City Commission Worksession Agenda 09-10-2007

View the PDF version Google Docs PDF Viewer

                        City of Muskegon
                  City Commission Worksession
                       September 10, 2007
                            5:30 p.m.
                   City Commission Chambers

                                AGENDA



1. Ward IV Vacancy.

2. 2008 Budget.

3. National League of Cities. (Shepherd)

4. Commendations.

5. County Wastewater Force Main.

6. Appointment to the Leisure Services Board.

7. Any other business.

8. Adjournment.



Remember: Please Bring your Budget Book
                                       City of Muskegon
                                 City Commission Worksession
                                      September I 0, 2007
                                  City Commission Chambers
                                            5:30 PM

                                          MINUTES


2007-80
Present: Commissioners Warmington, Gawron, Shepherd, Spataro, Wierengo, and Carter.
Absent: None.

Ward IV Vacancy
Moved by Commissioner Spataro, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to allow potential
candidates in Ward IV to submit a letter of interest and resume to the City Clerk by
Friday, September 21 st at 3:00 p.m. The Clerk will schedule interviews on Monday,
                                                                                        th
September 24 th at 6:00 p.m. and a vote will be taken on September 24 th or September 25 •

                                                           MOTION CARRIED.

2008 Budget
City Manager, Bryon Mazade, presented the proposed 2008 budget.

Commissioner Carter requested to see the numbers for two additional lifeguards at six hour shifts
for the summer. The figures will be calculated and presented to the board.

A public hearing will be held at the September 11, 2007 City Commission meeting.

County Wastewater Force Main
Bob Kuhn presented the Muskegon County Wastewater Management System - 66 Inch Force
Main Failure Mitigation and MDEQ Expectations.

National League of Cities
Commissioner Shepherd requested an additional $500 from the Public Relations to represent the
City at the National League of Cities in New Orleans on November 13 -November 17, 2007.

Moved by Commissioner Spataro, seconded by Commissioner Wierengo, to authorize an
additional $500 in travel funds to Commissioner Shepherd from the Public Relations
budget if it is approved by the Public Relations Committee.

                                                           MOTION CARRIED.

Commendations
The Public Relations Committee has developed an "Honorary Ambassador" certificate to
recognize individuals when appropriate.
The Commission approved the title of "Honorary Ambassador".

Appointment to the Leisure Services Board
Moved by Commissioner Spataro, seconded by Commissioner Shepherd, to recommend
appointment of Charles Nash, Muskegon Public School Board Member, to the Leisure
Services Board.

                                                              MOTION CARRIED.

Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Shepherd, seconded by Commissioner Carter, to adjourn at 8:30
p.m.

                                                              MOTION PASSES




                                                        Ann Marie Becker, MMC
                                                            City Clerk
                                INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM



TO:          Cl'IY COMMISSIONERS

FROM:        l'UBUC RJ-:LATIONS COMMJ'TT'EE

SUBJECT:    COMMENDATIONS

DATE:       9/5/2007




The Public Relations Committee received a request to create a commendation, a docutnent that
could be issued by the City Conunission to reward a citizen or organization foi- a specific act. ]base
recipients may also be nominated for the Outstanding Citizenship Award at the end of the year.

·n,e title Honorary Ambassador was selected. Attached is a copy of the award with a sketch of the
lighthouse in the background. The city seal will be added to the finished product.
Gity · of Mur5ke9011
          1
 .        ·•
                                                                              History of 66" Failures 1983-200 1
   Muskegon County Wastewater
       Management System
                66 Inch Force Main Failure Mitigation
                      and MDEQ Expectations



                         September 2007




                                                                               Mitigation of 1983-2001 Force
  List of 66" Failures Through 2001                                                     Main Failures
                                                                              Al the first failure site near Yuba Street and Seaway
Failure    Dale             Location                    Cause                 Drive, four pipe sections upstream and downstream
  #                                                                           were supported by pilings.
  1       November         Yuba Street          Unsuitable pipe support     • Al the second site in 4-Mile Creek, the whole 200 feel of
            1983                                  through poor soils
                                                                              the creek crossing was encased in concrete with piling
  2        March       Four Mile Creek Area     Unsuitable pipe support       support.
           1988                                   through poor soils
                                                                              The next two failures resulted in the construction of 2.5
  3       Apnl 1999   Eastern Avenue and BR    Cracked mortar and brittle     miles of new ductile iron force main.
                              US-31               pre-stressing w ires        A study in 2004 concluded that the remaining 66-inch
  4       January            Sumner            Cracked mortar and brittle     force main had a low probability of failure and that the
            2001      Avenue and Wood Streel      pre-stressing wires         pipe should again be examined in about 5 years with
                                                                              whatever technology that would be available.




