Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments CAO 5/17/2004 '" ,)~t I' ' " '0/ MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY I DATE: May 17, 2004 TO: Springfield Planning Commission Eugene Planning Commission Lane County Planning Commission FROM: Meg Kieran Springfield City Attorney SUBJECT: Staff response to material submitted into the record by Home Builders Association on May 6, 2004 On May 6, 2004, Home Builders Association submitted written materials into the record. MWMC submits this brief outline of issues in response. A. MWMC'S Poplar Farm Project. (Homebuilders' letter at pp 2-3) 1, The 596 acre Poplar Farm site has been in farm use for more than 20 years; 2. The Poplar Farm is a permitted use in an EFU zone. ORS215. 213 (1) (bb) & 215.283 (1) (y) ; 3. The Poplar Farm is a permitted use in Eugene "s industrial zone, EC9.2450 4, Lane County's Notice of Land Use Decision that the Poplar Farm complies with land use requirements was April 14, 2000. 5, DEQ issued a permit for the operation of the Poplar Farm on the 596 acre site on June 27, 2000; 6, Construction is on schedule and the poplar trees have been planted by MWMC's contractor. B. Liquid Effluent Dry and Wet Weather Capacity and Biosolids Loading. (Homebuilders' letter at pp 9 - 18) 1. MWMC adopted its 2004 Facilities Plan after a public hearing on May 6,; 2004; Date Received MAY 1 7! o~ Planner: 8J V:\ENYIROSV\Facility Plan\Kieran Response to HBA May 04.rtf ," .,. 't-'.. ,. . , I 2. HEA made, the same arguments found at pages 9 through 18 in its written testimony to the MWMC at its May 6, 2004 Facilities Plan public hearing; 3. MWMC's consultant, CH2M Hill, responded in writing to each of HEA's capacity and biosolids loading arguments; the responses were inserted in the HBA testimony in red text (a copy of the Homebuilder's letter containing the CH2M Hill response is attached hereto as Attachment 1. c. Goal 6. (Homebuilders' letter at p 3) 1. Statewide Planning Goal 6 is "to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." Goal 6 requires that "all waste. and process discharges from future development * * * shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federai environmental quality statutes, rules and standards." The Goal 6 guidelines state that "all plans and programs affecting waste and process discharges should be coordinated within the applicable air sheds and river basins described or included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and implementation plan." In addition, plans "should buffer and separate those land uses which create or lead to conflicting requirements and' impacts upon the air, water and land resources." . 2. The treatment facilities and collection system improvements included in the proposed PFSP amendments are responsive to the requirements of MWMC's NPDES permit. A copy of MWMC's NPDES permit, setting forth the federal and state water treatment requirements is attached as Attachment 2. D. Miscellaneous Issues: Timing of Projects; Definition of Wastewater , " Other issues raised by Home Builders have been addressed by MWMC in our memo dated May 6, 2004 or are resolved by the plain language of the proposed amendments, existing Metro Plan language and administrative rules that implement Goal 11. These include challenges to the completeness of the project list; the timing, cost estimates and possible financing methods for the projects; and the definition of wastewater. Some of these issues were raised and discussed at the May 6, 2004 MWMC public . "".1 . .' 'hear,ing ..c,TI the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year project list. ~ copy of the minutes of that meeting is attached as Attadi.ment 3. . '.' . '., ~-~ . .'\: , . V:\ENVIROSV\Facility Plan\Kieran Response to filiA May 04.rtf /' .. , I' A I I ACHMENT 1 CH2M HILL's RESPONSE TO HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION MAY 3, 2004, LETTER . . Date Received MAY1710~ Planner: BJ, \, " . I " 'i: . 'f,', , May 3, 2004 MWMC Commission President Inge MWMC Commissioners 225 5th Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Re: MWMC Facilities Plan Dear Commissioners: The Home Builders submit the following comments on the proposed MWMC facility plan. The remarks are incomplete because I just became aware on Vol ednesday of last week that there is actually a Draft Facilities Plan Document, IWednesday of last week was April 28. The Draft Facility Plan was discussed in the MWMC Commissioners meeting on April 22. All of the Commissioners had copies of the Plan at that April nod meeting.] and not just the spread sheets I had been working from. I also learned on Thursday that DEQ had done an evaluation of the MWMC facility.[DEQ did not do a capacity evaluation as part of the permit renewal process. MWMC staff submitted materials from the 1997 Master Plan that was currently under development to DEQ on December 31,1996 (over 7 years ago) as part of their permit renewal application. DEQ did not end up renewing the permit until 2002. However, their fact sheet used the information that MWMC staff had submitted back in 1996.] I needed to spend time reading and absorbing those documents as well as preparing my written remarks. I have put together what I could in the short time available. I apologize in advance if my comments conclude abruptly or the remarks I do make do not flow cohesively. I think in any evaluation of the facility plan, it is important to ask t:hTee questions. First, how much capacity do we have? Second, how much capacity do we need? Lastly, how much capacity are we building? I will attempt to explore each 'of those questions, but I anticipate in advance that I will not make it to the.end. I also have issues with some of the perforniance and percentage allotments assigned to SDCs that are included with tht! facility plan. I will address those first and then discuss the three questions I have raised above. I. The facilities plan project list allocates 38% of the cost of the headworks to growth. .. This is ,based on the generic application of percentages provided in the SDC b:'\W;'~~':ir\.eth~d~IGgy. [This statement is incorrect. The 38% is not based on a generi{)ate Received MAY 17,cx.I li~I\,; , ;~. . ,,'( 1,_,. -1 It Planner: B~J I'.' ..;, application of the percentage provided in the SDC methodology. Per the SDC methodology for determining the improvement fee cost basis"Steps 1-2 and 1-4 arc explicitly prescribed in the methodology while Steps 1-1 and 1-3 arc case specific depending on which pro,jcct in the 20-year project is beiog addressed.j According to the pOPl'lation projections on page 2-32 of.the .Facilities Plan, there is an expected' population increase of just under 30% projected between 2005 and 2025, IThe'Facilities Plan and the SDC Methodology is based on population growth from existing (defined as 2002) to 2025. These values are 217,737 and 297,585, respectivelv, which result in a 36.7 percent increase.] According the' dIscussion of the headworks o~ page 7-5, "the new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 160 mgd of dry weather capacity even though less capacity is required for total wet weather flows (The Headworks Expansion has been sized large enough so that the existing headworks will not have to be brought on and off line on a frequent basis in the dry season. This was done to avoid excessive operation and maintenance costs.) ." According to the SDC methodology, the maximum amount of additional dry weather capacity needed to serve growth through the year 2025 is 10 mgds (page C-l ofthe methodology). Under , the generic methodology allocation, preliminary treatment is allocated 25%.to average flow and 75% to peak flow, It is also designated 100% to capacity, The