HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.c. USPCI / Barrr Engineering , � �
C�n2 P.O. BOX 510
ZG � 2875-145TH ST. W.
(Q��n ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
Ov G'�"�0��� 612-423-4411
ITEM # 8 C
T0: Mayor Napper
Council Membe s K assen, Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann
FROM: Stephan Jil
DATE: June 29, 1990
RE: USPCI Project/Barr Engineering Services
Gouncil has approved the use of Barr Engineering as consultants
to the city on various aspects of the USPCI project. -0ne aspect
af that project was the review and determination of adequacy of
the company' s financial assurances for contingencies, closu�e and
past closure activities . Barr Engineering had indicated that
this service wouid be provided as part of their review and
comment responsibility during permit review'. I ,have had
follow-up discussions with them' because I had concerns that the
level of detail they were recommending would not be adequate to
serve the city and this project, as we may need. The financial
assurance issue may be one of the most important faetors
regarding the operation of this facility as it would relate to
the security of the city.
Following a second meeting with Barr on June 19, 1990, I
requested that they review their proposed involvement and insure
that a complete service would be provided based upon our stated
needs . They have done that and a proposal to complete those
services is attached along with the proposed cost estimate to
complete them.
A portion of the $8,300 estimate wi11 be taken out of their
overall program because the work they would have provided under
the overall program is included here.
I recommend that this proposal be accepted and that you consider
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL BY BARR ENGINEERING TO COMPLETE
THE REVIEW AND PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
PROPDSALS BY USPCI, INC.
dw
attachment
. � . . � .T � �, � �
Barr
Engineering Company
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapo/is,MN 55439-3123
612/830-0555
612/835-0186(Facsimite)
June 27, 1990
Mr. Stephan Jilk
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 your time in meeting with us on June 19, 1990. During
that meeting, you requested an estimate of costs for an expanded scope of
work in reviewing the USPCI financial assurances. The expanded work scope
would provide a considerably more detailed review of USPCI' s financial
assurance. The attached table presents a scope of work and cost estimate to
provide that serdice.
This expanded scope of work supplements our proposal presented in
letters dated April 17, 1990 and April 26, 1990. That earlier proposal did
not include a comprehensive review of the USPCI cost estimates for closure,
post-closure care, and contingency action. These USPCI cost estimates are
the basis of the required financial assurance amounts and are reviewed by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (M1'CA) . However, as a result of our
June 19 discussions, we feel it is also appropriate for the City to perform
its own comprehensive review of the USPCI estimates. Our earlier proposal
regarding financial assurances was targeted on the duration of the post-
closure period and the possible need for longer term financial assurance.
Our proposed review was postured this way because the State usually reviews
the 4ctivities, cost estinates atid fin�ncial i-esources ror the required '[e�-
year post-closure period, and the City' s concerns go well beyond that.
You also requested that we outline an approach for presenting the City' s
comments on the USPCI cost estimates and financial assurance. We feel it
would be most effective to review the necessary information and documents at
the draft permit application stage and forward comments and reeommendations
to the permitting entities at that time. This would allow them to know the
City' s concerns before regulatory comments are finalized. We believe the
process of providing input into development of regulatory comments and
positions is more effective than trying to alter them once established.
We contacted Jeff Harthun of Dakota County to determine their position
and role regarding financial assurance for the USPCI facility. We understand
Mr. Stephan Jilk June 27, 1990 Page 2
that Dakota County is not looking to duplicate the State' s requirements. If
the State requires financial assurance consistent with the rules for
financial assurance, Dakota County may waive their requirements. However, in
the preliminary stages, exact roles of Dakota County and the MPCA in
implementation of financial assurance may be uncertain. Therefore,
submitting the City' s comments to both the MPCA and Dakota County at the
draft application stage will be in the Gity' s best interest.
Thank you again for discussing this with us. If you have any questions,
please contact �P.
Sincer y,
1
:.--,�..�.
_ ... �`
"�� -
_.�---j �1 � r� �
. Klein P. .
SMK/kml
Enclosure �
0003090/SJ.LTR
�;
. � . .. � � � .�:s
. . � �.;:r�i%i
�S':
� � . .. � .:�a
� . . .°�:r`i
�?y
t .
PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCES GOST
FOR FACILITY CLOSURE, POST—CLOSURE CARE AND CONTINGENCY ESTIMATE
ACTION
A. Closure
1. Review closure plan in conjunction with the $ 1,400
design report and plans and specifications to
determine proposed closure design, materials,
procedures, and schedules.
2. Evaluate USPCI closure cost estimate based on 1,200
detailed facility design, materials, closure
procedures, and schedule. -
3. Prepare letter presenting review comments and 600
participate in a meeting to discuss.
$ 3,200
B. Post-Closure Care
1. Review post—closure plan to determine proposed $ 600
post—closure activities and schedules.
2. Evaluate USPCI post—closure cost estimates based 700
on post—closure plan and facility design and
monitoring program.
3. Frepare letter presenting review comments and 600
participate in a meeting to discuss.
$ 1,900
C. Contingencv Action
1. Review contingency action plan, in conjunction $ 1,400
with hydrogeologic reports, design report,
operation plans, closure plan, and post—closure
�are plan to identify possible contingent events
and proposed contingency responses.
2. Evaluate USPCI contingency action cost estimates 1,200
based on proposed contingency responses and
facility design, hydrogeologic setting, and
operations. .
3. Prepare letter presenting review comments and 600
participate in meeting to discuss.
$ 3,200
8 �
0003090/SJ.LTR/KML
�:��rr
E����c��y
7803 Glenroy Road
Min�eapalrs,MN 55499�3123
672/83d-0555
612/835-018&(Facs�mile)
�,pril 26, 2990
Mr. Stephen Ji11�
City Administrgtar ,
City of Rosestount
2875 145rh SCreet West :
Rosemount, MN 55058
&e: gngineering 5erwiaes Belated to the Proposed US�CI Industrisl Waste
I,andf i l l
Dear Mr. Jilk: �
:..: .- ,
. • Thank yon far�cantacting me with your questior�s sbout my Apri1 17 Iette'r .
w2iieh� lists an anticipazed scope ot work, time schedule�'and� �asty estimace .C4 ' •
sid che Clty With the USPGI gTojecC. This leCier clarifies the five
questians yau had and_ �lso �rc,vides you wich � more i'orsttal proposal �or �
' pertorming� the work:
' `The fo2loWil�g numbered p�ragraph& corresgond to the Qnestions you posed
� in your ,recent transmittal to me.
(1� "Item 1C: Does this mean far canstruetian activities �s part of the
- stormwacer m&.s�agement portzon of the facility?"
" Yes, Icem 1C was intended for construction revie� during the
. �eonstruction as weil as operational review (once �ho construction
activitits are completed but whi1� Che landfill w$s in opersti.on).
� The statement "{See Item 4)" Was a miaprint, It should have read,
"See Item 7." The cost far chis starmwater management work is
� included ii� items 7a and 7b. Other worlc included in 7a end 7b is
addxessed in the response ta your queszion 4 be14w. � .
(2-� �:���t�m 5: In r�fererlce to closure aCtd post-clasure activ�ties and
� financi�l assurances required, what method would Harr ttse to determitte
chese as ta their adequacy, and is the cost reflect�.ve of all ot that •
or is there add�cional co�c?"
We envisioned reviewing the 'USPCI �losure bnd post-clo�ure plans
with emphasis on ultimate 1.and use. This intormation would be
compared ta City plane to dttermine compsCibility. With regard ta ..
finanCi�l asaurBAce, Harr would review the post-C14sure assurarrCes
and period that Would be coVcr�d by those financiel Xesources.
U�0 ' 3Jtid �h! I J 33Fd I �hd 3 ��t1a W0�!� t b �E i 05 t 9� �IdH
April 26, 1990 page Z
Mr. Stephen Ji�k ,
Since a Standard post-c2osuze financ�al assuranct psr�ad is now 20
years, Lhe review would identify if th�rE are possible 2°�g�T tThe
needs that should be planned for aC the outset of the pr4j
cosL e3film$tes we provided are believed to be 8deq�$te to provid�
these services.
(3) "Item b: 'Y'imeline for EIS reviet�t and commznts. Can this be adjusted
to fit USPCI's S�hedule?"
