20210224Suez Answer to Western Aircraft Complaint.pdf

Preston N. Carter [ISB No. 8462]
Blake W. Ringer [IsBNo. tt223l
GrvpNIs PuRsr.pv llp
601 West Bannock Street
P.O.Box2720
Boise, Idaho 837 0l -2720
Ofiice: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
blakeringer@givenspursley. com
Attorneys for SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
BEFORE THE TDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
WESTERN AIRCRAFT, INC.,
Complainant,
vs.
SUEZ WATER IDAHO TNC.,
Respondent.
Case No. SUZ-W-21-01
Axswnn ro WESTERN
Arncnarr's Fonull Cusrourpn
CouplarNt
Pursuant to Commission Rule of Procedure 57, SUEZ Water Idaho Inc. ("SUEZ" or
"Respondent"), files this Answer in Response to the formal Customer Complaint
("Complaint") filed by Western Aircraft, [nc. ("Western Aircraft" or "Complainant") at the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission" or "Idaho PUC"), and the Summons issued
by the Commission on February 3,2021.
IxrRooucuoN AND Facruar. B.q.cxcnouNo
Western Aircraft's Complaint stems from its desire to expand a hangar located near the
Boise Airport. Western Aircraft's most recent plan for the hangar expansion, provided to
SUEZ in August 2020, proposes to construct a building directly on top of an active water main
that is part of SUEZ's public water system. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
("IDEQ") rules require a five-foot setback between water mains and "buildings, industrial
SUEZ's ANSwER To Wssrsnx Am.cRAFT's FoRMer Cusrounn Corrapranqr
I 553 5 804_5.docx[30-2 14]
PAGE 1 oF 17
facilities, or other permanent structures." IDAPA 58.01.08.542.1 l. Western Aircraft's hangar
expansion, if constructed as proposed, would place SUEZ's water system out of compliance
with IDEQ rules.'
In addition, constructing a permanent structure on top of a water main would prevent
SUEZ from accessing the water main as necessary to conduct repairs, maintenance, and other
activities. This creates a risk of damage to structures-both to Western Aircraft's structure and
structures owned by surrounding customers-if the water main ruptures and SUEZ cannot
quickly access the main location of the breach.
After this issue came to light, SUEZ held a number of meetings, calls, and other
correspondence with Western Aircraft, Western Aircraft's consultants, Commission Staff, and
IDEQ Staff. SUEZ has provided specific comments to Western Aircraft regarding its proposal,
and has provided to Western Aircraft several options that would allow Western Aircraft to
expand its hangar while also complying with IDEQ rules.2
Despite these extensive discussions-and despite IDEQ's denial of Western Aircraft's
request for a waiver of the applicable rules-Western Aircraft has not revised and resubmitted
its August 2020 proposal. Nor has it submitted a separate proposal that complies with
applicable rules and takes into account the feedback provided by the various parties. Instead,
Western Aircraft frled this formal complaint, which requests that the Commission compel
I Western Aircraft's proposal also does not comply with other IDEQ rules. SUEZ summarized these issues in an
email to Western Aircraft dated August 20,2020, attached to this Answer as Exhibit l. Note that this Exhibit is
an email chain that contains several correspondences between a combination of SUEZ's team, Westem Aircraft
personnel, T-O Engineers (Western Aircraft's engineering consultants), and Idaho PUC staff. SUEZ's feedback
on the proposal is contained in the email within this chain from Nathan Croft to T-O Engineers dated August
20,2020.
2 A summary of the history of correspondence and SUEZ's suggested potential solutions is contained in a
December 30,2020 letter from SUEZ's counsel to Westem Aircraft, attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint.
SUEZ's letter begins on page 70 of the PDF document.
SUEZ'S ANSwpnro WssrenN AncRAFT's FoRMer Cusrounn CouprnrNt
I 5535804 5.docxl30-2141
Pncs 2 or 17
SUEZ to approve a plan that would place SUEZ's water system out of compliance with IDEQ
regulations. As set foth in more detail below, the Complaint is without merit. SUEZ
respectfully requests that the Commission deny the Complaint. To the extent the Commission
is inclined to provide some guidance to the parties, SUEZ respectfully requests that the
Commission recognize that it is Western Aircraft's responsibility to submit plans that comply
with applicable rules and that allow SUEZ reasonable access to repair and maintain its water
system.
To be clear, SUEZ stands ready to review and approve plans that comply with
applicable rules, so long as those plans allow SUEZ access to maintain and repair its water
system. SUEZ cannot, however, agree to approve a project that would place SUEZ's water
system in noncompliance with IDEQ rules, that would interfere with SUEZ's ability to
maintain and repair its system, or that would detrimentally affect service provided to other
customers.
In addition, SUEZ's customers must be held harmless from any impacts<ost impacts
or otherwise--from Western Aircraft's project. This requires that Western Aircraft's project be
conducted in a manner that does not impose excessive costs upon SUEZ; that does not impact
existing service conditions, such as fire flows, to existing customers; that does not place
SUEZ's system out of compliance with applicable rules; and that does not create a threat of
future damage by interfering with SUEZ's ability to access the water main.
SUEZ's ANSwER To WESTERN AIRCRATT's FoRMAL Cusrousn Coupr-Rnqr
I 553 5804_5.docx[30-2 I 4]
Pecn 3 or 17
Srucrrrc ANswrnS roAlr,pcLrroNs rx Cotvrrr.aNr
Pmrrps
1. SUEZ admits that Western Aircraft is a customer of SUEZ. SUEZ lacks
sufficient information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the
Complaint.
2. SUEZ admits that it is a regulated utility that provides water services within the
City of Boise in Ada County, Idaho. SUEZ admits that it is the exclusive regulated water
utility within its certificated service area, and that it therefore has an obligation to serve
customers within its certificated service area in compliance with the rules of the Commission.
SUEZ admits that SUEZ filed a general rate case in September 2020 that requests an increase
in rates of approximately 22%o, though the general rate case is not related to this proceeding.
SUEZ denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
3. suEZ admits that the..*::::;:rr-"tion to hear this dispute. rhe
remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are legal conclusions that do not
require a response. To the extent a response is required, SUEZ admits that the Idaho statutes
prohibit certain actions by utilities but denies that SUEZ's actions with respect to this matter
violate Idaho statutes or other applicable authority.
Sr,Irovrpxr oF FACTS
4. SUEZ lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph of the Complaint.
5. SUEZ lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this
paragraph of the Complaint. Based on information and belief, SUEZ affirmatively alleges that
SUEZ,S ANSWER To WESTERN Am.CRAFT,S FORMAL CUSTOMER COUPIETNT
I 5535804_5.docx[30-214]
PAGE 4 oF 17
what Western Aircraft describes as a "breezeway" is, in fact, a fully enclosed structure with
heated air that contains walls, and a roof. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that what Western
Aircraft describes as aoobreezeway" is, therefore, a "building or pennanent structure" under
applicable rules of the IDEQ.3 SUEZ notes that it could potentially approve a plan that
contains a covered (though not fully enclosed) walkway between the two structures so long as
the walkway allows access for equipment needed to conduct repairs and maintenance. SUEZ
conveyed this option to Western Aircraft, but Western Aircraft has continued to insist upon
constructing a fully enclosed structure that contains walls, a roof, and heated air.
