HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-83 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO.
99_8=_
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING --�—�f
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH McGOODWIN
YATES, INC. �D CITY CLERK TO
REVISE PORTIONS OFEGINEERING WILUPDAT.A
SEINIUET IA UTREA _ENT _
PROGRAMTHE CITY'S INDUSTRIAL
BE I� TREATMENT
Fayetteville, SOLVED by the Board of Directors, City of
directThat the
to Mayor and City Clerk
and Yates, Inc.execute engineering eement with &Goodwin, Williams
revise portionsand
A copy of of the Cit Industrial services to Williams
attache the agreement au horizedfupdate and
d hereto Treatment Pro
marked Exhibitexecution hereby
PASSED AND "A"and made a
ff ,. '.,1' , _• rx:i APPROVED this 23rd
41
By
t hereof,
day of August, 1983•
-M
CERTIFICATE OF RECORD
State of Arkansas
City of Fayetteville ( SS
I, Mary E. Griffin, City Clerk and Ex -Officio
recorder for the City of Fayetteville, do here-
by certify that the annexed or foregoing is
of record in my office and the same ap
pears in Ordinance & Resolution book
at page Witness my
hand and seal thi, 5l1-•6' day of
198-.
• City Clerk
ls2. Off:
ecorder
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT,entered into this 23rd day of
1983, by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
to as the "City," and the engineering firm of McGoodwin,
Inc., of Fayetteville, Arkansas, hereinafter referred to
WITNESSETH THAT:
August
,
hereinafter referred
Williams and Yates,
as the "Engineer;"
WHEREAS, under U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations,
the City is required to develop an Industrial Pretreatment Program; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer, as part of the Step 1 project, has provided
assistance to the City in the development of this program, with the submittal
of Activity No. 8 on December 3, 1982; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated June 24, 1983, the EPA indicated that additional
work would be required; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 1983, the EPA issued an Administrative Order
(Docket No. VI -83-158) and ordered that the City complete the Industrial
Pretreatment Program requirements as set forth in Activity No. 8 by
November 1, 1983; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the Engineer to assist the City in
making the required revisions and submittal to EPA;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein contained, the City and the Engineer, the parties hereto, stipulate and
agree as follows.
Section I. Scope of the Project
The work covered by this agreement is limited to those engineering
services needed to complete development of the Industrial Pretreatment Program
in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance.
Section II. Scope of Engineering Services and Time of Performance
The Engineer shall provide at his own expense a suitable engineering
staff and necessary equipment tocomplete the required tasks. The Engineer
agrees to work closely with the EPA representatives, the City Attorney, and
the City Engineer to make the required revisions to the Pretreatment Program
in accordance with the June 24, 1983 EPA letter or in accordance with further
changes thereto approved by the City and EPA. The letter of June 24, 1983
is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The Engineer shall complete all work required under the terms of this
agreement and submit all required documents to the City on or before
October 24, 1983, unless the City fails to provide the Engineer with
required data within a reasonable time from the execution date hereof.
Time is expressly made the essence of this agreement.
•
Section III. Payment
In consideration of the performance of the foregoing services by the
Engineer, the City shall pay to the Engineer as full compensation for such
services his salary cost times a multiplier of 2.25, plus reimbursable expenses
at actual cost.
Salary cost is defined as the cost of salaries of engineers, draftsmen,
stenographers., surveyors, clerks, laborers, etc., for time directly chargeable
to the project, plus Social Security contributions, employment compensation
insurance, payroll taxes, retirement benefits, medical and insurance benefits,
sick leave, vacation, and holiday pay.
Reimbursable expenses shall include travel expenses when traveling outside
Northwest Arkansas in connection with the project, rental expenses for equipment
needed to complete the work, purchase of material, and other expenses directly
attributable to the project, including any work performed by subcontractors.
Reimbursable expenses will not exceed $1,500.00 without prior approval of the
City.
A cost ceiling of $5,500.00 for salary cost and multiplier is hereby
established. Further, it is agreed that, should additional sampling and
testing of effluents from industries or influent to the City's wastewater
treatment plant be required, this work will be performed by City forces.
Consequently, should any work by the Engineer be required, this cost is
not included in the above ceiling.
Payment shall be made monthly and shall be based on costs to date. Payment
shall be made within 15 days after claim submittal. Each statement shall be
accompanied by adequate itemization to fully indicate the basis of all charges.
