From: Susan Hansen
Sent: Wed Jan 10 10:52:59 2018
To: sarah.wheeler@state.or.us; DECONCINI Nina; Richard Whitman
Cc: rdavis@oregonian.com; grandinetti.robert@epa.gov; jason.miner@oregon.gov; lauri.aunan@oregon.gov
Subject: DEQ/Molalla Mutual Agreement and Order and other questions about enforcement and compliance
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Molalla DEQ updated-violations-chronology-table (9-22-17).docx; molalla_-_response_to_deq_mao_aug_28.pdf; Dear Ms. Wheeler, Ms. Deconcini and Director Whitman, On May, 21, 2016, per the attached chronology prepared by DEQ regarding interactions with the City of Molalla, DEQ began to work on a MAO to supposedly solve the glaring and growing wastewater management problems connected to the City of Molalla wastewater facility. Bear Creek Recovery has closely followed the work toward a MAO. Conversations yesterday with DEQ's Jeff Bachman and Tiffany Yelton-Bram seemed to indicate that currently there is no current work going on toward a MAO. May 31, 2016 DEQ meets with city at their legal counsel’s office. Purpose is to discuss the need for the city to look at collection system and treatment plant operation holistically to get ahead of problems related to storage. Tiffany suggests an MAO to set objectives and milestones for planning documents and related projects. Inclusion of the TMDL planning documents requested in the May 13, 2016 letter in the MAO are discussed. There are currently many outstanding Civil Penalties/fines embedded in draft MAO's. It was our understanding from talking to DEQ officials that either tiimely progress would continue to be made toward a binding MAO or that DEQ would enforce the outstanding Civil Penalties. Ms. Wheeler noted in a recent phone call that resolving the problems with Molalla was a DEQ priority. Yet both Bachman and Yelton-Bram had no information to share about when and how DEQ would produce a new draft MAO based on the information in the Richwine report. Richwine found that Molalla is way over capacity to manage its current wastewater load and in need of "finding" $32-38 million dollars for a new wastewater plant. DEQ notes that the unlined lagoons are leaking about 173,000 gallons of wastewater a day into groundwater and we still have no test well program proposed in spite of DEQ's "ask" over a year ago for a Molalla plan to monitor groundwater movement and the potential for well contamination. In August 2017, Molalla's lawyers explained in a letter (attached) that turbidity was likely inaccurately metered for many months due to broken equipment. Ms. Yelton-Bram indicated that DEQ told Molalla to fix that problem but said DEQ had required no proof from Molalla that such a fix was actually done. Why would DEQ fail to require proof that a serious problem outlined by Molalla's lawyers regarding turbidity was adequately fixed? Please respond and explain what kind of plan/timeline is in place for DEQ to either produce a viable MAO or to enforce the many outstanding pending Civil Penalties against Molalla. When will DEQ require ground water monitoring via a test well program? Sincerely, Susan Hansen Bear Creek Recovery