methodology says that growth pays 100% of average flow and 29% of peak flow (which is another issue). If25% ofthe headwork capacity is for average flow and the total capacity is 160 , mgds, then growth would pay for 40 mgds ofthe dry weather capacity (This is incorrect' for two .reasons. First, only 50% of the total project cost for new headworks facilities are allocated to Preliminary Treatment. The other 50% are allocated to Peak Flow Management before the costs,are allo,eated to average and peak flow. So the pe~centage of total project cost allocated to growth via average flow is 12.5% (50% to Preliminary Treatment * 25% to Average Flow). There is no cost allocation to growth'via average flow for the other 50% of the project attributed to Peak Flow Management. Second, applying a system capacity parameter percentage allocation to some flow amount is irrelevant. The purpose of the SDC methodology is to eq'uitably allocate the costs of projects between growth and existing users not to determine capacity. Arid even if that were correct the average fiow allocation percentage (whether it be 25% or 12.5 %) could not be applied to the 160 mgd value because the 160 mgd value is not in average fiow units.], even though the methodology' clearly indicates that the most dry weather capacity needed to serve growth during the planning period is 10 mgds. . The amourit of peak flow needed to serve growth is . identified as 30 rngds. We are allocated 29% of peak flow capacity, 75% of the headworks capacity is for peak flow under the methodology c 20 mgds, (This 75% is incorrect. As indicated above, 50% of the total project cost for new headworks facilities are allocated to preliminary treatment and 50% are allocated to peak flow management before t'1e costs are allocated to average and peak flow. The , percentage of the total project all,ocated to peak fi(jw is 87.5% and is determined as follows: 50% to Preliminary Treatment * 75% to Average Flow = 37.5% plus 50% to Peak Flow Management * 100% to peak flow = 50% for a total allocation to peak flow of 87.5% (37.5 + 50%) not 75%. The application of an allocation percentage to , the amount of required peak flow capacity is irreievant. Again, purpose of the SDC '.' " "r"";' '!'IethoQ(jtogy is to equitably allocate the costs of projects between growth aAate Recel'ved , IJ~,-.... ,II' II ,-1""'\' tU . ~ , .' ., JJl~. ' , , ~. '" II It.: "l1i .. .... . MAY 1 7) ot{ Planner: .BJ, '..", ;.~.;' '.,'1 1"14 existing users not to determine capacity. The 29% allocated to growth would be 35 mgds - five more needed to serve growth during the planning period. IThis is an incorrect application of the 29'Yo (which was derived for the SDC mt'thodology by dividing the 30 mgd (growth's share of the required peak 110w capacity through 2025) by the 102 mgd (the total amount of additional'peak 110w capacity required through 2025). The correct application of the 29% (actually 29.4%) is to multiply it by the portion of a project cost that is allocated to peak 110wwithin the "Capacity" portion. For the headworks expansion pl'oject this is calculated as follows: 50% to Preliminary Treatment ,* 75% to peak 110w * 100% to "Capacity" * 29.4 % = II % and 50% to Peak Flow Management * 100% to peak 110w * 100% to "Capacity"* 29.4 % = 14.7 % for a subtotal of 25.7%. Therefore, the total allocation for growth for the Headworks expansion is 38.2 % (12.5 % from av~rage 110w and i5.7% from peak 110w).1 In total, we are being charged for 35 mgds more than the methodology identifies as being needed to serve growth./This is incorrect based on discussion above.] . According to the methodology, growth needs 10 mgds of dry weather (average flow) and 30 mgds of peak flow. That'is a total of25% .(This is incorrect. These numbers do not have any meaning and even ifthey'did it is not correct to add together average 110w and peak 110w. The SDC methodology is not intended to be used to compute capacity, it is intended to allocate costs.]. of the cost, not the 38% that is allocated. The difference in ceist is $1,664,000./This number is invalid based on the discussed reasons presented above.] This problem exists throughout the allocation process and our objection is the same to each of the allocation where this'problem exists. You can't charge growth for more than the capacity needed to serve growth during the planning period. In the case of the headworks, even under the proposed methodology, you can't charge more than 25% of the cost of the headworks to growth. IThis 25% varue is invalid for the reasons presented above. A reality check confirms the equity of the 38% allocation to growth. Typically a "Capacity" project would be allocated 100% to growth. However, since there is a peak 110w capacity deficit only 29.4 % of the peak 110w capacity is allocated to growth - the remaining 70.6 % of the peak 110w parameter is allocated to existing users. For the Headworks Expansion project 12.5% is allocated to average 110w and 87.5 is allocated to peak 110w. Since 100% of this 12.5 % (average 110w portion) is allocated to growth and 29.4 % of the 87.5 % (peak 110w portion) is allocated to growth it makes sense that the final resulting allocation to growth is between 25% and 50% of the total project costs. The 38 percent allocation to growth also seems right as it is sligh'tly higher than the population increase over the study period (36.7%). The second major issue I have is the 29% allocation of peak flow to growth. The 2001 Wet Weather' Study, prepared by CH2MHill, provided the following information: Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-year storm event are used to size and plan future system improvements at the treatment plant and in the collection system. Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estim~ R ' .,2'64 ni.g&;~Peak flows are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (III) raWGle ecelved ''-.~~''\.''i', l. .-- .., . ,'-", . \.-..;: : ......::;~ . '\.~ -~, .. ..t."..... ... \. '!\ ,; ~ ;~. \<~ .<l ' I : "" \ 1" \ . ........ -. , MAY I 7 f o~ Planner: BJ .\....: ' V''-'f\li , \' .,-, many areas ofthe collection system. 'I!I occurs from extraneous water getting into the system from illegal roof drain connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other sources. III is often associated with older pipes in the system which have deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to 'improper storm drainage (inflow) connections when construction inspection practices were more lenient and I or such connections were allowed, creating a combined flow,system. Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in construction techniques, materials, and inspection and typically exhibit far less III. In Eugene, II percent ofthe pipes are at least 50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of pipes at least 50 years old is 15 percent. Because the primary sources ofI/I are in the existing system and limited III is anticipated from system'expansion, growth iri the system does not contribute significantly to projected system deficiencies. The5-year peak is estimated at 298 mfd. Of this peak, only 4 percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be the result of III from future pipes. In a response to a question from Chris Cl~mow on the CAC, I believe that CH2MHill iricreased the 4% to 4.7%, which I have no objection to. (The current SDC mcthodologyattributcs 5.2% (If the peak flow.Ill to growth: 14.5mgd I 277mgd. This 5.2% 'is in line with the previous 4.7% and is sl.ightly higher, primarily beeause the updated collection system modeling,is now'estimating a slightly reduced peak' flow of 277 mgd. F'uture total peak flows are estimated to be less due to III reduction practices in the existing system, therefore, the percentage due to growth increases] The,point is that we are not responsible for 29% of peak flqwmanagement costs (29% is growth's share of the peak flow capacity needed through 2025 - 30 mgd divided by 102 rugd] Peak flow is made up of the average flow (currentiy less than 30 mgds) ITh'is is incorrect. Current maximum month dry weather flows] and the rest is III. Weare already allocated 100% of the average flow costs under the methodology and pay that separately. Let's assume that average flow in 2005 will be 4'9 mgds. Our portion of peak flow.costs would be 4.7% of249 mgds or I \.7 mgds. (No, incorrect. The portion ofthe Deak flow is 30mgd divided by 102 mgd. The 4.7 % value is a percentage of III only. If growth's allocation is going to be based on III only and not peaktlow, then we have to be consistent and allocate to existing users, based on III only as well - whereas the average flow would have to be subtracted out of the remaining peak flow whicb is 72 mgd (102 mgd less 30 mgd)] I am willirig to accept the 14 mgds of III that CH2MHillsuggested :ovas:growth's contribution to 298 mgds .of peak flow which would include all of the av~rage flow that we are paying for under average flow.'(No, incorrect. Once project costs are allocated to average flow they are no longer available to be allocated to peak flow and vice versa.] The 29"/0 currently allocated to growth for peak flow isn't supported by the data. (The 29% or 30 mgd of 102 mgd is derived in Table C-2 of the SDC methodology and is supported by data. The III assumed to be generated by growth is less than 30% ofthe III , generated by existing MWMC users. Some communities in the Willamette Valley corridor are using 35%.] I. How'Much Capacity Do We Have? ~~( ,. ~ ,( "1..6.;;,:.' I 'h:;:J~':,JJ(I;. ~7":lJJI'''''1\-,"..J. Date Received , ~\~'.';- .' 'iL:~'i: MAY 1 7) olf Planner: BJ . ~\ I ' ,""""::':","',t~..~~.:,. ' ' :..:.; ~ ': E '1 ,., ., ., General Facility Capacity Information: The MWMC treatment facility was designed in 1977 and became operational twenty years ago, in 1984. It was designed to serve a population of277,100 persons 'and it was estimated in 1977 that number of persons served by the facility would be reached in 2005. The current number of persons served by MWMC in 2004 is 217,690 persons, so the initial 1977 population projection that the facility wouid reach its service capacity next year was substantially in err. Based solely on population to be served, the facility would currently be used at 72.5% of its capacity (This assumption only works if you assume that the level of treatment required in ] 977 is the same as the level of treatment required in 2025 which is not a correct assumption I is is based solely on the original design . "Design of the original WPCF (Water Pollution Control Facility) was based on demographic and population data established in the mid-1970's. The facility was designed to provide adequate sewerage capacity through the year 2005 for a projected population of277,100. This projection was made for the sewer service area that existed in the 1970s. However, the growth rate during the 1980s was significantly less than projected. This trend in the growth rate was common throughout much of Oregon because of depressed economic conditions during the mid-1980s (April, 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan, page lc6). , In addition, LCOG population projections for the 1990s were higher than the actual numbers, provided by the 2000 US Census. Another factor significantly affected the projected use of the facility's capacity - water conservation efforts. A substantial part of our wastewater, both dry weather flows and wet weather flows, is just what the name suggests - water. 1 am'nof referring now to . inflow and infiltration (I/I), but rather the composition of the wastewater that is released from homes, businesses, and industrial plants. Whether the wastewater originate,S from the shower we take in the morning, the dishwashers at a restaurant, or a car wash, the vast majority of our wastewater is simply water. The amount of wastewater sent from homes and businesses to the sanitary sewer pipes correlates so closely to our actual water usage that our winter water consumption is the basis upon which our MWMC sewer bill is calcula'ted. Every year since the mid or late 80s, because of water conservation efforts, our per capita consumption of water has declined. We flush our toilets with less water and use more efficient shower heads. Because of past drought years, we turn off the water while brushing our teeth rather than leaving the tap running,'as was customary in ~~. ' ; :;,..,,'\ ,.~ The Register Guard recently ran an article reporting that while the state population had grown by 17% (I believe since 1990), water consumption had increased by only 2% in the same period. Some of the water conservation results in water savings that do not impact our wastewater flows, better means of watering our lawns, for example; however, much ofthe conservation has occurred inside homes and businesses. The result \8i~ R . "t~e.(v1:W~,xlacility can actually serve a larger population than the 277, I OOperscWCUe ecelved ,. ........,...-, .", ''''i' . '.- .. MAY 1 7 f 01 ,',~'\i/ ~ .' ~',. ~:':. ';A"-:l/;:~' " Planner: BJ , - ,~' originally projected in the mid-70s.IUnder the same conditions and treatment levels established in 1977, there may be a small impact and a slight increase in population s~rved. However! redueed water usage in homes does not translate to reduced organic loadings at treatment plants, which define capacity of some unit processes. Under required treatment levels established now and anticipated for 202S"this statementis absolutely.incorrect. Seasonal variations in climate and III into the system have a mu~h more significant impact on wastewater Ilows than do water conservation practices. ' There arc thr~~ s(jurces that we can use to determine how much facility capacity still exists: The I 997 MWMC Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill;IThis plan is not based on the current NPDES permit and cannot he used to assess current capacity] the 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan prepared by CH2MHill; and the 2002 Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit. Evaluation prepared by the Department of Enviromnental Quality (DEQ).IThis fact sheet was developed from information MWMC staff provided DEQ in 1996 while applying for a permit renewal. The information was taken from '-he 1997 Ma~ter Plan. DEQ tookS years to respond to the permit renew.al request and turned the application for permit renewal into a fact sheetin 2002 witliout updating the information.) The faCility has many components but r.J"":'uce is frequently made to four more generic categories of capacity: (1) Liquid 'effluent dry weather flow, (2) liquid effluent wet weather flow, (3) BOD and TSS dry weather capacity, and (4) biosolids processing. It:is important to look at each of the larger category's capacity individually. ' Liauid Effluent Drv Weather Caoacitv: DEQ defmes the dry season as May I through October 31, although the 2002 permit appears to extend the emergency overflow criteria for a storm event greater than the one- in~five-year, 24-hour duration storm through May 21 rather 'than May I, and allowsthat same criteria to extend to June 1 if there is no increase in ,risk to beneficial uses. The facility has two important effluent dry weather design capacities. The average monthly dry weather flow capacity is 49 million gallons per day (mgds), The average monthly capacity most closely reflects the base flow from residences, businesses, and industrial plants. ISince the NPDES permit is based on this Ilow and associated loads, the actual ma"imum month dry season Ilow must lUeet all the criteria associated with the ADWF, and thus is the proper standard for comparison of maximum month Ilow] it contains some III, but 'the amount is minimaL The other important design capacity is that of dry weather maximum month, which is 66 mgds. IThis is not correct. . , , . ~ This is not the current rating of the plant for dry season maximum month. This value was obtained from the 1997 Master'Plan, in which the eflluent requirements were different at the time of that'rating. The current maximum month rating is the ADWFof49 mgd state~ in the curreot NPDES per~it.] Sonic ofthe months classified as "dry" by DEQ, especially May, can in facfbe very wet and contain substantial arllounts of III. Therefore, the design capacity for the dry,seasonmaximum months flows is higher than that of average monthly flows to reflect the presence of the . .', .