HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-19 - Agendas ay-Me 111 e WATER/SEWER COMMITTEE AGENDA
M1NS PS
Meeting Date of March 19, 2009
COMMITTEE: Chairman Kyle Cook; Aldermen: Adella Gray, Robert Rhoads, Sarah Lewis
COPY TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Sondra Smith, Don Marr, Paul Becker, Chris Brown,
Jeremy Pate, Tom Hubbard, Lynn Hyke, Shan n ones, Peggy Bell, OMI
FROM: David Jurgens, P. E., Public Utilities Director r
A meeting of the Fayetteville Water and Sewer Committee is p nned for March 19, 2009,
at 6:00 PM, in room 111, Fayetteville City Hall. Proposed topic include:
1. Water/Sewer Revenue Bond discussion led by Dennis Hunt, Stephens, Inc. The bond issue is
proposed to finance the costs of(1) water and sewer relocations and concurrent construction of a
36" water transmission main associated with the AHTD Highway 265 widening from Mission to
Joyce Boulevard; (2) water and sewer relocations associated with the AHTD Highway 16 widening
from College Avenue to Stonebridge Road; and (3)water and sewer relocations and/or
replacements associated with other street improvement projects.
2. WSIP U date.
Contract Description Contractor Cost % Complete
WL-1 &3 Porter- Hamestring & Old Wire-GreggOscar Renda 1 $ 7,186,957 100%
WL-2 North St-Po lar-Gregg Gravity Line T-G Excavating $ 4,433,820 100%
WL-3 Porter- Hamestring & Old Wire-Gre Combined contract with WL-1 100%
WL-4 GreggAve- Hamestring LS Gravity Line Oscar Renda $ 10,970,164 100%
WL-5 Force Mains Hamestrin -West Plant Garrey Const $ 4,752,287 100%
WL-6 Hamestring Lift Station Brasfield & Gorrie $ 7,082,133 100%
WL-7 GreggAve Lift Station Crossland Heavy $ 1,527,000 100%
WL-9a Tieover-Critical Items OMI $ 65,000 100%
WL-9 Tieover- Non Critical Items Goodwin&Goodwin $ 1,546,400 23.82%
WL-10 Farmington Gravity Line Redford Const $ 335,967 100%
WL-10a Farmington Gravity Line In Town Portion Gamey Const $ 1,664,231 ConstBe an11 Feb
WL-11 Farmington Force Main Gamey Const $ 1,367,314 100%
WL-12 Farmington Lift Station JL Bryson $ 1,703,216 100%
EP-1 Noland Wet Weather Improvements Wilson Brothers $ 1,336,886 100%
EL-1 Mally Wa non Lift Station and Force Main Garney Const $ 1,398,357 100%
EL-2 Happy Hollow—Noland WWTP 42" Gravity Rosetta Const $ 10,464,082 100%
EL-3&5 Razorback- Happy Hollow 36/42" Gravity S J Louis Const $ 5,253,795 28%
EP-2 Noland WWTP Renovation Archer Western $ 14,836,631 100%
EP-3 Noland WWTP Aeration, Clarifier Work Crossland Heavy $ 2,439,646 52.8%
EP-4 Noland WWTP Oxygen Injection BluelnGreen $ 66,460 100%
WP-1b Broyles Road Construction Crowder Const $ 3,826,874 100%
Bio-1 Biosolids Processing In design by staff $ 5,500,000 In design
BWD-1 Geos ntec Consulting Geos ntec $ 199,883 99%
WP-2b Wetlands Mitigation, WWTP Site Multiple Contractors $ 3,297 100%
WP&L BP West Side WL-6 &WP-3 Backup Power PowerSecure $ 1,986,897 100%
WP-3 Elec Electric Line Relocation, Broyles Rd Ozarks Electric $ 264,818 100%
W13-3 West Side WWTP Construction Brasfield & Gorrie $ 60,936,574 100%
Project is substantially complete, meaning the work can be used to execute its mission.
a. Biosolids Handling design is underway. Alternatives are still being evaluated as they
arise. We are communicating with NACA, as they also have a biosolids evaluation underway.
b. American Council of Engineering Companies recognized two WSIP projects for design
excellence. EL-2, the 42" gravity line from Happy Hollow to the Noland WWTP, submitted by Garver
i
W&S committee agenda I9MarO9
Engineers, received an honorable mention. The West Side WWTP's design was selected for the
Grand Conceptor Award above entries submitted by top engineering firms from throughout the State
of Arkansas in all categories of engineering. The award, submitted by McGoodwin, Williams and
Yates, recognizes engineering achievements demonstrating the highest degree of merit and
ingenuity. The event program is attached.
c. Corps of Engineers Permit for the West Side WWTP Outfall has been closed out.
d. WSIP Construction Schedule & Cost Update will be distributed at meeting.
3. Highway 265 Water/Sewer Relocations and 36" Water Line Engineering work is being
executed by McClelland Consulting Engineers. This contract is for the design, AHTD coordination,
easement identification and description, and bidding work required for the project, which includes
utility relocations and installation of the 36" and 24" water lines. This project will be a cost share with
the AHTD. The City's portion is intended to be funded with Water/Sewer revenue bonds; the bond
issue will be processed in the next few months. We are intending to bid the first phase of this
project, a 36" transmission main along Township between Old Wire and Highway 265, so
construction can be completed this summer while school is out.
4. Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Update.
a. Basin 15 and minisystems 2, 5, 6, and 13A manhole rehabilitation contract work by Kim
Construction in the southern and Hamestring areas of Fayetteville is complete. Change Order# 1 is
attached, reconciling and completing the contract, reducing the amount by$58,868.60.
b. Insituform Sewer Pipe Lining Term Contract work is complete for the 2008 work order for
8,725' of 6" — 12" cured in place lining.
c. Minisystems 5, 6, 13A, 20 and 32 sanitary sewer evaluation study (SSES)flow
monitoring, inspecting approximately 810 manholes and 175,000 feet of sewer mains is underway
and should be completed in Feb 09 by RJN ($395,109). The work began in May 08 and is
completed except for the airport area, which had to be retested. A draft report should be available
within 14 days.