�o a certain extent, rhe time schedule chat is shown for the items
in Ztem 6 can be adjusted .to USpCI's sohedule. However, some of
the3e scheduleg Will likel�� be affected by the various regulatory
review3. Based on our experienCe with the Minnesota Pollution
• Contr�l Agency and the U.S. EPA, some of th�ir reviews may take ,
� � four to six anonchs which in turn may affec[ USPCI's abili�y to ,
prepare various documents. What ia important' in the aur time � � •
achedule is nat sa much the actual monchs that are involv�d. but
che bracket of tisa� �Zlgt is intended for each item. If t�e .
doeument� are provided f�ster, we will �$sily shift our schedule.
�4� �•I��m 7: Expand an services supplied for $4,SU0 versus $3,800 and how
this may I�e adjusted if the City hir�s permanent Staff to also monitor
this project." • .
Item 7a involves the phyaical activities in zeviewing the
facility's construo=ion, ongoing operations, closure operations,
and post-�lOsure care far �ompliance with the various permits that
wil7. be i.ssued. Wt anticipate a rsite visit on th� av�ra�e ance a
, manth during construction, 2and�iiling operat3ons, and closure
accivities. At ericical times, the number and duration of reviews
may need ta be more than or►ae a month. In those casea, t�te number
and 2engLh Of site visits wauld likely depend on how the �ont`Cactor
is per�orming the work and the si$ni.ficance of the wor� relative
to Ciry cancerns. Item 7b was i�c;.uded for documenting review
activizies and providing Che City with updat�s after each review.
'rhe specific acciviCies and cost3 inCluded ir. Ittm 7 Sr� our besz
guess ac thi�s point �f what may likely be needed by r,he City. Thzs ,
will depefl� grea=ly an the respon�ive�eess of th erson td parform
whether or not che City hires a permanent staff p
somt of th�-S work. At this poinC, we feai that an individuai could
be tx'ained ta perform varicus review pracedures. Therefore, m�inY
of �he �rork tasks anricipated in Itam 7 could ba shifted to City
sCaff. Some of this wQrk wi21 involve special prooedures �ahere the
individual wauld have to be dressed in various safecy gear which
mighz i.x�clude apecial respirators and safety clothing. Monitaring
Qqu�ipment may also be nec�ssary. Ag a result, you may find �rom
an overail toat it may be mor� cost effec�ive to utilize Barr's
services, xowever, we wili be happy to work with the City in any
�.t�G • 'a�lH�-I JhJ I rl33hd I Jh�l3 ��k1$ l��ltUcl� t t� �^G I 0Ei � 5G �CIdH
. , � ,
Mr. Sztpher► Jilk April 26; 1990 Page 3
fashi4n it �eele appropriate. if tihe Gity retains a permanent
st�ff individusi, we will be happy to asaist in hisJher tra�ning
and work closely with that individuel. Certainly, i� that per�on
can perform meny of the Cesks anticipated in Item 7, the costs
included Wauld also be appropriately reduced.
(5) "Pleas� lisr items whiah $�rx c•onsiders 'normal3.y ,aovered' by State and
pther a�encies and which Barr would normally noc haVe to do separate
reviews on." , .
' We fee2 that zha State wiZl. closely scrutini2e the specifiC d�sign �
components of the laTidfi.Il. They �,rill also review o�her documents
for compliar►ce with their regulaCa.ons. However, there axe many
iLEmS that Lh� StHte Will likely not consider that $re very
importattt to the City such Ss traffic, naise, dust, an�d odors.
A�$o� the $ratz and Federal agencies have � limited purob�r of
psrsonnel wh4 are sprasd over many projects throughouc the state.
The atuount of tia►e that Lhey eould spend reviewing �he phy8ic$1
construction and oAgoing opera�ions wi11 lti.kely be very miili�l and
�y noc provide adequate ,assurance that City concerns are heing
mec, especially in cases where the CiCy co3'�cert�s are different tihan
State or Federal concerns.
