HomeMy WebLinkAboutEBA Wastechnologies 1992-11-12 ActiveMASTER AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES
This Agreement, made and entered into this 12th day of November , 19 92 ,
by and between CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter referred to as "City" and
EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES, A California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Consul-
tant".
RECITALS
This Agreement is predicated on the following facts:
a. City requires consulting services related to the preparation of special engineering
studies for the Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site;
b. Consultant represents that it has the qualifications, skills, and experience to provide
these services, and is willing to provide them according to the terms of this Agreement.
c. City and Consultant agree upon the concept of a Master Agreement, together with
Scope of Work attached hereto as Statement A, describing contract provisions for the project.
The parties therefore agree as follows:
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
1.1 The Project is described in detail in the attached Scope of Work (Attachment A).
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 As set forth in Attachment A.
2.2 Additional Services. Additional services, if any, shall only proceed upon written
agreement between City and Consultant.
3.0 CONDUCT OF WORK
3.1 Time of Completion. Consultant shall commence performance of services as required
by the Scope of Work upon receipt of a Notice to Proceed from City and shall complete such
service in accordance with the time requirements of the Scope of Work.
3.2 Schedule. Work shall proceed in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Scope
of Work.
L: \project\385 \Uliah.agr
4.0 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES
4.1 Basis for Compensation. City agrees to pay Consultant for services on the basis and
in the amount established in Attachment B attached hereto. Charges shall be based upon
Consultant's standard hourly billing rates for various classifications of personnel, but with a
not to exceed figure of One hundred, nine thousand, six hundred, eighty dollars
($109,680.00). Hourly rates shall cover all costs and expenses of every kind and nature for
Consultant's performance of this contract, except direct expenses. Consultant shall complete
the Scope of Work described in Exhibit A for the not to exceed figure of $109,680.00.
4.2 Changes. The parties shall agree in writing to any changes in compensation due to
changes in Consultant's services under this Agreement.
4.3 Subcontractor Payment. The use of subconsultants or other services to perform a
portion of the work of this Agreement shall be approved by City prior to commencement of
work, and invoices for such work shall be attached to Consultant's invoice.
4.4 Terms of Payment. Payment to Consultant for services rendered in accordance with
this contract shall be based upon submission of monthly invoices for the work satisfactorily
performed prior to the date of invoice less any amount already paid to Consultant, which
amounts shall be due and payable upon receipt by City. Invoices shall be accompanied by
documentation sufficient to enable City to determine progress made.
5.0 ASSURANCES OF CONSULTANT
5.1 Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and is solely respon-
sible for its acts or omissions. Consultant (including its agents, servants, and employees) is
not City's agent, employee, or representative for any purpose.
5.2 Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibility is
solely to City. Consultant has no interest and will not acquire any direct or indirect interest
that would conflict with its performance of the Agreement. Consultant shall not in the per-
formance of this Agreement employ a person having such an interest.
6.0 INDEMNIFICATION
6.1 Insurance.
a. Without limiting Consultant's obligations arising under paragraph 6.2 (Indem-
nification), Consultant shall not begin work under this Agreement until it obtains insurance
required under this section. The insurance shall cover Consultant, its contractors, subcon-
tractors, agents, representatives and employees in connection with the performance of work
under this Agreement, and shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement.
Insurance coverage shall be as follows:
1. Professional Liability Insurance to cover or partially cover damages that
may be the result of errors, omissions, or acts of Consultant. Such insurance shall be in an
LAprojcct\385\U oah.agr
amount of not less than $500,000 and shall remain in force for two years after completion of
Consultant's work and acceptance by City.
rated herin.
2. As further provided in Exhibit C which is attached hereto and incorpo-
6.2 Indemnification. Notwithstanding the foregoing insurance requirements, and in addi-
tion thereto, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City officers, agents and
employees from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, costs and expenses, in-
cluding court costs and counsel fees, arising out of the injury to or death of any person or
loss of or physical damage to any property resulting from any negligent or wrongful act or
omission commited by Consultant or it's officers, agents or employees while performing
services under this Agreement.
7.0 CONTRACT PROVISIONS
7.1 Ownership of Work. All documents furnished to Consultant by City and all reports
and supportive data prepared by Consultant under this Agreement are City's property and
shall be given to City at the completion of Consultant's services at no additional cost to City.
Deliverables are identified in the Scope of Work, Attachment A.
7.2 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and Consultant shall comply
with the laws and regulations of the United States, the State of California, and all local gov-
ernments having jurisdiction over this Agreement.
7.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement plus its Exhibit(s) and executed Amendments set
forth the entire understanding between the parties.
7.4 Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
7.5 Modification. No modification of this Agreement is valid unless made with the agree-
ment of both parties in writing.
7.6 Assignment. Consultant's services are considered unique and personal. Consultant
shall not assign, transfer, or subcontract its interest or obligation under all or any portion of
this Agreement without City's prior written consent.
7.7 Waiver. No waiver of a breach of any covenant, term, or condition of this Agree-
ment shall be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach of the same or any other covenant,
term or condition or a waiver of the covenant, term or condition itself.
7.8 Litigation. In the event a suit or action is instituted to enforce any of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall collect, in addition to the costs and
disbursements allowed by statutes, such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorn-
ey's fees in such suit or action in both trial and appellate courts.
L: \projcct\385\Ukia6.agr
7.9 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days writ-
ten notice. However, should the other party fail substantially to perform in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement through no fault of the other, this Agreement may be terminated
immediately.
Upon receipt of a termination notice, Consultant shall stop performing new services
and shall put existing work in a proper form for submittal to City. In the event of termina-
tion, Consultant shall be paid for satisfactory services performed to the termination date, in
accordance with the agreed -upon fees.
This Master Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by either party in ac-
cord with the previous two paragraphs.
8.0 NOTICES
Any notice given under this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed given when
personally delivered or deposited in the mail (certified or registered) addressed to the parties
as follows:
CITY OF UKIAH
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
300 SEMINARY AVENUE
UKIAH, CA 95482
EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES
825 SONOMA AVENUE, SUITE C
SANTA ROSA, CA 95404
9.0 SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year
first above written:
CITY OF UKIAH
BY.
&uxit:4
Charles L. Rough, Jr.