5. Underground Storage Tank Removal contract with Pollution Management, Inc. for removal of
the four remaining fuel storage tanks at the Noland WWTP for$19,680, with a $5,000 contingency,
is attached. The project includes removal of four tanks: 1000 gallon unleaded, 2000 gallon diesel,
6000 gallon diesel, and 6000 gallon diesel. The City received 4 responsive bids on March 12, 2009.
Pollution Management, Inc. $19,680.00
MiD-America Environmental Solutions $21,875.00
Cobb Environmental & Technical Services, Inc. $25,280.00
Ark-O Petroleum Equipment Co. $27,789.00
Pollution Management, Inc. is a licensed underground storage tank contractor with the ADEQ and
submitted a very detailed site specific work plan for permanent closure and removal. Staff requests
this item be forwarded to the full City Council for approval.
6. Farmington Wastewater Agreement Addendum is being discussed to make the agreement
consistent with the updated WSIP costs and to incorporate impact fees.
7. Water and Wastewater Capital Project Team information packet will be distributed at the
meeting.
8. OMI Ice Storm Expenses for immediate emergency response and four weeks of operations of
the West Side WWTP debris disposal site is being evaluated. This may require an out of scope
agreement and/or amendment to the existing contract.
9. Illinois River Watershed Proposed Phosphorous Limit by USEPA Region 6 for NACA is
being set at 0.1 parts per million (ppm) phosphorous effective June 16, 2012. The West Side
WWTP limit is currently 1.0 ppm. Correspondence between Region 6, the director of ADEQ and
Congressman Boozman (attached) indicate Region 6 intends to place this limit on all NPDES
2
W&S conmittee agenda 19Mar09
permits that will be in effect after that date. The Fayetteville permit come up for renewal in 2010 and
would be impacted by this new permit limit, requiring modifications to the treatment process.
10. Water/Sewer Committee Meeting is planned for Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 5:30, room 326,
following the Agenda Session.
Attachments: 2009 ACEC Awards Program
Kim Construction Change Order# 1
Underground Storage Tank Removal contract
Letter from ADEQ to USEPA Region 6
Letter from USEPA to Congressman John Boozman
3
W&S committee agenda 19Mat09
■
> ■ �� 2.�•. v � v m e m f7 F R � .� S o D m �
o ■ m .0
/^, ■ �� < ° $ F �] � a � Fan m oCD
•^�
14 cu
W N
re re ■ ■ ■ ■ a � '� CT] C�
N y Q 5; ❑ m m o d 3 " rn 5. 7J rC
N ° v n 9 s d n ° 3 ■ rD
(nD r.
■ ■ N
�.. ■ ■ R
cn . ■ ■
n o rob o < b fD D < c J c rt "m' ■ ■
n S� T 2. n d y d G m V K ry ■ ■
m N Y ^ W O J N a N ^ N T n
c00a3 `S° 3m
ERItp- . m 'm 7' e <, 00' 0- �n � m � v =R ;�`< ■ ■
, o N a ?; m o •n "� N S Y N w n• o.
= � G. S � m '°^ dH' m m' 02 -a
d a "• v; T °', vd, c o � _ � a � ° m n p J k S °^ � w c �, N D a ■ ■
3 �, o °^ .a. n y v m m K. n ■ ■
.nd. ywAHoa. a o � � .o3 . m3 � Dn`m
a ^ �• c a z " D m H o W, 3 g o o
,°, J J o n c 01 �' o 0 o m o J o o w d o'o, m ■
u V C T n• D wJ.6 D (� T d �' m O' ^ m m G O m Tan•3 n D d ■ 'A
O N m W d n rt O H ^ ^ d ^
a N n y •o D c N !0 ;�. m
yN o °.^ rv ° n N m J o N N 'r ■
H
N R7' on � n � nm7 � a `m° < nooNlm °, `nD' �°T � � $ > Ntiog
°• �' S n °c N d a y r °WN o '< 70
a '0 is < a n T ° n 'm > Ig
o m n' –
T N
ga D ■ ■ ■ V Orn
A m m m3 m m d m � v m m m Q G)y
aJ -
da'e V o '� mm >• � m ^. O y � r°iim ¢ x 'O nO 9
pZ baa 3 addm ; °' w. Nyn mw3am »� 3 S� 3 m
m l mNm J3 m oma > mm > m i I :CID
7 jmOm c mmnam mn o a ; m aagm y M a3 O
m^ v
ma � aFS
D x N moon ^ odd 000^ > f m
m .� 3 m N J �• N N '7 � m W Q ?m d_ m Z
O N w
n. Ny 'F N Q N N
N m m a 0 y m
4
• '�� !�. air •. //
• `fir
AV
as
4 1 .0
vo
aye ev 1e
AaKAN5A' Mayor's Approval
CONTRACT REVIEW MEMO
To: Mayor Lioneld Jordan
Fayetteville Sewer Committee
Thru: David Jurgens, Water and Wastewater Director
From: Shannon W. Jones, Water and Wastewater Engin r
Date: 18 February 2009
Subject: Approval of Change Order # 1 to the construction contract with Kim Construction
Company, reducing the amount of the contract$58,868.60, for Manhole Rehabilitation, Basins
I-15, W-02, W-05, W-06, & W-13. This is the final reconciliation change order for a net savings
of the entire project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Change Order # 1 to the construction contract with Kim
Construction Company, reducing the amount of the contract $58,868.60, for Manhole
Rehabilitation, Basins I-15, W-02, W-05, W-06, & W-13. This is the final reconciliation change
order for a net savings of the entire project.
