owner, Constzuction 00cumal1S COllSistiDg of Drawings and Specifications.-g
forth iD delaiI toqUiJomeoIs for the _em of the Project, which &baD oomply with aD appllcabl.1aws, statutes, onIinances, cod.. and ~s.
2A.2 Th. Design Professional shall assist Ibe Owner iD Ibe __ of lb. oeoessary bidding or proauamatt _on, bidding or procutemeIIl furms, the
CoIlditio.. of the _ and the funn ofAsr<emeoI......... the OwnerIUd_.
2.4.3 The Desigo Professional shall advise 111. Owner ofony Sllj_1O pmoIous p1diminary _ ofCoostruction Cost indicated by chaoges iD "'I_Is
or 8eom.I_ eooditlons
2AA The Design ProfessiOllll! shall assist \be Owner in _.. with the Own.... responsibility fur flIJog _ "'Iuiled fur IIIe approval of gowmroeotol
aulhoritlesbaviagjurisdictioo .....!bePrqject.
:z.s CoNsmtlCrlONCONI1IACTPRllaJREMENT
2.5.1 The Design Protiosional. fuIIowiug IIIe OwnlI's ~ oflbo CooslrucIion 00cumalIs and ofllle """" pIdimlnary _ ........ ofConatruction Cost,
shall assist IIIe Owner iD plUCW'ing. _........ fur the Projoc:t IIuougb ony _ melIlod that 1a legally applicable., lb. Project iocIudiDg_
S:\Our Documents\CODtracts\06\R.WBeck PSAdoc
Page 5
limitation. the competitive scaled bidding process. Although the Owncrwill oonsider the advice oftbc Design ProfessiOlUlI. the award oftbc consbuCtion 00DtraCt is in
the sole discmioo of the Owner.
2.S.2 Iflhe eoostru<:tiOll_ amouot for Ihe Plqj... _1be tolal eoostru<:tiOlloost oflhe l'rQIectas set forth iD Ibe approvccl IleWJed - ofl'n>babl.
CoosoucIiOll Costs of th. I'n>ject submitted by lhe Design Professi~ Ib", Ibe Design Proli:ssional, at its sole cost aocI expense. wiD revise the ConstructiOll
Documc:rrts as may be required by tbeOwncrto n:duce or modifY the quantity or quality oftbc work so dta1the loIal consuuc::tion COSIaftbe Project will not exceed
the tolal_ cost set fiuth in lbe IpplOVed llelaiIed Statema1t of Probable CoosoucIion CotIs.
2.6 CONSTRUcnoNPIIASE -ADM1NISTllATION OFTBE CONSTRucnoN CONTRACT
:1.6.1 The Design ProfessiamJ's responsibility to provide Basic Servic:cs for the Construction Phase under 1his Agreement commcnccs with the award af1he Contmct
fur Construetion IUd 1erIIlinates at the issuauee to the Owner oflbe fioo1 C<rtificate for Payment, wiess _ uocIerlhe teims ofSabsoc:tioo 83.2.
2.6.2 The Design Proli:sslonal shall provide cIaIsi1ed acIministndion oflhe Coolnlct for Coostruotion as set fortb below. For design professionolss Ihe acIroinlstratio
shsD also be iD _ wiJb AlA documeol A201, Generol ConditlOIlS of the Controot for CoasIJuclioo, cunart .. of Ihe cIsta of th. Ag7eement .. moy be
amended by the City ofDeaIOO opeciaI coodilions, UD!ess otherwise provicIecI in the ~l For mgineers 1be aclministmtiOll sball also be in _ with the
S1ancIerd Specifications for Public Works CollS1lUOlion by the Nortb CcntraI Texas Council of (loveromenls, 0lUI0Ill as of Ibe cIsta of the AgreemeoI, naless otherwise
plOvided iD the AgrMnenl
%.6.3 Coostructioo Phase duties. rcspollSfbilities and limi1atiolJS of authority of the Design Professional shall not be rcstricIcd. modified or cxtc:odod withQUt written
agreement oflhe Owner aocI Design ProIi:ssiOllll!.
i
2.6.4 The Design Proli:ssinnal sbaIJ be a __ ofaocl sbsD advise aocI consult with the Owner (I) during eonstruelioo. and (2)" the OwnlI's _00 from
time to time during 1bc corrccIian. or wmm1y period described in the Conttact for Construction. The Design Professional shall have authority 10 ad on behalf of 1he
Owner only to Ihe exteot provicIecI iD Ihe Ag7eemen1 aocI tbes. 0eaeraI Conditions, unless otherwise roodified by written iDsInunent
2.6.S The Design ProIi:ssiono1 shsD observe the 00II_ silo at least OlIO time a wedc, whRe consttucIiOll b in progress. aocIas _Iy neeessery wltUe
_ is DOt in progress, 10 become familiar with the progress and quality oflhe work completed and to ddcnnine iflhe work is being pc:rfonned in a manner
iocIicoting tIW Ibe _ wba1 completed wiD be in accoRlaoc:o with Ihe Con...,t Docuroents. Design Profeasional shall provide Owner a writtenlOpOFl subsequeot to
each OIHitc visit. On the basis of on~silc obsc:rvatiaPS the Design Professional shall keep 1he Owner informed of1hc progress and quality of the work. and JhaIl
exercise d1e Ocgrce of Caro and diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the Owner any observable defects or deficiencies in the work of Coob8ctOr or any
SObc:ontnl<tolS. The Desigo Profbsiooo1 represenls tbat he wiD fullow Degree ofear. in performing aU _ uocIerthe Apemeol Th. Design ProIi:ssinool shall
promptly correet sny c1efi:etive designs or specifications foroished by the Design Professlonol at no cost to the Owner. Th. Owoe<'s applOvaI, .,.,.."...."'. use of or
payment for aU or any part of1he Design Professional's Services hereunder or of the Project itself shall in no way after the Design Professional's obligations or the
Owner\i rigb~ hereoocler.
2.6.6 The Design Professiorod sbsD not beve eontroI over or eharge of aocI sball not be respoOJtble for c:ooslnIctioo means, _ tecIrnlqries, scqu..... or
procedures, or for safely peeautions aocI programs in comreetioo withlbe __ The Desigo ProfessiDoal shsD not be _ible for the Coiuraetor's sclredu1es or
failure to cany out the \Writ in accordance with the Contract Documcats cxa:pt. insofir as such &ilu~ may result from Design. Professiooal's negUgc:nt acts or omis-
sions. The Design Professional shall DOl have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the ContracIor. SubcontnK:tors. or their agents or anpIoyces.. or of any
other pcnons pedbmring portions of the work.
1.6.? The Design Professional sball at ail limes have access to the work wherever it is in preparation or progrt:SS.
16JI Except as may otherwise be provided in 1hc Conbact Documents or when direct communications have botn spc:cially auIhorl1.cd. the Owner and Cootrad<<
shall eommuoicaklluougb th. Design Professional. Coromunieation. by aocI with the Design Professinnals """"""'" shall be IIln>qh tba Design Profi:ssioool.
2.&.9 Based OIlth. Design Professionol'. 0_ at Ihe site of the _ aocI evaluations oflhe ControcIor's Applieatioos.fur Payroee~ lite Design Professional
sball review and cc:rtiiY the amounts due the Contntl;;tor.
2.6.10 Th. Design Professional's oertificatioo forpayment shsD constl1ute a _IrIIiOllto Ibe Owner, basedOll1he Design Professional ~ obseMrti_ at Ibe she as
provided in Sobsaction 2.6.5 aocI 0Il1he cIaIs comprising Ibe Coo1raetOI's Applieatioo for Paymeo~ tIW the work has progressed ., the point incIieated aocI tbat Ihe
quality ofthc Work is in acconlancc with the Contract Docu.tnc:nts. The foregoing representations are subject to minor deviations fiomthe Contract Documents co~
reelable prior 10 complclion and to spcclfic qualifications expn:sscd by the Design Professional. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment sbaIl fi.uthcr ClX)DStitute a
representation that the ContraCtor is cotided to payment in the tuI1OUld: certified. However. the issuance ofa Ccrtifiartc for Payment shall not be a representation that
th. Design ProfessiOllll! has (1) reviewed eonstruelioo means. _ tecIrnlqries. seq...... or proeedures. or (2) lIJClIUined bow or for what _sethe ContraeIor
has used mooey previously paid 00 rreeouol of the Coo"",, Sum. .
2.6.11 The Design Prokssionol sbaII beve Ihe responaibility aocI autbority to reject _ whieb does not confunn 10 the ContnlOl Doeumeols. Wbeeever th. Design
I'n>li:ssionol eonsicIers k.iccessary or aclvisuble for lmp_ oflhe inteot oflhe ConIJael ~ the Desigo I'n>fessiooal wiD baw autbority to require
sdditlOllll! lnspeedon or testing of the _ iD sec:onlaoee with lbe provisions of th. Connael Doeumeots. wbelber or not iueb Work is 1ibrieated. instsIlad or
complelcd. However. nciIhc:r this authcriIy of the Design Professional nor I decision made in good &ith eidtcr to exercise or not cxacisc sudt authority shan give rise
to a duty or responsibility of the Design Proli:ssiollsJ., tho ConlIaetor, SubcooIracIors, material aocI equipmeot suppliers, llleir a_ or _Ioyees or otber_
performing portions of the """"
2.6.12 The Design l'loft:ssionol sbsD review ud approve or talc. other appropriate aetion upon ConnactoJ's submit1ab such .. Shop Drawlnp, Produet Data aocI
~"" forlbe purpose of(l) _ing compIiaoco with applicable laws, "'bites, ordinao... aocI cocIes, aocI (2) _ingwhe1ber or not the work, wit..
complelcd. will be in compliance with the requiremetrts of1bc Contract Documents. The Design Professfonal shaU act with such ~ IIIwuyha..SS to cause DO
delay in the work or in the Construction. of the Owner or of sepimle contmcIors, while aUowing suflicicDt time in the Design ProfcssiORa1'8 professional judgment 10
pannit adeqllalc review. Review ofsoob submittals is noteoodueted fur lbe purpose of detennining Ibe _ ud eomplelaoess ofotbercldalls such as climensiOllS
and quantities or for "'......riating instructions fur instsIIation or per1brmalIee of equipmeot or _ clesignecl by the CorttnIdor, sD of wbJeb remain the
respoosibfiity of1h. c_., the _"'Iolred by Ihe eoo_ Documents. Th. Design Professinna/. miew shall not.- approval ofsafely preeautions
or, wiess otherwise specifiadly stated by the Design ProIi:ssional, of _ meaos, metbocIs, techniques, sequences or proeedoras. The Design Professionols
approvol ofa speelfic: item shall not indieateapproval ofau esserobly ofwhicllth. item is a ~l Wbao proIi:ssiono1_ ofperformanee c:haroeteristie
Page 6
S:\Oor DoeoroeolslConmu:tslO6lRW Beck PSAdoe
of materials, syst<lIm or equipmcot b roquirod by the CoaI1ool Doc:uments, the Design Professinoal sbaU be entilled \0 re1y opoe such certi1ientioa to _ that lite
materials, syst<lIm or equipmeot will moet the per(oDllaDOe criteria roquirod by Ihe eo_ Documents.
U.lJ The Design Professional .ball plq>Iln: Cbange Orders and Coosttuctioa Chaoae Dim:tives, wi1h SUpporting cIoc:umlSItatioo and data if deemed Il<<OSSsry by
tbe Design Proli:ssional as provided in SubseetioDs 3.1.1 and 3.3.3. fur 1he Ownei'. approval and exeeutioo in aecmdaoee willt tbe CoaI1ool Doc:umenls, and _
authorizt minor changes in the work: not involving an adjustment in the Contract Sum or ID extc:Dsion of the Contract Time which are not ~mt with 1he intent
oflhe Coo.... Iloeuments.
2.6.14 On _oftbe Owner. tbe Design Professinoal sbaU oooduct inspoctioes \0 ddl:nninc1be datos ofSobstuoIia1 CompJetiou and Final Completioa, and if
__ by the Owner sbaIl issue Catilieates ofSubsllntia1 and Final CompIctiou. The Design Probinnal will ROeivc and Jeview _ __and _
doeuments roquirod by the ConIn<:t for Coostructioo \0 be _loci by !be Cootraetor and sbaU issue oliual __ fur Payment open oompliarJce willt tbe
rcquircmcols aflbc Conuact 'nnro!.1nIP.nh! .
2.6.15 The Design Professional sbaU intapret and provide n:oommendatioas OIl matters conceroing performanee oftbe Owner and eam.ctoruoderthe__
of the Coomlet Documents on _ ""!uesl of eilher tbe Owner or Cootraetor. The Design Pn>fessiooafs _ \0 such ~ sbaU be made wiJb reasooabIe
..01........ and wiJbin 11II)' timo Iimil> ogroed upoo.
2.6.16 IIlterp_oas and d",isioas of the Design Professinoal ohaIl be eonsistent with Ihe inten, ofand RlOSOlllIbly inferable from lite Cootraet Documenu and sbaU
be in writing or in the form of dnLwings. When making such in'~1IS and initial decisions, the Design Pn>bional sbaU Clldeavor to -.re IiJ1hfuI performanee
by bolh Owner and C_. and sbaII not be liable fur.....1Is or irJtel)lmations or decisions so _coed in good fiIi1h in _ willt an lite provisions oflltb
Agrcemcut and in the ab6cncc ofn~gJ1r-
2.6.17 The Design Professinoal ohaIl...der written decisions within 0 _Ie timo 00 aU c1airns, dispoko or 0Jber matters in question _ lite Owoer and
Coo_ reJating \0 the......... or pogress of the _.. provided in lite eoo_ Documents,
2.6.18 The Design Probioaal (I) sball render servkcs uoder the Agreern<stt in IlOOOll!aueo willt the Degree ofCaro; (2) willreirnhune lite Owner for aU damages
Caused by lite detective llesigns 1he Desipl Prof<ssional_; and (3) by aeIcnowkdging payment by 1he Owner of any fees due, ohaIl DOl be released ftom 11II)'
rigbu tbe Owner may _ under the Agreern<stt or diminish 11II)' of the Desigp Profilssional's obligations lhereuoder.
2.6.19 The Desipl Professinoal sbaU provide lb. 0Ml<< with filur.... of~.ible ptinls .bowing an signifiamt c:Iuu1gos 10 tbe c-tru<tioa Doeoroents during
lhe Cooslroelion Phase.
ARnCLE3 ADDmoNALSERVICES
3.1 GENEIlAL
J.1.1 The servkcs de.aibed in this Article 3 Ire not ineloded in Basic Services unless so identified in the Agreemen, or Proposal, and 1hey sbaU be paid for by tbe
Owner IS provided in tbe Agreement, in sdditioo \0 the eompcosation for IIasic Servi.... The _ desaibed uoder Sections 3.2 and 3.4 sbaU only be provided if
au1horiml or ooofirmed In writing by !be Owner. Ifservioes d...,ibed onder Coolingent AdditiooalServiees in Sectioo 3.3 ere roquirod due \0 eiremnmneea beyond
the Design _s control, 1he Design Profilssi...l sball noIi1Y Ibe Owner in writing and sbsU not -~ such additioaal servkcs 1lIlliI ~ ="" written
approval from 1he Owner \0 prooeed. If the Owner indieatea in writing 1hat on or part of.ucl1 Cootingerd AddidoaalServiees ere DOl required, 1he Design Probional
sbaU be.. no obligatioo \0 provide lhose services. Owner will be responsible fur compensating lite Design Pn>fessional fur Cootingent Additional Servicea oaly if
1hey ere not required due to lhe negligen<e or limn of Design Profossions1.