EBA WASTECHNOLOGIES
BY: dt-644,t4aatee.6
Duane Butler, P.E.
CITY MANAGER PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
Cathy Mc " ay
CITY CLERK
DATE:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, CITY OF UKIAH
apport
10.0 EXHIBITS TO AGREEMENT
A. SCOPE OF WORK
B. SCHEDULE OF RATES
C. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
L: \projeet\385 \Ukiah.agr
DATE: NOV 1/, /99Z
SCOPE OF WORK
CITY OF UKIAH LANDFILL
TASK I - ARTICLE 5 MONITORING PROPOSAL
The City of Ukiah is seeking assistance in preparing the Water Quality Monitoring Program
and Assurance of Financial Responsibility for the City of Ukiah landfill in compliance with
revised Title 23, Chapter 15, Article 5 of the California Code of Regulations (revised Article
5).
On June 1, 1991, the State of California promulgated a revision to Article 5, which requires
operators of Class II and Class III Waste Management Units (WMUs) to (1) submit a
technical supplement to the existing Report of Waste Discharge (RWD) that meets new
environmental monitoring performance standards (i.e. the development of a more
comprehensive water quality monitoring program), and (2) to establish and maintain
assurances of financial responsibility for potential corrective action for "all known or
reasonably foreseeable releases" of waste constituents.
Fundamental to the development of a Water Quality Monitoring Program and an Assurance
of Financial Responsibility, a clear understanding of the geology, hydrogeology, and geo-
chemistry of the landfill sites is required. We understand that a significant amount of geo-
logic and hydrogeologic work has been completed at the City of Ukiah Landfill site, includ-
ing extensive chemical analysis. Based on this understanding, EBA has developed a scope of
work for:
o Developing a revised Water Quality Monitoring Program for the
landfill in accordance with Section 2550.0 (a) of revised Article
5.
o Developing a cost estimate associated with implementing corrective action for
a reasonably foreseeable release from the landfill site in accordance with Sec-
tion 2550.0 (b) of revised Article 5.
EBA has divided the Article 5 work into two principal subtasks corresponding with these
requirements. The scope of work takes into account the geologic, hydrogeologic, and geo-
chemical work completed to date at the landfill.
I.A - DEVELOP MONITORING PROGRAM
Three types of water quality monitoring programs and associated performance standards are
described in §2550.0 through §2550.12 of revised Article 5. These are:
o detection monitoring [ §2550.7]
o evaluation monitoring [ §2550.9]
o corrective action [ §2550.10]
L: \project \385\Ukiah.agr
These monitoring and response programs apply to the three media (groundwater, surface
water, and the unsaturated zone) for which monitoring is required under revised Article 5.
Detection monitoring must be conducted during the active life of the WMU, throughout
closure, and well into the post- closure maintenance period. The purpose of a Detection
Monitoring Program is to "provide the best assurance of the earliest possible detection of a
release from the waste management unit" [ §2550.7(b)(1)(B), (c)(2)(B), and (d)(2)(B)]. The
water quality protection standard (WQPS) [ §2550.2] is the basis of the Detection Monitoring
Program. The WQPS is the site - specific process used to identify a release from the WMU.
Evaluation monitoring (formerly called verification monitoring) must be implemented when-
ever there is either statistically significant evidence of a release (determined during detection
monitoring), or there is significant physical evidence of a release. The purpose of evaluation
monitoring is to assess the nature and extent of the release from the WMU [ §2550.9(b)], to
implement a monitoring program that will detect changes in the release [ §2550.7(b)(1)(C),
(c)(2)(C), and (d)(2)(C), and §2550.9(e)], to propose and substantiate a revised WQPS for
corrective action [ §2550.2 and §2550.4(a)(3) -(h)], and to develop a corrective action program
to bring the WMU into compliance with the revised WQPS [ §2550.9(d)].
A corrective action program is implemented at the completion of the evaluation monitoring
phase. The purpose of the corrective action program is to implement measures to clean up
the release and bring the WMU back into compliance with the revised WQPS [ §2550.10(b-
),(c) and (e)], to implement source control measures [ §2550.10(c)], and to monitor the speed
at which the corrective action measures will bring the WMU back into compliance with the
WQPS [ §2550.7(b)(1)(D), (c)(2)(D), (d)(2)(D), and §2550.10(d),(e),(i),(j)]
EBA's proposed strategy for the City of Ukiah Landfill is to develop a Water Quality Moni-
toring Program (i.e., detection monitoring program) consistent with the requirements of
revised Article 5. Once an approved Water Quality Monitoring Program is in place, and
appropriate data have been collected and evaluated statistically, the site can then be evaluated
with respect to the evaluation monitoring and corrective action requirements of revised Arti-
cle 5.
EBA will evaluate the existing Water Quality Monitoring Program developed for the landfill,
and prepare an updated Water Quality Monitoring Program consistent with the requirements
and performance standards of revised Article 5, §2550.0 through §2550.12. The following
specific subtasks will be necessary to prepare the updated Water Quality Monitoring Pro-
gram:
Subtask 1 -
Subtask 2 -
L: \project\385 \Ukiah. agr
Evaluate the
Develop and
on:
Current Monitoring System
Propose Water Quality Protection Standard Based
o constituents of concern
o concentration limits
o point of compliance
o monitoring points
o compliance period
Subtask 3 -
Subtask 4 -
Subtask 5 -
Subtask 6 -
Determine Background Values
Evaluate and Propose Statistical Methods and Statistical Retest (Verification)
Procedures
Develop and Propose Sampling Frequency
Develop and Propose Sampling and Analysis Methods /Procedures
Subtask 7 - Prepare Proposed Monitoring and Response Program
Each of these subtasks are described in detail below.
Subtask 1 - Evaluation of Existing Water Quality Monitoring Systems
EBA will evaluate the existing monitoring system with regard to compliance with revised
Article 5. Particular emphasis will be placed on understanding site hydrogeology and using
this information to evaluate whether the existing monitoring system (e.g. number, depth,
and location of monitoring wells) will meet the performance standards of revised Article 5.
