hidden pipe attorney email exchange 0001

8/2/2019 Hidden Pipe Attorney Email Exchange 0001

1/7

214-67e-1331 Direct

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use of the individual orentity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged. confidential.and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient ofthis information. you are notified that any use. dissemination. distribution. or copying ofthe communication is strictly prohibited. and requested to reply hereto or notify sender byother immediate means of the misdelivery.From: Rickers. Amy [mailto:8111L. -! I JSent: Friday. February 17. 2e12 3:19 PMTo: Mcguire. JamesSubject: RE: Columbia Packing [MH-MHDOCS.FID735657]James-

It is my understanding that the City inspector has now viewed the piping (which we werediscussing on site today) being TV'd and it has been shown that the pipe does not have thepotential for discharge or cross connection due to the fact that it has. at multiple pointsbeen filled. Please affirm that the City no longer has any questions or concerns regardingthis pipe and provide an update on the review of the plumbing schematics.As I indicated earlier today. Columbia needs to be back up and operating as soon as possibleand could restart operations tomorrow if the City completes this review. I appreciate yourattention to this matter and look forward to a response in the near future. Thank you.

Amy L. RickersMUNSCH HARDTKOPF & HARR. P.C.DALLAS J HOUSTON I AUSTINn n U..~_l..rL iLl .

.

)11:;1'1 , 'P_,,_~7~801 UM

~:"":' '~~:!'MiV~J! ~r- ."~_. un [ . ...,II''''IfI J 't I11L _ _I..w..l,..

Notice: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may containconfidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use. disclosure ordistribution is prohibited. Nothing contained in this message or in any attachment shallconstitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global andNational Commerce Act. any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or any otherstatute governing electronic transactions.

IRS Circular 23e Notice: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we informyou that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) isnot intended or written to be used. and cannot be used. for the purpose of (a) avoidingpenalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (b) promoting. marketing or recommending toanother party any tr'ansaction or matter addressed herein.

26


2/7

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Attachments:

Mcguire, JamesFriday, February 17, 2012 5:26 PM'Rickers. Amy'Bowers, Chris; Haskel, PeterRE: Columbia Packing [MH-MHDOCS.FID735657]~J DSCOOO64.jpg;SC00059.jpg;DSC00060.jpg;DSC00061.jpg;DSC00062.jpg;DSC00063.jpg

Amy-To recap and provide a responseyou and I were present Duringsewer, and code compliance issues, but

your request the City conducted anand associated walkthrough, we reviewednot conclude that all life/safety issues wereat which bothsanitary

