20070917EAG to Staff 2-8.pdf

RECEJ\/r:=
BI~~m$;(f)~f & 0JiJ1~Y,PUC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2007 SEP I fl mi'1 2: 24
Molly O'Leary IfJAJiO PUBLIC
qi t: (
\"')\
... v .....'..Jh'lf.l v 0,
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
mollyliYrichardsonandoleary. com
O. Box 7218 Boise, ID 83707 - 515 N. 27th St. Boise, ID 83702
17 September 2007
Ms. Jean Jewell
Commission Secretaty
Idaho Public Utilities Commission
POBox 83720
Boise ID 83720-0074
Hand Delivered
RE: Case No. EAG-07-
Dear Ms. Jewell:
I am enclosing an original and two (2) copies of the EAGLE WATER
COMPANY, INC.'S RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST PRODUCTION REQUEST.
Also enclosed is a copy to be date stamped and returned for our files.
Sincerely,
G.AA
Nina Curtis
Richardson & O'Leaty, PLLC
encl.
F(ECE!
Zuni SEP Iff ~'1 2: 25
riL \iU ~~?d~J1J;~:j\~S!Oi
Molly O'Leary (ISB # 4996)
Richardson & O'Leary, P.LLC.
O. Box 7218
Boise, 1083707
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Molly~richardsonandoleary. com
Attorneys for Eagle Water Company, Inc.
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF EAGLE WATER COMPANY FOR AN
EXTENSION OF THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS SURCHARGE EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.'S
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST
CASE NO. EAG-07-
COMES NOW, Eagle Water Company, Inc. and in response to the First
Production Request of the Commission to Eagle Water Company dated August 24
2007 , herewith submits the following information:
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST-
REQUEST NO.2: How was the construction of Well No.7 and the related
interconnection financed?
Response for Request No.The construction of Well #7 has been paid for
to date, as follows:
1. $126 524.75 was paid for out of Eagle Water Company s "Well Account"
2. The balance has been financed through personal loans from Robert V. DeShazo
Jr. to Eagle Water Company.
This response is made by Robert V. DeShazo, Jr., President , Eagle Water
Company, Inc., in consultation with legal counsel.
REQUEST NO.3: The Application states in ~ 23 that
, "
Eagle Water Requests that
the Commission issue an order authorizing it to recover its outstanding debt for
($201,433.86) through a surcharge on its customer s usage in excess of 600 cubic feet
per month." Is the Company requesting an extension of the existing surcharge or some
other surcharge amount?
Response for Request No.Yes. The Application is titled
, "
Application for
Surcharge Extension." As the Introductory paragraph states:
COMES NOW, Eagle Water Company, Inc. ("Eagle Water" or "the Company
and hereby requests that the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("the
Commission ) issue an order extending the collection of the current
surcharge to cover certain necessary expenses previously incurred , and
additional necessary expenses the Company continues to incur, in connection
with improvements to its water system pursuant to this Commission s Order
No.29840 and pursuant to a subsequent Consent Order entered into with the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") on February 17 , 2006.
These expenses are proper expenses to be duly recovered from the Company
ratepayers. (Emphasis supplied.
Finally, as Paragraph 25 states:
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST - 2
The Company further requests the Commission to issue an order approving the
extension of the current scheduled surcharge as a fair, just and reasonable
method for recovery of its costs associated with the professional fees referenced
above. (Emphasis supplied.
REQUEST NO.4: Please provide documentation as to the specific changes in
the scope of the engineering study from its original form to the final document. List
each "change" separately, reason for the change and the associated additional cost of
that change.
Response for Request No.The change in scope of the Engineering
Report was driven by requests made by the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality. (See DEQ Correspondence, attached hereto as RFP No. 4(a). In addition , as
noted in Paragraph 8 of the Application , DEQ requested several changes in the Peaking
Factor used to compute available system pressure:
8. Eagle Water submitted its first draft Preliminary Engineering Report
to DEQ in May of 2006. Subsequent drafts were submitted in January, March
May and June of 2007 , despite technical glitches with the Haestad computer
modeling software that was used for the report; departure of the engineer who
worked on the initial draft; the lack of a similarly qualified engineer on staff at
MTC, Inc.; an aortic aneurism suffered by MTC's principal, Jim Rees, P.; and
contradictory peak flow standards required by DEQ which necessitated no
less than 36 revised computer modeling runs. (Emphasis supplied.
In addition, please see the Affidavit of Chet Hovey, P., attached hereto as RFP No.
4(b). This Affidavit was originally filed with the Commission on December 20 2006 , as
an attachment to EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.'S PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM
THIS COMMISSION'S ORDER NO. 30160.
This response is made by James M. Rees, P., Principal Engineer, MTC , Inc., in
consultation with legal counsel.
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST - 3
REQUEST NO.5: Please provide a copy of the original contract with Reese
Engineering for the Engineering Report and any and all subsequent agreements and/or
amendments that may exist related to what is now included in the Engineering Report
cost of $218 394.30.
Response for Request No.There was no contract with "Reese
Engineering . As the Application and supporting documentation indicates , the
Engineering Report was produced by MTC , Inc. The cost estimate provided to the
Commission in August of 2005 was based on a "time and materials" basis to produce a
system-wide engineering report and master plan. There is no written contract.
This response is made by James M. Rees , P., Principal Engineer, MTC, Inc., in
consultation with legal counsel.
REQUEST NO.6: Please provide a detailed break down of the cost of the
Engineering Report.
Response for Request No.Please see the following attachments
documenting the time spent on the report by MTC , Inc. and Ward Engineering Group:
. RFP No. 6(a) - MTC , Inc. Billing Documentation
. RFP No. 6(b) - Ward Engineering Group Billing Documentation
This response is made by James M. Rees, P., Principal Engineer, MTC , Inc., in
consultation with legal counsel.
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST - 4
REQUEST NO.7: Please explain the reasons/factors that the cost of the
Engineering Report increased from the authorized amount of $102 170 ($79 895
grossed-up for taxes at 1.2788) to the stated cost in the Application of $218 394.30.
Response for Request No.As previously noted, both in the Application
and in response to Request for Production No., above, DEQ changed the Peaking
Factor that MTC , Inc. was required to use in calculating available system pressure.
Although MTC , Inc. originally used a Peaking Factor of 2., DEQ stated this factor was
too low. Ultimately, DEQ agreed with MTC. Inc. and accepted a Peaking Factor of 2.
- lower than that originally used by MTC, Inc. Computer modeling was redone no less
than 36 times due to this "moving target", and each one of those additional computer
runs required additional engineering time not factored into the original cost estimate.
This response is made by James M. Rees, P., Principal Engineer, MTC, Inc., in
consultation with legal counsel.
REQUEST NO.8: Please explain the reasons/factors that the cost for
constructing Well No.7 increased from the initial estimate of $390 305 in August 2005
to $638 600 as stated in paragraph 18 of the Application.
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST - 5
Response for Request No.The estimated cost to fully complete Well #7
that was provided by MTC, Inc. for the Final Engineering report has been revised based
on current information. The increased cost of Well #7 from Eagle Water Company
August 2005 estimate of $390 305.00 to the current estimated cost to fully complete of
$588 517.00 is due to several factors. The following is a current breakdown of: (1)
actual Eagle Water Company expenditures and the balances due for all completed
items; as well as (2) the current estimated cost to complete items not yet completed.
The items followed by an asterisk are those that remain to be completed:
Construction of Well #7 ($509,830.00 TOTAL):
Description Expenditure to Date Balance
Remaining/Estimated Cost to
Complete
Well Lot Cost 000.$39 000.
Well drilling, test pumping $104,448.
Pump House *$17 000.000.
Site Work *000.000.
Idaho Power (electricity to 662.
pump house)
Pump, Column , Strainer $47 889.
300 HP Electric Motor $18 000.
300 HP Frequency Drive $15 000.
Electrical Installation $20 294.
Piping, Valves, Air Vac $29 000.
600 feet of mainline $145 880.$20 000.
Engineering *$15 205.000.
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST - 6
Legal *200.500.
10% Contingency 750.
Auxiliary Power Supply for Well #7 ($78 687.00 TOTAL):
Description Expenditure to Date Balance
Remaining/Estimated Cost to
Complete
Generator Set 076.$35 924.
Controls & Wiring *500.$14 000.
Site Work *000.
Addition to Well House *$12 000.
Engineering *500.
Legal *000.
15% Contingency $10 264.
This response is made by Robert V. DeShazo, Jr., President, Eagle Water
Company, Inc., in consultation with legal counsel.
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST - 7
RFP No. 4(a)
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST
CC~-'O-~UU' U~;.;.;/I~I ~~UM-i-S60 p, 001/006 F-475
, J)n"\ K lY\1
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
(g p ~
"\ 0;'
'"---,."",,,,-, ..... .........-...-.
--------__h______--......--.-..-.-.....-....-..
,. '
h.. -
.....
',I 10 Na~11'1 nll TO.' . Bol5~. ICAHJ 83706 . [phone]
JAMC$ E. R/$CH, GOYEANOA
To/" HAAQE~N, QIREG1QA
Mr, Robert DeShazo
Eagle Water Company, Inc-
172 W, State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
Mr, James Rees, P.
MTC, Inc.
707 N. 27tll Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
TSP&S-3712007
1 y~) ,
Fcbruony lJ, 2007
RE:
:- ,/ '
A;.
"' '
-f.
Eagle Water Company Final Engineering Reporf (Eagle. Ada Coumy) ""
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has reviewed \he drall Eagle Water Company (EWC)
FillalEngineering Report (FER) that was submiued under a cover kHef from you dated January 19, 2007 and 'hasidentified the following dcDciem.:ics:
D~ar Mr. DeShazo and Mr. Rees:
General Deficiencies:
1. Tne Consent Order, Pnragraph 5., states that the approved FER will be incorporated into and enforceableas a part of the Conscnt Order. The FER, therefore, must indicate what specific actions, per Paragraph 3.of tbe Consent Order, are needed in the shorr term to bring the system into compliance. The FER alsoneeds to propose a funding plan and derailed execution schedule fo/' these actions. DEQ cannot approve the
FER until all existing deficicT1cic~ have either been resolved 01' a DEQ-approved action plan for resolvingthem has been esmbHshed.
2. EWe needs to perform a thOl'ough computational check of the FER to venfy that the values provided areconsistent and the implied calculations are ~OlTect. At ))Tesent, severa! valu~, as they exist thl'oug.1-tout thedocument, are inconsistent.
3. The FER needs to define peak hourly flow (phi) so ,hat it is consistent with "peak hourly flow" as definedby the Idaho Rules for PublTc Drinking Water Systems (Rules), IDAPA 58.01.08 and then check each ofthe scenarios roverify that, without firr:: flow and under peak hourly flow conditions, the proposed sy:stCn1can, maintain at least 40 pounds per squar\:: inch (psi) at each service point with the' largest pump Out ofs~ice. as required by the Rules, mAPA 5S.01.08.552.01.b.ii.
4. For ~ch modeling scenario (phf and maximum day demar.d (mdd) plus fire flow), the FER nceds toidentify location::; (if any) where system pressures at service contlcclions (:xcced 100 psi and 80 psi. If anysuch situations are identified, the FER needs to indicate what ilctions will be taken. For pressures above
JOOpsi, preSSUl'e reducing devices muSt be installed on the distribution mains per the Rules, IDAPA58.0 LO8.552.01.b.iii, For pressl,jl'es above 80 psi, the Unifol1TI Plumbing Code: now require:; that individualpressun.: reducing valves (PRVs) along witl, a thermal expansion fink or equivalent be provided for newconstruction.
Specific Dcficicm:ies:
!. Per p~ge 3 of the fER, EWe 2006 service includes 2 924 residential accounts, 358 commercial accountsand I! 2 landscaping accounts. Sheet 7 of j 5 in Appendix 1-1 indicates That ihere are 2,889 existing
