HomeMy WebLinkAbout13.b. Barr Engineering - USPCI CnV1 P.O. BOX 510
✓1G� � 2875-145TH ST. W.
OSQ�O�/G� ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
612-423-4411
ITEM � � � �
June l , 1990
T0; Mapor Napper
Council Members: Rlassen
Oxborough
Willcox
Wippermann �,�'
FROM: Stephan Jilk, Citp Administrator `' --
RE: USPCI Project Review/Consulting �Servi es
I have previouslp advised you of the areas of permit evaluation
and project issues that we will need to address regarding the
USPCI Waste Containment Facility Project proposed for Rosemount.
These areas more specifically are:
1 . Storm Water Management
2. Waste Screening and Acceptance Process
3 . Impact on Area Aesthetics
4. Impact on City Services
5 . Overview of EIS - Draft and Fina1
6. Detailed Review of Specific Components of Permit
Application .
7 . Facility Construction and Operation
We have alreadp given direction to Barr Engineering to proceed to
review the Storm Water Management Plan submitted by USFCI. Barr
should complete this review in the next two weeks and provide
comments at that time.
I have asked Barr Engineering to consider the other items which I
felt we would need outside consulting services for in order to
provide review on this project. After mp meeting with Steve
Klein of Barr I was convinced that the company should at least
provide us with a proposal for the services and estimated cost
for these services.
Thep have done this. Their proposal for project work tasks,
associated time frames and estimated costs are attached.
Following the receipt of this proposal I had several questions
for clarification of the proposal. The responses to those
questions are attached following the proposal and , I feel, are
complete.
� b s .
Barr Engineering
RE: USPCI
June l , 1990
Page 2
I find the proposal for consulting services for the USPCI Project
from Barr Engineering adequate and I request your approval to
approve the use of Barr Engineering for those services as
outlined in their proposal of April 17 , 1990 and as clarified on
April 26, 1990 excluding item 7 which I would recommend further
discussion on and a detailed agreement as to which, if any, of
the services outlined there we will require.
lj
�
����
Engineering Company
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapofis,MN 55439-3t23
612/830-0555
612/835-0186(Facsimile)
April 17, 1990
Mr. Stephen Jilk
City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 550b8
RE: Engineering Services Related to the
Proposed ;USPCI Industrial Waste Landfill
Dear Mr. .Tilk:
Enclosed is a table which summarizes work tasks, time schedule, and
costs anticipated for aiding the City in permitting the landfill operation.
The table has been divided into seven anticipated work groups. Below the
heading of each work group is a list of itemized tasks and their associated
costs. In developing this table, we tried to identify the various tasks and
issues that would need more scrutinization (for the City's concerns) than is
normally provided by the various state and federal agency's reviews and
permitting procedures. Items that we felt, from the City's perspective,
would be sufficiently handled by the various state—and federal agencies were
not included in these work tasks.
We would really like to aid the City in the review and operations
process for this permit. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincer:ely,
�
'.-z_ '''� s(�tc. �.-- � ' �`� 3
en M. �I�lein, P.E.�
SMK/ymh ,
Enclosure
0003090/SJ.LTR
RECEIVEI�
APK 1 : i:��::
CLEKK�S' c.�rFIC;E
C1TY OF ROSEMOUNT
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Oec Jan feb Mar Apr Mey
'90 �90 '90 �90 '90 �90 �90 �90 �90 �91 �91 '91 '91 '91
" t. Storm Nater Management • • • • • . . . . . . .
EST.
a.�RevieW Conceptual Ptan • • • • • . . . . . . . C 0$T
- Read conceptuat ptan �---� • • • • • • . . . . 280
• - Determine if analysis • • • . . . . . . . . ,
provided in plan is ..........................:...........................................................................'..................
appropriate ��� . . . . . . . . . • • 280
- List canments, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
concerns end issues •� • • • • . • . . . . . . 140
- Prepare letter • • • . . . . . . . . . .
s�mnarizing our ....... ........... ...................................................................... .....................
review • . H • . . . . . . . . 280
b. Reviea Final Ptan • . . . . . . . .
- Read final plan • • . .�� . . . . . . .
- Scrutinize it for • • . . . . . . . .
required City changes ............................................�................................................................. 140
- Prepare letter • • • • . • . . . . . . .
surtrnarizing our . . . . . . . . . . .
review. • . . . • H . . . . • 280
c. Review Construction • • , • • • • • • • • • • S1,700
Activities and ..................... ........................................... ......... ....................................
Operations for • • • • . . . . . . . , .
Fompliance
- lSee 1 tem #14) • • • . . . . . . . . . .
2. �faste Screening end • • • • . . . � . . . , .
Acceptance Process ........................................................................................................................
e. Revieu Draft Criteria • • • • • . . . . . , , ,
and Process • • • . . . . . . . . .