Prior to today, Columbia Packing has not provided an accurate, updated schematic to the City, despite theCity's standing request for such a document since at least January 25,2012. We again this morning requestedan updated, accurate schematic from Columbia Packing, along with related diagrams showing connections.You provided us with documents this afternoon, which were brought to Pretreatment for review andconsideration. You also represented to me that additional documents were going to be brought by ColumbiaPacking directly to Pretreatment today for review and consideration. I am unaware of whether thosedocuments have been provided or not. Finally, you provided us with updated Stormwater Pollution PreventionPlan ("SWPPP") documents to remedy the shortcomings in the SWPPP documents you previously provide(1tothe City, These were brought to Stormwater Management for review and consideration,Also this afternoon and after you provided the schematics and other documents, a City inspector discovered anadditional, unidentified pipe at the Columbia Packing facility. This hidden pipe was readily iDeated by the Cityinspector because it had an access point covered by a large metal sheet in the middle of large, mowed field.The hidden pipe does not appear on any of the documents Columbia Packing has previously provided to theCity, but appears to extend towards the Columbia Packing facility in one direction, and towards Cedar Creek inthe other direction. A Columbia Packing worker dug the hidden pipe out by hand, and City personnel viewedit. When I asked whether you OrColumbia Packing had knowledge of the hidden pipe, nobody claimed to haveany knowledge, Moreover, although you and others from Columbia Packing claimed it was "coHapsed," theattached photos show that it was clearly not "collapsed" in at least one direction. In a very short turnaround ofan hour or so, City inspectors returned to the Columbia Packing facil ity to inspect and videotape this pipe viaclosed-circuit television ("CCTV"). At this time, the City has not made the conclusion that "there is no potentialfor discharge or cross connection," Indeed, as Columbia Packing well knows, a pipe that is obstructed bymaterials can result in illicit discharges if the proper precautions are not taken. Given the circumstances andfacts surrounding Columbia Packing's violations, the City takes the presence of unauthorized pipes at theColumbia Packing facility very seriously. Moreover, the fact that City inspectors are discovering additionalpiping at the facility at this late date casts serious doubt on whether Columbia Packing has been diligent in .disclosing all existing pipes as part of the information it has been providing to the City. \For these reasons, among others, it would be inappropriate for the City to give the documents provided thisafternoon anything other than an attentive and careful review. When documents are received with only a fewbusiness hours left in the day, it is unreasonable to expect that they can be properly reviewed and consideredon a same-day basis.The City agrees that the pipe should be removed, but any removal should take place with a City inspector on-site, Because of the heavy rains expected this weekend, it does not seem advisable to remove tile pipe thisweekend. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate you, the City will provide an inspector on call over theholiday weekend. If Columbia Packing insists upon removing the pipe this weekend, please call the City'sStormwater Hotline at 214-948-4407 to arrange for a City inspector to be present. In addition, if an attorney for

42


3/7

Columbia Packing plans to be present, you must let us know with enough time for a City attorney to be presentas well.Finally, I respectfully request that you inform your Professional Engineer (UP.E.")of the material discovery or ahidden pipe, so that the P.E. can confirm: (1) whether the P.E. will perform additional investigation for thepresence of more hidden piping at the Columbia Packing facil ity; and (2) whether the City may expect anyadditional changes to the P.E.-sealed schematics that you provided to us today.Thanks,James McGuireAssistant City Attorney, City of Dallas214-670-1331 DirectCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may containinformation that is privi leged, confidentia l, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, youare notified that any use, dissemination, distr ibution, or copying of the communication is str ictly prohibited, and requested to reply hereto or notifysender by other immediate means of the misdelivery.


4/7

From:Sent:To:Subject:Rickers.Amy[J . I it> '- -~]Friday, February 17, 2012 8:04 PMMcguire,JamesRE: Columbia Packing [MH-MHDOCS.FID735657]

.Iames-As an initial n:sponse to your e-mail below, the piping has already been removed, prior to your e-mail, in an effort to alkviale theCily's com:erns, Columbia would like to pcnnancntly Cliptbat line and would like to h'avean inspector on sit.c 10,wersee that. ifnecessary, on Monday. Please let me know if you would like us to contact the hotline for that purpose Ofif you will arrange theinspector'~presence. Addilionally,Columbiawouldlikemyselfand a CityAttorneyon siteat that lime. Please leI m know how youwould like this arranged and if there is a particular time you would like to schedule this. I look ft)fward to your response. Thank you.


5/7

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Mcguire, JamesSunday. February 19. 2012 2:03 PMRickers, AmyHaskel, Peter; Bowers, Chris .Columbia Packing - Citysupervision of permanent capping