. . ..~, ...
Robert DeShazo.and James Rces
Eagle Water Company Final En~ineering R~port
Page 2
residential accoums and 260 ex.isting commercial accounts. According to Sheet 7 of 15, the page 3 data is
actually "2006 wi approved development . That development includes St. Luke s, Gladstone and Shadow
View. The :sclv'ice information on page 3 needs to b~ clarified,
2. Per page 3 , Well #3 is used only as backup due to sanding problems. No recommendations are made in the
FER for col1'ecting these probh:ms. The conlinued reliability of Well #3 therefore is questionable, and the
2010 and 2026 modeling should not include Well #3 as a source unlcss EWe can provide somejusrification otherwise.
3. In the table titled "System Dem,md" on pages 6 & 7, the 2006 "Account Total" of 3,261 does not match the
account data provided on page 3 (2,924 residential accounts, 358 commercial accounts and 112 landscape
accounts). The total of all page 3 ;Jccounts equals 3,394 accounts. However, if you total the existing
connection5 as provided on Sheet 7 of 15 (2,889 + 260 + 112), you get 3,261. EWe should coordinat~ the
responses to this commtmt and to Specific Deficiency #1 to eliminate confusion between existing scryice
connections and "2006 wi approved development" service connections.
4. Under calibl"ation on page 7, the argument is made that the predicted pressures were less than the measured
pressures because the actual demands on the days the tests were conducted were less than mdd. DEQ
agrees with that explanation, but it is of HttIe help in determining how well the model predicts an actUal
situation" DEQ notes that that the hydrants were tested on August 16 (Home Depot) and August 31 (other
hydrants). The model should be rerun with the actUal demands for those days to compare actual and
predicted pressures. Hopefully, the new model predictions will better correlate with actual measures
thereby justifying the use of the model to predict the effects of proposed improvements. If that exercise
shows rhat the model tends to under-predict actual pressures, then DEQ will have some justification for
accepting situations where model predictions of'Prc~.sures are slightly lower than required.
5. The WaterCADiJ9 Modeling Results section on page 8 needs to aplain what the first model run for 2006,
20 I 0 and 2026 represents and discuss the resultS. DEQ's initial impression was mat the first runs checked
Well #2 Booster Station redundancy by turning off one of the biggest pumps. That appears to be the case
for 2010 and 2026, but 2006 is confusing. Chet Hovey of Ward Engineering explained that for 2006 the
well pumps supplied rnough pressw-e to meet fire flow demands nnd that the booster station pumps could
not overcome the pressure head, which is why Pump 2.2 get an ~rror message. If that explanation is
correct, then the booster slation redundancy requirements arc met jar this scenario. In any case, the FER
should consider all appJicable booster station redundancy requirements when verifying that all applicable
pl'essurelf1ow requirements are met fOT each scenario.
6. The W;nerCADI&) Modeling Results section an pag~ 8 needs iO document why the cuITenl booster station
redundancy requirements, in the Rules, for the main booster pump do not apply, and that the modeling
always asstlmed that the one pump to be operational. The FER needs to flag this lack ofredundancy as a
vulnerability and address the gituation in the Recommendations section. If significant changes are required
to the main booster station to meet 2010 and 2026 pressur~Jf1ow requirements, then booster station
redundancy requirements, in the Rules, do apply and the modeling for those scenariO$ should be adjusted
accordingly (e., modeling done with gtabon having at least two pumps and the largest booster pump
turned off).
7. Per page 8, adding S~ Luke s and Gladstone increased the rndd ft-om 3,653.5 gpm to 3801.28 gpm. 1f each
Demand Unit (DU) requires 1.12 gpm at mdd, then it appears that The additions equate to 132 DU's. Sheet
7 of 15 stat~$ thar the "approved development" includes Sf, Luke s (98 DU's), Gladstone (20 DU's) and
Shadow View (15 DU's) for a total of 133 DU's. DEQ accepts the 1 DU discrepancy, but the text needs to
be clarified to also include Shadow View.
I -UOU (. VV~I UUb ~-4(~
Rob!:rt DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Wafer Company Final Engineering Report
Page 3
8. Per page 8, thc 2006 model incJudes 2 improvemt:nts, prc$$ure reducing/sustaining valves (PRSV's) atFloating Feather Road and Gladstone subdivision. However, the recommendations only include instaHingthe Floaling Ftalher Road valve. The 2006 model analY:O1s suggests that the Gladstone valve may not berequired to maintain required system pressure/flow under pump outage/fire flow conditions. The wordsuggest" is used as there is no l'eal way oflrnowing how the valve affects the model unless the model isrun without the valve to verify that the valve has no effect, Lf the valve has no effect on the 2006 case, thenthe report should clearly state such. The "control status" for the Gladstone valve in the 2010 and 2026models is "inactive , bur it is unclear what that means, If EWe does not inrend iO install the Gladstonevalve, then the 20 10 and 2026 models should either be rerun withoUt the Gladsrone valve 01' softwaredocumentation provided to verify that a "control status" of "inactive" means rhe model runs as if the valvedoes Mt exist.
9. Per piJge 8, the statement is made that the Gladstone PRSV would be useful for maintaining middlc zonepressure if a major bl'cak occurs in the tOWel pressure zone. Since the recommendations do no include theGladstone valve, the conclusioTl mU$t be drawn that EWe does not consider that valve as being clitical forsystem operation. If that is the case, the sentence should either be deleted, or an explanation provided.
10. The "2006 w/ Approved Dcvelopments Modeling Results" table on page 9 indicates that there arecommercial and residential fin:: flow deficiencies within the existing system. The worst situation appears
be with Well #4 out of service. A figu.re should be provided to identity where these deficiencies occur.The FER needs to indicate EWe's proposed strategy for resolving these issues. See Specific Deficiency#21.
1 j. AU modeling result summaries (2006 on page 9. 20 lOon page 9 and 2026 on page 12) should includecolumns for "# of 80 psi + junctions" and "# of I 00 psi + j unctions" as overpressure has also been an EWe
issue. See General Deficicncy #4.
12. The text should provide specific information as to how the 20 10 and 2026 residential aCcOunlS and the 2026commercial account numbers in the table entitled "Water Account Summary" On page 9 were determined,Right now, insufficient information is provided to enable DEQ ro calculate the numbers to contilTn if ~hcyare COITect. Also note that the 2026 commCTciai account number on the page 9 table (530) disagrcl::S withthe same number on Sheer 7 of 15 (520). Please rectify the discrepancy.
13. Per page 10, the mdd for 20 I 0 is indicated 10 be 4,241.44 gpm. Hcwcvcr, multiplying the 2010 total DU of853 (see iable on previous page) by 1.12 gpmiDU yields 4.315.. gpm. Please clarify. Note that themdd for 2026 on page 11 of 4,754.4 1:00pm can be verified by multiplying the 2026 DU number (4 245) by1.12.
14. More technical information is required for the "Upgrade Main .Booster Station Capacity" on page 10. Themodel oul'jJJ,lt did not include ;my specific pump characteristics to indicate what changed, but the modeling
output docs appear to suggest a significant flow increase aver the existing pump s rated 1400 gpm capacity.Any substantial system modification would have to address booster station redundancy requirements in the
Rules. However, since this lack of redundancy represents a significant vuJnt:rability in the existing system,
DEQ strongly recommends that EWe make the :o\'1tion upgrade, at 1east with regards to installing a second
pump, an immediate priority.
15. More technical information is requjr~d for the "Additional Water Source" on page 10. The FER shouldindicate: the source s required cap:1city (i., XXX gpm at XX pressul'e). The 2010 and 2026 models
indicate the l1ew SOurce will have 1.0 produce as much as J 652 gpm. The FER ~qujvocates on where this
I VVV UU4/UUO 41~
Robert DeSho:i:.o and James Rc:es
Engle Water Company Final Engineering Repol't
Page 4
water will come ITem, suggesting either a new wen (Wen #8) 01' changes to Wells #3 (the unreliable one), 4and 7. The possibility of obtaining more water from Wen #2 needs to be addressed. The FER needs toprovide: more information to substantiate the lechnicai feasibility of constructing a new weB having acapacity of 1600+ gpm (tentative location and hydrogeological basis for e"'pccling that yield from the
aquifer) or for making changes to the existing wells (re-consnllct, change impellers, etc) sufficient to
provide an addition 1600+ gpm. DEQ notes the models assume a new wen and, from Figure 3 of 15 , thatthe new wen is near Well #7. To simplifY the report, it might be better to focus on the new well as the
source, and address changes to existing wells separately as part of the recommc:ndalions.
16. More technical information is required for the "Upgrade Wen #2 Booster Pump Station" modification onpage 10. The FER :sholild indicate the Specific performance: upgrades required. DEQ assumes "upgradesinvolve capacity increases. If that is the case, the FER should also note if upgrades to WelI #2 andassociated storage capacity are also required. Since this upgrade becomes a I'ecomrnendatiofi, a technical
description of what is required needs to be provided somewhere in the FER. If any of these upgrades wouldalso mitigate the existing fire flow deficiencies (as indicated by the 2006 model), then consideration should
be given to making these changes an immediate priority rather Than a 2010 priority.
17. The "2010 Modeling Results" table on page !O identifies 7 commercial junctions as below the 2500 gpm
fire flow requirement. The FER then stales that the lower fire flows at those junctions are acceptable due to
,he types of structures and presence of .fire sprinklers, The fire: department must ultimaleJy decide whether
or not this sitUation is acceptable (IDAPA 58,01.08,552), Therefore, The report ,:ither needs to provide
evidence that the fire department has or is willing to accept the situation or make obtaining tbis acceptance
an action item \lodeI.' recommendations, It would be infojmative if ~he report provided a figure identifying
the 7 junction locations.
18. The "2026 Modeling Resu1ts" table on page 12 identifies 7 commercial junctions as below the 2500 gpmtire flow requirement See Specific Deficiency #17.
j 9. The FER only addresses system requirements pertaining ro pressure and flow issues. To make the reportcomplete, any other outstanding deficiencies to the existing system (based on sanitary survey comments or
EWe's own audits) should be listed. The currently known sanitary survey deficiencies are as follows:
a. Exl$ling sample raps should either be smooth nosed or, jf not smooth-nosed, equipped with an
atmospheric vacuum breaker for backflow prc:venlion;b. Al.lxiHary fuellsnk and piping in Well House #2 is not double walled; andc. Auxiliary fuel tank in Wcll House #2 docs not have spill conminmem structure.
20. The Recommendations section slatting on page 12 needs to be reorganized to prioritize actions required
bring the system into regulatory compliance and keep it in compliance as the :service area develops. SinceWell #7 and its interconnection are already constrUcted and on-line (and included in the 2006 existingsystem analysis), there is no reason !o include them in the Recommendations section although the
associated costs should still remain in the Financial Plan jf arrangements for recovery of those costs have
not already been established.
21. The first Recommendations action item should be EWC's plan for dealing with the identified deficiencies
in the existing system. These inc1ude the:: previously identified fire flow deficiencies including the lack of
redundancy at the main booster station, plus any others that might be identified while addressing Gt.-neral
Deliciencies #3 & #4 and Specific Deficiency #19 above, Assuming only fire flow deficiencies exist. the
FER should propose an aetion plan for how EWe intends to work with the fire department to resolve these
deficiencies. Note that DEQ cannot approve the FER until all existing deficiencies have either been
H60 005/006 F-475
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Wafer Company Final Engineering Repol't
P:J.gt: 5