J.2 PRO.1ECT IlEPRESENTAnON BEYOND BASIC SERVICES
3.2.1 If more extensive l'qIlCSClltaUou II the site than is described in Sub$ecti0ll 2.6.5 is required. the Design Protasioaal shall provide one: or more Projcet
Represenlatives \0 assist in canying oct such addilionaI on-site """"nsibUiliea.
3.12 Project Represenlatives sbaU be selected, employed and _ by lite Design Professional, and lbe Design Prof<ssional sbaU be eompeasated 1berefor as
aireed by lhe Owner and Design _iooal.
J.3 CoNTINGENT ADDmONALSERVICES
3.3.1 ~J'I1tltCrisI revi!1ons in Drawings. Specifications or other documc:uts when such JCYisionsare:
I. _t with approva1s or _os p""iousIy giveo by the Owner. irn:Inding revisions road. necessary by nd~ in the Owna'.
prognun or Project bIIdget;
2. rcquimd by the c::nactmeD.t or revision of codes. laws Of qulations subscquenllo the ptqJIU81ion of such docmncnts. or
3. ductodw1gcs requircdasarcsultottbeOwoer'a &ilure to rmdCl'dccisioo in a Iimelymannor.
J.J.2 Providing services roquirod beawsc of signilicant ebanges in the l'nliect inehldin& bot not limited to,...... quality. ~Iexity. ortbe Owna'. scbedule, except
jj,.. servioes ""luired uncia Sobsection 2.5.2.
3.3.3 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and other documen1ation and sopporting d8la. and providinsolher servkcs in 0lllIIIecli0n wiJb Chaoae Orders and
Conslnletioo Cbange Directives.
3.1A Providing _........ing "'I"~'" of_ damaged by fire or 0Jber cause during 0llIIStnIcli0n, and liIlnisblng servkcs ""l_ired in eonneclion wilh
lite rep1s=rt ofsueb_.
J.J.5 Providing servkcs made neeessary by the _ oflhe CoolJol:\Or. by major defeets or _ieoeks in lite _ of the Cootractor. or by mil... ofperformance
of eilhertheOwneror ~uoder 1he Coo.... furCooslruetinn.
S:\Our Documents\Contracts\06\RW Beck PSA.doc
Page 7
3.3.6 Providing sc:nices in evaluating an extalsivc nwnber of c~ submitted by Ihc Contnctor or others in connecdon with 1ho \WIlk.
3.3.7 Providing services in eonneetiOllwilb. public bearin& _ proceeding or legal proceodins...... _ the DesiBD ProfilssiooaJ i. palIy thereto.
13.8 Providing services in additioo to those required by Article 2 fur preparing cIoemnents for ~ _to or seqoeotiaI bids or providins lIOll'ices in connec:tio.
with bidding or constnlCtion prior to the complctioo oftbe Coll$lIU.etion Documents Phase.
J.J.9 Notwilbs1andins snyIhing contained in the Agreement. Proposal or Ib... ClcnODl1 Conditions 10 tbe <OIItmIY, all scrvicas dcsaibed in Ibis ArtlcI. 3 that are
eansecI or_ in whole or in part due 10 the negligent.act or omission of the Desip Prof_ sbaII be perfuoned by the Desip Professincal.. a part of the
Basic Services under the Agreement wilb DO additiooaJ c:ompaISOlioo abOV< and beyoad the OOIllpwoodlion due tho DesiBD Professiona1 fur the Basic Services. The
intem:DiBg orc:onc:urrcnt negligence oftbe Ownc:r9haD Dot limit the Design Professional', obligations undertlris Subsection 3.3.9.
J.4 OmONALADDmoNALSERVlCES
3.4.1 Providing fioaneia1 teasibiIi\y or othe< spceial studies.
J.4.2 Providing p\aooing ~.~ evsIuations or oompanllivestudies ofprospcctivo .ites.
J.4.2 Providing spceial surveys, eoviroomenla1 studies and submissions required fur approvIJ. of g_ sutborities or otbers having jurisdiction over the
Projocc.
3M Providins services "'sri.. to futme liIoilities, systems and equipment
3.A.5 Providing services to iavestigate existing conditions or !acnities orto make measured drawings thereot:
3.4.6 Providins services to verilY the _ of drawings or other iufunnation lionisbed by 1he Owner.
3A. 7 Providing coonIinalioo of construetion perfuoned by separate contmttors or by the Owncl"s own forces and coordination of services required in connection with
_ porfonncd and equipment supplied bytbe Owner.
3.0 Providing deOluled qlUllllity.urv<yS or inveotories oflDlllOria1, equipmalt and labor.
3.4.9 Providing analyses of opeming sod _ ousts.
3.4JO Making invcIrigati.... inventories of 1IIlIlOriaI. or equipment, or valuations and delailod spplBisa1s of existing lilcilities.
J.4.12 Providing assistance in the utiliutioo of equipmalt or S)'5f<lIm such .. testing, adjusting and balancing. preparstioo of opel3lioo and main-... manuals,
. Imining personnel for operatioo and maiotmn.. and oonsubatioo doting opaation.
.M13 Providing intaiot design and similu services requimI for or in COttDCCtion with the selection. procumncot or instalIaIion offinnitl.tJ'e.1Umishings and related
equipment.
3.A.14 Providing services other than .. provided in Seeti0ll2.6.4, aJler _10 theOwuer of1he final CeIlifi<:ste for Payment and expiration of lb. Wsnaoty
period oflhe Coo1ract for Construction.
3.4.1~ Providing services ofeoosuJtants fur other than aJdUteebUaI,.iviI, _~ mocbaoiad and .Iectriad cngineerins pOIlioos of lb. Project pnMded as. part of
BasicServicc:s.
3..." ProYidins l1li)' other services DOt olherwise incIudcd in this Agreement or Dot customarily fiuoisbod in ae<oRIanoe with generally a=pted -
pt>Clice.
3.4.17 Propating a set of reproducible ....rd dmwings in edditioo 10 those required by Subsectioo 2.6.19, sbowins sigui1icant obanges in the worlc msde during c0n-
struction based 00 marked-up ptinIs, d..wings and other _ fummed by Ib.eon....or to tho DesiBD Prof=iona1.
J.4.18 N_.....ing snythins coolained in the Agreemoot Proposal or tbese lJenODlI CooditiOll.1o tbe eootIDry, all services deserlbed in lbis Article 3 that....
caused or DCaS.'litated in whole or in part due to the negligent act or omission oflbe Design Professional shall be pcrforr:ned by the Design Professional as a part of the
Basic Services under the Agreement with no additional compeaSlflon above and bclyond 1he ~n due th~ ~ Professional for the Basic Services. The
intervening or.......... negIig""'" of the o-r shan not limit the Desip Professional'. obligations under this Subseetino 3.4.18.
ARlTI<LE 4 0WNE1l'S RESPONSIBlLI11ES
4.1 The Owner .ball ooosult with the DesiBD Professloaal regaoIing requirements for tbe Project including (I) the Owner. objeeti_ (2) o:bodu1e and dcsip
......ints and eriteria, includins space req.ircmou1s and ~_"ip<, flexibility, oxpeodabiJ~, specisI oquipmtnt systems and site requirements, .. mora spec~
fiadlydesoribed in Su_22.1.
4.2 lb. Owner sbaII eslablisb and updare an overall budget fur the PrqjecS, including the CoustruotiOll Cost, lb. Ownd. other ousts and _I. cooliogcncies
_to s1lofthese COSIS. .
4.3 Ifrequestcd by the DesiBD Prol<ssional, tho o-r sba1Ilbmish ovideooe that financial UTlIIl8"DOIlls ba.. been made to fulfill tbe Owud. obligatioos uodertbis
~
4.4 The Owner shall desIgoate a ...,........n. sutIulrI20d to act OIl lb. Ownd. _with ...po:< to the Project The Owuer or sucl1 autborizod """""""tMo sItaIl
reod<< do:isions in . timely manner pertaining to documents submilted by the Desip Proli:ssioaaI in order to avoid _ delay In lb. orderly and sequeutis!
progrcs5 oflhe Design ProfissioDal'a services.
Page 8
S;lOor DooumeotslContractslO6\RW Beclc PSAdoc
4.5 Wbme applicable, the Owner ohaII fumish SUNe)1 deacribiogpbylical characteristics legal_ aDd utiIiIy _ filI'1be.ite oflbe Project, and a wri...
legal deseripIion oftbe site. The aurveys aDd legal infusmation ohaII incill<le, as applieallle, gradeo aDd lines of _ alleys, pa_ aDd a<ljoining property and
S1rUClUlCS; 8<lj....t dnlinage; ~, restrictions, -15, eoc""""'-" mning. doed restrictions, boundaries aDd ........ of lite site; Iocalions,
dimensions aDd .-say dala panaining to exisIing buildings, _lmprovenu:nIlI aDd trees; and information coooeming available D1iIity scrvioes and lines, both
public aDd privato, aIme and below gmdc, including invotts and depths. AI11be information 00 the survey ohaII be_ to a project benclmuuk.
U Where applicable, the Ovmor shall fumish the _ of goocteclml"" ...ginaas wbcst such..rnocs "'Rq_ by the DesiBn I'tt>bional, Such _ may
include bot... not limited 10 teSI borinss. teSI pils. _ons of..D bearing val.... pen:olatlon -. ova1uaIioos ofbazardous -.ria1s, grcond llOIIOSion and ~
sistivity teSts, including necessary operations for anticipating sulMoD conditions, with _ns aDd appropriatepro1Cssionall<CODllDaldations.
4.6.1 Th. Owner ohaII fipnisb Ibe services of_ COlISlIItants v.l1a1 such services... _If requiRd by the _ of1be Project aDd... roqu<slod by lite Design
ProfessicnaI aDd ... not _od by Ibe Desil!l1 Prolbsional.. put of its Basic Sesvi... or Additlona1 Services.
4.7 Wbcll oct a put of lb. Additional Servicos, the Own" sbaIl fumish _, mocbanicaI, chemical, air and ....... ponution teSts, ..... ofbaDnlons 1IIlItcriaI~
and oIber IabcnlOty and ...vironmenllllteSts, inspections and reports RqUiRd by law orth. eon_ Dcc:mnoots.
4.8 Tb.o.wer sball foroisb aD IcgaI. accoun1ing and inswanoc counseling services as may be necessary at any time for the Proj<<:t, including auditing services !be
Ovmor may n:quile to verilY lb. Conbaetets Applicalions lOr Payment or to asocrtain bow or for what pwposes the Conlnwtor bas used 1b.1I1Oll<)' paid by or on
behalfof!beOwner.
43 The services, informalion. aurveys and repons requiRd by Owner und" Sections 4.5 tbroogh 4.8 shall be tuniishod al1be o.men expanse, aDd Ibe Desil!l1
Professional sI1aIl be _ 10 rely opon lb. _ aDd eornpletcnoss 1ben:ofin the _ ofany ncg\igonoc on Ibe put of the Design Professional
4.10 The Owner shall give prompt written noJioc to 1be Design Professional if1be Owner becomes awue ofany muh or_ in the Project orllOllCOllforman wiIb
!be Cootnct Dncomenls.
4.11 Design Professionel shall propose language for _ or ce:tifications to be reqoestod of lb. Design Professionel or Design Professilllllll's ccnsoI1anls and
shall submit such to the O\\mr for ~view and approwI at 1cast fourtc:eD (14) days prior to ccccution, The: Owner agRCS not to request certiiicatioos that ~ 'RlQ.uire
knowlod&e or services ~ 1be scope of lb. Agreement
ARTICLE ~ CONSTRUcnON COST
5.t C01'o'8rRucnON COST DEFINED
5.1.1 The Coostroctioo Cost shaD be the tote1 CClIlt or estimaIod cost to the Owner of ell demenlS of 1be Project designed or specified by the Design Professional.
5.1.2 The Conslloclioo Cost ohaII inclod. the cost at ClUICIlt madcet ralos oflabor aDd matirials fornisbod by the Owner aDd equipment designed, speciliod, _ or
specially provided fur by the DesiBn Prolbs~ pins. _Ie aIlowanoc fur the Cootractor's ovesbead and profit. In addition. a roasonable ellowanoc for con-
tin_ies shall be inclodod for madcet ocnditioos alllte time ofbidding and for changes in 1be work during constroction.
5.1.3 Constnletion Cost does not include the colllpalSlltion of1be Desil!l1 Professional and Design Professiooal's consollBnts, lb. costs of the land. rigbl!-<>f-\VBY,
financing aT other oosts which are the responsibility of the Owner as provided. in Article -4.
5.2 RESPONSIBILlTYFOR CONSTRUcnON COST
5.2.t EvaIoalions of lb. Owneo'. Project bodget, ptdiminsIy _ of eon_oo Cost aDd doteilcd _ of Cousouctio. Cost prepezeiI by 1be DesiBn
Professional rqnseut the Design Probsioaal's bestjudgmtnt IS a design probsicmal &miliar with the construCtion industJy. It is rccognizcd. howcva-, duIt neither
the Design ProfcssiooaJ nor Ibc Owner has com! over the cost of labor. materials or equipmcct. over the Contractor's mc:thods of dc:tcnnini:ng bid prices. or over
competitive bidding or madcet conditions. Accordingly, lb. Design Prolbsional caooot and does not wamurt or rqnesall that bids or cost proposals will not _
from the Owner's Project hodge< or from any _ ofConsttuetion Cost or evaluation pepued or agreed to by 1be Dcsil!l1 PlofessionaJ.
5.2.2 No fixed limit of Constnletion Cost shaD be eslab1isbod as a condition of lb. Agnoemenl by lite foroisbin& proponaI Ol_lishAtent of a Project hodget. onless
such fixed limit bas been agreed opon in writing and signed by Ibe parties IbCRlO. If such a fixed limit has boen es1abIishod, Ibe Design Professional shaD be pennitted
10 include ocoting"",ies fur design, bidding and prloc escalation. to detormine what materials, equipment. compoIteIlI systemS and types of cooslrU<tion ... to be
included io the Contract Documents, 10 make reasonable adjustments in the scope of1bc Project and to inchJde in the Cmtr3ct Documents Iltemate bids 10 a4just the
Construction Cost to1he fixed limit Fixed limits. ifany. sba11 be incn:ucd in the IIllOWlt oran iacn::ase in tbeContract Sum oocuning atle:r exccutionofthe ContnlCt
for ConstnIction.
5.2.3 If 1be _ Pbase has nOt cotlllIlCOCOd witbin 90 days after the Design Professional submits Ibe Construction Doc:umonts 10 1be Owoer, any Project
hodSOl or _limit ofConslruction Cost shell be adjusl<d to..fIeet changes in Ibe genOOlllevel ofpriocs in lb. constJuction indostty _Ibo date of_ion
of the Constnx:tion Documents to the Owner and the date on which proposals are sought.
;
ARTICLE 6 OWNERSIIIP AND USE OF 1lOC1JMENTS
6.l :The Drawings, Specifications and oIber dccomarts pepued by the Design ProfessiooallOr Ibis Project ... instnmteols of lb. Design Professional', scrvioc aDd shaD
become the property of the Owner UPOD termination or completion of 1I1e Agnoement The Design. Professional is eutit1ed to retain copies of all IIUcb documeDts. Such
dcccinculs ... ioteadod only be applicable to Ibis Project and Qwna's .... of such dccomarts in other JIl'lliocts ohaII be al Owner's ..Ie risI: and expense. In the event !be
Ownlo uses any oflbe information or..-ials devoIopod JlOISllllIlt to Ibe Agreemont in anotbor project or for oth" PUIposes tbae... specifiod in Ibe Apement. !be DesiBn
Profi;ssional is reIeasod from any and ell liability mating to lbelr... in that "'*'"
6.2 Submission or distribution of docwnaols to meet ofIicial togUlalmy ncquiJomenIS or for simiIsr ptIJpoSCS in connectioa with Ibe Project is not to be constnIod u pub1icetion
in deiosation of lb. DesiBn Professional's _ riahIS.
