HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1988.07.14 - 17455Miscellaneous Resolution 88187 July 14, 1988
BY: PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE - Anne M. Hobart, Chairperson
IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE APPROVE SANITARY LANDFILL
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR SITING A SANITARY LANDFILL
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners with the adoption of
Miscellaneous Resolution 87213 on September 3, 1987, did indicate its intent to
proceed with the acquisition of a sanitary landfill on behalf of present and future
members of the Municipal Solid Waste Board (MSWB) and authorized the expenditure of
not to exceed $120,000 through the adoption of the Plan of Financing for the
preliminary costs associated with the acquisition of that sanitary landfill; and
WHEREAS the MSWB municipalities have agreed to reimburse the County up to the
aforementioned $120,000 for costs incurred prior to the Plan of Financing; and
WHEREAS the aforementioned $120,000 was included in the 1987 Solid Waste Budget
for Professional Services and was carried forward and is available for use in 1988
and 1989; and
WHEREAS the 1988 and 1989 Solid Waste Budgets include a total of $472,400, for
continuing activities in selecting and identifying the site and preparing plans for
the design, operation, closure and long -term monitoring of the sanitary landfill;
and
WHEREAS the firm of Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc. has been selected as the
consultant to determine the site for a sanitary landfill in accordance with the
scope of work which is included in the attached Agreement and for a cost not to
exceed $450,305.52; and
WHEREAS the MSWB member municipalities have not yet adopted the Plan of
Financing nor authorized the additional funds beyond the aforementioned $120,000
necessary to complete work under the Agreement:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
as follows:
1. The Chairperson of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners and
the County Executive are hereby authorized and directed to execute
the attached Agreement between the County of Oakland, Michigan, and
Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. for Professional Services in an
amount not to exceed $450,305,52.00.
-
OUnty Exu& T. rive Mur Date
2. In the event that the Plan of Financing has not been adopted and/or
the additional funds necessary to complete the work under the
Agreement have not been authorized by the Municipal Solid Waste
Board member municipalities, Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. shall
cease work before the total of $120,000 in costs has been incurred
and shall not resume work until directed to do so by the County
Executive.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning & Building Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
HEREpY APPROVE THF.: FOREGOING RESOLUTtoN
FISCAL NOTE July 14, 1988
BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE, DR. G. WILLIAM CADDELL, CHAIRPERSON
IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE APPROVE SANITARY
LANDFILL CONSULTANT AGRFFMENT FOR SITING A SANITARY LANDFILL
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Rule XI-G of this Board, the Finance Committee has
reviewed Miscellaneous Resolution #88 and finds:
1) The Municipal Solid Waste Board supported the attached contract
at the meeting in June 22, 1988;
2) The firm of Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc. has been selected by
a committee including MSWB members and County Commissioners as
consultants to determine an appropriate site for a sanitary
landfill at a cost not to exceed $450,305.52;
3) Funds are available from the Department of Public Works Solid
Waste Unit, professional services line item..
4) The Municipal Solid Waste Board has agreed to reimburse the
County up to $120,000 for costs related to the acquisition of a
sanitary landfill;
5) The contract provides for suspension and/or termination of the
contract by the County;
6) The Resolution limits the County expenditures of funds to
$120,000 until additional funds have been authorized by the
Municipal Solid Waste Board or the Plan of Financing.
Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Finance Committee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
FINANCE COMMITTEE
this 14th
:Resolution # 88187 July 14-,.1988
Moved by Hobart supported by Crake the resolution (with a positive
Fiscal Note attached) be adopted.
Discussion followed.
Vote on resolution:
AYES: R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McConnell,McDonald, Page, Rewold,
Skarritt, Wilcox, Calandro, Crake, Gosling, Hobart. (14)
NAYS: Jensen, Luxon, A. McPherson, R. McPherson, Oaks, Pernick, Price,
Rowland, Aaron, Bishop. (10)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of the attached
resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board . of Commissioners at their regular
meeting held on duly 14, 1988
with the original record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In TestiDony Whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
'51ay of
LYW
July
ALLLN, County Clerk/Register of [
I. AGREEMENT
HEMMEN THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND MICHIGAN
AND ROGERS, GOLDEN & HALPERN, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Article No 1--PARTIES TO AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made on the,_day of in the year 1988 between
The County of Oakland Michigan the Owner/Client, representing the interests of
the municipal Solid Waste Board, and Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc. for the
following project.
Article Vo. 2--SCOPE or SERVICES
Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc., hereafter referred to as "RGH", has
attached to this Agreement a description of the Scope of Services to be
performed. Unless otherwise specified in the attached Scope of Services,
Owner/Client shall:
(1) Provide RGH and its subcontractors all documents, maps, or other inform-
ation in the possession of the Oakland County Department of Public '
Works relating to the project and to the physical condition of the site
or sites and surrounding areas where potential sites may be located.
(2) Work with ROB, to develop, all criteria, design, and standards, and
other information relating to the Owner/Client's requirements for the
project.
(3) Provide ROB prompt written notice of any defect or suspected defect in
its services.
(4) Designate a person with authority to represent the Owner/Client on all
matters concerning the project.
Article No_ 3—PROFES3IONAL SERVICES CHARGES
Based upon the attached "Cost Assumptions" RGH will perform the work, as
described in the attached "Scope of Work", for a fee not-to-exceed
$450,302.52. Reallocation of budget between tasks or from one task to another,
shall only be done with prior approval of the Client.
For the performance of its services, RGH shall be paid by Owner/Client:
In accordance with the schedules of personnel and equipment charges
attached hereto.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 1 - RGB
Billing Terms shall be:
RGH shall submit monthly statements within twenty (20) days of the end of
RGH's fiscal month. The Owner/Client shall make monthly payments in response
to RGH's monthly statement within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice.
RGH's above charges are on the basis of prompt payment of bills rendered
and continuous progress of the work on the project.
Article No. 4 - -TERMINATION
The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be
terminated by (A) Owner/Client with or without cause upon ten (10) days written
notice to RGH and by (B) RGH for cause upon ten (10) days written notice to
Owner/Client. In the event of any termination, RGH will be paid for all
services rendered to the date of termination, all reimbursable expenses, and
reasonable termination expenses.
Article No, 5--SUSPERSIOR OF SERVICES
Owner/Client may at any time, by ten days written notice to RGH, suspend
further performance by RGH. Suspensions for any reason exceeding thirty days
(30) will make this Agreement subject to termination.
All suspensions shall extend the contract completion date commensurately,
and, in addition to other payments to be made to RGH hereunder, RGH shall be
paid suspension charges. "Suspension charges" shall include personnel and
equipment rescheduling and/or reassignment adjustments and all other reasonable
related costs incurred directly attributable to suspension.