- .~. "." :1[.:'~'J\~':.r~t.:..r/l: IT,liisiis'incorrect. The presence of III into the system during critical "li!l{It~ dlft "d ",(II'''''''''',' '.,h' '" , , uate neCelVe : .f \i!\i~ji MAY 17 I 04 , "... ,l, .. :,.. I :~ Y" ":~. .! J:I n' II -., " '~." _J \-- n ',\, .",.t!. . Plannec 8J ,'" , , not allow the plant to treat more flow just because i't is slightly IilOre dilute. Other issues such as nitrification, mixed liquor concentrations, and secondary clarification control facility capacity under these conditions. The facility still must meet all the same criteria during this period as outlined by th'e ADWF permit conditions. Because of this, mass limits under these higher flow conditions pose more stringent effluent requirements than the normal concentration limits. The existing facilities would likely notachieve the required 30-day average effluent requirements for wastewater flows in excess of the ADWF stated in the permit.] The difference between the specific design capacity and the actual corresponding flows represents the capacity available to meet future needs. , The 1997 MWMC Master Plan examined the amount of dry season average monthly flows as well as the dry season maximum monthly flows to determine'the amount of capacity that was being used by current users. It also proj ected .the available years of capacity remaining in that part of the facility. It identified the dryweather average month capacity as 49 mgds and the actual average monthly flow as 26 mgds (Table 3-3, page 455). It also identified the dry weather maximum month design capacity as 66 mgds (page 456).(These capacity assessments 'were based on NPDES permit requirement~ at the time of'the study, no provisions for ammonia, recent SSO regulation, and thermal load limits] It reported that "average dry weather flows were 53 percent of plant design capacity (page 440). It estimated that there were 30 years remaining dry weather monthly average capacity and 27 remaining years of dry weather maximum month capacity- taking us to the years 2027 and 2024 respeCtively (Table 3-5 Remaining Life ofE/SWPCF, page 457). It concluded the dry weather capacity analysis as follows: "Ample dry weather capacity remains well beyond the current LCOG planning hora.on (page 456)" The 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan, also prepared by CH2MHill; also identifies the dry weather average month design capacity as 49 mgds. However, the amount of ' monthly flow, either average month or maximum month is dependent upon population estimates. There is aserious discrepancy in the population estimates that CH2MHili provided on March 26, 2004, for the Draft System Development Charge Methodology, in which CH2MHiIl estimated the current population served in 2002 as 21 i,690, and the estimated 2005 population, estimate of229,145 found in the draft facilities plan; (lChis is incorrect. The,'e is no discrepancy. One number is 2002 population and one is the estimated 2005 ,population. This represents rouglilyan additionai 3,800 people served per year which is consistent with the population projections being used for this Facilities Plan. ] Based on the latter 2005 p'opulation, q-I2MHill estimates actual dry season average flows of29.6 mgds and dry season maximum montWy flows of 46 mgds (page 4-13). ,That means we wOllld be using 60.4% of our dry season average monthly capacity and 69,7% of our dry season maximum monthly capacity, using the design I' """ ,caRaciti.s.~,o;r 49 mgds and 66 mgds respectively.166 mgd is not the current maximum ,",' , . mO~,thnlting of the plant, so these numbers have no value I Date Received' , ' ',: '._~:,. .',;',1' ~': ~" \.f" "I:: I tl' ~'; -;~!.~, ~t MAYl 7t>>~ ,-.; '.... .', .' .,. "'1 , ' Planner: BJ -.. " ..~ , " " CH2MHiIl identifies the projected 2025 dry season average flow at 38.4,mgds, still substantially below the 49 mgd average flow design capacity, and the 2025 dry weather maximum month flow at 59.3, also below the design capacity of 66 mgds. .166 mgd is not the current maximum month rating of thc plant. so these' numbers have no' vahle) DEQ also provided an evaluation of the MWMC treatment facility in 2002 in conjunCtion with the renewal of our NPDES wastewater discharge permit. It noted: The design Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for the facility is 49 million gallons per day (MOD). The ADWF is the estimated maximum flow during May 1 to October 31 (expressed as average daily..flow), at which the design engineer expects the ,treatment facility can still meet all effluent limits. (The definition here states the point at hand. The ADWF is the maxim um'llow at which the design engineer expects the facility can,still meet' all the efflilent limits. This is 49 mgd under the current NPDESpermit) The dry weather flows do not contain the high levels of infiltration and inflow that are associated with the winter'in Oregon. Therefore, the design dry weather flows are used mostly to estimate how much treatment capacity there is for organic loads. The current actual dry weather flow for Mayl to October 31, for the past two years, is 28.6 MOD, (This was based on information supplied in 1996, and does not rellect tbe last 7.5 years of data and the new NPDES permit) On the basis, of the current flows, 'this facility:is at approximately 60% of organic treatment capacity. Based on the current low flows compared to the design flows, and the lack of effiuent violations, no expansion of the facility is needed. at this time (page 2). To summarize the availability of dry weather effluent capacity, seven years ago, the MWMC Master Plan estimated that we were using 53% of our dry weather.capacity. Five years later, in 2002, DEQ dismissed the importance of even discussing the liquid effiuent dry weather capacity and noted that the real issue was the amount of capacity for treatment of organic loads (such as BOD and TSS) IThis is incorrect. With tbe new NPDES permit, nitrification and secondary clarification control secondary treatment capacity.) and estimated that cajlitcityat'approximately 60%. Two years (This was actually 7.5 years later, as the faCt sheet was based on information supplied in 1996, as the date of the factsheet.implies) later, using the numbers provided by CH2MHill in the draft facilities plan, the estimated the dry weather average month capacity would be just over 60% and the dry season maximum month at just under 70%. However, CH2MHill is also estimating that VI will be reduced by approximately 17%,duiing the plaoning period, which would make more dry season maximum capacity available (This is incorrect, th'e reduction of \\'et season III will not make more capacity available for dry season) (Draft System Development Charge Methodolog)' (page C-2). ,', .. . ',,1; ,.'