S:~r Doc;wncnts\Corrtracts\06\R.W Beck PSA.doc
Page 9
ARTICLE 7 TERMINATION, SIJSI'ENSION ORABANDONMENT
7.1 'The Dcsisn ProfessinnaJ may lelmina'" the Agreem/:nI upon om"" than lbirty days writton notice obould 1I1e Owner mO rnbsamtially 10 perlOrm in aooord.... with the
_ ofthc Apement Ibrough no mull of the DnsiBn _ Owncr may ttnninate thc Apement or any phase thcrnefwith or witbout oanse upon thirty (30) days
priOr wriueD DOtioo tQ lbe Dcsign Prollaional. All _ and labor being performed under thc Agreement shall cease immodiately upon DnsiBn Profcssional'.1<lCeipt of ,uch
ootice. Befure thc aid of the thirty (30) day period, Design Professional ,hall invoioe the Owner for an wolle H satisfilctorily perfonnod prior 10 thc zooeipI of such notion. No
sm<iunt ,hall be doo fil< lost or anticipated profilS. All plans, field survoyo, and nthet dala _ 10 thc Project shall become ptqlO<1Y of thc Ownet upon taminatioo of the
~ ODd sbaJJ be promptly ddi....d.. 1he Owner in al'CllSOllllbly organized form: Should Owucr subsequently _witb, new Desisn ProfessiooaJ for onntinuation
of sirvices on thc Proj<<:t, Dcsisn ProfessionallbaIl oooperate in providing information.
7.2 : If thc Project is suspendod by thc Owner for moro 1han 30 oonsecuIive de~ thc Dcsign Professional _ be oompansatod for _ices satisfilctorily pcrl'onnod prior 10
notice of sucb suspension. Wbeo thc Project is resumed, the Dcsisn Professinnal' oompensatioo sbaD be equilably &<ljustod .. pmidc for c:xpeoses incumsl in lbe interruption
andmumption of the Design Professional', senioes.
7.3 : The Agreement may be lelminalod by lbe Owner upon not Ies, tIwi sevm days written ootioo 10 the Dcsisn Professional in the _ dtal thc Project is pcmmncntly
.baildoocd. If the Project is abandoned by the Owner fur more 1han 90 OOlISC<lltive days, the Dcsign Professional or lbo Owner _laminate the Agreem/:nI by giving \Wi....
DOtiOe.
7.4 :Faihnoofthe Owner to make paymeoIS to the DnsiBn Professional forwnrl< satisfilctotily oompleted in Il:l:ClIdmu:e witb the Apement shall be ooosidmd subsIantisI non-
~ and cause fortcrtninarlon.
7.5 If the Owncr mils" make payment to Design Professional witbin thirty (30) del' of=ip! of, statement for _ propaIy and satisfilntorily perfonnod, 111. Dcsign
Professional may, upon aevon days writton IKlIice to the Owucr, suspald pcrl'nrmanoe of services under the Agn:ement
7.1> ,In the evatt of_on not thc mob ofthc Design Profrasianal, lb. Dcsisn ProfessiooaJ shall be ooaq>c:nsatod for _ propetIy and satisfildorUy performed prior 10
tc:miination.
A$CLE8 PAYMENTSTOlUEDESlGNPR0FESS10NAL
1.1 DIRECJ'PERSONNELEXPENSE
8.1.1 DiRd Personnel Expense is defined as the diRct salaries of the Design Professional's personnel engaged on the Project and the portion of the cost of their
mandatory and customary CODtttbutions and benefits related 1h~ such IS emplOyment taxes and other stahltory employee bcndits., iDsurancc, sick leave, holidays,
vscati~ pensions and simUarcontributions and bc>efits.
8.2 'REIMBtJRSABLE EXPENSES
8.2.l Reimbursable JlxpaIs<3 uo in addition to compensation for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses iocunod by lbe Dcsisn Professional and
Design Professinnal" omployceo and oonsultanIS in thc in_ of the Project, as idenlificxl in the fnOowing Clauses.
8.2.1J. ~ OftransportatiOD in ccnnection with 1he Pro~ expenses in connection with authorized out-of-town trawl; Iong-disIa:oce communications;
and fees paid for securing approwl oflll11boritios havingjurisdidioo over theProjeot.
II.2.l.2 Expense of rqnoductions (ex<ept the reproduotion of1l1e seIS of documents __ in Subsection 2.6.191 _go and bandting of Drawings.
Spec:ifications and otber dooumenlS.
8.2.1.3 Ifaulhorizod in advanoo by thc O\mer. expensc: of 0-'" wnrl< "'Iairing higher than regular.....
8.2.1.4 Expense ofreoderings, modds and mock-ups requested by thc Owner.
8.2.L5 Expense of oompntO<-oidod desisn ond dnl1ling equipment time when lIllOd in ooonection witb lb. Projent
8.2.1.1> OIherexpensesdtalaro approvod in advance in writing by thc Owner.
1.3 PAYMI:NTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SEIlVICES
1.3,1 Payments for Basic Serviocs _ be made monthly and, I>Ilere applicable, sbaJJ be in propnrtioo 10 services performed witbin each phase of service, on lbe
basis set fordt in Section 3 of lb. Agreem/:nIand thc sc:bedule ofworlc.
1.3.2 Ifandlo 1he extentdtal1he lime initially estabIishod in lbe Agreement is exceodod or CX1nOdod throogh no filnb of the DnsiBn Profcsslonal. oompens8tlon for any
services mulc:rcd during the additional period of time shall be computed in the manner set forth in Sedioo. 3 of the Agreement
8.3.3 Wbeo .0"'1'.'...,.... is basad on, _ ofConstrudioo Cost and any portions of1he Project ano deleted or nthetwise not _ oornpcnsation for
1hO.!C portions of the Projcd $baIl be payable 10 the extent services are perfonncd on those portions, in -8CC01dance with the schedule set forth in Section 3 of the
AgJ=neot bused on (1) lbe _ boos fide bid or (2) if no sucb bid or proposal is rcooivod, thc most J<CCOt prdintinllIy estimate of Constrnolion Cost or doraIlod
estimate ofConstructim Cost for such portions of the Project
8.4. PAYMI:NTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDmONAL SEIlVICES
8.4.1 Payments 00 ac:cnnnt of the Dcsisn Professional', AddiliooaJ SO<Vices and for Reimbmsable Ilxpenses shall be ..... moolbly wilbin 30 days after thc
prcsemmoo to the Owner of the Design Professional's SIatemeIlt of 5a'Viccs rendered or expenses incutm!.
8.5 ~ A YMI:NTS WI11IlIELD No dcxIuctions .ball be ..... from 111. Dcsisn Prof'essiona1', oompensation on aooount of penalty,liquidatod damages or other snms withbeld
ftorq JD\YIIICDIS to _ or on aooonnt ofthc cost ofcl1ang<s in thewnrk olher than1bose for which the Design Professinnalls JOSpOOSlbIe.
Page 10
8:1Our DocumeolSIContracts\06\RW Beck PSAdoc
8.6 iDESlGN PROFESSIONAL'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS Design Protlssicmal shall make available to 0.-.. or Owncr', aoIhorizcd 1CpROC_ JOCOrds 01
Rcinlbunable Exp<nses and cxpcoscs pcnaining to Additional Services and SCfVices pcrfunntd on !be besis of a multiple of Dinlct Petsoond E_ f.. in'J>CCtioo and
cop)iingduring regular business -. fur Ibm: ycus allcr lb. date of the finaJ C<dificalc ofPaj'lllCll~ or until any litigatioo rda1cd to the Project;, final, wbi_ da'" ;,
later;
ARTICLE' INDEMNlI'Y
9.1 iTh. Deoi8D Professional ohall indemnuy aod save a.d hold harmJcss lb. Owner and its 0l1i<crs, agents, and _Joyce. from sod against any nod a1lliabitity,
claiqu. demands. damages, losses, and expenses. including, but Qot limited to court costs and reasonable attOruey fees incuncd by the Owner, IDd including. without
limitatio~ damages for bodily and pmonal injury, death and property damage. muhing from the ncsligcDt acts or omissions of the Design ProfessioaaJ or i1s officers,
shari:holders, agents. or employees in the performance of the Agreement
9.2 Nothing herein shan be construed to create a liability to any person who is Dot I party to the Asreement. and DOtbing herein shall waive any of the parties' defenses,
both at law or equity. to any claim. cause of action. or litigation filed by anyone Dot a party to the: Agreement, including the defense ofgovermncntaI inununity. which
dcf..... arc hcr<by expressly ......cd.
ARTICLE 10 INSUKANCE During the pcdonnancc of the Services urader the Agreement. Design Professional shall maintaiD the following insurance with an
insurance company licensed or authorized to do business in the State of Tens by the State Insurance Commission or any SI1CCCSsor .seney that has a rating with Best
~ Carriers of at least 8n A. or above:
IOot.Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits afoot less than SI,ooO,ooo for eacb occurrenoc and not less than $2,000,000 in the aggrepte,
and,.nth property damage limits cfnot less than Sloo.000 for each occurrence and not less than $250.000 in the aggregate.
10..2' Automobile Liability Insurance \\lith bodily injury limits of not less than S5OO,Ooo for each ~n and not less than 5500,000 for each accidcut, and with property
damage limits ofnot less than Sloo,OOO for each accident
10.3: Worker', Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements, and: Employers' Liability lnsurance with limits of Dot less than Sl00.0oo for each
acci~ent including occupational disease.
10A:Professional Liability IDsurance with limits ofoot less Ihan $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
10.5'The Design Professional shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies 10 the Owner evidencing insurance in compliance with this Article: 10 at the time
ofthc execution of the Agreement. The General Liabilfty Bnd Automobile Liability insurance policies shall name the Owner as an additiooal insured. the Workers'
Con1pcnsation policy shall oontam a waiver of subrogation in mor oCthe Owner, and each policy shall contain a provision that such insurmce ahall Dot be caDCCIed or
modified without thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Owner and Design Professioual. In such ~ent. the: Design Professional shall. prior to the effective date ofthe
c;hange or cancellation. furnish Owner with substitute certificates of inswance meeting the requirements of this Article 10.
ARTICLE 11 M1SCXLLANEOUS PROVISIONS
11.1: The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Venue of any suit or cause of action under the AgrccmeDt ,ban lie exclusively in Denton Caunty,
TClOlS.
11.2. Th. 0.-.. and Dosign Pro_~ respectively, bind lbemsclvcs, their _.... succcsson, assigns and legal Illpreseotatives to the oIherparty 10 th~ Agreement sod to
Ihc _ SOCOCSSOlS, assigns and IcgallllplCSontatives of sucl1 other party wilb OISpect to all......... of !hi, Apement The Design Profc:ssional shall not assign its
interests in the Apement without the written consc:Dt of the Owner.
11.3; Th. Iorm Apomc1t as oscd borein inclwlcs !be coa:cutod Apemen" the I'roposaI, lbese Gcnml Conditions and cIbet _ rcfcrcnocd in Section 3 of the
~ot wbich together Illpntsalt lb. _ and ictcgratod agrccmcnt between lb. O\mcr and Design Professi_ and 8UpCIScdes all prior negotiations, rcprcscnllltion or
agrccmeots, .ither written or oral. The Agrmnent may be amended only by \Wil1cninstrumeot slgncd by both 0.-.. and Desigo Professional. Wbcu intcrproting !be
Agreement the exceuted Apement, Proposal. Ihese Oencral Conditions and. 'tho ocher attachments rcfen:accd in Section 3 of the Agreement allaU 10 the extent that is
~tlBbly pOSSIbLe be read so as to harmonize the provisions. However, should the provisions of these docmnents be in confllc1: ao Ib8t they can DOt be rcuooably barmonizc:d,
soch;clocumcots shall be given priority in Ihc fullowing onIcr:
1. The executed Agreement
2. At1acbmcnts rctemIocd in Section 3 ofth. Apemen. olber tIwi Ihc Proposal
3. These General Provisions
4. Tho Proposal
11.4, Nothing c:ontained in the Agn:emc:nt shall create a eoDtIactuaI rdationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against citber the Owner or Design
Professional.
115, Upon tcCCipl ofprior written _I 010.-.., Ihc Deoi8D Professional shall bavc the rigllt to include ..prcscnlations ufthe dcsigo of the Project, including pbotogt>ph$
of t1ie exterior and interior. among the Design Professional's promotional and professional materials. The Design Professional's materials 8baU not include Ihe Owner's
coofidontial or propric1aly informadoo if the 0.-.. bas plOVinosly advised lb. Desigo Professicmal in writing of lb. specific infutmation considmd by 1hc 0.-.. to be oonfi.
dcotial or proprictll!y. The 0.-.. shall provide plOfessiooal aodit fur the Design Professional on Ihc _ ,Ign and In lb. plOmotionalmatcriab for Ihc Project
lI.6"l Approval bytbe Owner shall not constitute, nOr be deemed II release of the responsibility and liability oflbo Design Professional. its employees., associates, agents,
subc,ontractors. and subconsu1tants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; oor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such
lC!p<lllSibUily by lb. Owner for any d.fect in lb. design or olber worl< p..parcd by lb. Dcsigo Professional, its employcos, sobenotncton, &gCIlts. and consultants.
11.'; All notices, oommunicatioas, end reports required or pmnitted under the A&t=nent sball be penonal1y delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing
lame in the United States mail to the address shown below signatuTe bloclc ou the Agreement, c;ertified mail. return receipt rcqoested. unless otherwise specified herein.
All .otices sball be dccmcd _rive opon ....ipt by tbc palty to whom socb..tice is givat, .. within tbrcc (3) days afIet mailing.
s:\Qur DoOllmcntslContrac:tslO6lRW Beck PSA.doc
Page 11
11.1 If any provision oftbe Agrcc:ment is found or deemed by a court of competentjwisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable. it shall be considered severable from the
remainder of lite Agreement and shall nol cause !be remainder to be iDvaJid or 1Ptenforceable. In such event, the parties shan reform the Agreement to tq)lace such
stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision.
11.9 The Design Professional shall comply with all federal, state. and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hcRundcr as they
may;now read or hereinafter be amended during the term. of this Agreemenl.
11.10 In performing the Services required hereunder. the Design Proftssional shall DOt di&criminate against any person 1m the basis of race. color. religion. sex,
national origin or IDcestIy. age, orphysical handicap.
11.11 The captiom of the Agreement are for informational purposes only, and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of the AgreemtDt.
Page 12
S:~r Documents\Coolraccs\06\RW Beck PSA.doc
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 descnbed will be suitable initially for leachate recirculation but adaptable to
a bioreactor when future rules (or other mechanism) allow. Certain bioreactor aspects (e.g.,
liquid amendment acceptance pIan) 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 appropri~te 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 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 the entire Landfill property, that
reflects the current excavation grades in Cells 3A and 3B. This will become the basis, for design
of the final excavation and grading. The Proj ect 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 .fcir 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 additioruiJ. liquid
amendments. In conjunction with this hydraulic evaluation, the Project Team will review the
leachate collection pipe diameter for compatibility with landfi1l 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.