Article No. 6--DELAIS
Neither party shall be responsible for damages or delays in performance
caused by acts of God or other events beyond the control of the other party and
which could not have been reasonably foreseen or prevented. For this purpose,
such acts or events shall include storms, floods, epidemics, war, riot,
strikes, lockouts or other industrial disturbances, and the inability with
reasonable diligence to supply personnel or material to the project. Should
such acts or events occur, it is agreed that both parties shall use their best
efforts to overcome all difficulties arising and to resume as soon as reason-
ably possible the normal pursuit and schedule of the services covered by this
Agreement. Any delays within the scope of this Article lasting beyond 90 days
of the date of occurrence shall entitle RGH to seek an adjustment in the
contract price. If the owner/client and RGH are unable to reach an agreement
on such an adjustment, RGH shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement.
All such delays shall extend the contract completion date commensurately,
and RGH shall be paid for services performed to the delay commencement date.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 2 - RGR
Article No, 7--OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF DOCUMENTS
All original materials resulting from RGH efforts pursuant to this
Agreement, including documents, calculations, maps, photographs, drawings,
computer printouts, notes, soil samples, specimens, and any other pertinent
data, are instruments of RGH's service, but unless otherwise specified in the
scope of services shall be owned by Owner/Client. (Original reproducibles will
not carry the seal or signature of the responsible architect or engineer.) RGH
shall make available copies of any materials to the Owner/Client within 10
working days of such request. In any event, RGH shall have the right to retain
copies of all said instruments of service.
RGH shall maintain for the Owner/Client all such materials in kind or on
microfilm, except for soil samples and specimens which will be destroyed after
their usage, for a period of not less than two years after completion of the
project. The Owner/Client shall specify in advance and be charged for all
arrangements for special or extended periods of maintenance of such materials
by RGH.
All documents prepared by RGH pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of
service in respect of the project. They are not intended or represented to be
suitable for reuse by Owner/Client or others in extensions of the project
beyond that now contemplated or on any other project. Any reuse or adaptation
of the instruments of service occurring without RGH's written permission will
be at Owner/Client's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to RGH.
Article No, 8--RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND AUDIT
Owner/Client shall at all times during the course of the project and for
two years after its completion have reasonable access to inspect and to audit
all pertinent RGH records and accounts. Owner/Client shall reimburse RGH for
all personnel and material costs incurred on Owner/Client's behalf for such
inspections and audits.
Article No. 9--ASSIGNMENTS AND SUBCONTRACTS
Neither party to this Agreement shall assign, subcontract, or otherwise
transfer its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent
of the other party.
Article No 10--EXTENT OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement represents the entire contract between Owner/Client and RGH
and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either
written or oral.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 3 - RGD
Article Ho. II—COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Any provisions of this Agreement held in violation of any law or ordinance
shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue valid and
binding upon the parties. Owner/Client and RGH shall attempt in good faith to
replace any invalid or unenforceable provisions of this Agreement with provi-
sions which are valid and enforceable and which come as close as possible to
expressing the intention of the original provisions.
Owner/Client shall reimburse RGH for all costs of modifications or addi-
tions to facilities or equipment designed, under design, under construction, or
recommended that are required to comply with laws or ordinances enacted after
the execution of this Agreement. Such costs shall be reviewed and approved by
the Owner/Client before proceeding with such modifications or additions.
Article No. 12—INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
Neither RGH nor any of its employees or agents are or shall be considered
Owner/Client employees, agents, or representatives. RGH is and shall be an
independent contractor and shall have responsibility for and control over the
details and means for performing the services described herein. RGH shall be
subject to the direction of Owner/Client only with respect to the scope of ser-
vices and the general results required.
Article No. 13—WARRANTY
RGH warrants that its services are performed, within the limits prescribed
by this Agreement, with the usual thoroughness and competence of the profes-
sion. NO OTHER WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS
INCLUDED OR INTENDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
Article Ho. 14 —INDEMNITY
RGH shall indemnify and save harmless and defend Owner/Client, its agents,
servants, and employees from and against any claim, demand, or cause of action
of every name or nature arising out of the negligence or intentional misconduct
of RGH, its, agents, servants, or employees in the performance of RGH's
services under this Agreement.
To the extent permitted by Law, Owner/Client shall indemnify and save
harmless and defend RGH, its agents, servants, and employees from and against
any claim, demand, or cause of action of every name or nature arising out of
the negligence or intentional misconduct of Owner/Client, its, agents,
servants, or employees in the performance of RGH's services under this
Agreement.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 4 - RGH
RGII
Article No. 15 - -INSURANCE
RGH agrees to maintain statutory workers' compensation insurance coverage,
employers' liability, and comprehensive general and automobile liability insur-
ance coverage. RGH shall not commence work or continue work, nor shall it
allow any subcontractor to commence or continue to work under this contract,
until all insurance policies or certificates of insurance required under this
Article have been submitted to the Owner/Client and approved by the
Owner/Client.
RGH, at its option shall, either, (1) require each of its subcontractors to
procure and maintain during the life of its subcontract, statutory workers'
compensation insurance coverage, employers' liability and comprehensive general
and automobile liability insurance coverage, or (2) insure the activities of
its subcontractors in its own policies.
Each policy or certificate of insurance shall contain a guarantee by
specific endorsement that ten (10) days' notice shall be given to the
Owner/Client prior to cancellation of or a reduction in coverage in any such
insurance. Where RGH does not insure the activities of its subcontractors in
its own policies, RGH shall require each of its subcontractors to furnish the
Owner/Client with certificates or policies containing the guarantee of ten (10)
days' notice by specific endorsement.
Any liability of RGH hereunder, other than for professional errors and
omissions, will be limited to the liability insurance coverages set forth
below, which RGH shall maintain until the completion of the total project work
or the termination of this Agreement, whichever shall first occur:
Type of Insurance
a. Workmen's Compensation and
Employer's Liability
b. General Bodily Injury and
Property Damage Liability
Limits of Liability
Statutory Workmen's Compensation;
$100,000 Employer's Liability
$1,000,000 (each occurrence)
$1,000,000 (each aggregate)
$1,000,000 (each occurrence/aggregate) c. Automobile Bodily Injury
and Property Damage Liability
Article No, 16--CONFLICT Or LANS
All questions relative to the execution, validity, and interpretation of
this Agreement shall be governed by the Laws of the State of Michigan.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland
Article No_ 17--HUTIFICATION
Notification of parties will be by regular U.S. Postal Service or Express
Mail Service to:
Jo-Walter Spear
Rogers, Golden & Halpern
1216 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
and
Daniel T. Murphy
County Executive
Oakland County
1200 North Telegraph Road
Pontiac, Michigan 48053
Article No. 19 - -STGNATURES
Unless otherwise specified below, the following signatories are the autho-
rized representatives upon whose decisions and information each party may rely
in performance of this Agreement. Any information or notices required or per-
mitted hereunder shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given to either
party if given to these signatories or to such other parties and/or address as
they may subsequently designate.
This Agreement is effective the day and year written in Article No. 1.
Firm name: Rogers, Golden & Halpern, Inc.
