Correspondence between

Here itis. Sorry.

Matt, What is the status of the revised spec. or addendurn that spells out the weld testing methodology? (based on your June a5" message below) issuance of the Act 399 permit for Contract S-4002 is pending receipt of the revised spec or addendum. Michael Prysby, PE. District Engineer Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance 517 290-8817

5ee attached letter. xxxEND_PAGE:deq11_b180_0969_0969_1

That sourds great. Yes | was informed of the testing methodology yesterday. | discussed this with American yesterday and | believe we are doing the magnetic particle testing. Once this is verified | will let you know and send the revised spec, These will either be in the addendum or on the original spec if we get it out prior te bidding. One way or another it will get placed in the spec. 1 xxxEND_PAGE:deq25_b124_1164_1166_1 As for the surge. Yes i spoke to the PM team yesterday and they are in the process of responding. | do not see any problerns with providing a quick response.

Matt, We do not have an objection with KWA wanting to use the more conservative leakage formula for the pipeline as opposed to the formula provided in AWWA C-604. We are also not opposed to the exclusion of the welded joints in the formula; however, since this results in a much lower leakage tolerance... all welded joints need to be properly tested. The specification should clearly state an acceptable testing methodology such as radiography, sonograms, or magnetic particle testing. Finally, it is our understanding that we will be receiving a response from Genesee County concerning our questions/comments from the updated surge analysis. Michael Prysby, PLE. District Engineer Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance 517 290-8817 Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 6:05 PM

i would like to revisit the conversation this morning regarding the pressure test. The new leakage method based on AWA GIM-11 the 66” nipe would allow 55 gal/mile leakage ina 2 hour pariod. The current specified method in section a2315 would allow roughly 0.2 gal/mile leakage ina 2 hour period depending on the pressure [150 to 350 psi) and the(} number of juints b ger mile to £2 per mile (welded isints do not count so only the valves count on the 66” fine, but if you count the hydrants, and air release valves, which are not normally courted, it could be 6-12 par mile depending on the section}, Note that you would have to have about 165 joints per mile {an average of 1 joint every 32 feet) @ 350 psi te equal the 55 gal per 2 hours allowed bry the new formula. For 150 psi, it would have to have the equivalent of 252 joints per mile to get the 55 gal leakage in 2 hours that is alowed by the new method. The current specification indleates to test ai the pressure equal to the pressure ciass listed on the drawings, where the new version would say test at no more than 125% of the working pressured. The working pressure is not defined anywhere so is that the pressure class of the roe, or the oressure within the pioe that is expected during operation? The 60” would be somewhat similar to the 66°, except the pressures would be lower on the 60" pipe. With that being sald will the MDEQ allow the current specifications to remain or do we need te still reference AWWA 604-41 for testing even though the allowable leakage is well above what we are allowing.

Please find attached updated surge analysis for your use.

Dard, | don't know Nyou received my response an the 25" but l want to make sure Vou are aware that | ari taking care of your concerns. On the 25’? laweote that we will Incormorate the drawing modifications into an addendum. Once the addendum is distributed we willce the MOEO. ‘This should address jrenis 2 and 3. Dadi ete PDF of the final POR and provide @ hand cony and tigital coy for your use.

Matt, Based on our review, the following isaues remairy a) The Engineers response to our comment #3 indicated that the PDA had been corrected, However, we did nol receive an updated copy of the POR, and thus have no way te confi thet ib was corrected, 2) The Engineers response to aur coranient #6 indicates that the septic tank wes tn be relocated per aur request, The plans that we received show na change in the location of the septic tank, 3) The detail of the tunk overflow was added buck to Sheet P19, however It contains twa dimensions on the overflow weir cone that are listed ac "as req'd”, This iscue is the same as that for the sizing of the tank, MDEC canned issue a permit for “as reas”. Please note thet | will be oul of the office next week and will return on Agri 7). Thanks, Dard J Gotham PE. Michigan Demernaent of Environmental Quality Olice of banking Wailer & Municipal Assistance Saninaw-Bay Distict Ohics 404 Kelchuin Street, Suse b Bay City Bl 48708 BEO-4250.98 146 (Phone) BEU-BAT-821 8 (Fae ee Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 6:28 AM

We were crovided the documents from the sanitarian for the intermediate pump station. As shown on the permit the minimiuan distance is 10 feat. We will have JH address the distance from the pump station as discussed in the review meeting,