6. SUEZ admits that the building or permanent structure that Western Aircraft
proposes to construct-which Western Aircraft describes as a"breezeway"-would, if
constructed, be located directly on top of a water main that is currently used as part of SUEZ's
public water system.4 SUEZ further admits that the building or permanent structure that
Western Aircraft proposes to construct would be located on top of a preexisting sewer line.
SUEZ further admits that these facilities appear to be in their current location because Westem
3 IDEQ rules for public water systems require that water mains be set back at least five feet from "buildings,
industrial facilities, and other permanent structures." IDAPA 58.01.08.542.1I ("Water mains shall be separated
by at Ieast five (5) feet from buildings, industrial facilities, and olher permanent structures.") The term
"building" is not defined. Dictionary definitions of the term "building" differ somewhat, but generally define
the term as some permutation of a structure that has walls and aroof. E.g., Black's Law Dictionary, Building
(defining "building" as 'oA structure with walls and a roof, esp. a permanent structure."); Random House
Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2d Ed. 1998) (defining "building" as "a relatively permanent enclosed
construction over a plot of land, having a roof and usually windows and often more than one level, used for any
of a wide variety of activities, as living, entertaining, or manufacturing"); "Building," Merriam-Webster.com
Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/building, accessed February 22,2021 (defining
"building" as "a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use").
4 The water main is currently used to provide water to Western Aircraft's hangar. The main is also required to
provide sufficient pressure to maintain fire flows to surrounding customers. A diagram that contains
calculations of fire flows is attached as Exhibit 2. This diagram and accompanying fire flow calculations were
provided to Western Aircraft as part of SUEZ's explanation that Western Aircraft could construct the building
at its current location if it upgraded the water mains surrounding the property as necessary to maintain fire
protection flows to existing customers. This would allow SUEZ to abandon the main located under the proposed
new building.
SUEZ's ANSwER To WssrenN Am.cRArr's Fonunr CusroMER Coupr,arNr
15535804 5.docx[30-214]
PAGE 5 or 17
Aircraft proposes to construct on top of a former right-of-way for the currently abandoned
Boeing Street. SUEZ denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
7. SUEZ admits that Western Aircraft submitted an engineering design and site
plan to SUEZ on or about May 19, 2020, and that, upon information and belief, the City of
Boise approved this plan. SUEZ admits that SUEZ previously commented favorably upon the
plan as submitted, based on the facts known at the time. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that as of
that date, SUEZ did not know that Western Aircraft's proposal l) included a fully enclosed
building or permanent structure and2) that the fully enclosed building or permanent structure
was proposed directly above a water main that was currently in use. SUEZ denies any
remaining allegations in this paragraph of this Complaint.
8. SUEZ admits that, on or about August 10,2020, workers associated with
Western Aircraft's project breached a water main located in the vicinity of where Western
Aircraft proposes to construct a building or pernanent structure that Western Aircraft
describes as a "breezeway."5 SUEZ admits that, based on this water main breach, it was
revealed that there was insuffrcient separation between the water main and sewer lines in this
vicinity. SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
9. SUEZ admits that, on or about August 20,2020, Western Aircraft's engineers
proposed a revised water connection plan. SUEZ denies that this water connection plan met all
IDEQ rules and requirements. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that SUEZ identified a number of
ways in which the proposal did not comply with various IDEQ rules and requirements, and that
the proposal did not allow SUEZ to access the water main as necessary to perform
5 Workers associated with Western Aircraft's project have actually breached SUEZ water lines on three separate
occasions: August 10,2020; September 10,2020; and October 6,2020.
SUEZ'S ANswnn ro WssrsnuAm.cRAFT's FoRMAL CusroMER CouplanNr
I 5535804_5.docx130-2141
PAGE 6 oF 17
maintenance and repairs. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that, on or about September 23,2020,
Western Aircraft's engineers submitted a request to IDEQ to provide a waiver from certain
IDEQ rules, which demonstrates Western Aircraft's knowledge and acknowledgement that its
August 20,2020 plan did not, in fact, comply with IDEQ rules.6 By email dated October 7,
2020, attached as Exhibit 4, IDEQ denied the requested waiver, noting that 1) Western Aircraft
had not demonstrated that its proposal would protect human health, 2) Westem Aircraft had
not demonstrated that its proposal provides protection from contamination, and 3) Western
Aircraft had not demonstrated that its proposal allows for satisfactory operation and
maintenance of the water system. In addition, DEQ noted that any waiver would require
SUEZ's consent, since SUEZ owns the water system and would be stuck with long-term
compliance issues associated with the proposed construction. SUEZ admits that it did not
approve Western Aircraft's August 20,2020 proposal, and affirmatively alleges that it did not
approve the proposal because the proposal did not comply with IDEQ rules and the proposal
did not allow SUEZ sufficient access to maintain and repair the water main. SUEZ denies any
remaining allegations in this paragraph of this Complaint.
10. SUEZ admits that SUEZ and Western Aircraft met on numerous occasions, and
exchanged numerous correspondences, related to Western Aircraft's proposal and project, and
that SUEZ and Western Aircraft held meetings at which Commission Staff was present. SUEZ
admits that Commission Staff proposed a potential solution to this issue on or about September
1,2020.7 SUEZ affirmatively alleges that on or about September 10,2020, after Staffmade
6 Western Aircraft's request for a waiver is attached as Exhibit 3. IDEQ's denial of the request is attached as
Exhibit 4. The fact that Western Aircraft sought, and was denied, a waiver indicates that Western Aircraft's
proposal does not comply with IDEQ rules. And Western Aircraft knows it.
7 A copy of Mr. Morrison's proposal letter is attached as an exhibit to Exhibit A of the Complaint. The letter is
marked in the Complaint as "Exhibit D" and begins on page 39 of the PDF that constitutes the Complaint and
Exhibits on the Commission's website.
SUEZ's ANswBn ro WnsrBnN AncRart's Fonuer Cusrousn CoupLAINr
I 5535804_5.docx130-214)
PAGE 7 oF 17
this proposal, workers associated with the Western Aircraft project again ruptured a water
main. A third rupture occurred less than a month later, on or about October 6,2020. A
photograph of this third rupture and the ensuing water damage is attached as Exhibit 5. These
incidents demonstrated that a building simply should not be constructed on top of the main; the
damage to any such structure would have been excessive. Staffls September 1,2020 proposal
proved impractical in light of these events.s SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this
paragraph of the Complaint.
SUEZ denies that it unreasonably withheld approval of this proposal. Indeed, Mr.
Morrison's letter was not a proposal from Western Aircraft at all, and Western Aircraft did not
incorporate Mr. Morrison's letter into any submission from Western Aircraft. As alleged
above, the subsequent rupture of the water main also demonstrated that this proposed solution
was not practical. SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
11. SUEZ admits that, on or about September 22,2020, Westem Aircraft sought
from IDEQ a variance from IDEQ's rules. SUEZ denies that Western Aircraft received a
conditional waiver. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that IDEQ denied the request for a waiver on
the bases that (1) Western Aircraft had not demonstrated that its proposal would protect human
health, 2) Western Aircraft had not demonstrated that its proposal provides protection from
contamination, and 3) Western Aircraft had not demonstrated that its proposal allows for
satisfactory operation and maintenance of the water system. In addition, IDEQ noted that any
waiver would require SUEZ's consent, since SUEZ owns the water system and would be stuck
8 This proposal also raises legal challenges. For example, it appears that Western Aircraft is a lessee, not the
owner of the structure. Therefore it is not clear that an indemnity from Westem Aircraft, as proposed by Staff,
would effectively protect SUEZ for damage to the structure. In addition, indemnities are not effective as to
future owners or tenants of a structure, or against surrounding structures; indemnities are only as good as the
financial condition of the indemnifying party; and claims for indemnification often lead to litigation.