  Recent Pipe Failure and Current
                                                                                         MDEQ Response
         Mitigation Efforts
  The most recent failure occurred in March of this year                    • Current efforts are insufficient
  near MacArthur and Sheridan Roads. The cause was
  thought to be a combination of joint seepage,                             • Pipe replacement and testing is not
  construction damage, and surges from the main lift
  station.                                                                    enough
  In May 2007, a leak test of the remaining 8.5 miles of old
  pipe showed no leaks.                                                     • County must consider construction of
  PURE Technologies are currently installing fiber optic                      "defensive mechanisms"
  cable inside the 66-inch pipe to monitor w ire breakage in
  the future and the completion date for this effort is                        - Dual pipelines
  October 2007.
  A proposed $18M project would replace the next three                         - Isolation valves
  miles of existing pipe from US-3 1 to Brooks Road. This                      - Retention basins
  work has recently been deemed eligible for a low interest
  SRF loan.




                                                                                                                                          1
             County Response                                                                         "Route 66"

Hired Prein Newhof as consultant to investigate required                   • The MDEQ is
options                                                                      requiring MCWMS to
- Dual pipelines not feasible
    • Velocity Is too low, solids will sellle out                            look at Retention
    • Odor problems wilt occur, pipe lhat is out of service will corrode     Basins as "defensive"
      badty from the inside
- Isolation valves not feasible                                              options.
    • Reduces amounl of flow coming from pipe break                        • "Route 66" committee
    • Does not deal wilh continual flow
    • Requires extremely expensive live taps - must keep flow going          was formed to study
Prein Newhof, County, Wastewater Committee and                               these "defensive"
MDEQ have met to discuss other options                                       options.
- MDEQ has requested retention basins




            Route "66" Committee                                                          One Central Basin
                                                                              The committee originally was given the task to size and
   The next meeting is scheduled for September                                locate one emergency Retention Basin.
   181h with MDEQ, Prein & Newhof, County Staff,                              The area around Pump Station C was studied to locate
   and the Committee.                                                         an area large enough to accommodate one central
                                                                              basin.
• County staff is requesting input from City of
                                                                              It was assumed 3 days of flow (not including Sappi) and
  Muskegon regarding locating some of these
                                                                              1/3 of the volume of the 66" forcemain would be
  basins within the city.                                                     required to be stored.
   County staff does not support the concept of                               This amounts to 45.4 MG
   retention basins, but would rather install new                             The required area is 725' x 1,000' ( 16.64 acres).
   pipe as needed to protect neighborhoods as well                            Wastewater would be stored 16' deep in this basin.
   as the surface waters.




                 One Central Basin                                                        One Central Basin
                                                                           Proposed Construction Improvements
                                                                           were estimated at S7.2M + Land and
                                                                           Easements.




                                                                                                                                        2
          One Central Basin                                                          Satellite Basins
                                                                        After the committee received information on one central
                                                                        basin, it was decided to study the use of satellite basins.
                                                                        Satellite basins have the advantage that they protect
                                                                        against not only the 66-inch failure but failure of other
                                                                        forcemains.
                                                                        The committee decided to study satellite basins in the
                                                                        areas of the main collection system pump stations (A, Q,
                                                                        D, and C.)




              ·-· . . '. ."·· _r _,c,_;;;:::,:;.. -- ~   ··:-r:..:···




     Station A Satellite Basin                                               Station A Satellite Basin
3 days of flow at Station A is estimated at 5.2MG.                      A site was located across Whitehall Road from Station
A 500' x 500' (5. 73 acre) property is required.                        A, adjacent to the Bowling Alley.
The depth of the wastewater would be 6' deep with 8'
dikes.
Estimated construction cost is $1.3M + Land and
Easements.