Firm address: 1216 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Signed by:
Title:
Date:
Owner/Client:
Roy Rewold
Chairperson
Board of Commissioners
Daniel T. Murphy
County Executive
Date: Date:
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 6 - RGH
Approved as to Form:
Gordon R. Wyllie
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Date:
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 7 -
II. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES AND GENERAL CONDITIONS
ROGERS, GOLDEN & HALPERN, INC.
Rogers, Golden & Halpern Inc.'s (hereafter referred to as "RGH") charges
for professional services are based upon the following elements, which are
computed as indicated.
Personnel
Charges for an RGH employee's labor on behalf of a Client are computed by
multiplying the total direct salary cost of the individual by 2.3. The
total direct salary cost is equal to the direct hourly payroll cost, plus
35 percent of the same to cover, payroll taxes, insurance costs incident to
employment, holidays, sick leave, vacations, etc.
The time of a principal devoted to a project is charged at an assigned
billing rate.
Neither RGH nor any other person working for RGH shall charge travel time
for travel between their offices and Oakland County.
Personnel charges are subject to change upon notification.
Other SeA_wices and Supplies
Charges for services, equipment, and facilities not directly furnished by
RGH and for direct expenses incurred by RGH on behalf of the Client, shall
be billed at actual cost. Direct RGH expenses include shipping charges,
subsistence, transportation, printing and reproduction, telephone,
miscellaneous supplies, testing laboratories, etc. Charges for
subcontracted services incurred by RGH on behalf of the client shall be
computed at actual cost plus 8 percent.
Billing
RGH shall submit monthly statements within twenty (20) days of the end of
RGH's fiscal month. The Owner/Client shall make monthly payments in
response to RGH's monthly statement within thirty (30) days of receipt of
invoice.
RGH's above charges are on the basis of prompt payments of bills rendered
and continuous progress of the work on the project.
020.88.650/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 8 - RGH
Warranty and Liability
Rogers, Golden &•Halpern warrants that our services are performed, within
the limits prescribed by its Clients, with the usual thoroughness and com-
petence of professional practice. NO OTHER WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION,
EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, IS INCLUDED, INTENDED, MADE OR GIVEN IN ITS PRO -
POSALS, CONTRACTS, OR REPORTS.
020.88.65D/Dft,4 -11788/0akland - 9 - EGH
III. SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1, PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND TECHNICAL FRAMEWORK
Task I of the work program is designed to initiate the project, establish the
organizational framework, facilitate coordination, and refine the technical
approach by which the Work Program will be completed to assure schedules are
realistic for completing the Landfill Siting Study.
Or-ganization
1.1 Review and refine Work Program with Oakland County.
1.2 Define project roles, coordination procedures, etc., with County
Commissioners, DPW staff, MSWB, and other key participants.
1.3 Establish process for product review.
1.4 Establish reporting requirements, tentative schedules, meetings and
expected deadlines and milestones.
Technical Framework
1.5 Refine process for involvement of the Landfill Siting Advisory
Committee.
1.6 Interview key County Staff, appointees, MSWB, and others as
appropriate and determine their respective roles in the
decision-making.
1.7 Review previous studies, plans, existing solid waste
management plan.
1.8 Review adequacy of existing data base, base maps, and other
pertinent information, including:
1.8.1-- community facilities,and infrastructure capacity
1.8.2-- transportation facilities and travel and traffic data
and bridge capacity and clearance data
1.8.3-- natural features (wetlands, habitats, waterbodies)
1.8.4-- threatened and endangered species habitat
1.8.5-- wooded areas
1.8.6-- scenic areas, parks, historic and archeologic sites
1.8.7-- water supply wells and reservoirs
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland 10 RGH
1.8.8-- local airports and air strips
1.8.9-- prime agricultural soils
1.8.10-- geology
1.8.11-- groundwater conditions
1.8.12-- land uses, including sensitive uses (i.e., hospitals,
schools)
1.8.13-- floodplains
1.8.14-- zoning
1.9 Review County and local land use plans.
1.10 Review existing regulations and permitting requirements.
1.11 Obtain information on current and pending development
proposals.
1.12 Review existing economic studies and data and identify economic
development trends by types and locations.
1.13 Summarize projected demand through the year 2010 for land use by type
and solid waste volume. (by others)
TASK 2. REGIONAL SCREENING FOR CANDIDATE SITES
The objective of this Task is to establish the site selection process. In
order to do this several important steps must be completed.
2.1 Describe the need for the landfill and the alternatives. The need
must be described in terms of health, cost, impact on local business,
environmental risk, legal problems, liability and any other way to
clearly express the need for the study.
2.2 Identify the decision-making process, who will make the final
decision, how the decision will be made, and by when the decision
must be made.
2.3 Identify the criteria for selecting the landfill Siting Advisory
Committee (LSAC), and develop .a process for selecting the LSAC.
Decide who will select the LSAC and implement the selection.
2.4 Establish the Public Participation Program. This will involve
consideration of workshops, Meetings, educational materials, slide
presentations, display material and mailing and distribution
considerations.
020.88.650/Dft.4-11-88/0akland 11 RGH
2.5 Meet with public, state agencies and press. Prior to the development
of any final thoughts on the siting process RGH will interview and
discuss siting issues with state and local agencies, local
municipalities, newspaper people, and key members of local interest
groups.
2.6 Review existing regulations and existing development trends to
determine an initial list of exclusionary siting criteria.
2.7 Hold initial Public Meeting
2.8 Hold initial LSAC Meeting
2.9 Develop public information material
2.10 Develop slide presentation
TASK 3. ESTABLISH PROCESS AND CRITERIA
3.1 Compile, analyze and map available data.
3.2 Overlay maps with exclusionary criteria
3.3 Identify candidate sites from available data
3.4 Determine candidate site lay-outs, access and transportation routes
3.5 Develop Press release and public information material.
3.6 Establish mitigation policies.
TASK 4. SELECT FINAL CANDIDATE SITES
4.1 Develop site ranking criteria with LSAC.
4.2 Develop LSAC Notebook
4.3 Develop issue-criteria sheets during (6) LSAC meetings.
4.4 Conduct workshop with LSAC to weight criteria
4.5 Rank sites using weights.
4.6 Conduct a sensitivity analysis on sites.
4.7 Describe ranking and sensitivity to LSAC
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland 12 RGII
4.5 Compile and map additional site specific data on top three ranked
sites.
4.9 Rank top three candidate sites based on additional studies
4.10 Describe ranking and sensitivity to LSAC, County Board, Press and
Public
TASK 5. SELECT PREFERRED SITE
5.1 The County will have legal notices sent to each land owner and will
be responsible to secure permission for site access.
5.2 Detailed site investigations will be preformed on the top three sites
including:
5.2.1-- soil borings
5.2.2-- hydrogeological assessment
5.2.3-- ecological site reconnaissance
5.2.4-- house counts along access roads and within 1,500 feet of
site.
