20061221Petition relief from Order No 30160.pdf

Molly O'Leary (ISB # 4996)
Richardson & O'Leary, P.LLC.
O. Box 7218
Boise , ID 83707
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
' '
-c"
",-
. t- ',;. - i
,,- '~.,~,-,.
2fW6 DEC 20 Al110: 46
ID/,O f UL:L.
UTILITiES CGf'oi.r/dSSIO ,
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-os-jD2
EAGLE WATER COMPANY , INC.'S
PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM
THIS COMMISSION'S ORDER NO.
30160
COMES NOW, Eagle Water Company, Inc. ("Eagle Water ), by and
through undersigned counsel , and files this Petition for Relief from Commission
Order No. 30160 for the reasons stated herein.
Eagle Water has been diligently pursuing the completion of a Final
Preliminary Engineering Report to meet the requirements set forth in the
Commission s Order No. 29840, as well as to meet the competing demands of a
Consent Order entered into with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
in February of this year. See Exhibit , attached.
To that end , Eagle Water has been working with Jim Rees , P., of MTC.
Inc. here in Boise, and Chet A. Hovey, P., of Ward Engineering Group in Salt
Lake City, Utah. Despite Eagle Water , Mr. Rees , and Mr. Hovey s diligent
EAGLE WATER PETITION
FOR RELIEF - 1
efforts, there have been numerous setbacks in the completion of the report, not
the least of which was Mr. Rees s recent surgery to repair an aortic aneurysm.
Eagle Water hereby submits the Affidavit of Chet A. Hovey to aid the
Commission s understanding of the progress that has been made to date and
that continues to be made on the Final Preliminary Engineering Report despite
these setbacks. See Exhibit 2 attached.
In addition , Eagle Water hereby submits a current invoice from MTC for
services rendered by it, to date, on the engineering report. See Exhibit 3,
attached.
As the Commission can see from the foregoing, the costs of the
engineering report have exceeded the original estimate of $79 895. Therefore, it
is unlikely that there will be an "over collection" of surcharge fees by December
, 2006. For this reason , Eagle Water respectfully requests the Commission to:
1. Extend the deadline for submission of Eagle Water s Final Preliminary
Engineering Report to January 20 , 2007;
2. Extend the surcharge collection period at least through the end of
January, 2007 , when the exact cost of the engineering study will be
known; and
3. Extend the deadline for Eagle Water to file an Application for Rate
Increase based on the system improvement recommendations in the
Final Preliminary Engineering Report to March 1 2007.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 20th day of December, 2006.
EAGLE WATER PETITION
FOR RELIEF - 2
Rich
EAGLE WATER PETITION
FOR RELIEF
EXHIBIT
'0"P,~R?1r~
~~;
-7
.... ~q./- . . ./~:::' /;;,
"~;rNT.
'\\ ~ ~
~ ~O
:~ ~
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVI RON ME NT AL QUALITY
1410 North Hilton. Boise, Idaho 83706-1255. [phone]
'....-..----------..--,.,--------..--..------..--..----,...,..,,- --....."..,-
February 24, 2006
Dirk Kempthorne, Governor
Toni Hardesty, Director
CERTIFIED MAIL:
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Robert V. Deshazo Jr.