- Read draft criterie • • • • . . . . . . . . .
' and process to be • • • • . . . . . . . . .
used for determining ........................................................................................................................
. ecceptance or • • • • . . . . . . . . .
rejection of ►+aste • • • . . . . . . . . . .
at faci t i ty. �----� . . . . . . . . . . . S 280
- Determine if program • • • • . . . . . . . ,
is adequate and .......................................................................................................................
appropriate E----i . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
- List comments, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
concerns and issues f---� • • • • • • • . . . . . . 140
- Prepare letter • • • • . . . . . . . . .
surmarizing our ................... ................................. ...... ................... ............................... �280
revieu • �'� . . . . . . . . . . .
b. Revieu final Criteria • • • • . . . . . . . � . .
• and Process • • • • . . . . . . , , ,
- Read final criteria • • • • • . . . . , , , , ,
and process plan ............................................�_�....... ..........................................................
280
- Scrutinize it for • • • . . . . . . . .
required City • . . . . . . . . . . .
changes . . . . .�� . . . . . . . . 140
• Prepare tetter • • . . . . . . . . , ,
simnarizing our ........................................................................................ . ......... ...... ........
revieu . . . . . H . . . . . .
280
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,700
3, lmpact on Area Aesthetics • • • . . . . . . , .
Note: Uould lnclude Examin- • • • . . . . . . . . .
ingfactors Such as Visuat ,..................................... ........... ... .........................................................
Impacts, Noise, Dust, • • • . . . . . . . . .
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
'90 '90 �90 '90� �90 '90 �90 �90 �90 '91 '91 '91 '91 '91 E S T.
Traffic, Hou� of operation. C 0 S T
a. Revieu D�aft Material • • • • • • • • • • • •
- Read draft reports • • • • • • • • • • • • •
and plans ......��........................................................................................................... 280
• Determine if enatysis . . . . . . . . . • . .
and proposed . . . . . . . . . • . •
mitigative measures • • • • • • • • • • • • •
are comptete atxl . . . . . . � . . • . • .
adequate ........�.................................................'..........�............................................. 280
- L i st comments, . . . . . . . . . • . • .
concerns ard issues �---� . . . . • • . . • . . . 140
Prepare letter • • • • • • • • • • • •
sumnarizing our . . . . . . . . . • . . .
revieu ........,...��............................................................................,........................ 280
b. Review Finet DoctmeMs • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- Read finat docunents • • • • •�—� • • • • • • • • 280
Scrutinize them for • • • • • • • • • • • • •
required City changes • • • • •f—{ • • • • • � • • 140
- Prepare letter ........................................................................................................
s�mnarizing our . . . • . • . . . . . .
review . • . . . �—{• • . . • • • • 280
4. Impact on City Services • • • • • • • • • • • •
and Facitities ................................................................................................. � ... S1,100
a. Review Draft Materials • • • • • • • • • • • •
- Read draft reports • • • • • • • • • • • •
end plans F� . . . . . . . . . . _
- Determine if anatyses • • • • • . . . . . , , , 140
and proposed mitiga- ..............................................................................................................,.........
tive measures are • • • • • • • • • • • •
complete and edequate F--� • • • • • • � • • • • 140
- List cortments, . . . . . . . . • .
concerns, and issues H ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 140
- Prepare letter sum- ........................................................................................................................
marizing our revieu f--i . . . . . • . • . 2�
b. RevieW final Documents • • • • • • • • • • • • 140
- Read finat documents • • • • •�—i • • • • • • • •
- Scr�tinize them for • • • • • • • • • • • • • 140
required City changes ............................................�.............................................................. ...
Prepare tetter sun- • . . . . . . . . . . . • 280
marizing our revieu . . . • . �. . . . . • • • f1,3Q0
5. Detailed Review of Specific • • • • • • • • • • • •
CortiponeMs of Permi t • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Applicution Hote: Speciflc .................................................................................................................. . .
CunywnantL tu Le Cxaminccl • • • • � • • • . . . .
tlould Include Emergency • • • • • • • • • � • • •
Preparedness and Preven- • • • • • • • • • • • •
tion Plan, Inspection Pro- • • • • • • • • • • • • •
, cedures and Schedule, ................................................................................... ........... ...................
Personnel Training, Security • • • • • • • • • • • • .
Post-Closure Ptan arxi Post- • • • • • • • • • • • • •
� Closure Use of Property, and • • • • • • • • • • • •
Financial Assurance. • • • • • • • • • • • • •
a. Revieu Draft Application ............. ............................. . ..................... ............ ....... ................. .
, - Revieu spccific cam- • • • • • • . • . . • • . •
ponents in detait to • • • • • • • • • •
• determine � • • • • • • • • • • •
completeness and • • • • • • • • • • •
" adequacy ... ............ .........�_.�. .... . .. .................... ........ . ............ ......
