Why is water line report referred to as "Final Report"

waterbreak11Good afternoon Shannon,
Now that the “final” report on the water line break has been made public can you advise:

  •   If any disciplinary has been taken or if any has been planned.
  •   Why the consulting engineer refer to his report  as the “ Final Report” ………    Was there an interim or  preliminary report ??     Why did he delay  sending a report that was signed and sealed on June 6th until  6:43pm on June 12th   ??     Was he asked to do so ??

Thank you
Ted Noftall      .

From: Lewis, Shannon [mailto:slewis@port-orange.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:49 PM
To: City Council; Kisela, Greg
Cc: DeptHeads
Subject: Fwd: Final Report
Good Evening Mayor and City Council Members,
Attached is the final report from Arcadis regarding the recent water line break. The City Manager has scheduled a workshop for the consultants to present their findings on June 24th when all Council Members will be present. The workshop will begin at 5:15.
Thank you, Shannon
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Yarborough, Jason” <jyarborough@port-orange.org>
Date: June 12, 2014, 7:04:47 PM EDT
To: “Lewis, Shannon” <slewis@port-orange.org>
Subject: FW: Final Report

From: Meriwether, Reed [Reed.Meriwether@arcadis-us.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:43 PM
To: Yarborough, Jason
Subject: Final Report
It was a pleasure preparing this report for your use.  Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions.
Reed Meriwether, PE, CPM | Principal Water Resources Engineer | Reed.Meriwether@arcadis-us.com<mailto:Reed.Meriwether@arcadis-us.com>
Professional Registration/PE-FL, TX, VA
ARCADIS U.S., Inc. | 14025 Riveredge Drive, Suite 600 | Tampa, FL 33637
T. 813 353 5827 | M. 813 508 5531 | F. 813 903 9115
ARCADIS, Imagine the result
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

21 thoughts on “Why is water line report referred to as "Final Report"

  • June 13, 2014 at 7:26 pm

    Causes of the Failure
    Over the past few years there have been numerous PVC waterline failures reported across the Country. A series of lawsuits were successfully won against JM Eagle after it was found that poor quality control during manufacturing led to a number of PVC pipe failures. JM Eagle now offers an unprecedented 50-year warranty on the pipe in an attempt to win back customers. The pipe that failed in the City of Port Orange was manufactured by Diamond Plastics Corporation. A section of the failed pipe was sent to The Madison Group for laboratory testing. Their full report is located in Appendix B of this report. The Madison Group specializes in the analysis of plastics and various modes of failure. PVC pipe is formed by heating a mixture of fine Figure 3 . Tapping Hole plastic powder and other ingredients into a homogenous mixture and extruding the pipe through molds. Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) is a thermal analytical method to accurately measure the degree of fusion or gelation of PVC products. DSC was used on samples of the failed pipe. The test results showed that the pipe material meets industry standards. There was no manufacturer defect that caused the pipe to fail. Using visual and microscopic examinations, they were able to determine that cracking of the pipe first occurred along the outer pipe wall on both sides of the tapping saddle. High stress at the saddle could be from over tightening of the saddle bands around the pipe. In Figure 3, the break can be seen to run across the middle of the 2-inch hole, the point of maximum pipe stress. Along the inner surface of the hole there is a pattern of score lines that can be seen as circumferential rings. As the cutter was pushed into the pipe wall, these score lines are evidence of excessive force or a dull bit causing too much friction and heat along the wall. Micro-cracks resulted on the outside wall. At some point, a tiny crack at the point of maximum stress resulted in rapid crack migration longitudinally along the entire length of pipe. In an instant, nearly 50,000 pounds of force was released per foot of pipe. Several factors may have contributed to pipe failure. The tapping saddle may have been too tight around the pipe creating additional hoop stress in the pipe wall. The cutting bit could have been dull resulting in excess friction. The AquaTap tapping tool has no means to measure the force, or control the rate the cutter is pushed through the pipe wall. The lines on the wall of the hole are conclusive of excessive force being applied during the tapping operation. Better made tapping machines include a feed yolk that the operator can use to control the rate of penetration into the pipe wall for a smooth, consistent cut. The cutter head used was a standard 2-inch hole saw used to cut wood and plastic. These bits are too aggressive and hard to control. The recommended cutter for the AquaTap has carbide tip blades with shallower cutting teeth for a slower cutting rate. The hand drill is also part of the problem. Uni-Bell is the PVC Pipe Association. Their guidelines for tapping PVC pipe state, “In no case should a hand-held drill be used”. This is because the speed of the drill is too hard to regulate. Too fast of a speed creates more fiction and heat at the cutter. Any or all of these factors contributed to the failure of this section of pipe.
    This section of the report clearly depicts negligence on the City’s side. This occurred during bike week. Local business owners lost considerable revenues due to this incident. The report solidifies any legal attempt to recoup lost revenue due to negligence. If disciplinary action has not been taken it clearly should. The City is absolutely liable for suffered damages.

