Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/200101/02/2002 WED 09:38 FAX K Ltoalor Ass=iM®e Dvirka Anthony O. Condia P.E. and 0 D Baftilucci Joseph H. Mamtrano C,N,ULTING ENGINEERS Vanne4hJ. Pritahero, P.e 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 T-headwe s. a,mer. Jr. 516-364-9890 a 716-460-3634 a Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@wonanet.att.net Princlwls - Town of Southold Nloholaa J. Barllllaci. P.E. 5.3095 Main Road Henry J. Chluass, P.e, Thomas F. Mahar. P.E. Southold, NY 11971 - Robert T. Bums, P E FXrwro N. Yu Iq Stever. A, Fam9m.wn, P E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Ltoalor Ass=iM®e - December 31, 2001 Anthony O. Condia P.E. - Demmis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Mamtrano Vanne4hJ. Pritahero, P.e T-headwe s. a,mer. Jr. James Bu.Achtack - Solid Waste Coordinator /IaavCtalaa Rutlalph F. Canrovale - Town of Southold JosephA FloralPP.r. 5.3095 Main Road F Cpvid S G lus P F Wiliam U. MoNn, P.E. Southold, NY 11971 - Michael Neubeger, P.E. Brine M. Vdith, P.C. Chwlaa J. WlsMUlh, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Bunchuck, x]001!002 Provided below is a description of the scope of work and cost to design a 10 -inch diameter well with a capacity of 500 gallons per minute to meet the requirements of the Cutchogue Fire Department. The well will be driven by a 3-phase, 240 volt, 60 ha submersible motor normally operated by LTPA power and be capable of accepting emergency power from a portable electric generator furnished by the Fire .Department. The scope of work includes the following: • Determine/redesign depth of the well, well diameter anti screen length to provide increased well capacity from 350 to 500 gpm. is Prepare detail drawings. of the well,well head piping and fire hose connections, electric controls, manual transfer switch and prefabricated enclosure. • Prepare a site drawing showing the location of well and enclosure. • Prepare drawings for the electric service to the wcil pump and wiring diagraty for controls and transfer switch. • Review shop drawings for conformance to the specifications. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. CQSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. 01/02/2002 FEED 09:39 FAX ®virka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Zs)(12'iCiU2 James Bunchuck Page Two Solid Waste Coordinator Town of Southold December 31, 2001 • Prepare submittal of changes to N`zrSDEC, and discussion of changes Aith D1EC and Terry Contracting & Materials. • Prepare Change Order and discuss cost of change with Terre. The budget for this work is the following, Title f ours Hourly Rate Salary Cost Principal 4 $58.00 $ 232.00 Senior Design Engineer 36 40.00 1,440-00 Design. Engineer 24 20.00 430.00 Reetrical Engineer 48 36.00 1.728.00 Drafter/CARD Operator 40 16.00 640.00 $ 4,520,00 Overhead and Profit 8,362.00 Total $12,882.00 If you have any questions with regard to this letter or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. - Very truly yours, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President Tr ivvR B/tan - 01314VI'FM01 ALT[,-73.D0C (RQ 1) Dvirka and ano Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 ■ Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@woridnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka SlevenA. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merldin, P.E. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmulh, P.E. Dear Mr. Terry: Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Southold Landfill Closure Submittal 30a D&B No. 1314 December 31, 2001 We have reviewed Submittal 30a - Geocomposite Roll Certifications Resubmit 1, received in oui• office on December 28, 2001. We have reviewed the submittal with respect to the requirements of the Specifications for the above -referenced project. Our comments are as follows: 1. pH resistance does not appear under the "Fabric Property" (Geotextile) material certification for the shipper numbers 2. No. units are provided for Puncture Resistance in Chenango's 12/24/01 letter. 3. The documentation provided by Engineered Synthetic Products, Inc. and TRI/Environmental regarding tensile strength is acceptable. However, SKAPS Industries still provides a value of 400 lbs per ASTM D 4632 on the shipper number material certification. Please clarify. The. submittal has been stamped "revise and resubmit." Please do not hesitate to contact me at (516) 364-9890 if you have any questions. TFM/MDW(t)/ld cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric T. Howell ♦ 1314\TFM01ALTR-71.DOC(R01) Ve ly your , Gly, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President J. Mulligan P. Sutherland M. Wright A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and a DO Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 • Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Princioals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. . Associates840 West Main Street Rudolph F. Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merklin, P.E. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 31, 2001 At the December 20, 2.001 progress meeting, we provided you with .design drawings to convey drainage from the area of Recharge Basin 4 to Recharge Basin 3, and requested that you provide us with a cost estimate for the work, which includes filling Recharge Basin 4. Since the Town of Southold is interested in receiving your cost estimate prior to making a final decision to re-route the drainage, it is requested that you provide this cost estimate to me at the next progress meeting scheduled for January 3rd. If you have any questions or are unable to provide this cost estimate by January 3rd, please contact me. TFM/ld cc:. James Bunchuck Chris Morris ♦ 1314\TFM01ALTR-68:DOC(R02) Vegoruly yours, �;ei� (Z-4— Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and a Do Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 - Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartiluoci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walks Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Mr; Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Associates 840 West Main Street Rudolph F Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, PE. Riverhead, NY 11901 David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merklin, P.E. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Project Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 31, 2001 In discussion with the Town of Southold (Jim Bunchuck), it has been decided that unscreened material from the 17 -acre parcel will be used for the 6 -inch final subgrade layer, and contour grading material if required, on the eastern portion of the landfill similar to the use of this material on the western portion of the landfill. Also, note that in construction of the cap on the eastern portion of the landfill, the final subgrade, less 6 inches of 17 -acre unscreened material, to achieve minimum 4% slopes and minimum 2% swales shall be achieved by excavation and relandfilling of waste. When you feel the proper subgrade less 6 inches of 17 -acre material has been achieved after compaction, a topographic survey shall be provided to this office to review the grades prior to placement and compaction of the final 6 -inch subgrade material which shall be strictly limited to 6 inches after compaction. Following placement and compaction of the final subgrade material, the gas venting layer shall be placed in a 12 -inch lift and compacted, which shall be strictly limited to 12 inches after compaction. This will ensure that the gas venting layer and liner surface will follow the approved subgrade less 6 -inch topography. At the option of the Engineer, a topographic survey of the top of the gas venting layer may be required prior to placement of the liner. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 31, 2001 Page Two We will discuss this further at the January 3rd progress meeting: In the interim, if you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, 4;�Z� '0�' Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/ld cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric C. Morris P. Sutherland ♦ 1314\TFMOIALTR-69.DOC(RO2) DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 CROSSWAYS PARK DRIVE WOODBURY NY 11797-2015 PHONE: (516)364-9890 FAX: (516) 364 - 9045 TO: Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 WE ARE SENDING YOU: ❑ Shop Drawings Copy of Letter LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: 28 -Dec -01 Job No. 1314-F3 Attention: Robert Terry Re: General Construction Contract No. 2000 Southold Landfill Closure Attached F-1 Under Separate Cover Via. Prints Plans Change Order ❑ Samples the following items: E] Specifications TRANSMITTAL COPIES No. Received Returned DESCRIPTION 1 32 12/19/2001 12/28/2001 Construction Test Results - Daily Cover, General Fill, Contour Grading Material THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below ❑ For approval El For your use EJ Submit copies for distribution As requested PFor review and comment 11108014 Copies toJ4Bunchgck T. Howell -Signed: T. Maher - P. Sutherlandaria Wright, P.E. J. Mulligan I. Sikiric /M If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once 32transmit.xls Approved as submitted (A) = Resubmit copies for approval El Approved as noted (AAN) EJ Submit copies for distribution ODisapproved (D) Return corrected prints Rejected (R) X� Other Received but no action taken Copies toJ4Bunchgck T. Howell -Signed: T. Maher - P. Sutherlandaria Wright, P.E. J. Mulligan I. Sikiric /M If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once 32transmit.xls WE ARE SENDING YOU: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI Date: 28 -Dec -01 lJob No. 131443 CONSULTING ENGINEERS Attention: Robert Terry 330 CROSSWAYS PARK DRIVE Re: General Construction WOODBURY NY 11797-2015 Contract No. 2000 Copy of Letter Southold Landfill Closure PHONE: (516)364-9890 FAX: (516) 364 - 9045 TO: Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 WE ARE SENDING YOU: 0 Attached [--j Under Separate Cover Via. the following items: ❑ Shop Drawings E:j Prints Plans Samples Specifications Copy of Letter 0 Change Order TRANSMITTAL COPIES No. Received Returned DESCRIPTION 1 31 12/18/2001 12/28/2001 Geocomposite Manufacturer's Affidavit Disapproved (D) corrected prints Rejected (R) Received but no action taken THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below For approval nFor your use As requested ❑ For review and comment REMARKS: Approved as submitted (A) copies for approval DApproved as noted (AAN) 0 Disapproved (D) corrected prints Rejected (R) Received but no action taken Resubmit copies for approval Submit copies for distribution Return corrected prints Other Received but no action taken Copies to: °ftBunchuc T. Howell Signed: T. Maher P. SutherlandM, ria Wright, P.E. J. Mulligan I. Sikiric If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once 31transmit.xls Dvirka and ano -Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 - 718-460-3634 - Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P. E. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pyllar, Jr. Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merklin, P.E. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 26, 2001 It has come to my attention today that you were unable to place gas venting layer (GVL) material in the area west of the central swale and north of the temporary road in the western portion of the landfill because sufficient GVL material was not available. In our discussion on December 21, 2001, you stated that for today GVL material would be placed in this area today, at the same time liner was being installed. Your concern was that we would have sufficient inspectors on-site today to both compaction test the newly placed GVL and observe liner installation, so that the area with the newly placed GVL material could be surveyed today and liner placed in this area on December 27 or 28 at the latest. In order to accommodate your schedule and needs for testing and liner installation, I made provision for four inspectors to be at the site today, one specifically to do compaction testing of the new GVL. However, because sufficient GVL material was not available, compaction testing could not be performed. As discussed on numerous occasions, we are prepared to assist in any way possible to accommodate your needs and schedule; however, as we have also discussed on numerous occasions, you are obligated to inform us of your schedule and plans for work in order to properly assign inspection staff. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 26, 2001 Page Two As a result of not informing us correctly of the work to be performed today, the inspector at the site to perform compaction testing could not do so because the above -discussed area was not ready for testing. As a result, the cost of the inspector today, in the amount of $1,000, will be deducted from your next payment request. Very truly yours, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/cmc cc: J. Bunchuck C. Morris ♦ 1314\TFMOIALTR-66.DOC Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. December 26, 2001 Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytiar, Jr. Timothy Howell Associates rka d1Dvi and O Bartilucci David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merldin, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Michael Neuberger, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Brian M. Veith, P.E. 516-364-9890 • 718-460-3634 ■ Fax: 516-364-9045 Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. e-mail: db-eng@woridnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums; P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. December 26, 2001 Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytiar, Jr. Timothy Howell Associates Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Rudolph F. Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. 84.0 West Main Street David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merldin, P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Howell: Enclosed please find Tectonic Engineering Consultants' response to your letter dated December 12, 2001, regarding conformance testing. Based on your assertions and the actual language contained in the specifications, either you have misinterpreted or perhaps do not understand the conformance testing requirements of the contract documents. While you are correct in stating that you have raised the issue of testing the roll samples on several occasions, as was explained on each occasion, testing of the samples is at our/Tectonic's discretion, if we feel there is a need for testing. With regard to your assertion of confusion regarding whether D&B or Tectonic is responsible for testing, it has been explained to you and Bob Terry on numerous occasions that Tectonic is responsible for quality assurance/quality control as it applies to soils and geosynthetics used in closure construction, including testing; as required. Your characterization of our approach to conformance testing as "unacceptable" and "not valid" under the contract documents, as clearly explained in the attached letter, is totally without merit. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Timothy Howell Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 26, 2001 If you have any questions with regard to this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours; 4z'00;"o" Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric P. Sutherland R. Terry 01314/TFM01ALTR.doc-63 Page Two ENGINEERING TECTONIC CONSULTAN S P.C. P. O. Box 37. 