SUEZ,S ANSWER To WESTERN AR.CRAFT,S FONUET CUSTOUER COMPLAtr.{T
I 55 35804_5.docx[30-2 I 4]
P,q.cs 8 or 17
with long-term compliance issues associated wittr the proposed construction. SUEZ denies that
it reversed position or withheld its cooperation and affirmatively alleges that IDEQ denied
Western Aircraft's request for a waiver. SUEZ denies any additional allegations in this
paragraph of the Complaint.
12. SUEZ admits that it held a collaborative and inclusive telephone call on or about
October 2l , 2020, and that the call was conducted with representatives of a number of affected
entities, including DEQ, Commission Stafq Western Aircraft, and SUEZ. SUEZ further
admits that this call did not produce a solution insofar as Western Aircraft had still not
proposed a plan that complied with applicable rules and allowed SUEZ access to the water
main to perform maintenance and repairs. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that, either during the
course of this conversation or in a subsequent phone call, Western Aircraft asked SUEZ what
SUEZ would do ii notwithstanding the lack of an approved plan, Western Aircraft constructed
the project with the building or permanent structure unlawfully located directly above the
water main. SUEZ responded with words to the effect that it would not provide water service
to a project that did not comply with applicable rules. This was not a threat, but rather a
response to Western Aircraft's inquiry as to what SUEZ would do if Western Aircraft
proceeded with construction that placed SUEZ's water system out of compliance with IDEQ
rules. SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
13. SUEZ admits that, after Western Aircraft's continued refusal to propose a plan
that complied with applicable rules and that allowed SUEZ sufficient access to maintain and
repair its system, Western Aircraft appears to have retained legal counsel to make a written
demand to SUEZ. SUEZ admits that it received the demand letter and the attached opinion of
counsel on or about December 16,2020. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that, in response to
SUEZ,S ANSwBR rO WNSTENN AN.CRAIT,S FORMAL CUSTON,TSR COI\,TPLED.IT
15535804 5.docx[30-214]
Pecs 9 or 17
Western Aircraft's December 16,2020 leffer, SUEZ was forced to retain legal counsel to
respond to this demand. SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the
Complaint.
14. SUEZ admits that its counsel timely responded to Western Aircraft's December
16,2020 demand letter and subsequent correspondence from Western Aircraft. SUEZ admits
that copies of these correspondences are attached to the Complaint, though SUEZ notes that
Western Aircraft has omitted the second page of an email chain contained in Exhibit D of the
Complaint.e SUEZ affirmatively alleges that SUEZ consistently and accurately noted that
Western Aircraft's August 2020 proposal did not comply with applicable rules; that SUEZ
could not approve a proposal that did not comply with applicable rules and that would not
allow SUEZ access to the water main to perform maintenance and repair; that SUEZ would
work with Western Aircraft to come up with a plan that did meet requirements; but that it was
Western Aircraft's responsibility, not SUEZ's responsibility, to come up with such a plan, and
to obtain the costs of various alternatives that would comply with applicable rules. SUEZ
denies all other allegations in this paragraph, including sub-paragraphs.
15. SUEZ denies the allegations in this paragraph in the Complaint. SUEZ has
repeatedly and consistently noted that it is Western Aircraft's responsibility to propose a plan
that complies with all applicable rules, and that allows SUEZ to access its water system to
perform maintenance and repairs. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that, in a spirit of good faith and
cooperation, SUEZ provided to Western Aircraft several options that would comply with
e That email, in its entirety, is attached to this Answer as Exhibit 6
SUEZ'S ANSWTN TO WESTERN AR.CRAFT'S FONTT,IET CUSTOMER COMPLAINT
I 5535804_5.docx[30-2 l4]
PAGE IO oF 17
applicable rules yet still allow the hangar expansion.r0 One of these options is to abandon the
existing water main. This solution would allow the building or permanent structure to be
constructed in its proposed location. However, if SUEZ abandons the water main located under
Western Aircraft's proposed building or permanent structure, the water system would no
longer support fire flows to the hangar and to other customers. SUEZ's calculations regarding
fire flow, which were provided to Western Aircraft, are attached to this Answer as Exhibit 2.
To mitigate this detrimental effect on Western Aircraft and other customers, if it elects to
pursue this course of actior5 Western Aircraft would need to upgrade the water mains on the
perimeter of its property to larger mains that would support fire flows to Western Aircraft's
project and to other customers that would be negatively impacted by abandonment of the
existing water main.
Rseursr FoR RELTEF
SUEZ incorporates the responses to each of the allegations, as set forth above. SUEZ
denies that Western Aircraft is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the
Commission deny or dismiss the Complaint without ordering SUEZ to take any action. SUEZ
responds to the particular request for relief in more detail as follows.
1 SUEZ affirmatively alleges that SUEZ is currently providing Western Aircraft
with domestic water. SUEZ will continue to do so. However, Western Aircraft proposes to
construct a building or other permanent structure directly above a water main that is used to
provide water service. This would place SUEZ's water system out of compliance with IDEQ
l0 SUEZ maintained, and continues to maintain, that it will work with Western Aircraft to identify solutions, but
that Western Aircraft bears the ultimate responsibility to refrain from construction that will place SUEZ's
system out of compliance with IDEQ's rules. SUEZ's efforts to work with Western Aircraft should not be
construed as SUEZ accepting responsibility for designing Westem Aircraft's project, and SUEZ's proposals do
not reflect the universe of potential plans that would comply with applicable rules.
SUEZ'S ANSwTR ro WESTERN AR.cRAFT'S FoRMAL CusroMER CouprlrNr
I 5535804_5.docx[30-2 l4]
PecB ll or 17
rules. It would also preclude SUEZ from accessing the water main as necessary to perform
maintenance and repair activities, and create the potential for damage to Western Aircraft's
structure and surrounding structures if the main is breached. SUEZ respectfully submits that
the Commission should not order SUEZ to provide water service if a customer chooses to
construct a building that creates these problems. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that the
Commission should deny all relief sought in the Complaint. SUEZ denies any further
allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
2. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that it has correspondedrr with Western Aircraft in
good faith regarding Westem Aircraft's proposal throughout the course of the events outlined
in the Complaint and Answer. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that it will continue to work with
Westem Aircraft moving forward as required to ensure that Western Aircraft's proposal
complies with all applicable rules and provides sufficient access for SUEZ to perform
maintenance and repair activities to its water system. SUEZ denies any other allegations in this
paragraph of the Complaint.
A. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that it is not responsible for, and should not
be placed in a position to be responsible for, providing cost estimates for work that
Western Aircraft may or may not need to perform to ensure that Western Aircraft's
proposal complies with applicable rules. There are many problems with Western
Aircraft's request. To name a few: SUEZ does not know how Western Aircraft will
ll A sampling of SUEZ's correspondence with Western Aircraft on this maffer are attached as Exhibits 1 and 7.
