From: James Kelly
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:25 AM
To: 'Tom Giese'
Cc: Marc Hayes; David Randolph; 'Chris Kelsey'
Subject: RE: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
Tom –
Per our Code Enforcer (Marc Hayes), WAC 173-60-050 exempts
emergency equipment from the sound ordinance.
We will copy the 1974 structural drawing and send it to you via US
post.
Jim
From: Tom Giese
[mailto:TomGiese@KennedyJenks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 8:05 AM
To: James Kelly
Cc: David Randolph; Chris Kelsey
Subject: RE: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
Jim,
I agree that we should discuss item #1 collectively before
proceeding with the change. I’m sure that Chris will be in contact with
you today with regards to that issue.
As for the noise issue, the blowers are not the concern. They
will be in sound attenuating enclosures, in a room with acoustical panels, and
separated by a CMU wall and acoustical louvers. It is likely you won’t
even hear them running outside with all the other background noise of street
traffic and such. The biofilter fans also should not be an issue.
They are going to be in the far southwest corner of the site near Highway
9. Again, with the background noise of the location, the sound of the
biofilter fans should not even register at the property boundary near the
apartments. Please confirm that a variance is allowed for emergency
equipment. We will stick with the WAC requirements unless directed otherwise.
The closest the generator is to the property line is 90 feet. Per the
WAC, the noise level must not exceed 57 dBA at the property boundary.
This noise level at this distance is equivalent to 65 dBA at 23 feet, which is
the standard distance for specifying sound attenuation.
Regarding the old headworks, please send the information and
drawings that you have.
We will get you our most recent estimates of BTU load for the
Lab/Office, MBR Support, and Solids Handling Buildings. Per the City’s
direction, we are not designing gas service to the SBR Support Building, and so
have not refined any calculations for heating that building. Therefore,
we will supply you with our earlier estimate for that building.
Tom Giese
From: James Kelly
[mailto:jkelly@ci.arlington.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:33 AM
To: Chris Kelsey; Tom Giese
Cc: David Randolph
Subject: RE: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
We need to talk a bit about #1 and #2.
From: Chris Kelsey
[mailto:ChrisKelsey@KennedyJenks.com]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:05 AM
To: James Kelly; Tom Giese
Cc: David Randolph
Subject: RE: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
Thank you Jim. Just a few quick follow-ups on the RFIs:
It
should be a competitively bid item – the stronger supplier meeting the City’s
requirements at a lower cost will be selected.
Reasoning - A smaller building has a lower cost
of construction and a lower operation cost (heating, maintenance, etc.);
we must always look out for the project budget – which means selecting the
lowest cost alternative as long as it meets minimum performance
specifications.
If
we set up a minimum performance specification, and two manufacturers
demonstrate that they can both meet the performance specification and guarantee
the performance specification; then we must select the lower cost item.
Part of this performance specification is installing their equipment in space
provided; any increase to the space in order to accommodate their equipment is
part of their product cost.
In
light of what Mike Dawda said, we need to discuss this further to make sure we
are on the right side of the SRF/Centennial guidelines.
Is
it the emergency generator that we are worrying about (I thought it was the
blowers)? I am sure there is a variance allowed for equipment that is
not normal to operation – something that is emergency only. I put in a
call to our code enforcement department to inquire about a variance for
emergency equipment.
I
am also a bit confused by the different db levels (57 vs. 65) and distances
(23’ vs. 65’). Can we discuss?
The
only thing we have is the construction plans for the 1974 plant. It includes
the structural details for the "wing" off the west side of the
original 1959 back wall and the then new headworks channel west of the original
channel. I don't think we have anything regarding the back wall itself –
would you like a copy of what we found?.
I
was on the phone with Cascade Natural Gas yesterday and am trying to set up a
meeting this week; I will use the 60% design as a base start. Can you
provide BTU loading for:
·
Lab/Office
Bldg
·
MBR
Support Bldg
·
Solids
Handling Bldg
·
SBR
Support Bldg (maybe)
Our
previous Field Rep was Roy Klein, I will update you with any changes following
the meeting.
Thanks -
Chris
( 253-874-0555
| Direct: 253-942-3467
Cell: 253-670-5402 | Fax: 253-952-3435
From: James Kelly
[mailto:jkelly@ci.arlington.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:48 PM
To: Tom Giese
Cc: Chris Kelsey
Subject: RE: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
Thank you Tom. I have been working on a “Check Out” computer
from IT while they fix mine……what agony.
Jim
From: Tom Giese
[mailto:TomGiese@KennedyJenks.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:27 PM
To: James Kelly; Chris Kelsey
Cc: David Randolph; Menglou Wang
Subject: RE: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
Jim,
I think you accidentally scanned RFI #5 twice. Both of the
attached RFI #4 and #5 documents are actually RFI #5. Please resend RFI
#4. Thanks.
Tom Giese
From: James Kelly
[mailto:jkelly@ci.arlington.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:22 PM
To: Chris Kelsey; Tom Giese
Cc: David Randolph; Menglou Wang
Subject: RFI #4, RFI #5, DOE Meeting Notes
Chris
& Tom:
Attached
is the City’s response to RFI #4 and #5, and a copy of my notes from the
meeting with Mike Dawda. Follow-up items David and I owe you:
RFI
#4
1. City will do additional investigation of the
15-inch SD entering the site on Haller.
2. The City needs to coordinate with the Fire
Department on Preliminary Code Review memorandum items 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13
and 3.14
3. The City will follow-up with Cascade Energy
on gas service.
4. The City will follow-up with locating an
appropriate staging area for the contractor; KJ to provide estimate SF.
RFI
#5
1. Are there any additional structural drawings
for the headworks?
DOE
Meeting
1. Submit final Sewer Comp Plan ASAP.
2. Follow up with Marysville on Raney well water
source and reliability requirement for WWTP.
3. Send email to Mike on how we want the plant
permitted – Class 1 reliability or Class 2.
Thant is all for now.
Jim