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
172 W. State Street
Eagle, 10 83616
RE:Executed Consent Order for Eagle Water Company, Inc., PWS # 4010049
Dear Mr. Deshazo:
Enclosed is a fully executed copy of the Consent Order (CO) signed by Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality's Director, Toni Hardesty. The staff at the Boise regional office will be tracking
compliance with the deadlines set forth in the CO. Please send required communications to:
Tiffany Floyd, Regional Drinking Water Manager
Department of Environmental Quality
Boise Regional Office
1445 North Orchard
Boise, Idaho 83706-2239
Thank you for working with the Department to resolve these issues.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
cc:Stephanie Ebright, Deputy Attomey General
Lance Nielsen, OW Program Manager
Mike McGown, Boise Regional Office
Tiffany Floyd, Boise Regional Officet"'~~~';;~i\i~dson & O'Leary, 515 N. 27th St, Boise, 10 83702
File
COF
-----. --.J/';;'
IDAHO OE;?ARTMENT OF ENVIRONM!;:NT AL QUA~ITY
In the matter of:CONSENT ORD~R
Idaho Code g 39-1 08
Eagle Water Company
1. Pursuant to ttJ~ Idaho I;nvironmentaJ Protection and H~lth Act, !dahQ Code ~S39-101 through 39-130, the Id~ho Department of Environmental Quality (Department)
antet$ Into thi$ Consent Order With Eagle Water Company (Eagle), a Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) regulated, community public water syStem serving 2550connections and 9000 individuals in ~gle. Ada County, Idaho;PW$ # 1040"10049.
~l"2. By Notice of Viol~tion (NOV) dated August 1, 2005, the Department notified
Eagle of violations of the ~u)es ~ ubiit Qrinkin Water $'stam ,IDApA 58.01.08. The NOV is incorporated by reference into this Cons~nt Order. The Nayprovidad Eagle an opportunity for a compliance conference to discuss the "IIiolationsand enter into a consent order. A. compliance conference was held on August 162005.
3. In order to ~tumto~mpJiance with applicable $.tate and feder~llaws, Eaglehereby ag rees to p~tfc;irm,th~foHowjng ;actionsclnthe'time Periods, selforttli: inprder to.demonstrate aomp!ian~.wIitiJPAP~5&;O1.08:"
' ' '. ,, "
:e;",
. ,. "
a. Eagle shall continue to proVIde quarterly public notice concerning the
system s loss of pressure andfor depressuri24tion events, and the steps thesystem plans to take tQ return to complianoe with the pre$sure requin;1ments, inaccordance with IDAPA 58.01.0$,1501 to each residenc;e on the system by mailor hand delivery. Eagle shall continl,Je to provide publiQ notice to each residenceon a quarterly basis (every 3 months) until such time as the Department provides
written notice that quarterly public notification is no longer required.
b. Eagle shall provide t~e Department with proof of each Quarterly
notification via: the bepaJ\tmetlt's supplied notification form and a 'copy ofeach quarterly notifl!;:ation within ten (10) dayS of completion.
~ch /0 X1,.. C. No later than ~8bruary 24, 2006, Eagle shall submit for Departmentapproval a Preliminary Engineering Report. The Preliminary Engineering Report
shall delineate the steps that will b~ taken to bring Eagle into fuft compliance with
IDAPA 58.01.06 and shalllnclllde the following: .
RecommendatiQI1S for actior1$ to be taken for Eagle to meet tflerequ'ir$ments of IDApA 58.01.08 including: additional sources or
" $ystef1i moc.Hf~ti()ns as,needed to meet the waterquaJity, quantity
aQ~ pre$$ure requirement$for current ar.d-future'~weIliTlg W1its 'andot/"leru~es.
- ,, ,' ", ,, ,
CONSENT ORDER - 1
..,
ii.A fqnding plan to implement the recommendations selected under
the provi$ions of Paragraph 3.i. This plan shall include, but notbe limited to: the amOlJnt of funding needed. sourc~s of funding,
procedures and program requir~merits to S5Ct,ire funding fromthose sources, arid a schedule with milestones to obtain all funding
in a coordinated effort to implement the prOject.
iii.A project impl~mentation schedule for the recommendations
selected under the provisions of Paragraph 3.c.i. This scheduieshall int;:lude. but not bt;; limited to: plans and specifications,preparation 'of bidding documents, sl,.lpervision of bid openings andbid awards,' pre-GOnsttuction meetings, construction schedules,
construction inspection, and reGard drawings.