Exhibit 1 contains an August 2020 email chain between SUEZ personnel, Westem Aircraft personnel, and
Commission and IDEQ staffthat specifically notes the deficiencies in Western Aircraft's August 2020 proposal
It would be duplicative, and it is unnecessary, to attach the voluminous emails, diagrams, and other documents
to this Answer. Suffice it to say that SUEZ-as well as Commission and IDEQ Staff-has made its personnel
available to spend significant time and effort in correspondence with Western Aircraft in an attempt to resolve
this matter.
SUEZ'S ANswBn ro WBsrsnN Am.cRAFT's FoRMAL Cusrounn CouplarNr
I 5535804_5.docxl30-2141
PacB 12 on 17
ultimately plan, construct, and otherwise develop the project to comply with applicable
rules; SUEZ does not know which contractors Western Aircraft would prefer to use;
SUEZ does not know the business, design, and other relevant needs ofthe project as
required to determine the above cost estimate; and costs, assumptions, and other
relevant factors change so quickly in this environment that a cost estimate may not be
accurate for a period of time. Requiring SUEZ to provide cost estimates for as-yet-not-
proposed portions of Western Aircraft's project would place SUEZ in an untenable
position vis-i-vis Western Aircraft and vis-d-vis SUEZ's existing customers. This is
Western Aircraft's project, and Western Aircraft should be in charge of planning,
designing, obtaining estimates, and constructing the project in compliance with
applicable rules. SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this sub-paragraph of the
Complaint.
B. SUEZ denies that the August 20,2020 plan proposed by Western
Aircraft's engineers is compliant with applicable rules. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that
Western Aircraft acknowledged that its proposal does not comply with applicable rules
by requesting a waiver from those rules, which was denied by IDEQ. SUEZ denies any
remaining allegations in this sub-paragraph of the Complaint.
C. SUEZ respectfully submits that the Commission should not position
itself as the agency to endorse any particular "proposed alternative solution[]" to
Western Aircraft's dilemma. IDEQ, not the Commission, is the agency tasked with
interpreting and administering the rules of public drinking water systems; and the
Commission, like SUEZ, does not have the background information to determine which
solutions most closely match Westem Aircraft's design and business needs. In addition,
SUEZ,S ANswrn rO WESTERN AM.CRAFT,S FORMAL CuSrOugR CoIT,TPLAINT
15535804 5.docx[30-214]
PAGE 13 oF 17
SUEZ is not aware of statutory or other authority that vests in the Commission the
jurisdiction to endorse any particular proposed solution to a developer's plans that do
not comply with applicable rules. However, if the Commission is inclined to select an
alternative, SUEZ respectfully requests that the Commission determine with specificity
which party is required to pay for which component of the respective solution. SUEZ
denies all remaining allegations of this sub-paragraph of the Complaint.
3. SUEZ denies that Western Aircraft has alleged or proven any discriminatory
treatment. A11 developers must submit plans that comply with IDEQ and other rules, and that
allow SUEZ access to repair and maintain its water system. SUEZ affirmatively alleges that
Western Aircraft is responsible for any costs needed to construct its project, including any
costs needed to ensure that its project does not detrimentally impact water service to Western
Aircraft or other customers. This would include costs to upgrade water mains around the
perimeter of the property, as needed to maintain fire flows, if Western Aircraft chooses to
construct the building or pennanent structure on top of the existing main and to abandon the
existing main. SUEZ denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
4. SUEZ denies that any relief is necessary and proper on this Complaint.
5. SUEZ denies that a formal hearing is required. However, SUEZ would not
object to a technical hearing if the Commission feels that a technical hearing is necessary to
fully understand the circumstances surrounding the Complaint.
ArrrnuauvE REeUEST FoR Rrr,rur
In addition to the relief requested by SUEZ in response to Western Aircraft's request
for relief, set forth above, SUEZ affirmatively requests that the Commission:
1. Deny all relief sought in the Complaint;
SUEZ,S ANSWERTo WSSTERN ARCRAFT,S FORMAL CUSTOITIBn COrrapI-ArNr
15535804_5.docx[30-214]
PAGE 14 oF 17
2. Order that any plan eligible for approval by SUEZ must comply with existing
rules and allow SUEZ to access its water system as reasonably necessary to maintain, repair,
replace, and otherwise access the water system; and
3. Order that any costs associated with designing, planning, implementing,
constructing, and otherwise associated with Western Aircraft's project be borne by Western
Aircraft, to prevent those costs from being paid by SUEZ's other customers through rates.
Coxcr,usrox
SUEZ respectfully submits that it is Western Aircraft's responsibility to refrain from
constructing a project that would place SUEZ's water system out of compliance with IDEQ
rules for public water systems, and that would prevent SUEZ from accessing an active water
main as required to perform maintenance and repair. SUEZ has worked with Western Aircraft
and agency personnel, including Commission Staff, to assist Western Aircraft in proposing a
project that meets the needs of all parties. At the end of the day, it is Western Aircraft's
responsibility to propose a plan that complies with applicable rules, and that permits SUEZ the
necessary access to its water system. Costs associated with Western Aircraft's proposed project
should be borne by Western Aircraft, not by SUEZ. Accordingly, SUEZ respectfully requests
that the Commission deny or dismiss Western Aircraft's Complaint.
To the extent any guidance from the Commission is appropriate, SUEZ respectfully
submits that the Commission provide guidance to Western Aircraft that Western Aircraft must
submit a plan to SUEZ that conforms to all applicable regulations and that provides SUEZ
access to its water system as necessary to maintain, repair, and replace components of the
system and to avoid the possibility of damage to structures owned by Westem Aircraft or other
customers.
SUEZ,S ANSWER To WESTERN Am.CRAFT,S FORMAL CUSToMER Co\apT,an.IT
I 5535804_5.docx[30-2 la]
PecB 15 or 17
DATED: February 24,2021.
GrvnNs PuRsr,ev LLp
?e,-b
Preston N. Carter
Blake W. Ringer
Attomeysfor SUEZ Water ldaho Inc.
SUEZ's ANswen ro WesrERN ARcRarr's FonuAL CusroMER Couprenqr
I 5535804_5.docxp0Al41
PAGE 16 oF 17
CERTITICATE OF SERVICE
I certiff that on February 24,2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served
upon all parties of record in this proceeding via electronic mail as indicated below:
Jan Noriyuki, Commission Secretary
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Bldg. 8, Ste. 201-A
Boise, lD 83714
i an.norivuki@puc. idaho. gov
John Hammond
Deputy Attorney General
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
11331 W. ChindenBlvd., Bldg.8, Ste.20l-A
Boise, D 83714
j ohn.hammond@puc. idaho. gov
David H. Leroy
Attorney atLaw
802 West Bannock Street, Suite 201
Boise, D 83702
[e-mail]
,"
Preston N. Carter
SUEZ's ANswrn ro WesrERN AEcRAFT's FoRMAL Cusrourn CoMpLATNT
I 5535804_5.docx[30-2 l4]
PeoB 17 or 17
-
El
-tr
-l+lt*{X
frl
E !ll3 ITl
Preston N. Carter
From:Crofts, Nathan < [e-mail]>
Friday, September 11,2020 9:58 AM
Mike Morrison; Terri Carlock
Cooper, Catherine
RE: Western Air
Western Air Piping_rb.pdf
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subiect:
Attachments:
Mike,
I am trying to set up a meeting ASAP for Western Air. We are thinking 11:30. Do you want to be involved?