     Station Q Satellite Basin                                               Station Q Satellite Basin
                                                                        A site was located across Getty Street from Station Q ,
3 days of flow at Station Q is estimated at 10.6MG.                     adjacent to the Norton Avenue.
A 300' x 1,250' (8.61 acre) property is required.
The depth of the wastewater would be 10' deep with 12'
dikes.
Estimated construction cost is $2.0M + Land and
Easements.




                                                                                                                                      3
     Station D Satellite Basin                               Stations C & D Satellite Basin
3 days of flow at Station Dis estimated at 10.5MG, not       It was decided that because a suitable location could
including Sappi.                                             not be found in the area of Station D, a basin could be
An extensive search of the area did not lead to any          located by Station C to accommodate both stations.
properties that would be viable options for a basin. All   • 3 days of flow at both stations+ 1/3 of the volume of the
of the possible properties were either encumbered with       66' forcemain is estimated at 21 .3MG, not including
wetlands or groundwater treatment systems that made a        Sappi.
basin near Station D not viable.                             An extensive search of the area turned up a few
                                                             properties but none were of large enough size to
                                                             accommodate a basin required to handle 21 .3MG.
                                                             It was even studied to locate one basin at the Balcom
                                                             property and one at the Farmer's Market to handle the
                                                             required volume. Due to restrictions on these sites,
                                                             even combining the two basins would not provide the
                                                             required storage.




Stations C & D Satellite Basin
A basin of this size (635' x 635' (9.26 acres)) could be
located on the Verplank property.
Estimated construclion cost is $5.15M + Land and
Easemenls
                                                              Discussion and Initial
                                                                 Reaction by City
                                                                     Council




                                                                                                                         4
June 12, 2007

Mr. David Timm, P.E., Grand Rapids Water Bureau District Supervisor
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
State Office Building
350 Ottawa N.W. Unit 10
Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341

Dear Mr. Timm,

Please consider this letter as our response to your May 8, 2007, Notice Letter
NL-00261 7 regarding our March 2, 2007, unpermitted discharge of raw
sewage into Muskegon County surface waters. I apologize for missing the
June 1, 2007, deadline. We have been hustling through meetings with your
office, my staff, our engineers, our Wastewater Committee, and County Board
to evaluate options and knew how we were going to respond. Unfortunately I
had your letter filed and not in front ofme. Thanks to Tom Berdinski for
reminding me late last week. This delay did allow us to include more up-to-
date information for you, however.

A summary of corrective actions taken over the years in dealing with the 66-
inch force main failures are listed below:

   1. When the first pipe break occurred late in 1983, the County fixed the
      break immediately and recognized that the pipe had been laid in poor
      soils and sawdust in the Yuba Street area. Metcalf and Eddy was hired
      to design a support system for the pipe in that area. Four augered
      angled battered pilings driven to a design bearing were located at each
      of four pipe joints upstream and downstream of the 90-degree elbow.
      Concrete cradles were then poured around the pipe joints and pilings to
      secure the support. The 90-degree elbow was supported by 32 straight
      pilings with concrete poured solid from the elbow back through out the
      piling field. This work was expensive and took most of the winter of
      1984-85 to complete.
   2. When seepage was found on a 66-inch pipe joint under 4-mile Creek in
      1988, structural engineers NTH were retained to assist in the repair and
      permanent fix. After having the replacement pipe on site, warning and
      shutting down all the county industries, our excavation contractor broke
      and repaired the pipe quickly. NTH designed and the County built a
   200-foot piling, I-beam, and reinforced concrete encasement that surrounded and
   supported the pipe in the vicinity of 4-mile creek. This work effectively made the
   reinforced and supported pipe walls about 2-feet thick, again a big undertaking by
   the County.
3. Variable speed motor drives were added to the 1,250 horsepower pump motors at
   Lift Station C in the mid-1990s to ease station surges.
4. After the 1999 break, the County commissioned a study with Prein & Newhof and
   SGH (internationally recognized leader in PCCP pipe design and repair) which
   was completed in 2000 that recommended replacing the 66-inch PCCP from Lift
   Station C to US-31. This study concluded that initial surges or shocks from
   running the main station without dampening valves had caused cracks in the
   outside pipe mortar over the first two miles. The brittle pre-stress wires in the pipe
   then corroded and broke, allowing this failure. Another similar failure occurred in
   2001 before the pipeline replacement could be completed.
5. In another response to the 1999 failure, staff changed how pumps were rotated at
   Lift Station C. When switching pumps, the next pump is brought on line against a
   throttled discharge valve and gradually the valve is opened. When sufficient flow
   is passing through the second pump, the first one is shut off. The same procedure
   is used when two pumps must operate to keep up with flows. Also, during low
    flows, instead of turning the station off, we circulate water through the surge tank.
6. The County and local municipalities bonded and built 13,500 feet of60-inch
    ductile iron force main in 2001 per the above-referenced study. As part of the
    construction, surge valves were added to the pipeline at C Station.
7. The County further commissioned a study in 2003 of the deactivated pipeline just
   west of Getty Street to learn more about the integrity of the pipe and project future
   problems. The study examined the wires in the decommissioned pipe, dug up the
    force main in several places, and concluded in 2004 that the remaining 8.5 miles
    of pipe had a low probability of failure. The study recommended more
    examination work on the pipeline in 5 years as it was assumed that technological
    improvements might give us more tools by then.
8. A 2004 Project Plan was approved by MDEQ that included replacement of Lift
    Station C with a more modular station that will provide even smoother transitions
    in pumping. The new construction will be done in 2008 and will include a back-
    up generator. The County and communities moved ahead with bonding in 2006
    and construction began on the new Lift Station C. This construction is still on
    schedule as of June 2007.
9. On March 2, 2007, when the C Station operator was aware of the most recent
    break, he immediately diverted the paper mill, and other Wastewater staff
    scrambled to turn off all flow to Lift Station C, spilling water into Bear, Mona, and
    Muskegon Lakes. This minimized the overflow into houses at the break site.
10. Jackson-Merkey scrambled to install by-pass pumps at C Station (so we could shut
    off all flow to the break site), started moving equipment to the break site to replace
    the damaged sections, and called Price Brothers to have new pipe shipped.
11. Wastewater staff began calling industries immediately to shut down and
    notification was given to our Health Department, Central Dispatch, Prein-Newhof
    Engineers, and to MDEQ.
12. Wastewater staff called waste haulers to pump and haul the wastewater from Lift
    Station J to the treatment site. Two firms employed seven tanker trucks and
    several pumps in order to spill as little into Ryerson Creek as possible. Lift
    Station E was switched over to pump through the Sun Chemical line directly to the
    treatment plant, so no spill or hauling had to be done there.
13. Wastewater and City staff installed pumps at the break site to pump sewage
    directly from the 66-inch main into the Muskegon Township gravity sewer. This
    effort quickly diverted the rest of the flow from the big force main so that no more
    wastewater was spilled into the neighborhood.
14. Muskegon Township police, fire, and emergency services handled site security,
    evacuation, and information coordination. Residents were assisted by emergency
    services to get pets, medication, and any other emergency items from their homes. ·
15. The Red Cross was called in to provide many different services to all of the
    displaced residents, and many meetings were conducted at Muskegon Township
    Hall to assist them.
16. The displaced residents were placed in motels for their immediate lodging needs.
17. County Health Department staff was on site to evaluate the extent of the spill and
    make recommendations on actions. As soon as the water started to recede, a
    restricted perimeter was established, and officials identified each house where
    wells could no longer be used. Samples were taken from wells outside the area of
    influence where requested by other residents and immediately tested by
    Wastewater staff. The results all showed no contamination and were reported
    back to the property owners the next day.
18. The County Health Department took samples of all the wells south of MacArthur
    in the general area of the break and found no contamination. Wells in the area are
    still being tested by the County Health Department upon request.
19. As soon as the by-pass pumps were installed at C Station, Lift Station A was
    turned back on to stop the spill to Bear Lake.
20. Wastewater was gravity fed back through the surge tank to quickly empty the 66-
    inch force main back down to the location of the break site.
21.As soon as the by-pass pumps could handle the extra flow at C Station, the lift
    stations that overflow into Mona Lake were turned on, ending the spill to that lake.
22. Sampling of upstream and downstream locations for fecal coliform on Bear Lake
    and Mona Lake began March 3rd •
23. It was arranged with the trucking company that delivered the new 66-inch pipe for
    the trucks to have two drivers for each truck so they could drive all night to
    Muskegon. They arrived March 3rd .
24. The local news asked County residents to conserve water and reminded the public
    that the Health Department had posted Bear, Mona, and Muskegon Lakes for no
    body contact.
25. March 4th, as soon as the new 66-inch pipe was properly bedded, a C Station pump
    was started up slowly at Lift Station C against a mostly closed discharge valve to
    gradually begin filling the pipe. Constant communication with the paper mill
    allowed them to slowly increase their flow to us as we filled the line. This
    allowed staff to slowly fill the pipeline without interruption. Three crews of
    wastewater employees worked 14 hours to relieve the air in the line at manhole