5.2.5-- title search
5.2.6-- detailed survey of adjacent land uses
5,2.7-- detailed review of access routes
5.2.8-- detailed review of infrastructure
5.2.9-- detailed traffic studies
5.2.10-- detailed meteorological analysis
5.2.11-- detailed review of soils
5.3 Develop Landfill Site Concept Plans including:
5.3.1-- property boundaries, easements
5.3.2-- site access
5.3.3-- site buffers
5.3.4-- site waste water treatment facility location
5.3.5-- general cell size and locations
5.3.6-- location of runoff detention facility
5.3.7-- adjunct facility locations
5.3.8-- end use plan
5.4 Rank final sites and release final report
5.4.1-- rank sites and perform sensitivity analysis
5.4.2-- write final report
5.4.3-- prepare press release
5.4.4-- hold LSAC meeting to announce final site
5.5 Amend solid waste management plan to identify site. if so re .quired,
020.85.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland 13 RGH
APPROACR TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
RGH has extensive experience in designing and running public participation
programs for all types of siting studies. It is our conviction, developed
through participation in over 40 siting studies, that a combination of
public hearings, a landfill siting advisory committee (LSAC), and the
dissemination of educational materials are the three most effective
components of a public participation program. The third component can
utilize a variety of forms, including information brochures, slide shows,
presentations to interest groups, and newspaper articles.
Public Infcmmation
The first step in the public participation would be to hold public
information meetings for the project. The purpose of these meetings would
be to explain the following:
o The need for a landfill site, including the dimensions of the
proposed action.
o The results of other solid waste studies and the county plan.
o The proposed siting process.
o The role of the LSAC.
o How the landfill siting relates to other siting activities that
have been considered for the area by the County.
It will also provide the public with an opportunity to present views on what
they perceive are significant issues. The need for additional meetings
would be decided by Oakland County and RGH.
We recommend that this initial public information meeting be held after New
Year's before the LSAC is formed. It is imperative that such issues be
identified early on in the siting process. From our experience it is likely
that some of these key issues will emerge as site selection criteria, or
will help the LSAC in assigning importance weights to the siting criteria.
We propose to develop an informational brochure which would be available for
distribution at the initial public meeting. Its purpose would be explain
the need for the landfill facility, indicate the decision-making process,
and explain the proposed siting process. We also propose a slide
presentation to show some examples of the types of issues the county faces
so the public will have a realistic idea of what criteria can be effectively
used.
RGH will develop, in. cooperation with the County, a slide presentation that
could be lent to various interest groups desiring to find out more about
•
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 14 - RGH
the proposed siting effort. Oakland County could also supply speakers for
civic functions. It is our feeling that a 15 to 20 minute slide show
presented in person by a representative of the County would be the preferred
approach. The content of the slide show would be similar to that of the
brochure. The County representative would be able to comment on the
individual slides, and respond to any questions.
The County should retain the services of a stenographer to provide written
documentation of the public meetings.
Siting Advisory Committee
RGH will help develop a Landfill Siting Advisory Committee (LSAC).
It is our feeling that a viable and diverse LSAC is essential to the siting
of a potentially controversial facility. The role of the LSAC is very
important in developing credibility and in performing a balanced siting
process. We feel from our previous work as consultants and facilitators on
other site selection studies, that the LSAC should be actively involved in
the actual site selection process. We propose the formation of a LSAC which
would assist the consultant and the County in selecting the preferred site
or sites. The LSAC would participate in the following activities:
o Determining which issues should be addressed in the site selection
process.
o Assistance in the development of issues, site selection criteria
and data categories.
o Assignment of importance weights to the site selection criteria.
RGH proposes the use of a Nominal Group Technique (NGT) in assigning the
important weights to the environmental, socioeconomic and engineering/cost
issues site selection criteria. The NGT process incorporates a variety of
viewpoints in arriving at a group consensus on the importance of various
siting criteria. The NGT process allows for unbiased value setting, allows
for discussion and interaction among participants, fosters problem solving
and decision making, and is relatively inexpensive. The process does not
allow participants to choose a site.
The LSAC would first be used to identify concerns in the construction
and operation of the landfill. These might include the potential for
groundwater contamination, the impacts associated with trucks traveling to
and from the disposal site, or potential site development costs. The
concerns would be developed into issues that allow discrimination among
sites.
Finally, RGH and other technically qualified state and county agencies
would develop data categories for each issue. For example, soil
permeability could be used as one way of measuring a site's potential for
groundwater contamination. Different levels of soil permeability would then
be used to evaluate each site's performance with respect to this issue.
020.88.650/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 15 - RGB
The information for evaluating each site with respect to the data
categories would be produced during each stage of investigation. The data
base developed during the investigation would be used in the evaluation of
the preferred site and alternatives in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Once the preferred site had been selected, a final meeting would be held
with the ESAC to show them the outcome, and how the issues and weights
produced by them interacted to determine the preferred site.
Foblic Notification
Experience has taught us that one crucial part of a public participation
program is proper public notice. We propose the County undertake a special
effort to notify residents and landowners adjacent to each site before
announcement at public meetings. We would do this by sending letters to
residents and and landowners informing them of upcoming meetings. This
should be supplemented with ads in the local newspapers and the use of the
MAINR regional office's mailing list of interested parties.
Public Hearings
After the preferred site has been selected, public hearings will need to
be held throughout the remainder of the licensing process. The number and
timing of these meetings is specified by MDNR as part of the licensing
process.
020.88.650/Dft.4-11-88/Oakland - 16 - RGH
APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION
The RGB-Donohue team will identify the most suitable landfill site for the
County/Municipal Solid Waste Board based on a detailed environmental,
socioeconomic and engineering analysis of the potential sites.
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental assessments will be performed for each site and will include
the following analyses:
o subsurface investigation: site exploration and review of existing
geotechnical information to determine soil and bedrock stratigraphy
and groundwater/aquifer conditions.
o geology: assess suitability of site for facility construction and
operations.
• noise: degree of annoyance to local inhabitants produced by
facility construction and operation.
o terrestrial ecology: description of natural resources and possible
impact of facility upon them.
• land use: impact of facility on current and future land use.
o surface waters: hydrologic characteristics of each site and
possible negative effects produced by construction and operation of
the facility.
o community sensitivity: degree of disruption of community patterns
produced by the facility.
o aesthetics: effect of construction and operation of facility on the
aesthetic quality of the areas surrounding the sites,
o traffic analysis: investigate the potential of facility
construction and operation to adversely impact local traffic
patterns.
o cost of facility construction and operation: estimated cost for
construction and operation at each site.
o licensability and permitting assessment: ease of obtaining
necessary permits for construction and operation of the facility.
All information required to complete MDNR's requirements will be addressed
during the environmental assessment of each site. A detailed environmental
impact statement (EIS) will be prepared for the preferred . site, with the
remaining two of the top three being identified as alternatives, based on
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 17 - RGH
the previously completed environmental assessments. A site evaluation
matrix will be compiled that presents the feasibility of each of the three
sites based on the information developed during the environmental assessment
of the sites. These matrixes are designed to allow quick and easy
comparisons between sites.