Also, attached is a sheet showing the fire flow scenarios with the different piping options. I can go through this with you
if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Nate Crofts
Construction Supervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:[phone]
suee
Please think twice before printing this email.
From: M ike M orrison <M ike.Morrison@ puc. idaho.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September !0,2020 LL:24 AM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Terri Carlock <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air
Thanks a lot.
Could you send this to Louie and his design team?
Mike
From: Crofts, Nathan <nate suez.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 70,2020 8:50 AM
To: Mike Morrison <Mike,Morrison@pu >; Terri Carlock <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air
Mike,
Yes, the minimum distance we have asked for is 20'
Thank you,
Nate Crofts
Construction Supervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:[phone]
SUEE
Please think twice before printing this email.
From: Mike Morrison <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:45 PM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Terri Carlock <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cooper, Catherine <cathv. [e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air
Nate:
This is very helpful. Could you clarify your 7th bullet point? How much space does Suez need for its dump
truck and other equipment? (Can you verify the distance we would have between the two structures to
work on the line if needed? We would need to get excavation equipment and a dumptruck in this area
safely.)
From: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:34 PM
To: Mike Morrison <[e-mail]>; Terri Carlock <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Western Air
Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us yesterday on the Western Air Project. As we discussed, I have included
the last correspondence we had sent the Western Air Team. lt sounds like we are all ready to get the ball rolling again
and try to find the best solutions for all of us to get the project moving along. We understand that this process has been
frustrating for all involved. This is one of those cases that the more information that was gathered, the more issues that
have been found. Suez has to do our best to follow every regulatory requirement with the installation of our water
lines. lf there needs to be exceptions to these regulatory requirements we would expect that the Western Air Team
would meet with and obtain the variances from the regulatory agencies.
I have added some comments to the last e-mail in red below to try and help explain anything that might have been lost
in the translation of the previous correspondence and to clarify some of our conversations.
It would be good if we can get every together again and working towards solutions ASAP.
Please let me know if you have any questions
Thank you,
2
Nate Crofts
Construction Supervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:2O8-362-7329
suea
Please think twice before printing this email
From: Crofts, Nathan
Sent: Thursday, August 20,2020 11:43 AM
To: Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>; Dillon Barresi <dbarresi@stockcm >; 'Louie Gravel'
<!-ggieg-@ wCS!.Aj-t. co m >
Cc: Brooks, Russell <[e-mail]>; Justin Bilbrey <ibilbrev@to-ensi >; Tucker, Brian
<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Air
Brendon,
I like the idea on the 4" line of a backflow. lf you want help deciding what all needs to be done there I could have our
cross connection specialists give you a call and discuss options available.
I think the south side should work in concept. There are a few callouts that will need to get cleaned up, The existing
pipeisa6"ACline. lhadsuggestedthatthisnotstartuntilwehadthefullscopeoftheprojectcompleted.Theintent
of this suggestion was to not have the owner pay for work to be done twice in this area, depending on the resolution to
questions below.
We had suggested that we abandon the north line at our meeting yesterday due the list of concerns that we still have on
the north line. Below is a list of some of these concerns we still need to address:- Would the sleeved water line be above or below the non-potable lines? Suez will need to know the depth
andlocationoftheline. Wewillneedtoverifythatwehaveenoughroomtonotunderminethebuildings
when doing the work in this area. We would look at the distance from the building and depth of the pipe in
such a way that that a L.5:L slope during excavation can be done safely and without compromising the
integrity of the buildings. We would obviously need to verify that the location of this line meets all of the
separation requirements. Not just for the new lines being installed but also for the existing non-potable
line(s).- | don't see a call out for the existing 6" fire sprinkler line, How do we make this connection through a
sleeve? Another option would be to connect the fire sprinkler line out of the sleeved area, providing that it
meet all of the separation requirements as well.- How do we make a connection to the fire hydrant through a sleeve? Brendan was in the process of
brainstorming this one when the informal complaint was made. Another option would be if we eliminate
the existing line between the buildings that a portion of one of the existing lines could be used as a
dedicated fire hydrant line?- There was a question of whether or not the existing 8" fire sprinkler line needs to be there or not. When we
visited the site the maintenance team said they don't know what it feeds? Eliminating this service might
clear up space for other things and save the customer a little bit of money. lf it truly can be eliminated?- The IDAPA rules for drinking water has a blurb that says we can't be closer than 5' to a building
structure. Page 1"25, #1L. When we thought the structure in between was a breezeway we felt like this is
something that we might have been able to work around. This is still a big area of concern. Suez needs to
3
beabletohaveaccesstothemainlineoveritslifetime. lfthestructurestayswith-outthisaccessitcould
create huge maintenance issues down the road. lf there is not access to get through this area with
equipment then the equipment will need to route around the structure via the airport runway. I am not
sure if this is acceptable to The City of Boise. lf access is given through this area we would need enough
room for a dumptruck and excavation equipment. (Something in the 13'tallX 12' wide range as a
minimum.)
I heard that the gas line is being abandoned. Do you know the location of any other utilities in this
corridor? i.e. power, communication, etc...? Suez standard is to have 5' away from other utilities in order to
safely access and work on the water lines.
Can you verify the distance we would have between the two structures to work on the line if needed? We
would need to get excavation equipment and a dumptruck in this area safely. We will need a minimum of
20' between the buildings.
lf we decide to stay in the north corridor we would need something from Western air stating that if there is
a main break in the area that Suez will not be liable for damage to Western Air's property, specifically the
buildings. Suez needs to run this by legal counsel to verify this could be made into an acceptable agreement
that will hold up for the life of the pipeline.
We did have a conversation suggesting that we eliminate the north line and make the south and west lines 12"
could probably do either an 8" or L2" on the east side depending on layout of hydrants line and fire sprinkler.
know if you would like to discuss this further. Suez is doing further evaluation of this option.
,We
Let me
Let me know if we need to set up a conference call to discuss these items and/or brainstorm solutions.
Thank you,
Nate Crofts
Construction Supervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:[phone]
SUCZ
Please think twice before printing this email.
From: Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 20,2020 10:12 AM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Dillon Barresi <[e-mail]>; 'Louie Gravel'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brooks, Russell <[e-mail]>; Justin Bilbrey <ibilbrev@to-ensl >
Subject: RE: Western Air
Nate -
Sorry I wasn't able to make the call on Tuesday. Dillon and I have been coordinating on the discussion held Tuesday and
the existing site conditions that have been encountered since the other utility excavation began.
We have prepared a revised SUEZ water plan that meets all DEQ regulations under the current existing conditions in
order to move the project forward. Here is break down of the adjustments;
4
North side - extend SUEZ line sleeving to get under and past the sewer and fire line crossings. We made some
slight adjustments to the alignment to increase separation.
South side - sleeve and relocate SUEZ line under sewer crossing move south for separation from sewer/storm
service lines.
West side - my understanding is that SUEZ has field inspected the existing line and all clearances meet
requ irements along Kennedy.