Contrecx Proposgl
Barr Engineering has been involved with all aspeczs af design
construcLion and operatioa of variaus landPills throughaut the stace. With
. the great variety af professionai �taff at Barr, we feei that Barr can
, provide zhe C2ty comp2ete ser�rices for their needs in dealing with this
iand�ill. We �re also aware that the Gity needs to closely cor►tro2 its
expenditures. Therefore, Z propcse to perform all work on a time an8 exp�nse
basis rather than a lump sum amount. This wiil allow the C�tq �he ability
zo see sgecifically whac is being done on a x'�gular basis, and the City wauld
oniy ba bilied for the speci€ic work performed. Under a lutnp sum conCract,
bec�use of the gre�t amaunz ot uncertiainty, costs for urcertainty would be
built inLo the lump sum amount, �nd the contract may be unnecess�rily
infl�ted to coVer thaz unterta�.nty. Therefore, a [im�e arid expense Contract
would defiAltely be Ltte most respons�.ve and cost effecCivt for the C2ty.
The work tasks included in my Agril 17 letter were provided. for the
City's consideration in che types of work thati will be necessery. This does
not necessarily mean that Barr Engine�ring wauld have �o do aIl of thati work.
Certainiy if the City Wishes to perfoz'm somQ of these Casks, we crould be
hapAy to assisC the Gizy with t�e casks the Cizy needs assistenc�. In that
case, the C�.ty would only be billed fpr the sp�cific rime and expenses &hat
Barz performs, -
b�ii_� ' 3�,Hd ��t•d I ��3�h1 I r�N3 ���Ha tx10t�� �b ��j �E : �? �dH
Mr. $tephen Jilk April 26, 1990 Page 4
If � time and expense contract is acceptable to the City, I will set up
in ouX budget program �pecific items for eaCh of the seven majar work tasks
idencified in my April 17 letter. Our monthly billing statements will
provide the City wiCh a t$bular update showing specificelly amounta billed
to each task and compare them w�th che escim�ted costs, That way, Berr and
' Lhe Ci.Cy. will be eble c4 monitor each task. Also, if sqmet��ng -should erise . .
Which would require additional cime expanditures, we wouid pravide the G�ty �
� s l�tter summarixing the s�ticipxted expenditures aad we would nor perform
any of those taBks until given approval to do so by the City,
We are exciCed abqut working with the City a� this praject and we truly
appreCiate you� con.sideration of 8arr Eng�neering tor performing these tasks,
It you have anp questions et all cancerning the April 17 letter ar this
3ette�, pleese teel Pret to oall me any cime.
ely,
,
. n H. ein, P.E.
SMK/kml
OL10309�1SJ1.LT&
��=1�� ' 3�it1� �iflI ��3��dIrlt.J� ��;�t-+s3 l�.lr'�c!-1 �'h : �� t i��=: . o� ,_i_iN
� ��arr
Engin.eering Company
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis,MN 55439-3123
612/830-0555
612/835-0I86(Facsimile)
April 17, 1990
Mr. 8tephen .Tilk
City Administrator
City of Rosemaunt
2875 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
RE: Engineering Serviees Related to the
Proposed USPCI Industrial Waste Landfill
Dear Mr. Jilk:
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.
Since ely,
r"
,
,,
en M. Klein, P.E.
SMK/ymh
Enclosure
0003090/SJ.LTR •
ft �C� l Y ��
APR 1 : ����
CLE1=�t�C'� C3�-t=1�E
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
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
F t. storm Nater Management • . . . . . , , , . E S T.
a.'Review Conceptual Plan • • • • • • • • . . . . C 0 S T
- Read conceptuat plan �---� . . . . . . . . . . 280
- Determine if analysis • • • • • • • • • • • •
provided in plan is ........................................ ...................... .............. ........... .......................
appropriate .� . . . . . . . . . 280
- List comnents, • • � • • • • • • •
concerns and issues •F--� � • • � • • • • • 140
- Prepare letter • • • • • • • • • • •
surtmarizing our ............................................................ ......... ,... ............ ................... .....
revieu . . H . . . . . . . . . . 280
b. Review Final Plan • • • • • • • • • • • • •
- Read final plan • • • • •f------{ • • • • •
- Scrutinize it for • • • • • • • • • • •
required City changes • .............. ...... .. .........��....................... ...... ................... .... . . 140
- Prepare letter • • • • • • • • • • • • •
summarizing our • . . • . . . . . .
review. . . . . . f-{ . . . . . 280
c. Review Construction • • • • • • • • • • • • 51,700
Activities end ........................................................................... ......................... ...........