" "
iv.The Oepartment shall r~view, Comment and/or approve thePreliminary Engineering Report as specified in Paragraph 5 of this
Consent Orqer until the Departme,ot advises Eagle and their
engineer that a Final Er)gin~eri!l9 Report may submitted forapprovaLd. The conditions anc;i completion dates in the Departrnent approv~lletter for
the Final Engineering Report, including the detailed financial plans de$cribed in
Paragraph 3,c.ii of this Consent Order and the WOr'.( plan described in Paragraph
c.iH of this Corisent OrderJ shall be incorporatecl into ihis Consent OrJer aridshall be enforceable as provided by applicable law. The submittal review and
approval process described in Paragraph 5 $half apply to all tormal s~bniittals.€L Within 30 days of completion of the items described in the project
implementation ~chedlile of the Fina! ~ngineeting Report incorporated by
reference in Paragraph 3.d., Eagle shall submit. as constructed plans andspeciftcatioJis to the Department in accordanc;~ with Idaho Code s39-118 andlDAPA 58.01.08:551. 4. Civil penalties of THIRTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($13,500.00) were assessed in tlie NOV and will be resolved as follows:
In settlement of the civil penalty for matte~ included in the NOY. Eagle shall paya. moneta/)' pen~lty of THI~f~EN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS($13 500.00) to the Department in ~igr.t quarterly payment$ of ONE THOUSAND
SIX HUNDRE:D EIGHTY"-SEVEN DOLLARS AN!) FIFTY CI;;NTS ($1 687.50)beginning no later than F-4G.f"UoF)' 24 2006. Paym~nt sh~1I be made payable tothe Idaho Department of Environmental QlJ9lit;y and shall be submitted to:
~1:-
\.~
Accounting
Financiai Management
Attn: Drinking Water Panalty Payment
Idaho Department of EI'i'lironmental QI,.Ia!1ty
1410 N. HHton
Boise, Idaho 83706
GQN$~NT ORDER ~ 2
- -" .-~~,"~. ~~-..;
5. Department Review and Approval Submittal Review Process. Unless otherwise set
forth specifically h~re.in the following document submittal and review proce$S ($ubmittal
Review Process) shall be followed regarding $ubmittals required by this Consent Omerforwhich Department approv~1 is required.. This proc~s shall be fOllowed until th$Department approves the document or t~e review time frame has expired.
a. Within thirty (30) calendar daY$ gf receipt of Eagle s submittal, theDepartment shall 1) notify Eagle in writing the document is approved; 2) nottfy
cagle in writing Of any deficiencies in the document,
or 3) notify Eagle of theDepartment's exter1$ion of the Department's review and comment period for upto an additional thirty (30) days. If th~ Department notifies Eagle of deficienciesin the document, f;agle shall submit a reVised document to resolve thosedeficiencies within thirty (30) c~lendar days of r~c;eipt of the Department's notice.b. The Submittal Review Procese shall be re~eateduntil the Department
nQtifi6$ Eagle the document is approved. HQWQverl the submittal must meet theDepartmenfs qpproval within sixtY (60) daY$ from the due date for the first
. submittal of the doc:ument. unl~s$ the Department provides Eagle with a written
extension of the sixty (60) day time frame. Eagle $ failure to obt~in Departmentapproval Of a. submittal within such time frames shali constitut~ a violation of thisConsent Order.
.,,;
C. If the Department extends its review and comment period beyond th~
initial thirty (30) day periOd described above, the time frames within whichEagles documents shall meet the requirements of this Consent Order shall be
extended by aft equivalent number of days. Once the Department approves
these documents, they shall be incorporated h\1Jreiil and enforceable as a part ofthis Col1$erit Order.
All communications reql,Jired of Eagle by this Consent Order shall be addressedto:
TIffany Floyd. Regional Drinking Wa1er Manager
Department of. E;nvironhlental Quality
Boise Regional Office
1445 N. Orchard
Boise, Idaho 83706
AlJ notices, reports and submittals required of the Department by this Consent
Order shall be addressed to:
Robert V. Dashazo Jr.
Eagle Water Cornpany,lnc.