resolved Or a DEQ-!Ipproved action plan for resolving them has been established (see General Deficiency#1), DEQ is willing to work with EWe on defining thi:. plan before thl.': FER is approved so that EWe caninit111te whatever action is required to mitigate the e.xisting deficiencies as soon as possible.
22. The second Recommendation action item should be EWC'
s plan for implementing the 2010 improvements.These include installing !he Floaling Feather Road PRSV, upgrading the main booster station, providingthe additional water source and upgrading the WelJ #2 Boostf..'T Pump Stanon. These improvements shouldaddress all appl1cable current Rule requirements, including those regarding redundancy and standby power.
The FER should provide a brief scope of work for this plan induding technical requirements along wjth the
estimated costs and an implementation schedule that addresses ail major regulatory (including PublicUtility Commission), design, pi'ocun.:ment, construction and commissioning milestones.
23. If EWe intends ro ~ontii1i.ie LV depend on Wen #3 AS.. water source for meeting rego..:!atory presslJre!t1cwrequirements, then the FER should provide a recommendation for correcting Well #3 problems. SeeSpecific Deficiency #2.
24. Any other improvements required to bring either The existing or 2010 system into compliance with theRules need to be add!-esscd with Specific Deficiencies 21 or 22 above- DEQ notes that some of therecommended improvements ii~ted on pages 13 and 14 and the planning recommendations listed on pages! 2 and 13 do not appear to be essential for Rule comphunce. Even though they may be useful for EWe
planning and operation, the FER should segregare them from the compliance-related irnprovc:ments toavoid their unnecessarily becoming Consent Order issues,
25. In order to expedite review imd approval of the FER, ref.:rences to the USe of mobiJe generators as standby
power SOurCes should be deleted from the tcxt on page 14. If Rule requirements dictate that 5tandby power
is required, then a dedicated standby power system should be:: provided. Jf the Rtdes do not require standbypower at a particular installation, then EWC may voluntarily provide standby power as long as the
instalIation is in compliance with all applicable Rule requi~rnents such a:. fuel storage and spillcontainment.
26. The Capacity Evaluation section on page 16 suggests that the additional source of water required to satisfy2010 requirements could be obtained from improvements to existing weiis, making a new well (Well ;;8)unnecessary. Chet Hovey indicates that removing the top bowl of the Well #4 pump could signlficanllyincrease that weH's capacity without exceeding pressure restrictions. DEQ would be: agreeable to EWC'propositi to look inlO wel1 improvements befo!"e committing to a new weJl as Jong as EWC's plan formaking the 2010 improvements provides a scheme for evaluating the possibility of success of the well
improvement option to arrive at a go/no-go decision in sufficient time to switch back to the new well option
if necessary to obtain the additional water required to stay in compliance with all applicable pressure/flow
requirements. If EWe wants to pursue the possibility of obtaining water from ~isting wen improvements,then EWe's 2010 im~lementatioo plan (Specific Deficiency #22) should reflect this effort and show how it
interfaces with the new we!! alternative.
27. AppcrtdL'\ E: See Specific Deficil::ncy #4.
28. Appendix G: The chal-actcristic of the pumps, tanks and valves used to define the model should be provided
for each model scenario.
29. Appendix G: Per Gel1eraJ Deficiency #3 , each :icenario needs to be modeled to check for pn;:,;sures in eachpressure zone under peak hourly flow COl1ditions with rhe biggest pump scrving ,hat pressure zone out
service.
i -660 006/006 F-475
Rabcn DeShazo 1Ind James Rees
Eagle Wafer Camp.my Finnl Engineering Report
?sge 6
30. Appendix I; Per prcvious comments, the FER should provide c:vidence of fire marshal acceptance specific situations where fire flow requirements are not mer.
3 j. Appendix j: The FER needs to include backup that define what specific improvements are covered inPhases lA and JB.
Please contact me with any questions at 373.0514, or via e-mail at neter.bair(.:v.dea.idaho.gov. Please be advisedthat the Consent Order requires EWe 10 submit a revised documcnt to resolve the above
deficiencies within thirty(30) calendar days of receipt of this letter. EWC's failure to obtain DEQ approval ofrhe revised document withinsixty (60) days from the due date for the firs! submittal of the document (January 20
, 2007), shall constitute aviolation of the Consent O!der.
Sincen.:Jy,
Peter S. Bair, f.
Technical I Engineet'
PSB:sjt
Tiffany Floyd, Acting Engineering Manager, DEQ Boise Regiona! OfficeStephanie Ebright, Al1orney General's Office, DEQ State OfficeJerri Henry, Water Q~ality Division, DEQ State Office
Molly Leary, Richardson & O'Leary PLLC, P.O. Box n18, Boise, Idaho 83707Monty Mal'chu5., P., DEQ Boise Regional OfficeMike Slambuiis, F., DEQ State Office, Technical ServicesTodd Crutcher, EJ., DEQ Boise Regional OfficeBRa Source
TSP&S Reading File
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1410 NOR1H HILTON' BOISE. IDAHO 83706' [phone] JAMES E. RISCH, GOVERNOR
TONI HARDESTY, DIRECTOR
TSP&S- 71/2007
March 22, 2007
Mr. Robert DeShazo
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
172 W. State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
N'..r. James Rees, P.
MTC, me.
707 N. zih Street
Boise, Idaho 83702
RE:Engineering Report Dated March 2007
Eagle Water Company (Eagle, Ada County)
Dear Mr. DeShazo and Mr. Rees:
The Department or Environmental Quality (DEQ) received the draft Eagle Water Company (EWe) Engineering
Report (ER) on March 15 , 2007. The information provided in the ER indicates that your public drinking water
system does not meet IDAPA 58.01.08, "Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems" (IRDWS) requirements
for minimum fire flow and minimum peak hom flow pressure in certain locations. Please be advised that DEQ
cannot approve any additional service connections to yom system until improvements are in place that enables the
system to satisfy these requirements at all existing locations, and at an new locations where EWC wishes to provide
service.
DEQ has reviewed the ER, and has identified the following deficiencies:
Executive Summary:The Executive Summary should be rewritten to 1) provide a short description of how the
study was conducted (e.g., established water demand requirements for 2006, 2010 and
2026, based on historical data and growth projections, modeled the system using that data
to identify fIre flow and peak-hour flow pressure deficiencies, reviewed the system for
regulatory compliance regarding other issues such as redundancy, identified deficiencies
identified action items to address those deficiencies, and then proposed a schedule and cost
estimates for executing those action items); iist the identified deficiencies, indicating which
require immediate attention to bring the existing system into compliance; and state the
recommended actions to be taken to address deficiencies requiring immediate attention,
including the proposed schedule and estimated costs for those actions. Data (numbers)
presented in the existing Executive SUffi111arj should be deleted, unless essential to telling
what is wrong and how the system is going to be fixed.
Page 3:The statement made in the sentence at the bottom or the page, "There are no known cultural resources
prime agricultural land or wetlands in the service area." is potentially controversial, and not relevant to
the subject of this report. The sentence should be deleted.
Page 8:The figure is unreadable. A legible figure should be provided.
n__- 1 1 .f'i1!;;!;; 'i."1"1..- 1__
~ --~ _
.!' .1..- -
.:~ \ -----
1.. -
,,-.....;-~ ~
";"i. ~J..~ --+~-o "Q-o_
~+;- ~+~-
...o~...~ "e",
'" ;.....
~h~~HI!;; u.",. PWL Vi .U"" yu.j pG.L"!;1"pu """""""5 ...... .Uw ""'U",,""'w '-'1-""""""""" "................ w,,~..
~ ~"
modeling. .." should be revised to first cite the IRPDWS as the governing standard fur establishing
pressure, flow and redundancy requirements for the EWe system. The relevant IRPDWS requirements
should then be stated. References to the Recommended Standards for Water Works should be deleted
as the IRPDWS governs.
Pc,
" , " "" ,
r .r ,,0 e " c
,.,--, --
. m_n
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report
- March 2007Page 2
'D~-~ 1"'..1000'" .1"'..
Page 12:
Page 12:
Page 12:
Page 13:
Page 13:
At the top of the page, the sentence sta..-f.:ng "As ~'ill be discussed later..." should be fe'vised to clearlyindicate that Well #8 is only used ror the 2010 and 2026 modeling.
Regarding the second paragraph and the referenced letter
, the Eagle fire marshal states that the 1 000gpm minimum residential fire flow requirement only applies to dwellings with areas not exceeding
600 square feet Since there are no restrictions on the size of houses in EWe's
service area, the firemarshal's requirements for those larger buildings also needs to be provided.
A minimum fire flow of500 gpm ror two (2) hours for buildings larger than 3 600 square feet is the generally acceptedrequirement from the Unifonn Plumbing Code, unless the governing fire authority indicates otherwise.Modeling for rue flow requirements should be based on a 1 500 gpm residential flow requirement ateach residential junction unless: 1) the fire marshal sets a different requirement or grants a waiver; or 2)EWe can demonstrate that the applicable minimum fITe flow
for a particular junction is 1 000 gpm,because all the dwellings served or potential1y served by that junction have areas not exceeding 3 600square reet.
The second paragraph and the referenced Jetter ITom th~ Eagle fire marshal do not address commercialfITe flow reqUirements. The basis for the 2 500 gpm commercial fire :flow rate used in the moods toevaluate fire :flow adequacy needs to be provided. If 2 500 gpm is the minimum fire flow requirementfor commercial Structures, then failure to meet that flow at the designated locations is considered to bea deficiency that must be addressed by the recommended improvements.
In the Projected Water Demand Table, footnotes 1 and 3 do not adequately define how the tablenumbers 1442., 1704.42 and 1877.82 are derived. PleaSe provide further clarification.
Regarding the 2006 wi Approved Developments Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire F1ow Modeling
Results Table:
1. Tne title or the 4th column should be changed to "# ofResidentiaI Junctions Below Fire FlowRequirements for 3 600 SF or Less Dwellings (1,000 gpm)"
2. The title or the Slit column should be changed to "# of Residential Junctions Below Fire FlowRequirements ror Greater than 3 600 SF Dwellings (1,500 gpm)
..,
oJ.The note under the table starting "Note: Minimum system working pressure for Maximum DayDemand is 40 psi or greater" is not relevant to fire flow issues. The note should be deleted.Elsewhere, the ER cocrectly reflects the lRPDWS requirement that the minimum pressure during a
combined fire flowl maximum day demand scenario is 20 psi.
Further discussion regarding the results of the residential fire flow analysis needs to be provided as
follows:
The "All Improvements On" analysis shows 36 residential junctions with fire flows less
than 1 500gpm. The location(s) of those deficiencies should be identified. DEQ's review of the dataindicates that these 36 junctions are all in the northeast comer of the service area.
Unless EWe caneither confinn that all dwellings served by these junctions are 3600 square feet or less or obtain awaiver ITom the fire marshal, this lack or adequate fire flow needs to be flagged as a discrepancy~
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report - March 2007
Page 3
2. For the "Well 4 Off" analysis, a figure showing the location or the 36 jUnctions with fire flows less
than 1 ,000 gpm is provided in Appendix I. The locations or the junctions with fire flows less than500 gpm should also be identified. Unless EWC can either confirm that all
dwe11ings served bythese junctions are 3600 square reet or less or obtain a waiver from the fire marshal
, this lack ofadequate fire flow needs to be flagged as a discrepancy. DEQ notes that some
of these junctionsare located at the ends of long lines or on small (six-inch) mains, suggesting that piping changesmay be required. The others are located in the problematic northeast corner of the service area and
in subdivisions south of Floating Feather Road.
For the "Wen 6 Off' analysis , the locations of the junctions with fire flows less than 1 500 gpmshould be identified. Unless FYifC can either confirm that an dwellings served by these junctionsare 3600 square reet or less or obtain a waiver from the fire marshal
, this lack or adequate fire flowneeds to be flagged as a discrepancy. Of the 49 junctions with fIre flows less than 1,
