From: DECONCINI Nina

Sent: Wed Jan 24 06:45:25 2018

To: FELDON Leah; YELTON-BRAM Tiffany; 'WHEELER Sarah'

Subject: RE: For your review RE: DEQ/Molalla Mutual Agreement and Order and other questions about enforcement and compliance

Importance: Normal

Thanks for your comment Leah. There is one small typo in the 3rd paragraph (the "to" needs to be omitted.) The only other question I have is whether "it's been our practice" might be better stated as, "For other wastewater treatment plants, our enforcement guidance does not require evidence..." Just is it's directly linked.

Nina

From: FELDON Leah

Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:54 PM

To: YELTON-BRAM Tiffany; 'WHEELER Sarah'; DECONCINI Nina

Subject: RE: For your review RE: DEQ/Molalla Mutual Agreement and Order and other questions about enforcement and compliance

Thank you for sharing, Tiffany!

Tiffany/Sarah - can you please evaluate the third paragraph in this proposed response regarding the violation against our enforcement guidance before responding and ensure that this is the proper process and response?

I'd like to hear the outcome. Otherwise, I'm good to go.

Thanks, Leah

From: YELTON-BRAM Tiffany

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 12:39 PM

To: 'WHEELER Sarah'; DECONCINI Nina; FELDON Leah

Subject: For your review RE: DEQ/Molalla Mutual Agreement and Order and other questions about enforcement and compliance

Susan

Yesterday, DEQ and the city agreed on a date, time and place to discuss technical issues that the city has about their current NPDES permit, the current Total Maximum Daily Load document for the Molalla River and how those impact the designs for an upgraded or new sewage treatment plant that the city will build. This technical meeting will happen on 1/26/18 at the city’s legal counsel’s office. We are working on setting a date for a MAO work session in early February.

In a separate email from Jeff Bachman, you’ve been updated on the violations and penalties that will be covered in the MAO.

Regarding proof that the turbidity meter was fixed, I did not request that the city to provide proof that the meter was repaired or direct my staff to request such evidence because this was a self-reported violation that they took care of proactively, as opposed to having us do an enforcement action. It has been our practice to require evidence if we do an enforcement action but if the permit holder does a repair within their normal course of business, we don’t require evidence.

The issue of ground water monitoring is one of the topics that we’ve addressed in the draft MAO. I don’t have further detail to share at this time since we haven’t had the work session on the MAO yet.

Tiffany Yelton Bram

WQ Source Control Manager

Northwest Regional Office

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

700 NE Multnomah St., Suite #600

Portland OR 97232

Desk 503 229 5219

Mobile 503 975 0046

From: Susan Hansen [mailto:foxglovefarm@inbox.com]

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:53 AM

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

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.

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