Loading...
1987-01-05 CC Special Elementary School Grease Problem . SPECIAL MEETING REGARDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'S GREASE PROBLEM JANUARY 5, 1987 The meetlng regardlng the Elementary sclxDl's"~" problem was convened on January 5, 1988. Persons present lncluded Maureen Andrews, Ken Llndsay, Gary Schwenzfeler, Thore Meyer, Marla DeMattels, Merl Schum and Warren Hallberg. Some general background lnformatlon relatlng to the events of the summer and fall WhlCh lead up to thls scheduled meetlng was dlscussed. ThlS lnformatlon lncluded: On June 25, 1987, Mr. Warren Hallberg met wlth Ken Llndsay and Maureen Andrews to dlSCUSS the grease problem at the elementary school. In the course of the dlScusslon the posslblllty of lnstalllng a grease trap was Ilsted as a posslble alternatlve to the Solutlon of the problem. ThlS Solutlon had been mentloned In an earller dlScusslon between Mr. Burke of the Elementary school and Ken Llndsay. It was the contentlon of Mr. Hallberg that the school could not lnstall a greasetrap because of ltS locatlon to the dlshwasher and garbage dlsposal. . In a phone conversatlon on July 1, 1987 and In a followup letter on July 14, 1987 the problem was dlscussed agaln. At thlS tlme, lt was the oplnlon of the Clty Englneer, Chuck Eberhard, and Ken Llndsay that lf an aprroved degreaser was used by the school and that annual cleanlng of the school's sewerllne was malntalned that a greasetrap would not be requlred. In the letter dated July 14, 1987 the Clty reserved the ~lght to reVlew the lssue and request addltlonal meetlngs to resolve any potentlal problems. On December 7, 1987 a letter was sent to Mr. Marla DeMattels, the St. Mlchael-Albertvllle School Superlntendanct, requestlng a meetlng to dlSCUSS the type of degreaser belng used by the elementary school. ThlS meetlng was requested as the result of fact that Mr. Ken Llndsay had become aware of the fact that the degreaser belng used by the school dld not contaln bacterla or enzymes WhlCh organlcally breakdown grease bUlldup. A meetltng to resolve the problem was suggested and then scheduled. Once the background lnformatlon was revlewed the group began dlscusslng the problem and the followlng documentatlon lS the results of the meetlng. Mr. Hallberg stated that In hlS past explrenses when worklng wlth schools that he has never had any problem wlth grease bUlldup at schools, because schools do not create grease common to fast-food type resturants. He feels that any problem at the school lS the result of a problem wlth the Clty's sewerllne. . Mr. Gary Schwenzfeler, Councllmember, dlsagreed wlth thlS statement and sald that an lnspectlon of the manhole proves that there lS a bUlldup of grease In the Ilne. Mr. Hallberg responded to thlS statement by saYlng that the bUlldup could be the result of the wast standlng In the Ilne because of a dlp or obstructlon In the malnllne. . . . ~ PAGE 3 excessable for televlslng. Mr. DeMathels asked lf the school was wllllng to televlse the Ilne and the Clty found that there was a slgnlflcant drop In the Ilne would the clty be wllllng to make the necessary repalrs on the Ilne? It was explalned by Thpre Meyer and Ken Llndsay that the cost of televlsln~ a Ilne lS very expenslve because of all the factors lnvolved, whlch lnclude: travel tlme, setup tlme from two dlrectlons In a case such as thlS one, plus the cost per foot for dOlng the Ilne. Thore pOlnted out that lt would be more cost effectlve to televlse thlS Ilne when another area In town was belng televlsed to keep some of the cost down. Thore Meyer also pOlnted out that the Cltyhas to welgh the cost of malntalnlng a demaged Ilne through annual malntenance wlth the cost of reconstructlon. And that when the beneflts of replaclng the Ilne out welghs the malntenance costs lnvolved that then the Clty Councll would have to look at replaclng the Ilne. At thlS pOlnt, however, the Clty feels that through the malntenance program the Ilne lS belng malntalned In a mannor that does not Justlfy the reconstructlon cost lnvolved. Mr. DeMathels asked lf the use of the degreaser lS a temporary Solutlon or a long term Solutlon to the problem. The use of degreaser lS a long term Solutlon because grease can be traced out to the ponds. Mr. DeMathels also asked how volatlle lS a chemlcal based degreaser on the Ilne. Ken stated that there could be a problem wlth chemlcal base degreasers on the Ilne. Mr. Hallberg stated that he dld agree that there was a problem at the slte were the school Ilne feeds lnto the Clty Ilne, but that lt lS a waste of money to Jet the Ilne each year. Mr. Hallberg asked lf lt would be acceptable lf the school agreed to use a degreaser approved by the Clty would they be requlred to contlnue to Jet the Ilne. It was pOlnted out at thlS tlme the the school sewerllne has a 4 lnch drop In grade and that wlth that drop the Ilnes tends to selfclean ltself. Mr. DeMathels asked what were the current costs to the dlstrlct? Mr. Schumm stated that the school currently has the cost of the degreaser plus the cost of the Jettlng of the Ilne. It was flnally agreed that lf the school would use an approved degreaser from a IlSt of products provlded by the Clty of Albertvllle, that the Clty would agree that lt would not be necessary for the school to have to Jet thelr Ilnes on an annual basls. The Clty wlll attempt to draw a IlSt of approved product after dlscusslng the problem wlth the MPCA, but that any product belng used must be an enzyme or bacterla based. The questlon was asked why the school