500 gpIr.l, 37appear to be located in the problematic northeast comer and the other 11 are on the west side of the
service area near Wen No.6.
Page 13:The locations or the commercial fire flow deficiencies need to be indicated or a figure provided. DEQ
notes that all or the model's commercial junctions are deficient, and the deficiencies appear to be inareas south of Highway 44. DEQ further notes that one of the deficiencies involves the new St. Luke'Medical Center that DEQ approved based on EWC's contention that sufficient fire flow was availableto meet requirements
Page 13:The 2006 wi Approved Developments Peak Hour Flow Modeling Results Table should be modified as
follows:
1. Two (2) additional columns should be added, one for "# or Junctions ~ 40 psi" and the other for "or Junctions:;:. 80 psi"
2. The note under the table is mcan-ec!, and should be deleted.
Page 13:The locations or the junctions having pressures less than 40 psi at peak hour flow need to be indicated
or a figure provided. DEQ notes that in the scenario with Wen #4 out, a few of these deficiencies occur
at..the northeast edge or the service area, but many occur within subdivisions south of Floating FeatherRoad. DEQ further notes that the scenario with Wen #6 out results in only one relatively minor
pressure deficiency.
Page 13:DEQ agrees with the statement w..ade in the fIrst sentence aft-.er the 2006 wi Approved DevelopmentsPeak Hour Flow Modeling Results Table that "The results iTom modeling perfonned for the 2006 wiApproved Development indicate the need for additional capacity within the system
or an additionalwater source." However, further clarification is required, DEQ acknowledges that increasing Well No.
4' s capacity would help alleviate the fire flow deiiciencies identified iri the all wells on and Well No.off scenarios. However, the worst residential and all commercial fire flow deficiencies occur with Well
No.4 off. Moreover, all peak hour flow pressure deficiencies except a minor one occur when Well No.
4 is off. This suggests that EWC's top priority for resolving these deficiencies should be to obtainadditional water from sources other than Well No.
Page 13:The statement at the end of the fIrst paragraph after the Approved Developments Peak Hour FlowModeling Results Table starting, "As the figure indicates..." needs elaboration. The sentence shouldbe deleted, and a new paragraph provided, that addresses the following:
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report - March 2007
Page 4
1. The referenced figure only addresses the Well No.4 off scenario. The discussion needs toreference deficiency iocations for all or the scenarios to assist in a more general discussion.
2. For the an pumps on scenario, three possibilities exist for fire flow deficiencies in the northeastarea: 1) main booster station capacity is inadequate; 2) supply to main booster station ITom the well
pumps is inadequate; and 3) a combination of 1 and 2. If EWe demonstrates that the main boosterpump station capacity is inadequate either for fire flow or peak hour flow pressure, then an up-grade of that capacity (which is different from adding a second pump for redundancy) becomes an
. immediate priority item. Also note that none or the Floating Feather Road subdivisions have anyfire flow deficiencies with all pumps operating. This suggests to DEQ (but EWe should con:firm)t~t the capacity of Booster Pump Station No.2 is adequate: meaJIjng no immediate action on thatstation is required. If inadequate water supply to the main booster station is determined to be a
problem, that issue should be resolved when addressing the Well No.4 and Well No.6 offscenarios.
.J .Assuming that the issue regarding whether or not to inunediately upgrade. the booster stations hasbeen resolVed when addressing the an
pumps on scenario, then the solution to the Well' No.4 offscenario involves providing enough additional water ITom other wen sources besides Well No.
4 tosupply the main booster pump (takes care of the northeast comer deficiencies), the subdivisionssouth of Floating Feather Road and the commercial junctions south of Highway 44. It should benoted, but needs to be confIrmed, that providing more water from other non-Well No.4 source toaddress Well No.4 out fire flow deficiencies is likely to also resolve the Well No.4 out peak hourflow pressure deficiencies.
Assuming that the issue regarding whether or not to inunediately upgrade the booster stations has
been resolved when addressing the aU pumps on scenario, then the solution to the Well No.6 offscenario involves providing enough additional water ITom other well sources besides Well No.
6 tosupply the main booster pmnp (takes care or the northeast comer deficiencies) and the identified
deficiencies at the west end of the service area.
Page 13:After the new paragraph requested above, another new paragraph should be added. This paragraphshould list any other deficiencies, specifically those regarding redundancy and stand-by power, whichneed immediate action to bring the system into compliance. Tills discussion should also reflectagreements between EWe and DEQ reach during our teleconference on February 22, 2007. DEQ'notes indicate the following:
1. Standby power and redundancy, or equivalent as provided in the rules, would be provided for newfacilities.
....
All existing racilities shall also be evaluated ror those factors. Any deficiencies, according to thestrict goals of the rules, shall be identified and a decision made on whether or not full upgrades will
be provided. That decision shall be provided to the customers (per the factors that could be
considered that are listed in the rules). The implementation process, associated schedule, andfunding process and schedule (if applicable) shall be included in the ER ror review by DEQ.
3. The main booster station wi11 be provided with redundancy. Because the station will not serve anarea that win be expanded by 25% or more, standby power does not have to be added. Howevercustomer notification must be provided, as discussed above.
;,.
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report - March 2007
Page 5
Page 13:
Page 14:
Page 14:
Page 16:
Page 16:
Page 16:
An or the information contained in the last paragraph starting on this page (i., the paragraphconcerning main booster station capacity, booster station redundancy, and immediate measures toincrease ey,isting well pump capacity) should be utilized in the discussions requested in the previous
two comments. This paragraph can be deleted.
The statement that "..AJ1 of these options would provide ti.."11e to evalUate the additional capacitygenerated by the modifications presently being implemented and time for constructing a new watersource if necessary" is misleading and should be rephrased. Additional time would only be provided if
the improvements mentioned in the preceding discussions (i., booster station improvements and well
water flow improvements) result in the correction of identified deficiencies to the existing system
(redlli.1dancy, fi;-e flow and peak day flow pre.ssure). If that is the case, then any additionalimprovements requITed to meet 2010 requirements do not have to be addressed immediately, but still
must be in place in time to support 2010 needs.
The statement that "Additional capacity is available (de )pending on location or proposed connectionand/or modification to pumping capacity of existing sources." needs to be amplified to list all specificactions EWe intends to take immediately to identify a source or sources for the required additionalwater. Most ofthese are listed on page 15 to define the 2010 system, but they need to be covered hereto emphasize that they are required to be performed immediately to bring the existing system intocompliance. DEQ recommends that the EWe also investigate if any improvements to the piping
network might be useful in expediting mitigation of the identified deficiencies. Examples of possiblechanges that might be useful include upsizing the supply line between Well No.7 and the system, and
making the proposed piping improvements near Wen No.6 immediately.
The 2010 Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling Results Table should be modified as
follows:
1. The title Dillie 4th column should be changed to "# ofResidentiai Junctions Below Fire Flow
RequITements for 3 600 SF or Less Dwellings (1,000 gpm)"
2. The title oillie 5th column should be changed to "# of Residential Junctions Below Fire Flow
Requirements for Greater than 3,600 SF Dwellings (1,500 gpm)
3. The note under the table starting "Note: Minimum system working pressure..." is not relevant to
fire flow issues. The note should be deleted.
The Wen No.6 Off scenario i.J. the 2010 IVlaximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling Results
Table indicates 9 residential junctions with fire flows less than 1 500 gpm. EWe either has to have the
minimum required fire flows at those nodes reduced as discussed previously, or revise the proposed
improvements to provide the required flow. EWe should add text addressing this issue.
L'1e 2010 Peak Hour Flow Modeling Results Table should be modified as fonows:
1. Two (2) additional columns should be added, one for "# of Junctions ~ 40 psi" and the other for "
ofJuncticns :;::. 80 psi"
2. The note under the table is incorrect and should be deleted.
The 2026 Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire F1ow Modeling Results Table should be modified as
foUows:
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report - March 2007Page 6
Page 18:
Page 18:
Page 18:
Page L8:
Page 18:
Page 18:
Page 19:
Page !9:
1. The tide of the 4ill column should be changed to "# of Residential Junctions Below Fire FlowRequirements ror 3 600 SF or Less Dwellings (1 000 gpm)"
2. The title or the 5111 column should be changed to "# of Residential Junctions Below Fire Flow
Requirements for Greater than 3 600 SF Dwellings (1 500 gprn)
3. The note under the table starting "Note: Minimwn system working pressure..." is not relevant toiire flow issues. The note should be deleted.
The Well No.6 Off scenario in the 2026 Maximum Day Demand Plus Fire Flow Modeling ResultsTable indicates 1 residential junction with fire flows less than 1 500 gpm. DEQ suggests that EWeaddress this issue by noting that the' calculated flow or 1 497 gpm is within 3 gpm or the required 1 500gpm, which is well within the predictive accuracy 0f the model.
The Recommendations section needs to reorganized to segregate actions into those that areMandatory" (required immediately to bring the existing system into compliance), "Suggested"Future" and "Completed". The "Mandatory" items will become part or the Consent Order and should
be addresserl first. "Suggested" items are immediate action items not required for compliance, but
considered beneficial. "Future" items are action items not required immediately ror compliance, but~ventually required ror future compliance. "Future" items 'Will not become part or the Consent Order.Completed" items are Well No.7 items if EWe wishes to continue to include those items in the
Recommendations section.
Unless otherwise noted, all of the bulleted items .on pages 18 and 19 are "Suggested" actions as there is
no mandatory requirement for EWC to do them.
The fIrst bullet is incoITect. Existing customers in areas where system pressures exceed 80 psi should
be notified that an individual pressure reducing valve and thennal expansion tank or equivalent isrecommended, but not required. This is a DEQ request, Dut not a regulatory requirement.
Regarding the second bullet, notification of upper zone customers about the lack of redunda...'lCY at themain booster station is a DEQ request, not a regulatory requirement. However, there is it requirementthat customers be notified that the main booster station has no stand-by power, even though, as notedpreviously, EWe and DEQ has decided that there is no regulatory requirement to provide sta..11d-
power at that station. Therefore, customer notification that the main booster pump station has no stand-
by power should be made a "Mandatory" action item.
The first bullet is incorrect. The PUC requirement is that individual pressure reducing valves and
thennal expansion tanks or equivalent are required ror new construction in areas where service
pressures exceed 80 psi. Enforcement is a buDding inspection responsibility. The "Suggested" action
item should be that EWe ke.."'Ps the Eagle plumbing inspectors informed or all areas within the service
di$mct 'having service pressures greater than 80 psi.
The 2nd bul1et should be reworded to read "All new subdivisions should have looped water supply
systems if possible." Reference to minimum fIre flows should be deleted.