4" service line to Fire tank - sounds like we don't have much room to move here now that the actual location
has been determined, I would propose that we install a bacKlow device/valve on this service line just off of
Kennedy, that way we would classify the service line from Kennedy to the fire tank as non-potable and make it
apart of the fire system and eliminate clearance requirements. We did not show this on the SUEZ plan attached,
I figured it would not be in SUEZ scope of work. Included a civil plan mark up for reference.
Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or redlines on the plan so we can get the work moving ahead.
Thanks for your help and coordination on this!
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (lD, NV) | Proiect Monoger
T.Cl ENEIIUEEFA
1998 W. Judith Lane I Boise, ldaho 83705
o 208-433-1900 | C 208-631-s851
www.to-enqineers.com
From: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August L8,2020 5:20 PM
To: Dillon Barresi <[e-mail]>; Brendon Daniels <[e-mail]>; 'Louie Gravel'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brooks, Russell <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Western Air
Dillon,
Below are some calculations for one of the solutions we can talk about tomorrow.
Thanks,
Nate Crofts
Construction Supervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:[phone]
a
a
a
a
oEo
SUEA
Please think twice before printing this email.
From: Brooks, Russell <russ. [e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, August L8,2O2O 5:13 PM
5
EI
To: Crofts, Nathan <nate.crofts@suez. >; Tucker, Brian <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Western Air
I revised the flows to capture the fire flow coming from the west (Kennedy Street) or east (lngalls Street) to the existing
hanger, see below.
Russ
From: Brooks, Russell
Sent: Tuesday, August L8,2020 11:55 AM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Tucker, Brian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Air
Nate and Brian,
I ran the fire flow modelfor different pipe sizes in the Western Air area. Specifically for the existing hanger just north of the
new construction and fire hydrant #1298 east of the development. The results are as follows:
Existing Hanger (Kennedy west connection)
Current available FF = 2402
Flow coming from west existing 6" in Kennedy and without the 8" connection between existing and new hangers = 1614
Flow coming from the west gilh new 12' line in Kennedy = 2379
Kennedy west connection affects Hydrant 1298
Current available FF -- 1754
Without the 8" between existing and new hangers = 1587
With new 12' line on Cessna and 8" line on lngalls = 1774
Existing Hanger (lngalls east connection)
Current available FF = 2402
Flow coming from east existing 6" in lngalls and without the 8" connection between existing and new hangers = 1388
Flow coming from the east gi!! new 12" line in Cessna, lngalls and new 12' service line = 2692
lngalls east connection affects Hydrant 0013335
Current available FF = 1714
Without the 8" between existing and new hangers = 1538
With new 12" line on Kennedy = 1763
I hope this helps with decision making. Let me know if there is anything else I can do.
Thank you,
Russ Brooks, PE
Senior Project Engineer
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
8248W. Victory Rd.
Boise, lD 83709
Tel:[phone]
[e-mail]
SUEE
Please think twice before printing this email
6
Before printing a copy of this email, please consider the environment. This email and any attachments are
confidential and intendedfor the named recipient or entity to which it is addressed only. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any revian, re-transmission, or conversion to hard copy,
copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. Whilst all efforts
are made to safeguard their content, emails are not secure and SUEZ cannot guarantee that attachments are
virusfree or compatible with your systems and does not accept liability in respect of viruses or computer
problems experienced. SUEZ reserves the right to monitor all email communications through its internal and
external networks
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and
others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful,
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in
Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in;
Security, archiving and compliance, To find out more Click Here.
Before printing a copy of this email, please consider the environment. This email and any attachments are
confidential and intendedfor the named recipient or entity to which it is addressed only. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, re-transmission, or conversion to hard copy,
copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. Whilst all efforts
are made to safeguard their content, emails are not secure and SUEZ cannot guarantee that attachments are
virusfree or compatible with your systems and does not accept liability in respect of viruses or computer
problems experienced. SUEZ reserves the right to monitor all email communications through its internal and
external networl<s
7
N
El
-tr
-l+ltltX
FEI
EXHIBIT 2
12"pipeonKennedy
-
12" pipeonCessna
-
pipeonlngalls
-
= 1714 9Pm8' pips = 1538 gpm
lmprovements = 1973 gpm
1996lo 12" =
= 1754gpm
8" pipe = 1587 gpm
improvements = 1931 gpm
Ingalls upsize to 12" = 2,049
= 2379
Fire Flows:
Fire Connection = 2402 gpmI' pipe = 1614 gpm
(x)13
I
BCi {1,
\
lil
€
!h
T$If
\
I
I
t
:
129
'ri
*
I
a-
ca
E,t
-
Fd
E !ll3 IT3
T.Cl IEN(3INEEBS
1998 W. Judith Lane
Boise, Idaho 83705
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.to-ensi neers.comSeptember 23,2020
From:
Dan Smith, P.E. - IDEQ Boise Regional Office
Louie Gravel - Western Aircraft
Nate Crofts - SUEZ
Brendon Daniels, PE - T-O Engineers
To:
CC:
Re: IDAPA Variance Request for Westem Aircraft Hangar
Dan,
The intent of this letter is to request a variance from IDAPA 58.01.08.542.I1-Separation from Structures,
which states, "Water mains shall be separated by at least five (5) feet from buildings, industrial facilities,
and other permanent structures." Below is a short narrative detailing the circumstance and justification for
granting the variance.
The proposed Western Aircraft Hangar includes an enclosed walkway that will connect to the existing
hangar for transferring sensitive aircraft parts (see attached site plan). An existing water main is located
underneath the proposed walkway. Due to the lot size and other site constraints, the water line cannot be
relocated around building and within site limits. The adjacent offsite area is a military base, and the owner
does not have access. Considering these conditions, T-O Engineers has been working with SUEZ to find a
solution. After a series of meetings, we are proposing the following solution requiring a variance:
l. Replacing the water main under the enclosed walkway and sleeving with a steel pipe. A distance
between the water main and enclosed walkway structure of four (4) feet vertically andzero (0) feet
horizontally.
Requirements from IDAPA 58.01.08
l. Granting the variance will not:
a. Contaminate the drinking water supply.
b. Compromise the structural integrity of the water main
2. Compliance with the requirement from which the variance is requested would result undue hardship
to the Owner. Compliance would require replacement and dead ending the line up to the walkway
and upsizing approximately 890 feet ofpipe due to inadequate fire flow.
3. The variance is necessary to address existing water line conditions and restricted property access
from the adjacent military base.
Thank you for considering the variance request for approval. Please contact me if you have any questions
or need any additional information.
Respectfully,
Brendon Daniels, P.E.