    locations as the pipe was gradually filled.
26.As soon as Lift Station C was started, the by-pass pumps were shut down, and the
    spill ceased to Muskegon Lake.
                                                                     th
27. Sampling of Muskegon Lake for fecal coliform began March 5 ·
28.A preliminary report from our engineers on the cause of the pipe break was
    received and discussed a few days after the event. Based upon pipe evidence, the
    experience of several pipe experts, and Lift Station C operation, our engineers
    could describe conditions that led to the type of failure witnessed. Several unusual
    things had to go wrong. The pipe had to leak slowly at a joint, installation or
    construction traffic had to damage the top interior concrete support, and surges
    had to weaken the steel cylinder until it imploded. Discussions got underway to
    determine what testing might be done to the remaining 8.5 miles of 66-inch PCCP
    pipeline.
29. The residents that would be displaced for a long period of time were placed in
    apartments within a few weeks of the spill. These residents were issued a cash
    advance to help meet their immediate food, clothing, and other needs.
30. Cleaning work outside began immediately on the properties, with a contractor
    removing sludge and topsoil. Small trees were removed to allow the contractor to
    cleanup even the wooded areas of the contaminated site. Cleanup work inside the
    homes also began immediately with another contractor removing wastewater and
    sludge from basements and crawl spaces.
31. Many efforts were made on a staff and Board level to assure the displaced
    residents that the County would take care of them. Staff met with them several
    times and continues to have a representative on site (Steve Barnard). The Board
    granted authority to the County Administrator and Public Works Director to make
    all decisions on behalf of the County to take care of these people. Part of these
    efforts is to provide sewer and water connections at no charge to the displaced
    residents and abandon their old systems.
32. Early-on the Township inspectors and Count Health Department did a detailed
    inspection of the properties and determined what had to be done to move people
    back on site.
33. Wastewater staff began writing a monthly newsletter for the residents to keep
    them informed on the progress of the clean-up.
34. It was determined in April that a leak test would be valuable as that was thought to
    be part of the pipe failure mechanism. This work was completed in May and
    determined that there were no leaks on the remaining 8.5 miles of PCCP.
35. Many out-buildings were removed from the affected properties and taken to the
    landfill.
36. After the contaminated soil was removed, 272 soil samples were taken according
    to MDEQ recommendations and tested for 45 parameters.
37. Further lake sampling was performed at the request of County Health and MDEQ.
    A final round of tests was done when the weather warmed up and showed no
    remaining evidence of the spill in any of the affected lakes.
38. The affected acreage had lime tilled in to limit the growth of bacteria and reduce
    odors.
39. Driveways damaged by the break were repaired and replaced by County staff.
40. A contractor abandoned all of the existing wells and septic systems in the area
    where the residents were displaced. Water and sewer services are being hooked
    up as residents are returned to their homes. As of this writing, one resident is back
    in his home and a second is expected to be back in June.
41. The contracts have been let to raise two homes and replace the basements and this
    work is scheduled to begin June 19th , We anticipate that this will be done by this
    fall so that the landscaping on these properties can be done then.
42. Initial soil sample results from the 272 locations showed one mercury hit, several
    iron and manganese, several cyanide, and some ammonia. Further soil removal
                                                                         th
    and retesting have cleared all of the soil sample sites as of June 11 • We will be
    sending the last results that came in during the last two weeks to MDEQ this week.
43. The County Health Department took another round of drinking water well
     samples in the surrounding area in late May and those results showed (this
     morning) that no contamination has been found. We anticipate that the Health
     Department will now lift the drinking water restrictions for these residents.
44. Of the three homes that are total losses, State Farm is handling one and the
     County's insurance the other two. We are offering those two property owners a
     type of replacement-value settlement if they will rebuild on the property. We hope
     to have agreements with them in June. Since these two property owners will be
     paid off, no schedule can be determined on when they will have new houses.
45. Once the reconstruction is done on the site, top soil replacement and landscaping
     will be done. Most of this work could be done by this fall.
46. The Municipal Wastewater Committee recommended that we proceed with the
     acoustic testing at their meeting in May. We are putting agreements together to do
     this work and have it authorized at a special Public Works Board meeting the last
     week of June. We are also discussing this at our SRF Public Hearing in June.
                                                      th
47. The Wastewater Committee is meeting June 12 to get a Public Hearing preview
     of the 66-inch options ahead of the Public Hearing. If they are comfortable with
     the partial pipe replacement recommendation, I will ask for their recommendation
     at that time. lfnot, we can hold a special Committee meeting later in the month.
 48. A Public Hearing on the 66-inch options written in a Supplement to our Project
     Plan is being held June 20 th at 6:30 PM at the McMurray Center. The
     recommended options in this document are the acoustic monitoring, partial pipe
      replacement, and the continued investigation into "defensive" mechanisms
        requested by MDEQ. Our intent is to qualify this work for a SRF loan in 2008.
   49. Defensive mechanisms considered in the Supplement include a 75 million gallon
        retention basin and parallel 66-inch pipelines. Both were determined to have ·
        operational problems and were too expensive, but staff and our engineer continue
       to discuss other possibilities. We are looking into ways to make the basin less
       expensive and have less impact on the lake shore. We are looking at ways to use
       the three miles of PCCP line if that option is constructed. We are looking at
       valving the large main line.
   50. We anticipate starting the acoustic monitoring as soon as the agreements and
       Board approval are completed. This monitoring could be installed as early as
       November 2007. This technology will tell us where and when any pre-stress wires
       break in the future so that suspect pipe sections can be fixed before a failure
       occurs. The longer this monitoring is in place, the better the decisions will be on
       replacing the remaining PCCP force main.
   51. The partial pipe replacement is a really big project for us, at an estimated cost of
       $ l 8.5M, but there is a real possibility that we will be replacing pipe that is still in
       good condition. At least it does not leak. The design and SRF paperwork should
       be completed in time for the three miles to be constructed in 2008.
   52. Staff and our engineers have met with MDEQ in March, April, and May and will
       continue to update the State in regards to our progress at the MacArthur site and
       with plans for future improvements.
   53. Staff plans to have the three miles of PCCP that are to be replaced physically
       tested after it is out of service to know if it can be used as a defensive mechanism.