Robert DeShazo ana James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report - March 2007
Page 7
Page 19:
Page 19:
Page 20:
Page 22:
Page 22:
Page 23:
Page 24:
Page 24:
Page 24:
The 5th bullet regarding minimum pressure should be deleted.
The last paragraph mentions the residential fire flow deficiencies identified by the 2006 models. As
written, the paragraph incorrectly represents minimum fire flow requirements and rails to mention any
or the other identified deficiencies. It should be rewritten to list all identified existing EWe system
deficiencies as this is the lead-in to the Mandatory action items. All of the identified deficienciesassociated with the rollowing issues need to be addressed:
1. Residential and commercial minimum fire flows
2. Peak hour flow minimum pressure
3. Redundancy and stand-by power
DEQ would prefer if EWe deletes the entire Well #7 action items from the Recommendations sectionas this work has already been performed. If EWe insists on keeping the Wen #7 action items in theRecommendations section, then it should be put in the "Completed" subsection to avoid the item
being made part of the Consent Order. If the Wen #7 action items are included in a "Completed"subsection, their "Priority #" designations should be changed to "complete
Since installing recording now meters is not required to address system deficiencies, this item shouldbe moved to the "Suggested" subsection action items.
Unless the Booster Pump Station No.2 upgrade is required immediately to bring the system into
compliance, it should be moved to the "Future" subsection and not given a priority.
New Water Source needs to be reassigned a priority or 1. Because ofits importance, this action item
requires a detailed schedule that includes the following items:
1. Evaluation or alternatives
2. Decision as to source of water
3. Detailed design and siting4. Permitting
5. Procurement
. O. Construction
7. Commissioning
Si.'1ce increasing Well No. 6'8 capacity has been identified as potentially useful in addressing
deficiencies in the ~xisting system, EWe should consider making this improvement part of
associated with the "New Source" immediate action item. Otherwise, it should be moved to the
Future" subsection.
Any other improvements required for 2010 and 2026 compliance but not needed for immediate
compliance should also he listed in the "Future" subsection. These additional improvements might
incl~de those required for 2010 fire now compliance (e.g., improvements addressing the 9 deficient
nodes mentioned previously).
A detailed Financial Plan must be included in the text. Individual improvements should be presented
by priority starting with the completed Well No.7 action items and ending with the "Future" items.
The discussion should confirm that the source or funding will be through commercial bank Joans with
repayment by Public Utility Commission (pDq-approved rate increases.
Robert DeShazo and James Rees
Eagle Water Company Engineering Report - March 2007
Page 8
Appendix A:For Well No., it is unclear whethe: 470 gpm is the capacity of the well or the booster pump
station. Please claritY.
The capacity orWell No.7 (1 800 gpm?) should be stated a..TJ.d the note regarding systemconnection in the near future deleted.
Appendix 1:1. Pages 14 and 15 ofllie MDD 2010 Fire Flow Report are missing and should be provided.
2. Page 14 of the MDD 2010 Well 4 Off Fire Flow Report is missing and should be provided.
3. Page 14 of the l\IIDD 2010 We116 Off Fire Flow Report is missing and should be provided.
4. Pages 13 and 15 of the l\IiDD 2026 Fire Flow Report are missing and should be provided.
5. Pages 14 and 15 of the IvIDD 2026 Well A, Off Fire Flow Report are missing and should be
provided.
6. Pages 13 and 14 ofllie MDD 2026 Well 6 Off Fire Flow Report are missing and should be
provided.
Appendix J:1. Pages 2, 7, and g Dfllie PHF 2006 Approved Dev. Junction Report are missing and should beprovided
2. Page 13 of the PHF 2010 Well 4 Off Junction Report is missing and should be provided.
j. Page 1 or the PHF 2026 Junction Report is missing and should be pmvided.
4. Page 5 oime PHF 2026 Well 6 OffJunction Report is missing and should be provided.
Appendix K; The fmancial plans should be reorganized as presented in the text ("Constructed" first and "Futurelast) and the priority designations changed to reflect the revised priorities in the Recommendation
section.
To expedite the finalization of this report, DEQ recommends that EWe revise and resubmit only three (3) hole-punched copies or the portions of the ER that must be revised in response to these comments. DEQ \Vill recollatethose submittals in the i\t1arch ER binders as required. If EWe has any questions or 'wishes to arrange a meeting todiscuss this let'"Ler, please contact me at 208-373-0514, or via~-mail at peter.bainZv.deo.idaho.Q:Ov If I am notavailable, contact Mark Mason at 208-373-0266, or via e-mail at l11ark.masonCcv.deo.idaho.2ov
Regards
,..
~i I ---y
D' "'_. p~~ eIer 0. baIr
, ~
.b.
Tech...l1ical I Engineer
PSB:sjt
'"'
Tiffany Floyd., Drinking IN ater Manager, DEQ Boise Regional Office
Mark Mason, Engi.:neering Manager, DEQ Boise Regional Office
Stephanie Ebright, Attorney General's Office , DEQ State Office
Jem Henry, Water Quality Division, DEQ State Office
Molly O'Leary, Richardson & O'Leary PLLC, P.O. Box 7218 , Boise, Idaho 83707
Monty MwGhus, P., DEQ Boise Regional Office
Mike Stambulis, P., DEQ Technical Services
Todd Crutcher, E.I.T., DEQ Boise Regional Office
BRO Source
TSP&S Reading File
--=-"
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1410 North Hilton' Boise, Idaho 83706 . [phone] Dirk Kempthorne, Governor
Toni Hardesty, Director
July 27, 2006 TSCPE-147/2006
Robert DeShazo
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
172 W. State Street
Eagle, Idaho 83616
J;/.RE: Eagle Water Company PreliminaT'j Engineering Report (Eagle, Ada County)
,.,
:t -
.. '
\1'
Dear Mr. DeShazo:
The engineering report for Eagle Water Company has been reviewed. To ensure that construction will meet state
drinking water rules and the Recommended Standards for Water Works (RSWW), please address. the' followingcomments:
. .
1. The report shows that average annual demand ITom the combined residential, commercial, and iITigationsources was calculated by using actual demand data obtained from 2002 through 2005. The drawingsindicate that this system is designed to provide fire flows. However, the report doesnotgive the fire flowdemand for the residential or commercial units.
a. Please show the total demand of the system that accounts for the residential, commercial, inigationand fire flow demands. Then, provide an analysis of how the system meets/does not meet these
flow demands given the available wells and storage tanks/booster pumps.
b. If the system has more than one pressure zone, the report must provide 1nfonnation on the demandsand source and/or booster pump capacity of each pressure zone. With the largest source/and orbooster pump out of service, the report must demonstrate that the remaining sources and/or booster
pumps are capable of meeting the peak hour demand (which includes irrigation and an otherdemands) plus fire now for each pressure zone.
c. Peak ractors for maximum daily ' demand (1.8X average dai1y demand) and peak hourly demand(2.85X average daily demand) were obtained from a reference text. The Appendix has actual datafrom which the peak ractors may be estimated. Since actual data are available, then those valuesmust be used. For example, the estimated peak day demand using the average consumption from
the month or July is 4376 gpm. The average daily demand is shown to be 1259 gpm. Thereforethe peak factor for the maximum day demand is about 3.5X the average daily demand using actualdata. Please note the following reiated comments: '
~ ,
1. The previous sentences and calculations assume that the average daily flow during July is
the same as the peak day, which is typically not true. Please provide either specific data to
indicate what the peak days have been, or provide a reasonable peaking factor.
ii. Have you any actual data that indicates what factor should be used to detennine peak
hOUTon peak day?
obert DeShazo
July 27, 2006
Page 2 of 4
d. What are the fITe flow requirements for the residential and commercial buildings? Please provide a
statement from the fITe marshal specifying the required fire flows for the residential and
co'11ll1ercial units.
2. If available, please provide the well logs/tests for each well. Please verify the sustainable capacity of eachwell in the system and that the pumps are set at or below those capacities.
a. Well #4 appears to be the largest source with a reported capacity of 3046 gpm and has a variablespeed pump. However, the report that accompanied the well house and equipment plans showed
that Well #4 has a sustainable flow of about 2500 gpm.
b. The models are set-up so that Well No.1 (pIvIP-1 assumed to be Well #1) is set above 560 gpm
(the reported sustainable capacity): 719.79 gpm, 615.34 gpm, 771.25 gpm, 719.8 gpm. Does Well
#1 typically provide outputs at these rates, which are above the reported aquifer capacity?
3. Please list the status of defects or deficiencies, such as pressure zone problems, including existing
population and househ0lds affected. Deficient preSS1:ITe zones must be distinctly shown on the maps andmust include both peak hour and peak hour plus fire flow.
4. In the discussion of the WaterCill modeling results for the conditions before 2006 , it states that 13 hydrantflow tests were used. The field data were taken at different times from 2002 to 2005. Eleven of the model
results had pressures that were one to 37 psi higher than the field data, while two were 20.+ psi lower thanthe field data. However, four of the points were excluded from the analysis of the results because theywere extreme values, i.e. model values that were extremely high or low compared to the field data.
a. Those extreme values cannot be excluded from the results. The goal of the calibration is for the
model to represent the actual system as closely as reasonably and thus have pressure results that are
also reasonably close to actual field data, at least be within :1:10 psi. Instead of excluding t~e
outliers , the model configuration should be evaluated for errors in the model set-up and physicalproblems in the distribution system itself, such as partially closed valves or lines that are smaller
than those used in the model. Fi..."1ding and fiying errors in tl-J.e model or physical system may bring
, ,
the results closer to the field data. Poor calibration of the model would lead to models of future
scenarios that may not be representative of the system.
b. The hydram flow test model result only shows eight points. The report indicated that there were
four points that were excluded. Please add the ninth hydrai'1t test t~at seems to be missing from the
-rable.
5. There are five (5) sets of WaterCAD model results: two for the Pre-2006 conditions and three for the
Present 2006 scenarios. Please provide further clarification of the scenario differences between the
multiple results. Models must be run to demonstrate that the system is able to maintain a minimum pressure
of:
a. 40 psi during peak hourly demand conditions, exciuding tIre t1ow, throughout the distribution
system (IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.i), and
b. 20 psi during peak hourly demand conditions plus fire flow throughout the distribution system
(IDAP A 58.01.08.552.0 l.b.ii)
Dert DeShazo
J..ly 27, 2006
Page 3 of 4
6. Despite the addition of the 2000+ gpm pump, there are areas where presS"ures are stin less than 20 psi (peakhour demand plus fire flow), while other areas have pressures that are slightly over 100 psi.
Static pressurein the distribution system must be kept below 100 psi and ordinarily should be below 80 psi (IDMA58.01.08.552.0 1.b.iii).
It appears that a pressure safety reducing valve station will be added along Floating Feather Road. The100+ psi pressures appear to occur in the area bet'Neen Pebble Beach Way and Edgewood Lane, north ofCerramar Court. Is this where the proposed pressure safety reducing valve vault is supposed to go? This
should be specified in the report and' included in a map for the proposed improvements to the system. Also155 through 1-199 have pressures above 80 psi with some junctions exceeding 100 psi. These jUnctionsare along State Street between Ballantyne Road and Eagle Road. Should this area have a pressme reduciil.gvalve station as well?
7. The report states that future scenarios were not modeled"
. ..
due to the positive results obtained in thePresent Conditions 2006 Scenario analysis . This contradicts the statement
, "
The need for additionalsupply remains to this day." Tne results of this scenario show that there are still areas with deficientpressures (less than 20 psi under peak hour conditions plus fire flow) despite the system