changed the type of degreaser. Mr. Schumm sald that a sales representatlve selllng a degreaser recommended the product as belng the best on the market. There was also some dlScusslon about how the dlp In the Ilne flrst appeared and Ken stated that lt was hlS recollectlon that the school's waterllne broke In the wlnter tlme and that when the repalr was made that lt was cold and lt appeared that packlng may have been dlfflcult to do. Ken also stated that the epalr was made by the JOlnt Powers and that the Clty was not lnvolved wlth maklng any repalrs. The JOlnt Power's Board may have more detall lnformatlon on when the repalr was made and by whom. PAGE 2 ~ ~ In an earl1er phone conversat10n between Mr. Hallberg and Maureen Andrews, Ms. Andrews stated that 1t 1S common practIce for cItIes to have establIshed maIntenance programs for cleanIng sewerllnes. Mr. Hallberg stated that when checkIng wIth other cItIes he had found that very few contracted the1r sewer11ne clean1ng out. It was p01nted out that the 1ssue was not contract1ng the serV1ce out, but rather the ma1ntenance program. Mr. Thore Meyer stated that many c1t1es have the1r own equ1pment and do not need to contract w1th a company such as Roto-rooter. Mr. Meyer went on to say that the C1tV 1S aware of some d1ps 1n the sewerl1ne and for that reason when schedule ma1ntenance IS done on the system the areas were potent1al problems can ar1se are cleaned on an annual basIs. At some pOInt It may become cost effectIve to replace the problem areas or purchase eqUIpment for lIne cleanIng, but untIl that tIme the CIty IS takIng the necessary steps to keep the lIne trouble free. ~ Mr. Hallberg went onto ask why thel/Dew sewerllne was not beIng used to move tbe waste away from the school. It was explaIned that IS lIne was Installed for emergency purposes so It there was another blockage that shool would not have to be closed down why repaIrs were beIng made. The CIty went on to further explaIn that even If the new lIne was was used the CIty would requ1re that pretreatment of the waste be done. BaSIS for thIS requIrement IS that the CIty's sewer ordInance states that If a bUSIness dIscharges waste that IS detrImental to the operatIon of the plant, that based on the operator's recommendatIon that pretreatment can be reqUIre. Ken LIndsay then asked Mr. DeMathels IS he had a problem WIth the reqUIrements beIng set forth by the CIty. Mr. DeMathels stated that he dId not have any problems WIth what was beIng dIscussed, but that he wanted to see the problem resolved. Mr. Hallberg next pOInted out that when the sewer lIne runnIng from the old addItIon of the schoold was removed so that cast Iron pIpe could be Installed as part of the school addItIon that there was no trace of waste bUIldup In the lIne, and that based on that InspectIon does not feel the problem warrents annual cleanIng or the InstallatIon of a greasetrap. Mr. DeMathels stated that It was a real concern of the School Dlstr1ct that If a problem contInues down the l~, that It WIll dumped all back on the school. He questIoned If there was some JOInt responslb11ty to the problem. He a1qn Asked If there were some optIons avaIlable for resolVIng the problem once and for all and who would be responsIble for any expenses Incurred In dOIng so. The CIty explaIned that maIntenance of the lIne IS beIng assIsted by reqUIrIng pretreatment of waste gOIng Into the lIne through the use of degre~rand wastetraps and that the school IS not beIng SIngled out. Gary Schwenzfeler stated that the preventatIve maIntenance program WhICh has been establIshed by the CIty WIll hopefully reduce any potentIals for problems. ~ There was then some dIScussIon about whether or not the lIne In questIon had even been televIsed and If not why. Ken LIndsay stated that because of the cost And tIme Involved the lIne was not done thIS summer when another project was beIng done. Maureen also stated that In an earlIer converatlon WIth Mr. Hallberg that she had stated that she thought the lIne was not . . . PAGE 4 . . ~ Mr. DeMathe1s stated that he wanted the problem to be resolved and the f1nd1ngs put 1n wr1t1ng so that at a later date the C1ty would not change the paract1ce of treatment. In order to assure that the C1ty and the School have the same understand1ng of the problem and the method of treatment the follow1ng 1ssues were agreed to: FINDINGS 1. There 1S a ~se bU11dup 1n the C1ty'S sewerl1ne that the school's 11ne flows 1nto. 2. That the C1ty and the school have agreed that the school w111 pretreat the1r waste w1th an approved enzme or bacter1a based degreaser and that the school w111 be allowed to d1scont1nue the annual Jett1ng of the sewer 11ne between the bU11d1ng and the C1ty'S 11ne. 3. That the C1ty w111 prov1de a 11st of 4 or 5 products that w111 be acceptable for'use. 4. That the C1ty w111 cont1nue to clean the sewerl1ne upto the manhole at the 10cat10n of the school. 5. That 1n the future, 1f the C1ty does any telev1s1ng of sewerl1nes 1n the C1ty that the 11ne 1n quest10n w111 be rev1ewed. 6. If 1t appears that repa1rs are needed on the 11ne 1n quest10n an access to the 11ne w111 be 1nstalled. 7. That the records should note the 1f 11ne appears to have any demage that 1t should be noted that there had been a break 1n the water 11ne and the because of the t1me of the year 1mproper compact1on may have caused the problem. 8. If 1n the future, the 11ne 1S replaced the C1ty would st111 requ1re the pretreatment be done. W1th an understand1ng of these agreements, the meet1ng was concluded.