Amy-It is disappointing to hear your report that the hidden piping at the Columbia Packingfacility was removed in the absence of City inspectors. The City acknowledges ColumbiaPacking's request to add a "permanent cap" to a potential source of discharge at itsfacility, and further acknowledges its request that both a City inspector and attorneys forboth sides be present tomorrow during the holiday weekend. It is the City's preference thatthis activity take place under its supervision during normal business hours beginning on orafter Tuesday, February 21, 2012. Such an approach would allow Columbia packing to addressthe issues ina timely manner, and additional costs associated with providing Citypersonnelduring a holiday could be avoided. Nevertheless, in a further effort to accommodate ColumbiaPacking, we are also available beginning at around 1e a.m. on Monday, February 20, 2e12 ifyou insist on doing this on Presidents Day.In addition, we are confused regarding several assertions in your prior emails (reproducedbelow). First, if the hidden piping has been removed, what remains to be "permanentlycap[ped]"? Second, if there is a previously undiscovered outfall, pipe, or other potentialsource of discharge that requires such permanent capping, your previous statement that therewas no "potential for discharge or cross connection" appears to be incorrect.Finally, if Columbia packing has any update from its consulting Professional Engineerregardingthe hidden piping, schematics, or potential source of discharge requiring the"permanent cap," we would appreciate Columbia Packing letting the City know as soon aspossible.The City looks forward to Columbia Packing's response and the City's observation of thecapping activities to assist in our review of these newly identified issues.Thanks,James McGuireAssistant City Attorney, City of Dallas1500 Marilla Street, 7th FloorDallas, TexasDirect: 214-670-1331Fax: 214-670-0622Email: [email protected]: This communication is intended only for the use of the individual orentity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential,and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient ofthis information, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying ofthe communication is strictly prohibited, and requested to reply hereto or notify sender byother immediate means of the misdelivery.

Original Message-----34


6/7

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:

Rickers,Amy[_" B I _II1JSunday,February9,20124:45PMMcguire,James .Haskel, Peter; Bowers, ChrisRE: Columbia Packing - City supervision of permanent capping [MH-MHDOCS.FID735657]James-The City's conclusions, or perhaps lack thereof, are extremely disconcerting. What isperhaps most disconcerting is that it took the city no time to shut Columbia'soperationsdown and yet as Columbia has feverishly worked to address or disprove the City's concerns,the City is unwilling to acknowledge the resolution of those issues; at times refusing toacknowledge that the inspectors who originally raised the issues have recognized theirconcerns have been addressed or the additional information that has been requested is notsomething that should actually prevent Columbia's operation. Furthermore, the City's failureto acknowledge that the life/safety concerns have been addressed does not negate the factthat multiple measures have repeatedly ensured that they have been resolved, to a point thatthere is nothing else for Columbia to do to satisfy the City.You repeatedly reference a lack of schematics being produced to the City. Unfortunately,this is a misinformed view as schematics have been provided to multipleCity departments,revised as changes were made, and resupplied to the City. Further. thE? most recentschematics were produced on Friday with a half of the business day left. In reality,Columbiaprovided an updated schematic at Ie am buttheCityrequested a larger version whichwas obtained expediently. The documents provided should not take an extraordinary amountoftime and a few hours should have been sufficient for review. The additional documentsrequested by Pretreatment were delivered on Friday. I will reiteratethat thisdocumentation,as can be confirmed by your inspectors, is required for the SIU Permit,apermit that cannot be finalized until Columbiais up and operating. Therefore, theprevention of resumption of operations for Columbia based on a review of information for apermit that cannot be issued until Columbia resumes operation is unjustified. As to thestorm water documentation, these consisted of documents that were previously provided to theCity on January 27, 2e12 and an additionalcopyof the sitemap that was updated as a livingdocument. To insinuate that Columbiahas been anything less than diligent in attempting tomeet the every demand of the City is disingenuous.Your characterization of the piping discovered on Friday as "hidden" is misleading andoffensive. The piping was simply an underground pipe and Columbia not only was unaware ofthe pipe but immediatelydug it up to ensure the City could satisfy itself thatit was not anillicit connection or discharge. Furthermore. to characterize it as hidden when yourinspector "readily located" it due to the large metal plate atop its location (belying the.notion that anyonewas attemptingto hide the location of the pipe) is inappropriate.Contrary to your assertion. the line was not characterized as "collapsed" but rather asfilled in with bricks and dirt. The fact that when the pipe was dug up it was found to befilled with dirtand bricks (which appearto be from decades ago) and the City stillquestioned whether it posed a concern for a dischargeor illicitconnectiononly affirmstheCity's determination to keep Columbiafrom operating without a valid basis. To argue that apipe that is compactedwith brick and stone, presumably as a means of abandoningthe pipingand preventing its use as a conveyance, would pose a concernto the City is nonsensical.Thepipe does not appear on any diagrams because Columbia was not aware of its existence due tothe fact that it is not and could notbe in use. Furthermore.heCitycameoutandvideoedand inspected the line. The pipe was in fact determinedto not have a connectionto the-facilityor to anything else and was found to not have any flow or the abilityto permita~yflow.