In addition to requirements for groundwater monitoring, revised Article 5 specifies monitor-
ing requirements for surface water and the unsaturated (vadose) zone. Although vadose zone
monitoring is required by §2550.7(d) of revised Article 5, it is extremely difficult to install
vadose zone monitoring devices after construction and placement of refuse. Installation of
vadose zone monitoring devices would typically require the removal and rebuilding of the
landfill. The RWQCB has the authority to eliminate all or part of the vadose zone monitor-
ing requirements at existing landfills provided the discharger can demonstrate that the instal-
lation of the system is not feasible and would require unreasonable moving (or dismantling)
of the landfill.
EBA will evaluate the feasibility of installing vadose zone monitoring systems, in accordance
with revised Article 5 requirements, at the Ukiah Landfill.
Subtask 2 - Develop and Propose Water Quality Protection Standard
Under the requirements of revised Article 5, a water quality protection standard must be
proposed for the landfill. This differs significantly from the repealed Article 5 where a
water quality protection standard was assigned to each "indicator parameter" of a water
quality monitoring program. This new water quality protection standard is based on the
following five (5) components [ §2550.2]:
o constituents of concern
o concentration limits
o point of compliance
o monitoring points
o compliance period
Constituents of concern are defined as "the waste constituents, reaction products, and hazard-
ous constituents that are reasonably expected to be in or derived from waste" ( §2550.3). A
concentration limit is the "threshold" concentration of a constituent of concern that, when
exceeded in a statistically significant manner, indicates possible leakage of the landfill.
The water quality protection standard applies at the point of compliance, which is defined as
the "vertical surface at the downgradient limit of the waste management area." Monitoring
points include groundwater monitoring wells and surface water sampling locations at the
point of compliance. The compliance period is defined as the active life of the facility and
the closure period. However, the compliance period can be extended if a release is detected
from a landfill site.
EBA will identify constituents of concern for landfill on the basis of historical waste disposal
data and monitoring data collected to date. A concentration limit will then be proposed for
each constituent of concern, based on background values developed in Subtask 3. In accor-
dance with revised Article 5, EBA will select a "short list" of monitoring parameters to be
used for routine detection monitoring purposes. The "short list" is a subset of the constitu-
ents of concern and is comprised of those chemicals whose characteristics are such that they
will be effective indicators of leakage from the landfill. Use of the "short list" for routine
monitoring purposes will reduce monitoring costs and the number of false positive readings
(Type I error), while maintaining the performance standards of revised Article 5. Monitor-
ing points will be proposed based on the evaluation performed in Subtask 1. The compliance
period will be calculated based on the predicted closure and post - closure monitoring dates
developed for the landfill.
Subtask 3 - Determine Background Values
Revised Article 5 requires the establishment of background values for each constituent of
concern (which includes each monitoring parameter on the "short list "). Determination of a
background concentration specific to each constituent of concern will be based on existing
background monitoring data using statistical methods. However, if it is determined that the
existing data are insufficient for determination of background, then EBA will propose a
sampling and analysis program designed to collect sufficient data for the determination of
background values.
Background can be either a fixed numerical value or a statistical formula. The latter may be
used in cases where an intra -well monitoring approach is used, or in cases where variables
such as seasonality must be accounted for. Once background values have been established,
EBA will propose specific concentration limits for the constituents of concern. Background
values must be determined, and concentration limits specified, for each monitored medium
(i.e., groundwater, surface water, and the unsaturated zone) applicable to the landfill.
Subtask 4 - Evaluate and Propose Statistical Methods and Statistical Retest
(Verification) Procedures
Revised Article 5 places great emphasis on the use of statistical methods of data evaluation to
determine whether "statistically significant evidence of a release" has occurred. All water
L:\project\i85 \Uldah.agr
quality monitoring programs must propose and substantiate one of the statistical methods of
evaluation given in §2550.8(e)(8) for each constituent of concern (which includes each moni-
toring parameter on the "short list ") such that the performance standards of §2550.7(e)(9) are
met. The choice of statistical methods includes:
o a parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)
o a nonparametric ANOVA
o a tolerance or prediction interval procedure
o a control chart
o any other statistical method, proposed by the discharger, that meets the perfor-
mance standards of Article 5, subject to approval by the RWQCB
The above statistical methods are similar to those now required for landfills governed by the
recently issued RCRA Subtitle D requirements (40 CFR 257 and 258). However, Article 5
contains an additional provision for statistical retests (verification procedures) [ §2550.7 (e)(8-
)(E)] that, when used with the "short list" of monitoring parameters, provides a means of
controlling potentially costly "false positive" readings (i.e., Type I error).
EBA will propose and substantiate one of the designated statistical methods of analysis for
each constituent of concern for each monitored medium. The establishment of background
values in Subtask 3 will be necessary and will serve as the basis for the selection of
appropriate statistical methods of analysis. EBA will also propose a statistical retest
procedure that will meet the special performance standards of §2550.7 (e)(8)(E).
Subtask 5 - Develop and Propose Sampling Frequency
Revised Article 5 calls for a minimum sampling frequency of quarterly (one sample from
each monitoring point) or semiannually (four samples from each monitoring point, twice per
year), depending on the statistical methods selected to evaluate the monitoring data [§2550.7 -
(e)(12)(A), (B)]. EBA will evaluate the sampling frequencies with respect to the proposed
statistical methods, and will consider both cost and practicality when developing the proposed
sampling frequency for the detection monitoring programs.
Subtask 6 - Propose Sampling and Analysis Methods /Procedures
The sampling and analysis procedures proposed by EBA will serve as the basis for obtaining
representative samples from each monitored medium, and for obtaining accurate and
reproducible data. Specific sampling methodologies, field and laboratory analytical methods,
and Quality Assurance /Quality Control (QA /QC) procedures will be consistent with the
following guidance documents:
o Procedures Manual for Groundwater Monitoring at Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), EPA - 530 /SW -611,
August 1977
o Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical /chemical Methods, EPA, EPA
L:\project\385 \Udah.agr
SW -846, Third Edition, November 1986
o Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater,
EPA, EPA - 600/4- 82/057, July, 1982
o RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document,
OSWER 9950.1, September 1986
Subtask 7 - Prepare Proposed Monitoring and Response Programs
Subtask 1 through Subtask 6 above will serve as the basis for the preparation of a
comprehensive and site - specific Water Quality Monitoring Program, consistent with the
requirements of revised Article 5. EBA will prepare a draft and final Proposed Water
Quality Monitoring Program for submittal to the City of Ukiah. The reports will include all
maps, profiles, equations, tables, etc., that are necessary to help clarify the work.