70 Pleasant Hill Road Mountainville, New York 10953 Terry Contracting & Materials 840 West Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 ATTN: Mr. Robert G. Terry OFFICES: Cincinnati. OH Albany, NY Hartford. CT Cornwall, NY Northborough. MA Mt. Vernon, NY Richmond, VA (800)829-6531 FAX: (845) 534-5999 www.tectonicengineering.com December 21, 2001 RE: W.O. #3138.01, CONFORMANCE TESTING TERRRY CONTRACTING & MATERIALS LETTER DATED 12/12/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Dear Mr. Terry: At the request of Dvirka & Bartilucci (D&B), Tectonic Engineering Consultants PC (Tectonic) provides this response to Timothy Howell's letter regarding conformance testing. As you are aware, Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. (Terry) is responsible for providing all conformance and construction testing to meet the NYSDEC approved Closure Plan and the Contract Document specifications prior to and during placement of the geomembrane. At Tectonic's discretion, we will perform conformance testing and Quality Assurance (QA) testing. The specifications, under Section 4.3-F.1.J, indicate that one conformance sample shall be taken no less frequently than one sample per 100,000 square feet of geomembrane. As stated in the Contract Documents, this does not imply that the sample has to be tested, but that the testing of the sample is solely at the discretion of the engineer. This is also explained in Appendix A, page A-3, where the note indicates, "Conformance testing of any and .all geomembrane properties may be performed by the Owner's QA Geosynthetic' Laboratory at the discretion of the Engineer." (In accordance with NYSDEC Part 360-2.13(K)(3)(iii)(a), this sample is taken to "fingerprint' the material and the sample is archived at a frequency of no less than one sample per lot number). In summary, Tectonic has discretion to perform conformance and QA testing of material properties and performance behavior characteristics of the geomembrane. Terry has misinterpreted the intent of the contract documents to suggest that Tectonic or Dvirka & Bartilucci has waived any right to perform conformance or QA testing. Tectonic may obtain conformance or QA samples and perform testing, at ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Robert G. Terry ENGINEERING TECTONIC CONSULTAN SPC 2 December 21, 2001 any time, to document material properties and conduct a QA audit of destructive seam samples. The testing performed by Tectonic, and the timing of such testing, in no way relieves Terry of responsibility to provide the proper materials and workmanship to build the cap according to specifications. Thus, as it pertains to our conformance and QA testing, we reject your position and reserve our right to test in a manner that best represents the Owner's interests. We strongly suggest you contact the undersigned at 845-534-5959, if you need this to be further clarified. Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PC Peter T. Sutherland, P. E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer PTS/ G:\geo\3138\corresp\Terry7.doc cc: T. Maher, D&B 12/26/2001 DV I rka L Baftilucci C1 no CON$ULrING ENt31NEER& 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-354-9890 in 718-460-3534 ■ Fax;515-364-9D46 e-mail db-eng@Noridnet.att.net PrineipeMa NirA tae J. senuuoa. P.e Henry J. Crotpase, P.E. Thom ae P. Maher. P E Reead T. Burns, P,E, Rk9NIM Waka Slavers A. Fangnann. RE Sg+Iw Aeeonilas AntnOnY 0. Conetw, P.E. Denris F. KwNer, P.E. Joseph N. (51mano Kenneth J. Pnirltaro, P.E. Theeaara S. PrJar, Jr Robert G. Terry _ 'ferry Contracting Materials, Tnc, he 840 West Main Street Rudelpl5 F. C•nrlaval• JossmA. FRrri iw. RE, RiVerhead, NY 11901 nrvihif filur iii win D. MoNim. P P e.rJ...Ill.it nr tee: aoulholdtund191!elusutc Man rd, With. P.C. Chwlas J. Vbehsmuth. P.E. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 2a, 2001 It has come to my attention today that you were unable to place gas venting layer (GVL) material iz: the area west of the central swale and north of the temporary road in the western portion of the landfill because sufficient GVL material was not available. In our discussion on December 21, 2001, you stated that for today GVL inaterial would be pldced in this area today, at the same time liner was being installed. Your concern was that we would have sufficient inspectors on-site todagr to both compaction test the newly placed GVL and observe liner installation, so that the area with the newly placed GVL material could be surveyed today and liner placed in this area on December 27 or 28 at the latest. In order to accommodate your schedule and needs for testing and liner installation, I made provision for ibiu inspectors to be at the site today, one specifically to do compaction testing of the new GVL. I-lowaver, because sufficient GVL material was not available, compaction testing could not be performed. As discussed on numerous orcgsions, we are prepared to assist. in any way possible to accommodate your needs and schedule; however, as we. have also discussed on numerous occasions, you are obligated to inform us of your schedule and plans for work in order to properly assign inspection staff, A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. L UtiUllt.%rl s..?1Ut aHI k—h. PL, 12; 26/2001 EYED 17:19 FAX R002/o09 Dvirka and BartiiuCci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Robert U. Terry Page Two Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc;. December 26, 2001 As a result of not informing us correctly of the work to be performed today,_the inspector at the site to perform compaction testing could not do so because the above -discussed arca was not ready for testing. As a result, the cost of the inspector today, in the amount of $1,000, will be deducted from your next payment request. Very truly yours, Thomas F. 1Taher, P.E. Vice President Tp Veme - cc: I Bunchuck C. Morris • 1314CfFM01ALM-66MOC Dvirka and 0 Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 ■ Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P. E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. walka Steven A. Fangmann, P. E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Mr. Robert G. Terry Kenneth J. Pritchard, P. E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr . Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale Riverhead, NY 11901 Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. William D. MerkGn, RE. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Submittal 30 Charles J. VNachsmuth, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 20, 2001 We have reviewed Submittal 30 - Geocomposite Roll Certifications, received in our office on December 13, 2001. We have reviewed the submittal with respect to the requirements of the Specifications for the above -referenced project. Our comments are as follows: 1. The Contractor shall certify that the geocomposite was transported to the site without damage. 2. We noted the following errors with the geocomposite certification dated December 3, 2001, from Skaps Industries: • The shipper numbers are not provided on the certification. • The nominal thickness for the geonet component should be presented in inches, not mils. • Compressibility for the geonet component was not included on the certification. • The tensile strength for the geonet component was to be obtained through ASTM Method D5034/5035. • The density is presented in lb/in.. Please clarify these units. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Robert G. Terry Page Two Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 20, 2001 • Polymer composition is not included on the certification. • Transmissivity of the geonet component is not included on the certification. • The tensile strength of the geocomposite was not included on the certification. 3. With regard to the geotextile certifications, we have the following comments: • The thickness test method should be ASTM D 5199. • The copies of the geotextile certification roll test data are difficult to read. Please provide a clearer copy. • Units should be provided on all test result tables. The submittal has been stamped "revise and resubmit." Please note that the submittals are to be checked thoroughly with the specifications, prior to sending them.to us for our review, to ensure that the required and correct information is provided on the submittals, in this case, as an example, the Geocomposite Roll Certifications: Providing us with incomplete and/or incorrect submittals will only result in project delays. If you have any questions with regard to this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, 2/ } Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/MWt/cmc,ld,tam cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric T. Howell C. Morris P. Sutherland M. Wright ♦ 1314\T 7M01ALTR-60.DOC(R03) . DEC -19-01 16=28 FROM: ID: 5163648675 PAGE 1/9 Post -it, Fax Note 7671 " 11h .�cftuu� Dvirka c0.00pr a n d Phone It - Bartil6Vi Feilt � GONSULTiNG ENGINEERS .�3y- dloD 3$0 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 $16-39890 0 718-460-36; 4 - Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail; db-en9@w0r1dnet.att.riet Princloai. Mcholas J. SuniL=i. P.E. Nanfy J. Chlupsa. P.E. Thomas F. Mahtr. P E Rbben T gums. P.E. Sloven A Fanemann. P E for Aq*!N41[n N+oheny G. C,anet4a, P.E. Uaonie F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph N. M"I'aro PritchaE. KonrothJ. rd, P. Thoocoro S. Pywr, Jr Mr. Robert 0. Terry ouodwi Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Rwoctph F Canrovale 840 West. Main Street JasapltA. Fuaraliso, P.E Riverhead, NY 11901 David &. Glass, P.F. Wiliam D. Marroh. RE MichaelNeuboree(' P.E. Brian M. Voith, P,E Re. Southold l:.arjdfill Closure charts J. v42aumuth, PE. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: Flan?'0Y►^ - �7y�;��� Co. December 19, 2001 Z �cFi—aw't-7dZc' ,S) 6 r _�>y 'JCC wT This letter is in response to your request roday to substitute screened material fi-om the l 7 -acre parcel for the unscreened mxerial presently being used for contour grading material (CGM). After giving this consideration, we have decided to continue the use of unscreened rnaterial. from the 17 -acre parcel for COM, unless you agree to the following. conditions: 1. there will be no charge to the ToNvn for screenia) the material; and 2. that the stone generated from screening be removed from Towil-owned property at no cost to the Town. if you have Any questions, please contact 1ne. xr truly rs, Ir Q' Thomas F. Maher, P,E. Vice President FMlttun cc: J. Bunchuek P.Sutherland C. Morris O 13141TFM011LTR-533.d0c(R0I) - A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICN ASSOCIArES, F.C. DEC—IS-01 16:26 FROM: DV1rka (3Dand O Bai tllucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516.364-989D ■ 718-460-3634 • Fax: 516-364-0045 e-mail: db-eng@worldneLatt,net PtlnMatlt Nlc'1041x d tlanlnxr.i, P E HonryJ. cnlupsa, FE. Thom" F Mann, P E Roenn'f. awns, PE Riciwb M. Waaca Stoven A. Faialnann. F.E. ID:5163546675 PACE 2/9 Savior Airoelr♦1H4 Anewiv O. Gonoha, P.E. Owuu. F Koomer, P E. Jo%cpb H. Martura no _ Kennem J. Prowwa. P.C. December 19, 2001 Ttrhodoro a Pytkv. Jr. amadilGi _ RAWn F. Cannavais Mr. Robert G. Terry Te Contracting & Materials, Inc. DayodA. lao, P.F.P.E. Gane S Glass, P.E � ra w14am 0. Moro, P.B. 940 'Vest Main Street Wahael Nauhwaw, PE. Brian M. Veit, P.E. Riverhead, ICY 11001 Cnw*r, J. warnsmum, Pe. Re: Southold Landfill Closullre D&B No. 1314. Dear Mr. Terry: Enclosed please find Tectonic Engineering Consultclnts' response to your letter dated December 7, 2001, regarding compaction testing. If you have any questions, either call Peter Sutherland or me. Ve `ruly yours,` Thomas F. Maher, P,E. Vice president '11-'M/tam cc: . Peter Sutherland, Tectonic - O 1314kTFM01aLTR•58.doc A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F, COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. DEC -19-01 16:29 FROM: ID:5163649675 PACE 3/S Ota�IGES: 0-Icinaw?. Om TECTO A IC ENGINE RINGTANT CornAlbany, NY Hartford, o9 f ( ,Y CON$(1LTANTS PC. Cornwall, NY Nntt;tiborvugh, MA MT. vr;rru a, NY rn,cPunwd, VA P, 0. Box 37, 70 Piaabanr lila HO[i(J Mountai.gvi4e, Naw York 10063 Terry Contracting & Materials 840 West Main Street Riverhead, New York 11 g01 ATTN: Mr. Robert G. Terry 1840)839-6531 FAX. (845)534-6990 www.tccton iconginasring.com December 14, 2001 RE: W.O. #3138.01, - COMPACTION TESTING TERRRY CONTRACTING & MATERIALS UTTER HATED 1217/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SOUTHOLD, NEIN YORK Dear Mr. Terry: At the request of Dvirka & Bartilucci, -we are responding to your December 7, 2001 letter. regarding compaction of the Contour Grading Material (CGM). As we understand it, Terry Contracting & Materials (Terry) Is objecting to the percent compaction we have determined from our in-place density testing. The issues that Terry is raising are identified below followed by our response: Item 1: Igay indicates that their means and methods, as conditionally ap, Qroved by our office (Tectonic Engineering), yield acceptable test results. As of the date of this letter response, using compaction criteria outlined in Tectonic's letter dated November 28, 2001; Terry is achieving acceptable compaction. We estimate that about g acres of CGM is complete of the approximately 13 acres of landfill footprint area that is coVered by CGM. It is our understanding that Tent' is potentially claiming extra work and time was required to compact the CGM. Terry should have been aware of the compaction requirements of the CGM obtained from the 17 -acre parcel, This is because the material originally planned for use as CCM was the borrow area soil, and the 17 -acre soil Is similar. in fact, the 17 -acre CGM is immediately adjacent to the original proposed borrow area and both sites consist of undisturbed native soils. These two soils, in almost all instances, both classify as a coarse to fine sand with a little to some coarse to fine gravel and less than 2% fines. Terry was provided with extensive test results of the unprocessed borrow area soil in the Contract Documents (See Appendix B, "Results of Testing of On -Site Soil Stockpile and Borrow Area LNG INEER$ -SURVEYORS • CONGTRUr'TJON MANAGERS An E(luai Qpporiuijity En1p1CV:t DEC -19-01 16:29 FROM: Iii= 51;!3046875 PAGE TECTONICC;ifddilL lA?J?S X - Mr. Robert G. Terry 2 December 14, 2001 Soil"}. As a result, no change occurred that caused additionalwork or time; since the procedures to place, add moisture and provide compaction are essentially the same. We note that we have and are making every reasonable effort to work with Terry to assist in achieving the compaction required by the project specifications. The first of these efforts was made on August 27, 2001, at our suggestion. We worked with Terry to perform testing on test strips of the original borrow area, soil to evaluate the ability of -the materials to be placed and compacted with certain types of equipment that Terry provided. In order to achieve a firm and unyielding state with a minimum of 95% compaction, the material required water to be added to bring the moisture content to within 4% to 5%. We found this requirement of bringing the moisture to at least 4% to 5% was also needed with the similar 17 -acre CCM material. In mid-November, 2001, Terry indicated