- Iist rnrtmrn�s . • . . • . . . • . . .
P� ���
' . Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May E S T.
'90 '90 �90 �90 �90 �90 �90 '90 �90 �91 '91 '91 �91 '91 C 0 S T
concerns and issues • • • • • • • . • • • • 420
- Prepare letter sun- • • • • • • • • • • . •
marizin9 our review . . • , •f--+ . . . • . . . . 420
.........................................................................................................................
b. Revieu Pinal Apptication • • • • • • • • • •
• Review specific com- . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ponents in detail for • • • • • • • • . . . .
incorporation of • • • • • • • • • . . . .
required City changes .......................................................................................
.................................
and other changes • • • • • • • • • . . . . ���
made. . . . . . . .f____� . . . ,
- Prepare letter sun- • • • • • • • . . . ,
marizing our revieu • • . . . . . , , . . 400
H � s4,600
...............................................................................................:........................
6. Overview of ElS, Complete • • • • • • • • . . . . .
Permit Application and • • • � • � • • • . . ,
Proposed Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a. S�mnary Revieu of Uraft • • • • • • • • • . . . .
Documents ................................................ .................... .. ... ..................................
- Read draft documents • • • • • • • • • . . . .
and supporting . . . • • . • • . . . .
informetion F—� . F---� . . . . .��. . 53,360
- Determine if there • • • • • • • • • • . . .
are any major ....................................................................................
....................................
discrepancies•in the • • • • • • • . . . .
findings, proposats, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
or conditions in • • • • • • • . . . . . .
. retation to City • • • • • • • • . . . .
interests or previous ........................................................................................................................
Barr experiences. • �----� • • �---{ • • • . . .��. . 1,400
- List c«rtnents, . . . . . . . . . . .. .
concerns, and i ssues • �----� • • �---� • • • . . . H. . 420
- Prepere letter • • • • • . . . . . . .
presenting our ........................................................................................................................
sumiary review . . �--+. . . H . . . . . . H. . S60
b. Sumiary RevieW of Final • • • • • • • • . . . . .
Docunents . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Read finat docunents • • • • • • • • . . . . .
for incorporation of .................................................�.......................................................................
required City changes • • • • • • . . . . . . .
and other changes • • • • • • • . . . . . .
made . . . . .�--.�. .�� . . . . H 3,360
- Prepare tetter • • • • • . . . . . . . .
presenting our ........................................................................................................:...............
surmiary revieW • • • • H . .H . . , , S00
_ 59,600
7. Facility Construction and
Operation
a. Revieu facitity con- •
struction, operation, 54,500/yet
closure, end post-
� closure ca�e for
complionce 51,800/yef
,_ b. Prepnre pertodic
letters sum�arizing
our findings
. .. x -
� ��� Barr � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� �� � �
Engin.eering Com�any
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis,MN 55439-3123 � ��� *y ,� �
612/830-0555 1 V
612/835-0186(Facsimile)
April 26, 1990 APR 2 7 1��0
- • CLERK'S C�FFfCE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
Mr. Stephen Ji1k
City Administrator
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Re: Engineering Services Related to the Proposed USPCI Industrial Waste
Landfill
Dear Mr. Jilk:
Thank you for contacting me with your questions about my April 17 letter
which lists an anticipated scope of work, time schedule and cost estimate to
aid the City wixh the' USPCI project. This letter clarifies the five
questions you had and also provides you with a more formal proposal for
performing the work.
The following numbered paragraphs correspond to the questions you posed
in your recent transmittal to me.
(1) "Item 1C: Does this mean for construction activities as part of the
stormwater management portion of the facility?"
�.
Yes, Item 1C was intended for construction review during the
construction as well as operational review (once the construction
activities are completed but while the landfill was in operation) .
The statement "(See Item 4)" was a misprint. It should have read,
"See Item 7. " The cost for this stormwater management work is
included in items 7a and 7b. Other work included in 7a and 7b is
addressed in the�response to your question 4 below.
(2) "Item 5: In reference to closure and post—closure activities and
financial assurances required, what method would Barr use to determine �
these as to their adequacy, and is the cost reflective of all of zhat
or is there additional cost?" `
We envisioned reviewing the USPCI closure and post—closure plans
with emphasis on ultimate land use. This information would be
compared to City plans to determine compatibility. With regard to
financial assurance, Barr �.*ould review the post—closure assurances
and period that would be covered by those financial resources.
` i � � .
Mr. Stephen Jilk April 26, 1990 Page 2
Since a standard post-closure financial assurance period is now 20
years, the review would identify if there are possible longer term
needs that should be planned for at the outset of the project. The
cost estimates we provided are believed to be adequate to provide
these services.