Project Manager - T-O Engineers
-tE
8tI
c
t
t
\
I/t
-l\
I
I
I SEE ENlm@ OEXLL
I€1,.EXSTING I
:}
zLo
=Eoo
Ed<uFFfo
=eO'a-u6d
7mzzmo
a.
amm
ENLARGED DETAILrelka
FUUEF@
@
J
(9
=oi
ffitG@
F-'" i
MtrNG EOUND
2t
4UN,ffiMNN{EEmTONSUE&GOWIMAY r WAER UEwresmNmJOtm
E WAmUEWTmffiDam€EEHESUffiTm)
-9t
ir
i
L
lt
tl
I
q ---,.il,-,*.+
ENCLOSED WALKWAY CROSSING DETAIL
ffiRWUNE
CESSNA STREET
&
IDAHO MILITARY DIVISION
RESTRICTED ACCESS
@ WESTERN AIRCRAFTs@tx1SWATER LINE EXHIBIT
-
--1-l__- -
SPRAY
T.Cl INEINIIRS
BOISE, IDAHO E3705PHilE:(m)Grm wW.ENGMEre.wru ffiffihry UE@ &M
ET
Sent:
From:[e-mail]
Wednesday, October 7, 2020 1 1:18 AM
[e-mail]
[e-mail]; Crofts, Nathan; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Brooks, Russell; Cooper, Catherine;
[e-mail]; Pierce, Scott
RE: Western Aircraft - SUEZ Waterline Variance RequestSubject:
Hi Brendon,
We've had a chance to review the waiver request that you submitted for the water line near/under the proposed
Western Aircraft hangar expansion. The request was reviewed by both DEQ Boise Regional Office staff and also the
drinking water program engineer. We do not find the waiver request approvable as-is and we request that additional
information be provided in order for DEQ to consider this waiver. As outlined in Section 005.01.a of the ldoho Rules for
Public Drinking Water Systems (IDAPA 58.01.08) a successful waiver request must demonstrate that the proposed design
1) is protective of public health, 2) provides protection from contamination, and 3) allows for satisfactory operation and
maintenance of the water system. With that in mind, please see the following comments:
1) Please provide formal documentation (ie: a letter) from SUEZ that they are on board with this project and agree
with the design and approach. After all, this waiver is for their water system and we need to know that they buy
off on the proposed approach before we will even consider approving the request.
2l lt seems that a major motivation for the request is based on avoiding the cost of upsizing water lines that could
achieve the same end result in fire flow. Please note that financial considerations alone are not enough reason
for DEQto approve a waiver; where possible, compliance with existing drinking water rules is always the first
priority. Please provide additionaljustification in the waiver request for how the proposed project/approach will
result in the best solution for this situation. The letter from SUEZ requested in item #1 should acknowledge that
the proposed design represents the best design for this service area.
3) Drinking water waivers must demonstrate how the proposed project will result in and allow for satisfactory
operation and maintenance of the system. Please include additional description/justification in your request for
how any necessary operation and maintenance will be handled in this area. What if there is a line break near this
area where the line runs beneath the walkway? How will the proposed design ensure that it can be quickly and
effectively addressed? lt seems that this would be a major concern for SUEZ as the system owner. Please be sure
that the letter from SUEZ requested in item #1 addresses O&M and acknowledges that they feel that future
O&M will be satisfactory as a result of this design.
4) You state that the design "will not contaminate the drinking water supply" but you do not elaborate on this
statement. Please be more specific about how the proposed design will not result in additional risk for
contamination.
5) The waiver request should be stamped/signed/dated by the ldaho licensed professional engineer in charge of its
preparation.
Please review these items and revise the waiver request to provide this additional information, and to better justify how
the proposed design meets the three waiver criteria I listed above. You can resubmit the request to me when it has been
revised. Let me know if you have any questions.
To:
Cc:
1
Preston N. Carter
Thanks,
Dan
Dan Smith, PE ! Staff Engineer
ldaho Department of Environmental Quality
Boise Regional Office
1445 North Orchard Street Boise, ldaho 83706
Direct: (208)373-028L
Front Desk: [phone]
htto ://www.deo. ida ho.sov/
Our mission is to protect humon health ond the quality of ldaho's oir, lond, ond wdter.
From: Brendon Daniels [mailto:bda [e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23,2020 4:19 PM
To: Dan M. Smith
Cc: Louie Gravel; Crofts, Nathan; Justin Bilbrey; Dillon
Subject: Western Aircraft - SUEZ Waterline Variance Request
Hi Dan -
I understand that you are the contact to request a variance regarding IDAPA/DEQ regulations for waterline installations.
We are working on a project with Western Aircraft and SUEZ to expand their facilities around some existing waterlines.
We would like to sleeve an existing line underneath an enclosed walkway that will connect the new and existing
building. This waterline is criticalto maintaining fire flow in the area with undersized mains and aging infrastructure.
Please see the attached letter requesting variance for building setback.
I apologize for springing this request on you out of the blue, if you have any questions or need additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks!
BRENDON DANIELS, PE (lD, NV) | ProFct Monager
T.Cl IENBINEEBS
1998 W. Judith Lane I Boise, ldaho 83705
o 208-433-1900 | C 208-631-s8s1
www.to-engineers.com
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by
the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
2
lra
prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast
Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for
your human generated data. Specializingin; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.
3
\o
E'l
-E
-ltt{XH
EXHIBIT 6
Preston N. Carter
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
From:Preston N. Carter < prestonca rter@givenspu rsley.com >
Thursday, January 21,2021 8:58 AM
'Dave Leroy'
Louie Gravel
RE: Emailing: Westerns response letter.pdfl SUEZ WATER IDAHO [IWOV-
GPDMS.FlD10415751
Dave,
I am in receipt of your letter, which I shared with SUEZ.
To be clear, it is not SUEZ's practice to provide cost or timing estimates for projects that impact SUEZ's water system.
The responsibility of obtaining any cost estimates lies with Western Aircraft. Developers commonly have an engineer
work up drawings and request bids, or more informally speak with approved contractors to get an estimate.
I hope this provides some clarity. l'm happy to discuss directly with you, Dave, if that might help move the ball forward.
l'm also happy to set up a call with both attorneys and both clients, or proceed in another manner if it will be helpful. I
am jumping in and out of calls and meetings but can certainly make time, just let me know what times might work best
for you and we can get something on the calendar.
Thank you,
Preston
From: Dave Leroy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January L9,2O2L 1:39 PM
To: Preston N. Ca rter < prestonca rter@ givenspu rs ley.com>
Cc: Louie Gravel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fwd: Emailing: Westerns response letter.pdf/ RE: SUEZ WATER IDAHO
COUNSELOR: I ATTACH A REPLY FROM MY CLIENT WESTERN AVTATION TO YOUR
RECENT LETTER ON BEHALF OF SUEZ WATER. WE HOPE FOR A PROMPT AND FULL
RESPONSE REGARDS, DAVE
Forwarded Message
Subject:Emailing: Westems response letter.pdf
Date:Tue, 19 Jan 202113:29:35 -0700
From:Davalee Davis <[e-mail]>
To:David Leroy <dave@dleroy. com>
Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Westerns response letter.pdf
1
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain
tlpes of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
2
fr.
Fr
-n
-l+lt{XH
EXHIBIT 7
Preston N. Carter
Frcm:Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Friday, August 28,2020 9:00 AM
Mike Morrison; Cooper, Catherine
Chris Hecht
RE: Western Aircraft Expansion
f DAPA.pdf; SUEZ Water ldaho lnc 23.pdf
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mike,
Please responses below in Blue.
Thank you,
Nate Crofts
Construction Su pervisor
ldaho Operations
suEz
Tel:[phone]
SUEA
Please think twice before printing this emoil.