Below is a summary of milestone dates referenced above:

                            Milestone                           Estimated Completion Date
    Public Hearing on 66-inch options for Supplement to         June 20, 2007
    Project Plan
    Agreements done with total-loss property owners             June 2007
    Complete Application for SRF loan for acoustic              July 1, 2007
    monitoring and partial pipe replacement on 66-inch
    force main
    Basement replacement in two houses                          October 2007
    Topsoil replaced in neighborhood and landscaping            November 2007
    done for affected properties
    Install 5.5 miles of acoustic monitoring                    November 2007
    Replace three miles of PCCP                                 November 2008
August 16, 2007

Ms. Ronda Wuycheck, Enforcement Specialist
Water Bureau Enforcement Unit
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
525 West Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48909-7773


Dear Ms. Wuycheck,

I am in receipt of your letter of August 9, 2007, pertaining to increased
enforcement action and request for further information from the County.
Attached is a June 12, 2007, letter to our MDEQ Water Bureau in Grand
Rapids detailing the work done by the County over the last 24 years in
response to the 66-inch pipe failures. The County has made (and continues
to make) every effort imaginable to investigate these events, immediately
implement any engineering recommendations, and mitigate any
environmental damages.

Since June li\ the County's efforts include:
    • hiring PURE Technologies to install permanent acoustic monitoring
       on the 66-inch PCCP at a cost of over$ lM,
    • hiring Prein & NewhofEngineers to review all MDEQ defensive
       option suggestions,
    • successfully cleaning the recent spill site to background soil and
       water criteria,
    • installing new basements in two of the affected homes,
    • completing much of the landscaping in the spill site area,
    • meeting with MDEQ regularly regarding their defensive option
       suggestions,
    • forming a Municipal Wastewater Committee to work with staff,
       MDEQ, and our engineers on defensive options,
    • receiving and storing on site 100 feet of replacement 66-inch PCCP
       pipe and all the repair fittings, and
    • submitting a supplement to our Project Plan to MDEQ in an effort
       to qualify for an SRF loan for replacing three miles of the 66-inch
        force main.
Please feel free to contact me if you need more information or wish to discuss further
options.