Information collected in the environmental analysis of the potential sites
will be compiled on topographic maps with a scale of 1 inch=200 feet, and
ten foot contour intervals.
Site-Specific investigations
To identify the most environmentally suitable of the potential candidate
sites, a detailed environmental investigation will be conducted at each of
the sites. The following narrative describes first a general program which
includes the elements which will be incorporated into the work plan for each
site. Next, we present some typical site observations which reflect our
knowledge of the candidate sites, and which would also dictate the specific
studies which would be done there. These preliminary observations are
presented to indicate the process which RGH will use as we prepare for the
actual field operations portion of the contract. We expect that the
earliest stages of the environmental investigation, with collection of all
of the information available about the sites, will provide us with
additional insight for planning the most effective field program.
Site Nap. In each case, field investigations except the most preliminary
reconnaissance level should be preceded by the production of a small scale
map of the site and the contiguous property which adjoins it. We have found
that having a suitable base map at the beginning of a project gives us a
large advantage in the documentation of the data and observations made, and
permits us to prepare preliminary estimates of site engineering factors with
a great deal of precision. This ultimately results in cost savings on the
project and improved communications between us, our subcontractors, our
clients, and the MDNR.
This map will be prepared using existing aerial photography and ground based
survey. Maps will be prepared for all sites at a scale of 1" = 200 feet,
with a 10 foot contour interval. A ground survey may be made at the same
time as the ground truth for the contouring. This map will serve as a base
map for the remaining field studies and preliminary engineering studies.
Review of Existin4 Studies. A data base will be developed for each
candidate site, to consist of all of the existing studies, published or
unpublished, which we can obtain. This data base will include information
on the following areas:
o site boundaries and property lines
o existing zoning or permits now in effect
c past land uses. of the site, including past waste disposal use
O USDA Soil Conservation Service Soil mapping
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 18 - RGR
o geologic mapping
o regional geologic studies
o watershed boundaries
o land use in upstream portion of watershed
o land development patterns in watersheds upstream of the site
o historic records of maximum flood stages
o aquifer characteristic ranges for formations of concern
o records of existing wells and borings in vicinity of site
o results of other regulatory actions in vicinity
o other environmental hazards
Some of this information will likely be derived from the existing Landfill
Siting Report (a), while the rest will come from a combination of new
infoemation, and site analysis and reports and from outside sources:
US Geological Survey. Hydrogeologic and structural geologic data,
hydrologic data; aerial photographs; environmental hazards; existing
private well logs.
US Fish and wildlife Service. Consultation to determine whether there
may be habitats for rare, threatened, or endangered species present on
any of the sites, or whether any of those species may have been sighted
at the sites.
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soils mapping
units; interpretations of soil suitability; working manuscripts and
field notes and determinations.
Municipal offices. Property ownership maps; zoning ordinances and maps;
records of old disposal areas; location of utilities, including buried
utilities; local ordinances; records of design consideration for major
structures in municipality; zoning ordinances; prior proposals for
development of the candidate sites; floodplain maps of site area
local knowledge of likely upstream development in the drainage basin of
candidate sites; local sensitivity to key issues; environmental
hazards; current regulatory climate.
County Planning Departments. Planning maps indicating expected future
development of the candidate sites; planning goals for the community,
including the backup data which was used in their preparation; aerial
photographs; library collection of literature on local environmental
setting.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 19 - RGH
County Health Departments. Sewage Enforcement Officer observations;
records of septic system installations; for areas served by sewers, test
borings, water levels, engineering soils characteristics; hydrogeologic
observations like those of failing septic systems; well records; sole
source aquifer report.
Other Sources. Sources including local colleges and universities where
active field programs result in theses and dissertations which may be
useful to the program, foundations interested in historic preservation
and environmental maintenance will be consulted for factual information
as well as for public participation/involvement aspects of this program.
Review of XRisting Literature_ Each of the sources listed above would be
contacted during the initial stages of this project. This helps both to
provide our project team with a background base of information from which to
start the field investigations and plants the seed of our intention to work
with the various concerned groups. It may also eventually prevent
potentially embarrassing and/or critical loss of credibility during the
public portion of the proceeding.
During the acquisition phase of the literature review period, many other
possible sources of information will be identified. RGH will diligently
pursue each of these, 50 that a picture of existing information about the
sites may be obtained. At the conclusion of the report, all literature
materials will be transmitted to the County, to constitute a baseline
library of environmental conditions at the candidate sites.
A comprehensive computer based data base of literature will be compiled
during the literature review. It will be based upon commercially available
computer programs which run on the IBM PC or functional equivalents.
Each investigator will compile the literature in his field and use the
information obtained to produce a 'model' of expected site conditions. This
preparation will provide the field team with a perspective of the conditions
likely to occur and minimize the likelihood of overlooking some important
facet of the field and environmental conditions. RGH finds this approach
both more efficient use of personnel time while in the field and also to be
a technically superior procedure for acquisition of complete field data.
Use of this procedure also allows us to focus on potentially detrimental
aspects of site conditions, to thoroughly evaluate them, and to present the
results of specifically designed field studies which demonstrate how they
would affect development of the site.
The literature compilation will ultimately be included in the Environmental
Report of site conditions which will be prepared at the conclusion of this
phase of the study. Then, site conditions as observed during a short
interval of time (during the RGH field investigations) can be compared to
the expected site conditions based upon years of observations.
Soils Investigation. Both the agronomic and engineering properties of
site soils would be investigated by field investigations. Backhoe :Jpits are
useful in describing the upper (agronomic) soils horizons. This provides an
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 20 -
indication of the soil permeability, extent of past erosion potential, and
soil mineralogy. Mechanical characteristics of the unconsolidated materials
are the single most important determining factor of their administrative
suitability as cover materials, but workability, as determined by texture
and mineralogy, is the most important technical aspect for site development.
Test borings utilizing the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) and
split-spoon soil samples will be collected in areas as necessary to
characterize the engineering characteristics of all unconsolidated site
materials. This will provide the basis for preliminary design aspects
including site layout and phasing, source of borrow or cover material,
foundation stability, foundation and top grading, and site configuration.
A program of laboratory testing will be conducted on selected samples to
determine sensitivities to compression or shearing. The proposed program
includes a sufficient number of samples to determine if additional testing
will be required during the detailed design of the facilities.
Geologic Mapping. Geological mapping techniques will be used to verify
the mapped geological formations from available literature. The mapping
will concentrate on verification of the bedrock types and establishment of
geologic boundaries on or nearby the site. This verification step is
necessary prior to utilizing literature values for ranges of bedrock
characteristics like hydraulic conductivity, rippability, solution features,
or other pertinent factors. In addition to the reconnaissance level mapping
techniques, results of soil test borings and cuttings from construction of
the monitoring wells will be utilized to establish the bedrock type.