~". ,
o Beck . All Righ~ Rescrval
H,w,11HK
ExHIBrr A
Subtask 2A - Hydraulic CharacterizationlLFG Collection
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 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 gcocomposite) 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 I 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 estiinates 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 28 -, Perinil Modification Request (#1)
TheProjel;t Team wHl prepare an application for a non-notice minor permit modification for the
recoIiiinended changes (Le., liner and leachate collection changes; Citizen's Drop-Offrelocation).
A draft will be presented to the City and TCEQ for review and discussion. Applicable comments
wHl be added into a fina1 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 liIier design for the Bio- Tech Landfill. This separate
submittal is reconunended 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 (j), 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 305.70(j)(1l) related to drainage control of internal run
on/run off.
. Relocation of the landfill scalehouse-Modification under 305.700)(8).
. Relocation of Site Entrance-Modification under 305.70(j)(33) as long as access traffic
patterns are not altered. Access wHl remmn from Mayhill Road, with site entrance relocated
south of the existing entry to Foster Road.
C Beck. All Rights Resorved
Agreement:
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 305.70(j)(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 3A and 38
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 38 - Complete Design Plans and Construction Documents for Cells 3A and 38
After completion of Task 2 and in conjunction with an internal Team Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QAlQC) 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 Bio-Tech Landfill Permitting at TCEQ.
This independence is based on the expectation that the construction of the liner and leachate
coJlection 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 lWproval of the final documents by the City, this
construction project would be advertised for bids.
Sublask 3C - Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Opening
The Projeci 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.
Sublask 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 atso
contact TCEQ prior to construction start, and provide them with the opportunity to attend the
pre-construction conference as weJl.
C Bock. All Rights Reserved
Agreement:
Exhibit A - Page 3
EXHIBIT A
Schedule
A schedule outlining this scope of work is provided in the attached Figure I. 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 iota! 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 3AIB area.
Table 1 - Engineering Fee Estimate
Task
1 - Project Kickoff Meeting
2 - Minor Penntt Modifications
3 - Design of Cells 3A and 3B
Total
Cost
$18,600
26,900
95,700
$141,2DD
C Bock - All Righls R<sen>cd
Agreement:
ExhibitA-Page4
...
CIl ~
...
::) :I
ell "
ir CIl
.c
u
en
c
Cl
'W
CIl
C
.tI
Cl
c
;
E
...
Q)
11.
C
0
...
c
CIl
C
-
0
>
;!::
U
.
....
Q)
...
:I
Cl
i.i:
11
11
.-
1----;
.
II
. I
Ii
11
I-=-
----;
I
I
I
1
1
I
I I
, 1
I I
I 1
I ~ I
Ii=
,W
I!i:! I
IL,
I ~ I
I ~ I
I - I
I ~ I
II ~ I
01
"'I
I": I
L:j
1 r--l
i
1
,
i
I
I
I
I I
i I
1 I I
,
I i I I
L I I I
I I I
I I I
i I r-
I
,
, I I
I _I
1
I I
I I
I
I I I I 1
, , I
I I 1
,
I I I I-
I , , I
1 ",I j
[J) de
I I
i II ~ N
Iz ':': ':':
10 00 f/.I
1_ C (I,) Q)
I-: 0 =' ::J
ic( .'" I CT CT
Iu rn " "
u:: \ .~ ! a: 0:
: is ) .s j 6 , 5
, 0' ~ i ".j:j I .'"
I "" ~ rn ro
.:::: I (IJ '.~ I .~
I.... I ..c ! ~ I ~
- I U ''''C "t:l
:! ' () I 0 0
, a:::: I == ! ~ ~
'I ~ 1 iij I.,. .,.
I l... E E
I"'I~I~ ~
O'I 8: &.
I~I- - -
1:;.ic(I'" u
IN 1
'----.) L-.J
r 1
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
r -
,
I
I
11 DC!
I 1<< ! <<-
Iml 1 :
<< ILL
Il
<<
I
1<<1
<<I
I
, I
I[]
I
I
I
i~l+
! 'I
I I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I ,
I . I
I ~ I
i I I'.
' I '
I I ;
I I ~ I
! I! I
! 1 ~
I i .E!
, '"
~;' ~ I
Q , E ! 1 C>
z I g I I 1'*
; I 0 I' I ~
~ I .g I 0
~ : g ~
u' _",""" I 2
LL. lei .~ t)
o! 0 I I ai ~ 6
I g I "'] I I g l.g ~ ~
I~l:~ ~ ! :!, 11III'il!
I ~o i 8 '~,,- i ll';,,~ L CJ) ~ ~ i ~ 8
c - C Q) :=0 0
, Qu I.g 0" I ~ i ~ 'c ~ 5 I 3 ct
u ;:2: "'C Q.l:;: I 0 0
zl'::J -OJ .- Co!" " ul-
e = -."'C ~ 0 1._ ==
z' ~ I },' ,1 ;. ! 'I' a:~ .g..~ .~
~ I 0 0 I 0 I ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ . U 0
o;:u ul '!"-I I '120
~l~ $, : ju I
I. I I , I 1 I
L'..J LJLJ :.......-..J
'0
o
."
"
0.
;:
"
'S;
e
o
w
U
I-
o
C>
O>.=:
.!: d)
- "
~ E
EO
.?~
UI-
<<'*I:
EXHIBIT B
Scope of Services Between Beck and City of Denton
City of Denton
Project Team Flnanclallnfonnatlon
Labor Category
Project Manager
Principal
Senior Engineer/Professional II
Project Engineer
Senior AnalystJProfessional
Technician
Word Processing/Administrative
Hourly Rate
$150-175
150-195
85-155
60-95
100-125
50-75
40-:75
Note:
. Rates vary basedon Individuals asslgne<lID the project; rates... for 2006
. Rates wiD be biUed at individual hoUrly direct cost at. 3.1 muffipr",.
. New pmjet13 and.ny addilionalsalVicas wi] nol be Initiated without prior City
._lIon. ,
. Labor calogorlas abov. bland personnel from R. W. Bad< and 1I1,Ir
subconsuitanls on II1Is projod.; Suliconsullanl costs will nOl be mar1<ed up on
II1lsprojatl
8:~~~~t\f:rp~outy\WCALS-l \Temp\RW Beck PSA Exhibit B.doc
III
J .
. .
I
..~,
November 15,2005
R'W1llE(l(
"
via Courier
Mr. Tom Shaw, C.P.M., Purchasing Agent
City of Denton
901-B Texas St.
Denton, TX 76209-4354
Snbjeet:
Proposal Cor Landfill Design Consnlting Services, RFSP # 3411
Dear Mr. Shaw:
R W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck), in association with Alan Environmental, Chiang, Patel & Yerqy, 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 10caUy
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:
. National Bioreactor Expertise: As demonstrat~ugb.out our proposal, members orthe 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 oC'Denton: R. W. Beck has detailed knowledge of ~fy,
having recently completed a review of its Solid Waste Operations. In anticipation1\f the City's
bioreactor project, we performed a site visit (which included the wastewater iuant), 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 ~ecirculation and bioreactors),
and landfill gas management and utilization. Kleinfelder brings specific experience in slope stability
analyses, including the evaluation of bioreactor conditions.
. Solid Waste Pennitting 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 Natoral Resource Conservation
Commission (lNRCC, 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-LTR-FlNAL2.doc
1380 Corporate Center CUlve. Suite 305 51. Paul, MN 55121 Phone (651) 994-8415 Fax 1651) 994-8396
@
~/
I
\
Tom Shaw, C.P.M., Purchasing Agent
November 15,2005
Page 2
resolve contentious permitting and compliance issues thronghout 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.
. Air Permitting Experience in 'Iexas: For McCominas 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 930 TAc 330 .
Subchapter U air permitting rules for MSW landfills, with special regard to how they affect
bioreactors and leachate recirculation. He wrote an air permit amendment for the McCommas Bluff
Landfill to incorporate changes in emissions and controls caused by implementing bioreactor
technology.
. Project Team Commitment: By tearniog with firms 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 region~1 and national recognition to the City's effort.
On behalf of the entire R. 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. lfyou have any questions regarding
the contents of our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact me at (651) 994-8415 or
fdoran@rwbeck.com.
Sincerely,
R W. BECK, INC.
f!tlb--
Senior Director and Project Manager
FJD/sd
2P2303-L TR-FINAL2.doc
.
Letter of Transmittal
SECTION
Background ,.. ........ ..........,........'....... ...... ,.., ....................., ........ ........,.. ........,........ 1
Organization ............... ,.... .......... ,........ ..,......' ................. ,...... ,.. ,........ ,.. ............, ,.. 2
Experience, ...............,..,.." "" ,...... ....'" ,.... ........ ......... ......,......, .......... ,........, .......... 3
. Tabla 3-1: Select Bioreaclor and Leachate Recirculation Experience
Project Approach ......, ,.. ..............., ,.., .............'............ ...... ....,...... ..........,.............,4
. Figura 4-1: City of Denton Permitting & Design Schedula
Project Team...... ,.... .............. .......... ...... ,..,.... ............,......... ,.... "'.. "'.. .........., ....... 5
. Tabla 5-1: City of Denton Lancffill ProjectTaam
Quality Control,.... ......, ,.. ...., ............ ...."'.............."'.. ..,...... .............."'...... ..."',.... 6
Select Project Team Resumes"...............,.................................,............. Appendix
. John Bakar
. Scott Coon
. Fred Doran, P.E.
. Jeffrey Dunn P.E" G,E.
. William Hindman, P,E,
. Frank Pugsley, E.l.T.
. Michael Shifle~ P,E,
. Dan Witlliff, P.E.
@Copyright2OO5, R. W, Beck, Ine, , All Rights Reserved
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RWllHK
,
.
...",< . 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 air 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 regnlatory knowledge, including permitting the McCommas Bluff Landfill bioreactor
. Construction management, documentation, and material testing qualifications
. 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
fmns 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 18 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, fmancing, design and
construction engineering, operations analysis, and continuing consultation to management.
Since 1997, R. W. Beck has been at the forefront ofleachate 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.aackgroond.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 Enviromnental, LLC, Mr. John 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 enviromnental impacts
oflandfills 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. Enviromnental Protection Agency (USEPA) on a cooperative
research basis.
Mr. Baker is a recognized expert in bioreaCtor 1Jlldfills, odor control, alternate caps, groundwater quality,
hydrogeology, and landfill operational efficiencies. He has led numerous state and federal workshops for
bioreactors, groundwater monitoring and assessinent techniques, and innovative technologies for
groundwater remediation, such as constructed wetlands.
Kleinfelder
Founded in 1961, Kleinfelder is an employee-owned, multi-disciplinary, eugineering consulting firm,
specia1izing in geotechnical, environmental, and construction materials engineering and testing.
Kleinfelder's diverse staff includes geotechnical, materials, civil, and enviromnental engineers;
geologists and hydrogeologists; enviromnental 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
. Regnlatory compliance enviromnental investigations and monitoring
1-2
2P2303-1-8ackground.doc
-
BACKGROUND
. Landfill gas and leachate control systems
. Landfill operations management
. Land use development and community relations
Dan Wittliff Consulting, PLLC
Mr. WittlifI 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 (1NRCC, now TCEQ) and is Principal of Dan WittlifI Consulting, PLLC - a
firm providing professional engineering services in environmental engineering, regulatory affairs, and
energy systems.
Mr. WittlifI keeps complex and multi-phase projects ou 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 actively 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 recircuhition) 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 arnen~ent). Mr. WrttlifI also conducted high volume
sampling of dust emissions from several materials processors at a MSW landfill and obtained a perutit
for a rock crusher. He personally coordinated the regulatory interface on the development ofbio-
technology at McCommas BluffLandfiU 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 lNRCC 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. Beck, Inc.
1-3
~
,:
SECTION 2
ORGANIZATION
In response to the reqJrlred firm organizational structure descriptions in RFSP #3411, this section
includes organizational charts for R. W. Beck, CP & Y and Kleinfelder. Alan Environmental and Dan
Wittliff 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.
. K1einlelder - 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
PIl!!';ldenttl")O
ChICfEx~r;lJ!)~lJDffb:r
RLlSSStcpp
r:tlllifrl:1antI210Hlccr.and
ChlefOperillmgDfficer
Alr.1..lmslo
ENERGY SECTOR WATER & WASTE RESOURCES SECTOR
ExecutiveVlCllPresidllflt
nmcorrilJ8U
Ex&cutiveV"JCePresident
Ed_
T%\CTICCS ..
PRAJ:1ICfS
EMrgyAssatCllIISUItin;
PluI Hamon. VP
......,."..&
EccllOmicCansult!oli
Jail MancmeUL VP
SoIidW8$ta
RobllltCraggl.VP
.....-
JeffSdnlll.VP
UtililySBfVica
NeUCaIWlan,.VP
Strallgk!'rO!J1llllS
DaYfll Jochim. VP
UtiIttyEnglneertlg
...._VP
~.~';Rl'I1mG6SAllS
, M':'BffiN.&SAlfS
SeniorVIl;ePresident
,.'Bi~Rcynold.
" ".
SenimVlcePresident
SteveGates.
: MIbNoVLVP,:"-:;'_.
.AM ~erIll1ld. VP..'''',,-:~,: ,<
Bm.m ThDn1Ulll. lIP :.
Fr~:~~~f:;:/i;>;' .'
. StaTeGates,VP
EdWIltttl.VP"
'. ,_D~JDChIm.VP':,;
,~E:;:;t\'.'
Apptaximatlllv
Z9(JlotalEmployees
Appmximataly
Z75TotaI&npJoyees
I
2P2303-2.Qr,jaruzaion.doc
2.1
SECTION 2
2-2
CP& Y Organizational Chart
rblll~rft\~ntT'::ml I
~
,,'~'_I
BII~In~~~'f~
.:illJlSl::J'mj\ I
,,~~,
-~ - ~- ~-'
Clllr.ffrr:llm!Offi~~I/
HlnnIlF"olltcr~IIT i
"'~~~:r~j
't:"'~~~
--
liiqh':.'3'.1s'Brid~~s
j;5;~;,~',1
AVOl! O~ I
~l
- ----
TronS11 I
~'--'
";~1"
----==-=-::-~~~J
EnL1rDm,,'~I;,11
:'I!mClp31 I
_.~-j
~ .
~_~i
-
14 Std Membus
ttSld'M8!dll1I
"S:b:IHmrrDeA
l5511!f.....
KlaInfoldorGloUP Organization Chart
AugUSl2005
.;=-=',',~:t:5r:;';
KnIn~EdWlbon, ".
QalgY'&lglm -Nch*I'YtlaIg
::::;:'-0lllI:8' ...- Rh..,....wt
.....- '- ....-
-- ..... .,... PItvlIMSecto'
--
_.- ~--- em__ ~=...
--
-.... --- .....on
-- -
...
""'...... --
.......... ""'" =-.::
......-
""".-.- ...- t=:;
......- ==-
.. ....-.. :...~
-- .....~
-- ......... ."""....... .
--- ..... -..-
.",..., --
.....
....-
'""""
Wtt:ll K LEI N F EL 0 E R
.... EX.IlCT MO..
"
,
--
..-
~'!1'~
...-
~~~~
.....-
~Ig
-.
......
"'-'
-
....-
.-
-
........
"""....
-...........