Section IV. Other Provisions of the Contract
In connection with the project, the City's responsibilities shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
Giving thorough consideration to all documents presented by the
Engineer and informing the Engineer of all decisions within a
reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Engineer.
2. Making provision for the employees of the Engineer to enter
public and private lands as required for the Engineer to perform
necessary preliminary surveys and investigations.
3. Furnishing the Engineer such plans and records of construction
and operation of existing facilities, or copies of same, bearing
on the proposed work as may be in the possession of the City.
Such documents or data will be returned to the City upon
completion of the work or at the request of the City.
4. Paying the cost of any wastewater sampling and laboratory analyses.
All documents prepared by the Engineer under this contract shall become the
property of the City upon payment of the consideration due the Engineer here-
under. The Engineer may retain reproducible copies of all documents for his
files and further use.
THIS AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their partners,
heirs, successors, administrators and assigns, and neither party shall assign,
sublet or transfer his interest in this agreement without the prior written
consent of the other party hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused these presents to be executed in
its behalf by its duly authorized representatives, and the said Engineer by
its duly authorized representatives, and the parties hereto have set their
1:0,hands and seals on the date heretofore set out.
Attest:$.
c. t,
r
yl.
Li
e r
Attest:
.� ,''k,
ski
'' -
0R n 11 A.66 16 V0.14 -
Jacqueline S. Ross, Secretary
erk
1
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
'gime&
Paul R. Nola , Mayor
n8
McGOODWIN, WILLIAMS AND YATES, INC:
.„kit0 Sr,.,
ih a t
s
sr4t PAWL°
`
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 75270
JUN 2 4 1983
C_2TIFIE9 r1AIL: gETua; RECEIPT REQUEESTED IP 455-3C3-345)
Mr. Donald L.. Grimes
City Manager
City of Fayetteville
P.O. Drayer F
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
.ie: HP )ES Permit An. ARO323110
Pretreatment Program Requirements
-Dear Mr. Grimes
We have corpleted our review of your December 3, 1982, submittal in accordance
with activity no. 8 of the .retreatment program. We are pleased to see that the
majority of the final submittal. is complete and presented in an orderly fashion.
owever, there are several iters which need to be updated, completed, or
revised.
Please ::ear in mind that all previously submitted activities were preliminary
and it has not been apparent until now how these pieces would be placed
together in a final program package. As we new look at how this is .being
accomplished, it beCol'es evident that there are certain gaps and deficiencies
that were not apparent before. Some of the items s 4£ are ,now requesting are Pane's
which we have assumed would be done in the final package.
The following comments have been broken nut into general topics.
Industrial risers survey
The submission indicates that a survey was performed, but gives no
definitive -information about the survey.. If the questionnaires in appendix
:were used, it should be so stated. If other euesticnnaires were used, an
example should be provided. The cat£Isl oi1 which the sulrYey :was conducted
shnuld he provided and 1f it has Seen more than three years, undated
inforr.'ation should' he provided •a d noted as such. 1 master list of :all
Potential nondomestic discharge sources w.,rithin the collection system must
L.
be provided and. the sources used to compile the master list. Examples of
sources include: water use records; Charmer of Commerce roster; telephone
directory; Dun's Aarket identifiers; etc. From the master list, a list of
industrial users (I'J's) that should be contacted should he developed and
presented. The criteria for eliminating industries on the master list from
being included on the contact list include: a known dry operation; source
known to discharge only conventional or comapatible.pollutants in reasonable
amounts; or known to be a direct discharger.
The number of questionnaires distributed, the rate of response, and/or the
follow up procedures that were used to obtain necessary informaation.from
those that did not respond should be provided.
The survey questionnaire ?resented in appendix E seems alright except it
should list all 124 priority pollutants and ask whether any of thea are, or
suspected of being, discharged. The present questionnaire Just asks whether
there are any -metals or pesticides.
Results of the survey should be tabulated in a format that contains the
number of industries in specific SIC categories and the quantities of
specific pollutants entering the PUN system.
At the point when the survey is adequately completed, based upon the
information. obtained, decisions can be rade about what needs to be sampled.
Enclosed is appendix 9 entitled Priority Pollutants and Categorical Industry
Infonation. Table S-3 of this information lists regulated industrial—~
subcateiories loth associated SIC codes.
After detercining if any of the surveyed industries are categorical, table
0-1 can be utilized. This table is a Matrix of priority pollutants
potentially discharged from industrial categories. By going down the list
for each categorical industry, the number. of parameters potentially coming -
into the POTW can be determined.