., , . Date Received MAY 17 I o~ Planner: BJ.J ,.~ , .. , -..,' ,j "".",1-"'" . !'~/~~;.~;:;:~..~.~~1.',:\ ..i'~"f,~}' , I.~t,,~ All three of the sources indicate that we have substantial dry weather capacity' remaining . in the facility, which is what we would expect, given the reduced population projections and the effect ofwatei conservation efforts on plant flows. IAs stated earlier, the sources obtained there information from the same source - a capacity assessment done over 7 years ago.done tinder a different NPDES permit (i.e; no ammonia limit), Also, water conservation efforts do not reduee organic loading.] However, CH2MHill does contend in the proposed System Development Charge Methodology that the available dry weather capacity is substantiillly less than that provided by the other sources.' In that document, CH2MHill claims that we are currently using 89% of oUr liquid effluent dry weather capacity. CH2MHill arrives at that conclusion by calculating the available capacity differently than they did in the Jlv:[aster Plan or than DEQ does in its evaluation of the plant capacity. [As stated eadier, DEQ never did any evaluation. They took what was given to them in 1996 .and included it in the 2002 permit fact sheet. DEQ is currently requiring MWMC ICH2M HILL to use maximum month when assessing capacity.] In the Master Plan CH2MHilI arrived at the dry weather capacity by comparing the dry season maximum month design capacity of66 mgds with the dry season maximum month flows (apples to' apples).DEQ compared the &fseason average month design capacity of 49 mgds with.the dry season average flows (apples to apples). [DEQ has.requested that this be the approach taken.] In the system development charge methodology, CH2MHill compares the dry , season average flow design (49 mgds) with the dry season maximum monthly flow (apples to oranges). The design capacity used does not include any significant VI, but the maximum monthly flow does. Needless to say, the llvailable capacity evaporates immediately, and we go from having 40% of the dry season capacity! available to meet future needs to having only II % of the dry season capacity available. That is an incredible difference, While I haven't seen any place in the facility plan where current, dry season capacity is identified, [see Table 3.2.2-3 on page 3" I]) CH2MHilI suggests that the same comparison'would be used. .'; The existing average dry weather design flow for the WPCF, '~s stated in the current NPDES permit is 49 mgd. This is defined as the average day flow calculated from May I through October 31: Althoughstated as an average dry weather capacity, the facility must meet the effluent requirements on a 3'07day average flow (monthly basis). Because any 30-day period, includilig the' . maximum 30-day flow period (or maximum month flow) dunng the dry season; must meet the NPDES effluerit flow and load requirements stipulated for the , average dry season flow, it is prudent to compare the actual dry season Illaximum month flow (DSMM) to the average dry weather' design flow in order to assess treatment capacity. This method was reViewed by DEQ staff.and verified as the appropriate method, . , When I had talked with Mark Hamlin at DEQ on previous occasions, I was assured that DEQ only looks at output and results and that DEQ does ~ot tell juri~di~tions how to calculatecapacity.[The NPDES permit defines effluent limits, which inherently " ,"t. \,,~e~'1~" h0~,capacity is determined I I called Mark Hamlin last Thur~day after reeme Received -.- .' "" '1~:"lj-: .,:..;,11 .~t ,. ,,";., ~ -' , . } . . MAY 1 7 /b~ --, . "'~'~' - . ;..-,!~ .::...r:,ll'~i.{-'~j:~ "/ Planner: BJ .: ,", the draft facilities plan that DEQ staff had said the apples to oranges comparison was the ,appropriate method to calculate the dry weather capacity, Mark then told me that he had evaluated the MWMC dry weather capacity at 60% in the Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation, IThe information in this fad sheet was developed in 1996 before there was an ammonia,limit and'thermalload limit placed into the NPDES permit and is therefore no longer, valid J Furthermore, it is clear in that evaluation that DEQ did not use the method being proposed by CH2MHilL Instead, DEQ compar~d the average flow capacity of 49 IT,lgds with the average flows of28,6 mgds. IfDEQ preferred the method being proposed by CH2MHill, why wouldn't they use,it themselves,? IThe)' are now saying to ,use maximum month.) And why would we voluntarily dismiss 29% of our current capacity as unavailable for future needs when DEQ estim~tes our remaining dry weather capacity at 40%, and says that "Based on the current low flows compared to the design flows, and the lack of effluent violations, no expansion of the facility is needed at this time? Liauid Effluent Wet Weather Caoacitv: Wet weather capacity applies,tothe facility's capacity from November I to April 30. Just as dty weather capacity comes in two design capacities, so does wet weather capacity. One is the average monthly wet weather capacity and the second, and probably the more important one, is peak flow, capacity. , The wet weather average monthly flow is similar to dry season average montWy,.flow. It' contains a significant amount of III just because itis measured in the wet months, but the plant has sufficient capacity to, handle the flow.IThe current peak flows to the facility , exceed the ~apacity of the facility) The Master Plan identifies the average wet weather design capacity at 70 mgds.and the average wet weather flow at 41 ,8 mgd~ (Table 3-3, page 455). DEQ, in its, evaluation in 2002, said the average wet weather flow design is 75 mgds and the current average wet weather flows were 56.4 mgds, The draft facilities' plan notes the average wet weather flow to be 52.5 mgds (page 4-13) and the design , capacity to be 75 mgds"(The 2005 maximum month wet weather flow is estimated at 85.7 mgd, a condit!on exceeding the current plant capacity] (footnote to Table 5.1.1- I, page 5-3). The draft facilities plan projects that the' average wetweather flows in 2025 will be 68.2ingds - below the 75 mgd design capacitY.IThe 2025ma'ximum month flow is estimated at 110.8, significantly exceeding the current available capacity) The. Master Plan.projected that we had 18 years of remaining average wet weather flow capacity, or capacity until the year 2015. If the design capacityof75 mgds had been used rather than the 70 mgds, the remaining years of capacity would be further extended. .' . . The critical capacity issue involves peak wet weather flows, We have a serious III problem. In January, 2001, CH2MHill and MWMC,staffreleased the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, which described the problem: The'treatmentpl~t was designed in the 1'Q70s to proviqe adequate capacity' 'through 2005. From a base flo"Y and loading standpoint, the treatn;ent plant . ::' 1';.' ,', ,;J,.".:i>,erforms well within its capacity (49 milliim.gallons per day [mgdJ) in dry- ., "-'~!'~)')~}'I ;.-..r,'.' . " . . Date Received I' "I'., ~i . '.' ~ .'-, MAY 1 7 ( D~ Planner:' ,._~ ..,~ - . , , ,." i,'.,:~~"".. . ';. .....;'\. j,. II~ ' "" ~. ", - <1 ,.,lln" , ," weather months. However, winter rainfall creates. flows to the tniatment plantthat . exceed the plant's peak capacity (175 mgd) on average several times per year and exceed full (secondary) treatment capacity (104 mgd) more frequently.. . Peak flow estimates for conditions. associated with the 5-year starin event are used to size and plan future system improvements at the treatment plant and in the collection system. Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estimated' at 264 mgd. Peak flows are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (III) rates in many areas of the collection system.' III occurs from extraneous water getting into the system from illegal roof drain connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other sources. III is often associated with older pipes in the system which have deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to improper storm drainage (inflow) connections when construction inspection practices were more lenient and / or such connections were allowed, creating a combined flow system. Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in construction techniques, materials, and inspection and typically exhibit far less III. 'In Eugene, 11 percent ofthe pipes are at least 50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of pipes at least 50 years old is 15 percent... Because the primary sources of III are in the existing system and limited III is anticipated from system expansion, . growth in the system does not contribute significantly to projected system deficiencies. The 5-year peak is estimated at 298 mfd. Of this peak, only 4 percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be the result of III from future pipes. Estimates made at the time of design of the" treatment plant, relative to the amount of rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDII) that could be cost-effectively removed, were overly optimistic. This has resulted in insufficient capacity to manage peak flows at the treatment plant and has increased the risk of sanitary sewer'overflows (SSOs) at a number oflocations in the collection system. Example problems include basement and street flooding and "discharges to stonnwater facilities and receiving waters. Although the magnitude of wet weather flows differs greatly, they are significantly diluted because tlie source of the majority of the flow is rainwater, not sanitary sewage. Treatment plant flow data indicates that wet weather flow is diluted such' that the concentration "of typical pollutants in wet weather flow is 50 percent to 60 percent of that in dry weather flow (Executive Summary, page 1465). The Master. Plan also talks of the lack of peak flow capacity. f Peak flows have approached or exceeded the hydraulic design capacity of the plan in seven instances, but no NPDES'permit violations have occurred - mass limits have been suspended in those instances" Flows greater th~ the peak design capacity have been pumped by relying on redundant, spare pumps. The frequency of peak flow exceedances will increase as the base, average wastewater flow increases. This could potentially lead to NPDES permit violations caused by . 'sanitary sewer overflows or exceedance of effluent quality permit limits." '. '. ;\,.)::j~::lH},:,j',/!:'r:"C "" Date Received . '. -;. "'" .,. '. MAY j 7/D{ "", i., '(;.-\h,~ . \ ~..~;.~ ~'.. .;j . . _' ... f~ .. ,::;,.,1:<::.:.1' " ..., ',' , Planner~8J.. " , (. .', All of the documents agree that the peak flow design capacity is 175 mgd. Everyone also agrees that under our permit we are required to.have enough capacity during the wet weathe~ months to treat the wastewater flow that would occur during a storm event described as "the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm" and that we do not have sufficient capacity to do so. . Effluent Biosolid Loads: BOD (now often seen as CBOD) andTSS can be measured in either Ibs/day or dry tons. In the reports, you will see both used. Sometimes you may wish to compare data from different reports that are. express(;ld in different measurements (lbs/day or tons/year). To convert Ibs I day to dry tons I year, multiply the Ibs,! day by 0.1825. To convert dry tons per year to. Ibs I day, multiply by 5.4795. Under our permit, we are required toremove at least 85% of the monthly average for BOD and TSS. The existing capacity for BOD is 66,000 IjJs per day and for TSS is 71,600 Ibs per day (Master Plan, page 455; System Development Charge Methodology, pageC-l). The Master Plan identifies the average dry weather BOD load as 28,682 Ibs/day and that ofTSS as 31,056 Ibs/day (Table 3-3, page 455)'IThese. were average . . dry seasan values, nat the 30-day maximum that the plant experiences in the dry seasan and, which permit campliance is based an) It estimates that there isa remaining life BOD average month capacity in the faci.1ityof 40 years and maximum month remaining capacity of 33 years, TSS has a remau.ung average month capacity of 35 years and a maximum month capacity.of29 years (Table 3-5, page 457).[These values are based an priar.NPDES permits. Far purpases afthe facility plan"current maximum manth values.are used as surragate parameters far ammania] The MasterPlan concludes: "For BOD, the E/SyvPCF has substantial remaining capacity to about 2030 as a result of lower than design per capita loadings and historical growth rates (page 462). it also speaks to TSS."Tj1e results.ofremaining capacity, as measured by TSS, are also. substantial, to. about 2026 (page 462). DEQ, in its 2002 Fact Sheet [Again, these are based an 1996 values and were nat updated to. reflect the new NPDES permit] and evaluatian discusses the different summer (dry season) and winter (wet season) BOD and TSS permit requirements. It concludes: "A review af recent monitoring data indicates the permittees should generally be . able to comply with the permit limits. No changes from the previous permit-are proposed... An 85 percent removal efficiency limit is included in the proposed permit to comply with federal requirem,ents.IThis requirement added significant difficulty to. camply with the permit as a result af the dilute wet weather.llaws. Far example, if inlluentcancentratians af TSS are 100 mg/L . due to. high III valumes af III, then the plant must meet 85% remaval, which) translates .ta an effluent cancentratian af appraximately 15 mg/L. This is , .'.... - ,. ,'", ",.:signfficantlv lawer than the cancentratian limit af 30 mg/L reqUir1: afl a R' d '-. '''' .., ,"-" -","", ,. . a e ecelve I', \ ." .;" . ~ '. . .' ~.. >', .' '\ ," . . " , -' . ". . .'. ~ .,' .~i.~ '",", ,*"t: .' .:..;i:~l> 'k,' MAY 1. 7 I o~ . Planner: BJ . ",':- ',< monthly basis.] An examination of the DMR data indicates the permittee will be able to meet the limit with the current facilities (page 10). . The Draft Facilities Plan indicates that our permit has a Maximmh WeekTSS permit limit I removal requirements of 28,000 Ibs I day and that CBOD has a Maximum Week requirement of24,000 Ibs/day. Actually, the permit does not refer to Maximum Week requirements. The permit chart refers to MontWy Average Ibs/day,-Weekly Average' Ibs/day, and Daily Maximum pounds. [This is carrect, but the effluent limits must be ' met far the average af all 7:day periods, including the maximum 7-day average periad (ar maximum week)] CH2MHill chose to convert the requirement into Maximum week terms rather than use the measurements provided by DEQ in the permit. [The weekly permit requirements do. nat change, they are se!Jar any 7-day periad, whether yau call it weekly average, or maximum week] The answer would appear to be the same as why we lost all of our dry weather capacity under the System Development Charge Methodology. Rather than using the Monthly Average meaSUrement provided' in the permit to compare to the Monthly Average capacity of 49 mgds (apples to apples), the decision was made to convert the data to Maxinium Week lb/day and compare that number to the average flow design capacity of 49 mgd (apples to oranges). .,' Dry season mass limitations for both CBOD and TSS outlined in the NPDES permit are based on the current dry season .flow of 49 mgd. The mass limit requirements must be met for the highest 30-day