I.B - DEVELOP FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COST ESTIMATES
New financial assurance regulations promulgated in revised Article 5 mandate the
establishment of a financial assurance mechanism sufficient to fund the clean-up of "all
known or reasonably foreseeable releases" from the Waste Management Units at the site.
The amount of the financial assurance mechanism is subjectively based on the dependability
of the landfill containment systems, and the reliability of the detection monitoring system.
Evaluating the potential for environmental impairment and developing a realistic cost
projection must be based on site - specific data, including containment systems and operational
procedures at the landfill site, geologic and hydrogeologic features, the amount and types of
wastes received at the site, estimates of the volume of leachate and landfill gas generation,
and the Water Quality Monitoring Program developed for the site.
For the City of Ukiah Landfill, EBA will review and evaluate the pertinent site - specific
information and develop a realistic cost projection for clean-up efforts of a reasonably
foreseeable release of waste constituents from landfill site. Data to be evaluated includes (1)
estimates of leachate generation volumes, (2) estimates of the nature and extent of a release,
and the physical and chemical mechanisms likely controlling the transport of waste
constituents, and (3) estimates of the volume of groundwater that could be potentially
impacted and that could require treatment.
EBA will prepare draft and final Financial Assurance Cost Estimates for the landfill. The
cost estimates will include all maps, tables, and any plans or details generated as part of
Subtask I.B
Financial Assurances Mechanisms
Article 3.5 of Title 14 includes financial mechanism forms and regulations that may be used
to satisfy Article 5 of Chapter 15. Applicable mechanisms may include Letter of Credit,
Pledge of Revenue (for only public agencies), Financial Means Test (for private companies),
and, possibly, an enterprise fund which accumulates over a relatively short period of time.
L:\project\385 \Uloah.agr
Under Title 14, Pledge of Revenue and Financial Means Test are accepted only for
postclosure maintenance. However, these two mechanisms may warrant serious
consideration for Article 5 of Chapter 15 because they are relatively inexpensive to
implement. Periodic updates for inflation and review of the financial means test and revenue
source for a pledge of revenue would be essential should they be accepted.
Accumulation of funds over a long period of time (e.g. an enterprise fund) would not be
appropriate because corrective actions may have to be performed at any time during the
active, closure, and postclosure periods. Other mechanisms such as surety bonds,
government securities, and certificates of deposit are complex, expensive, and seldom used.
TASK II - CHARACTERIZE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
IL - PREPARE WORK PLAN
Prior to beginning field activities, we anticipate that it will be necessary to submit a detailed
a work plan to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for review
and approval. This work plan would present an investigative strategy designed to address
issues of concern regarding water quality at the landfill site, as expressed in the letter from
David Evans (RWQCB) dated October 5, 1992. We understand that there are three areas of
concern regarding the water quality at this site: (1) the contaminants detected in groundwater
monitoring wells 90 -4, 90 -5, and 87 -1; (2) the background water quality at the site; and (3)
the water quality in the vicinity of the leachate containment pond.
In general, the work plan shall adequately summarize previous environmental and
hydrogeologic data generated at this site, identify the purpose of additional investigation, and
propose a method of exploration capable of achieving the desired results (a brief discussion
of the methodology is provided below). The work plan will also describe the proposed
drilling methods, our rationale for the placement of additional monitoring wells, well
construction and development details, quality control and quality assurance (QA /QC)
measures, and the project time schedule.
II.B - PLUME CHARACTERIZATION
One of the primary purposes of this investigation is to determine the extent of contaminants
discovered in the vicinity of monitoring wells 90 -4 and 90 -5, which are located near the
northerly edge of the landfill, and in the vicinity of monitoring well 87 -1, which is located
near the westerly property boundary.
Based on recent discussions with Dave Evans, we anticipate that it will be necessary to install
two additional wells just north of monitoring wells 90 -4 and 90 -5 to determine the extent of
contaminant migration in this area. We anticipate that these wells will be extended to a total
depth of approximately 50 feet, in order to ensure penetration of the saturated zone
throughout the year. It should be noted, however, that the total depth of the wells may vary,
depending on the elevation of the drilling sites and local hydrogeology. The wells will be
designed in accordance with specifications outlined in Bulletin 74 -90, Monitoring Well
Standards: State of California, prepared by the State Department of Water Resources in
cooperation with the State Water Resources Control Board. They will be constructed of
clean, two inch diameter, flush - threaded PVC casing, and secured within locking
above - ground monuments. Approximately ten to fifteen feet of perforated well screen will
be installed from just above the highest seasonal groundwater level to the bottom of the well,
and surrounded by a filter pack of washed Monterey sand. To ensure that the well casing is
properly centered in the boreholes, it will be installed within the string of hollow -stem
augers, or by using stainless steel centralizers, depending on the drilling method. The
annular materials (filter pack, bentonite, etc.) will be placed within the hollow -stem as the
augers are withdrawn, or through a tremie pipe. The monitoring wells will be developed by
gently surging the wellbore with a teflon surge block, followed by continued purging using a
bailer, a Brainard -Kilman 1.7 inch hand pump, and /or a GEOGARD air -lift pump driven by
L: \projux\385 \Uidah. agr
an oil -less compressor. At regular intervals (approximately after each well volume of water
is removed) the pH, conductivity, temperature and clarity of the water will be tested to verify
the effectiveness of the development process.
We understand that contaminants have been detected in monitoring well 87 -1, which has been
completed in the Quaternary alluvium. However, leachate contaminants were not detected in
a nearby well (90 -2) that penetrates water bearing zones in the underlying continental
deposits. Accordingly, we believe that wells 87 -1 and 90 -2 may be hydraulically
independent, and that if leachate impacted groundwater is present in this area, it may limited
to the younger alluvial deposits. It should be noted, however, that leachate contaminants
were not detected in monitoring well 90 -1, which was also completed in the Quaternary
alluvium further down - gradient of 87 -1. Based on these results, it is our understanding that
the RWQCB would like further clarification of the distribution contaminants in the
Quaternary alluvium. To assess the extent of contaminant migration in this area, we
recommend that groundwater samples be collected using temporary well points, or a
HydroPunch', as opposed to the installation of permanent wells. The boreholes for the well
points would be advanced with steam - cleaned, hollow -stem augers to a depth of
approximately 3 to 5 feet above the first water - bearing layer. We anticipate that the depth to
this layer will be on the order of 15 to 20 feet below grade in the Quaternary alluvium.