BACKGROUND
The project included rehabilitation of 373 manhole covers and frames, re-sealing of 546 manhole
frames and grade adjustments, 183 vertical feet of grade height adjustments, 37 wall joints to be
pressure grouted, 292 benches, troughs, and lower 18" of manholes to be pressure grouted, 582
manhole inserts, cementitious coating of 245 manholes, and 31 complete manhole replacements.
All work was performed to the City's satisfaction with an overall savings of approximately
$58,868.60.
DISCUSSION
This change order reconciles all unit quantities and closes out the contract.
BUDGETIMPACT
The $58,868.60 will be returned to the overall Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project.
Kim COI CC Memo Feb09
6
Change Order No. I Page I of 2
RECONCILIATION CHANGE ORDER City Contract# 2032 Schedule
City Resoultion# 25-08 Date 2/17/2009
CityJProject No.: 02017-0601
Project Name: Manhole Rehabilitation,Basins I-15,W-02,W-( Location: Fayetteville,Arkansas
Owner: City of Fayetteville Contractor: Kim Construction Company Address: 113 West Mountain Address: P.O.Box 276
Fayetteville,AR 72701 Steger,IL 60475
THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE HEREBY AMENDED INTO THE CONTRACT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS:
ITEM# DESCRIPTION DECREASE INCREASE
I Change Order to reconcile construction quantities
See Attached for Cost Breakdown -$58,868.60
TOTAL DECREASE AMOUNT -$58,868.60
TOTAL INCREASE AMOUNT $0.00
NET CHANGE ORDER -$58,868.60
ENGINEERS FINAL
CHANGE TO CONTRACT AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT ELIGIBLE AMOUNT
Original Contract Amount $S50 L 102 00 $1,501,102.0
Total Previous Change Order(s) $0_00 SO.00
Net Amount This Change Order -$58.868.60 -$58.868.60
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $1.442,233 40 $1,442,233.4
CHANGE TO CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
Original Completion Date '
Previous Adjusted Completion Date
(Increase)(Decrease)This Change Order Calendar Days
NEW CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE:
RECOMMENDED: McClelland Consulting Engineers
Construes' n Observer �J
Signature Title Date
RECOMMENDED: RJN
�JEngin
BY: Wae-'C / p -A .gC„ RES ' ,CMI V I�
Signature Tit# ! Date
ACCEPTED: Kiln Construction Com any
f}
BY:
on ac I �
Signature v Title Date
APPROVED: CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE
er /f� `/
BY: �'' A D✓ r/ C
'gnalure —� Title Date
7
Cost Breakdown for Change Order
Quantities Adjusted
Item Description Adjust Contract
Unit Unit Cost Original Adjusted +/- Amount
1 Replace MH Frame/Cover EA $270.00 256 373 117.00 $31,590.00
2 Install Bolts EA $1.00 12 0 -12.00 -$12.00
3 Seal Frame&Grade Adj(Paved) EA $1,350.00 263 268 5.00 $6,750.00
4 Seal Frame&Grade Adj (Non-Paved) EA $775.00 262 278 16.00 $12,400.00
5 Concrete Grade Adjustment Rings VF $20.00 200 183.24 -16.76 -$335.20
6 Flattop for Grade Adj EA $650.00 30 7 -23.00 -$14,950.00
7 Pressure Grout MH Walls EA $800.00 18 37 19.00 $15,200.00
8 Pressure Grout Lower 18" EA $500.00 298 292 -6.00 -$3,000.00
9 Replace Bench&Trough EA $800.00 2 8 6.00 $4,800.00
10 Repair Pipe Seal EA $600.00 3 9 6.00 $3,600.00
11 Furnish&Install Insert EA $45.00 650 582 -68.00 -$3,060.00
12 Apply Cementitious Coating EA $880.00 243 245 2.00 $1,760.00
13 Apply Epoxy Coating EA $2,000.00 1 12 11.00 $22,000.00
14 MH Replacement Partial(VF) VF $700.00 48 0 -48.00 -$33,600.00
15 MH Replacement Complete EA $7,600.00 36 31 -5.00 -$38,000.00
16 Additional VF of MH Replace>6 VF $780.00 76 47.33 -28.67 -$22,362.60
17 Additional pipe,Complete in Place LF $160.00 300 82.82 -217.18 -$34,748.80
18 Photo Documentation LS $1,500.00 1 1 0.00 $0.00
19 Trench Safety LS $15,000.00 1 1 0.00 $0.00
20 Rock Excavation CY $150.00 50 4 -46.00 -$6,900.00
Total Contract Change -$58,868.60
8
City Council Meeting of April 7, 2009
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
To: Fayetteville City Council
Thru: Mayor Lioneld Jordan
Fayetteville Sewer Committee
Don Marr, Chief of Staff
David Jurgens, Water and Wastewater Director
From: Shannon Jones, Water and Wastewater Engineer ,S5
Date: March 16, 2009
Subject: Approval of Bid #09-21 for a construction contract with Pollution Management, Inc. in
the amount of$19,680.00 with a contingency of$5,000.00 for removal of underground storage
tanks at the Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Bid #09-21 for a construction contract with Pollution
Management, Inc. in the amount of$19,680.00 with a contingency of$5,000.00 for removal of
underground storage tanks at the Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility.
BACKGROUND
The project includes removal of four(4) underground storage tanks, 1000 gallon unleaded, 2000
gallon diesel, 6000 gallon diesel, 6000 gallon diesel at the Noland Wastewater Treatment
Facility.
DISCUSSION
The City received 4 responsive bids on March 12, 2009.
Pollution Management, Inc. $19,680.00
MiD-America Environmental Solutions $21,875.00
Cobb Environmental &Technical Services, Inc. $25,280.00
Ark-0 Petroleum Equipment Co. $27,789.00
Pollution Management, Inc. is a licensed underground storage tank contractor with the State of
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. They submitted a site specific work plan for
underground storage tank permanent closure and removal in accordance with the bid documents.