Q--
J""""""
~W&KtI-Co
2P2303-2-Org_,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 tearning 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 souod 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 ofbioreactors sites, Project Team
members have played a role in almost 30 perceniof 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 pennit 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, uulined landfill
. Several instances where proactive communication and pennitting 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 (LPG) 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 LPG well design to minimize liquid blinding
. Design of proactive LFG emission controls forbioreactor
. Investigation and approval of alternate or evapotranspiration caps for landfill closure
2P23~nce.doc
3-1
SECTION 3
.;.,.:....>'.:>:.'.>,'. ...,.,.
Central. Disposal, IA
, .
;..:.
C,?U;'i:rYsid~Lall<;lflli~.tL..'"
:-~;">" ;,.!..-,--:'
C~~;'trywld"Gmdfill, OH .'
'. ",' ,':.,' - .. ,'- :,,-,.,'.,
Croy,Wingc;oill,ty, M.N.
DSW", ~ntrai ~~dfill,DE
East Cent,.;;I.Solld Waste ....
Co~_m~ssion, ~~.j:":;-,"-:;';'::: .
Ev..rg~.nLandfil~, OH
c
GROVVS Landfill, PI>.. .'
, .. .. . '
Baker
HighA<;re.u,;,cffill,NY. '.
Live Oak LAndfill, GA
(Aerobic) . . ..
Lyon County, MN
'. Baker
, Baker,
Doran, Coon, Evans.
BaiJ art
Doran, Baker, Hindman.
Witlllff, Baumgart, Coon,
Dunn,Pug~ey,~
. Shiflett, Tipton
McCommas Bluff Landfill, TX
-- -. ----"_.
:!~. -~~~!fung",for":t?i~i~~;':.-
.:,'.~,~:~~;~t=;~~-~~.~1
McGlII Landfill, MI
Metro Landfill, WI
Mid-Peninsula Landfill, VA
Northern Michigan Landfill, MI
Northern Oaks Landfill, MI
Outer Loop Landfill, KY
Baker
Baker
Baker
*-',:'
Baker,
Spruce Ridge Landfill, MN
I
i
I
I
I
,
Baker
*.
Baker
i
....Biosolids, commercial, ' . 'I,
. wastewater
i Baker, Doran, Coon,
I Evans,
* Waste at fleld capacity due to volume of leachate rec{rcul8ted & considered a bloreactor.
.(
1994-2000
~~~iff~L
ri~i;tJ~
:.-':.
;tR!i~;:
',:wtJii;!
I.*,~.i
..."y....
.:",';:',
i'pnQi
.',Full..'
Sca!e':
'FulU
Scliie
,.Full,
scaie
, PilOt
.'FuJl
Scale
Full i
Scale
Currently
Permitting
l"'>>r:'.:,~;-,;(::,,,-;,
1:,1.2,3,4.~..~..
1......".1.".,.,.,;
I' (~xpe<:ted)
1";1,i;{6
1" ".
11,~,4,5,6,7 .
-:1,2,4,~,6
1,2,3;4,5,6
<1,2,3,4.6'
:1,2,3,4,5,6, .
. 7
I.....
'1'~J3,4,5;~.
2001-
Present
1998
1998-2000
2000-
Present
2000-
Present
1998-
Present
2002-
Present
Outcomes:
1) Airspace Recapture 2) Enhanced LFG 3) ConstructIon Savings 4) Leachate Disposal Savings
5 Waste & leachate Stabill 6 Extended Life Revenue from Su lemontal Fluids
3-2
2P23QJ.3-Exper1eoce.doc
..
EXPERIENCE
The following project descriptions for R. W. Beck, CP&Y and Kleinfelder demonstrate the experience of
the staff members proposed to perform similar selVices 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: NJA (Still under permitting)
On-time Construction Performance: NJA (Still under permitting)
The City of Dallas, Texas wants the McCommas Bluff Landfill to be perinitted as a bioreactor landfUl
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 ofbiosolids 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 cost/benefit 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 pennit modification
application to allow the construction of Cell 6 (approximately 120 acres) as a bioreactor cell. The notice
permit modification is scheduled for submittal, o~ schedule, in late 200S.
Thoughout this proj ect, consideration has been given to the importance of community acceptance in
gaining approval of this pennit 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: N1A (Non-construction project)
On-time Construction Performance: NIA (Non-construction project)
In March 200S, the City of Denton retained the services ofR. W. Beck to complete a Solid Waste
Operations Review. The purpose of the study w~s to evaluate the operations of the City's )andfill and
solid waste selVices, with the primary goal being,to ensure that the City was operating in the most cost
effective and efficient manner possible. Though a combination of staff interview, extensive field
R W. Beck, 100,
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 R. W. Beck completed the review, Denton's City Council approved cart-based
collection for the entire City. R. W. Beck became very familiar with landfill design and operation during
this project, discussing the potential bioreactor with City staff.
Landfill Engineertng, Permitting, Construction, Hydrogeology and Reporting
Crow Wing County MMSW Landfill
Crow Wing County, MN
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: $3.5 million since 1991/ProJects within Budget
On-time Construction Performance: All construction proJects to date have been completed on-tIme
Members of the proposed Proj ect Team have provided comprehensive, site-specific landfill engineering
services at the second largest public landftll in Minnesota for IS years, and continue to provide landfill
engineering and consulting services to the County on an ongoing basis. Our setvices have encompassed
all phases of solid waste planning and landfill development for the County.
The Crow Wmg County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MMSW) Landfill is located on 480 acres owned
by the County, in North Central Minnesota. Engineering selVices 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 Engineertng Services
East Central Solid Waste Commission
Mora, MN
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: $1~5 million since 2003, Projects withIn budget
OMlme Construct/on Performance: All construction projects to date have been completed on.tIme
R. W. Beck was awarded an on-call selVice contract for the East Central Solid Waste Commission
(ECSWC) Landfill near Mora, Minnesota, the Hugest public landfill in the State. R. W. Beck has or is in
the process of completing a number of tasks inGluding: construction of an expansion cell, preparation of
a re-permit application., and investigation and remediation of migrating landfill gas. In addition, we are
3-4
2P2303-3-Experien<:e.doc
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 availabie 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 of2003.
R. W. Beck also completed a permit reissuance application for the ECSWC Sanitary and Demolition
landfills. As part of the permit, R. W. Beckrecommended removal of final cover from closed areas of .
the Sanitary Landfill in order to recapture airspace with steeper 3: I 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 oftlHi application, R. W. Beck has recommended excavation of the cnrrent Demolition Debris
landfill with waste placement in the lined vertical expansion. This will allow MMSW 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 IT recirculation pilot
program with an RTE project. Recirculation afleachate 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 Environmentallmpact Statement.
In 2005, R. W. Beck designed and provided construction management of both a leachate treatment pond
and an active LFG control system.
Solid Waste Engineering Services
Lyon County
Marshall, MN
Budgeted/Actual Constrocfion Costs: $387,000 (2004 reclrculallon system expansion); Project completed under
budget at $295,350
On-Ume Constrocllon Performance: All constroction projects to date have been completed on-lime
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 Recireulation 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.
3-5
(
,
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, aD inward gradient design, reconfiguration of the current
leachate management system, and leachate recirculation.
(
LFG and Leachate Extraction System
City of Sioux Fails, SO
Construcllon Costs: The City Budgeted $1,153,800; Project completad under budget at $1,106,253
On-time Construcllon Performance: All construction projects to date have been completed on-lime
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 LandfiJl. The system consists ofl9 (of
approximately 100 eventual) dual extraction wells, connecting laterals and headers, leachate drains, and
lift stations to dewater the first 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 worke.d as expected and the first phase of the landf1ll 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 first 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
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: Ii/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 firms and contractors engaged in multiple construction projects at the City's McComlnas Bluff
Sanitary LandfIll and the City's three solid waste transfer stations.
Current projects are: I) 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-<i
2P23O:h1-Exper.nco.doc
EXPERIENCE
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill, Permitting, Design and Construction Management
City of Del Rio, TX
Construction Costs: $1,450,000 was budgotod; Project complered under budget at $1,360,000
On-Ume Construction Performance: All construcUon schedule miles ton os met
Pennitting: CP&Y prepared the permit modification to bring Del Rio's 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 typical5-acre cell by receiving approval for an Alternate Liner Design
(ALD). Considering both the liner and fInal closure cover, overall savings for the permitted landiill 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 oflocal 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, trsp
rock from Knippa, Texas, was used for the drainsge material around the collector pipe.
Side slopes are 3H to IV, with two feet of compacted clay liner overlaid by a geonet/geotextile 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 aU
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
Budgotod/ActuaJ Costs: Projoct is onllolng; thoro Is no concroto budget
On-Umo ConstrucUon Performance: Project Is onllolng; Performance to date has boon 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, Kleinfeliler 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 landf1l1 airspace by promoting accelerated decomposition of the waste.
.(
(
(
Slope Stability Analysis
McCommas Bluff Landfill
City of Dallas, TX
Budgeted/Actual Construction Costs: N1A (Still under pennlttJng)
On-time Construction Perlormance: N1A (Stili under permitting)
Kleinfelder conducted slope stability analyses for a bioreactor ceIl design at the McCommas Bluff
LandfiIl in Dallas, Texas. Existing data from the McCommas Bluff permit documents and published
information on bioreactor landfiIls 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 landfi1l 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.
:HI
2P2:103-3-Experlence.doG
SECTION 4
PROJECT APPROACH
Introduction
It is our understanding that the City needs to have Cells 3A and 3B approved by TCEQ for filling
operations by the end ofApri12007. In addition, the City desires to permit these cells (along with Phases
1,2, and Cells 3C lind 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 fmanciaI 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: (I)
excavation and finaI 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 ofbioreactor operations. Our
analysis for the McCommas BlnffLandfill 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 Ce1l3A operation. Initially, the
Project Team will prepare a reqnest for a minor ]?ermit modification for MSW Permit IS90A 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) Ce113A 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 Modificatioll, 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
2P2303-1-Approacl1.doc
4-1
(
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 inIlovative 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 pennit 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 pre-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 ofbio-
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 throughont 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 bioreactdr 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
2P2303-4-Approac1l.doc
'"
PROJECT APPROACH
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 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/ortriplanar 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 I 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 2B - 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 Sioreactor
The City has conducted technical and fInancial ~search and determined that an anaerobic bioreactor will
be the preferred process for future Landfill development. Based upon our Proj ect 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, moi.sture 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 LPG 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
ofleachate 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 ofliqnid 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
require.d 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 fina1 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 sitegeology, the sand available for the prctective layer should provide the elevated
permeability required to drain the additionalliqtiid amendments in the bioreactor without buildup of
excessive head on top of the protective cover.
r
,
Subtask 3D - Landfill Gas Modeling
One of the well documented benefits ofbioreactor technology is the increase in LPG generation rate. Air
regulations require that, gas collection and control systems be in place when the bioreactor begins
operation and become active either when 40-peicent waste moisture is achieved or after 180 days, which
ever is later. The type, number and size ofLFG controls will depend on the LFG generated. Innovative
gas extraction designs will be utilized that can handle additional moisture in MSW and also withstand
suhstantial settlement. Air permitting (Task 6) will also require knowledge ofLFG 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 thru 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).
. 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.
4-4
2f>2303.4-Approach.doc
,.
PROJECT APPROACH
. Manifolding from the force main to the latter, systems
. LFG collection systern diroensions 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: E".mine alternatives for intermediate cover that would enhance the
bioreactor operations by providing additional moisture, control/captore 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 geomembrane, higher permeable soils, compost, wood
chips, etc. The City is very interested in utilizing a 20-millIDPE 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 conceptoal design
will be prepared in the fonn of a Preliminary Design Report. This Report will outline the basis for
design of all of the Cells in Phase 3 as a bioreactor landf'1ll. 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 defmed (Input from Subtask 6A). This Report
will also define the anticipated independent sch~ules 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 tot)1e City Staff for review and comment. Applicable
comments will he incorporated by the Project T~am 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 landf'1ll. This
subtask is proposed as part of the conceptoal 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, determination'of specifications for LFG sale (e.g., energy demand,
connection requirements, contaminant limits), f.p.ancial 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. Bed<, Inc,
4-5
;
(
SECTION 4
c
(
"Task 4 - Design and Construction of Cells 3A and 3B
. 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
(QAlQC) review, the Project Team will develop draft design plans, specifications, and construction bid
documents for Cells 3A and 3B. The schedule f~r proceeding with bidding and construction of these
Cells will be independent of the Bioreactor Perniitting 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 Pernilt as described above.
Since the Preliminary Design Report for the Conceptual Bioreactor will he 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 Ce1l3A13B 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 constroction project would be
advertised for bids.
{
"(
.
.
(
Subtask 4B - Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Opening
The Project Team will assist the City 10 answerii1g 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 constroction, 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-Conslruction Meeting
The Project Tearn 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 Cell3A and 3B construction, the Project Tearn will assist the City with the administration of the
construction contract by reviewing submittals, apswering questions and providing clarifications,
reviewing monthly pay requests, and acting as ti1e City's Authorized Representative. Duties will include
coordination and completion of the required ~terial 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 cbmpletion of the liner constroction, As dictated by the
Contractor schedule, the Project Tearn anticipat~s regular construction progress meetings and resident
observation/documentation.
4<;
2P2303-I-Approach,doc
PROJECT APPROACH
Construction administration will include.preparation of any Change Orders, ifrequired, 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 bior~actor project should be incorporated into the Cell 3A13B
. 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 3B
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 authorizatio.n 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 3iB. lmpacted permit attachments could include:
. Liner Design
. Leachate and Contanllnated Water Plan
. 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 5B - 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 stalfto discuss the Project and confmn 1feir current Application(s) submittal requirements.
R. w. Beck. Inc.
4-7
SECTION 4
After incorporating comments from the City Staff review, the Team QAlQ!:, review, and discussions with
TCEQ staff, the MSW Permit Modification Application will be fmalized 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 dePeitdent upon date of submission). .
Subtask 5C - MSW Notice of Deficiency (NOD).
TCEQ by statote is required to complete their t~hnical review of the MSW Permit Modification
. Application within 60 days of submittal unless tlie 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 stafi; 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 aU cases the review period is extended ai1d.
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 MSWNOD to provide the requested
additional information aod clarification. These.responses will be reviewed by the City and submitted to
TCEQ. In some cases TCEQ will respond with.3n additional NOD requesting additional information or
further clarification, and the response process is.repeated. However, with .our experience ofbioreactor
. permitting with TCEQ, it is aoticipated 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 Tecbriical Review by TCEQ in accordance with 30 TAC
39. I 06, 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 anAffidavit 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 28th day after
Notice was mailed. If comments were received, the executive director has until the 45th 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 Modillcation and must be resubmitted as a MSW Pennit
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-<l
2P23OJ.4.Approach.doc
(
,.
(
.,
PROJECT APPROACH
Task 6 - Air Permit Modification
We undeIlitand that the current landfill operation. does not have a separate TCEQ New SOUIce 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 ofLFG 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 Slandaid Air Penni! - 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 (GeCS).
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, Subchapter U rules..
Flare Pennit 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 GeCS. In its earliest development on site, the
GeCS 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 Pennit- 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 OCCUI) 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.
A1thongh 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 permit( s) along with appropriate regulatory
justification( s).
Sublask 68 - 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 eniissions from the landfill
. Determine the appropriate NSR permits (e.g., SAP under ~30 TAC 330, SubpartU and PBR for flare
under ~30 TAC 106.492)
R. W. Beck, Inc.
4-9
(
SECTION 4
. ,
. Draft an application for the appropriate NSR Permits and meet with the TCEQ NSR permit staff on
the City's behalf to discuss the draft ..