they were ready to have the 17 -acre CGIM material tested. The material was not found to be in a firm and unyielding state. In-place, density testing indicated compaction was in many cases in the mid to upper 80 percent range, which confirmed our visual observations that the soil layer was loose. Based on our observations and testing, the material was placed at a low moisture content of about 2%. We: advised you of our opinion that water needed to be added. After adding water, at moisture contents of 4% to 5%, a firm and unyielding state of the soil layer was reached using the roller, resulting in an average compaction of about 90%. Our. criteria were revised to allow 90% compaction in a further effort to work with you. The revised criteria are presented in our November 28, 2001 letter. Tectonic's November 28, 2001 letter allows the lowering of the project specification compaction requirement frorn 95% to 90% of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by ASTM D 696; provided certain criteria related to moisture control and than compaction effort are , acceptable. This, reduction of the requirement for compaction was made in good faith to allow Terry to provide a minimum effort required to reach an acceptable firm and unyielding state of the CCM and reduce the time required to complete the CGM work, As discussed above, a key criteria used in all our evaluations relating to acceptance of placed materials is visual confirmation that the material is placed in acceptable lift thicknesses, and compacted by making sufficient passes with compaction equipment to produce a firm and unyielding state. It is this observation, in conjunction with the compaction test results, which is used to evaluate final acceptability of placed materials and to lower the specification to 90%. It should be noted that our experience and a standard industry approach is to correlate the type of compaction equipment (weight), number of passers of the compaction equipment (e.g. vibratory rollers), lit', thickness, and information regarding moisture control to determine if the soil is reaching an acceptable compaction state. This approach was always employed throughout the process of testing and evaluating the CGM placed by Terry. Further, the specifications require, TECTONIC Mr. Robert G. Terry 3 December 14, 2001 under Section 2.3(G)(1 0)(b) that "The prepared subgrade surface shall present a smooth, firm, unyielding, uniformly graded and compacted surface free of loose sail, ...". This was only accomplished after Terry complied with, at a minimum, the criteria of our November 28, 2001 letter. Terry had previously indicated that they desired to place all the contour grading material over the full landfill surface and then wait for rain to compact the soil. As discussed in our letter dated November 21, 2001, we raised our concern that based on our experience' and knowledge. of soil behavior; soil best achieves compaction when the moisture content is adjusted near optimum at the time of compaction. We expressed our reservations but indicated we would test it when Terry was ready. Unfortunately, this approach of waiting for rain to compact the soil was not effective. Further, it caused delays because all the sail then needed the moisture content adjusted with additional compaction immediately following this adjustment. Terry has not provided the proper equipment to add water to the soil and has raised objections to doing so. However, adding water to achieve compaction is ordinary construction practice and is clearly contemplated in fila contract documents under Section 2.3(G)(7)(h) which states: "The water content of fill material shall be controlled during placement within the 'range necessary to obtain the specified compaction. Contractor shall perform all necessary work to adjust the water content of the material to within the range necessary to permit adequate compaction." Considering this and other clear language regarding the need to actively control the moisture content and our cautioning against your original approach; we regret you now imply we are the cause of your delays.. Item 2: Teak indicates that we stated that we had to direct theirir laboratory (Universal Testing) in the correct methods to arrive at a meaningful proctor for the i 7 -acre CGM. At your request and concurrence, we worked with your laboratory to expedite the Particle Size and Standard Proctor testing of the Contour Grading Material samples CG -1 through CC -9. These sample test results were submitted to us on November 19, 2001. According to the specifications, Terry should have submitted these pre - qualification test results for approval in advance of placing and requesting our in- place density testing of the CGM. (As of November 19, 2001, Terry had already placed all of the CGM and had already asked us to start testing this material as early as November 14, 2001). As discussed In our letter dated November 21, 2001, we indicated to your laboratory that we believed a gravel correction was required based on the soil particle size gradations of the nine samples (CG -1 through CG -9). Your laboratory indicated that an oversize particle correction had been performed. However, when we inquired directly with them as to whether they followed the ASTM D 4718 procedure, they indicated they had not. lifter explaining our interpretation to your laboratory that the TECTONICJ.:�I_ri:NU C+r '�7RN75!•C Mr. Robert G. Terry 4 December 14, 2001 Standard Proctor ASTM D 698 procedure indicates a gravel correction is required according to the ASTM D 4718 standard, Universal Testing choose to perform the gravel correction per the ASTM D 4718. It is incorrect that we requested Universal perform the proctors in a particular manner. It should be emphasized that throughout our conversations with Universal, it was made clear that we had no authority, and did not intend to authorize work on you behalf. We simply were working with them and you to the greatest extent practical to avoid any further project delay caused by your late submittal of the test results. In this context, we let them know which of the nine samples we would like to see further proctor testing performed on; however, we never directed them as to how they should perform the testing. We regret that our willingness to work with you and your laboratory has been misinterpreted in the manner you allege. Item 3: Terry reports that Troxier Electronic Laboratories feels their equipment would ngrmaliy be oPerdtad in the "backscatter'° mode because direct transmission may disturb aggregate and lower the density. First, in-place density test results have not been considered when there is any indication that coarse gravel is present as evidenced by resistance of the probe, which has seldom occurred. This is discussed in criteria 3 on Page 2 of our November 27, 2001 correspondence. In criteria 3,, we indicate that in certain instances compaction values may be low due to such factors as "...disturbance caused by the test probe," amongst a few other factors. in such cases, Tectonic has been quick to retest or accept a lower value. Again, this is indicative of our desire to be practical and work with you. In backscatter mode, the results are biased toward the surface. The surface of a poorly graded sand soil with very little fines being unconfined will typically not be fully densified. Therefore using the backscatter mode will produce results indicating lower densities. in addition, the direct transmission mode has been found to accurately obtain in- place densities that can be used to calculate percent compaction. We nate that our observations of the soil achieving a firm and relatively unyielding state, as discussed above under Item 1, have closely correlated with achieving an average of 90% compaction according to the criteria discussed in our November 28, 2001 letter. it should be noted that at each test location, our inspector excavates a test hole to confirm the depth of the fill lift and the soil conditions. Confirtrting the soil conditions provides, confirmatory information to apply the appropriate proctor MDD, as well as provides the opportunity to observe any potentially irregular conditions that might exist during the direct transmission test. In this regard, the soil has been found to be relatively uniform with no significant variations encountered that would affect our test results or suggest an alternative method of testing is required. DEC -19-01 16=32 FROM; Mr. Robert G. Terry ILS=L:163649675 PAVE 719. TECTONIC N: 5 December 14, 2041 Item 4: Terry believes that performing sand cone tests and comparing them to the Troxier density gauge test results is a normal procedure. Confirmation testing using sand cone procedures is not typically implemented unless there is no explanation as to why a ;soil layer compacted at proper moisture content, with adequate passes of equipment, does not test out at the specified density evert though it usually looks acceptable. In this case, it was known that the moisture content was not proper and where density tests were low, the soil was visually not firm and yielding. Once moisture conditioning was implemented, density test results improved and the surface was then observed to be firm and unyielding. The desired compaction of 90% closely correlated with achieving a fimn and relatively unyielding condition for the CGM material. After using our suggestion regarding moisture content adjustment at the time of compaction. Teny has readily achieved an acceptable CGM installation condition. As a result, at this time, Tectonic does not consider the introduction of alternative testing methods to be warranted or needed. Item 5: Tent' indicates that Tectonic's judgment to use a gravel (oversize fraction correction is not cors�Terry also indicates that the Gas Venting Layer . material is passing 95% compaction with no water added or rolling (with a vibol ry roller). so the QGM should have gassed. Of the nine (9) soil samples tested by your laboratory, CGM-1 through CGM-9, four (4) representative samples were used by Tectonic to choose a Maximum Dry Density (MDD). Three (3) of these four (4) samples, CCM -5, CGM-8 and CGM-9, are representative of the 9 tests in that, on the average, they contain about 25% of the material by weight retained on the 3/4 inch sieve. The remaining sample, CGM-6, was used by us to represent cases where less gravel was found in the field so that we could assign a lower MDG, which would benefit you. -rhe procedure used by Tectonic and your laboratory for determining the appropriate criteria for an, oversize fraction or "gravel' correction according to the criteria of ASTM p 698 and ASTM D 47218 is explained as follows: 1. According to ASTM D 698, Section 1.3.3.5, Meftd C applies because more than 20% by weight is retained on the 318 inch sieve (all nine [91) samples) and less than 30% by weight is retained on the 3/4 inch sieve (eight [8] of the nine (9] samples). Method A and B cannot be used as the amounts retained on the No. 4 and No, 318 sieves are too high. 2. According to ASTM D 698, Section 1.4, "If the test specimen contains more than 5% by weight oversize fraction (coarse fraction) and the material will not be included in the test [refer to Section 1.3.3.3: Material — Passing 3/ inch sieve], corrections must be made to the unit weight and water content of the TECTONIC cM:?lJ G7nN1i r� Mr. Robert G. Terry 6 December 14, 2001 specimen or to the appropriate field in-place density test specimen using Practice D 4718." 3. According to ASTM D 698, Section 3.2.1, the oversize fraction (coarse fraction) is "...the portion of the total sample not used in the performing the compaction test; it may be the portion of the total sample retained on the No. 4 sieve (4,75 -mm), 3i8 -in. (9.6 -trim), or 31 -in. (19.0 -mm) sieve. By using Method C under D 688, as appropriate, the oversize fraction is that soil retained on the % inch sieve. 4. The oversize fraction (gravel) correction is thus performed relative to the coarse fraction that has more than 5% by weight retained on the 3/ -inch sieve in aocordance with ASTM D 4718, Per Section 1.3, if the coarse fraction is the 3/ inch sieve, the method is applicable, "... the practice [ASTM D 4718] is valid for materials having up to 30% oversize particles when the oversize fraction, is that portion retained on the YA--in. sieve." In summary, the procedure Indicated in Section 1.3 of ASTIR D 4718 is clear as to when the procedure is applicable. There are two separate, exclusive criteria stated for when the procedure is applicable. The first case mentioned is .for when the oversize or coarse fraction is that retained on a No. 4 sieve. In this case, the procedure is applicable for sail in which up to 40% of the material is retained on the No. 4 sieve. The second case is when the oversize fraction is that for which up to 30% of the oversize particles are retained a 3/ inch sieve. Per ASTM D 698, for each method, only one (1) particular sieve represents the oversize fraction. For Method C under ASTM D 698, the oversize (coarse) fraction is the '/ inch sieve. The criteria limiting the coarse fraction using the No. 4 sieve is not applicable, since Method C is the only method acceptable based on its gradation. Therefore, the second case of up to 30% of the soil retained on the % inch sieve is applicable. Terry and Universal testing are clearly incorrect in assuming that both criteria need to simultaneously apply In order for the procedure to be valid. In regards to the Gas venting Layer, the material Is screened of large particles and therefore poorly graded and as such has a rnuch lower maximum dry density, which at very low moisture contents (near zero) readily achieves 95% compaction. It should be noted the Gas venting Layer stockpile is a processed material. As a result, some of the material performance characteristics are different from the on-site native materials, such as the borrow area soils and the 17 -acre soil used for CMC. These native soils are not processed materials and as a result contain more gravel and are more well -graded, which is reflected by differences in their material behavior. TECTONIC ZZA'i4rrn Nt1 �GNr'1.i TANTS i?.: Mr. Robert G: Terry 7 December 14, 2001 Item 6: Terry indicates that the use of the 17 -acre CG11Ni materiel was never contemplated at the time of the bid, implying that this material is More difficult to compact.. As discussed under Item 1, the 17 -acre CGM material is similar to the borrow area soil. Therefore, no significant change in the procedures 'or efforts to achieve compaction of the CGM should exist. As a result, there is no justification of additional work or time. To assist Terry, Tectonic and Dvirka & Bartilucci agreed to lower the specification to 90% compaction to facilitate completion of the job and avoid unnecessary claims. in closing, Tectonic has made every reasonable effort to work with you and your laboratory to expedite your schedule. Terry is responsible for the means and methods of achieving the desired firm and unyielding condition of the CGM. Our interpretation of the test results, application of ASTivI standards, and . repeated requests to you to properly apply the needed combinations of compaction effort, lift thickness, and moisture control are all within the scope of standard and reasonable construction practice. Cour test data and chosen maximum dry density values have been soundly confirmed by our observations of what is required to bring the Contour Grading Material into a firm any unyielding state suitable to serve the intended design functions. If you -have any further questions, please contact Thomas Maher of Dvirka and Bardluc,ci or the undersigned. Sincerely., TECTONIC ENC3INEERING CCfJSULIAN TS t" /J,.ZL 'V� 'ZA'zJ Peter T. Sutherland, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer PT8/ G: 1geo13138\mrresptTerry8.doc cc: T. Maher, D&B �0 Dvirka nand o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 - 718-460-3634 Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@woddnet.att.nef Principals Nicholas J. Bamluoci, P.E. Henry J. Chkrpsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Wake Steven Fangmarm, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pylar, A ` Rudolph F cannwale Mr. Robert G. Terry a is Te Contracting& Materials, Inc. TTY David lass, E. David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merkkll:,, PE. 840 West Main Street - Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veit h, P. E. Riverhead, NY 11901 Charles J. wac hsmuth, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 19, 2001 Enclosed please find Tectonic Engineering Consultants' response to your letter dated December 7, 2001, regarding compaction testing. If you have any questions, either call Peter Sutherland or me. Very.kruly yours N K. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam cc: Peter Sutherland, Tectonic 01314\TFM01 aLTR-58.doc A DMSION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Y TECTONICENGINEERING CONSULTANTS P.C. P. O. Box 37, 70 Pleasant Hill Road Mountainville, New York 10953 Terry Contracting & Materials 840 West Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 ATTN: Mr. Robert G. Terry OFFICES: Cincinnati, OH Albany, NY Hartford, CT Cornwall, NY Northborough, MA W. Vernon, NY Richmond, VA (800) 829-6531 FAX: (845) 534-5999 www.tectonicengineering.com December 14, 2001 RE: W.O. #3138.01, COMPACTION TESTING TERRRY CONTRACTING & MATERIALS LETTER DATED 1217/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Dear Mr. Terry: At the request of Dvirka & Bartilucci, we are responding to your December 7, 2001 letter regarding compaction of the Contour Grading Material (CGM). As we understand it, Terry Contracting & Materials (Terry) is objecting to the percent compaction we have determined from our in-place density testing. The issues that Terry is raising are identified below followed by our response: Item 1: Terry indicates that their means and methods, as conditionally approved U our office (Tectonic Engineering), yield acceptable test results. As of the date of this letter response, using compaction criteria outlined in Tectonic's letter dated November 28, 2001; Terry is achieving acceptable compaction. We estimate that about 9 acres of CGM is complete of the approximately 13 acres of landfill footprint area that is covered by CGM. It is our understanding that Terry is potentially claiming extra work and time was required to compact the CGM. Terry should have been aware of the compaction requirements of the CGM obtained from the 17 -acre parcel. This is because the material originally planned for use as CGM was the borrow area soil, and the 17 -acre soil is similar. In fact, the 17 -acre CGM is immediately adjacent to the original proposed borrow area and both sites consist of undisturbed native soils. These two soils, in almost all instances, both classify as a coarse to fine sand with a little to some coarse to fine gravel and less than 2% fines. Terry was provided with extensive test results of the unprocessed borrow area soil in the Contract Documents (See Appendix B, "Results of Testing of On -Site Soil Stockpile and Borrow Area ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS -CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS An EMINEERM r' TECTONIC Co SULT,WSPC Mr. Robert G. Terry 2 December 14, 2001 Soil"). As a result, no change occurred that caused additional work or time; since the procedures to place, add moisture and provide compaction are essentially the same. We note that we have and are making every reasonable effort to work with Terry to assist in achieving the compaction required by the project specifications. The first of these efforts was made on August 27, 2001, at our suggestion. We worked with Terry to perform testing on test strips of the original borrow area soil to evaluate the ability of the materials to be placed and compacted with certain types of equipment that Terry provided. In order to achieve a firm and unyielding state with a minimum of 95% compaction, the material required water to be added to bring the moisture content to within 4% to 5%. We found this requirement of bringing the moisture to at least 4% to 5% was also needed with the similar 17 -acre CGM material. In mid-November, 2001, Terry indicated they were ready to have the 17 -acre CGM material tested. The material was not found to be in a firm and unyielding state. In-place density testing indicated compaction was in many cases in the mid to upper 80 percent range, which confirmed our visual observations that the soil layer was loose. Based on our observations and testing, the material was placed at a low moisture content of about 2%. We advised you of our opinion that water needed to be added. After adding water, at moisture contents of 4% to 5%, a firm and unyielding state of the soil layer was reached using the roller, resulting in an average compaction of about 90%. Our criteria were revised to allow 90% compaction in a further effort to work with you. The revised criteria are presented in our November 28, 2001 letter. Tectonic's November 28, 2001 letter allows the lowering of the project specification compaction requirement from 95% to 90% of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by ASTM D 698; provided certain criteria related to moisture control and the compaction effort are acceptable. This reduction of the requirement for compaction was made in good faith to allow Terry to provide a minimum effort required to reach an acceptable firm and unyielding state of the CGM and reduce the time required to complete the CGM work. As discussed above, a key criteria used in all our evaluations relating to acceptance of placed materials is visual confirmation that the material is placed in acceptable lift thicknesses, and compacted by making sufficient passes with compaction equipment to produce a firm and unyielding state. It is this observation, in conjunction with the compaction test results, which is used to evaluate final acceptability of placed materials and to lower the specification to 90%. It should be noted that our experience and a standard industry approach is to correlate the type of compaction equipment (weight), number of passes of the compaction equipment (e.g. vibratory rollers), lift thickness, and information regarding moisture control to determine if the soil is reaching an acceptable compaction state. This approach was always employed throughout the process of testing and evaluating the CGM placed by Terry. Further, the specifications require, EMINEERING TECTONIC CONSULAAMS P.C. Mr. Robert G. Terry 3 December 14, 2001 under Section 2.3(G)(1 0)(b) that "The prepared subgrade surface shall present a smooth, firm, unyielding, uniformly graded and compacted surface free of loose soil, ...n. This was only accomplished after Terry complied with, at a minimum, the criteria of our November 28, 2001 letter. Terry had previously indicated that they desired to place all the contour grading material over the full landfill surface and then wait for rain to compact the soil. As discussed in our letter dated November 21, 2001, we raised our concern that based on our experience and knowledge of soil behavior; soil best achieves compaction when the moisture content is adjusted near optimum at the time of compaction. We expressed our reservations but indicated we would test it when Terry was ready. Unfortunately, this approach of waiting for rain to compact the soil was not effective. Further, it caused delays because all the soil then needed the moisture content adjusted with additional compaction immediately following this adjustment. Terry has not provided the proper equipment to add water to the soil and has raised objections to doing so. However, adding water to achieve compaction is ordinary construction practice and is clearly contemplated in the contract documents under Section 2.3(G)(7)(h) which states: "The water content of fill material shall be controlled during placement within the range necessary to obtain the specified compaction. Contractor shall perform all necessary work to adjust the water content of the material to within the range necessary to permit adequate compaction." Considering this and other clear language regarding the need to actively control the moisture content and our cautioning against your original approach; we regret you now imply we are the cause of your delays. Item 2: Tent' indicates that we stated that we had to direct their laboratory (Universal Testing) in the correct methods to arrive at a meaningful proctor for the 17 -acre CGM. At your request and concurrence, we worked with your laboratory to expedite the Particle Size and Standard Proctor testing of the Contour Grading Material samples CG -1 through CG -9. These sample test results were submitted to us on November 19, 2001. According to the specifications, Terry should have submitted these pre - qualification test results for approval in advance of placing and requesting our in- place density testing of the CGM. (As of November 19, 2001, Terry had already placed all of the CGM and had already asked us to start testing this material as early as November 14, 2001). As discussed in our letter dated November 21, 2001, we indicated to your laboratory that we believed a gravel correction was required based on the soil particle size gradations of the nine samples (CG -1 through CG -9). Your laboratory indicated that an oversize particle correction had been performed. However, when we inquired directly with them as to whether they followed the ASTM D 4718 procedure, they indicated they had not. After explaining our interpretation to your laboratory that the ENGINEERNG TECTONIC CONSULA,NnPC. Mr. Robert G. Terry 4 December 14, 2001 Standard Proctor ASTM D 698 procedure indicates a gravel correction is required according to the ASTM D 4718 standard, Universal Testing choose to perform the gravel correction per the ASTM D 4718. It is incorrect that we requested Universal perform the proctors in a particular manner. It should be emphasized that throughout our conversations with Universal, it was made clear that we had no authority and did not intend to authorize work on you behalf. We simply were working with them and you to the greatest extent practical to avoid any further project delay caused by your late submittal of the test results. In this context, we let them know which of the nine samples we would like to see further proctor testing performed on; however, we never directed them as to how they should perform the testing. We regret that our willingness to work with you. and your laboratory has been misinterpreted in the manner you allege. Item 3: Terry reports that Troxler Electronic Laboratories feels their equipment would normally be operated in the "backscatter" mode because direct transmission may disturb aggregate and lower the density. First, in-place density test results have not been considered when there is any indication that coarse gravel is present as evidenced by resistance of the probe, which has seldom occurred. This is discussed in criteria 3 on Page 2 of our November 27, 2001 correspondence. In criteria 3, . we indicate that in certain instances compaction values may be low due to such factors as "...disturbance caused by the test probe," amongst a few other factors. In such cases, Tectonic has been quick to retest or accept a lower value. Again, this is indicative of our desire to be practical and work with you. In backscatter mode, the results are biased toward the surface. The surface of a poorly graded sand soil with very little fines being unconfined will typically not be fully densified. Therefore using the backscatter mode will produce results indicating lower densities. In addition,, the direct transmission mode has been found to accurately obtain in- place densities that can be used to calculate percent compaction. We note that our observations of the soil achieving a firm and relatively unyielding state, as discussed above under Item 1, have closely correlated with achieving an average of 90% compaction according to the criteria discussed in our November 28, 2001 letter. It should be noted that at each test location, our inspector excavates a test hole to confirm the depth of the fill lift and the soil conditions. Confirming the soil conditions provides confirmatory information to apply the appropriate proctor MDD, as well as provides the opportunity to observe any potentially irregular conditions that might exist during the direct transmission test. In this regard, the soil has been found to be relatively uniform with no significant variations encountered that would affect our test results or suggest an alternative method of testing is required. ENGING TECTONIC CONSULA/NTSBC Mr. Robert G. Terry 5 December 14, 2001 Item 4: Terry believes that performing sand cone tests and comparing them to the Troxler density gauge test results is a normal procedure. Confirmation testing using sand cone procedures is not typically implemented unless there is no explanation as to why a soil layer compacted at proper moisture content, with adequate passes of equipment, does not test out at the specified density even though it usually looks acceptable. In this case, it was known that the moisture content was not proper and where density tests were low, the soil was visually not firm and yielding. Once moisture conditioning was implemented, density test results improved and the surface was then observed to be firm and unyielding. The desired compaction of 90% closely correlated with achieving a firm and relatively unyielding condition for the CGM material. After using our suggestion regarding moisture content adjustment at. the time of compaction, Terry has readily achieved an acceptable CGM installation condition. As a result, at this time, Tectonic does not consider the introduction of alternative testing methods to be warranted or needed. Item 5: Terry indicates that Tectonic's judgment to use a gravel (oversize fraction) correction is not correct. Tent/ also indicates that the Gas Venting Layer material is passing 95% compaction with no water added or rolling (with a vibratory roller), so the CGM should have passed. Of the nine (9) soil samples tested by your laboratory, CGM-1 through CGM-9, four (4) representative samples were used by Tectonic to choose a Maximum Dry Density (MDD). Three (3) of these four (4) samples, CGM-5, CGM-8 and CGM-9, are representative of the 9 tests in that, on the average, they contain about 25% of the material by weight retained on the 3/ inch sieve. The remaining sample, CGM-6, was used by us to represent cases where less gravel was found in the field so that we could assign a lower MDD, which would benefit you. The procedure used by Tectonic and your laboratory for determining the appropriate criteria for an oversize fraction or "gravel" correction according to the criteria of ASTM D 698, and ASTM D 47218 is explained as follows: 1: According to ASTM D 698, Section 1.3.3.5, Method C applies because more than 20% by weight is retained on the 3/8 inch sieve (all nine [9]) samples) and less than 30% by weight is retained on the 3/ inch sieve (eight [8] of the nine [9] samples). Method A and 6 cannot be used as the amounts retained on the No. 4 and No. 3/8 sieves are too high. 2. According to ASTM D 698, Section 1.4, "If the test specimen contains more than 5% by weight oversize fraction (coarse fraction) and the material will not be included in the test [refer to Section 1.3.3.3: Material — Passing 3/ inch sieve], corrections must be made to the unit weight and water content of the TECTONICCONSUL AWS P.C. Mr. Robert G. Terry 6 December 14, 2001 specimen or to the appropriate field in-place density test specimen using Practice D 4718." 