  • June 13, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    The report does point out most of the mistakes and proper procedures and they were consistent with my report. I was surprised that they used a drill instead of a tap machine and to find out that the cutting bit was like a hole saw that you would use to cut a hole in a door for a door knob. It’s obvious that there was no experienced, knowledgeable oversight or supervision involved. You don’t have to look any further than the person in charge that authorized the work.
    There was a lot of fluff in the report with the modeling. Most people won’t understand it. I don’t necessarily agree with the elevated tank idea due to the way our system and pumps are set up It would just sit there and never be used and the water would go bad. We used to have elevated tanks including one in the area that they suggested that we need one. They were phased out and ground storage pump stations were phased in. We had a main break near the elevated tank on Spruce Creek Rd. I was there, the entire 150,000 gallon tank emptied in about one minute, like flushing a toilet. I thought the 130 ft. tall tank was coming down when it shook violently as it emptied.
    The engineers didn’t seem to fully understand or take in to consideration how pumps work and pump curves They used elevation head to simulated the break. Not exactly apples to apples but the same principle and not really necessary for this report. Elevation head is constant at the elevation used as a control for a simulation as long as the elevation does not change. A break causes a drop in line pressure thereby causing the elevated water column to drop changing the elevated head/pressure. This does not take into consideration changes in pump performance due to pressure/head changes. A main break causes pressure to drop thus effecting the pump performance and efficiency. With a break like this one you could turn on pumps till the cows come home and all you will accomplish is putting more water in the hole until it is isolated.
    The bottom line is that the person that authorized this work did not follow proper procedure. Did not make sure that their subordinates followed proper procedure and did not provide proper training and oversight. This is indicative of our systemic management problems. Ted knowing what I know I’m a little surprised the report came out this soon.

  • June 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm

    If there is any disciplinary action to be taken it should be taken against Greg Kisela. He has solicited the FCCMA for an MIT director with no employment application ever taken and no background check. If he checked the background there was evidence that there was mismanagement in his past. You bet Kisela already knew that. This is only mismanagement at the highest level and an attempt to perpetually whitewash. So if you think disciplinary action is in order than the buck stops at the top. Make sure Kisela doesn’t harvest a scape goat as he is famous for. Who knows maybe the council will allow him to bring Range Rider Kelton in for a second opinion on the incident.

  • June 14, 2014 at 7:45 am

    Why stop at Kisela? The top 3 at utilities administration have been and still are major problems. There are people already there that could step up fill the positions and fix the problems. As pointed out on another post this is a systemic problem like a disease that has crept into the city and metastasized. Cure the disease, cure the problem.