Sincerely,



Dave Kendrick, Public Works Director




Cc:    Muskegon County Public Works Board members
       Municipal Wastewater Committee members
       Jack Niemiec, County Administrator
       Ted Williams, County Counsel
       Ken Kraus, County Health Department Director
       Mike Fuller, Prein & Newhof
August 16, 2007

Ms. Ronda Wuycheck, Enforcement Specialist
Water Bureau Enforcement Unit
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
525 West Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48909-7773


Dear Ms. Wuycheck,

I am in receipt of your letter of August 9, 2007, pertaining to increased
enforcement action and request for further information from the County.
Attached is a June 12, 2007, letter to our MDEQ Water Bureau in Grand
Rapids detailing the work done by the County over the last 24 years in
response to the 66-inch pipe failures. The County has made (and continues
to make) every effort imaginable to investigate these events, immediately
implement any engineering recommendations, and mitigate any
environmental damages.

Since June Ii\ the County's efforts include:
    • hiring PURE Technologies to install permanent acoustic monitoring
       on the 66-inch PCCP at a cost of over $IM,
    • hiring Prein & NewhofEngineers to review all MDEQ defensive
       option suggestions,
    • successfully cleaning the recent spill site to background soil and
       water criteria,
    • installing new basements in two of the affected homes,
    • completing much of the landscaping in the spill site area,
    • meeting with MDEQ regularly regarding their defensive option
       suggestions,
    • forming a Municipal Wastewater Committee to work with staff,
       MDEQ, and our engineers on defensive options,
    • receiving and storing on site 100 feet of replacement 66-inch PCCP
       pipe and all the repair fittings, and
   • submitting a supplement to our Project Plan to MDEQ in an effort
       to qualify for an SRF loan for replacing three miles of the 66-inch
       force main.
The County requests that the EU take into consideration our recent and historical
environmental efforts, our current Phase I and Phase II $32M investment in our sewer
infrastructure, and the fact that the plant has discharged some of the cleanest effluent
in the state over the last 34 years when drafting the Consent Order.

Sincerely,



Dave Kendrick, Director
Muskegon County Public Works




Cc:    Mr.   Louis McMurray, County Public Works Board Chairman
       Mr.   Roland Crummel, Chairman Municipal Wastewater Committee
       Mr.   Jack Niemiec, County Administrator
       Mr.   Ted Williams, County Corporate Counsel
                                    MUSKEGON COUNTY
                                      In Cooperation with
                      MUSKEGON COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

                                             PS A RETENTION BASIN


Item Description                                      Quantity    Unit               Estimat,e,_d Cost

 1.   Site Grading (11,500 cyd @$10/cyd trucked in)          1    lsum         $115,000.00           $115,000.00

 2.   Soil Crete Including Fine Grading                      1    !sum         $450,000.00           $450,000.00

 3.   8" Sanitary Sewer                                    400    l.f.              $75.00               $30,000.00

 4.   5' Diameter Sanitary Manhole                           3    each           $3,500.00               $10,500.00

 5.   Structure with Slide-Gate                              1    each          $10,000.00               $10,000.00

 6.   12" DI CL 52 FM                                    1,400    l.f.              $65.00               $91,000.00


 7.   12" DI CL 52 Fittings and Valve and Box                 1   [sum          $40,000.00               $40,000.00

 8.   Discharge Structure                                     l   each          $10,000.00               $10,000.00

 9.   Bore & Jack 24" x 0.5'' Steel Casing                 100    l.f.             $300.00               $30,000.00

 10. 8" Watermain and Appurtenances                      1,700    l.f.               $75.00          $127,500.00

 11. Site Work, Fencing, and Restoration                      l   lsum         $100,000.00           $100,000.QQ

                                                                                  Sub-Total        $1,014,000.00

                                                Allowance for Construction Contingencies,
                                                      Legal, Administration, and Engineering         $286,000.00

