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:

Appears you want the dewatering building reduced in size, such that Prime Solutions effectively becomes the only fan press that could fit. We could write a performance spec indicating Fournier as well, but indicating that equip must be able to fit within the footprint available. The potential backlash from this (as opposed to pre-selecting as a no substitutes) is complaints from Fournier during bidding, or an "overly" creative proposal from them to fit within the space allowed. Our spec/design would be defensible to reject these things, but please confirm this is the course desired by the City.

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.

Decibal levels: you indicated that decibals need to be below 60 dBA at property corners (by ordinance), but 50 dBA during overnight hours. Is that overnight requirement by ordinance as well? The issue is one of expense - as a sound attenuation enclosure for the emergency generator designed to meet that level will come at a significant premium, probably on the order of $50-80K, as it would become the most extreme rating and would make everthing bigger in size (pad, enclosure, etc.). Our mechanicals have reviewed the WAC, and believe that in going from a commercial area to a residential one (apartment bldgs 90 feet away), that a 57 dBA requirement at 90 feet would govern, which translates to approx. 65 dBA at the typical 23 foot distance that enclosures are specified to. This would be a less extreme enclosure. Please confirm if the 50 dBA is needed, because it does result in a substantial cost increase. If the 50 dBA is by ordinance as well, could an exemption be offered for emergency equipment? .

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?

Old headworks drawings - if nothing further turns up shortly in conversations with Terry Castle, our assumption will be that we need to demo and replace the retaining wall there.

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?.

Gas company contact - could you pass along a contact so that our mechanicals can get some follow-up information from them? It concerns confirmation of whether the gas company will want one master meter to the site with combo of regulators at buildings, or individual meters at each building. The gas company will be responsible for facilities upstream of the meters, so we will only show general routing upstream on the plans depending on their preference...

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