flow period in the dry'season (maximum month basis)~ Even if the constant concentration limits for CBOD and TSS are met, the mass limits imply a lower concentration reqUirement ifthe wastewater flows exceed the current dry weather design capacity or if the future dry weather design capacity of the facility is increased. Com,entration limits w~s well as percent removal requirements are also specified in the NPDES perrhit..: Permit removal limits apply; however, they are not a factor during the dry season because the mass and concentration limits are significantly more stringent (page 5-4). The question arises again. Why measure things differently than DEQ does? DEQ, in the permit, provides three different means 'to measure'the CBOD and TSS in both the dry seasan and the wet weather seasons. Why convert to a fourth measurement that is not provided by DEQ? Since DEQ refers to the average monthly dry weather design capacity" of the facility of 49 mgds and provides a limit for monthly average flow, why not use' monthly average flow to arrive at your capacity (apples to apples)? By converting to Maximum Week, III is again included in the flow but not in the design capacity, which is automatically going to skewer the measurement and result in a significant loss of facility capacity. . t"J'. .1'~ ~?: i' " Planner: BJ " ai, capacity of the E/SWPCF is subslilntial for 'fverage dry and wet weather flow conditions and conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS).(page 450). D EQ, as you will recall, placed the capacity used fo~ effluent organic loads at 60%. It also said: 'The current permit contains CBOD and. TSS removal efficiency limits of 85 percent. The facility has been able to comply with.the permit limits and has not had any violations even. during the extremely wet months (page 4 of the Fact Sheet and evaluation)." As you recall, DEQ also concluded that our current facilities would allow us to continue to remain in compliance with our permit. . " 0.19 [0.185 us the carrect number] is the selected pounds per capita per day , , based on dry season values from 1990 to 2002 217,690 is the population served in 2002 . 1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry seasonload to DSMM (dry . season maximum month)load (based on 1990 to.2002 data) The key piece is the selected pounds per capita per day. Per capita loads, according.to the Masier Plan, have b'een lower than the design capaciry and the Master Plan identified the per capita load for BPD as 0.17. On two different occasions (the last time at the second public forum), Matt Noeson from CH2MHill assured me that .the change in the per capita pounds per day from the 0.17. they had used in the Master Plan to the 0: 19 'beingused now was not based upon any new data or any change in how the capaCity . should be calculated. IThis isincarrect. The change was made based an an additianal7.5 years afflaw and laad data since the 1997 Master Plan] The change in per capita load was done solely for the purp<;>se offurth()r reducing.oud:hances ofhavmg a permit vialation during a wet May. [This is incarrect. BOD wauld nat be an issue.. even in a wet May. TSS wauld be the cantralling factar] However, the effect on the' 'amount of BOD capacity is significant. The used capacity drops to 50,500 lbs per day. Changing the per capita load ~esults in an additional 8.5% loss of BOD capacity. Ifwe substitute the population figures that are used in the Draft facility plan for those used above, we have the following formula: ' , , (O.W" 229,145 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 59,000 Ibs per day [This is nat haw the SDC values wer~ calculated. This equatian is using2005 values far papulatian. The SDC values were calc.ulated based an 2002 papulatian] that we..are using of our 66,000 lWd~ R' "d , capaclty"w:e are now usmg 89.5% of our BOD capacIty.' Uale, eCe!Ve : :~ \<! ~{:':.J(.);;-J ,;.):h~\::' , ' ..' 'MAY i 7 {J d, . ' . I \ ~, v..\~". i' :..JI . ,J~'. .,. r.._-~ Planner: r'. ~ . , . .. '.' This is the dilemma that we face. According the Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill seven years ago, we were using about 46% of our BOD capacity. According to DEQ, five years later, we are using approximately 60% of our capacity and our current facility would allow us to comply with our new permit requirements. However, according to CH2MHill and MWMC staff in the Draft Facility Plan, the sky is falling. As a ratepayer, I would feel most comfortable going with the more moderate assessment ofDEQ and assume that we are using 60% of our BOD and TSS capacities and have 40% available for future use. The same argument applies to TSS capacity. According the'Master Plan; we were using 46% of our TSS capacity seven years ago. According to DEQ in 2002, we were using approximately 60% of our capacity. Using the population numbers in the facility plan and the formula provided by CH2MHill in the System Development Charge Methodology, we are generating the following amount ofTSS: . (0.21 x 229,145 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 69,593 Ibs/day ofTSS. [This is nat haw the SDC values were calculated. This'equatian is using 2005 values far populatian. The SDC values, were calculated baseD an 2002 papulation) Our capacity is 71,600, so according CH2MHill and MWMC staff, we are currently using 97% of our TSS capacity. As in the BOD calculation, we are now using a different per capita load of .21 rather than the .19 used in the Master Plan. Why such a large difference. I believe it is the combination in the draft facility plan of comparing dry weather average flow design capacity with maximum rather than average flows and the change in the peaking factor (for calculation dry weather flaw, which I did not discuss) and per capita loads for calculating the capacity of BOD and TSS. I don't know what peaking factors and pounds per capita that DEQ used. I do know that they did not compare maximum flows with average flow design capacity to calculate capacity. DEQ seems to have taken the most moderate. approach compared to either the Master Plan or the Draft Facilities Plan and for that reason would appear to be more reliable in their capacity evaluations. (As an interesting side note. In February of this' year , CH2MHill and MWMC staff were actUally using larger per capita loads for BOD and TSS - .20 and .22 respectively. Ifwe were to use the February 0.22 pounds per capita and plug it into the TSS formula using the population estimates in the draft facility plan, we would be generating 72,800 Ibs per day ofTSS, which would actually exceed the design capacity of7I,600. The following mo.nth, the pounds per capita for both BOD and TSS were reduced by .01.) Another indication of the difference in how CH2MHill and MWMC staff are calculating . current biosolid loadings is in the tons currently being generated by the facility. In Table ' C-3 of the Draft System Development Charge Methodology (page C-6), MWMC staff and CH2MHill indicate tliat we have a current loading of 5,927 tons per year. DEQ, in c. '..;.H.s 29Q2evaluation ofthe facility, indicated that "The MWMC wastewater treatment '.:' ~~"l/~;Y:fa:sijirY~c~?e,rated 4,240 dry metric tons during the reporting period January I, 20fjifte Received . .. ."', .t, Y4'!~j " '\. ,.;~-:,>::' -- ", . ',,;:: p ';~".. " . iH.".;;r(. ~,. ':Il~.J1 . . . ~. .