17;2 W. State Street
EagJe, 10 83616
CONSENT ORDER - 3
- - -- --' -,. ",-,
0:
Molly O'Leary, Attomey at L~w
515 N. 27ft! Street
Boise, I D 83702
8. This Consent Orc1er shall not in any way relieve Eagle from any
Qbfigatian tocomply with any prQVision of th~ Idaho eules for Public. Drir.kina Wa~er Svstems-or anyapplicable local; state, or federal laws. '
- ,
9. ~a~1e recogni?:es that failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Order mayre$ult in district court action $eekirig specific performance of this Consent Order;
assessment of costs and expenses; available pe~lties under Idaho Code s39-108;restraining orders; injunctions; attQrney fees; and other r~lief available by
$tatUte or ruleas the court ccnsider$ to be just and reasonable
LInder the circumstances.
10. This Consent Order shall remain in full force and effect until the Department
acknQwledges in writing that the Consent Order is terminat~d and that Eagle hasfulfilled all requirements of this Consent Order
11., rhis Consent Order shall bind ~ag~. its successors and assigns
, !.inti!terminated in writing by the Department.
12. Each undersigned n;:presentative to this Consent
Order c~rtifi~s that he or she isfully authorized to enter into the t~rms and Conditions of this Consent Order
, and tqexecut~ and legally bind such party
10 this document
13. The effective date of this Consent Order shall be the date Of signature by the
Director of the IdahQ Department qf ~nvironmentr)1 Quality.
OA TED this 2006.
8y:
,.
/ 0"\---....c
Toni Hardesty, Director
Idaho Dep~:1I1mei'lt of Environmental Quality
2006.
Robert V. 'aZo Jr.
Eagle Water Company, Inc.
CON$I;NT ORDER - 4
EAGLE WATER PETITION
FOR RELIEF
EXHIBIT 2
Molly O'Leary (ISB # 4996)
Richardson & O'Leary, P.LLC.
O. Box 7218
Boise, 1083707
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
molly(g) 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 Idahoj
Utah, and Nevada.
I have professional expertise in the area of public drinking water
--,., .
systems.
~,~~f;,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 ("DEO") on or about May 31 , 2006.
10.Comments were received back from the DEO 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 modifications 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:
tZuf
Ih.
CHET A. HOVE))
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me this 19'" day of Decem
. .. '
~~I
it-
,' , ;"'' "
" ",:"" : i
. ~;~~~'~:;:;:,:
r' Residing at: 'tcrn l
" "
Commission Expires: ~t
AFFIDAVIT OF CHET HOVEY - 5
EAGLE WATER PETITION
FOR RELIEF
EXHIBIT 3
Dee 19 06 09: 06a Jim ~~2083"" ""'8967
MTC, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, ANO PLANNERS
707 N. 27th STREET
BOISE, 10 83702208. 345-0780 fax 208 - 343-8967
FOR PORFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
ACCOUT OF
EAGLE WATER COMPo
O BOX 455
EAGLE, 10 83616
FEDERAL IN NO. 82-0398542
JOB NUMBER:
05--840
OEC., 2006
JOB # 05-840
PUC STUDY
FOR EAGLE WATER COMPANY
AUGUST TO DECMEBER 2005 $44,741.
JANUARY.. 2006 $13 165.
FEBRUARY $12 714.
MARCH $10,028.
APRil $10 131.
MAY 928.
JUNE 919.
791.JULY
AUGUST 340
SEPTEMBER $890.
OCTOBER $582.
NOVEMBER $340.
$680.DECEMBER.. 2006
TOTAL $108,254.82
EXHIBIT A
AFFIDAVIT OF
CHET HOVEY
KEY PERSONNEL - WARD ENGINEERING GROUP
EDUCATION:
University of Utah
Sa~ 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
CHET HOVEY, P.