3. According to ASTM D 698, Section 3.2.1, the oversize fraction (coarse fraction) is "...the portion of the total sample not used in the performing the compaction test; it may be the portion of the total sample retained on the No. 4 sieve (4.75 -mm), 3/8 -in. (9.5 -mm), or 3/4 -in. (19.0 -mm) sieve. By using Method C under D 698, as appropriate, the oversize fraction is that soil retained on the % inch sieve. 4. The oversize fraction (gravel) correction is thus performed relative to the coarse fraction that has more than 5% by weight retained on the 3/4 -inch sieve in accordance with ASTM D 4718. Per Section 1.3, if the coarse fraction is the 3/ inch sieve, the method is applicable: "... the practice [ASTM D 4718] is valid for materials having up to 30% oversize particles when the oversize fraction is that portion retained on the 3/4in. sieve." In summary, the procedure indicated in Section 1.3 of ASTM D 4718 is clear as to when the procedure is applicable. There are two separate, exclusive criteria stated for when the procedure is applicable. The first case mentioned is for when the oversize or coarse fraction is that retained on a No. 4 sieve. In this case, the procedure is applicable for soil in which up to 40% of the material is retained on the No. 4 sieve. The second case is when the oversize fraction is that for which up to 30% of the oversize particles are retained a % inch sieve. Per ASTM D 698, for each method, only one (1) particular sieve represents the oversize fraction. For Method C under ASTM D 698, the oversize (coarse) fraction is the 3/ inch sieve. The criteria limiting the coarse fraction using the No. 4 sieve is not applicable, since Method C is the only method acceptable based on its gradation. Therefore, the second case of up to 30% of the soil retained on the 3/ inch sieve is applicable. Terry and Universal testing are clearly incorrect in assuming that both criteria need to simultaneously apply in order for the procedure to be valid. In regards to.the Gas Venting Layer, the material is screened of large particles and therefore poorly graded and as such has a much lower maximum dry density, which at very low moisture contents (near zero) readily achieves 95% compaction. It should be noted the Gas Venting Layer stockpile is a processed material. As a result, some of the material performance characteristics are different from the on-site native materials, such as the borrow area soils and the 17 -acre soil used for CMG. These native soils are not processed materials and as a result contain more gravel and are more well -graded, which is reflected by differences in their material behavior. TECTONIC CONSuEa'NPC. Mr. Robert G. Terry 7 December 14, 2001 Item 6: Terry indicates that the use of the 17 -acre CGM material was never contemplated at the time of the bid, implying that this material is more difficult to compact. As discussed under Item 1, the 17 -acre CGM material is similar to the borrow area soil. Therefore, no significant change in the procedures or efforts to achieve compaction of the CGM should exist. As a result, there is no justification of additional work or time. To assist Terry, Tectonic and Dvirka & Bartilucci agreed to lower the specification to 90% compaction to facilitate completion of the job and avoid unnecessary claims. In closing; Tectonic has made every reasonable effort to work with you and your laboratory to expedite your schedule. Terry is responsible for the means and methods of achieving the desired firm and unyielding condition of the CGM. Our interpretation of the test results, application of ASTM standards, and repeated requests to you to properly apply the needed combinations of compaction effort, lift thickness, and moisture control ate all within the scope of standard and reasonable construction practice. Our test data and chosen maximum dry density values have been soundly confirmed by our observations of what is required to bring the Contour Grading Material into a firm any unyielding state suitable to serve the intended design functions. If you have any further questions, please contact Thomas Maher of Dvirka and Bartilucci or the undersigned. Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS V Peter T. Sutherland, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer PTS/ GAgeo\3138\c orresp\Terty6.doc cc: T. Maher, D&B Senior Associates Dvirka Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. and 0 'and Joseph H. Marturano CONSULTING ENGINEERS Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. 5,16-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 ■ Fax: 516-364-9045 _ e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals p 040 West Main Street Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Riverhead NY 11901 Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. , Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P. E. Richard M. Walka Re: Southold Landfill Closure StevenA Fangmann, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Senior Associates December 19, 2001 Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Mr, Robert G. Terry, Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale p 040 West Main Street Joseph A. RE PE. Riverhead NY 11901 lass, David S. Glass, P.E. , William D. Merklin, P.E.. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, PE. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Charles J. Wachsmuth, RE. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: This letter is in response to your request today to substitute screened material from the 17 -acre parcel for the unscreened material presently being used for contour grading material (CGM). After giving this consideration, we have decided to continue the use of unscreened material from the 17 -acre parcel for CGM, unless you agree to the following conditions: 1. there will be.no charge to the Town for screening the material; and 2. that the stone generated from screening be removed from Towi3-.owned property at no cost to the Town. If you have any questions, please contact me. TFWtam cc: J. Bunchuck P.Sutherland C. Morris 01314\TFM 01 aLTR-5 83 . do c (R01) V truly s, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. December 19, 2001 Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Associates Rudolph F Cannavale Dvirka Joseph A. RE P.E. and 0 Bartilucci William D. Merklin, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Michael Neuberger, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Brian M. Veith, P.E. 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 - Fax: 516-364-9045 Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P. E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P. E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P. E. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. December 19, 2001 Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Associates Rudolph F Cannavale Mr. Robert G. Terry Joseph A. RE P.E. Terry Contracting& Materials, Inc. lass, David S. Glass, P.E. "J William D. Merklin, P.E. $40 West Main Street - Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: Enclosed please find Tectonic Engineering Consultants' response to your letter dated December 7, 2001, regarding compaction testing. If you have any questions, either call Peter Sutherland or me. Ve y yours Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam cc: Peter Sutherland, Tectonic 0 1314\TFMOI aLTR-58.doc A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. ENGINEERING TECTON/ C CONSULTAN S P.C. P. O. box 37, 70 Pleasant Hill Road Mountainville, New York 10953 Terry Contracting & Materials 840 West Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 ATTN: Mr. Robert G. Terry OFFICES: Cincinnati, OH Albany, NY Hartford, CT Cornwall, NY Northborough, MA Mt. Vernon, NY Richmond, VA (800)829-6531 FAX: (845) 534-5999 www.tectonicengineering.com December 14, 2001 RE: W.O. #3138.01, COMPACTION TESTING TERRRY CONTRACTING & MATERIALS LETTER DATED 12/7/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Dear Mr. Terry: At the request of Dvirka & Bartilucci, we are responding to your December 7, 2001 letter regarding compaction of the Contour Grading Material (CGM). As we understand it, Terry Contracting & Materials (Terry) is objecting to the percent compaction we have determined from our in-place density testing. The issues that Terry is raising are identified below followed by our response: Item 1: Terry indicates that their means and methods, as conditionally approved by our office (Tectonic Engineering), yield acceptable test results. As of the date of this letter response, using compaction criteria outlined in Tectonic's letter dated November 28, 2001; Terry is achieving acceptable compaction. We estimate that about 9 acres of CGM is complete of the approximately 13 acres of landfill footprint area that is covered by CGM. It is our understanding that Terry is potentially claiming extra work and time was required to compact the CGM. Terry should have been aware of the compaction requirements of the CGM obtained from the 17 -acre parcel. This is because the material originally planned for use as CGM was the borrow area soil, and the 17 -acre soil is similar. In fact, the 17 -acre CGM is immediately adjacent to the original proposed borrow area and both sites consist of undisturbed native soils. These two soils, in almost all instances, both classify as a coarse to fine sand with a little to some coarse to fine gravel and less than 2% fines. Terry was provided with extensive test results of the unprocessed borrow area soil in the Contract Documents (See Appendix B, "Results of Testing of On -Site Soil Stockpile and Borrow Area ENGINEERS *SURVEYORS- CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS An Equal Opportunity Employer ENGINEERING TECTONIC CONSULANSP.C. Mr. Robert G. Terry 2 December 14, 2001 Soil"). As a result, no change occurred that caused additional work or time; since the procedures to place, add moisture and provide compaction are essentially the same. We note that we have and are making every reasonable effort to work with Terry to assist in achieving the compaction required by the project specifications. The first of these efforts was made on August 27, 2001, at our suggestion. We worked with Terry to perform testing on test strips of the original borrow area soil to evaluate the ability of the materials to be placed and compacted with certain types of equipment that Terry provided. In order to achieve a firm and unyielding state with a minimum of 95% compaction, the material required water to be added to bring the moisture content to within 4% to 5%. We found this requirement of bringing the moisture to at least 4% to 5% was also needed with the similar 17 -acre CGM material. In mid-November, 2001, Terry indicated they were ready to have the 17 -acre CGM material tested. The material was not found to be in a firm and unyielding state. In-place density testing indicated compaction was in many cases in the mid to upper 80 percent range, which confirmed our visual observations that the soil layer was loose. Based on our observations and testing, the material was placed at a low moisture content of about 2%. We advised you of our opinion that water needed to be added. After adding water, at moisture contents of 4% to 5%, a firm and unyielding state of the soil layer was reached using the roller, resulting in an average compaction of about 90%. Our criteria were revised to allow 90% compaction in a further effort to work with you. The revised criteria are presented in our November 28, 2001 letter. Tectonic's November 28, 2001 letter allows the lowering of the project specification compaction requirement from 95% to 90% of the maximum dry density (MDD) as determined by ASTM D 698; provided certain criteria related to moisture control and the compaction effort are acceptable. This reduction of the requirement for compaction was made in good faith to allow Terry to provide a minimum effort required to reach an acceptable firm and unyielding state of the CGM and reduce the time required to complete the CGM work. As discussed above, a key criteria used in all our evaluations relating to acceptance of placed materials is visual confirmation that the material is placed in acceptable lift thicknesses, and compacted by making sufficient passes with compaction equipment to produce a firm and unyielding state. It is this observation, in conjunction with the compaction test results, which is used to evaluate final acceptability of placed materials and to lower the specification to 90%. It should be noted that our experience and a standard industry approach is to correlate the type of compaction equipment (weight), number of passes of the compaction equipment (e.g. vibratory rollers), lift thickness, and information regarding moisture control to determine if the soil is reaching an acceptable compaction state. This approach was always employed throughout the process of testing and evaluating the CGM placed by Terry. Further, the specifications require, ENGING TECTONIC CONSUL A,NTSP.C. Mr. Robert G. Terry 3 December 14, 2001 under Section 2.3(G)(10)(b) that "The prepared subgrade surface shall present a smooth, firm, unyielding, uniformly graded and compacted surface free of loose soil, ...". This was only accomplished after Terry complied with, at a minimum, the criteria of our November 28, 2001 letter. Terry had previously indicated that they desired to place all the contour grading material over the full landfill surface and then wait for rain to compact the soil. As discussed in our letter dated November 21, 2001, we raised our concern that based on our experience and knowledge of soil behavior; soil best achieves compaction when the moisture content is adjusted near optimum at the time of compaction. We expressed our reservations but indicated we would test it when Terry was ready. Unfortunately, this approach of waiting for rain to compact the soil was not effective. Further, it caused delays because all the soil then needed the moisture content adjusted with additional compaction immediately following this adjustment. Terry has not provided the proper equipment to add water to the soil and has raised objections to doing so. However, adding water to achieve compaction is ordinary construction practice and is clearly contemplated in the contract documents under Section 2.3(G)(7)(h) which states: "The water content of fill material shall be controlled during placement within the range necessary to obtain the specified compaction. Contractor shall perform all necessary work to adjust the water content of the material to within the range necessary to permit adequate compaction." Considering this and other