Operations for • • • � • • • • • • •
- �ompliance
See Item #4) . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Llaste Screening and � • • • • • • • � • • • •
Acceptance Process .......................................................................................................................
a. Revieu Dreft Criteria • • • • • • • • • • • •
and Process • • • • • • • • • • • •
- Read draft criteria • • • • • • • • • • • • •
and process to be • • • • • • • • • • • •
used for determining ....................................................................................... ........... ...............
. acceptance or • � • • • • • • • • • • •
rejection of uaste • • • • • • • • • • • • •
at facitity. �--i . . . . . . . • • • S 280
- Determine if program • � • • • • • • • • • • •
isadequate and ........ ................ ........................ .... ...... .......................,........... ............
$PPropriate �----{ • • • • • . . . . . . 280
- list comments, . . . . . . . . . . .
concerns and issues �--i • • • • � • • • • • • • 140
- Prepare tetter • • . • • • • • • • • • • •
summarizing our ............................................................ .......... .. ... ... ....... ............... ... 2 0
review . � . . . . . . . . . . 8
b. Revieu Final Criteria • • • • • • • • • • • • •
� and Process • � • - • • • • • • • • • •
- Read final criteria • • • • • • • • • • • • •
nnd process plon ........... ................. ..�......�.�.�.......................................... ......... ........ 280
- Scrutinize it for • • • • • • • • • • • •
required City , . . . . . . . . . . :
changes . . . .�� . . . . . . . 140
- prepare letter . . • . . . . • • . • . .
sumnarizingour ................... ............... .......................................................... ............ ...
revieu . . . . . H . . . . . � . 280
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,700
3. impact on Area Aesthetics • • • • • • • • • • • •
Note: Uould lnclude Examin- � • • • • • • • • •
ingFactors Such as Visual . .... .. ..................... ................... .......... ............ .......... .... .........
Impacts, Noise, Dust, • • • • • • • • • � •
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Msr Apr Mey
'90 �90 '90 '90� '90 '90 '90 �90 �90 �91 '91 '91 '91 '91 E S T.
Traffic, Hour of Operation. C 0 S T
a. RevieW Oraft Material • • • • • • • • • • • •
- Read draft reports • • • • • • • • • • • • •
and plans .....�.�............ ............. ................................... ... ................................. 280
Determine if analysis � • • • • • • • • • . .
and p�oposed . . . . . . . . . . . . .
mitigative measures • • • • • • • • • • • •
are complete end • • • • • • • • • • • . .
adequate ........��...........................................................I............ .............................. 280
- L i st corrments, • • • • • • • • � • • •
concerns and issues �---� • • • • • • • • • • • 140
- Prepare tetter • • • • • • • • • • • •
surtmarizing our . . . . . . . . . . . .
revieu ............��........................................................... .............. . ..................... 2gp
b. RevieN Finei DocumeMs • • • • • • • • • • • • �
- Read final documents • • • •�--i • • • • • • • • 280
- Scrutinize them for • � • • • • • • • . • .
required City changes • • • • •�---� • • • • • • • • 140
- Prepare letter .......................................................................................................................
sunmarizing our . . . . . . . • . . • . .
revieu . • . . . �--�. • • . . • 280
4. Impact on City Services • • • • • • • • • • • • •
and Facilities .. ..................... . ......................................................................................... 51,700
a. RevieW Draft Materials • • • • • • • • • . . . .
- Read draft reports • • • • • • • • • • •
. and ptans �--� . . . . . . . . . , • S 140
- Determine if anatyses • • • • • � • • • • • • •
arxl proposed mitiga- ............................................................... . . . ..... .... ... ........................
tive measures are • • • • • • • • • • • • •
comptete and edequate f---{ ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' ' ' ' 140
- list comnents, . . . . . . . • . . . . •
concerns, arxl issues �—{ • • � • • • • • • • 140
- Prepare letter sum- ................................................................ . ................................... .... ........
marizing our reviea • �---, • • • • • • • . . . . 280
b. Revie� Final Documents • • • • • • • • • • • • • 140
- Read f i na t docunents • • •�----+ • • • • . . .