enhancements ofWell #7 and the 2000--r: gpm booster pump station. If this report is to serve as a preliminary version of amaster plan, then it must address future scenarios.
8. Per the previous comment, a model ror future scenarios in the next 20 years seems to be warranted. Thereport must include the proposed additions to the system that would allow the system to meet the futuredemands and requirements. At what point will EWe need to increase its source capacity to meet theincreasing demand? Forecast of demand must include residential
, ,
:irrigation, commercial, industrial andfire flows. Maps, site plans, figures, and tables can be used to complete this section. Maps must clearlyshow the locations of proposed system improvements. See comment #6.
9. The Idaho Power Company has provided a letter to certify that Well #7 will have access to Grids #2 and #4
for backup power. However, the baclrup capability between the two grids is not available durillg peakperiods in the summer. Furthermore, there is no elevated storage to maintain system pressures in the event
of a power outage and there is no automatic transfer between the two power grids to guaranteeuninterrupted service. To avoid system depressurization and comply with current standby powerrequirements, Eagle Water Company must insta11- dedicated standby power with automatic transfercapability as indicated below:
a. Provide standby power for an new sources and booster stations including the newest source, Well#7.
b. Provide standby power for sources or booster stations that must be modified to serve additionalconnections. For example, DEQ will not approve new subdivisions in a system or pressure zone if
pumping capacity is inadequate with the largest pump out of service. Standby power must beprovided as part of the modification to increase pumping capacity.
c. The report must evaluate all existing sources and booster stations 'Nith regard to standby powerdeficiencies. If there are no proposed expansions related to particular facilities, DEQ does notrequire the addition of standby power to existing facilities. Put another way, non-
growing systemsare "grandfathered" with regard to required improvements. However EWC should notifycustomers of deficiencies, possible ramifications, and the estimated rate increase it would take toupgrade the system. If customer expectations are high enough, EWC should then contact the IdahoPublic Utilities Commission to discuss the issue further.
i\.obert DeShazo
July 27 , 2006
Page 4 or 4
10, Unless there is a large excess capacity of sources and! or booster pumps for the entire system and ror eachpressure zone, then a Declining Balance Report will need to be submitted with each proposed addition.The Declining Balance Report must match the approved engineering report. The form ror the DecliningBalance Report must be accepted by the DEQ.
11. At your convenience, DEQ proposes a meeting to discuss these comments , as well as have the opportunityto have your assistance in clarifying items on the WaterCAD model results and items in the report that do
not appear to be immediately obvious to the reviewer.
Please call me with any questions at [phone], or contact me via e-mail atdiane.baconguis02deq,idaho.gov
Sincerely,'rl .
'f1i ,';"1/'-'L, ex:;:
(" ;"',
n/l C7 l..,,' , ,-v
;'
Diane Baconguis, KIT
IDEQ Technical Services
DB:sjt
Charles W. Ariss, P., Regional Engi-TIeering Manager, DEQ Boise Regional OfficeJames Rees, P., MTC, Inc.
Tiffany Floyd, Regional Drinking Water Manager, DEQ Boise Regional Office
Monty Marchus, P., DEQ Boise Regional Office
Michael Stambulis, P., DEQ Technical Services
Mark Clough, F., DEQ Technical Services
Source File 2, Eagle Water Company Preliminary ER
TSCPE Reading File
RFP No. 4(b)
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC,
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST
Molly O'Leary (ISB # 4996)
Richardson & O'Leary, P.LLC.
O. Box 7218
Boise, 1083707
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
mollycg) richardsonandoleary.com
Attorneys for Eagle Water Company, Inc.
BEFORE THE
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION)
OF LOW WATER PRESSURE IN A PORTION OF EAGLE WATER
COMPANY'S SERVICE AREA
CASE NO. EAG-05-
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET A. HOVEY
STATE OF UTAH
) ss.
County of Salt lake)
COMES NOW Chet Hovey, P., and being first duly sworn upon oath, states
and affirms the following:
I make this affidavit based upon my own personal knowledge.
I am a professional engineer, duly licensed in the state of Idaho
Utah , and Nevada.
I have professional expertise in the area of public drinking water
systems.
My resume is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET HOVEY-
I have been working with Jim Rees, P., and principal engineer
with MTC, Inc. ("MTC") on computer modeling of Eagle Water Company, Inc.'s
Eagle Water') system for a Final Preliminary Engineering Report.
My involvement was necessitated by the departure of the previous
engineer from MTC , and the highly complex nature of the modeling software as
applied to Eagle Water s system.
MTC did a professional job in initially setting up the model. When I
received the model , it was very detailed and provided a very powerful tool for
Eagle Water.
The model has been a challenge because of the unique
characteristics of Eagle Water s system.
Prior to my involvement, MTC sent the model back to Haested
(which sells and supports the WaterCAD Software) for its review to ensure that
the water model was optimizing the water system. The model was then
incorporated into the Preliminary Engineering Report which was submitted to the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") on or about May 31 2006.
10.Comments were received back from the DEQ in mid- to late
August.
11.In early October, Mr. Rees and I met with DEQ to respond to its
comments. By that time , we had made modif.ications to the model (additional
scenarios and so forth) to address DEQ's original comments. During our
meeting with DEQ, we reviewed and discussed each comment separately.
, ,.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET HOVEY - 2
12.DEQ then came up with additional comments and Mr. Rees and I
went back to work. In particular, DEQ requested that we verify the model
representing the actual conditions by comparing our results to the fire hydrant
flow tests.
13.We then modeled each fire hydrant flow test to determine if the
model was calibrated correctly and presented this to DEQ the following day. (It
should be noted that the existing model did not need any calibration but DEQ
wanted to make sure it was calibrated correctly.
14.DEQ also questioned the peak hour demand flow rate. DEQ was
unconvinced that the peaking factors use by MTC, which were obtained from
Dewberry & Davis' Land Development Handbook, were representative of the
area. DEQ asked that we send a letter justifying the peaking factors and
methodology for their use.
15.After spending considerable time researching the peaking factor
issue to satisfy DEQ's concerns, we received a letter from DEQ in late October
stating that it had since changed its interpretation for pumping redundancy and
fire flow. . See Exhibit B, attached hereto.
16.In response to this change, MTC sent a letter to DEQ asking for
approval on the methodology behind our revised peak day demand rate, which
was based on the average of the last four years of peak day demand data. This
methodology had been previously discussed with DEQ. See Exhibit C
attached.
, .
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET HOVEY - 3
17.As the modeling was being completed based on the foregoing
methodology, DEQ rejected our peak day demand flow rate and asked that we
use the 2006 peak day flow rate.
18.We then restarted the process of changing the model and updated
the model to reflect the latest available data which included updating the water
accounts and use data obtained from Eagle Water in early October.
19.DEQ asked that we go back a few years and see if the flow rate per
account is consistent with time. In doing so, I found that the flow rate for 2006
was higher than the previous years. I called MTC and asked that they verify the
flow rate. Apparently, the flow rate that was given for the 2006 peak day demand
was for a 30 hour period instead of a 24 hour period, so we had to regroup yet
again and revise the modeling to reflect the lower flow rate.
20.Each of these modeling changes requires the following:
a. Modification of the flow requirement in each demand junction
(over 900 separate junctions must be modified).
b. Adjustment of the pump curves. As one pump curve is adjusted
the pump rates of the other pumps are changed resulting in
iteration after iteration.
c. Identification of system improvements that must then be
modeled to support the required flow rates.
21.There are currently 12 models of the Eagle Water distribution
system per DEQ and Idaho Public Utility Commission requirements. Thus, each
remodeling takes an enormous amount of time and extreme patience due to the
complexity of the system and limitation within the modeling software.
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET HOVEY - 4
22.Ward Engineering Group s original estimate to assist MTC with the
computer modeling for the Final Preliminary Engineering Report was $15 000.
to $23,000.00. Due to the remodeling that has been required, to date, the
current invoice for Ward Engineering s work on this project is $35,000.00 and I
expect that we will expend another $5,000.00 to $7 000.00 before our work on
this project is completed. This amount is over an above MTC's billing.
, FURTHER your affiant sayeth naught.
DATED this 19th day of December, 2006.
By: ~;1L
::~
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me this th day of pecem 2O9" i
(;.)
-ltt.........- fn')'1 ~ 'Cj '-------
%blic fo h
Residing at: Lo..TO/) L
Commission Expires: ~f I dC'
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET HOVEY - 5
KEY PERSONNEL - WARD ENGINEERING GROUP
EDUCATION:
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah
S. Civil & Environmental Engineering
REGISTRATION:
Registered Professional Engineer:
Utah No. 368556
Idaho No. 11861
Nevada No. 17357
SWANA Certifications
Certified Landfill Manager (MOLO)
Certified MSW Management Manager
fs-
CHET HOVEY, P.
,\,'
Mr. Hovey has seven years experience in water resources, environmental, solid waste
planning, design and construction management Chefs overall water system experience
indudes drinking water source protection plans, master plans, preliminary engineering reports
environmental permitting, and effluent management plans. His ~xperience also includes
wells, springs, pump stations and pipelines planning and design, and he serves as a SWANA
on-site training course instructor.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE:
PROJECT NAME
Water Resources
Rodeo Irrigation Pump Station, Oakley, UT
Golf Course Irrigation Pump Station, West Wendover, NV
Eagle Water Company Culinary Master Plan, Boise, 10
Spiral Springs Water System Design, Erda, UT
Effluent Management Plan, West Wendover, NV
USDA Reuse Water Project, West Wendover, NV
Shatter Water Transmission Pipeline West Wendover, NV
Johnson Spring Rehabilitation Project, West Wendover, NV
Culinary Water and Wastewater Master Plan, West Wendover, NV
Summit Park Water Distribution System, Mountain Regional
Water SSD, UT
Nicklaus Booster Pump Station, Mountain Regional Water
SSD, UT
USDA Reuse Water Projects
Environmental Engineerinq
Bauer Class I Landfill Permit Application, Tooele County, UT
Class If Class IV Landfill Permit Application
DuchesnelWasatch County, UT
Landfill Master Plan, DuchesnelWasatch County, UT
Landfill Master Plan, West Wendover, NV
Geohydrologic Assessment, DuchesnelWasatch County, UT
Class I - Phase II Cell Expansion, DuchesnelWasatch County, UT
Promontory Point Class I Landfill Permit Application
Box Elder County, UT
Bauer Class IV Landfill Permit Application, Tooele County, UT
Bauer Class IIIB Landfill Permit Application, Tooele County, UT
Construction Manaaement
Shatter Water Transmission Pipeline, City of West Wend over, NV
USDA Reuse Projects, City of West Wendover, NV
Johnson Spring Rehabilitation Project, West Wendover , NV
Golf Course Pumping Project, West Wendover
Recreation District, NV
Phase #5 Sewer Line Extension, Town of Alta, UT
Three-Mile Reservoir Aluminum Cover, West Wendover, NV
Water Transmission Pipeline Phase III Pipe,West Wendover, NV
Shatter Well #5 Pump Station, West Wend over, NV
RESPONSIBIUTY
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Project Engineer
Ward Engineering Group
RFP No. 6(a)
EAGLE WATER COMPANY, INC.
RESPONSE TO STAFF'S FIRST
PRODUCTION REQUEST
Ea
g
l
e