From: Mike Morrison
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2O2O 5:15 PM
To: Crofts, Nathan ; Cooper, Catherine
Cc: Chris Hecht
Subject: RE: Western Aircraft Expansion
My questions are in Green:
From: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2O2O 4:40 PM
To: Mike Morrison <[e-mail]>; Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Hecht <Chris.Hecht@puc. >
Subject: RE: Western Aircraft Expansion
Mike,
Please see comments below and attachments. Let me know if you want to discuss or want any additional information on
any of these items.
Thank you,
Nate Crofts
1
Construction Supervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:[phone]
suea
Please think twice before printing this emoil.
From: Mike Morrison <M ike.Morrison@ puc. idaho.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2020 lO:22 AM
To: Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>; Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Hecht <Chris.Hecht@ puc.idaho.eov>
Subiect: RE: Western Aircraft Expansion
OK...l have lots of questions:
1. Please confirm my understanding of the situation...lf I'm wrong, please let me know.
a. The pipe will still be routed beneath the breezeway, and not under either hangar. No. lt will now be routed under an
actual portion of building (since the breezeway structure has been changed to a building structure). This is unacceptable
to Suez for long-term maintenance access, even with a pipe sleeve. ls this a Statutory or code requirement, or a Suez
preference? Both. The IDAPA rules say we should not cross under a building structure. See attached copy for your
reference. From the Suez perspective we need to have access to all of our pipe lines in orderto assure proper
maintenance and operation. Normal preference shall be in dedicated streets. See attached IPUC Rules and Regulations
Governing the Rendering of Water Service and Water Main Extensions page 2L paragraph 61.
b. There has been no change to Suez's access to the area since Suez approved the plan on or about June 4th. The planned
breezeway has changed to now be an actual building structure. So, there has been a change to Suez's access since the
approval on June 4th. Suez will now have to access the east portion by driving around the north side of the hangar and
onto the runway with our equipment. We would prefer to not be on the runway.
2. Given that the pipe will be sleeved, why does it matter if the breezeway is fully enclosed? lsn't the pipe sleeved so
that it can be accessed without tearing-up the breezeway? Correct - but over the 70 to L00 year life of a pipe, we figure
that it will need to be accessed at some point. A breezeway could be disturbed if necessary. We would not be able to
access anything located under a permanent building structure. The WA plan has changed, and the Suez plan also needs
to change to address the WA change. <--ls this a statutory/code requirement, or a Suez preference? See answer above.
Plus ldapa says we cannot be closer the 5' to a building structure. (Page 125)
3. Regarding the potable/non-potable water separation requirements. There seems to be a difference between what I
have heard from Suez and what I have heard from Western.
a. What separation requirements does Suez typically use for this sort of project, and what is the source of Suez's
requirements? We use the IDEQ requirements, schematics attached.
2
4. Please provide a map showing the location of each potential separation violation. lt doesn't need to be a fancy map.
For each violation annotated on the map, please provide the following information: I have included the original drawing
they proposed to Roger and I last fall and then the actual civil plan we came across when we ended up onsite. I am
putting the mark ups on both of these because it shows the non-potable lines that were not shown in the original.
a. What is the purpose of the non-potable pipe (fire water, sewage, etc)Sewer, storm drain and fire sprinkler lines
(being fed from a storage tank)
b. Who owns the non-potable pipe? City of Boise and Western Air. See attached map.
c. Was the non-potable pipe in place prior to Western's planned expansion, or is it part of Western's expansion plan?
The ones in conflict are being installed as part of the expansion.
d. Did Suez know about the existence of the pipe prior to excavation? lf so, did Suez communicate this information to
Western or its designers? Partially. See plans. Yes, we communicated about what we knew about.
e. Did Suez know about the potential violations prior to excavation? lf so, did Suez communicate this information to
Western or its designers? Partially. See plans. Yes, we communicated about what we knew about.
5. Does Suez believe that there is no way to modify the existing 8" line so that it conforms with applicable separation
requirements? lf so:
a. Why did Suez approve this project? Suez does not have information on all the utilities on site, We count on the design
engineer to meet all IDEQ requirements with their design. lt wasn't until the project was under construction that Suez's
lnspector was able to see where the utility conflicts were located. Suez has not approved this plan. Construction was
started without an approved Suez plan.
b. Why was this information not communicated to Western earlier? See above response
6. As a solution, Suez has proposed that Western pay to upgrade an existing line that is not within the footprint of
Western's proposed expansion. For Western, is this the least expensive way to assure separation? lf so, please provide
workpapers, in EXCEL format, with calculations and links in-tact showing the costs of the proposed upgrade to Western
as well as the costs (to Western) of any alternatives explored by the Suez. Suez doesn't calculate the costs of developer
improvements, nor analyze the developer's most economic alternative. The Western Air team can discuss with Suez staff
what alternatives would be acceptable, and then get contractor pricing for the options.
From: Crofts, Nathan <nate.croft [e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2020 9:42 AM
To: Mike Morrison <[e-mail]>; Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Hecht <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Western Aircraft Expansion
Mike,
The location of the pipe is correct and the location of the structure is ok. They changed type of structure from being a
breezeway to a fully enclosed extension of the building with conditioned air space and everything. This is still just one of
the issues. We still have to comply with the DEQ separation requirements for potable and non-potable water. Typically
when we see a sewer crossing and another non-potable source crossing our lines we rely on the design team working for
the client to ensure that we are getting our separation. We are not getting the required separation at this point and the
space between the buildings is proving to be a bottle neck for allthe utilities. Let me know if you have questions or need
further explanation.
3
Thank you,
Nate Crofts
Construction Su pervisor
ldaho Operations
SUEZ
Tel:[phone]
SUCE
Pleose think twice before printing this email.
From: Mike Morrison <M ike. Morrison @ puc.ida ho.gov>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2020 9:28 AM
To: Cooper, Catherine <cathv.cooper@sue >; Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Cc:ChrisHecht<@>
Subject: RE: Western Aircraft Expansion
Thanks.
To clarify: Has Western changed the location of the structure, or did they find that the pipe wasn't where the drawing
said it would be?
Mike
From : Cooper, Catherine <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2O2O 9:25 AM
To: Mike Morrison <[e-mail]>; Crofts, Nathan <[e-mail]>
Cc: Chris Hecht <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Aircraft Expansion
Hi Mike - that's correct. We were OK with the sleeved pipe under a covered walkway. That plan changed,
however, without our knowledge, and it turns out Western Air is now building an actual portion of the
building over the pipe. That doesn't work for us. l'm copying Nate so he can add any additional details.
Thanks,
Cathy
Cathy Cooper, P.E.
Director of Engineering
ldaho Operations
suEz
8248 W. Victory Rd.
4
Boise, lD 83709
Tel:[phone]
[e-mail]
Please think twice before printing this emoil.
From: M ike Morrison <M ike. Morrison @ puc. ida ho.sov>
Sent: Thursday, August 27,2020 9:19 AM
To: Cooper, Catherine <cathv.coooer@sue
Cc: Chris Hecht <Chris.Hecht@puc. >
Subiect: Western Aircraft Expansion
Hello Cathy:
It look like the original plan was to build a covered walkway over the 8" water pipe. This requires that the pipe be
sleeved.
It appears that this was approved by Roger Greaves on June 4s.
What's wront with the original plan?
MichaelW. Morrison, Ph.D., P.E.
ldaho Public Utilities Commission
11331W. Chinden Blvd, Suite 201-A
Boise,ldaho 837L4
[phone]
5