Review of the work plan indicates they did a thorough investigation of the sites where the tanks
are located and are qualified to complete the work.
BUDGETIMPACT
Funds are available within the project budget.
9
FJib ,If
w,:in tiJli
o o a oLLJ
M
wuxp� i,Q '?!f 46 w 4 °
ro
O�M.� %3! o
^, t1lfi;ukll:�� R
VNI �ili u:
�lll i�i(i,ll
�" ::�L�'I�Jji�?I •CN
iV��i:fliF! N Z
yd�V.�P R
VI j�ljN y
d o��i6is' a
E
Irj7'i;;!j Z N d W
r
O
x
U N a
sl., ,�,� c
a,;4 m u g a
IdkP� d
W N ilia' ,:
J ( I.g�;!i CL oiS a Z
J '4i+if•P I+ C 41
a O 'h{f';IG 14 3 c m e
E W r:itl1`�, to ° LL
c
r J LL ij �ffii; Ouj
CD v
oo20 rF iii d W O $ U
O N Q. liii O
0 a O IiIF !�iy! AL J2 �_ U
O p W
m M N U i;,� Q (,1 '� n. U U
R
Z
rlja.:t4�f r N M tt
10
SECTION 00310
BID PROPOSAL
LOCATION: CITY OF FAYETTEVILL E ROOM 306
113 W.MOUNTAIN
FAYETTEVILLE AR 72701
DATE: March 5,2009 at 2:00 p.m.LOCAL TIME
Proposal of:� MUST :&U
Bid For: UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REN1017AL
Bid Submitted to:
The City of Fayetteville
Andrea Foreu,Purchasing Agent—Room 306
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville,AR 72701
BIDDER will complete the Work for the unit prices as listed in die Bid Form.
Total Base Bid as outlined on Bid Form:
Ktu�T ti4 TNovS D 5tx Ao"M '0
140(c�� $ I9(¢ / oa
Antountin Words Figures
The undersigned BIDDER proposes and agrees, if this Bid is accepted, to enter into an Agreement
with CPTY OF FAYETTEVILLE in the form included in these Contract Documents to complete
all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents for the Contract Price and within
the Contract Time indicated in these Contract Documents.BIDDER accepts the provisions of the
Agreement as to Liquidated Damages in the event of failure to complete the Work in the Contract
Time specified.
(10310.dm t
11
BIDDER accepts all of the terns and conditions of the Information for Bidders, including without
limitation those dealing with the disposition of BID SECURITY. This Bid will remain open for
sixty(60) days after the day of Bid Opening. BIDDER will sign the Agreement required by these
Contract Documents within tell(10)days after the date of CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE'S Notice
of Award.
In submission of this BID, BIDDER represents, as more fully set forth in the Agreement, that
BIDDER has examined all CONTRACT DOCUMENTS (including but not limited to
Advertisement, Invitation to Bid and the Information for Bidters) and the following
ADDENDA:—BAA Ul —enA „, # , (��
Failure to list all necessary Agenda issued by the OWNER or the ENGINEER could mean the BID
submitted by tine BIDDER may be deemed unresponsive and not read publicly.
In submission of the BID,BIDDER represents, that they have examined the site and locality where
the Work is to be performed, the legal requirements (Federal, State and Local Laws, Ordinances,
Rules and Regulations) and the conditions affecting cost,progress or performance of the Work and
has made such independent investigations as BIDDER deems necessary.
In submission of the BID,BIDDER represents,that this BID is genuine and not made in the interest
of or on behalf of any undisclosed person, fine or corporation and is not submitted in conformity
with any agreement or rules of any group, association, organization or corporation. Time BIDDER
represents that they have not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other BIDDER to submit
a false or sham BID. The BIDDER represents that they have not solicited or induced any person,
firm or corporation to refrain fiom bidding and have not sought by collusioa)to obtain for themselves
any advantage over any other BIDDER or over the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
All terns used in the BID are defined and have the meanings assigned to them in the General
Conditions of these Contract Documents.
Attached to this BID FORM is the required Bid Security in the form of a Bid Bond or Certified
Check in the amount of five(5)percent of the Total Bid Amount.
00310.doc 2
12
BIDDER submitting this BID is:
A Corporation, incorporated in the Slate of
A Partnership,eonsisting of the following partners,whose full names are:
An Individual whose fall name is:_ �_�
_T__o_w_ rT1onl MAMA-6EM-HT1lik
General Contracto'(Finn Name)
sigi d lay SIJ Y 5c6TT
Title
-3-t2-0c1
Date
�4 a(a t" � 4I7- Bts-r-
Address
_ 1�'15y-'1131 �►-4- _ �1�- '7�D �'113�( �x
Telephone Number&Fax
GL' 4,oo I cm 009 _, � �Db23(o
Contractor's License Number
00310.doc 3
13
SECTION 00310-BID PROPOSAL
Item Approx. Unit Price In
No. Item Desa'intion Qly-, Unit Fi>ures Total
I
Maintenance Building- one 1,000 gallon
diesel &one 2,000 gallon gasoline I Ls
I, 60
oc
5t�TNf1dSAt )i NeFhlsLA266e�6 ;,,, �,`���t 0$,
2 Generator Fuel Tank Near Entrance-one
6,000 gallon diesel I I'S
3 Equipmeut Bam - one 6,000 ballon
diesel I LS
ae r- o-0
51� ts � �tv�IWtsD(tp form � .,, lot5�fl, $
ittra� 'rNwsc�xcJ stx +waas�t
Total Base Bid in Words
Total Base Bid in Figures V 1 t1G�0 O�
END OF SECTION 00310
5
14
SECTION 00500
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the day of in the year
2009 by and between the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and POLLUTION MANAGEMENT,
INC.