PROJECT PRINCIPAL
Mr. Hovey has seven years experience in water resources, environmental, solid waste
planning, design and construction management. Chet's overall water system experience
includes drinking water source protection plans, master plans, preliminary engineering reports,
environmental permitting, and effluent management plans. His experience 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, ID
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 Engineering
Bauer Class I Landfill Permit Application, Tooele County, UT
Class I/Class IV Landfill Permit Application,
Duchesne/Wasatch County, UT
Landfill Master Plan, Duchesne/Wasatch County, UT
Landfill Master Plan, West Wendover, NV
Geohydrologic Assessment, Duchesne/Wasatch County, UT
Class I - Phase II Cell Expansion , Duchesne/Wasatch 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 Management
Shatter Water Transmission Pipeline, City of West Wendover, 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 Wendover, NV
RESPONSIBILITY
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
EXHIBIT
AFFIDAVIT OF
CHET HOVEY
, .
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1410 NoRTH HILTON. BOISE. 10133706-1255' [phone] JAMES E. RISCH, GOVERNOR
TONI HARDESTY, DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:Kirby Cole, Lewiston Regional Office Administrator
Mark Dietrick, Pocatello Regional Office Administrator
Gwen Fransen, Coeur d' Alene Regional Office Administrator
Doug Howard, Twin Falls Regjonal Office Administrator
Jim Johnston, Idaho Falls Regional Office Administrator
Jon Sandoval. Boise Regional Office Administratorrz~ (0("10(,.
Bafry Burf1'ell, Water Quality Division AdministratorFROM:
SUBJECT:Drinking Water Rule Interpretation-Pumping Redundancy and Fire Flow
DATE:October 10, 2006
Proposal: The proposed phase 2 drinking water facility standards rule has sections that address pumping
redundancy and fire flow. The proposed rule language, as modified in response to public comments during
August, separates fire flow requirements from 'the more general requirement that public water systems be
designed with pumping capabilities sufficient to provide peak demands with the largest pump out of service.
This memo directs DEQ engineers performing plan and specification reviews for public water systems to
use the framework agreed upon in the proposed rule before it becomes final in the spring of 2007.
Current Rule Interpretation: The most literal reading of Recommended Standards for Waterworks ("Ten
States ) would require that public water systems be designed with sufficient pumping capacity to supply peak
day demand plus fire flow where provided. Any pumping facility within the water system would need to have
sufficient redundancy to provide this peak day demand plus fire flow when the largest pump is out of service.
DEQ has not been consistent in application and interpretation ofthis requirement. Most offices have not held to
the most literal reading ofTen States. This is understandable by the fact that Ten States makes an assumption
that all systems will be designed with storage in the amount of average daily demand. In Idaho, many systems
do not instalJ storage and depend upon pumping to supply all of their needs. The challenge of providing fire
flow differs substantially between systems that have storage and those that depend on pumping alone.
New Proposed Facility Standards Rule: The proposed rule only requires pumping redundancy for domestic
flows. Fire flows are now treated separately in the proposed rule. Public water system owners at:e allowed to
reduce or eliminate redundancy for fire flow systems, if local fire authorities certify that the water system s fire
fighting capabilities are 'compatible with the water demand of existing and planned fire fighting equipment and
fire fighting practices in the area served by the system. The system may be designed to provide slightly lower
total flows during a fire event, taking into account the drop in distribution pressure that wilJ occur when fire
flow is provided. The proposed rule provides definitions for the tenns that refer to design flows and uses these
key tenns in a consistent manner throughout sections that deal with redundancy criteria.
As a condition for DEQ approval offire flow designs that do not incorporate fulJ redundancy, the proposed rule
, language includes a requirement that existing or potential customers be informed of the system s firefighting
capabilities and the acceptance of these capabilities by the local fire authority. Although there was some
opposition to this provision. this requirement is consistent with similar language negotiated for the proposed rule
section dealing with standby power. In both situations, the operative principle is that systems that obtain
approval for a reduction in reliability or redundancy should be willing to inform customers of this fact. This
notification does not need to be stated in negative terms, because the system design is in compliance with
regulation. In this interim time, prior to the proposed rule becoming effective, DEQ will waive the notice
requirement so long as the system complies With Section 501.17(bXi), as quoted in the Attachment to this
memo. Once the proposed rule becomes effective, the notice requirement must be met as part of the plan review.