Therefore, we anticipate that the total depth of each HydroPunch'''°` borehole will be
approximately 10 to 15 feet below the surface. The HydroPunch"` sampling tip would then be
driven through the center of the augers, down to the saturated zone. Groundwater samples
would be collected from the test boring and sent the laboratory for testing.
It should be noted that to drill in these areas some grading will be necessary to provide
access roads and drilling pads. We understand that access roads and drilling pads will be
provided by the City of Ukiah.
II.0 - BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY AND GRADIENT EVALUATION
The purpose of Subtask II.0 is to provide additional data regarding the background water
quality in the area of the landfill. The primary reasons for establishing the background water
quality in this area to provide baseline water quality parameters which can be used to assess
the impact of the landfill on groundwater in other areas at the site, and to assess the
hydrogeologic relationship between the refuse site and adjacent sites (such as the Vichy
Springs Resort). To address these concerns, we propose to install one groundwater
monitoring well directly between the landfill site and Vichy Springs. We anticipate that the
total depth of a monitoring well in this area will be approximately 100 feet. Again, the final
depth of this well will depend on the elevation of the drilling site and the hydrogeology. The
well would be constructed of clean, two inch diameter, flush - threaded PVC casing, and
secured within locking above - ground monuments, as discussed above.
II.D - LEACHATE POND EVALUATION
We understand that the RWQCB has requested that a groundwater monitoring well be
established near the northeast corner of the leachate containment pond to assess the possible
impact of the pond on water quality in this area. We anticipate that the monitoring well will
extend to a total depth of between 35 and 50 feet, based on data from nearby wells.
However, the total depth of the well may vary, depending on the elevation of the drilling
area and the hydrogeologic conditions encountered in the vicinity of the leachate containment
pond. As discussed above, the well would be designed in accordance with specifications
outlined in Bulletin 74 -90, Monitoring Well Standards: State of California, and constructed
of clean, two inch diameter, flush - threaded PVC casing. The monitoring well will be
developed by gently surging the wellbore followed by continued purged of the well using a
bailer, a Brainard -Kilman 1.7 inch hand pump, and /or a GEOGARD air -lift pump driven by
an oil -less compressor as discussed above.
II.F - LEACHATE MOUNDING EVALUATION
An investigation of conditions within the landfill is required by the RWQCB to identify areas
of possible leachate accumulation (leachate mounding) and potential migration processes
which could be acting as the source of contaminants found in groundwater down gradient of
the landfill. A field seismic refraction survey will be conducted at the site to analyze general
landfill subsurface conditions including:
o Thickness of refuse and cover soil
o Zones of saturation within the refuse
o Depth to landfill subgrade and subsurface variability
o Potential leachate mounding areas
Seismic Refraction
Seismic refraction methods consist of measuring travel times of compressional waves through
the subsurface. Seismic wave energy is transmitted into the ground where it is refracted
along velocity interfaces and then back to the ground surface. By measuring the travel time
of seismic waves from source (shotpoint) to detectors at known distances on the surface, the
seismic velocities and thickness of the respective velocity layers can be determined.
The geophysical field crew will be headed by an experienced registered geophysicist.
Seismic data will be recorded on a Geometrics ES- 1200F, 12- channel engineering
seismograph and 10 -Hertz geophones. This system has enhanced seismic data capabilities as
well as filtering. The seismic survey will consist of five profiles across the landfill. Each
profile will consist of 2 - 3 seismic spreads approximately 300 feet long. Each spread is a
collinear array of 12 geophones spaced 25 to 50 feet apart. Shot points will be located
approximately 25 feet beyond the first geophone at each end of the spread. It is anticipated
that a total of approximately 3,480 feet of seismic refraction line in 12 seismic spreads will
provide the minimum necessary coverage required to adequately characterize the subsurface
conditions at the landfill.
A Geophysical Survey Report will be submitted at the conclusion of the work which
describes the methodology for both data acquisition and data analyses, discusses the results,
and provides our interpretation regarding the general subsurface landfill conditions.
Electrical Resistivity (Optionall
Depending on the results of the seismic refraction survey, an optional electrical resistivity
survey could be conducted at specific locations on the landfill to further characterize zones of
saturation within the refuse and areas of potential leachate accumulation. An optional cost is
included in the cost proposal should the city choose to the perform the electrical resistivity
survey.
Electrical resistivity methods consist of electrical measurements taken at the ground surface.
Typically, a co -liner array of four electrodes are placed in the ground at specific separations.
Electrical current is input to the ground through two of the electrodes in the array. The
voltage drop produced be the resulting electrical field is measured across the remaining
electrodes. The voltage drop is dependent on the electrical properties of the subsurface.
Variations in subsurface resistivity can provide information regarding extent of saturated
zones within the refuse, depth to leachate, and relative leachate quality.
L:\project\385\Ukizh.agr
TASK III - REVISE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE (RWD)
A RWD was prepared for the City of Ukiah Solid Waste Disposal Site by EBA and
submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in May 1991. This report
was prepared in conjunction with a Facility Permit revision for the landfill and for issuance
of revised Waste Discharge Requirements in compliance with Title 23, CCR, Division 3,
Chapter 15. Comments on the May 1991 RWD, dated October 5, 1992 have been received
from the RWQCB. Additionally, groundwater monitoring regulations for landfill disposal
have been revised in the recently adopted revised Article 5 of Chapter 15. In order to
comply the RWQCB review comments and meet current regulations the RWD will require
the following revisions and additions:
• Include a comprehensive water quality monitoring program that meets new
environmental monitoring performance standards in accordance with revised Article
5 of Chapter 15. The scope of work for this program was discussed in Task I
above. This monitoring program along with the required financial assurance cost
estimates for corrective action will be prepared as a stand alone document as
described and included into the RWD as an appendix.
• The site capacity /waste volume calculations will need to be revised to reflect the
current and projected conditions for waste volumes, waste reduction measures and
diversion rates. Calculations should be done both for current waste rates with
anticipated population increases and waste diversion and for a scenario using the
average waste volumes specified in the proposed permit application.