  • June 14, 2014 at 10:28 am

    I agree with Mr. Woodman, Incoming3, and Dr.Wu. The only problem is that Mr. Kisela is the Mayor’s preferred whitewasher and the present council and campaigning hopefuls are devoid of the back bone to stand up and be counted. Don Juan Matus gave them that opportunity to come out of the closet and state their position on two important issues and all except Bob Pohlmann cowered because they are afraid that taking a position and showing some courage will risk them being voted for in the next election.
    Kisela rejected a host of qualified and proven utility directors for hire in spite of input from utilities technical staff and instead summons Jason Yarborough down for a $115,000 a year job at the FCCMA’s Range Rider’s recommendation even though he did not apply for the position, never filled out an application, and was never background checked by the personnel director which was the current assistant city manager at the time. He is then rewarded by the FCCMA with their prestigious Life Saver Award which is given to city managers that hire FCCMA Managers In Transition which are FCCMA members that were shit canned from previous positions. This is bourn out by a scathing report produced by the City of Palm Bay Human Resources Director on our current MIT director just before he was placed on administrative leave as Palm Bay Utility Director and before he turned in his resignation while on leave from that position during their investigation of him for numerous mismanagement practices.
    I also agree with Dr. Wu about the top three utilities administrators and if I am correct they are in the following order: the utilities director, the assistant utilities director, and the head utilities engineer. Dr. Wu please correct me if I am mistaken about the identity of these three.
    I have a few questions for Dr. Wu that I would like him to reply to.
    1.Who was the manager directly in charge of the division and crew that performed this tapping operation?
    2. Is their a division manager assigned to oversee this division and if not why?
    3. Who ordered this consultant review and was it done with the support of public utilities technical staff?
    4. Does this report tell the full story or is it geared toward Kisela telling his own tale to the council?
    5. Who do you feel are the top three individuals in order of responsibility for this debacle which has caused us private citizens and business owners so dearly?
    6. Finally, do you feel this $30,000 engineering consultation was necessary at the tax payers expense and does it put enough balm on the tax payers wound to heal the damages and make everything right?

  • June 14, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    Answers… Next time make them multiple choice
    0. You are correct about the identity of the THE 3
    1. The assistant utilities director.
    2. There is no division manager assigned to oversee the division. The assistant director is doing the job or at least attempting. They need someone on the inside to help with covering things up.They can’t find anyone that wants the job due to low pay and all the BS that they would be walking into. It would be a kamikaze mission.
    3. The life saver and misfit in trouble ordered it. The engineers consulted with technical staff. They had to because they did not have a very good understanding of the problem and system operations.
    4.The report shows the cause of the break and lays out some procedures that were not followed and should be in the future. These procedures have been followed in the past before people in administration ran off the last good, caring, experienced, knowledgeable person in field ops due to his frustration with their incompetence. Due to the confusing unnecessary information about models and simulations and not identifying the managerial problems that led to the break. The lifesaver, misfit in trouble and the assistant public utilities director (ass pud) have given themselves some wiggle room to try to weasel out of responsibility.
    5. The buck stops at management so that would make the lifesaver, the public utilities director (pud) and the ass pud the top three responsible.
    6.The $30,000 engineering consultation was not necessary. It was a complete waste of money.The truth would have worked just fine. It was business as usual.
    Dr. Wu Phd.n BS.
    Doctor of Utilities
    Specializing in Truth in Utilities

  • June 14, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Dr. Wu, you know apparently your shit! Let me ask you this. How lucky are the taxpayers of the city of Port Orange? Fortuitously those inexperienced field crew personnel performing the tap were not injured or killed during that debacle. With the spider cracks and destruction of the 18″ pvc pipe basically exploding with the system water pressure from the improper taping procedures the workers were fortunate they were not impaled by sharp pieces of the pipe that exploded outward. Their have been similar instances documented where this type of pipe tapping failure and explosion has driven pieces of pvc through nearby vehicles. Thank goodness this failure did not seriously injure or kill one of these workers, and by the photographs of the plastic shrapnel that was left behind it is a blessing that one of them was not impaled by a piece of the exploding pvc pipe. It is also a blessing that one of them did not drown in that un-shored excavation that rapidly filled up to a depth of possibly 10 feet.
    Remember the millions of dollars of liability for the methane explosion that occurred a few years ago in Daytona Beach? Luckily similar tragic fatalities did not occur in this instance because the circumstances would have dwarfed the liability that was assumed in Daytona Beach and we would not want any of our precious employees to suffer this fate.. A question for Dr.Wu is wasn’t one of the sightings of the scathing report that was released by Palm Bay Human Resources Department about the current Port Orange utility director that was selected by Greg Kisela that lead to his resignation was dereliction of responsibility in safety protocols? Sounds like the Life Saver has a lot to answer to at the next council meeting. that is unless the mayor decides to make like nothing happened and blows any citizen off that inquires at the meeting.