1. The POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. shall commence and complete all Work as
specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The WORK is generally described as
follows:
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REMOVAL
2. POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. shall furnish all materials, supplies, tools,
equipment, labor and other service necessary for the completion of the WORK described
herein.
3. POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. shall commence the WORK required by the
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS on or before a date to be specified in the NOTICE TO
PROCEED and completed and ready for final payment within 90 calendar days.
POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. shall pay the CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, as
liquidated damages, the sum of$200 for each calendar day thereafter that the WORK is
not complete.
4. POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. agrees to perform all of the WORK described in
the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and comply with the terms therein as shown in the
BID PROPOSAL.
5. The term CONTRACT DOCUMENTS shall mean and include the following:
5.1 Invitation to Bid
5.2 Information for Bidders
5.3 Supplemental Information for Bidders
5.4 Bid Proposal
5.5 Bid Bond
5.6 Agreement Between City of Fayetteville and Pollution Management, Inc.
5.7 Performance and Payment Bond
5.10 General Conditions
5.13 Prevailing Wage Rates
5.14 Notice of Award
5.15 Notice to Proceed
5.16 Project Manual for Underground Storage Tank Removal
S.18 Addenda
5.19 Change Orders
00500.doo 1
15
6. The CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE shall pay POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. in
the manner and at such times as set forth in the General Conditions such amounts as
required by the CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
7. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
8. MISCELLANEOUS
8.1. Terms used in the Agreement which are defined in Article 1 of the General
Conditions will have the meanings indicated in the General Conditions.
8.2. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract
Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of
the party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that
may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such
consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by
law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an
assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or
responsibility under the Contract Documents.
8.3. City of Fayetteville and Pollution Management, Inc. each binds itself, it partners,
successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners,
successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements
and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.
8.4. Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable
under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions
shall continue to be valid and binding upon stricken provision or part thereof with a
valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible expressing the
intention of the stricken provision.
8.5. Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price or fees to this contract shall
not be allowed without a prior formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor
and the City Council in advance of the change in scope, cost or fees.
8.6. Freedom of Information Act. City of Fayetteville contracts and documents
prepared while performing city contractual work are subject to the Arkansas
Freedom of Information Act. If a Freedom of Information Act request is presented
to the City of Fayetteville, Pollution Management, Inc. will do everything possible
to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed in the
Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (A.C.A. §25-19-101 et. seq.). Only legally
authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this
compliance.
8.7. This contract must be interpreted under Arkansas Law.
00500.doc 2
16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE and POLLUTION
MANAGEMENT, INC. have signed this Agreement in quadruplicate. One counterpart each
has been delivered to City of Fayetteville and Engineer, and two counterparts have been
delivered to Pollution Management, Inc. All portions of the Contract Documents have been
signed, initialed, or identified by City of Fayetteville and Pollution Management, Inc. or
identified by Engineer on their behalf.
OWNER CONTRACTOR
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE POLLUTION MANAGEMENT,INC.
BY BI'
Mayor Lioneld Jordan
[CORPORATE SEAL] [CORPORATE SEAL]
ATTEST ATTEST
Address for giving notices: Address for giving notices:
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
License No.
Agent for service of process:
(If POLLUTION MANAGEMENT, INC. is a
corporation, attach evidence of authority to sign.)
oosoo.doc 3
17
Sr ONE �\ n 1�� t Q�ei��/\i •1 .- ��f r� \ ��d i �.,
`� d�+cQ1l� �
..............
€I 7
• • is�p�y ,
�I • ♦ ♦ A y
Iqi ♦ ♦ •
A • ♦ j
1�I A
S• 1l ♦ \�
a� A[►
ti
♦
w
k � \ •I
\Y
f _ �
y
S Q; �r •• „QI s �
� `V
✓'JC" d� Of y �.�K.,
�.c I .mJ' y� Y'�'
Gyrn $� rby~!l� f��i 'IVjJO' �"�iT��•FYr/�''�7 '�,`� i�'�" � ����` 5
�../EU � G �. w" �'�ir�s��''A�rv✓�di,�lJI'.�������es�i,.a ` ����o�r£��z?e�� c
Mar 17 09 10: 25a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 6
IS 12
A R K A N S A S
Department of Environmental Quality
February 13,2009
Mr. Lawrence E. Starfield
Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Re: NPDES Pen-nit Number
AR0050024-NACA
Dear Mr. Starfield:
The Department has reviewed EPA's letter dated January 16, 2009, raising specific objections to
the preliminary draft NPDES permit for the Northwest Arkansas Conservation Authority
(NACA), which proposes a discharge from a regional wastewater treatment plant to Osage
Creek, a stream located within the Illinois River watershed. In its January 16 letter, EPA stated
the objections to the permit would be withdrawn if the following conditions were satisfied:
1. The term of the permit will be for 5 years. An effluent limit of I mg/I total phosphorus
(TP) will apply until June 15, 2012. Thereafter,the effluent limit will be set at 0.1 mg/l,
unless subsequently reopened and modified based on new data; and
2. The permit will include appropriate upstream and downstream monitoring requirements
for both TP and for Dissolved Oxygen (DO).
By requiring a TP limit of 0.1 mg/1 after June 15, 2012, EPA places the single most stringent TP
limit existing in the entire Oklahoma/Arkansas Illinois River watershed and places it on the
smallest point source discharge to Osage Creek. EPA provided ADEQ with a total of two days
notice for this unprecedented requirement, after taking 140 days to review the draft.
On August 28; 2008, via email, the Department submitted the draft pennit to EPA for review.