John, Thought I should give you a update of the olan submittals for the Pipeline Contracts (S.4002, $.4003, 5.4005 and 5.4006). The 60% subrnittals will be as shown on the Planning Calendar with one caveat. They will be submitting only the glans on thase dates, All the specifications and PDR’s are projected to submitted on or before February 4a i still will have the plans delivered to Jon and Mike the day after they are received per the Planning Calendar and once we have received the PDR’s & Specifications, | will see that they are delivered to thern as they are received. Ary questions, please let me know. Larry A, Osborn, PE, Professional Engineer 555 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 201, Flint, Michigan 48802 £10.236,2556 direct | S1O.S16.6793 cell | 810.295.4975 fax xxxEND_PAGE:deq11_b403_1848_1850_1

Mike -Please review and let me know what works for you and MDEQ staff/needs. We will schedule what works for all do you. John O' Athached is the mast up to date schedule. We can now begin to look at the MBEO reviews and how they will get incorporated.

>> >> As per Mike they are going to operate the plant, with softening, starting in April 2014 when the DWSD contract expires. So, they have to move quickly to improve the plant to manage/produce water 24/7. It sounds like the design will proceed quickly to allow 24/7 operation and much is to be done quickly to meet the deadline. | am sure somethings will slip beyond April but they seem to be in a move quick mode! >> | told Mike that they would get the 60% PS drawings by say Friday the 8th as they are closed Monday. Larry, | assume that is correct. >> It appears that moving the meeting to the 21st is going to be OK for review of the PS drawings. They did not seem to have any heartburn with the standards as presented but it will be a good idea to just open that issue up, on the 21st, to be sure it is vetted. >> All seems to progress. >> Any questions let me know. >> John O'. xxxEND_PAGE:deq04_b577_6019_6376_276 Rennaker, Joanne (DEQ)

PDR. pdf; 20130920_S4006_30% PDR. pdf; 20130920_S4007_30% PDR.pdf The PDR'S as promised. Thanks Matt. John O' woseee nee Forwarded message ----------

I believe we had a very productive meeting on the 10th. Covered many issues and developed scheduling that will be efficient/productive for all concerned and work within the compressed design schedule established to more the project quickly. The next meetings, including DEQ staff, are as follows: -Workshop-November Sth at GCDC at 8:00AM. The first hour, for the DEQ staff, will be devoted to a pipeline surge analysis presentation, -Pump Station Review-November 19th at 8:30AM at GCDC office. The 60% PS drawings will be submitted to GCDC 11/6 and then GCDC_ [WT] to send to both DEQ offices, -Pipeline Review-January 6, 2014 at GCDC office at 10:00AM, the 60% pipeline drawings to be delivered to GCDC on 12/13 and then GCDC [WT] to sent to both DEQ offices. I was agreed that Larry Osborn will hand carry a flash drive to both the Lansing and Saginaw DEQ offices, of the 60% plans, to expedite the review process and they to put on a LAN system as appropriate. It was agreed half size drawings are appropriate at this review stage. It was further agreed that Larry Osborn will email the pipeline PDR and Matt has sent the pipeline map. Any questions let me know. John O' xxxEND_PAGE:deq17_b125_1038_1038_1

Matt-I received a call this AM from Jon and Mike regarding the meeting on the 10th your shop. They will have several comments and they see some inconsistency in details from one set to another and not standard between all sets. Also, they have an agenda for the 8th and I told them that is the standard for our meeting as well even though dated for the 8th. They prefer to not bring their sets (large) so can you have one set of all the pipeline contracts for our review on the 10th. They have several housekeeping issues, as do we, on how to streamline/notice the review process going forward. Just need to iron/smooth out to create efficiency going forward. They wish to discuss their being at the 60 percent review, on all three days, as opposed to just the last day. These items, plus others, to be discussed along with other issues and such so will be productive for us all. See you at 8:30AM your shop on the 10th. Any questions let me know. John O' xxxEND_PAGE:deq11_b448_1940_1941_2

The Water main (367) 230 review starts at 8:30, The Pump Stations start at 21:30,

Matt-The agenda is for the afternoon, pump station, and at GCDC offices. I thought we were meeting off site? We will need the AM agenda and location/time as well. Your thoughts. xxxEND_PAGE:deq17_b124_1035_1037_1 John O'