    • June 14, 2014 at 10:12 pm

      I have seen three people nearly drown during main breaks. It was fortunate that the force of the break spread horizontally along the line. If the line had exploded outward in the area just around to the tapping saddle that could have been real bad news.
      You are correct about the scathing report in regards to dereliction of responsibility in safety protocols.
      You are correct in saying that the life saver has a lot to answer to. I doubt that he will. He never answer to anything or anyone. He’s Teflon. The pud and ass pud should also be supplying answers. Good night, It’s getting late, I have surgery in the morning I’m doing a complete hose bib change out. Gotta get some rest.

        • June 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm

          Check out part 2 from this video it shows how to do it properly It’s amazing how things work when done right. What procedures is the PUD reviewing. They didn’t have a written SOP for this. Bet they conveniently have one now. Imagine that. Reminiscent of certain change order requests for meters. Version one or two. oops! The new SOP reads something like this. Go to home depot, purchase hole saw, use it to install a dozen door knobs, throw it in the back of the truck, let it rust for 6 months and use it for a hot tap on a 18 in C-900 water main. If main blows swim or run like hell. Issue boil water notice! Cover your ass. Maybe this is the old SOP.

  • June 14, 2014 at 6:14 pm

    The lack of protective equipment, such as face protection and body gear, proper tapping equipment, preparation & procedures, and safety environment such as shoring, safety vests, extraction tripod, and back-up personnel is not the fault of the workers or even their front line supervisor. This is mismanagement plain and simple at the city manager and directorial level. Does an organization of this size have a risk management division and does the city manager mandate line items in operating budgets for safety, training, and personal protection equipment or are these expendables that are cut by their finance department?
    If the city council does not immediately make the city manager accountable and issue disciplinary action at his and the directorial level then they will have failed their constituency and the employees they are responsible for. Sooner or later something will happen like the methane explosion in Daytona Beach that will cause the loss of precious lives and millions of dollars of taxpayer liability. If the city manage and the director tries to pass the buck on this one to any subordinate employee as a sacrificial lamb then they should be drawn and quartered. Do not come down on some front line employee to make an example of them, instead do your job as the city manager and make and implement a cohesive plan to provide a safe work environment for your employees in the future.

  • June 15, 2014 at 12:31 am

    Once upon a time, it is said, there lived in Port Orange an FCCMA Lifesaver who spent his days as servant to a wealthy mayor. On a fine morning the Lifesaver drove the market/ city hall, carefree and with his purse jingling with coins from the merchant’s coffers to buy meat and fruit and wine; and there in the market place/ council chambers he saw the Lord of Karma, who beckoned to him as though about to speak. In terror the FCCMA Lifesaver turned his horse about and fled, taking the road that led to his sanctuary. By nightfall, filthy and exhausted, he had reached his home, and with the merchant’s money entered a sanctuary/room., and collapsed upon the bed with mingled fatigue and relief, for it seemed he had outwitted the Lord of Karma. But in the middle of the night came a knock on the chamber door, and in the doorway stood the Lord of Karma, smiling affably. “How come you to be here?” demanded the FCCMA Life Saver , white faced and trembling; ” I saw you only earlier this evening in the council chambers/market place in Port Orange. And the Lord of Karma replied: Why, I have come to collect you , as it is written. For when I saw you this earlier this evening in the market place/ council chambers in Port Orange, I tried to say that you and I had an appointment tonight in your chamber. But you would not let me speak, and only ran away.