• In various sections in the current RWD reference is made to a possible landfill
expansion to the north canyon area. It is our understanding that this is not an
option that the City wants to include or discuss in the RWD at this time and
reference to it should be taken out.
• A household hazardous waste plan will need to be included in the RWD that at
minimum consists of a load checking program, a program to provide residents with
means for disposing of household hazardous waste, hazardous material storage
facilities and disposal alternatives for hazardous waste. It is our understanding that
these programs have already been implemented by the City and will need to be
described in detail in the RWD.
• A closure and postclosure maintenance plan in accordance with the provisions of
Article 8 and Article 9, Sections 2597 of Chapter 15 shall be included. The final
closure drawing will need to be revised to include filling in an area along the
southerly boundary as previously discussed. The following additional descriptions
and discussions will also need to be included:
Projected schedule for partial and final closure.
Description of proposed final treatment procedures.
Final closure configuration.
L:\project\385 \Uldah.agr
Description of all postclosure waste containment features.
Description of precipitation and drainage control features.
Description of leachate control features and procedures.
Map and discussion of groundwater and unsaturated zone monitoring.
Evaluation of anticipated settlement.
Description and nature of the final cover.
Postclosure land use.
Cost estimates anticipated for closure and postclosure.
Many of these items are already discussed elsewhere in the RWD, however, some
will require additional discussion, such as an evaluation of anticipated settlement,
description of the final cover system and cost estimates for closure and postclosure
maintenance.
All available information from the groundwater contamination evaluation described in Task
II, depending upon scheduling, will be incorporated into the appropriate sections of the
RWD.
Copies of the revised RWD will be provided as follows:
• 2 Draft copies for City review.
• 5 Final copies revised per City comments for City use and submittal to the
RWQCB.
L: \project 385 \Uliah.agr
TASK IV - REVISE REPORT OF DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION (RDSI)
The RDSI and Engineer's Report prepared by EBA and submitted to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB) will also require revisions to support the City's
application for revision of the Solid Waste Facility Permit. The 1991 RDSI was prepared in
accordance with Title 14, Sections 17601 - 17751 and Section 18222, and EBA would
propose to utilize the same format when updating the report. However, the CIWMB has
developed a new standard format for RDSI's as outlined in CIWMB Permit Desk Manual,
dated June 1992. The format is different from previous accepted formats and would require
substantial changes to conform. Although the information required is basically the same,
much more discussion and analysis is expected. We have not been able to determine if the
CIWMB would require conformance to their new format, so for the purpose of this proposal
we have assumed the format of the current RDSI will be acceptable. An optional cost is
included in the cost proposal for conformance to the Permit Desk Manual (June 1992) should
that be required.
Revisions to the RDSI will be similar to those discussed in Task 3, as applicable. In addition
all review comments from the LEA made in letter dated March 9, 1992 will also be
Incorporated. EBA will coordinate with the City and the LEA throughout the RDSI process.
Copies of the revised RDSI and Engineer's Report will be provided as follows:
• 2 Draft copies for City review.
• 5 Final Draft copies revised per City comments for LEA review.
• 5 Final copies revised per the LEA's comments for submittal to the CIWMB.
TASK V - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY STORM WATER PERMIT
A large number of facilities recently defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
regulations under 40 CFR Section 12226(b)(14) as having storm water discharges must obtain
coverage under an NPDES permit. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted a
General Industrial Storm Water Permit for facilities seeking coverage.
The General Permit, fact sheet, and application forms are included in a document package
prepared by the State Water Board and dated 18 December 1991. Modifications to the
monitoring program and reporting requirements were proposed dated August 17, 1992.
Among the facilities covered, municipal solid waste landfills and transfer stations are
generally included except: (a) Facilities in Santa Clara County which drain to San Francisco
Bay must seek coverage under a separate General Permit issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Board; (b) Facilities with an existing NPDES individual permit are required to have
an individual NPDES permit; and (c) Facilities on Indian Lands. Furthermore, facilities that
discharge all storm water to municipal sanitary sewer systems or facilities which capture and
contain all storm water are not required to obtain a permit.
Under the new Storm Water Discharge requirements virtually all solid waste handling and
disposal facilities need to obtain a Permit. Since the State of California has opted to issue a
single statewide general discharge permit we propose the following to comply with the
regulations:
Task V.A - Notice of Intent
The submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOT) letter to the State to request to be included under
the statewide permit. No fee is required of landfills where fees are currently paid to the
RWQCB for annual monitoring. For purposes of this proposal the NOI if not already
submitted by the City will be submitted by EBA on behalf of the City.
Submittal of the NOI may be on forms prepared by the State. The key issues on the
application include:
• Operator identification
• Facility information
• Receiving water information
• Site map
• Certification by the owner /operator
Task V.B - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
The preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Key items to be
included are:
• Certification by owner /operator
• Introduction /Location Map /Site Map
• Narrative description of the facility
• List of Reasonable Potential Pollutants
• Size of facility /Impervious areas
• Significant spills or leaks to storm water since November 19, 1988
• Summary of existing storm water sampling data
• Storm water management controls
• Preventative maintenance and good housekeeping
• Spill prevention and response
• Storm water management practices
• Sediment and erosion practices
• Non -storm water discharges
• Employee training
• Inspection
Prior to preparation of the SWPPP a site visit will be made to verify field conditions and to
identify issues which should be addressed in the SWPPP. Particular attention will be paid to
access, tipping areas, peripheral drainage, onsite surface drainage and sedimentation controls,
area indicating erosion potential, cover material stockpiles and likely discharge points for
onsite drainage. Notice will also be made of current pollution prevention activities.
A draft SWPPP will be prepared for the site for review by the City. The draft plan will
identify specific activities which, implemented, would assist in attainment of the objectives of
the regulations and the elimination of preventable contamination due to the use of the site for
landfill purposes. Where appropriate, text describing the recommended activities will be
supplemented by maps or engineering drawings to further define the recommendations. After
review by the City, revisions will be addressed and a Final Plan submitted for the City to
place on file.
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is to be retained onsite and made available to
representatives of the Regional Board upon request. It is a public document and should also
be on file in the main office. The North Coast Regional Board has also requested that the
SWPPP be submitted to their Santa Rosa office.