On October 10, 2008, EPA submitted a general objection to the permit and requested a 30-day
extension for review. An email was sent by the Department granting the extension. On
November 6, 2008, EPA submitted an "interim objection" to the permit. The Department
responded on December 3, 2008. In December, at a meeting between EPA and Department
personnel, EPA informed the Department that the permit would have to have an effluent limit of
less than 1.0 mg/I for TP because technology exists to achieve a limit below 1.0 mg/l.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE/NORTH LITTLE ROCK/ARKANSAS 72118-5317/TELEPHONE 501-682-0744 /FAX 501-682-0880
19
Mar 17 09 10: 25a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 7
On January 14, 2009, the Department received a draft of EPA's specific objection letter and for
the first time learned EPA was going to require a TP limit of 0.1 mg/l; a limit which is an order
of magnitude lower than that proposed by ADEQ or contemplated by the Statement of Joint
Principles and Actions entered into between Oklahoma and Arkansas in 2003.
ADEQ responded to EPA by email on January 15, 2009, and forwarded a revised perrmit with an
effluent limit of 1.0 mg/l for TP for three years. The following day, on January 16, 20091 the
Department received EPA's final specific objection letter. This letter wholly failed to
acknowledge receipt of the revised draft permit submitted to EPA on January 15.
The revised draft we submitted to EPA m1 January 15 was a 3-year permit containing a TP limit
of 1 mg/1 until June 15, 2012, recognition that the TP limits would be fully re-evaluated upon
permit renewal, and the additional monitoring requirements for TP and DO specified by EPA in
its January 16 letter. As you are aware, a permit must be effective for a fixed term not to exceed
S years and it is clear that a permit may be issued for a shorter period of time. 40 CPR 122.46.
Accordingly, this letter re-submits the revised 3-year permit in order to meet the specific
objections contained in EPA's letter of January 16, 2009. ADEQ believes the enclosed permit
satisfies EPA's two objections because:
1) it fully incorporates the additional monitoring requirements for TP and DO set out by
EPA in its January 16 letter;
2) the effluent limit of 1 mg/l TP until June 15, 2012 was found acceptable to EPA in its
January 16 letter; and .
3) there is no basis in law for mandating a five year permit.
EPA acknowledged in its January 16 letter that the NACA facility is one contemplated by the
terns of the Statement of Joint Principles and Actions; an agreement entered into between
Arkansas and Oklahoma and facilitated by EPA.
Because EPA facilitated the negotiation of this Statement, EPA is fully aware of its terms,
including:
1) Oklahoma will reevaluate its TP criterion by 2012 "based on the best scientific
information available at that time;" and
2) Oklahoma and Arkansas will reissue permits on a normal 5 year cycle with the
understanding that permits issued in the year 2012 or beyond will include TP limits
stringent enough to meet applicable water quality standards.
ADEQ believes EPA unilaterally revises the terns of the Statement when it insists upon a permit
being issued prior to 2012 with a phosphorus limit that is based on a water quality criterion
which is to be re-evaluated and which ADEQ believes should be changed.
The Statement of Joint Principles and Actions entered into by both Oklahoma and Arkansas, and
acknowledged by EPA, was intended to provide a framework for thoughtful and scientific
resolution of the issues involving the Illinois River watershed, including the discharge from the
1\ACA plant to Osage Creek. The Statement of Joint Principles and Actions requires a re-
evaluation of Oklahoma's phosphorus criterion based on the best scientific information available.
This re-evaluation is to be undertaken by 2012. Setting new, more stringent limits prior to fully
20
Mar 17 09 10: 25a Janet Sampier 479-838-4034 p. 8
evaluating the best scientific information available, as clearly contemplated in the Statement of
Joint Principles and Actions, is precipitous and unwarranted.
The fact that Oklahoma's criterion is to be re-evaluated is only one of two pivotal issues ill tile
calculation of an appropriate TP limit for a facility discharging to Osage Creek. Of equal
importance is consideration of the conditions existing in Osage Creek as determined by current
data and sound science. Arkansas has continually contested EPA's assertion that Osage Creek is
impaired due to total phosphorus and has consistently maintained that Osage Creek is meeting
the State's narrative water quality standard found in APC&EC Regulation No. 2
The data collected pursuant to an assessment methodology mutually agreed upon by the
Department and EPA shows that Osage Creek is not impaired for nutrients. An intensive two-
year scientific study conducted by the Department showed that all designated uses for the
waterbody were being met. Furthermore, the data continues to support this finding. Finally, a
study funded by the cities of Springdale and Rogers is currently underway for the specific
purpose of determining once and for all whether or not the designated uses in Osage and Spring
Creeks are being met. This study is expected to be concluded at the end of this year.
EPA unilaterally placed Osage Creek on the list of impaired streams. ADEQ has maintained that
EPA reached this decision utilizing erroneous assumptions, a weight of evidence approach which
is based on incorrect interpretations of data, and data which does not reflect current conditions in
Osage Creek. We have continuously maintained EPA's error in listing this stream segment (see
attached correspondence). We believe the comprehensive studies undertaken recently and to be
completed shortly will provide the opportunity for ADEQ and EPA to reach agreement on the
status of Osage Creek's impairment based on sound science and the actual conditions existing in
Osage Creek.
The Department believes the combined issues of whether Oklahoma's phosphorus criterion
should be changed based upon the best scientific information available and whether or not Osage
Creek is impaired for nutrients are two issues which must both be resolved before properly
inforned decisions on the appropriate TP limits for point source discharges in Osage Creek can
be made. "these two issues are not expected to be resolved before 2012.
Regrettably, EPA has failed to recognize the numerous actions undertaken by Arkansas'
agencies, cities, and other entities to address phosphorus and sediment issues in the Illinois River
watershed. Water quality data collected to date by the Department in the Illinois River
watershed, which includes Osage Creek, shows a clear downward trend. A forty percent (40%)
reduction in total phosphorus has been achieved throughout the watershed. Cities in Northwest
Arkansas have expended millions of dollars in upgrading wastewater treatment plants to
voluntarily meet the I mg/1 TP limits agreed to in the Statement of Joint Principles and Actions.