  • June 15, 2014 at 4:53 am

    If I remember correctly, R Woodman published pretty much the same points contained in this expensive consultant’s report right here on this website only a day or so after the break. The City should hire Mr Woodman as a “preventive consultant,” take his advice, and save a ton of money on future problems as well as future consultants.
    I noticed that one of Woodman’s earlier concerns, that the 18″ main was unsupported over several feet of its length due to excavation under the main for a sewer line installation, was not addressed in the Arcadis report. Could deflection in the unsupported section of pipe have caused added stress at the tapping point? In one of the pictures it looks like the excavation may have been back-filled before the tapping operation began. Would that cure any deflection or simply support the main in a deflected state? Maybe these are questions for a structural engineer, maybe they are irrelevant, but since Woodman seems to be right much more often than he is wrong I would have liked to have seen them addressed.
    Mike Gardner
    618 Ruth St
    Port Orange, FL 32127

    • June 15, 2014 at 8:26 am

      When you do a tap normal practice would be to expose just enough pipe to install the tapping saddle or sleeve. In this case due to the amount of excavation done to connect the sewer lateral to the nearby manhole the line was greatly disturbed, exposed and unsupported. This caused the deflection and stress on the line before the tap was attempted. One picture that I saw showed the line sagging. At that point the recipe for disaster had already began. Not knowing the sequence of the pictures does lead to more questions. Throwing dirt under the line without relieving the deflection and without proper compaction has to be considered. Was the picture showing the back fill taken after the repair? At this time after finding out the how they performed the tap with a drill and hole saw instead of a tapping machine it may be irrelevant but I do think it had to be a contributing factor. I have seen lines break just from digging around them and disturbing them. Whenever you excavate around a water line especially one like this there is always a chance that you could have a break. That is why you should follow procedures and have a plan to mitigate the effects if it happens.

      • June 15, 2014 at 2:20 pm

        Hi Mr. Woodman, I am a retired project engineer from the petro chemical industry and I have great admiration for your holistic understanding of the Port Orange water system and your analysis of this event. I was reading the Arcadis report and something jumped out at me that I was hoping you can throw some light on. My understanding is that you were the past Utilities Maintenance Superintendent and recently worked for Port Orange for 36 years and were closely associated with the management and staff out at the water plant. The following excerpt of the engineering report is what jumped out at me:
        (A data request was made to the City for historical production data as well as hourly diurnal data
        for: plant production, tank levels, pump station flows and pressures, and system pressures, as a
        means of providing necessary data for converting the model to an extended period simulation.
        However, after discussions with the Water Plant Manager, it is understood that not all data
        required is currently maintained. Regardless, with the data that was available, the project team
        felt that an update to the steady-state model could be undertaken and simulations performed to
        provide meaningful results.)
        Here are my questions about this excerpt:
        1. What do you think the engineer is referring to when he says that the data that is required is not being maintained?
        2. This plant is highly regulated by the State of Florida and obviously inspected on a regular basis so is this data required by the FDEP and has the State regulatory agency sighted the requirement of this unspecified data?
        3. I recently attended the open house at the water plant as I did several years ago and I noticed this plant received the most improved large plant award in the State of Florida by the FSAWWA and the best large treatment plant by the FDEP. How did they win those awards if their is required data they are not maintaining as the Arcadis report says? I was personally very impressed by this operation when I visited there!
        4. I checked with the local Health Department who inspects the plant and the plant’s monthly operating reports to find out what this required data is and I was told that the Port Orange water plant maintains all required data meticulously and they are an award winning operation that has received zero violations in their past sanitary plant inspection. If this is what the State regulatory agency is stating why is Arcadis stating something different?
        5. Do you know the plant manager and the senior staff at the water plant and can you give me your assessment of his competency level and professionalism as well as your assessment of what kind of operation they run at the Port Orange water plant?
        6. Do you think the mention of this unspecified missing required data that the consulting engineer is referring to is simply an attempt to muddy the waters and give the city manager some wiggle room to spin this report any way he sees fit?
        7. Can you give me the name and contact information of the plant manager, and do you think he would be willing to openly address a few questions that I have to ask about the Arcadis report?
        Thank you Mr. Woodman for considering my request as I respect your knowledge and as a retired engineer with over 40 years of experience I have found everything in all your reports to be spot on.