Summary: The :&amework provided in the proposed rule is consistent with past practices in Idaho and allows
for system designs that provjde a reasonable level of redundancy. The proposed rule establishes a standard for
.. redundancy that is consistent with Ten States and then provides for departures from that standard when doing so
is acceptable to the local fire authority and does not compromise the ability of the water system to reliably meet
domestic flows. Standardizing around this approach will help to improve consistency in the way these
requirements are implemented around the state.
BNB:jt
Attachment
, .
Summary of Proposed Facility Standards Rule Language Dealing with Pumping
Redundancy and Fire Flows
1. The terms used to describe design flows in the rule are average day demand, peak
hour demand, maximum day demand, and fire flow capacity. These tenns may be
assigned slightly different meanings in various engineering references. Because these
tenns are of key importance in interpreting the rule requirements, they are defined as
fonows.
Average Day Demand.
year period.
The volume of water used by a system on an average day based on a one (1)
Peak Hour Demand. The highest hourly flow, excluding flre flow, a water system or distribution
system pressure zone is likely to eXperience in the design year.
Maximum Day Demand. The average rate of consumption for the twenty-four (24) hour period in which
total consumption is the largest for the design year.
Fire Flow Capacity. The water system cap!icity, in addition to maximum day demand, that is
available for fife fighting purposes within the water system or distribution system pressure zone. Adequacy
of the water system fire flow capacity is detennined by the local fire authority.
2. The above terms are then used throughout those sectionS of the rule that deal with
redundancy requirements. The pertinent sections are shown below. Highlighting is used
to emphasize the key terms. These excerpts may be viewed in context by accessing a
copy of the proposed rule through DEQ's website at
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/rules/drinking water/58 0108 0602 proposed.efm
or by calling Tom John at 373-0191.
513. FACILITY AND DESIGN STANDARDS - NUMBER OF GROUND WATER SOURCES
REQUIRED. New community water systems served by ground water and constructed after July 1, 1985
or exjsting community water syStems served by ground water that are substantially modified after July,
2002 shall have a minimwn of two (2) sources if they are intended to serve more than twenty-five (25)
homes or equivalent. Under nonnal operating conditions, with any source out of service, the remaining
source or sources shall be capable of providing either the peak hour demand of the system or maximum day
demand plus equalization storage. See section 501.17 for general design requirements concerning fJre flow
capacity. . for the purpose of section 513 only, the department shall consider a system to be "substantially
modified" when there is a combined increase of twenty-five percent (25%) or more above the system
existing configuration in the following factors:
541. 02. Pumping Units. At least two (2) pumping units shaH be provided for raw water and swface
source pumps. Pumps using seals containing mercury shall not be used in public drinking water system
facilities. With any pump out of service, the remaining pump or pumps shall be capable of providing the
peak hour demand or maximum day demand plus equalization storage. See Section 501.17 for general
design requirements concerning fire flow capacity. The pumping units shall nieet the following
requirements: (Remaining language from this subsection is not listed because it does not deal with
redundancy)
541.04. c. Each booster pumping station shall contain not less than two (2) pumps with capacities
such that peak hour demand, or maximum ~y demand plus equalization storage, can be satisfied with the
largest pump out of service. See Section 501.17 for general design requirements concerning fire flow
capacity.
Page 2-Pumping Redundancy and Fire Flows
544.01. Sizing. Storage facilities shall have sufficient capacity, as detennined from engineering studies
that consider peak flows, fire flow capacity, and analysis of the need for various components of finished
storage as defined under the tenn "Components of Finished Water Storage" in Section 003. The
requirement for storage may be reduced when the source and treatment facilities have sufficient capacity
with standby power to supply peak demand of the system.
3. Finally, a new provision in General Design Considerations (Section 501) to address
the requirements and exceptions that apply to fire flow capacity.