During on-site activities, RGH geologists will also evaluate ground
locations where aerial photo lineations are seen. These aerial photo
lineations are often associated with steeply dipping fractures or faults
which may selectively conduct water from the site at rates higher than
average for the bedrock type. Such Fracture Trace Analyses are likely to
identify only very major structural features which would be the most likely
to conduct significant quantities of water. Other features identified on
the aerial photo analysis would be evaluated with respect to the regional
pattern of lineations and demonstrated fracturing and faulting.
Hydrologic Elraluation. The hydrologic evaluation of each site includes a
verification that each site lies outside the 100 year flood plain of local
drainageways, and that reasonable expectations of erosion would not put the
facility at risk. For those sites with exposure to substantial flow in
nearby rivers or streams, it would include evaluation of original Federal
Flood Insurance Administration studies.
Particular attention. will be paid to the potential effects of development of
the upstream portion's of the watershed and aquifer recharge areas. The
level of expected development will be modeled based upon the ei-tpectations of
the local planning commission's knowledge and.the planning and zoning status
of the parcels in question. Methods of remediation will be identified.
020.88,65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 21 - RGH
Monitoring Well Installation, The site hydroaeology work can typically be
defined for this phase of the study with between four and five wells per
site. If some of the sites are close by each other, each may benefit from
the wells at the other.
The configuration of the monitoring well network designed for each of the
sites reflects the primary goals of determining the ground water flow
directions and the depth to around water over the entire site. In most
cases, we have designed a system where the majority of the wells could be
equipped with modern well sampling equipment to become part of the permanent
monitoring system for the sites selected for development.
Ground water level observations will be used for construction of ground
water contour maps which are used in turn to predict the directions of
ground water flow from the site. Published ranges of hydraulic properties
of the aquifers involved at each site will be compared with the
characteristics determined at the site to evaluate the overall migration
potential of fluids leaving this site.
The configuration of the ground water table will also be used to evaluate
the foundation grade for the landfill design. This in turn will affect the
final configuration of the site and the final grade.
We propose to install the monitoring wells for this program in a manner
which we feel is more cost-effective and is a way in which we can have the
flexibility to gain as much technical information as possible. In addition,
this approach will not foreclose the future option of preparing any of the
wells as permanent monitoring wells of the developed sites.
First, the "Typical Monitoring Well Installation" is an appropriate method
of completing a well in unconsolidated sediments, such as may be encountered
at some of the sites. This is generally the type of well construction which
we would use under these conditions. However, we would propose to complete
the well with a small diameter casing so that a modern dedicated sampling
system could eventually be installed (GEOMON and Well wizard are two brands
with which we have experience). These systems are readily adaptable to the
option of client or consultant monitoring while maintaining a high degree of
reliability.
This configuration is not as well suited to areas where we would anticipate
encountering competent bedrock which would let Us use an open hole below the
surface casing. With an open hole, we would install a length of protective
casing which would be grouted into place, sealed securely into the bedrock.
This would be of sufficient length to prevent surface contamination. A
lockable cap should either be installed on either this casing, or if needed,
on an additional larger diameter casing. The remainder of the hole would be
left open for whatever testing or sampling may be required for the remainder
of the site investigation. If no further use is to be made of the site or
the well, it may be left intact. Depending upon the quality of the aquifers
encountered, it may be possible to install a domestic pump and supply system
020.88.650/Oft.4-11-88/0akland - 22 - RGH
for a future residence. As such, it may be considered a capital improvement
on the property and an asset to the owner.
If, however, the site is to be developed as an ash disposal area, the well
could be converted to a ground water monitoring well at a modest cost with
the addition of a smaller diameter casing and a dedicated sampling device.
Structural geologic conditions will be considered in the final placement of
all exploratory wells, so that should structural control of ground water
flow be suspected, the well system can take this into account.
Under several conditions, it would be advisable to conduct aquifer pumping
tests to determine additional aquifer characteristics.
Rnvironmental Hazards and Suitability.. The ultimate goal of the
environmental studies described in this section is to determine the physical
and other environmental characteristics and to determine (1) which sites are
technically suitable for a landfill operation; and (2) which site is the
superior site for natural mitigation should the site have some failure,
spillage or other unforeseen problem. All of the data described in this
section ultimately lead to this evaluation. We are confident that we have
provided a thorough study plan which will be refined as the project
proceeds.
The plan is necessarily sketchy to this point in time, because we plan to
develop it sequentially as the literature is collected and evaluated. We
would expect to define the exact field investigation plan prior to its
initiation, but after we have had the opportunity to collect the existing
information and make at least a reconnaissance level visit to all of the
sites.
Noise. RGH will first characterize the ambient noise level around each
plant. This will be done by analyzing land uses adjacent to each site both
in teims of the proximity to the site, and the timing of their activities
(i.e., is it a rural residential area with little activity after dark). We
will then use US EPA publications on ambient noise levels for different
types of land uses to estimate the ambient noise levels at each site.
Next we will analyze the land use adjacent (within 1/4 mile) to the site and
along the transportation route (within 200 yards) to determine the location
sensitive noise receptors (e.g., houses, schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
etc.). These will be noted on site maps.
We will then determine the sound levels generated by the equipment that will
be used on site during construction and operation, and by the trucks. This
information can be obtained from manufacturers, engineering data and from
publications by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Finally, we will estimate the sound levels at sensitive noise receptors.
This will be done using equations that estimate the attenuation of sound
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 23 - RGH
over distance. We will make the conservative assumption that noise
generated by equipment use at the landfill facility (e.g., pumps,
bulldozers, compressors, etc.) is produced at the site boundary instead on
in the interior of the site. If calculations show that noise levels at
sensitive receptors exceed recommended levels, we will perform a more
detailed noise assessment using monitoring equipment to determine the
magnitude of the potential effects.
Terrestrial Ecology. The RGH project team will collect the following
information on each site:
o major vegetation types and land use structures (i.e., roads,
houses, industrial developments, etc.) presented on a vegetation
cover map.
o obtain information needed for completion of the proper state
requirements, such as the possible location of endangered species,
streams included in the National Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968
and the Michigan Scenic Rivers Act, nearby public water supplies,
parks etc., found on or near the site.
o possible unique or important species, communities and habitats.
o use of site and surrounding area by organisms for breeding,
spawning, and migratory pathways, and recreation by local
inhabitants and visitors.
o information found in the current literature and personal
communication with Federal, State, and local experts.
The major vegetation types and other site characteristics will be obtained
from air photos in conjunction with on-site investigations. Current
information on each site will be compiled by a thorough literature search
and personal communication.
Once the terrestrial ecology has been described, the project team will use
its expertise to determine the impact produced by facility construction and
operation on the area. Consideration will be given to loss of recreational
species such as sport fish and other game animals.
Land Use. The following land use practises will be determined for each
site and the surrounding area:
o current and future land use plans.
o location of nearby dedicated lands such as parks (i.e. Federal,
State, County, and Municipal), national monuments etc.
• historic structures or any item of archaeological significance.