Task V.0 - Storm Water Monitoring Program
The preparation of a Storm Water Monitoring Program and its implementation by January 1,
1993. The monitoring plan should include:
• Rationale for selection of the monitoring methods
• Analytical test methods to be employed
L: \project\385 \Uldah.agr
• Description of the sampling methods, sample locations and frequency of
monitoring
• QA /QC program
• Description of the procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of the program
• A list of chemicals or pollutants to be sampled for
The first monitoring report is due July 1, 1993, and is to be submitted to the Executive
Officer of the Regional Board. The monitoring program shall document the elimination or
reduction of specific pollutants, resulting from the implementation of the SWPPP outlined in
Task VB.
Under the August 17, 1992 revisions exemptions from sampling and analysis are allowed.
To obtain an exemption the discharger must either self - certify that areas of industrial activity
are not exposed to storm water or the local agency which has jurisdiction over the water
course which receives storm water discharge must certify that the discharger has developed
and implemented an effective SWPPP and should not be required to collect and analyze
storm water samples for pollutants.
Prior to preparation of a monitoring program, EBA will investigate the possibility of
obtaining an exemption by either self - certification or local agency certification. If an
exemption can be granted the monitoring program will not be necessary.
As an additional task EBA can either train City personnel who are most likely going to be
the parties responsible for sampling in the proper techniques of sampling or arrange to
provide the sampling and analysis. We can evaluate the test results, compile the necessary
reports and submit them to the RWQCB. Based upon the test results, EBA will identify any
issues of possible concern and provide recommendation to the City.
L:\proje t\385Wldah.agr
ESTIMATED COSTS
The following Table presents EBA Wastechnologies' cost estimate for performing the tasks
described in this proposal. These costs reflect EBA's best judgment, but may vary
depending on subsurface conditions, speed of drilling, and ease of access. EBA will not
exceed the cost estimate without written authorization from the City of Ukiah. Actual costs
will be billed on a time - and - expense basis in accordance with the Standard Schedule of Fees
and Rates attached.
We have made the following cost saving assumptions in developing the cost estimate:
• The City of Ukiah will provide access to drilling sites.
• Surveying of the monitoring well -head elevations will be conducted by City
of Ukiah personnel.
These cost estimates also assume that drill cuttings and water generated from monitoring well
installation and sampling events is not hazardous, and can be discharged at the disposal site.
Wastes that are determined to be hazardous must be disposed of properly. All transportation
and waste disposal, if it is necessary, must be arranged and obtained by the City of Ukiah
and manifested by the City of Ukiah; however, EBA will be available to assist in
coordinating these activities. EBA will not assume any liability as an arranger or generator
for hazardous waste disposal purposes. These cost estimates do not include removal and
disposal of Hazardous:
• drill cuttings
• monitoring well development water
• sampling purge water
TABLE 1
UKIAH LANDFILL
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
COST ESTIMATE
TASK
EBA
DIRECT
LABOR
HALLEN-
BECK
COSTS
OUTSIDE
SERVICES
MISC.
COSTS
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
COST
TASK I - ARTICLE 5 MONITORING
IA - WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Develop Water Quality Protection Standard
$605
$605
Determine Background Levels
$235
$235
Evaluate and Select Statistical Methods
$3,610
$3,610
Develop Sampling Frequency
$790
$790
Develop Sampling and Analysis Methods & Procedures
$440
$440
Prepare Monitoring and Response Program
$4,485
$280
$4,745
Subtotal:
$10,145
$280
$10,425
IB - ASSURANCE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
$3,443
$3,443
Subtotal (Task I) :
$13,588
$280
$13,868
TASK II - CHARACTERIZE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
IIA - PREPARE WORK PLAN
$1,975
$2,981
$897
$5,853
IIB - PLUME CHARACTERIZATION
$5,030
$14,673
$19,703
IIC - BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY & GRADIENT EVALUATION
$850
$12,145
$12,995
IID - LEACHATE POND EVALUATION
$340
$6,116
$6,456
IIE - LANDFILL EVALUATION - Seismic Refraction Survey
$2,630
$9,200
$11,830
Electrical Resistivity Survey (Optional)
$885
$2,300
$3,185
Subtotal (Task II) :
$10,825
$35,915
$11,500
$897
$59,137
TASK III - REVISE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE
$9,342
$7,245
$16,587
TASK IV - REVISE REPORT OF DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION
$7,782
$7,782
Revise RDSI Per CIWMB's June 1992 Format (Optional)
$4,278
$4,278
TASK V - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL STORM WATER PERMIT
VA - NOTICE OF INTENT
$500
$500
VB - STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
$5,242
$100
$5,342
VC - MONITORING PROGRAM
$2,186
$2,186
Subtotal (Task V) :
$7,928
$100
$8,028
PROJECT TOTALS (INCLUDES OPTIONAL TASKS) : $53,743 $43,160 $11,500 $1,277 $109,680
TAIL
PROJECT SCHEDULE
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
NOVEMBER 1997
❑E CE MICR 1992
JANUARY 1993
FEBRUARY 1993
MARCH 1993
APRIL 1993
I — ARTICLES MONITORING
IA — WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
IB — ASSURANCE OF PINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
I1 — CHARACTERIZE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
IIA — PREPARE WORK PLAN
IIB — PLUME CHARACTERIZATION
I IC — BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY St GRADIENT EVALUATION
IID — LEACHATE POND EVALUATION
IIE — LANDFILL EVALUATION — Seismic Refraction Survey
111 — REVISE REPORT OF WASTE DISCHARGE
IV — REVISE REPORT OF DISPOSAL SITE INFORMATION
V — GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY STORM WATER PERMIT
NOTE: Schedule of field activities associated with Task I1 assumes that
there is no delay due to weather.