Arkansas has designated the watershed as a nutrient surplus area and non-point source waste
management practices are being implemented. Additionally, a significant portion of the
phosphorus from non-point sources is being transported out of the watershed.
EPA encourages watershed-based planning. The Department agreed to produce a watershed plan
in the Statement of Joint Principles and Actions. Unfortunately, the bi-state planning intended in
the Statement was cut short by the lawsuit Oklahoma filed against poultry producers in
Arkansas. Despite this setback, Arkansas has continued its efforts to address watershed-based
planning through the Illinois River Watershed Partnership (at) Arkansas-based nonprofit
21
Mar 17 09 10: 26a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 9
organization). The Partnership is completing a watershed plan with the services of TetraTcch,
the consulting firm that produced the Lake Maumelle Watershed Plan, The Illinois River
Watershed Partnership is directed by a diverse group of citizens representing agriculture,
business, conservation, construction, government and technical, research and education interests.
Improvements in the watershed will continue even after,the Statement's term expires through the
efforts of the Partnership, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which will
contribute millions of dollars to the area to reduce sediment to streams in the Illinois River
watershed, continued improvements in waste management in the nutrient surplus areas, and
continued improvements to area facilities with point source discharges.
Significant positive changes have resulted in the Illinois River watershed as a direct result of
actions initiated by or fostered under the Statement of Joint Principles and Actions. ADEQ
sincerely hopes EPA will adhere to the terms set forth in the Statement when evaluating the
enclosed permit. We believe you will find that the enclosed permit fully comports with the terns
of the Statement, and we hope EPA will agree that this revised permit satisfactorily meets the
specific objections contained in EPA's letter of January 16, 2009.
As you know, we have 90 days from the date of the specific objection letter to provide you with
a revised permit which meets EPA's objections. In order to obtain a response from you prior to
that deadline, we ask that EPA respond to the enclosed revised per-nit by March 26, 2009.
If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely, /
Teresa Marks
Director
Enclosures (5)
,,v/out Enclosures
cc: Miguel Flores, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, USEPA
Steve Drown, Chief, Water Division, ADEQ
Ellen Carpenter, Legal Policy Advisor, ADEQ
Jamie Ewing, Attorney Specialist, ADEQ
Allan Gates, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates, Woodyard
Chuck Nestrud, Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian
John Sempier, Northwest Arkansas Conservation Authority
Rene Langston, Executive Director, Springdale
Tom McAlister, Utility Manager, Rogers
Belva Plumlee, Wastewater Superintendent, Bentonville
Dave Jurgens, P.E. Director, Fayetteville
Trevor Bowman, P.E. Public Works Director, Siloam Springs
22
Mar 17 09 10: 24a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 2
J���Eo sr4>Fs
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
w REGION 6
i 1445 ROSS AVENUE,SUITE 1200
02 DALLAS,TX 75202.2733
3F2rgc raosE°r
FES 2 6 2009
The I-lonorable .lohn Boozman
Member, United States
House of Representatives
213 Nest Monroe, Suite K
Lowell, AR 72745
Dear Congressman Boozman:
Thank you for your letter of February 7, 2009, to our Water Quality Protection
division director Miguel Flores concerning Northwest Arkansas Conservation Authority
(NACA).
In your letter, you requested information discussed in our January 22, 2009,
conference call, which my staff provided in a letter dated February 5, 2009. This
information included correspondence and resources providing the rationale for the
proposed 0.1 mg/l total phosphorus (TP) limit, a list of sample facilities across the
country that have been issued discharge permits requiring phosphorus limits of 0.1 mg/1,
as well as other documents and resources requested in the call. My staff has compiled the
information enclosed here to address additional concerns expressed in your letter of
February 7, 2009.
Thank you for your support and interest in helping protect the environment. I
hope you find the information we have provided adequate. Should I be able to assist you
further, please call me at (214) 665-2100, or your staff may contact LaWanda Thomas of
my staff at (214) 665-7466 or Cynthia Fanning at(214) 665-2142.
Sincerely yours, /
awrence E.yours,
Acting Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Teresa Marks
Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality
John Sampier
Northwest Arkansas Conservation Authority
Recycled/Recyclable.Printed with Vegetable 01 Based Inla on 100%Recycled Paper(40%Posloonsumer)
23
Mar 17 09 10: 24a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 3
Additional Intbrnraion for I2ep. John 600zrnan on the Northwest Arkansas Conservation
Authority (NACA)
You expressed concern that NACA is being treated dillerewty than other parties to the
Statement 0 Joint Principles and Actions signed Ur the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma
it? 2003 (..the Agreement
NACA is being treated no differently than the other parties to the Agreement.
Throughout our discussions with the two States prior to the signing of the Agreement and
in our Summary of Decision approving Oklahoma's 0.037 mg/I criterion for phosphorus,
EPA emphasized the deadline for full implementation of the criterion is June 30, 2012.
As of that date. the Clean Water Act (CWA) mandates that all point source dischargers in
both Oklahoma and Arkansas comply with applicable water quality standards. This
mandate applies to NACA, as well as the other dischargers specifically covered by the
Agreement. Furthermore, it is consistent with our long-standing procedures for
permitting a new discharger proposing to discharge into impaired waterbodies.
It is true that permits have been issued to several of the facilities covered by the
Agreement with the agreed upon phosphorus limit of i mg/l for the full five(5) year term
of the permit. However, this was possible only because the full five (5) year term of the
permit was within the I 0-year compliance schedule period ending on June 30, 2012. Any
permits that will run beyond June 30, 2012, such as the one proposed for NACA, will be
required to include effluent limits that comply with all applicable water quality standards
as of that date.