W
a
t
e
r

C
o
.
PU
C

S
t
u
d
y

0
5
-
84
0
ot
h
e
r
NA
M
E
JI
M

R
E
E
S
Da
v
e

C
o
l
l
i
n
s
Ro
n

S
c
o
t
t
Mi
k
e

J
o
n
e
s
To
m

J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Ro
n

N
e
s
b
e
t
t
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$8
5
.
00
/
H
r
$7
0
.
00
/
H
r
.
$4
5
.
00
H
r
.
$2
7
.
50
/
H
r
.
$4
5
/
H
r
.
$4
5
/
H
r
.
20
0
5
Au
g
u
s
t
93
.
97
7
.
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
$3
,
96
2
.
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
35
.
13
3
.
23
.
52
1
.
Au
t
o

C
a
d

W
a
t
e
r

C
a
d
04
5
.
$5
,
04
5
.
Po
w
e
r

W
e
l
l

S
o
u
n
d
e
r
59
7
.
$5
9
7
.
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
75
.
58
.
59
7
.
De
c
m
e
m
b
e
26
.
71
.
44
.
44
.
$1
2
73
2
.
20
0
6
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
15
3
.
12
.
14
.
$1
3
16
5
.
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
12
9
.
$1
2
71
5
.
Ma
r
c
h
96
.
38
.
$1
0
02
8
.
Ap
r
i
l
10
7
.
$1
0
09
0
.
pr
i
n
t
s
41
.
$4
1
.
Ma
y
14
.
14
3
17
.
$1
1
73
0
.
Of
f
i
c
e

D
e
p
o
t
73
.
$7
3
.
Pr
i
n
t
s
16
2
.
$1
6
2
.
Fe
d

E
x
46
.
$4
6
.
Ju
n
e
16
.
$1
,
83
6
.
Ju
l
y
10
.
$7
9
1
.
Au
g
u
s
t
$6
8
0
.
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
$8
9
0
.
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
$5
1
0
.
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
$3
4
0
.
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
$6
8
0
.
MT
C

p
a
i
d

t
o

W
a
r
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
De
c
.

2
0
0
6
00
0
.
$2
2
00
0
.
NA
M
E
JI
M

R
E
E
S
Da
v
e

C
o
l
l
i
n
s
Ro
n

S
c
o
t
t
Mi
k
e

J
o
n
e
s
To
m

J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Ro
n

N
e
s
b
e
t
t
2
m
a
n

C
r
E
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$8
5
.
00
/
H
r
$7
.
00
/
H
r
.
$4
5
.
00
H
r
.
$2
7
.
50
/
H
r
.
$4
5
/
H
r
.
$4
5
/
H
r
.
$1
1
0
/
H
r
.
20
0
7
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
57
7
.
re
p
o
r
t
s
38
1
.
$3
8
1
.
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
11
.
58
2
.
Ma
r
c
h
20
.
63
6
.
Ho
t
e
l
-
-
-
Sa
l
t

L
a
k
e

C
i
t
y
10
6
.
$1
0
6
.
Ga
s
61
.
$6
1
.
Ap
r
i
l
14
.
43
8
.
Ma
y
81
5
.
Ju
n
e
97
5
.
Ju
l
y
27
5
.
Au
g
u
s
t
19
0
.
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
$1
5
2
,
25
4
.
To
t
a
l

H
r
s
.
38
3
.
78
4
.
54
9
13
9
.
77
.
79
.
51
5
.
up

&

d
o
w
n

T
O
T
A
L
x$
8
5
$7
0
x$
4
5
X
$
2
7
.
X
$
4
5
x
$
4
5

x$
1
1
0
Gr
.