— CITY REVIEW OR HEARING PROCESS
— RWQCB REVIEW
ATTACHMENT B
STANDARD SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES
Principal Engineer $ 95.00 per hour
CIWMB Liaison $ 95.00 per hour
Senior Geologist $ 85.00 per hour
Project Manager $ 85.00 - $ 90.00 per hour
Senior Engineer $ 75.00 - $ 90.00 per hour
Senior Project Analyst $ 75.00 - $ 85.00 per hour
Staff Geologist $ 60.00 per hour
Staff Engineer $ 60.00 - $ 75.00 per hour
Survey: 3 Man Crew (incl. equipment) $130.00 per hour
Survey: 2 Man Crew (incl. equipment) $105.00 per hour
Principal Architect $ 95.00 per hour
Senior Architect $ 80.00 per hour
Staff Architect $ 60.00 per hour
Technical Writer $ 50.00 per hour
Environmental Technician $ 50.00 per hour
Environmental Technician Level 2 $ 40.00 per hour
Design Draftsperson $ 45.00 per hour
Draftsperson $ 42.00 per hour
Wordprocessing $ 42.00 per hour
Clerical $ 40.00 per hour
Administrative $ 45.00 per hour
Depositions or court proceedings $125.00 per hour, 6 hour
min.
Prints and materials Cost plus 15%
Subconsultants Cost plus 15%
Miscellaneous expenses At cost
Effective December, 1991
Exhibit !G
Th1SVRANCEXIQUF_EM ? 5 FO CONTRAC ORS
BEDDERS' ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS BELOW. IT
IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THAT BIDDERS CONFER WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE
INSURANCE CARRIERS OR BROKERS TO DETERi h'E IN ADVANCE OF BID SUB -
MISSION THE AVAILABILITY OF INSURANCE CERTIFICATES AND ENDORSEMENTS
AS PRESCRIBED AND PROVIDED HEREIN. IF AN APPARENT LOW BIRDER FAILS TO
COMPLY STRICTLY WITH THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, THAT BIDDER MAY BE
DISQUALLt LED FROM AWARD OF THE CONTRACT.
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries
to persons or damages to property which may wise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or svbont; actors. The cost cf
such insurance shad be included in the Contractor's bid.
A. krzTKIN Sc.QP_E_OFINSMANCK
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General
Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form
Comprehensive General Liability: or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage ('occurrence" form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form numb CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability,
code 1 any auto" and endorsement CA CO25.
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and
Employers Liability insurance.
B, Mr�Tivysl,ttitrrs p .w c
Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: 51,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury. personal
injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a
general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twine the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000.000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation and Employers Lability: 'workers' compensation limits as required by
the Labor Code of the State of California and l nployers Liability limits of S1,000,000 per
accident.
(RcVind 1/?D/88)
11 -10 -1992 04:30PM FRS`
C. Loycruqxs
D.
e_
•SUR . R otic
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the
, option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self•iruumA
retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor
shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
iX12 sst'RAtiC PRQVIS'i
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages
a, Tl,e
City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as ir.sureds as
respects; liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Convector,
products and completed operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by
the Contractor, or automobiles owned, leased, tired or borrowed by the Contractor, The
coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
b. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be prireary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self - insurance maintained
by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the
Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it_
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
A .1 ^ply separate; ; to each insured ague st w•l-:crti claim is
d. The Con :actor's irs::mrc� shell a,. p
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the emits of the insurer's liability.
2_ Workers' Compensation end Employers Liability Coverage
The insurer shall egret to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers for losses arising frorr work performed by the Contractor for the
City.
3. All Coverages
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
arty (30) days' prior written notice by cett'f ed mail, return receipt requested, has been given
to the City.
E. Ac sgal rr • o? D,
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A:VU.
(Revised / c/ 3)
11- 10-1952 04 :30PM FROM
F. VrRTTICATI o�r of Cc»tR.+�i
TO
UKIAH P.07
Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements
effecting coverage roquimd by this clause. The certificates and endosmemcnts for each insurance
policy axe to be signal by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The
certificates and endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. Where by statute, the City's
workers' compensation•reiatrd fortes cannot be used, equivalent forms approved by the insurance
Commissioner are to be substituted. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and
approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
G. St $co1TLAcTOR.
Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate
certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. AL coverages for subcontractors shall be
subject to all of the requirements stated herein_
(Revised Vro(ss)
7e. Awarded the contract for Asphalt Concrete Surfacing on
various City streets, Specification No. 90 -14, to Parnum Paving,
Inc., in the amount of $59,770.
7f. Awarded the contract for Slurry Sealing on various City
streets, Specification No. 91 -01, to American Asphalt in the
amount of $19,113.
7g. Accepted Larry Sheehy's resignation from the Planning
Commission.
7h. Authorized the Mayor to execute agreement with the Company
of Eric Jay Toll (AICP), for consulting services for the Growth
Management /General Plan project, in an amount not to exceed
$197,412.00
7i. Received and filed the report on Spring Clean -Up Week, May
13 - 17, 1991.
7j. Received the report by the City Manager concerning the
reorganization of the Public Education Government (PEG) Board.
7k. Approved demolition permit for the structure at 901 South
State Street with the condition that it be effective July 18,
1991, or sooner if the structure is moved or the materials
salvaged.
The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES:
Councilmembers Wattenburger, Shoemaker, Schneiter and Mayor
Henderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Mayor Henderson on Item 7f.
Absent: Councilmember McMichael.
8. Audience Comments on Non - Agenda Items
Mory McCloud, 301 Snuffin Street, expressed his
disappointment regarding the lack of City of Ukiah
representation in the recent Hometown Parade held on May 25,
1991, and hopes to see greater City participation in next year's
parade.
NEW BUSINESS
10a. Presentation of Landfill Studies by EBA Wastetechnolocdes
The Public Works Director introduced Mike Bidart, Principal
Engineer and Brian Barber, Project Engineer, both of EBA
Wastechnologies, and Dan Caldwell, Geological Engineer of
Hallenbeck and Associates, who were present to answer any
questions from Council.
The Public Works Director reported on the current landfill
operating permits and briefly summarized the three reports
prepared by EBA Wastechnologies, that contain operational,
groundwater quality and geological data required by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Local Enforcement
Agency of the Mendocino County Environmental Health Department.
He noted these reports will be submitted to the appropriate
agencies for review.
Discussion ensued regarding possible future requirements for
testing, and costs and funding associated with recommended
operation procedures, origin of contaminants, possible
remediation6 geological site conditions, well depths and water
flows, and reduction of landfill waste volumes occurring since
1989.
M/S Schneiter /Shoemaker received the reports as submitted by EBA
Wastechnologies and send them to the appropriate agencies. The
motion was carried by an unanimous voice vote of all AYE.
Absent: Councilmember McMichael.
Reg. Mtg.
June 5, 1991
Page 2