. Present to City Staff any changes made necessary as a result of meeting with TCEQ staff
. Finiilize 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 6e - 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 Ii 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 {l30 TAC 122.517.
Subtask 6D - Develop and Submit New TitleV 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 full 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
2P2303+Approilcltdcc
~~_L~.\_'~~_,;_!_~~~-~,~_,-_,~~~~:V
- - ~ ~ -' - .- - -" ",
t(~
r.;
f;Qo
~1
0j
f;.'./ ~', bd ~ir :"1 "" ;
.f!~ f~ ~ 1.:;1 ,.. f-' ~ '1"") "
i,j:
f'g!
i:j:lj
..i~!
r~' r;;~ ;' I~~
~,~ ~.a t ",
IQ ,~ ~J, fm~
Itl ~'fl f~~ ~"J
..' ~~. f~ "n
IlDl~'i L-._~~
Ii! r~' ~~ i~
I~ l"~ t) !~1
i~ ~'I ,,:j ,fl
~" ~"feCi f,,!
." [,/' r'i ;'.'
:.~:.: tf,1 r}."I 1.~:1
"'" ,". '.J
i~ f-~:j !~~j : .' -
'l~i 1
:m:
j~ :
~'
dl
l{ I
1;;'1':~..1 f,~1
~'1 '". ~ l
l~:' ~~;i f.: ~ , 'I
:If{ I',:;.:~ {"d ;..:-!
t~ ~q~ r~
r,,~: ''J ,j
,,,,"1 . ~,f;.:',r.~.! :.'~.~.'.;,>.f:".;,.j, <i',f.'!.,
;5'~ ~';;j ,
:.' \~ ~ ';;1;1 t;;
~1~ f~j ~1 ~lj ~j-
,:'1 ;.." b~ f"l "'I
~.:,J" i8l t" ,i1, tJ'
hl "'-':i;, l~~l p - :;'j -
~ tiJ ~i: ~1 f~ ii;~
~ f~i ~i 1:\,1~? '_"~"
t:'r,! l'~ ~~:j
.~.'.,~.i r;';1 i~,'i
",.,
lEtJ "~:i 1i;il !.t;
.,'. :Y~ i~~~ . h{.:~. 1:";:1
!;~i l.t'l r ," '" ;,::J
"':;1 ;:~~1 J,(J ~~::'I'
I.'.'.-~.,'~ r~i! . "'J
',~ t' '~~~,':,.' ~~"
I~~~~d~~~ ~I1
f\*:~~
~:lZ&~ _'
r}~ t~~ r~J
~~ :t:i' l~:i
t.," i't, [t,S\
~t~ ~ ~[~
~~'~.~~ .~
",1 ~4 !~i
L:7'1 .<< /.1"
'I"{,{ ~]. :"'~'l
~~ i~' ~f:
~"~l i;:'j r',fJ
-~O-l ~~ft ~-~1
~i4 ~4 ~N
r~:J ~~;j
r~l, i{.;.-',',tr'.
~,~t- '
..
..
~
.
!:
n
~
e.
:i'
a
o
o
;:>
~
o
"
'"
c
m
IIi'
o
W
[
"
"
.~} I\.~;~
rr.~: f,<-1
~jii '""',j
~ Wl
~ t~
~
SECTIONS
PROJECT TEAM.
Experienced, Driven & Innovative Project Team Ensures Landfill Improvement
To etl$UTe the su,ccess of this project, we are committing, on an ongoing basis, a dynamic team of
consUltants who understand the complexities of permitting, planning, engineering design, aDd
construction management facing landfill expansion and bioreactor operation today. We have a
multidisciplinary team, with strong project leadership and in-depth knowledge ofboth 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, working 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 hag a long history overseeing laige solid waste projects, has hands-on experience
working with the City, and is project manager forthe landfill bioreactor project currently being permitted ' .
for the City of Dallas. He will provide overall gwdance throughout the project, assuring that the permit
and design are developed in accoIdance with best practices and industry s1andards. 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 construction, with field testing and documentation personnel provided by
Kleinfelder. ' ' .
The following orgoni,."tional 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 Organizational Chart
'";
. EJ"re:]crof:~;1
Tc:f;n~!lX - .'
."~ John Baker
?L-..:.~ .
. ,""; ;;1:
. ArPclmm'ng t .<~
,~'.:
.,~ - D3n ~.MU.ff fl.E. ~.
~,~ -
~---
2P2303-O-Pro]ect T earn,doc
5.1
SECTION 5
;i~~~~~~4?;V:-
i. lnf~ciure iadlitles rlesign ~ . ~
Hunter Ferrell Landfill; City of ':-
:';-~I~g,1X .!"__'l ':'>\:~';";.~'~r:~'.:';,.
.~~;,iYSOII~ ~ Man.g'~nt:.
i-"P,I~~."CqDln ~un!Y,..TJ(,. ''''-.,:.
'. Jransfer,.Statiori Opera~onS _ '.
; .:.Evilluatloli':'CltyofDel1aS;lX
'. . Centfal Regional Wastewater . ;',tl
. ..:~SlegeV\IOdorCOnlroL '.. ...~:!
.'lmprov.ementS '- Trinity.River. i:.' "'~f
..~ltlO!ityofTexas; FortW~rtl), 1)( ;.';:
'.: celllJill Regional Wastewater ','f~
. : Syslen) Aeration Optbn~atlon ,);'t~~
.':Testlng - Trinity RiverA\llhorlty; i'~~
FortWqrth. 1)( . ... :~);1t-.
:. ..,CentraIWastewater~reatment .;;.~g~2J~~,w~.
"t . '~lant FlIt9r Evaluation & expansion ;i';)~>,,:l~l*~~:...;.~
,\, - Danas Water UtIlities; DaRas, TX " ::~:- fi.;)~;'?:~'lj:.'~tt;
. Recently Provided Methods for.
.. Reinjecting Uqukls In Landfii~
Indudlng COnceptual Design II.
Operation Methods - McCommas
Bluff landfill, Dallas. lX
. Pear Review RD&D Permit .
Application for Outside Uqui~
Addition for Bioreactor LandfiU
Design II. Operations - COuntryside
Landfi1l, Waste Management, Inc.,
':"'\ \; Grayslake,ll
'''';E~i~~riRg B.. y;" . Cheyne Roa~ Landfill, Cell 2
g.~PerrnlWnQ: _::-:;!..~: Permitting and Design-Yakima
"S,i:\Yd@:ullcs. .. COunty, WA
. . -'9.~~.':"'~.';'.' ~.':"".: "..0.: ?_j- L7achate Pond Design -City of
~','.: :;':::~;"';:;~;. "_.., - SIOUX Falls. SO
'./: .'..,.;:.:, .'....1. Terrace Heights Lan~fill
'..:'~(.;",<'.<;l ;....\~.:.,. Operations Planning Support-
:,/;.:: ~.~.::-;> .' _ '0'. Yakima County, WA
.~t!iiaT:~'r~T,~;;f:.~?Ff
Vice pAiSIdent and Solid :'::;
~~~11
....:.
" .. ';'.", '.:'-.i.:::'
.'. . - '
Dawn Anderson; ",.E,
)\$So!,I~. ..':>~"'.;>:
~: :';t
ci>il.y ,.':.:.
Dallas, 'PC.. ..:.:.: .:
proj~clAllqcation: 9~ '':' ..
'..
John Baker
President
Alan EnVironmental, LLC
00Vm8rs Grove, IL.
Project Allocation, 30%
Stephen Baumgart, P.E.
Water & Waste Resources
Project Manager
R. W. Beck,lnc.
Seattle, WA
Project Allocation: 5%
5-2
:~:~~~;~~~~~~~~.~
.lnnO\1atlve O~ignJto'",,:,...,~,.,.:
~Irl~
. )3 Vears.OfSolldWa:;te..
Man~gem~nt ~rjence. '.
. - . --"'..' ....,:;....
. PlannIng: Permitting, D:eslgn, .
& Construction Administration
.:01 Landfiil Vertical J Horizontal
. ~~~o.ns.'~pJ~su.~ f,:; "
. .Design 8. CbnStrucllon of
.' ."leachate. ~.~.~.~~en~,:
Systems .....,... ......
2P2303-5-ProJect Teanuloc
(
r
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
{
PROJECT TEAM
:~~!~~g~~~l$~.~~~~~t~t~~;
'Wale,'q;,W~e,'8esourr;~ ;",
Senior,M9Ch"nlcalEilglnesr
.l{~fl
~~fr,r9x'€-u6~~:;~~~~;'~:~f" [~. '.'Jij,
$eilior.Pi'fnc.ipSl engineer"
So.lid. W;l$t,,:Sp,,~ia/i~t,\,
_~f'~€;).
.~ ;,
-,"::'::'
.' ....
. :.~".
...,.-.,..::.,....,.
.'>':~.:...\~.,.:.:.';\.:
.'....-
. . .', ,~ '. '.',. . .,.' , .
N1a#.~Y~!ls~ F,:oE;\:\;i ,',
Walei' & Waste Resources
CMI Engineer' ': ' ::,' ..
. ""_'". -'. )_'. t.
'R:W.~k,lnc;., "
, M1nn@8POl~ r."N "
pro'6et AllOcation: 5%
MelGreell, R.G.
, Environmental Geologist /,
Engin~er " '. , .
CP&y
Dall;as.TX
Project Allocation:, ~%
Frank Pugsley. E.hT.
Environmental/Civil
Engineer
CP&Y
Dallas, lX
ProjeclAllocation, 40%
RW, Becl<,inc.
i,~:~~~~I~ltl1t
-l.ellcl1ale "',' dlin Qao;;Ciifi;i#;onc"
<t~~~~,:'r,.~~~~~~::~~~~~!~~i~WUf
;, (eeChai',~ ""'latloi1"&:.Giiid1iIl,l;
811i
. ,L!iridfill:!i!or.ai:!ilr'Cli![:l;!igln~~ii9:
::}~KNlT!"Fl~T-.:9'o/.,~!R~~~}:X\
.' Landfill, Englrieerlng;,CI>l\S!i'uctlon...
)~~~?Sf:J:~lnS1~~t;
, :,Co'nslJ'uClion,,"Lan~ Rei:Q<jij,ylne,"
.,r~~l~~1tit:!:\:
"lJlndflU:rl)li~ing Syrppo,;ilJlll,,'>-:;,:
',~~'t~~~~a~z,,"%,\fl'\};,;
" LBndliI1, E(ig1~e:.ilng,l>enpit!inQ B.'
,',~n~~~i~i~~J~I;t0m[i',
'AdI'I1! 'LfG COJlirot"~;g~ 'II., '.: :',
'COnstruction "::EIist central Solid
'~~0r, }::;;}:<7::,?,'~'
''';':''.':
,'~~$WI#iiri(iiJ,~l~: . Woodall Rodg"", Freeway ','.' "
~)JI!!im," i\lIoo, ",",' ';b'1,; Exlenslon Sign~l1jre \l~e,- City .'
~'"slib~lWJ.W;~ of.oellaS~DaIla"l)(, ,'. 'H, '
'1-:~'~',:C;9n~~9.!1J " 1'lO Signsture,Br!dge ",City of,
:.~{~~al,itY~>..:.;;.~.~t>:::::'j Dallas. TX. . . ':'"-'.-" f. :'.- .:
I' '::;'iISii,iiriiJ;c.:i:::;:: . COlony WeB No 3 ,~'l:;lty of The, , , ' '
,'9,l!Il~'o/99:~.\Jp!" ' COlony, lX . " " ' " '
I ';::fii;5t':';;'};;t~f! . ~~~n~~~~,~nlroi~ter-
. r;ngineermg &.: ,':;; . Transfer Station Improvements
"l'eimll!lng,-i,:i, :,': CIty of University Park, lX
..- ..... '- .~' -.:" .,. '. "I
.. ~ility Analysis; . Jefferson Avenue Siphon
,& ~nstruc;tjoQ : j Improvements - Trinity River
Quailty, :-"":",,;,:;\ Authority of Texas- Dailas, lX
AssUfCiocel ,"'0";1
I . ."QualitY Conlr9" ::_ . Hunter Ferren Landfill .
\"' ->-. -. "'.' ,_::~...:.:..:. Infrastructure Improvements-City
<""';"':";:"::':1 or Irving, TX
I' -"""j' ~i~m;'~:I~Bio-Reaclor-
\ ".',..: '1' ~IdWasteStu~~COlllncounty,
I , . Solid Waste Services Support.
I 'i City oIDalla., lX
'-r. ~-' '.~I"1.)~.-~,
~",' ;;':0ri~~\~:';'
~}yVeJ!~~~f~;Wi\~;~,: ,
,1~_~,!P!l',!\!. ,~~~, 'q
".\'\Disp~il'il.mty ,.,.;.]gn :0':"',':'"
_\i'~'Q-' '~,.~.. -,' '-, .:l:....,.,~.'!'-~
:fj~~J;~~r~~hn'
. ,lJn~'l!!liolin~ Constructlon;& .-
,.",' 'iJl"" ,,'" 1 nves ailo,
,,~rp1)lJ1~nta J tig, ,..I\lO',,'
, ',',,"slgn e. Remedilitlon ..,-Co',"',
.oas,ign EnQJn.e~ng for Sqll~
,/WIistQ 111!i1sfer,B. Disposal
,', FaCllitieS:WmrTreirtment
~Jant I;tenovattons, Municipal
',Wali!.rB,W~~ler,$yst""""
~'Deslgn EriglneeririQfor ,', "
SanitaIy Lan~fills"Citizen
CoDectfon FacUitles, .
, Wlistswater COilection
, Systems II. COnstruction
~~~~~f1le.nt.. . ..
5-3
.'
SECTION 5
i~[~~:~~h!.~r.~~~~:,~~J\}}:~,;~)}i:~:~
'Water &:Wa,steR<>.sO!'.TCes':':"
f[~i}\~iiC
. M'~~~eli:;6ifll!tt.~:J::,
p;:,~~/pa;& ~e~ior \<<
G,;qtechll~~1 c,onsultant. ".
f~~~'::}:i'/
~;0:fI2~~:.jj~.
.~. .::: \:.,-~:.,: , ".
.~.?~~_D~~9.(~rlJ;lttiriQ~~~!.:~:%~~~~t~f-
..,...MccOlTltmis.BI\'!!UngrO,:D.11l"l;.'i,
.:,~Nf!~~~~V1t~~t1%~tr;!:{}ff~1~
"'~~'~;iy'.Ql~~:#t,.,
~~~~~'1~~,~."
'._~'-;W8St8 :eOTrim~lori;;Mom-~'~N;;:.{~~,.
~:~1~
,0-<1.$';(. Subtitle D-Uner.....::."HI~ri:,~n~fl1l;.:.;
.Jt~~. . ~:~~:~.~rf;~~..?~;:~.~.!~:>:>/..~/1:~:..
'J ,"
.~i15~~,,1
L~~;l.:~t.
.~~i;ii.9Jii~.... ';' . Lbn~sd Purpose Landfi11 . :.' ".~~~))JA.
\'{~~~;2' ~Acla~~~,::~.~4~~:, ;~]~~1J~
ir.:~$~~lil
..';t;E~:'&.: . ~~aEgi~~~~Uff . ';':}iI~~~go~8;C:~;
1:,.~~bf:;0'<<:~ . ~~~~~:,~ %~~U. V"t~"'uO~~iSSlon ' ,"'.:'
\'. ",' . 'e<;.,,' Lan~fiIJs_comblnsdCapaclty :'.:i(1~W,:T>:9'9);.,L"'-::'::>':'
.,;:.:,':'.J.... of68MlmonTons 1~;P~'~'~:Pre, sld,entofTi,~~.S,.,
'. ":',.,. _ RacentlyWrote&Secured New :".SoCletyof.Pr..ofessIQnal..c";"',,:
\. . ~~:~!it~r,~~r2 I.:~~l~iio:~~~~~".