                                                                  TOTAL PROJECT COST             $1,300,000.00 +
                                                                                                       LAND&
                                                                                                  EASEMENTS
             MUSKEGON COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
                    WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
                          PS A RETENTION BASIN
                             BASIS OF DESIGN

CAPACITY

Requirements for storage capacity: Store 3 days of wastewater flow

    •   3 days of flow@ l.7 mgd = 5.1 mg
            o 5.lmg=681,77l.8ft3

DIMENSIONS

Requirements for dimensions:

    •   Property to be acquired has a 500'x 500' footprint (5.73 acres)
    •   Depth of wastewater to be 6' and 2' offreeboard
    •   Bottom of Basin will be at existing ground surface
    •   Slopes of basin dikes will be I on 4
    •   IO' flat area at the toe of slope to be provided

Inside Width= 500' - ((2* 10') + (2*(8'*4)) + (2*8') + (2*(8'*4))) = 336'

Inside Length = 500' - ((2* IO') + (2 *(8' *4 )) + (2 *8') + (2 *(8'*4))) = 336'

CAPACITY PROVIDED

Inside dimensions volume= 6' deep * 336' wide * 336' long= 677,376 ft 3 (5.07 mg)

Side slope volume= 0.5 * 6' deep* 24' wide* (336' * 4) = 96,768 ft3 (0.72 mg)

Total capacity provided is 5.79 mg> 5.1 mg so sufficient capacity is provided




                                                                               S :ITMB\MCWMS\204 ! 064\retention\basisP SA doi;
    History of Muskegon County Wastewater
          66-inch Force Main Failures

•   The first failure occurred in 1983 near Yuba Street and
    Seaway Drive. The failure occurred because the pipe was
    laid unsupported in poor soils and sawdust. Four pipe
    sections upstream and downstream were supported by
    pilings.
•   Seepage was found in 4-Mile Creek in 1988 and the pipe was
    purposely broken to replace the leaking section. The reason
    again was that the pipe was laid unsupported in poor soils.
    The whole 200 feet of the creek crossing was later encased in
    concrete with piling support.
•   Another pipe failure across from the main pump station near
    Seaway Drive happened in 1999 and the investigation found
    brittle reinforcing wires to be the cause. Replacement of the
    first 2.5 miles of the 66-inch reinforced concrete cylinder
    pipe was recommended.
•   A second pipe failure due to brittle wires happened in 2001
    just north of Sumner and Wood streets before the new ductile
    iron force main was completed.
•   A study in 2004 concluded that the remaining 66-inch force
    main had a low probability of failure and that the pipe should
    again be examined in about 5 years with whatever technology
    that would be available.
•   The most recent failure occurred in March of this year near
    MacArthur and Sheridan Roads. The cause was thought to
    be joint seepage, construction damage, and surges from the
    main lift station.
•   In May, a leak test of the remaining 8.5 miles of old pipe
    showed no leaks.
•   The County is in the process of installing fiber optic cable
    inside the 66-inch pipe to monitor wire breakage in the
    future. This should be done in October.
    Why Are We Considering Retention Basins?

•    In meetings and correspondence, MDEQ has stated that pipe
     replacement and testing is not enough of a response to the
     recent break as this was the fifth such event. MDEQ insisted
     that the County Wastewater System consider construction of
     "defensive mechanisms" such as dual pipelines, isolation
     valves, and retention basins.
•    Our engineers have studied these defensive mechanisms and
     determined that dual pipelines and isolation valves are not
     feasible.
•    Prein & Newhof, the Wastewater Committee, and MDEQ
     have held meetings and discussed retention basins. Our
     engineers were charged to perform preliminary design work
     on two options: a single large basin at Lift Station C or
     remote basins at Lift Stations A, Q, D, and C.
                                                             1
•    The next meeting of the above group is September 18 \ and
     the County and our engineers wish to brief the City of
     Muskegon on this development and get any initial feedback
     for our meeting.
•    County staff does not support the concept of retention basins,
     but would install new pipe as needed to protect both the
     communities where the pipe is located and protect our
     surface waters.
Date:        September 5, 2007
To:          Community Relations Committee
From:        City Clerk's Office
RE:          Appointment to the Leisure Services Board


SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Muskegon Public School Board has requested that
Charles Nash be named to the Leisure Services Board. The term will expire January 31,
2009.



STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval.

Top of Page


New Agenda Notifications

* indicates required