T
o
t
a
l
32
,
59
7
.
54
,
91
5
70
5
.
82
9
.
49
8
.
58
8
.
60
5
.
28
,
51
5
.
$1
5
2
,
25
4
.
NA
M
E
JI
M

R
E
E
S
Da
v
e

C
o
l
l
i
n
s
Ro
n

S
c
o
t
t
Mi
k
e

J
o
n
e
s
To
m

J
o
h
n
s
o
n
Ro
n

N
e
s
b
e
t
t
2m
a
n
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
ac
r
o
s
s

T
O
T
A
L
EA
G
L
E

W
A
T
E
R
PA
I
D
$
4
4
74
1
.
29

1
2
-
-
8-
-
TO
T
A
L

D
U
E

S
E
P
T
.

2
0
0
7
$1
0
7
,
51
3
.
"'
0

;
:
0

m
;:
o
m
~
oe
n
(
;
)
0
"
'
O
r
co
m
()
t
5
~
:::
!0
-
i

O;
:
o
;:
0

e
n

(
)
~)
;
!
O
'T
1

:
5
:
'T
1

"
'
0
en
u
5
~
'T
1
~
;:
0

en

z
-i

0
;;
a
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
MTC Engineering
Job # MTCO02-
Original Contract Amount:
Total Change Order Amount:
Revised Contract Amount:
Contract Amount Remaining:
$43 000,
$42 476.73 (Additional Services)
$85 476,
Water System Study - Eagle Water Company
Invoice Invoice Invoice Credit
Number Date Amount Issued
20041 11/11/2006 214,
20215 11/25/2006 603,
20336 12/9/2006 222.
20532 12/23/2006 520,
20692 1/6/2007 712,
20934 1/20/2007 455,
21152 2/3/2007 272,
21329 2/17/2007 977
(Overpayment)
21615 3/17/2007 990.
21816 3/31/2007 318,
21967 4/14/2007 363,
22422 5/12/2007 954.
22732 6/9/2007 872.
Date
Paid
12/13/06-3/8/07
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
3/8/2007
Job Statement
T&M
Amount
Paid
23,214,
603,
222.
520.
712,
455.
272.
977.
021.67
Nli '
~p",
fJt ij"'IfiI
Your account it!. overdue
bJe Mould appreciate payment
476,
000,
J..mount Billed to Date:
Amount Paid to Date:
Credits Issued:
Remaining Amount Due:476.
Brendan Thorpe, P ,
Department Manager
WARD ENGINEERING GROUP
[phone]
COMMENTS:
8/29/2007
Date:
A 1.5% interest charge shall be added and billed separately each month on any amount overdue,
President: S. Tabriz
Invoice # 20041 Invoice Period: 7/06 -11/06Check # 7595 Check AmOlmt: $22 000.
Amount Outstanding: $1 214.49
Invoice Amount: $23 214.49
From: MTC Engineering
Justification:MTC Engineering contracted to Ward Engineering Group to review the
existing hydraulic modeling and to provide any other services that would be requested by
MTC Engineering to update the existing Preliminary Engineering Report per the review
comments from IDEQ.
Description of Services:During this invoice period, an office visit was made to MTC
Engineering to gather information, collect electronic files, and meet with Dave to discuss
the water model and write up. The model was reviewed and updated, the report was
modified and updated per the modeling results, and figures were generated to reflect the
modeling results. The information was sent to MTC Engineering for submittal to IDEQ.
Invoice # 20215 Invoice Period: 11/12 - 11/25
Check # ------- Check Amount: ------
Amount Outstanding: $1 818.
Invoice Amount: $603.
From: ------
Justification:Project coordination and updating electronic files for MTC Engineering.
Description of Services:Organized electronic and paper files and sent a CD of electronic
files to MTC Engineering. Coordinated with MTC Engineering on how to save and
opening electronic files by converting files from the default read only WaterCAD file to a
usable file.
Invoice # 20336 Invoice Period: 11/26 - 12/09
Check # ------- Check Amount: ------
Amount Outstanding: $6 040.
Invoice Amount: $4,222.
From: ------
Justification:Requested to attend meeting with IDEQ and MTC Engineering to clear up
review comments and discuss the peaking factor dispute along with getting approval for
pending developments.
Description of Services:Went to Boise and meet with IDEQ and MTC Engineering to
discuss review comments and get the peaking factor issue resolved along with get the
approval for the St. Lukes Medical Center, Shadow View Subdivision, and Gladstone
Subdivision. After the trip, we thought we had a clear understanding on resolving the
review comments. In addition, we thought we had the peaking factor agreed upon.
However, the approval was granted for the S1. Lukes Medical Center, Shadow View
Subdivision, and Gladestone Subdivision.
methodology to deriving the peaking factors. The peaking factor was to be obtained using
the average of the last four years of peak day data. The modeling was nearing completion,
when IDEQ requested the use of peak hour flow rate. It was discussed that this would
require doubling the modeling efforts because the fire flow scenarios are evaluated on peak
day not peak hour. In an effort to validate the flow rates and estimate peak hour, the
available flow data was revised and additional information requested. The new information
resulted in the need of modifying each of the existing flow rates at the demand nodes.
Invoice # 20532 Invoice Period: 12/10/06 - 12/23/06 Invoice Amount: $5 520.
Check # ------- Check Amount: ---- From: ------
Amount Outstanding: $11,560.
Justification:Started working on addressing each review comment and modifying water
demands and creating new models.
Description of Services:Worked on generating additional models, data, and supporting
figures resulting in numerous changes to the PER including new modeling and
modifications to existing models.
Invoice # 20692 Invoice Period: 12/24/06 -1/06/07 Invoice Amount: $3 712.
Check # ------- Check Amount: ------ From: ------
Amount Outstanding: $15,273.
Justification:Continued to work on addressing each review comment and modifying water
demands and creating new models.
Description of Services:Worked on generating additional models, data, and supporting
figures resulting in numerous changes to the PER including new modeling and
modifications to existing models.
Invoice # 20934 Invoice Period: 1/07/07 - 1/20/07
Check # ------- Check Amount: ------
Amount Outstanding: $15 728.
Invoice Amount: $455.
From: ------
Justification:Continued to work on addressing each review comment and modifying water
demands and creating new models.
Description of Services:Worked on generating additional models, data, and supporting
figures resulting in numerous changes to the PER including new modeling and
modifications to existing models. Worked on revisions and additions to the figures for the
PER.
Invoice # 21152 Invoice Period: 1/21/07 - 2/03/07
Check # ------- Check Amount: ------
Amount Outstanding: $24 000.
Invoice Amount: $8 272.
From: ------
Justification:Continued to work on addressing each review comment from IDEQ and got
approval to go to Boise to help finalize report and submit to IDEQ for review and
comment.
Description of Services:Worked on revisions and additions to the model and figures.
Went to Boise and finalize modeling and report to meet the submittal deadline.
Invoice # 21329 Invoice Period: 2/04/07 - 2/17/07
Check # ------- Check Amount: ------
Amount Outstanding: $24 978.33
Invoice Amount: $977.
From: ------
Justification:Several phone conversations with IDEQ in regards to the latest submittal.
Received the latest round of review comments from IDEQ and began to process of review.
Description of Services:Received phone calls from IDEQ for clarification. Talked to
MTC Engineering about the latest review comments from IDEQ and how the proper and
easy way would be to address each one.
Invoice # 21615 Invoice Period: 3/04/07 - 3/17/07
Check # 549381292 Check Amount: $35 000.
Amount Outstanding: ($2 031., Credit)
Invoice Amount: $7 990.
From: Eagle Water Company
Justification:Copy services and some of the work performed (about $850.00) in the
previous submittal to IDEQ was included in this invoice. In addition to these previous
services, conference calls were held in an effort to finalize the peaking factors. Revisions
to the water model were started reflecting the revised peaking factors.
Description of Services:Services performed included coping and preparing documents for
binding, generation of figures, revisions to the water model, and correspondence with
IDEQ and MTC Engineering. Numerous conversations were required to come to an
agreement with peaking factors for the water system. It should be noted that the new
peaking factors are actually less then what was used in the original submittal to IDEQ.
Invoice # 21816 Invoice Period: 3/18/07 - 3/31/07Check # Check Amount:
Amount Outstanding: ($1 712., Credit)
Invoice Amount: $318.
From:
Justification:Asked to make revisions and update Summary Report and Executive
Summary.
Description of Services:Updated and revised Summary Report and Executive Summary.
Invoice # 21967 Invoice Period: 4/01/07 - 4/14/07Check # Check Amount:
Amount Outstanding: ($1 349., Credit)
Invoice Amount: $363.
From:
Justification:Received comments Hom IDEQ.
Description of Services: Reviewed comments Hom IDEQ.
Invoice # 22422 Invoice Period: 4/15/07 - 5/27/07Check # Check Amount:
Amount Outstanding: $14 604.
Invoice Amount: $15 954.
From:
Justification:Revised Well #4 pump curve and include water system interconnect into the
water model and correspondence with IDEQ and MTC Engineering.
Description of Services:Revised the pump curve on Well #4 and added the water system
interconnect for each of the water model scenarios. The evaluation for the water system
and interconnect require additional correspondence, infonnation transfer, and modeling.
The two interconnects that were discussed, modeled, and evaluated were with United
Water Company and Eagle City.
Invoice # 22732 Invoice Period: 5/27/07 - 6/09/07Check # Check Amount:
Amount Outstanding: $28 476.
Invoice Amount: $13,872.
From:
Justification:Revised Well #4 and interconnect modeling and correspondence. Prepare
latest PER with MTC Engineering for IDEQ review and comment.
Description of Services:Finalized the modeling, report summary, executive summary, and
figures. Was instructed by MTC Engineering to make and bind copies for distribution.