I Combined Capacity of 208 MiUion '-",~imitti~:re.~s.', "-. ......
J ~" Tons _ -Coris~nsuS-Buildlng &
I i _ ~."lm,unliy quirea""
',...
'. ~-':-.,'"
~OIY. Tlpto/l. EJ.T.. .
Wale; & Waste Res()urc.es
CIvIl Engineer. ...... .
R.. W. Beek, "Ioc. ._
Sea.We, WAc ...,.
ProJectAilocallon: ~%
Dan Wittlilf, P,E.
Principal
Dan W1Wlff Consulllng
Austln. TX
Project Alk>cation: 20%
5-4
2P2303-5-Proj.ct Teamdoc
(
(
(
(
(
r
(
(
(
(
,I
~
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 collaboratiitg as a group on multiple other projects, including: '
. Dallas McCommas Bluff Bloreactor EValuation arid TCEQ Permitting Project Our entire proposed Project
Team has participated in this project We understand the impOrllmce of this synergy, knowing that
having solid working rela1:ioriships geared toy,ard Ii common goal creates better resnlts for our clients.
WIthin the past three years, R.W. Beck and CP&Y Project Teammembers have collaborated on the
followingprojects located in Northern Texas: '
. Bioraactor Evaluation and TCEQ Permitting:- Dallas McCommas Bluff
. Rural and Underserved Area Disposal Assistance Needs Study': North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG)
. MetroplexArea 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 Coun~
Project Team members CP& Y and KIeinfeldet have collaborated on the, following projects:
. Ralph Hall Dam Prailmimiry - Dallas, TX "
,
. Bloomdale Road and Bridge - McKinney, TX:
. MDA Wastewater Project - Fort Worth, TX ';
. Klamichi 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 Fede~al Regulations Provides Invaluable Insight
Our Project Team members have conducted a series of meetings with the TCEQ MSW and Air
Permitting staffmembers as a part of their act\vities on the Dallas McCommas BluffBioreactor Project
In these meetiitgs, we have made presentations that provided technical data from operating' projects and
literature review of academic research, fintheri 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.
5-5
SECTION 5
TCEQ Rules and Regulations , " ,
, ,
' , '
, In addition to having worked with'TCEQ staff ,?n previous projects, we have a unique vantage point of
, TCEQ rules and regnlations through direct TCEQ involvement. Mr. Dan Wittliffwas heavily involved
in developing, implementing, and interpreting environmental regulations and policy as the former Chief
Engineer of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (INRCC, now known as the TCEQ).
,He led many' of the agency's multi-media pemiit 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 led 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 Regnlations. He,has regnlar interface with key TCEQ MSW leaders and staff members, and has
been directly involved with the rewrite of the LAC 305.70 Permit Modification Rules and the current
rewrite of the LAC 330 MSW Rules. All oftheseregnlations were developed to comply with Subtitle D
, Rnles. Additionally, Mr. Hindman is a long standing member of the Board of Directors ofTxSWANA
which provides comment and input on regulations, works directly with TCEQ staff and interacts as ail
industry stakeholder. '
Federal Subtitle DMSW Landfill RegUlations
The Project Team experience out1iued fu SectioiIs 3 and 5 highlight an exiensive background in
permitting, design, and construction ofMSW lFdfills under these regnlations, including:
. Design of composite liners with leachate cqllection
. 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 Sectign 5, the Project Team has extensive experience
completing Clean Air and Clean Water Act sef;vices for our clients. For example, Mr. WittJiff; both
during his tenure at the TCEQ and recently in private consnlting, has:
,
. Successfully drafted several landfill sland'fd 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
&<l
2P2303-5-ProjectTesm.doc
(
(
(
(
i
t
(
(
(
(
-j"
". i
PROJECT TEAM
. . Represented the TNRCC during public meetings address groundwater, surface water; and air
emissi.ons 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 Quality Assurance for
liner constroction, design of surface water detentif)n basins, and groundwater monitoring programs are
all part of this compliimce, as included in our conlprehensive 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 . 'I
.' Permit Modification for A11emate Daily Cover at Honter - City of Irving; Ferrell Landfill; Permit approved
. Noticed Permit Amendmenl/ Site Operating Plan \!pdale - City ofJrving; Hunter Ferrell Landfill; Permit
pending
. Temporary Use of Alternate Daily Cover - City o{ Irving; Hunter Ferrell Landfill; Permit approved
. Permit Amendment for a New Transfer Station - Arlington; Republic Waste Systems; Permit approved
I
. Type 4 Closed Landfill- SeGo-Arlington; Revised closure plan approved
. Permit Modiflcalion for City SLF I Alternate Leachate Collection System - City of Del Rio; Permit approved
. MSW Construction Permit for 121 RDF - Melissa, 'IX; Provided assistance with NTMWD design team
and the TCEQ on design policy determinations; Permit approved
. New Source Review Pennit for McCommas Bluff Landfill- Dallas, 'IX; Wrote and submitted SAP under
930 LAC 116.621; Permit approved
. New Source Review Pennit for 121 RDF - Melissa, 'IX; Wrote and submitted SAP under 930 TAC
116.621; Permit approved
. TItle V Operating Pennit for Maxwell Creek Land~lI- Sachse, TX; Wrote and submitted original Title V
application as well as renewal ;
. TItle V Operating Pennit for McKinney Landfill- McKinney, TX; Wrote and submitted original Title V
application as well as renewal
. TItle V Operating Pennit for 121 RDF - Melissa, TX; Wrote and submitted original Title V application as
well as renewal
L
R. W. BecI<- Inc.
'S-7
SECTION 5
(
(
.,
,
. Amendment to SAP forMcCommaS Bluff Landfill- D~ TX; Wrote and subniitled am~ndment to SAP .
. under 930 TAC 116.621 that incOrporates changes caused by the incorporation ofbio-technology at
the. hmdfill; Submitted November 2005.. ...
. Perinit By Rule for Roc~ Crusher at 121RDF - Melissa, TX; Wrote and submitted applicatiOn as well as
renewal under 930 TAC 106.1.42; Pennit approved
'. . NSR Renewal for Unit 2 Fort Phantom Power Station - Abilene; TX; Wrote and submitted application to
renewNSR permit for 200 MW electric power under 930 TAC 116; Renewal approved. .
. Wastewater Pennitfor POTW - Sinton, TX; Coordinated regnlatory interface 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
(
(:
(
(
(
(
.(
(
t
5-8
2P2303-5-Project rearMoc
SECTION 6
. 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 a clear definition of the work product needed by the
client, Illcluding the level of detail, accuracy, and quality of infonnationneeded. 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 than plan and budget the work to achieve this standard. Of course, the City needs to
be made aware of, and be in agreement with, this standard. Reaching this understandizig 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 prodi1ce
. the work control the quality level and assure that the appropriate level is reached. It is the Project
Mmiager'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 first 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 pian 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 commuuIcate expectations (what, when, where, how, and why) to those
who are canying out the work. Equally important, team members must commuuIcate 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 commuuIcate with both the project owners and operators. Once mutual consensus
is achieved amongst all three parties, we will Rerform the same process as the project moves forward into
the constroction phase. During this phase, consensus must be attained by the constroction contractor in
addition to the engineers, owners and operators. This communication ensures client priorities and
schedule milestones are being met and minimizes occurreoce of changes orders during coustruction.
Additionally, R. W. Beck promotes proactive .~ommunication 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.
2P23lJ3.ll-Qual1ly Control.doc
6-1
(
(
~6 (
(
R. W. Beck utilizes guidelines/checklists 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 ~esign report, basis of design, drawings,
specifications, construction docUments front end, etc.)?
. .
. What are th~ submittal and review milestones' in your d~sign phase (30%, 60%, 90%, etc.)?
. What drawing format/styles will be followed on this project (R. W. Beck standards, client standards,
etc.)?
. noes your budget include sufficient time for QC checks for the drafting work?
. What format will be used for project specifications (CSI or a client-specified fonnat)? .
.. 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 contim\ency 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-to4lte workbook containing original calculations?
Design Project Checking Procadures
. Does your Project Management Plan (PMP) define Qnality Control (QC) responsibility for specific
project elements?
. Are formal QC checks scheduled for major project milestones?
. Do you maintain a QC record that docume~ts formal QC checks?
. Has each drawing been checked by a qnalified 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"/0, Issued
for Bid, Issued for Construction)?
. Have subconsuItants 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.pnor to 90"/0 review?
. Have original calculations been retained in the permanent project file?
. Have all specifications been read cover to 'cover by a designated reviewer?
. 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
2P2303-6.QJa1ity Control.doc
APPENDIX
"SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER
RESUMES
lbis appendix consists of resumes presented in alphabetical order for select Project Team members,
highlighting experience that is relevant to the City's landfill design projecl " .
John A. Baker
Alan Environmental, LLC / President
University of illinois: M.S. in Environmental Engineering & B.S. In Biology/Chemistry
Mr. Baker provides over 31 years experience in studying environmental impacts oflandfills and remedial
sites. He previously worked 23 years for Waste Management, loc. most recently as the Director of New
. Technology. lo 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 pennitting and
conceptual design of the Outer Loop Landfill bioreactor in Louisville working with the State of
Kentucky and USEPA on a cooperative research basis. At this facility, alternate covers of clay and
compost (biocover) was demonstrated to attenuate methane, VOCs, and odors. Mr. Baker implemented
innovative remedial technologies for Superfund sites, hazardous waste 1aJidfills, and solid waste sit~.
He also developed innovative monitoring and assessment techniques for fingerprioting sources of
contamination and is an expert: in demonstration landfill gas to groundwater contamination for solid
waste sites. New statistical techniques were developed for evaluating monitoriog 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 wet1ands, to manage leachate and contaminated groundwater.
Mr. Baker is a recognized expert in bioreactor landfills, alternate caps, groundwater quality,
hydrogeology, 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
. Participated 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 ofbioreactor and
significant leachate recircuIation sites:
. City of Dallas, TX- Selected as ConsuItant'to City of Dallas McConunas Laodf"IlI to assist in
planning, design, and pennitting as bioreactor landfill to increase gas generation, airspace,
leachate recirculation, and alternate cap:
. Evergreen Landfill, OH- first leachate recirCulation demonstration using horizontal penneable
blanket and one injection pipe. 2 acre area irUected 500,000 gallonslyear for 7 years without any
seeps or problems. Degraded waste sainpled to depth of just above liner
2P2303-Append1x.doc
A-1
APPENDIX
. . Countywide Lendfill, 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. . .
. 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 Superfund Landfill- Funded and conceptually designed experimental bench scale and full scale
method of aerobically treatiog groundwater phone by injecting back into aerobic landfill
. Spruce Ridge Landfill-MN- Funded and provided technical oversite ofleachate 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 productioti, and
alternate recirculation .methods. Data collection on density and settlement oflandfill
. Atlantic Landfill, VA- Funded and monitored leachate quality, quantity, gas production, altemate
recirculation methods, settlement, density, and affects of sludge addltion. .
. High Acres Landfill, NY- Funded and technical oversight of design, .operation, and data collection on
leachate quantity, quality, gas production: and settlement. . Next step is liquids addition pending
RD&D rule promulgation. .
. OSWA Sandlown LF, DE- Funded and directed study on summarizing 20 years histOrical data for
leachate quality, quantity, water balance,. settlement, density, gas production at 1he only site kD.own .
to have this much historical data. Also funded study on 2 small test cells measuring same
parameters comparing bioreactor 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 cn
leachate quality, quantity, gas quality and quantity, and degradation. Conceptual design and
operation offacility.
. Metro Lanciiill, WI- Funded project, participated in conceptual design, assisted in permittiog,
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, cciUaborated with Geosynthetic Research Institute for
monitoring ofliner and within waste for temperature, leachate and gas quality. Leacahte quantity
and density measured.
. Central Disposal, IA- Funded and involved in conceptual design ofbioreactor, innovative gas
collection, leachate quality, quantity, gas quantity, quality, density and settlement.
A-2
2P23O>-Apper<lix.doc
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
.i
(
(
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
. McGill Landfill, MI- Funded and involved in conceptual design of innovative meiliod of leachate
'injection using horizonllll blan:kets of3 different materials-tire chips; glass cullet, and geonet.
Results show more efficient and cheaperthllll. horizontal trenches. Settlement and' gas production
being measured.
'. Confidential Landfill- Evaluate settlement, density, waste composition (15-20% biosolids by weight)
leachate ipIality and quantity, and gas production dsta 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. f Water & Waste Resources Senior Mechanical Engineer
University of Wisconsln.Plattevllle: B.S. In Mechanical Engineering
Mr. Coon is a recognized expert in the field ofbiogas utilization. His 22 years of experience
encOmpasses all aspects landf'.tll gas systems, including system design, project financing reviews,
predictive modeling, operations and regulatory review. He has lead the design of landfill mechanical and
biogas 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
industri31 and municipal applications. He has led the design of numerous leachate recirculation systems
resulting in advanced biodegradation, reclaimed airspace, enhancedLFG generation and significantly
reduced operations cost.
Relevant Experience '
· Bloreactor oevalopmenl, McCommas Bluff Landfiil, Dallas, Texas. Modeled the LFG generation and
collection system to forecast expected LFGJ?fOduction 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 ofLFG energy recovery facility. Designed critical systems for
leachate recirculation, spray irrigation and flow metering systems. Modeled LPG generation and
developed recirculation to energy concept
. LFG and Leachate Extraction System, City of Sioux Falls Landfill, South Dakola. Designed and oversaw
constroction 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 1his
winter wi1h the installation of a blower/flare system. Completed hydraulic design and specifications
for supporting leachate treatment and storage pond.
'.
. LFG Extraction System and Leachale Reciroulation, Easl Central Solid Waste Commission, Mora, Minnesota.
Designed and oversaw construction and start-up of a LFG collection and control system at the
ECSWC Landfill in Mora Minnesota during;the summer of2005. 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 Projec~ 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. Beck, Inc.
A-3
(
/
I
'.
APPENDIX
(
c
empirical and theoretical LFG production data and proprietary gas model.. The projects are currently
under fina1 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. Perfoimed 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, NewCourl 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+MWLFG project at a large landfill in the northwest.
Developed capital and O&M costs for five different plant ronfignrations and a provided a summary
of the latest developments in LFG combustion and pretreatment systems.
. . LFG Reoovery Model, Apex Regional Landfill, Las Vegas, Nevada. Modeled the LFG recovery potential
and determined the collection system requirements. Developed eatimates of the size of power plant
needed for the recovered LFG and developed .cost estimates for the LFG collection system.
. McLeod Landfill Gas-la-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 techirlcal scope, contracts, cost analysis and power purchase
agreement between the County, a large privat7 waste firm, and the local electric cooperative.
. Landfill Gas Reoovery, LIttle Rock, Arkansas. Developed landfill gas control, recovery and beneficial use
system for the new landfill, reducing odor coIhplaints. Assisted with the cost! benefit analysis for the
landfill gas recovery system.
. Landfill Gas Generation Independent Review, Gazmont Reoovery 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 Reoovery Facility Independent Revie~, 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 Controi 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. ' .
(
(
(
(
(
c
,.
A4
2P2J03.Appendlx.doo
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Fred Doran, P.E.