• cultural resources such as community centers, churches, and
schools.
o agricultural potential.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 24 - RGEd
Current and future zoning will be circumscribed through contact with county
and municipal zoning authorities. The U.S. Department of the Interior,
Michigan Bureau of Forestry, Michigan Bureau of State Parks, and the County
and Municipal governments will be contacted to delineate all dedicated lands
on, and surrounding the sites. Historic structures and other items of
archaeological importance will be determined through contact with the Bureau
of Historical Preservation, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
On-site visits will be used to observe other cultural resources on or near
the site. Agricultural potential of the site and surrounding area will be
based on the soil classifications and potential uses found in the county
soil surveys produced by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
Based on experience with past land use studies, the project team will
assess the impact of site development and operation for each of the above
mentioned factors. We will also determine the effects of the transportation
route on the surrounding community.
Surface Waters.. The hydrology of the site will be assessed along with
possible negative effects of facility construction and operation such as:
o increased siltation of surface waters caused by erosion.
o release of leachate from the facility into nearby surface waters.
o changes in the amount and direction of surface waters.
o location in the 100 year flood plain and potential for flooding
o encroachment on flood plains.
The chemical and flow characteristics recorded by MDNR for the streams
involved will be utilized for part of the hydrological analysis. Flood
insurance rate maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management
Administration will be obtained for determination of the 100 year flood
plain. The county soil survey, prepared by the US Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), will provide information on soil characteristics that influence
surface runoff, and also which soils are located in flood plains. Slope
characteristics influence runoff on each site and will be determined with
the aide of topographic maps and on-site investigation.
Community Sensitivity_ The project team shall ascertain the degree of
disruption of the surrounding community produced by the construction and
operation of the facility, and transport of solid waste to each site. This
will entail a visit to the area surrounding each site to determine:
o population centers.
o social or community interactions.
o the magnitude of possible community opposition to the facility.
o distribution of population and businesses along the transportation
routes that might be disrupted by the truck traffic.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0ak1and - 25 - RGH
Costs. RGH will make a preliminary estimate of the total capital costs of
a landfill facility for each of the three final candidate sites. This
assessment will take into account site characteristics such as soils, slope,
depth to the water table, etc. that influence site development costs. It
will also include estimated land purchase costs. Capital costs will be
converted into levelized unit annual costs expressed in dollars per volume
of capacity. This conversion permits a valid comparison between sites that
have different capacities due to their size, topography, on-site
environmental conditions, etc. The financial parameters used to estimate
the levelized costs (e.g., fixed charge rate) will be obtained from the
County.
We will look at each site to see if there are potentially significant
differences in annual operating costs. It is possible that certain factors
(e.g., topography, parcel size, availability of cover material, etc.) that
annual operating costs could vary significantly between sites. We will
describe those factors for each site that would significantly affect
operating costs.
RGH will determine the transportation options that are feasible for each
site (e.g., direct haul and transfer) We will develop levelized unit costs
($/cubic yard) for each transportation mode that is comprised of both
capital and annual O&M costs. The capital costs between centers of solid
waste generation (or transfer) and a a given site will be adjusted to take
into account features such as topography, number of stream or river
crossings, upgrading of existing bridges and roads, etc.
The levelized unit transportation costs will be multiplied by the total
annual volume estimated to be transported between the centers of solid waste
generation and a site to yield total annual transportation costs. The
financial parameters used to produce the levelized costs will be obtained
from the County.
Aesthetics. A visual analysis will be conducted of all sites that are
within a mile of a federal, state, county, or municipal park. The visual
analysis will follow the guidelines established by MDNR. The following
areas will be delineated on a USGS 7.5 minute topographic map along with the
project boundaries:
o all parks.
o streams listed as 1-A priority for study by MDNR as scenic rivers.
o streams included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
o recreation facility operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
o state forest picnic area.
o forest land.
o footpaths, bikepaths or trails.
020.88,65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 26 - RGH
o national landmarks designated by U.S. National Park Service.
o natural area or wild area designated by the State.
o national wildlife refuge, national fish hatchery, national
environmental center.
o. historic property (Historic Trust).
The view of the facility site from one of the above mentioned areas will be
evaluated on the basis of whether it is clear or obstructed, scenic, urban,
agricultural etc., in accordance with MDNR requirements. From these
investigations, the project team will determine any deterioration of the
aesthetic value of the areas surrounding the site.
Traffic Analysis. The project team will analyze the local traffic
patterns to determine whether the additional truck traffic will:
o conflict with existing vehicular traffic.
o cause potential traffic safety problems.
o interfere with use of area for recreational purposes.
o cause a deterioration of special natural or wilderness value.
The truck routes from centers of solid waste generation to the three final
candidate sites will be designated on a 7.5 minute topographic map. The
project team will compile information regarding the design capacity of the
roads to be travelled such as width, condition, and average daily traffic
counts. Increases in traffic as a result of the facility will be estimated.
Possible interference of truck traffic with the local population will be
determined by surveying the number of residences, schools, hospitals and
nursing homes situated along the approach route.
Infrastructure Tungpacts
The project team will assess impacts of the proposed facility to municipal
infrastructure.
o municipal waste water treatment plant capacity
o sewer capacity
o road and bridge construction
o road and bridge maintenance
o emergency services
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akiand - 27 - RGH
Licensability and Permitting Assessment
The project team is very familiar with the permits needed for a solid waste
operation. Each site will be assessed on the basis of what is required to
fulfill the following permits and procedures:
o MDNR, Waste Management Division Application for Construction Permit
for Solid Waste Disposal and/or Processing Facilities.
o MDNR request for approval to treat, store or dispose of a
non-hazardous residual waste stream, pursuant to Michigan Act 135.
o US EPA RCRA requirements for sanitary landfills.
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 28 - RpH
TV. PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Project Organization
Rogers, Golden & Halpern has assembled a highly qualified team of
specialists to conduct the Oakland County Landfill Siting study and the
design, permitting and construction management of the new landfill. The
personnel we have selected for this work are experienced in organizing and
executing complex tasks involving extensive, in-depth understanding of
environmental assessment, public participation, preliminary and final site
engineering, and preparation and submission of permit applications. Staff
from both RGH and Donohue Associates who have been chosen for this project
have been involved in related work, which is cited in their resumes.
The team approach, with one clearly designated project manager as team
leader and other highly capable individuals as task leaders, will provide
the diversity of disciplines required to conduct the study and yet retain
the cohesiveness that is vital to a project of this type. We have also
carefully balanced the disciplinary blend to cover all fields required in
this project. We have paid close attention to the efficiency of the mix of
skills required to perform the work.
Key members of the project team are full-time staff employed at RGH and
Donohue Associates, our expert subcontractor. Many of them have worked
together on a number of projects. Other staff members can be called upon to
support the project effort if needed.
Summaries of pertinent information about the project team have been
provided, with their full resumes. The project team organization for
siting, design and permitting is shown in the charts on the following pages.
Project Management
The key to effective management of the project is planned integration of
personnel, time, and facilities so as to generate the required efforts and
maintain ongoing aspects of the work in the most efficient way possible.
