Gentlemen:
What is your view on the December 16th date.
Jeff
This transmission is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this transmission by someone other than the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this transmission is in error, please notify this firm immediately by telephone at (503) 964-6730, or reply to this transmission.
From: YELTON-BRAM Tiffany [mailto:tiffany.yelton-bram@state.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 5:45 PM
To: J.W. Ring; Mark Strandberg; Dan Huff (Molalla); 'Gerald Fisher'
Cc: COLE David; BACHMAN Jeff; WILLIAMS Karen
Subject: Follow up form our conversation on the draft MAO
Hello Jeff, Mark, Dan and Gerald
Thank you for your time today to review the city’s first draft of the Mutual Agreement and Order. I suggested the MAO as a means of having clear agreements and understanding around future facility planning (collection system and treatment system and related systems such as recycled water reuse) and daily operations between DEQ and the city. Our enforcement history has shown that the city has historically not planned for future infrastructure in a timely manner nor has the city implemented plans or updated plans, making it difficult to understand if the city is operating in a way that reasonably controls the wastewater.
The draft we discussed today, has two placeholders: the first is for a schedule for a what we agree is a Facility Plan and an operational plan and the second is for a TMDL implementation plan. We agree that these are the right kinds of plans to have schedules for in the MAO document but in order to reach a mutual agreement, DEQ must understand and document the content of these plans in the MAO. What the city has provided to date is inadequate for this purpose. At a minimum, a document explaining the scope for each plan is needed by DEQ. To keep this discussion moving, I please provide that scope document to me by close of business December 16, 2016.
We also discussed the request in the MAO for a permit modification that would allow discharge in May and October to the Molalla River. As I stated on the call, DEQ cannot accommodate this request because the underlying Total Maximum Daily Load document uses calendar dates and would need to be rewritten to allow a different means of setting when discharge to the river is allowed. But more importantly, I want to be clear that the problem of discharging within the given calendar dates in the current permit is not a problem with the TMDL. The problem is the maintenance and operation of the collection system, storage system and adequate reuse of recycled water. These are all items within Molalla’s control and a clear, written plan to address these is what has been missing.
I understand that you’d like to look more closely at the current TMDL to see if it can be interpreted to allow discharge at times outside of the calendar dates. A link to the TMDL is attached: http://www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/TMDLs/willamette.htm (on this page, scroll or use the hyperlink in the first section to go to the Molalla-Pudding TMDL) . Karen Williams suggests paying attention to the language on the following pages:
p. 2-3 Temperature standards that apply to river reaches
p. 2-14 and 2-15 Seasonal variation and time periods that wasteload allocations apply
p. 2-21 through 2-26 Point sources of heat and list of permits on Molalla River
p. 2-29 and 2-30 Basis for wasteload allocation calculations
p. 2-45 through 2-50 Wasteload allocation assignments (but note that the basis for calculations is Natural Thermal Potential, which no longer is allowed; current discharges to temperature impaired streams would need to attain the biologically based criteria, which is 13 degrees C at the times Molalla is interested in having discharge allowed)
Please let me know that you’ve received this message. I welcome any rough drafts of the scope document for preliminary review.
I also agreed to let you know when Bill Mason and Randy Bailey will submit their review of the lagoon test. Both Bill and Randy have now completed their review and we will send that to you by the end of this week. Evan Haas, in a separate email, provided Gerald with information on to provide information on funding sources for wastewater infrastructure that might be helpful with both short term and longer-term projects.
We look forward to receiving the information we’ve requested from the city to further our progress on the MAO.
Thank you.
Tiffany Yelton Bram
WQ Source Control Manager
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
700 NE Multnomah St., Suite #600
Portland OR 97232
Desk 503 229 5219
Mobile 503 975 0046