R. W. Beck, Inc.1 Senior Director & Project Manager
University of Wisconsin, Madison: B.S. and M.S. In Civil and Envlronmental 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 techirlcal and financial challenges~HiS
. prO] ects have won engineering awards and earned recognition within the mdustry. 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 other interested parties in a project. Mr. Doran is also a frequent
speaker at environmental engmeering conferences and seminars and has published articles in several
industry periodicals. .
Relevant Expertise
Landfill Gas and Leachate Control
Mr. Doran developed both active and passive landfill gas and leachate monitoring and control systems as
part oflandfill siting projects, landfill closure aytivities 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 LPG collection methods. IncoIporated a
benchmarking 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 (RlE)
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 ora LFG extraction system and leachate recirculation
system. Engineer'of record for permitting, ~esign, and construction projects.
. City of Sioux Falls Landfill, South Dakota - Provided teclntical 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. - Mailaged and was lead engineer for an expansion of a
leachate recirculation system. Currently developing expansion plan for facility that will include
permitting, EA W preparation, and wetland niitigation.
. USEPA, Washington, D.C. - Provided Office of Solid Waste staffwith a technical review of public
comments concerning leachate recirculation on alternate liners and bioreactor operation.
Recommended potential revisions to Subtitle D to incoIporate these technologies.
R. W. Beck, Inc.
A-5
Facility Permitting, Design, and Construction .
Mr. Doran has managed projects to dose existhig landfili,;, 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
. agencies, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR),.Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EA W), design
of lined and unlined landfill cells, financial assuIance requirement calculations and preparation of .
leachate management plans.
. Crow Wing County MMSW and Demoiition Landfills, Minnesota - Permit work included EA W s, permit
applications, plans and specifications for cell construction and closure, and annual reporting.
. . East Central Solid Waste Commission, Mora, Minnesota - Directed development ofa permit application
for a vertical expansion, implementing 3: I slopes .md final cover removal to increase capacity over
existing footprint. Prepared plans and specifications and documented construction of composite lined
cell and leachate trea1ment pond. .
. Scepter Industries Industrial Waste Landml, Bickhell, Indiana - Directed design of composite liner with
leachate collection, provided quality as~ce on constrnction and managed development of landfill
expansion plans, as part of permii modification.
. WoodlaJ<e Sanitary Landfill, Browning-Ferris 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 applicat;ion.
. Northeast Otter Tail Sanitary Landfill, MInnesota ~ Design of a lined ash and MSW landfill, closure of
existing facilities, draft EAW, industrial waste management plan, f"mancial assurance calculation, and. .
leachate management plan.
(
(
("
C
(
(
(
("
c.
,
APPENDIX
(
I
,-
R.Jeffrey Dunn, P.E.
K1elnfelder! Senior Principal Engineer! Solid Weste 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 Kleiofelder, he is
leader of the solid waste practice for the company and is responsible for technical quality ofKleiofelder's
solid waste practice and program management, Dr. Dunn is nationally known for his expertise in design
and constrnction oflandfillliner and cover syst,ems 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 td successful landfill performance. He has worked on over
50 landfill projects and performed in a Progranl or Project Manager and Senior Consultant role on a
wide variety oflandfill 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.
Mi
2P2303-Appendlx.doc
,
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Relevant Expenenee
. McCommas Bluff Landfill Bioreactor Design - Dallas, Texas; Senior Consultation: Bioreactor
operations are proposed for future celIS 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 finaJ cover. Specific emphasis was placed on
evalillltion of the impact of leachate buildup within bioreactor cells and analysis oflandfill gas
pressure impacts on the stability of the slopes. Findings erophasized the importance of proper
leachate application, as well as leachate and landfill gas recovery efficiency.
.' Land Recovery Incorporated L3:ndfill '- Graham, Washington; Dr. Dunn has served as a senior
technical consultant for landfill design, construction and operations of this MSW landfill located near
Graham, Washington. Services have included design and permitting of leachate reinjection in
bioreactor digposaJ cells, lining system consUltation on geosynthetic 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 unita located in a highly'
se~c 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 futore
remediation activities at the facility. The use of state-of-the-art exploratory and design techniques .
resulted in significant cost savings by elimiiiating the need for large stabilizing buttresses at several of
the.landfills. All cover systems were fine-tuiled 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
worlred in an "over-the-shoulder" review mode to keep the regulatory agencies apprised of desigu
assUmptions and details throllghout the process. He also managed Construction quality assurance
services.
William R. Hindman, P.E.
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, Inc.1 Vice President and SoUd Waste Program Director
Texas A&M University: M. S. & B.S. In Civil Engineering
i
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 ~ork 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 trangportation, 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, regnlatory 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.
~\
;
R. W. BecI<. Inc.
A-7
Relevant Experience '. . .
. Denton Sanitary I..andfill - City of Denton, Texas: Project Principal responsible for TCEQ Permit
Amendment and Initial Subtitle D Cell design and overall QNQC. He directed design and Provided .
resources, served as client contact and regulatory liaison for pennitting and approvals. Initial design
included Subtitle D Cell, liner; and leachate collection system
. ~Commas Biuff Sanitary Landfill Bioreactor Pennlt Modification - City of Dallas, Texas; Project
Principa1lProject 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(MSW 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 ModificationS - City of1rving; Project PrinciplelProject Manager
responsible for prepanition and submittal of Permit Modification requests to 1) upgrade the existing
Site Operating Plan, 2) authorize use of an Altercate Daily Cover (ADC)'on a permanent basis, and 3)
Authorize use of another ADC on a temporary basis.
.. Hunter Ferrell Sanitary Landfill Permtt Modifications - City of1rving; Project Principal1Pi'oject Manager for
preparation ofplans/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-call engineeriog .
services to the City Department of Sanitation related to construction and operation of the city owned
McCommas Bluff Sanitary Landfill. .
. Gariand Sanitary Landfill- City of Garlancl, TeXas; Project PrincipallProject Manager for TCEQ Permit
and Initial Site Development. He served as day-to-day client contact, and provided overall QNQC,
directed design efforts, and served as.regulatory liaison for pennitting and approvals. Initial
development included entrance roadWays, scale house, demudding facility, maintenance facility,
Subtitle D Cell, liner leachate collection, groundwater monitoriog, and levee design.
. Lubbock Sanitary Landfill- City ofLubhock, Texas; Project Principal responsible for TCEQ Permit and
Initial Site Development, and schematic design and overall QNQC. 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 conc~ptua1 plan to address permit techoical issues (fire
training, aggregate storage, container repair.).
. Sanitary Landfill Pennlt 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 submissiou 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.
(
C
(
(
(
(
(
(
.-
APPENDIX
(
I.
i
A-8
2P23ll3-Append~.doc
,..'
,'.,;"
. . SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Frank E. Pugsley, EIT
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, Inc. I Environmental & Civil Engineer
Texas Tech Unlvel'lllty: M.S. & B. S. In Environmental, Engineering
Frank Pugsley has three years of experience on a variety of municipal infrastructure projects. He has
been a designepgineer for projects including solid waste transfer and disposal facilities watei'treatmeut
. 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, chemicRt systems for water treatment, pump station design, construction
management, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit applications. Projects represeriting Mr. Pugsley's
experience directly related to this project include: .
. .
Relevant Experience
. sago Sanitary Landfill, CloSure Modification - Shred-Tech, Key Designer; Assisting in the preparation of .
notification of changes and supporting plans land narrative to modify the final closure of the Sego
Sanitary Landfill located in Euless, Texas. The Notification Documents were ~ and submitted
to the TCEQ for approval. Also, he is assisting in obtaining the approval for the site changes. .
. McCommas Bluff Sanitary Landfill Bioreactor 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'BluffLandfill as a 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.
. HunterFerrell San.ttary L.imdfill permtt Modifications.., City ofhving; 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 Perrott Modificetions - City ofhving; Project Engineer for the preparation
ofPIans 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 I,-ookout Drive site.
. Solid Waste Management Pian - 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.
~ i
Michael M. Shiflett, P.E.
K1elnfelder I Principal & Senior Geotechnical Consultant
University of Texas atArilngton: M.S. & B. S.ln CMI Engineering
Michael M. Shiflett, P .E., is a Principal ofKleihfelder 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. BecK. Inc.
A-IJ
.
. APPENDIX
consultant for many geotechnical projects. The scope of these projects and assigomenls 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.
Mr. Shiflett has investigated sites for municipal '!!ld industrial solid waste disposal facilities providing
geotechnical analysis, lioer desigM, groundwater monitoriog systems, quality assurence programs and
p&nnt hearing testimony. He has performed numerous slope stability analyses, lateral load analyses, and
high capacity pier/pile studies iocludiog field load testing. He has investigated sites for highway bridges,
ground storage tanks, elevated water storage tanks, pipelioes and water and wastewater treatment plants.
He has provided expert witness testiniony based on his experience as a Practicing geotechnical engineer.
Mr.. Shiflett has gaioed 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 hlird rock.
.Mr. Shiflett has provided geological and geotechnical consoltation for waste disposal facilites throughout
North Texas. He has assisted io siting and permitting landfills, has performed groundwater and .
hydrogeologic assessments, and has evaluated constructed clay lioers. Representative projects and
services performed are as follows: .
Relevant Experience
. McComrnas BluII Landfill Bioreactor Design - Dallas, Texas; Geotechnical Engineer: Conducted slope
stability linalysis for a bioreactor cell design-at McCommas Bluff Landfill. The slope stability
a:na1Ysis included: side slope lioer stability, interim waste slope stability, final waste slope stability,
and final cover stability.
. Arlington Landfill- Arliogton, Texas; Geotecturlcal Engineer: Performed groundwater study at an
exiating facility to evaluate the effectiveness of a slurry wall barrier system. The study occurred over
a 2-year interval measuring the impact of site floodiog, raiofall, dewateriog operetions, and geologic
continnity withio the proposed landfill bottom.
. Waste Control Specialists. LLC - Andrews County, Texas; Geotechnical Engineer: Provided geotechnical
engineering analysis for portions of the landfill design duriog permit renewal by the permitting
consulting firm. Services iocluded: Liner System Design, Stability Analysis of Berm and Cut Slope,
Interim Slope Stability Analysis, Hazardous Waste Settlement Analysis, Straio ofFioal Cover System,
Loading calcolations and thickness determioations for Temporary Storage Pads, CQA testing and
documentation of new celllioer construction.
Dan J. Wittliff, P.E., DEE
Dan WIttllff Consulting, PLLC I Principal .
Southern Methodist University: B.S. In Mechanlcarengineerlng
University of Oklahoma: Master of Business Administration
Mr. Wittliff, former Chief Engineer of the TexBs Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality - TCEQ) is Principal of Dan Witt1iffConsolting. PLLC. This
firm provides professional engineeriog services io environmental engineeriog, regulatory affairs, and
energy systems. Before service with TNRCC/Mr. Wittliff served io several supervisory positions with
West Texas Utilities Company, Abilene, TIC managing and monitoriog power station performance to
include issues related to air pollution, water treatment, iodustrial hygiene, and solid waste disposal. Mr.
A-10
2P23OS-Appendix.doc
(
(
(
C
;1- (
( ,
(
(
~
(
t
.1
(
,~
y
.
'"
SELECT PROJECT TEAM MEMBER RESUMES
Witt1iffkeeps compiex 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 industiy, Mr. Willliff is a skilled consensus builder who proactively
engages the community on behalf of clients to address relevant issues early and economically. On behalf
ofhis clients, he is an advocate for cutting edge technology (e.g., bioreactors and leachate recirculation)
to improve operation, compliance, and finances. '
Relevant Experience
Air PermUting
. McCommas Bluff Landfill- Dallas, TX; Wrote ahd secured from TCEQ a New Source Review Slandlird
' 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
eilforcement issues. Wrote and submitted aD application to amend the McCommas Bluff Landfill
SAP Number 74705 to account for effects of implementing bie-technology at this landfill.
. 121 Regional Disposal FacilIty (RDF) -_Melissa, TX; Provided essential support to permitting team and
Provided key testimony before state officials to secure a MSW permit fur 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 Titl,: V Air Operating Permit for this facility.
. Maxwell Creek Landfill-_Sachse, TX; Wrote application for a Title V Air Operating Permit for this 4.5
million ton MSW facility in Collin County. Worked with client and legal team to resolve compliance
and eilforcement issues.
. McKinney Landfill- McKinney, TX; Wrote application for a Title V Air Operating Permit for this 4.4
million ton MSW facility. Worked with client and legal team to resolve compliance and enforcement
issues.
. NSR Renewal for Una 2 For! Phantom Power Station - Abilene, TIC; Wrote and submitted application to
renew NSR permit for 400 MW electric power under ~30 TAC 116. Renewal approved.
Environmental Remediation and Public Outreach
. Sunset Depot Cleanup Issues - San Antonio. TX; In the aftermath of Alamo Iron Works cleanup to
make wsy for the Alamodome, angry local citizens raised concerns 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
concerned citizens (Residents Organized for a Safe Environment). Defused the volatile situation,
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 issu~ - Wmona, TX; Represented the Executive Director of
TNRCC at public meetings on proposed penriits 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. ",
. Conroe Creosote Site Cleanup - Conroe, TX; Represented the Executive Director at public meetings on
the controversial use of an innovative technolpgy to cleanup an abandoned creosote treating site.
Issues for the angry neighbors included: groUndwater migration of contaminants, air emissions from
the remediation approach, and adverse property value impacts.
R. W. Beck. Inc.
A.11
i,
i;:i
,
'. APPENDIX
Multl.Medla Permitting and TCEQ experience .
. Texas Proposal on 8-Hour Ozone Standard - Orchestrated.1he inter-disciplinary development of 1he
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 1he
development process. Represented 1he TNRCC Commissioners in presenting 1his issue in meetings
in five Texas cities as well as in Washington, D.C.
. Multi-Media Environmental Compliance and Permitting,.. Managed 1he efforts of a professional, mUlti-
media (air, waste, water, wastewater, spills, arid industrial hygiene) environmental staff and a million
plus dollar budget used in securing permits; d6termining fees, reporting compliance, and maintaining
awareness for company's nine power stations,' eight service facilities, and 1,100 employees.
. Texas EmiSsions Reductions for Off-Road Diesel Engines - Worked with TxSWANA legal team and
Metroplcx area members to craft a strategy for complying wi1h 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.
. S30 TAC 317. Wastewater Rules Rewrite - Served on TNRCC's Core Committee for1he rewrite of1he
agency's wastewater roles. . Effort resulted in more understandable rules wi1h accompanying
regulatory guidance. .
A-12
2P2303-Appendlx.doc
(
(
-
(
- (
(
(
(
~
(
.l
THE STATE OF TEXAS 9
9
COUNTY OF DENTON 9
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, whi<;h 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. I 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. I 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. I, 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. I are in full force and
effect, and shall remain in full force and effect.
This Amendment No. 2 shall be attached to the original Agreement and
Amendment No. I 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 ~2.
SIGNEDthisthe I'J dayof~~PV ,2006.
"CITY"
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
A Texas Municipal Corporation
BY:~~
George . Campbell, Cit Mmager
.-/
ATTESTED:
JENNIFER W ALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
By:
APPR VED 1\ TO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
~
By: ~~~
/ /
"BECK"
R.W. BECK, INe.
A Corporation
By: t2A-ei'1tJ T
ATTEST:
t~ /1~
S:\Our Documcnts\Contracts\06\Amendment No 2 to PSA~COD-R W Beck-Addnl Svcs-SW-gc.doc
2