501.17. Redundant Fire Flow Capacity.a. Public water systems that provide fire flow shall be designed to provide maximum day
demand plus fire flow instead of peak hour demand plus fIre flow. This aIlowance is made because
distribution pressures can be expected to fall during a fire event and overall demand would be less than
peak hour. Pumping systems supporting fire flow capacity must be designed so that fire flow may be
provided with the largest pump out of service.b. The requirement for redundant pumping capacity specified in 501.17 .a. may be reduced
to the extent that storage is provided in sufficient quantity to meet some or all of fIre flow demands. Where
storage is not provided, the requirement for fire flow pumping redundancy may be reduced or eliminated if
the following conditions are meti. The local fIre authority states in writing that the fire flow capacity ofthe system is
acceptable and is compatible with the water demand of existing and planned fire fighting equipment and
fire fighting practices in the area served by the system.ii. In a manner appropriate to the system type and situation, positive notification is provided
to customers that describes the design of the system s fIre fighting capability and explains how it differs
from the requirements of501.11.a. The notice shall indicate that the local fire authority has provided
written acceptance of the system s fIre flow capacity.
EXHIBIT C
AFFIDAVIT OF
CHET HOVEY
Nov 29 06 08: 29a Jim Rt.~20834385
\:;\'..T"\"'I (;i
:::;' "':"" '. '"'"
STATE OF IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
-;;,
1'6":;f,-"'L~';'-
-\"
1itxr,
'\._.---.- ,--
1410 NOR'OH HiLTON. BoISE, iOAHO 83706 . [phone] JAMES E, RISCH. GOVERNOR
TONI HARDES7Y. DIRECTOR
TSCPE-239/2006
October 25 , 2006
Mr. James M. Rees, P .
MTC, Inc.
707 N. 27th Street
Boise, Idaho 83702-3113
RE:Response to Proposed Peak Day Demand Rate (Eagle, Ada County)
Dear Mr. Rees:
Your letter of October 18, 2006 proposed a peak day demand rate for use in evaluating the sufficiency of your
system. This evaluation is required for completing your Water Supply System Study. That rate, 3 556 gpm, is the
average of the peak day demand rates for 2003 through 2006. You further note that approximately 60 percent of
this water is utilized by irrigation accounts. In a previous meeting, you informed DEQ that you expected the
volume of water used for irrigation to decrease as your service area builds out. You also indicated that developed
areas consume less water than undeveloped irrigated areas so that the peak day demand rate obs~ed each year
would eventually level out even if the population of your service 'area increases. Your letter requested DEQ to
agree with your proposed rate so that you could use that rate as a basis for completing your study.
DEQ acknowledges that we previously agreed in principle to try to establish a peak day demand rate based on the
methodology set forth above. However, the data in your letter indicates that the peak day rate is not only growing,
but accelerating (a 2.5% increase between 2003 and 2004, an 8.3% increase between 2004 and 2005 and a 14.
increase between2005 and 2006). YoW" letter does not provide any explanation or analysis to demonstrate why we
should expect future peak day demand rates to stop increasing and stabilize in the 5 to 6 million gallon per day
range. Having data that demonstrates the peak day rate is still growing and lacking justification for why we should
expect it to stop growing, DEQ cannot agree to your proposed peak day rate.
To resolve this issue as quickly as possible, DEQ recommends that we hold a working meeting with you and your
consultants with the objective of rIDding a defensible methodology for establishing peak day rates for use in your
study. Please contact me with any questions at 373-0514, or via e-mail at peter.bair~deq.idaho.l!ov if you have
any questions in this regard.
Sincerely,
'-'/ ) -'
!~cJr~
Peter S. Bair, P.
Technical I Engineer
PSB:sjt
Tiffany Floyd, Acting Regional Engineering Manager, DEQ Boise Regional Office
Michael Stambulis, P.E" DEQ Technical Services
Monty Marchus, P.E., DEQ Boise Regional Office
Todd Crotcher, E.I., DEQ Boise Regional Office
BRO Source File 2 TSCPE Reading File
- -