Without -an adequate survey and sampling data, the permits that have bet
submitted `en't be reviewed.
Discharge limits
The suomnission does not discuss POT4 history or any instances of problems
caused by.inhibition,.pass through, or sludge contamination.
Fayetteville provides data on recent treatment plant influent and effluent
summing. S,ecause eo summary of industrial. user's survey data was included,
itis not:clear whether the parameters that have been sampled are appropriate
eased on -the characteristics of IUs discharge. Although the'199O industrial
sampline data indicate the presence of some mmetais in industrial discharges
and PJT4 influent in concentrations that exceed State guidelines, the
submission does not indicate that subsequent sampling has been performed to
monitor for these metals.
There are several further concerns based upon the uncertainty. of thesurvey
and incomplete methodology. Based upon the information presented above, it
would seem that not only do heavy metals have the potential for coning into
the POTW but also at least twenty (20) toxic organics. Using the appendix 8
discussed above, it can be determined that there may be toxic organics
contributed by several industries on the system. It would seem necessary .to
at least do a scan of the 129 prioritory pollutants in the influent. Those
data Peed to be presented and from that point It can be determined exactly
what must be analyzed for 1n the effluent and the sludge and if it will be
necessary to.go'back and do additional sampling and analyses on the
industrial effluents.
It is apparent that with at least metals, if not also toxic organics, coming
into the plant something has to happen to them. No attempt has been made to
determine if these pass through the plant or end up in the sludge and in
what amounts. On page 15 of appendix F in the submittal, mention is made of
the potential for contamination of land, groundwater, and food chain.
However, no analysis of the sludge was done.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), before disposing of
sludge it is necessary to determine whether or not the sludge is hazardous.
For that reason an E.P. (extraction procedure) Toxicity test should be run
on the sludge that is being land applied. The extent of the parameters
which will have to be analyzed is dependent upon what shows up in the
influent scan. The results of the E.P. Toxicity test should then be
reported to the Air and Hazardous Aaterials Division of the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and 'Ecology (NOPC&E) and in the final
program package.
Further, on page 14 of appendix F of the submittal, the toxic metals
determined to be contributed to the POTW by the four industries sampled
accounted for only 25% of the total metals. It is imperative that some
realistic attempt be made at locating the source(s) of the remaining 75t of
the metals contributed to the POTW.
The only discussion on the local limits was provided in appendix F rather
than in the narrative body of submittal. The rationale far choosing certain
limits needs to be discussed and this will be more important if the new
sampling demonstrates a need for toxic organic limits.
In conjunction with this is the question regarding the adequate follow up
and action regarding the limits in Ordinance Ho. 2677. Article VI, Section
2 (1) gives limits which appear to be based, at least somewhat, on the
Electronlating Categorical Standards. The language in that section says
that if those limits don't work, they may be reduced to the level .that will
meat the ADPC&E guideline values. The ordinance was passed in November,
1980, which was after the sampling was conducted in tiay, 1980, and presented
in appendix F. There was no discussion and no data presented after the
ordinance was passed to indicate whether the approac;t presented above was
•
taken seriously. That approach will time to be taken and in conjunction
with the additional sampling, the local limits may have to be revised.
Whether the limits east be revised or not, the limits that will be
incorporated in the final pretreatment program submittal must be adequately
justified. To assist in either event, we have enclosed another partial
document entitled Development of 9ischarae Limitations to Control
Incompatible Poliutants. — - -
Legal Authority
In reviewing the Legal Authority aspect of the submittal, we note several
deficiencies. One overriding factor to consider is that.arhile the
preliminary legai'authority-(activity no.3) may have been approved to get
things moving, the development in the final package rust be much more
extensive. To aid in the following discussion of legal authority and other
aspects of the program, we have included two draft development documents
that may be helpful: Procedures Manual for Preearin3 a POTS Pretreatment
Program Submission and Local Pretreatment Program Minimu+ Peeuirements.
The first'statement in this regard is that the material included en pages 12
through 17 of the submittal under "Evaluation of Legal Authorities" is the .
type of material that needs to be incorporated in the attorney's statement.
Page 11 of the "Local Pretreatment ..." document deals with the required
elements of the attorney's statement.
The tens used throughout the section mentioned above which are not
definitive leg, probably, most, etc.) are.not acceptable in establishing
legal authority.
Section 2(c) of.the sewer use ordinance prohibits the discharge of wastes
with temperatures higher than 150° F. This provision should be modified to
prohibit discharges that would cause the temperature at the treatment plant
influent to exceed 104° F.