Although EPA is supportive of the Agreement signed by the two States as a
positive step toward achieving compliance with water quality standards in the shared
Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Watersheds, the Agreement does not supersede the
requirements of the CWA. Under the CWA and 40 C.F.R. Part 122, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits must include limitations sufficient to
"[a]chieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA, including
State narrative criteria for water quality." 40 C.F.R. §122.44(4)(1). The Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has not demonstrated that a limit of 1
mg/1 TP for NACA is sufficient to achieve water quality standards.
You also asked about the significance of IVACA being a new facility.
40 C.P.R. § 122.4 specifically speaks to permits issued to new facilities, such as
NACA, which propose to discharge to impaired water bodies. Section 122.4(1) provides
that "[njo permit may be issued ... [t]o a new source or a new discharger, if the discharge
from its construction or operation will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality
standards." Section 122.4 provides an exception for discharges into water bodies for
which a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) assessment has been performed, if the new
discharger can demonstrate that 1) there are sufficient remaining load allocations to allow
for the discharge, and 2) the existing dischargers into that segment are subject to
compliance schedules designed to bring the segment into compliance with applicable
24
Mar 17 09 10: 24a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 4
Letter to Rep. Boozman
Pg. 2 of enclosure
water quality standards. 40 C.E.R. § 122.4(i)(I) & (2). However, at this time, there is no
TMDL applicable to NACA's proposed discharge.
Because there is no TMDL, EPA interprets I22.4(i) to allow the issuance of
permits to facilities, such as NACA, that propose to discharge a pollutant of concern into
a water body listed as impaired only if the permit includes effluent limitations sufficient
to meet water quality standards end-of-pipe, or if the discharger demonstrates that other
pollutant source reductions will offset its discharge and result in a net decrease in
loadings. Ifeither of these conditions is met, EPA feels comfortable arguing the
discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. With
regard to NACA, which is required by the CWA to comply with Arkansas' narrative
standard for phosphorus, as well as Oklahoma's 0.037 mg/k phosphorus criterion, EPA
has determined that, based on available infonnafion, an effluent limit of 0.1 mg/k would
meet water quality standards at the end-of-pipe.
You asked for an explanation of the role of EPA vs. the State agencies in perinit issuance
and reissztail ce.
Under Section 402 of the CWA, states may be authorized to implement the
NPDES permitting program for dischargers within theirjurisdiction. In Region 6, the
States of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas have NPDES authorization. EPA
still implements the program in New Mexico (Region 6), Idaho, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire and Washington, DC. Once a state receives NPDES authorization, the state
has exclusive authority to issue permits. In its oversight role, EPA reviews proposed
state permits to ensure compliance with the CWA. If EPA determines that a proposed
state permit does not comply with the requirements of the CWA, EPA may object to the
permit. The process for EPA's objection to state permits is explained in detail in our
Previous correspondence with your office. However, generally, if the state does not
resubmit a permit modified to comply with EPA's objection, exclusive authority to issue
the permit transfers to EPA.
This division of authority between the federal and state governments applies to
reissuance of permits as well. NPDES-authorized states have exclusive authority to
reissue permits to facilities whose previous pen-nits have expired, and EPA reviews these
Permits to ensure compliance with the CWA.
However, regardless of whether EPA or the authorized state issues or reissues the
permit, the CWA requires permit limits to be technology or water quality-based in
accordance with applicable regulations. The 1 mg/1 phosphorus limit agreed to by the
States of Arkansas and Oklahoma in the Statement of Joint Principles and Actions is
neither a water quality nor a technology-based limit. It is a limit negotiated by the two
States as an initial step toward achieving water quality goals, which was allowable only
because of the 10 year compliance schedule included in Oklahoma's water quality
standard for phosphorus. That compliance schedule expires on June 30, 2012, and as of
25
Mar 17 09 10: 24a Janet Sampier 479-636-4034 p. 5
Letter to Rep. Boozman
Pg. 3 of enclosure
that date, all dischargers, even those specifically covered by the Agreement, are required
to comply with applicable water quality standards.
You asked what negative consequences would ensue if EPA waited until the Osage Creek
Water Quality Study is completed before determining the appropriate water quality limit
post-2012.
The CWA and 40 C.F.R. Part 122 clearly provide that no permit may be issued
when the conditions of the permit do not provide for compliance with the requirements of
the CWA or regulations promulgated under the CWA, do not ensure compliance with the
applicable water quality requirements of all affected states, or, with regard to permits for
new discharges, if the proposed discharge will cause or contribute to the violation of
water quality standards. 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(a)(d) and (i). EPA believes there is sufficient
data to demonstrate that a phosphorus limit of 0.1 mg/1 is required for NACA in order for
the facility's discharge to meet applicable water quality standards, and that the CWA
requires the facility to meet those standards upon the June 30, 2012, expiration of the 10-
year compliance schedule. Thus, the CWA requires imposition of the 0.1 mp/l as of
June 30, 2012. However, as stated previously, EPA is certainly willing to revisit the
pert-nit limit if data obtained in the study indicate a different limit is appropriate. As
mentioned in response to your first question, we reiterate that EPA's action with respect
to the NACA facility is consistent with our long-standing procedures for permitting a
new discharger proposing to discharge into impaired waterbodies.
You asked to what degree, in numeric terms, the imposition ofthe 0.Img/I effluent limit
on the AC40f facility would improve water quality in the watershed.
Imposing a total phosphorus limit of 0.1 mg/1 would result in authorized loadings
of 3.0 lbs per day of phosphorus to the receiving stream. At a 1.0 mg/1 phosphorus limit,
the proposed facility would be authorized to discharge over 30 lbs/day of phosphorus.
This is a ten fold increase in the daily loadings of total phosphorus to Osage Creek, a
stream already impaired for phosphorus, which would add nearly five tons of phosphorus
annually to Osage Creek.
26