Hi,
Attached are the plan sheets of the WWTP that you sent on the 21st. Jon and I have marked up the sheets showing a few key items:
Sheet E2
· Colored Red and noted the two (2) locations the City has closed off overflow or recycled water access to Bear Creek.
· Added the Storm Drain Tile location and flow direction of the creek/drainage ditch flowing from OR211, this drain flows into the closed system and outflows to Bear Creek. (This creek/drainage way flows on the Westside, not Eastside of the Lagoons as I previously stated in my last email)
· This drain tile also collects water from the low areas surrounding the lagoons.
Sheet C5
· High-lighted the storm drain lines in drain inlets that outflow to Bear Creek
· High-lighted the plugged recycled water plugged out flow
In Conclusion,
The Bear Creek out flow pipe cannot be unplugged. The storm drain systems utilize the same outflow and system that was previously used for recycled water and aeration overflow discharge. We also have suspicions there is additional storm drainage that is connected, but not shown on these plans.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Jennifer Cline, P.E.
City of Molalla
Public Works Director
O: 503.759.0218
F: 503.829.3676
"From: Phillip Bender [mailto:PBender@ringbenderlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:02 PM
To: J.W. Ring; Mark Strandberg; Dan Huff; Jennifer Cline; Chad Jacobs (Chad@gov-law.com)
Cc: Phillip Bender; Sarah Goodling
Subject: Molalla: revised redline of Consent Decree for your review
Dan, Jennifer, Chad, Jeff and Mark,
I have attached the revised version of the Consent Decree as we discussed yesterday. Please review closely to confirm that my revised version tracks our discussion yesterday.
I have also attached two pages of engineering drawings of the WWTP. These show connections to the line running to Bear Creek to which the discharge from the chlorine contact basin originally ran. There are two other connections in addition to the now-plugged chlorine contact basin outfall connection showing on these drawings. Those are (1) a 6" PVC Drain (D3034)(see the first drawing) and (2) what appears to be an aeration basin overflow line (see the second drawing). Plaintiffs propose the placement of a plug at the downstream end of the outfall line to which these two lines connect (see para. 14 of the proposed Consent Decree). As we have talked about before, the question is whether these two lines can be effectively plugged or whether they have to remain connected down to Bear Creek via the junction box shown on the drawings. I assume that as part of the initial permitting of the WWTP, these engineering drawings would have been submitted with the permit application and that the permit and subsequent renewals were for this particular layout of the WWTP, including the connections of these two pipes to the Bear Creek outfall. I thus am concerned that the City may not be able to effectively plug these two connections without modifying the NPDES permit and also that plugging the outfall may have unintended negative consequences on the operation and functioning of these two lines. I revised the Consent Decree to address this concern by simply requiring the City to determine if it is even feasible to effectively plug these two lines. My intuition is that it is not.
On the 350 cfs issue, I have attached the permit for ease of reference. The number in the permit is 350 cfs.
With respect to the website posting period, does the City have a document retention policy? State law has retention requirements for certain kinds of municipal records, DMRs and so on, but does the City have its own separate document retention policy? If so, the City should follow it with respect to the website, but I would be surprised if it contained a retention period shorter than Jeff's 120 days. In any event, I reinserted the 120 day retention period as a minimum; of course, if the City wants to leave stuff up longer because it cannot get to managing the postings, that is fine.
On the attorneys' fees negotiation, Dan, please let us know what authority we have to negotiate the amount of the attorneys' fees settlement. As we discussed, Chad can brief the council on our discussion of that issue and our recommendation. We can also provide more detail of our analysis of the City's risks with respect to plaintiffs' fees in writing, if you would like. Or we can wait until Jeff and I can have a discussion with council.
Finally, the Court has approved the parties' request that we extend the deadlines for discovery and other matters. I have attached the Court's order with the new deadlines in case you are interested.
Thanks.
Phil
Phillip M. Bender - Partner
925 Liberty Ave., 8th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 770-7721
Ring Bender McKown & Castillo LLLP
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. You are hereby notified that 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. Thank you.