        • June 16, 2014 at 8:45 am

          Diurnal refers to a repeated daily pattern or cycle. Every day is different and there is no exact repetition of a cycle or pattern from day to day in utilities. They only exist in a general sense. The cycles or patterns vary. You can’t provide something that can’t exist. This is not required data. The water plant maintains all data that is required by regulatory agencies. They track and trend pressure and flow 24-7. The engineers could have taken the pressure and flow information and done daily comparisons to try to establish a repeated daily cycle or pattern.This is not required data by regulatory agencies. It was ridiculous to even ask for something like this. The water plant is in complete compliance with regulations and they go above and beyond just what is required. They strive for excellence and are at the top of their field. In my opinion the data requests. the modeling and simulations were unnecessary and irrelevant to the cause of the main break as if they were trying to pin some of this on the water plant or divert attention in the direction of the plant. We all know the cause of the break. I’m not sure how much wiggle room the CM gets but he does get a patsy to blame as I doubt that he will take any responsibility or assign any to his fellow FCCMA member. You can contact the plant manager by calling the water plant on week days. Ask for Steve Miller

  • June 15, 2014 at 11:58 am

    One observation that I have made concerning management as it relates to city operations is lack of critical thought, lack of logical thought and lack of strategic planning including setting objectives and goals. I think that this is where these little surprises like putting boat yards in residential neighborhoods, the meter problems and major main breaks for example stem from. These principles aren’t just for long term planning. They should also be used in every day routine work, big projects, small projects and problem solving etc.
    We hire managers that seem to be all cut from the same cloth, ICMA and FCCMA. They seem to all have the same management philosophy and they all get behind the CM to further their self promoting agenda, keeping council in the dark and feeding them BS. They want council meetings to be like a trip to a mushroom farm. They are arrogant and refuse to listen to and take advise from employees that have more knowledge and experience in city operations than they do because their egos won’t allow it.
    I could go into detail on these thought and planning processes as they pertain to city operations but it would take too long and it would probably be quite boring.

  • June 16, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    It looks like all of the city’s problems are soon to be solved because after the Arcadis report and all the answers to the water main break mister Kisela will bring us the following definitive solution to all of his and his MIT’s internal control deficiencies!

  • June 17, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    We should all be thankful that nobody was killed after watching the video. The force of the explosion and thousands of gallons of water per minute are truly amazing. The fact that that much danger existed and the pictures in the report show the employee with no safety equipment is terrifying . Somebody is liable for placing that pictured worker in danger and should be held accountable. Does anyone know if the employee was injured ? With practices like this have there been any other preventable injuries or accidents within the Utilities Department? I know there are employees that comment here so how about some feedback? Safety First!

  • June 18, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    Port Orange Senior, do not worry, Dick Kelton the FCCMA Range Rider will give his report and Arcadis engineering will give a power point presentation at the city council meeting and everything will be just fine. Lifesaver Kisela has imported them to tell his whitewash story at the taxpayers expense and our elected officials will bend over and swallow it uncritically and perhaps even clap at the end of the presentations. They will allow him to import his own whitewash team in spite of internal intelligence to the contrary. I suppose you might characterize them as the Stepford Council sort of like the Stepford Wives that have been programmed to respond on cue to the mayor and city manager’s programmed response.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.