(3) "Item 6: Timeline for EIS review and comments. Can this be adjusted
to fit USPCI's schedule?"
To a certain extent, the time schedule that is shown for the items
in Item 6 can be adjusted to USPCI's schedule. However, some of
these schedules will likely be affected by the various regulatory
reviews. Based on our experience with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency and the U.S. EPA, some of their reviews may take
four to six months which in turn may affect USPCI's ability to
prepare various documents. What is important in the our time
schedule is not so much the actual months that are 'involved; but
the bracket of time that is intended for each item. If the
documents are provided faster, we will easily shift our schedule.
(4) "Item 7: Expand on services supplied for $4,500 versus $1,800 and how
this may be adjusted if the City hires permanent staff to also monitor
this project. "
Item 7a involves the physical activities in reviewing the
facility's construction, ongoing operations, closure operations,
and post-closure care for compliance with the various permits that
will be issued. We anticipate a site visit on the average once a
month during construction, landfilling operations, and closure
activities. At critical times, the number and duration bf .reviews
may need to be more than once a month. In those cases, the number
and length of site visits would likely depend on how the contractor
is performing the work and the significance of the work relative
to City concerns. Item 7b was included for documenting review
activities and providing the City with updates after each review.
The specific activities and costs included in Item 7 are o'�'r best
guess at this point of what may likely be needed by the City. This
will depend greatly on the responsiveness of the contractor and
whether or not the City hires a permanent staff person to perform
some of this work. At this point, we feel that �n individual could
be trained to perform various review procedures. Therefore, many
of the work tasks anticipated in Item 7 could be shifted to City
staff. Some of this work will involve special procedures where the
individual would have to be dressed in various safety gear which
might include speciai respirators and safety clothing. Monitoring
equipment may also be necessary. As a result, you may find from
an overall cost it may be more cost effective to utilize Barr's
services. However, we will be happy to work with the City in any
.. �l '- ^ 5 y . .
Mr. Stephen Jilk April 26, 1990 Page 3
fashion it feels appropriate. If the City retains a permanent
staff individual, we will be happy to assist in his/her training
and work closely with that individual. Certainly, if that person
can perform many of the tasks anticipated in Item 7, the costs
included would also be appropriately reduced.
(5) "Please list items which Barr considers 'normally covered' by State and
other agencies and which Barr would normally not have to do separate
reviews on. "
We feel that the State will closely scrutinize the specific design
components of the landfill. They will also review other documents
for compliance with their regulations. However, there are many
items that the State will likely not consider that are very
important to the City such as traffic, noise, dust, and odors.
Also, the State and Federal agencies have a limited number of
personnel who are spread over many projects throughout the state.
The amount of time that they could spend reviewing the physical
construction and ongoing operations will likely be very minimal and
may not provide adequate assurance that City concerns are being
met, especially in cases where the City concerns are different than
State or Federal concerns.
Contract Proposal
Barr Engineering has been involved with all aspects of design
construction and operation of various landfills throughout the state. With
the great variety of professional staff at Barr, we feel that Barr can F
provide the City complete services for their needs in dealing with this
landfill. We are also aware that the City needs to closely cdntrol its
expenditures. Therefore, I propose to perform all work on a time and sxpense
basis rather than a lump sum amount. This will allow the City the ability
to see specifically what is being done on a regular hasis, and the City would
only be billed for the specific work performed. Under a lump sum contract,
because of the great amount of uncertainty, costs for uncertainty would be
built into the lump sum amount, and the contract may be unnecessarily
inflated to cover that uncertainty. Therefore, a time and expense contract
would definitely be the most responsive and cost effective for the City.
The work tasks included in my April 17 letter were provided for the
City's consideration in the types of work that will be necessary. This does
not necessarily mean that Barr Engineering would have to do all of that work.
Certainly if the City wishes to perform some of these tasks, we would be
happy to assist the City with the tasks the City needs assistance. In that
case, the City would only be billed for the specific time and expenses that
Barr performs.
. , m .�, ,
Mr. Stephen Jilk April 26, 1990 Page 4
If a time and expense contract is acceptable to the City, I will set up
in our budget program specific items for each of the seven major work tasks
identified in my April 17 letter. Our monthly billing statements will
provide the City with a tabular update showing specifically amounts billed
to each task and compare them with the estimated costs. That way, Barr and
the City will be able to monitor each task. Also, if something should arise
which would require additional time expenditures, we would provide the City
a letter summarizing the anticipated expenditures and we would not perform
any of those tasks until given approval to do so by the City.
We are excited about working with the City on this project and we truly
appreciate your consideration of Barr Engineering for performing these tasks.
If you have any questions at all concerning the April 17 letter or this
letter, please feel free to call me any time.
ely,
.
n M. ein, P.E.
SMK/kml
0003090/SJI.LTR
(