clear language regarding the need to actively control the moisture content and our cautioning against your original approach; we regret you now imply we are the cause of your delays. Item 2: Terry indicates that we stated that we had to direct their laboratory (Universal Testing) in the correct methods to arrive at a meaningful proctor for the 17 -acre CGM. At your request and concurrence, we worked with your laboratory to expedite the Particle Size and Standard Proctor testing of the Contour Grading Material samples CG -1 through CG -9. These sample test results were submitted to us on November 19, 2001. According to the specifications, Terry should have submitted these pre - qualification test results for approval in advance of placing and requesting our in- place density testing of the CGM. (As of November 19, 2001, Terry had already placed all of the CGM and had already asked us to start testing this material as early as November 14, 2001). As discussed in our letter dated November 21, 2001, we indicated to your laboratory that we believed a gravel correction was required based on the soil particle size gradations of the nine samples (CG -1 through CG -9). Your laboratory indicated that an oversize particle correction had been performed. However, when we inquired directly with them as to whether they followed the ASTM D 4718 procedure, they indicated they had not. After explaining our interpretation to your laboratory that the NG TECTONIC CONSULTAINTSP.C. Mr. Robert G. Terry 4 December 14, 2001 Standard Proctor ASTM D 698 procedure indicates a gravel correction is required according to the ASTM D 4718 standard, Universal Testing choose to perform the gravel correction per the ASTM D 4718. It is incorrect that we requested Universal perform the proctors in a particular manner. It should be emphasized that throughout our conversations with Universal, it was made clear that we had no authority and did not intend to authorize work on you behalf. We simply were working with them and you to the greatest extent practical to avoid any further project delay caused by your late submittal of the test results. In this context, we let them know which of the nine samples we would like to see further proctor testing performed on; however, we never directed them as to how they should perform the testing. We regret that our willingness to work with you and your laboratory has been misinterpreted in the manner you allege. Item 3: Terry reports that Troxler Electronic Laboratories feels their equipment would normally be operated in the "backscatter" mode because direct transmission may disturb aggregate and lower the density. First, in-place density test results have not been considered when there is any indication that coarse gravel is present as evidenced by resistance of the probe, which has seldom occurred. This is discussed in criteria 3 on Page 2 of our November 27, 2001 correspondence. In criteria 3, we indicate that in certain instances compaction values may be low due to such factors as "...disturbance caused by the test probe," amongst a few other factors. In such cases, Tectonic has been quick to retest or accept a lower value. Again, this is indicative of our desire to be practical and work with you. In backscatter mode, the results are biased toward the surface. The surface of a poorly graded sand soil with very little fines being unconfined will typically not be fully densified. Therefore using the backscatter mode will produce results indicating lower densities. In addition, the direct transmission mode has been found to accurately obtain in- place densities that can be used to calculate percent compaction. We note that our observations of the soil achieving a firm and relatively unyielding state, as discussed above under Item 1, have closely correlated with achieving an average of 90% compaction according to the criteria discussed in our November 28, 2001 letter. It should be noted that at each test location, our inspector excavates a test hole to confirm the depth of the fill lift and the soil conditions. Confirming the soil conditions provides confirmatory information to apply the appropriate proctor MDD, as well as provides the opportunity to observe any potentially irregular conditions that might exist during the direct transmission test. In this regard, the soil has been found to be relatively uniform with no significant variations encountered that would affect our test results or suggest an alternative method of testing is required. NG TECTONIC CONSULA'NTSPC. Mr. Robert G. Terry 5 December 14, 2001 Item 4: Terry believes that performing sand cone tests and comparing them to the Troxler density gauge test results is a normal procedure. Confirmation testing using sand cone procedures is not typically implemented unless there is no explanation as to why a soil layer compacted at proper moisture content, with adequate passes of equipment, does not test out at the specified density even though it usually looks acceptable. In this case, it was known that the moisture content was not proper and where density tests were low, the soil was visually not firm and yielding. Once moisture conditioning was implemented, density test results improved and the surface was then observed to be firm and unyielding. The desired compaction of 90% closely correlated with achieving a firm and relatively unyielding condition for the CGM material. After using our suggestion regarding moisture content adjustment at the time of compaction, Terry has readily achieved an acceptable CGM installation condition. As a result, at this time, Tectonic does not consider the introduction of alternative testing methods to be warranted or needed. Item 5: Terry indicates that Tectonic's judgment to use a gravel (oversize fraction) correction is not correct. Tent' also indicates that the Gas Venting Layer material is passing 95% compaction with no water added or rolling (with a vibratory roller), so the CGM should have passed. Of the nine (9) soil samples tested by your laboratory, CGM-1 through CGM-9, four (4) representative samples were used by Tectonic to choose a Maximum Dry Density (MDD). Three (3) of these four (4) samples, CGM-5, CGM-8 and CGM-9, are representative of the 9 tests in that, on the average, they contain about 25% of the material by weight retained on the 3/ inch sieve. The remaining sample, CGM-6, was used by us to represent cases where less gravel was found in the field so that we could assign a lower MDD, which would benefit you. The procedure used by Tectonic and your laboratory for determining the appropriate criteria for an oversize fraction or "gravel" correction according to the criteria of ASTM D 698 and ASTM D 47218 is explained as follows: According to ASTM D 698, Section 1.3.3.5, Method C applies because more than 20% by weight is retained on the 3/8 inch sieve (all nine [9]) samples) and less than 30% by weight is retained on the 3/ inch sieve (eight [8] of the nine [9] samples). Method A and B cannot be used as the amounts retained on the No. 4 and No. 3/8 sieves are too high. 2. According to ASTM D 698, Section 1.4, "If the test specimen contains more than 5% by weight oversize fraction (coarse fraction) and the material will not be included in the test [refer to Section 1.3.3.3: Material — Passing 3/ inch sieve], corrections must be made to the unit weight and water content of the ENGINEENG TECTONIC CONSULTANTS PC. Mr. Robert G. Terry 6 December 14, 2001 specimen or to the appropriate field in-place density test specimen using Practice D 4718." 3. According to ASTM D 698, Section 3.2.1, the oversize fraction (coarse fraction) is "...the portion of the total sample not used in the performing the compaction test; it may be the portion of the total sample retained on the No. 4 sieve (4.75 -mm), 3/8 -in. (9.5 -mm), or 3/4 -in. (19.0 -mm) sieve. By using Method C under D 698, as appropriate, the oversize fraction is that soil retained on the 3/ inch sieve. 4. The oversize fraction (gravel) correction is thus performed relative to the coarse fraction that has more than 5% by weight retained on the 3/ -inch sieve in accordance with ASTM D 4718. Per Section 1.3, if the coarse fraction is the 3/ inch sieve, the method is applicable: "... the practice [ASTM D 4718] is valid for materials having up to 30% oversize particles when the oversize fraction is that portion retained on the 3/ -in. sieve." In summary, the procedure indicated in Section 1.3 of ASTM D 4718 is clear as to when the procedure is applicable. There are two separate, exclusive criteria stated for when the procedure is applicable. The first case mentioned is for when the oversize or coarse fraction is that retained on a No. 4 sieve. In this case, the procedure is applicable for soil in which up to 40% of the material is retained on the No. 4 sieve. The second case is when the oversize fraction is that for which up to 30% of the oversize particles are retained a 3/ inch sieve. Per ASTM D 698, for each method, only one (1) particular sieve represents the oversize fraction. For Method C under ASTM D 698, the oversize (coarse) fraction is the 3/ inch sieve. The criteria limiting the coarse fraction using the No. 4 sieve is not applicable, since Method C is the only method acceptable based on its gradation. Therefore, the second case of up to 30% of the soil retained on the % inch sieve is applicable. Terry and Universal testing are clearly incorrect in assuming that both criteria need to simultaneously apply in order for the procedure to be valid. In regards to the Gas Venting Layer, the material is screened of large particles and therefore poorly graded and as such has a much lower maximum dry density, which at very low moisture contents (near zero) readily achieves 95% compaction. It should be noted the Gas Venting Layer stockpile is a processed material. As a result, some of the material performance characteristics are different from the on-site native materials, such as the borrow area soils and the 17 -acre soil used for CMG. These native soils are not processed materials and as a result contain more gravel and are more well -graded, which is reflected by differences in their material behavior. ENGINEERING TECTONIC CONSULTANTS PC. Mr. Robert G. Terry 7 December 14, 2001 Item 6: Terry indicates that the use of the 17 -acre CGM material was never contemplated at the time of the bid, implying that this material is more difficult to compact. As discussed under Item 1, the 17 -acre CGM material is similar to the borrow area soil. Therefore, no significant change in the procedures or efforts to achieve compaction of the CGM should exist. As a result, there is no justification' of additional work or time. To assist Terry, Tectonic and Dvirka & Bartilucci agreed to lower the specification to 90% compaction to facilitate completion of the job and avoid unnecessary claims. In closing, Tectonic has made every reasonable effort to work with you and your laboratory to expedite your schedule. Terry is responsible for the means and methods of achieving the desired firm and unyielding condition of the CGM. Our interpretation of the test results, application of ASTM standards, and repeated requests to you to properly apply the needed combinations of compaction effort, lift thickness, and moisture control are all within the scope of standard and reasonable construction practice. Our test data and chosen maximum dry density values have been soundly confirmed by our observations of what is required to bring the Contour Grading Material into a firm any unyielding state suitable to serve the intended design functions. If you have any further questions, please contact Thomas Maher of Dvirka and Bartilucci or the undersigned. Sincerely, TECTONIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS V /, - o'— V- �..� Peter T. Sutherland, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer PTS/ GAge6\3138\corresp\Terry6.doc cc: T. Maher, D&B . Dvirka and O Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 - Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartiluooi, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, RE Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Mr. Robert G. Terry Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. 'ferry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. 840 West Main Street Associates Riverhead, NY 11901 Rudolph F. Cannavale Joseph A Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, RE. Re: Southold Landfill Closure William D. Merklin, P.E. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Submittals 6c, 7c and 8c Brian M. Veith, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. Dear Mr. Terry: December 19, 2001 We have reviewed submittals 6c - Geotextile Affidavit, 7c - Geotextile Data and Specifications and 8c - Geotextile Material and QC received in our office on December 18, 2001, with respect to the specifications. With regard to the pH resistance information provided in this submittal, the pH resistance of 3 to 12 does not meet the requirements of the specifications of a pH resistance of 2 to 12. As required by the specifications, the pH resistance data should have been provided in earlier submittals for our review and comment. The submittal has been stamped "approved as noted." Please do not hesitate to.contact me at (516) 364-9890 if you have any questions. yernruly , Thomas F. Maher, P.E. TFM/MWt/cmc Vice President cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric T. Howell J. Mulligan P. Sutherland M. Wright ♦ 1314TFMOIALTR-62.DOC A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. i Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. y p Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. December 18, 2001 Joseph H. Martu.rano Kenneth J: Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Dvirka d and OD Bartilucci David S. Glass, P.E. lass, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Wiliam D. Markin, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Michael Neuberger, P.E. 516-364-9890 • 718-460-3634 • Fax: 516-364-9045 Brian M. Veith, P.E. e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Re: Southold Landfill Closure Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Submittals 24 and 25 Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Thomas F. Maher, RE. Robert T Bums, P.E. Richard M. walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. y p Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. December 18, 2001 Joseph H. Martu.rano Kenneth J: Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. We have reviewed Submittals 24 — Type I Geotextile Roll Certifications and 25 — Type I Geotextile QC Certifications received in our office on October 31, 2001. We have reviewed the submittals with respect to the requirements of the Specifications for the above referenced project. Our comments are as follows:, 1. The Contractor shall certify that the geotextile material was transported to the site without damage. 2. The roll numbers listed on the certification do not exactly correspond with the roll numbers provided on test results page. For example, roll numbers A533218A and A533273A are missing from the test results page and roll number A533528A is included on the test results page, but missing from the certification. of roll numbers listed on the certification is 21. The total number listed on the test results page is 20. If 21 rolls were delivered additional test information will need to be provided. 3. The value for pH resistance should be provided on the certification. 