•
Section 2(1) of the ordinace establishes local limits for several
pollutants. It is not clear from the submission that these limits are
appropriate based on sampling results.
Although the permits that are issued to industrial users may contain
compliance schedules, the City's ordinance and code do not naive it
authority to require schedules. It may be possible for Fayetteville to
enforce the schedules contained in permits under its authority in Section
21-46 of the code, which provides authority to establish schedules for
corrective action in the case of violations. However, it would be
preferrable to provide the City with sciredalinn authority in the ordinance.
The ordinance or code should be amended to provide Fayetteville_ with the
authority to require the submission of all of the reports listed in 40 CFR
403.12 (ie., baseline report, compliance schedule progress report, report on
final conuliance with categorical pretreatment standards, periodic reports on
continued compliance, notice of slug loading).
5
The ordinanceAar code should he modified to provide authorized
representatives with the right to enter premises to inspect for compliance,
sample, set and use rcnnitoring equipment, and inspect and copy records.
The ordinance and coae do not provide Fayetteville with authority to seek
injunctive relief. They also do not provide authority to immediately halt
or prevent a hazardous discharge. Either the ordinance er code should be
amended to give the City these authorities. Additionally. Fayetteville rest
also provide for compliance with the confidentiality requirements in.403.14.
The ordinance and code both state that TROD or SS above 300 Mg/1 can not be
discharged wttiout paying abnormal surcharge rates. However, the abnormal ,
surcharge rates have not been presented and should be presented. Even at
that, there should be an absolute upper limit established above which the
plant spay -be upset and therefore would not be allowed.
Section 21-56 of the Code mentions Ordinance #953 which presents a tie en
fee, but that Ordinance has not been provided.
Program Iiplementation
-The submission should identify procedures for tracking and updating the.
information requested by the industrial waste survey. It should also
explain its procedures for collecting information from new industries (e.g.,
a system for receiving notification when new businesses in the POTW's
service area apply for business licenses).
The submission does not explain the procedures that the City Engineer will
follow to track the different reports that industries must submit to the
City. There is no indication that the selfemonitoring reporting data will
be compared to limits in the industries' permits or compliance schedules.
Also, -the submission does not indicate now the City will ehsure that
problems are followed up by the appropriate authorities.
The submission should address safety considerations.
The submission does not adequately address Fayetteville's procedures for
investigating instances of noncompliance or enforcement. The City's program
must provide for responding to emergencies; notifying IU's of violations,
allowing for response by Id's, controlling problem discharge, verifying the
effectiveness of corrective actions, obtaining compliance through legal
processes, and assessing penalties. The submission should also describe
procedures for demand sampling and specify chain -of -custody and quality,
control provisions.
Categorical industries must self -monitor or be monitored at least once a
month.. Others may self -monitor. or be monitored at least twice per year, but,
should be set up in accordance with their potential to upset the plant,
cause pass-through, or contaminate the sludge. This refers to scheduled
monitoring and not random or non-compliance sampling.
Organization and Staffing
The submission does not include adequate job descriptions or specify the
qualifications of persons involved in Fayetteville's pretreatment program.
There is not sufficient information in the submission to determine whether
the City has adequate sampling or analytical capabilities.
l
The pretreatment progran submission should include a listing of the major
equipment to ha used in the program, including any commercial services or
outside capabiiites.
Fundinn
The costs are broken out fairly well, but the sources of funding for the
program are only generally presented. There needs to be a more specific
source listing of funds which will offset costs.
In addition to the enclosed materials mentioned above, we have also enclosed
the following in the event that they would be helpful: Draft Model
Ordinance and Ordinance Review Sheet; Sample Industrial .urvev
Questionnaire; a series a checklists we use in -evaluating inai package
Submittals; and thelatest update on proposed and promulgated -National
Categorical Standard citations.
We apologize for our delay in reviewing the report. However, due to the
deadline date of July 1, 1283 we are not including a resubmittal date with this
letter. You will be contacted later on this month by a member of our
Enforcement Branch to set a schedule for the submittal of the requested
information.
If you have any questions, please call oe at 214/757-9513.
Sincerely,
Lee 5. Sohme
Environnental Scientist ;(5W -PM)
Enclosures
cc: w/o enclosures
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology,
Grants Branch & Permits Branch
.1cGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc.
Consulting -Engineers
909 Rolling dills Drive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701