28


7/7

Thepipethatwas uncovered Friday afternoon was removedimmediately so as to address theCity's concern in the most effective, efficient, and conclusive manner. In fact, the removaloccurred long prior to your e-map. Notably, ..J:/J~ removal began while the City Inspector wason site on Friday and Columbia inquired as to whether she wanted or needed to stay for theremoval but she chose not to. Neither yourself or the inspector on site indicated any Citypersonnel would need to oversee any additional work done on the line. As noted in my priore-mail to you, if the City wishes to oversee the permanent capping of that line, Columbiarequests a City inspector and City Attorney be present at the site on Monday to finalize thisissue. In your most recent e-mail you indicated you would have those personnel present at 10am on Monday and that is acceptable. You also noted you would request this activity takeplace during business hours, but as previously stated we asked the City inspector if sheneeded or cared to stay and oversee the removal and she indicated she did not. Due to thefact that Columbia attempted and accomplished the majority of the work during business hoursand the City refused to oversee it at that time, the fact that these issues need to beresolved as quickly as possible, and the fact that the City, in your previous e-mail, offeredto be available on Monday as well, which initiated Columbia's choosing to schedule to finishthe work on that date, we will go forward with thecapping work on Monday at 10 am.Furthermore, the end of the pipe in the direction of the creek could not fully be removedwithout damaging trees. The remaining portion of pipe was found filled with dirt and brickand therefore could not allow a discharge, as discussed above. However, in an abundance ofcaution to be able to address all of the City's concern, this will be permanently capped withconcrete so as to ensure no infiltration of the remaining, unusable line. Due to the factthat pipe was removed (and was at any rate not operational), it is unnecessary to put it onany plumbing diagrams and it is therefore unnecessary for us to inform the P.E. and noadditional changes are needed to existing schematics. If the City requires additionalmeasures to investigate unknown issues on the property, the City will need to indicate whatwould need to be done to satisfy such on overreaching demand.Your statement that "discovering additional piping at the facility at this late date castsserious doubt on whether Columbia Packing has been diligent in disclosing all existing pipesas part of the information it has been providing to the City" is inappropriate particularlybecause the City's continued allegations of illicit connec~ions have proven baseless. The,only outfalls and connections have been videoed from their point of outfall to the facilityconnection and have been shown not to have any illicit connections or discharges. The factthe lack of cross or illicit connections have been verified multiple times, multiple ways, bymultiple City employees and videoed should belie any concerns. However, despite thisevidence, theCity continues to claim there "could be" other connections. The City's fishingexpedition needs to end. Columbia has gone to great extents and cost to ensure the Cityknowswhere all active lines go and at this time it seems nothing will besufficient for theCity.Please notify us immediately of any additional concerns theCity claims remain. In suchnotification, ple.ase specify the basis for the concern and its relation to any code ~ectionor other requirement the City believes Columbia is not in compliance with. As has repeatedlybeen emphasized, Columbia is working diligently to satisfy the City's concerns and desires toresume operations immediately. without any specified code section or violation it isunreasonable for the City to deny Columbia resumption of operations.I look forward to your expedient response.

Original Message-----From: Mcguire, James [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Sunday, February 19,20122:03PMTo: Rickers, AmyCc: Haskel, Peter; Bowers, Chris29

hidden pipe attorney email exchange 0001

Documents