- Scrutinize them fo� � • • • • • • • • • • . • • 140
required City changes ............................................��............................. ....................................
- Prepare letter sum- • • • • • • • . . . . . . 280
marizing our revieW • • • • • �.---�• • . . . . • f1,300
5. Detaited Revieu ot Specific • . . . . . . . . . . .
Components of Permit • • • • • • . . . . . . .
Applicotion Note: Specific ...................................................... ......... . ................ . ................................
Cuuq,unantu cu l,c Cxa�nlneJ • • • • • . . . . . . .
Would inctude Emergency • • • • . • . . . . .
Preparedness and Preven- • • • • • • • . . . .
tion Plan, Inspection Pro- • • • • • • • • . . . . .
cedures and Schedute, .......................................................................................... ..........................
Personnel Training, Security • • • • • • • • • • • • ,
Post-Closure Ptan end Post- • • • • • • • • . . .
Closure Use of Property, and • • • • • • • • • • . • •
Financiat Assurance. • • • • • • • • • • . . .
� e. RevieW Drntt Application ................ .......... ..... ............................................... .......... ...................
' - Revieu specific com- • • • • • • • • � . . . .
- ponents in detait to • � • • • • • • • • . . .
. . determine . . . . . . . . . . . .
• completeness and . . . . . . . . . . .
adequacy ..... .....................�—�. ......................................................................
� - list comnents, . . . . . . . . . . . • . E1,680
,
�
� ' . Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Oec Jan Feb Har Apr• May E$T.
r '90 �90 �90 �90 '90 �90 �90 �90 �90 �91 �91 �91 �91 �91 COST
y
concerns and issues • • • • • • • • • • 420
- Prepare letter sum- . . • . . . . . . . . .
marizing our revieN • • • • •f--� • • • • • • • 420
... . . ....... ............................ . . ................. .... ...
b. Review Final Application • • • • • • • • • • •
- Revieu specific com- • • • . . . . . . . • .
panents in detail for • • • • • • • • • •
incorporation of • • • • • • . . . .
required City changes ................................................................ ........... .....................................
arx! other changes • • • • • • • • • • • . • ��680
made. . . . . . . .�� . . . . .
- Prepare letter sum- • • • • • • • • • • • • 400
marizing our revieW • • • • • �—{ • • • • 54,600
. .. ................................... • ...................... ......... .....
.. ......... .. .. .
6. Overvieu of fIS, Complete • • • • • • • • • • •
Permit Application and • • • • • • • • • . . .
Proposed Permits • • • • • • • • • • • • •
a. Summa�y Revieu of Draft • • • • • • • • • • •
Documents ................................................... .......................................... ........ ......
- Read draft documents • • • • • � • • • • • •
end supporting • • •
information �-----� • • . . . • . . .��. . E3,360
- Determine if there • • • • • • • • • • •
are any major .......................................................................... ................ .......... .............
discrepancies•in the • • • • • • • • • • • •
findings, proposats, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
or conditions in • • • • • • • • . • . .
. relaxion to City • • • • • • • • • • • •
interests or previous ............................................................... ...... ....................�................ .. ...
Barr experiences. • �---� • • �--i • • • • • .�--.�. . 1,400
- List comments. . . . . . . . . . .. . .
concerns, and issues • � • • �--i • � • • . . H. . 420
- Prepare letter • • • • • • . . . . .
presenting our ..................................................................... ...............................................
sunmery revi eu . . f----�. . . H . . . . . H. . 560
b. Sunmary Review of Final • • • • • • • • • •
Docunents • • � • • • • • • . . . .
- Read final documents • • • • • • • • • . . .
for incorporation of .................................................�................... ............... .............................
required City changes • • • • • • • • • • • • .
and other changes • • • • • • • • • • • .
made . . . . .F�. .� . . . . H 3,360
- Prepare letter • • • • • • • . . . . .
presenting our ...... .......... ..... ............ ....... . .................. ............................... ...........
s�arrnary revieu • . . . .H . .H . . . 500
59,600
7. Facility Construction and
Operation
a. Revieu facitity con- •
st�uction, operation, S4,SOOfy�
closure, and post-
closure care for
comp l i ance 51',800ty�
b. Prepare periodic
letters surtmarizing
our fi�ings