Rogers, Golden & Halpern's experience in engineering, and planning projects
makes us keenly aware of the importance of proper project management in
anticipating and avoiding problems and providing necessary supervision. We
utilize an organizational approach that combines technical management,
scheduling, and financial management.
Technical Management
RGH is strongly organized according to the project manager concept. One of
the three principals serves as responsible corporate officer for each
contract to ensure full,allocation of corporate resources and quality
control of all products. John Rogers, whose expertise includes public
participation, land use planning, environmental impact assessment, Waste
020.88.65D/Dft.4-11-88/0akland - 28 - RGR
disposal, and siting projects, will serve as principal-in-charge of the
project. Jo-Walter Spear will be project manager. He will be responsible
for overall performance of all tasks in the contract and will work with the
company business manager to ensure that the technical aspects of the program
and legal requirements of the contract are satisfied.
Mr. Spear, along with Charles Miller, the project engineer, will define
tasks and allocate staff and resources, consult with the client: oversee
day-to-day task performance, work with others on preparing products in a
timely and efficient fashion, and ensure the successful completion of all
work assignments.
Frequent contact with client personnel at the task level is expected of each
project manager. This enables the project to remain on track in terms of
subject matter, time, and budget. Mr. Spear will be the prime point of
contact between Oakland County and key program personnel. Interaction and
coordination among the internal elements of the work will be ensured by the
detailed schedule prepared for the project and the use of frequent
management meetings and conference calls. In addition to specified
contacts, Mr. Spear expects to touch base in progress telephone reports on a
weekly basis. In addition, RGH will maintain ongoing communication with
Donohue Associates to discuss mutual concerns.
Our principal management tool is a consolidated Management Plan reviewed at
Monday morning meetings. The Plan takes into account the time lines of
projects and then integrates them on a master schedule. It provides a basis
for distributing the firm's time and resources to each project and serves to
identify areas of overload or conflict. This ensures that milestones are
being met and that unanticipated problems are dealt with. Any adjustments
that appear necessary to keep the work on schedule (reapportionment of labor
resources, etc.) will be made immediately.
Schedule
RGH uses a critical path scheduling program to maintain positive control
over task completion and product deadlines. The objectives of the critical
path methodology are to make the best overall use of manpower and facilities
while ensuring timely completion of critical tasks.
Our system will be put to use for Oakland County after the initial project
startup meeting. At this meeting, the company and consultants will
determine a project schedule that takes into account the differing timelines
of the EIS, permitting, and design stages of the work. The critical path
analysis RGH uses divides a complex project into a series of smaller tasks.
The timing of these tasks is analyzed to see which are critical to
completion of the project. Delays in critical tasks would cause delays in
the whole project, and it is important that these tasks be identified. It
is also important to identify the other tasks that do not impact project
completion in order to schedule them for less busy periods.
020.88.65E/Eft.4-11-88/0akland -29 - RGH
The methods employed by RGH for critical path analysis and project
scheduling determine which tasks are time-critical and cannot be delayed
without delaying the project. By keeping track of important deadlines and
significant milestones, we can recompute the schedule taking completed work
into consideration. The programs also allow flexibility in scheduling
design by permitting changes in any aspect of a task and immediately showing
the impact of the change on the entire project. Tradeoffs between manpower,
cost, and time can then be made effectively for all concerned. The
estimated schedule for tasks 1 to 5 is shown below.
Working Days Cumulative
Task 1 46 46
Task 2 40 86
Task 3 40 126
Task 4 180 306
Task 5 80 386
Actual time in working days minus holidays.
These dates are projected using the Harvard Project Manager Critical Path
Program. Details are available upon request.
Financial MMnagement
RGH uses an integrated project cost management system. When a contract is
signed, the Administration Department assigns the project a number and
inputs the detailed budget into the computer. Much of the information
(salary figures, for example) has been entered previously, as it is used for
many project and financial reporting purposes. Data can also be updated or
corrected easily at any time. As the project proceeds, all costs are
identified by project number and are recorded into the project accounts.
The system accommodates the requirements of the project staff and managers
for maintaining cost controls over both individual tasks and contracts as a
whole. When necessary, project managers may request additional personnel,
finances, or facilities through the principals, who have access to all
resources needed for contract performance.
020.88.65D/Dtt.4-11-88/0a1c1and - 30 - RGR
DELIVERABLES
TASK I.
1. Process for product review.
2. Schedule, milestones and critical path.
3. Defined process for Landfill Siting Advisory Committee.
4. Completed interviews.
5. Describe adequacy of existing data base.
6. Summary of regulations related to siting, permitting and design.
7. Description of development trend.
8. Site size determination.
TASK 2
1. Description of need for sanitary landfill.
2. Description of decision-making process.
3. Criteria for selection of Landfill Siting Advisory Committee.
4. Process for selecting Landfill Siting Advisory Committee.
5. Public Participation Program.
6. Interviews with agencies and press.
7. List of recommended exclusion criteria for landfill siting.
8. Materials for first public meeting.
9. Materials for first LaAdfill Advisory Committee Meeting.
10. Slide Presentation on solid waste and landfill siting in the county.
TASK 3.
1. Maps of available data.
2. Overlay maps to show candidate areas.
3. Identify up to 20 candidate sites,
4. Candidate site layouts, access and transportation routes.
5. Establish alternative mitigation policies.
6. Prepare press release.
TASK 4.
1. Write-ups of siting issues, objectives, criteria and data sources.
2. Landfill Siting Advisory Committee Notebooks.
3. Attend and moderate (6) six LSAC meetings to discuss .criteria and data.
4. Attend and moderate an LSAC workshop to weight criteria.
5. Provide rank of 20 candidate sites using weights from workshop.
6. Provide a written description of the sensitivity analysis.
7. Attend LSAC meeting and describe site ranking and sensitivity analysis.
8. Write-ups of answers to major technical questions brought up at LSAC
meetings.
9. Landfill siting FACT SHEET.
10. Meetings.
020.88.65D/4-11-88/Oakland - 31 - RGH
TASK 5.
1. Report on detailed site investigations of top (3) sites.
2. Landfill concept plans for top three sites.
3. Report on ranking of top (3) three candidate sites
4. Attend LSAC meeting and describe ranking and sensitivity of criteria in
top three sites.
5. Prepare executive summary of siting process and results.
COST ASSUMPTIONS
1. Three people attending:
9 LSAC meetings
3 public meetings
1 Criteria weighting workshop with LSAC
2. Three people meeting with client in Oakland County
6 additional times other than meetings listed above
3. 20 candidate sites
4. Three top ranked sites
5. 20 siting criteria
6. 15 factor maps
7. 1 candidate site map
8. 1 exclusionary criteria map
9. 1 slide presentation (3 copies)
10. 2 public information brochures
11. Project is completed through task 5 according to schedule
12. County Planning Department maps provide adequate and best available data
020.88.65D/4-11-88/Oakland - 32 - RGEt