4. The test results page should include units for the testing. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM' F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. The total number of roll numbers to the site, then Timothy Howell Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Joseph A. RE P.E. 840 West Main Street O David S. Glass, P.E. lass, Wiliam D. Markin, P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. wachsmuth, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Submittals 24 and 25 D&B No. 1314 .Dear Mr. Howell: We have reviewed Submittals 24 — Type I Geotextile Roll Certifications and 25 — Type I Geotextile QC Certifications received in our office on October 31, 2001. We have reviewed the submittals with respect to the requirements of the Specifications for the above referenced project. Our comments are as follows:, 1. The Contractor shall certify that the geotextile material was transported to the site without damage. 2. The roll numbers listed on the certification do not exactly correspond with the roll numbers provided on test results page. For example, roll numbers A533218A and A533273A are missing from the test results page and roll number A533528A is included on the test results page, but missing from the certification. of roll numbers listed on the certification is 21. The total number listed on the test results page is 20. If 21 rolls were delivered additional test information will need to be provided. 3. The value for pH resistance should be provided on the certification. 4. The test results page should include units for the testing. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM' F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. The total number of roll numbers to the site, then Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Timothy Howell Page Two Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 18, 2001 The submittal has been stamped "revise and resubmit." Please do not hesitate to contact me at (516) 364-9890 if you have any questions. Very truly you Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric R. Terry P. Sutherland J. Mulligan 01314/TFMO I ALTR. doc-55 Dv i rka anand o . Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-3649890 ■ 718-460-3634 ■ Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka StevenA Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Rudolp udolp� Rh F. Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, P. E. Riverhead, NY 11901 David S. Glass, P.E. William D. Merklin, P.E. Michael Neuberger, PE. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. Submittal 29 D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 17, 2001 We have reviewed the submittal stamped as follows: Submittal 29 - 60 mil HDPE Geomembrane Roll Certifications. The submittal was received on December 3, 2001, and in accordance with your stamp has been reviewed with respect to the requirements of Section 4.3.F.l.i of the Specifications for the above -referenced project. With respect to the Geomembrane Resin,} Chevron Philips has provided resin manufacturing information that includes the Density (ASTM D 1505) and Meltflow Index (ASTM D 1238), per the Specifications, in their letters dated December 11, 2001 (Revised Copy). This resin certification is provided for the two batches (blends) of resins used to produce the certified Geomembrane rolls delivered to the project site. Based on verbal clarification from Poly -Flex's dealer sales representative, Lou Jackson, the Melt Index results for Resin Blend 8210816 and 8210102 of 0.070 G/10 MIN and 0.060 G/10 MIN, respectively, represent the test required by the specifications (ASTM D 1238, Condition E [190 Celsius, 2.16 kg]). We require that this information be confirmed in writing and provided to our attention. With respect to the Geomembrane Roll Certification, Poly -Flex's letter dated. December 11, 2001, certifies that the remaining geomembrane properties required by the Specifications, but not included in the roll certification testing data, meet project Specifications. This letter has been added to the submittal. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 17, 2001 Page Two The submittal has been stamped "approved as noted." The submittal now includes the additional letters provided to us by Poly -Flex dated December 11, 2001. The approval is contingent upon receipt of formal confirmation and certification of the above Melt Index results. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (5.16) 364-9890 if you have any questions. Ve truly yours, 1"_4Ix Thomas F Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/MW(t)/ajm cc: I. Sikiric T. Howell J. Mulligan P. Sutherland M. Wright ♦ 1314\TFM01 aLTR-53.doc(R01) Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F Koehler, P.E. December 131 2001 Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Dvi rka Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale and JosepDavid RE P.E. Bartilucci S. lass, David S. Glass, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Wlliam D. Merklin, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Michael Neuberger, P.E. 516-3649890 ■ 718-460-3634 ■ Fax: 516-364-9045 Brian M. Veith, P.E. e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Re: Southold Landfill Closure Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F Koehler, P.E. December 131 2001 Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. As requested at the Progress Meeting today, enclosed please find a copy of the status of submissions, which should be up to date as of yesterday. If you have any questions or comments on this, please call me as soon as possible. TFM/tam Enclosure cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric C. Morris 01314/ITMOILTRdoc-52 Very truly yours, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Robert G. Terry Associates Rudolph F. Cannavale Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. JosepDavid RE P.E. 840 West Main Street S. lass, David S. Glass, P.E. Wlliam D. Merklin, P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmulh, PE. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: As requested at the Progress Meeting today, enclosed please find a copy of the status of submissions, which should be up to date as of yesterday. If you have any questions or comments on this, please call me as soon as possible. TFM/tam Enclosure cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric C. Morris 01314/ITMOILTRdoc-52 Very truly yours, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SHOP DRAWING SUBMISSION CHART PROJECT NAME: Southold Landfill CONTRACT NO: 2000 CONTRACTOR: Terry Contracting ENGINEER: Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers FILENAME: submittallist.xls JOB NUMBER: 1314 PREPARED BY: Maria Wright LEGEND: A = APPROVED AAN = APPROVED AS NOTED R/R = REVISE AND RESUBMIT D = DISAPPROVED RBNAT = RECEIVED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN • = ON HOLD PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FILENAME:1445FN.WK4 PAGE NUMBER: 1 of 3 STATUS DATE: 12/13/01 NO. NAME OF SUBMITTAL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION OF SUBMISSION DATE SUBMITTED DATE RETURNED TO ENGINEER TO CONTRACTOR (FIRST SUBMISSION) (FIRST SUBMISSION) DATE COPIES DATE COPIES ACTION TAKEN COPY TO FIELD /N FURTHER DESCRIPTION 1 Initial Survey LKMA prints 07/24/01 4 Aerial Photograph LKMA photoqraph 07/24/01 1 AutoCAD Survey CD LKMA CD 07/24/01 1 2 Geocomposite Specifications SKAPS Industries GBC and sample 07/24/01 10 08/07/01 3 RIR N TNS Advanced Technologies 2a Geocomposite Specifications Chenango Letter and attachments 08/30/01 5 9/12/01 0 AAN N Contingent upon the results of the interface friction Contracting, Inc, testing 2b Geocomposite Specifications CCI GBC 11/13 4 11/19 1 AAN N 3 Geomembrane Installer Specs Chenango GBC 07/24/01 10 08/06/01 3 AAN N Contracting, Inc. seam samples 3 seam destructive 10 sample log 3a Geomembrane Installer Specs CCI GBC 11/13 4 11/19 1 AAN N 4 Geomembrane Manufacturer Specs Poly -Flex, Inc. 3 ring -binder 07/24/01 2 08/06/01 3 RIR N GBC 8 samples 10 4a lGeomembrane Manufacturer Specs Poly -Flex, Inc. Letter and attachment 08/30/01 5 9/12/01 0 AAN N Contingent on results of the interface friction tests 4a Geomembrane Manufacturer Specs Poly -Flex, Inc. Letter and attachment 08/30/01 5 11/1/01 7 0 AAN N Request revisions based on results of IFTs 4b Geomembrane Manufacturer Specs Poly -Flex, Inc. Letter and attachment 11/13/01 4 11/19 1 A N LEGEND: A = APPROVED AAN = APPROVED AS NOTED R/R = REVISE AND RESUBMIT D = DISAPPROVED RBNAT = RECEIVED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN • = ON HOLD PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FILENAME:1445FN.WK4 PAGE NUMBER: 1 of 3 STATUS DATE: 12/13/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SHOP DRAWING SUBMISSION CHART NO. NAME OF SUBMITTAL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION OF SUBMISSION DATE SUBMITTED DATE RETURNED TO ENGINEER TO CONTRACTOR (FIRST SUBMISSION) (FIRST SUBMISSION) DATE COPIES DATE COPIES ACTION TAKEN COPY TO FIELD Y/N FURTHER DESCRIPTION 5 Geomembrane Prequalifications; Poly -Flex, Inc. 3 ring -binder 07/24/01 2 08106/01 1 3 R/R N GBC 8 samples 10 5a Geomembrane Prequalifications; Poly -Flex, Inc. Letter and attachment 08/30/01 5 09/12/01 0 AAN N Contingent on results of the interface friction tests 5a Geomembrane Prequalifications Poly -Flex, Inc. Letter and attachment 08/30/01 5 11/1/01 0 AAN N Request revision based on results of IFT's 5b Geomembrane Prequalifications Poly -Flex, Inc. Letter and attachment 11/13/01 4 11/19 1 A 6 Geotextile Affidavit 51 'Geotextile Solution stapled documents 07/26/01 8 08/06/01 3 R/R N 6a Geotextile Affidavit 31 e Geotextile solution Clipped documents 8117/01 5 10125/01 0 R/R N 6b Geotextile Affidavit 1 e Geotextile Solutioni Clipped documents 11/1/01 5 11/12 3 R/R N 7 Geotextile Data and Specifications 1 e Geotextile Solution stapled documents 07/26/01 8 08/06/01 3 R/R N 7a Geotextile Data and Specifications 310 Geotextile Solution Clipped documents 8/17/01 5 10/25/01 0 R/R N 7b Geotextile Data and Specifications 3I-Geotextile Solution Clipped documents 11/1/01 5 11/12/01 3 R/R N 8 Geotextile Material and QC 31 e Geotextile Solution stapled documents 07/26/01 8 08/06/01 3 R/R N 8a Geotextile Material and QC SI 'Geotextile Solution Clipped documents 8/17/01 5 10125/01 0 R/R N 8b Geotextile Material and QC 1 Geotextile Solution Clipped documents 11/1/01 5 11/12/01 3 R/R N 9 Schedule of Submittals Terry Contracting stapled schedule 07/26/01 1 09/12/01 0 R/R N Materials, Inc. 9a Schedule of Submittals Terry Contracting stapled schedule 10/10/01 1 10/18/01 0 R/R N Materials, Inc. 9b Schedule of Submittals 10/23/01 1 10/29/01 1 A Y 10 Weekly Construction Schedule 11 Weekly Construction Schedule LEGEND: A = APPROVED AAN = APPROVED AS NOTED R/R = REVISE AND RESUBMIT D = DISAPPROVED RBNAT = RECEIVED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN • = ON HOLD PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FILENAME:1445FN.WK4 PAGE NUMBER: 2 of 3 STATUS DATE: 12/13/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SHOP DRAWING SUBMISSION CHART NO. NAME OF SUBMITTAL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION OF SUBMISSION DATE SUBMITTED DATE RETURNED TO ENGINEER TO CONTRACTOR (FIRST SUBMISSION) (FIRST SUBMISSION) DATE COPIES DATE COPIES ACTION TAKEN COPY FURTHER DESCRIPTION TO FIELD 12 Construction Control Grid Terry Contracting 8 5 drawings and 08/06/01 1 Materials, Inc, zip disk with autocad file 13 Weekly Construction Schedule 14 Weekly Construction Schedule 15 Weekly Construction Schedule 16 Geomembrane Preconstruction Chenango Two reproducible 08/30/01 5 9/12 0 AAN No Submittal Contracting, Inc. drawings and electronic format and letter with attachments 16a Geomembrane Preconstruciton letter with 11/13 4 11/19 1 AAN No Submittal attachments 17 Proposed Non -Potable Water Supply Wel Casola Well letter with attachment 10/03/01 1 10/5101 1 AAN No Required to submit 4 copies -for approval Construction Methods Drilling, Inc. 18 Scheudle of Values Te Contracting Table 10/04/01 1 10/8/01 0 R/R No Materials, Inc. 18a Scheudle of Values 10/15/01 1 10/18/01 0 AAN No LEGEND: A = APPROVED AAN = APPROVED AS NOTED R/R = REVISED AND RESUBMIT D = DISAPPROVED RBNAT = RECEIVED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN ' = ON HOLD PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FILENAME:1445FN.WK4 PAGE NUMBER: 3 of 3 STATUS DATE: 12/13/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SHOP DRAWING SUBMISSION CHART NO. NAME OF SUBMITTAL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION OF SUBMISSION DATE SUBMITTED DATE RETURNED TO ENGINEER TO CONTRACTOR (FIRST SUBMISSION) (FIRST SUBMISSION) DATE COPIES DATE COPIES ACTION TAKEN COPY FURTHER DESCRIPTION TO FIELD 19 Friction Angle Testing Results IT/EMCON Grain Size Distribution 10/16/01 5 11/26 0 AAN N Test Report and Proctor Test Report 20 Landfill Gas Vent Pie Harvel Plastics, Inc Letter, Specs and 10/17/01 5 10/22/01 0 A N Plastinetics, Inc. Drawings Titan Industries Inc. 21 List of Subcontractors Terry Contracting Letter 10/23/01 1 10/24/01 0 AAN N Materials Inc. 22 ListofSuppliers Terry Contracting Letter 10/23/01 1 10/24/01 0 AAN N Materials, Inc. 23 Source Approval - Gravel Fill Terry Contracting Letter and test 10/25/01 1 11/12 1 A N Materials, Inc. results 24 Type I Geotextile Roll Certifications GI Solutions Letter and test 10/31/01 5 Need comments from Tectonics results 25 Type I Geotextile QC Certification GI Solutions Letter and test 10/31/01 5 Need comments from Tectonics results LEGEND: A =APPROVED AAN = APPROVED AS NOTED R/R = REVISED AND RESUBMIT D = DISAPPROVED RBNAT = RECEIVED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN . = ON HOLD PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FILENAME:1445FN.WK4 PAGE NUMBER: 4 of 3 STATUS DATE: 12/13/01 SOUTHOLD LANDFILL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION - SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE SHOP DRAWING SUBMISSION CHART NO. NAME OF SUBMITTAL MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION OF SUBMISSION DATE SUBMITTED DATE RETURNED TO ENGINEER TO CONTRACTOR (FIRST SUBMISSION) (FIRST SUBMISSION) DATE COPIES DATE COPIES ACTION TAKEN COPY FURTHER DESCRIPTION TO FIELD 26 CHDPE Drainage Pipe Specifications Hancor, Inc. two page stapled 11/2/01 5 11/12 1 R/R N copies of specs 27 Pre -cast concrete Specifications Coastal Pipeline Letter and drawings 11/7/01 5 11/19 0 R/R N 28 List of Proposed Or -equals Curlex I Letter and 11/07/01 5 11/12 1 D N specifications 29 60 mil HDPE Geomembrane Roll Certs Poly -Flex, Inc. Tables and,letters 12/2 5 Awaiting comments from Tectonics LEGEND: A = APPROVED AAN = APPROVED AS NOTED R/R = REVISED AND RESUBMIT D = DISAPPROVED RBNAT = RECEIVED BUT NO ACTION TAKEN . = ON HOLD PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FILENAME:1445FN.WK4 PAGE NUMBER: 5 of 3 STATUS DATE: 12/13/01 Senior Associates Dvi rka d and oD Bartilucci Joseph H. Marturaho CONSULTINGENGINEERS Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr' 516-364-9890 • 718-460-3634 - Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals 840 West Main Street Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa. P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 Thomas F. Maher, P.E. RobertT Bums, RE. Richard M. Walka Re: Southold Landfill Closure Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates December 12, 2001 Anthony 0. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturaho Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr' Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Associates 840 West Main Street Rudolph F. Cannavale Joseph A. RE P.E. Riverhead, NY 11901 David S. Glass, P.E. lass, William D. Merklih, RE. Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Charles J. Wachsmuth, RE. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: We have reviewed the Top of Contour Grading Material Plan (South-West End) Certification Drawing dated December 11, 2001, prepared by LKMA. As discussed, the grades on both the top of the east and west mounds on the western half of the landfill, in particular the east mound, appear to be too shallow. On the west mound, it appears that the subgrade elevation should be brought up to about 62 feet to achieve the required 4% minimum slope. On the east mound, it appears that the subgrade elevation should be brought up to about 68 feet and that the grades be adjusted to the south to achieve a more uniform slope to grade elevation 63 feet, similar to that between 63 and 56 feet, again at a minimum 4% slope. Also as discussed, in acknowledging the need to adjust the grades, you requested that the subgrade not be adjusted, but that the necessary adjustments would be made with the gas venting layer, to which I agreed. However, please be aware that the proper grades must be demonstrated to us prior to placement of the liner, which would best be achieved by a topographic survey of the gas venting layer after, compaction. Any liner placed without verifying the required grades will be at your risk. If the grades are shown not to 'be correct after installation of the liner, the liner will need to be removed and the gas venting layer properly adjusted. Also, any additional gas venting layer in excess of 12 inches to achieve the proper grade will be at no cost to the Town. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 12, 2001 If you have any questions with regard to this letter, please contact me. Very truly yours, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam cc: J. Bunchuck I. Sikiric P. Sutherland C. Morris 01314/rFM01 LTR.doc-47 Page Two Dvirka anand o Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-3649890 ■ 718460-3634 - Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P. E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Robert G. Te rry Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Associates Riverhead,NY Riverhead NY 11901 Rudolph F. Cannavale A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. William D. McNin, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Michael Neuberger, P.E. Schedule of Submittals Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmuth, RE. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: December 12, 2001 We have reviewed the revised Schedule of Submittals dated October 22, 2001. Several submittals, which according to your schedule are due prior to today's date, have not been received. The submittals that are currently past due include: • Potable Water Supply Source II • Contour Grading Material, General Fill - construction test results- western hill. • Gas Venting Layer- construction test results - western hill. • Geocomposite Drainage Layer- manufacturer's affidavit. • Geocomposite Drainage Layer - roll certification. • Abandon Existing Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells - overdrilling methods, depths of existing wells and depths of boreholes. • New Landfill Gas Monitoring Wells - site approval and well construction logs. • Abandon Existing Groundwater Monitoring Wells - overdrilling methods, depths of existing wells and depths of boreholes. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. 17 Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Robert G. Terry Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 12, 2001 Page Two • Drainage Pipe, Inlet/Outlet Structures, Stilling Basins, Manholes . - material certifications, .shop drawings - concrete reinforcement, steel producer's certification, shop drawings - cast in place installations, material specifications and handling procedures, brick, block and accessory samples. • Electrical Service - shop drawings pertaining to disconnecting and installing the electrical and telephone service to the siren. In addition, resubmittal of Submittals 6b, 7b and 8b with respect to the geotextile is still pending. We are awaiting arrival of these submittals, please contact us with revised submittal dates. Ve truly yours, Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/MW(t)/ld cc: J. Bunchuck T. Howell I. Sikiric J. Mulligan P. Sutherland M. Wright ♦ 1314\TFM01ALTR-49.D0C Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano December 11, 2001 Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Associates Mr. Robert G. Terry Rudolph F Cannavale Dvi rka Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. 840 west Main, Street William D. P.E. and 0 D Baftilucci Brian M. Veith, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Charles J.1Nachsmuth, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-ting@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano December 11, 2001 Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Associates Mr. Robert G. Terry Rudolph F Cannavale Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. 840 west Main, Street William D. P.E. Riverhead NY 11901 Michael Neuberger, r, P.E. , Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J.1Nachsmuth, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: As requested, enclosed please find a cross-section illustrating construction of the cap anchor trench in the vicinity of Recharge Basin No. 2. If you have any questions or comments, please call me as soon as possible. TFM/tam cc:/encl: J. Bunchuck P. Sutherland C. Morris 01314\TFMOIALTR-44.DOC Ve ruly yours, CAH Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. svopt 33� GE RECNr� 2 epS�N Nay. � EXISTING NATURAL SOIL OR PROVIDE GENERAL FILL AS NEEDED 8'-0" - 11'-0" SWALE WIDTH 14•-0" SECTION A CROSS =SECTION OF RECHARGE BASIN ' 2 AND DRAINGE SWALE N.T.S. UNAIAHOR12ED ALTERATIDN OR ADDITION TO M DOCUMENT B A VIOIATM OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YM STATE EDUCATION M Try. �f I�. DVra Aro eARTLUM CONSULTING ENGINEERS A DINSION OF TM.UAY F. C06UUCN ASSOC ENLARGE PARTIAL PLAN OF RECHARGE BASIN NO. 2 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 131• SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE DECEMM 2001 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION } a.. AS NOTED P.C. vA Iry ,- ails MCA lie]MOR ��►����� [.*511 1 lose .,...... .,. wl, swelf- �. mo • , A 1�7�] ENLARGE PARTIAL PLAN OF RECHARGE BASIN NO. 2 SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 131• SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CLOSURE DECEMM 2001 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION } a.. AS NOTED P.C. r Senior Associates Dvirka d !oDCONSULTING and Dennis F Koehler, P.E. Baftilucci Joseph H. Marturano ENGINEERS Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 Theodore S. Pytiar, Jr. 516-364-9890 - 718-460-3634 e Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.aft.net Principal Town of Southold Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. 53095 Main Road Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Southold, NY 11971 Robert T Bums, P. E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P. E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Senior Associates December 11, 2001 Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Theodore S. Pytiar, Jr. James Bunchuck Solid Waste Coordinator Associates ' Rudolph F. Cannavale Town of Southold Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. 53095 Main Road David S. Glass, RE. William D. Merklin, P.E. Southold, NY 11971 Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure D&B No., 13,14 Dear Mi. Buh'c7hi!c'k--.'7' Provided the vehicle wash down facility and fire hydrant at the landfill, and provide well capacity of 5.00 gallons per minute to meet the requireiiientsof the Cutcho'gu"e 'r"ir":eDepartment: The scope of work includes the following: • Determine/redesign depth of the well, well diameter and screen length to provide increased well capacity from 350 to 500 gpm. • Prepare detail drawings of the well, vault for a hydropneumatic tank, electric controls, 041/water separator and leaching pools. 0 Prepare a site drawing showing the location of piping, hydrant, valves, wash down pad, oil/water separator, leaching pools, etc. 0 Prepare drawings fortheelectric serviice'to'the well pump and controls. 9 _Y_i Review shop drawings for conformance to the specifications. '.-Prepare submittal of changes to NYSDEC, and discussion of changes with DEC and Terry Contracting & Materials. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS James Bunchuck Page Two Solid Waste Coordinator Town of Southold December 11, 2001 • Prepare Change Order and discuss cost of change with Terry. The budget for this work is the following: Title Hours Hourly Rate Salary Cost Principal 8 $58.00 $ 464 Senior Design Engineer 64 40.00 2,560 Design Engineer 40 20.20 808 Electrical Engineer 48 36.00 1,728 Drafter/CARD Operator 40 16.00 680 $ 6,200 Overhead and Profit 11,470 Total $17,670 If you have any questions with regard to this letter or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly you s Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam 01314\TFM01 ALTR-45. D O C (R01) Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: Enclosed please find three (3) original copies of the above referenced Field Order and Change Orders. These Orders pertain to the following: • Field Order No. 2 — Change in construction of Gas Migration Control Trenches • Change Order No. 5 — Deletion of Geotextile—Type I between the subgrade and gas venting layer • Change Order No. 6 — Increase in the quantity of Landfill Gas Vents • Change Order No. 7 — Change in construction of landfill roadways • Change Order No. 9 — Spreading of Greenport pond material on landfill. (Note that Change Order No. 8 will be for the redesign of the storm water management system to route storm water from Recharge Basin No. 4 to Recharge Basin No. 3.) These Orders have been signed by me and are being forwarded to you for your signature. After you have signed each of the three (3) copies of these Orders, please return all copies to me. I will then forward the copies to Mr. James Bunchuck for his signature and will return one fully executed copy to you. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvi rka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS 330 Crossways Park Drive, Woodbury, New York, 11797-2015 516-364-9890 ■ 718-460-3634 Fax: 516-364-9045 e-mail: db-eng@worldnet.att.net Principals Nicholas J. Bartilucci, P.E. Henry J. Chlupsa, P.E. Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Robert T. Bums, P.E. Richard M. Walka Steven A. Fangmann, P.E. December 10, 2001 Senior Associates Anthony O. Conetta, P.E. Dennis F. Koehler, P.E. Joseph H. Marturano Kenneth J. Pritchard, P.E. Robert G. Terry Theodore S. Pytlar, Jr. Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. 840 West Main Street Associates Riverhead, NY 11901 Rudolph F Cannavale Joseph A. Fioraliso, P.E. David S. Glass, P.E. Wlliam D. Merklin, P.E. Re: Southold Landfill Closure Michael Neuberger, P.E. Brian M. Veith, P.E. Field Order No. 2 and Change Orders No. 5, 6, 7 and 9 Charles J. Wachsmuth, P.E. D&B No. 1314 Dear Mr. Terry: Enclosed please find three (3) original copies of the above referenced Field Order and Change Orders. These Orders pertain to the following: • Field Order No. 2 — Change in construction of Gas Migration Control Trenches • Change Order No. 5 — Deletion of Geotextile—Type I between the subgrade and gas venting layer • Change Order No. 6 — Increase in the quantity of Landfill Gas Vents • Change Order No. 7 — Change in construction of landfill roadways • Change Order No. 9 — Spreading of Greenport pond material on landfill. (Note that Change Order No. 8 will be for the redesign of the storm water management system to route storm water from Recharge Basin No. 4 to Recharge Basin No. 3.) These Orders have been signed by me and are being forwarded to you for your signature. After you have signed each of the three (3) copies of these Orders, please return all copies to me. I will then forward the copies to Mr. James Bunchuck for his signature and will return one fully executed copy to you. A DIVISION OF WILLIAM F. COSULICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Dvirka and Bartilucci CONSULTING ENGINEERS Mr. Robert G. Terry Page Two Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc. December 10, 2001 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, ��4'rx/PG-�� Thomas F. Maher, P.E. Vice President TFM/tam Enclosures cc: J. Bunchuck, Town of Southold C. Morris, D&B 01314/rFM01LTR.doc 41 NOV-28-00 19-09 FROM= ID: 5 1 6 384904 5 PACE 1/2 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information in this fax is intended for the named recipients only It may contain privileged and confidential f Dv i rka matter. If you have received this fax in error, please I notify us immediately by a collect telephone call to (516) and 364-9890 and return the original to the sender by mail. • * • We will reimburse you for postage- Do not disclose the C-- ) Ba rtf' u cc contents to alone. Thank- ou. CONSULTING E14GINEERS � — — - - 330 Crossways P irk Drive, Woodbury, New York, '11797-2015 516.364-9890 ­ Fax:: 516.364-9045 D&B FAX NO: (516) 364 — 9045 COMPANY NAME: Town of Southold ATTENTION: Jim Bunrltuck FAX NO.: 631-734-7976 FROM: Dave Glass DATE: November 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Addendum -No. 4 _ JOB#: NO. OF PAGM Two _ ---- (includ;ily cover sheet) MESSAGE: Jim — Enolosed please find draft Addendum No. 4. please: left me know -if you have any comments as soon as possible so we ran fax to all d0C-U hent holders Wednesday morning, Thank you, Dave A DIVISION Or WILLIAM F. COSUL ICH ASSOCIATES, P.C. Mov-2.8-00 19:09 FROM: 113:5163649045 PACE. 2!? - . �* TOWW OF SOL MOLD SUFFOLK COIJTNTY, NEjV YORK SOUTHOLD LANDFILL CL.OSILW CONTRACT NO, 2000 -- GENERAL CONSTRUCTION A DDENDL 11 -1 NO.4 NOVEMBER 29, 2000 THIS ADDFND(TIw.I CONSISTS OF 1 PAGE ,SND NO ATTACHMENTS TO ALL BID.DEI? S: 'Mis addendum is hereby made pm of the Specifications and Contract Documents. GENERAL ftij"OR�MATiO: The bid due date has been extended, A neNv bid date has not yet been established but is currentl!/ anticipated to be. on or around fanuary 29, 2001. An additional addendii-m will be issue,,) when the new date is Established. The extension is required because arrangements bettiveen L.IPA and the Town of Southold for relocation of the existing electric utility touters at the landfill have not been finalized. Please acknoA,,Iedge the receipt of this addendum by signing below and returninff immediately to the offices of Dvirka and Bartilued Consulting Engineers, 330 Crossu-ays Park Drive, �'�-oodbury New York 11797-.2.015 Attention: David S. Glass or by telecopier ( I6) 364.3418. Bidder: fay. Date: SOUTHOLD LANDFU,L CLOSURE .4DDE.NDUM NO. 4 RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED Legal Name of Person, P:1mership, Joint Venture or Corporatiort 'Na and 'T'itle 6CKEQLVLE._L')GFMENT IS tNL,O REQ 1IREsDON PAGE L 1 C>F 1 Ib Page 1 of 1 H tds��,Sout?10?d �iidCllCltlltl r�0. =�.C?UC