~-' MAY 1 7 {oJ Planner: BJ " December 31, 2000 (page 3)." I have not yet determined if the 5,927 tons ofbiosolids reported by CH2MHill is in metric tons or not, but even if you convert the DEQ number from metric tons to tons, the numbers aren't close. The mere passage of three years can not explain a 21 % or 28% difference betweenDEQ's and MWMC's numbers. In short, my concern in the assumptions behind the facilities plan is the dramatic loss of capacity resulting from the new manner in which CH2MHill and MWMC is calculating capacity. To have a facility go from having a great deal of capacity to almost none in seven years is troubling, To indicate that this new method of calculating capacity is sanctioned by DEQ would seem to be unsupported by DEQ's own actions, given that DEQ used the more conventional method of calculating capacity in its 2002 evaluation of the MWMC facilities. How Much Capacity Do. We Need? Maybe I should change this section to What Should We Build? I just got off the phone with John Oasik, at" the Medford DEQ. He told me that he was in the process of reviewing the MWMC facilities plan, Being ignorant ofDEQ processes, I ask~d him why we didn't wait and approve the facilities plan after. he had had a chance to review it: He told me that he couldn't really review the plan until the jurisdiction had selected which of the required options it prefers. He said that the community may choose to do. something much different. We talked about a $144 million,cost after only 20 years. He told me that the treatment facilities' only have a lifetime of about 20 years before you have'to start replacing things. That bothers me somewhat because, almost all of $144 million is for new capacity. There is some rehabilitation costs, but it is relatively minor. Twenty years from now,. are we lo.oking at putting out $300 million to replace the eight secondary clarifiers, etc? [The existing secandaryclarifiers have been in service far 20 years. The facility plan, . assumes,that they will be in service far an additianal 20 years, ar 40 years tatal. There canditian will.be assessed at the end af the next 20'years to. determine their . suitability far fut~re treatment. FacIlities do. nat have an infinite life.] Eugene Planning Cammissioner Rusch mentioned at the meeting of the jaint planning commissions that he would like to.. have a discussian about the type of facilities we build. He said that weare using a design that comes frpm the sixteenth century, but that, r~volutionarychanges have been made in the.1ast tw~nty years. I mentioned thauo John Oasik and he agreed, (This is incarrect. The technalagy prapased far MWMC is same af the mast recent technalagy avai!able far all facilities (fine screening, washing, campacting:thickening autside primary clarifiers, step feed plug flaw process with anaxic selectars, sadium hypachlarite disinfectian, and.peaknaw management). The step feed plug llaw pracess with anoxic selectors is an innavative pracess that has seen extensive use and has praven itself. aver the past 10 years. It. has been prapased and accepted far treatme!lt at same af the largest and most advanced wastewater facilities in the warld (Singapare Facility).] ",'1\11/1 Date Received MAY 17,64 t. ",., . I\~..~' 1/11', ,'1. ", . , .1'.... ....j . ~, ..', Ifl-~~ }~ ':'1 ... .,/..' .",.: .' :1. , ' ", I. . ,J '1 ' ~; '", , tIt ,I., I, . ,Planner: a'~j. '. '. If our current plant really is close to the end of its functional life, why are we not considering the new techniques, especially if we are putting out $]44 million to basically add similar capacity to afaciJity that is becoming obsolete? Why are the new sanitary techniques part ofthe'option discussion? $144 million will always seem like a lot of money to me, but if we end up having to shell that out and then a lot more to rehabilitate the current facility, why not have a discussion about the new technology? [Many new . technologies were.discussed, cansidered, and adapted in the facilities plan.] (By the way, it was John Oasik who approved ofthe way the capacity is being calculated after it was explained to him, although he did say that he thought it was to address a technical issue. The impact on the actual capacity was evidently not the issue. I think it needs to be an issue when you are talking about that much capacity.) Sincerely, Roxie Cuellar Director ofOovernment Affairs ',. t.), ,'" ," Date Received , l.. .~; ; I ,-. i '. : :,' ,. ~~.;.~, 7'~;. . " :.. , .' " MAY 17(DV Planner: aJ.. '.. r, :,," ; AIIACHMENT 2 MWMC's NPDES PERMIT Date Received MAY 17(CJt Planner: BJ .' Dr~on ATTACHMENT. 2 April II, 2002 J'-' --..~ ; fU n ~ ;~ ". D,. drtment of Environ;mental Quality Western Region - Salem Office 750 Front St. NE, Ste. 120 Salem, OR 97301-1039 (503) 378-8240 (503) 378-3684 TIY ~ ; John A. Kitzhabcr, M.D., Governor "., '. Peter Ruffier Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission 225 Fifth Street . Springfield OR 97477 RE: Issuance NPDES Permit Number 102486 File Number: 55999 Facility: MWMC-Eugene/Springfield STP, 410 River Ave, Eugene Lane County Dear Mr. Ruffier: The Department has completed its review of yaur application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the comments received during the Public Notice and comment period for the draft permit regarding the preliminary draft permit. Y aur NPDES permit is enclosed and will become effective on May 1,2002., This permit will be considered the final action on permit applica'ion number,992653. You are urged to carefully read the permit and take all possible steps to comply with conditions established to help protect Oregon's environment against pollution. . If you are dissatisfied with the conditions or limitations of this permit, you have 20 days.to request a hearing before the Environmental Quali~ commission or its authorized representative. Any such request shall be made in writing to the Dil-ector and shall clearly state the grounds for the request Questions regarding Discharge Monitoring Reports, inspections and other technical questions may be addressed to Raghu Namburi in the Salem Office, at 503-378-8240. Questions regarding the permit may be addressed to Robert Dicksa, Salem Office, 503-378-8240 ext. 246. Sincerely, A!-~~ Gary Messer Water Quality Manager Western Region Enclosure GWM:der cc: Robert Dicksa, DEQ - Salem Office EP A Region X, Seattle, W A Source File . ., ,'I.', ,HQ"WQ: YR., , ;"1 ,~- j ~ - '" .. I I ' " ~. . Date Received MAY 171{)~ ':.a. Planner: BJ . ..j" >~. ; (. '\: ; . -. ;~. ~t <. . l' ..' , . . DEQIWVR-I018-97 <<I- ~y.y ".', - ." -( . " . \' I ""~Ii'.:i '", ), '.". '~) 11''' ,..",'. ~ :1 :~:~")~~.ii~,;i':". , ......j. , , V'\~"l Date Received MAY 17fof' Planner: BJ I ' . , +.~- "\'. i , of .\\ ,; 1J ' ... .c. ~ "':' '_' . -. ..:.xpiratian Date: December 31, 2006 Permit Number: 102486 . File Number: 55999 Page I af 26 Pages NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM . . WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT . Department afEnvironmental Quality . .' . . Western Re~ion - Salem Office' 750 Front Street NE, SUite 120, Salem, OR 97301~1039 Telephone: (503) 378-8240 Issued pursuant to ORS 468B.050and The Federal Clean Water Act, ISSUED TO: SOURCES COVERED BY THIS PERMIT: Metrapalitan Wastewater Management Commission, City of Eugene, and City af Springfield ' 225 5th Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Outfall Outfall : Type afWaste Number Location Treated Wastewater 001 ' R.M. 178 Treated Wastewater (Bank Outfall) OOIA R.M. 178 Reclaimed Water Reuse 101 Level II Reclaimed Water Use Reclaimed Water Reuse 102 Level ill Reclaimed Water , Use Emergency Overflows: 002 Emergency Overflow R.M.I78 Willamette River , Willakenzie Pump Statian 003 Willamette River T eiTy Street Pump Station 004 A-3 Channel West Irwin Pump Statian 005 A-2 Chanrrel Fillmore Pump Station 006 Willamette River Skipper Pump Station 007 Drainage ditch south af Beltline Enid Pump Statian 008 Drainar ditch j west 0 Hwy. 99 Beverly Park 009 Q Street Channel . Old Springfield WWfP Pump 010 Willamette River . Station Tyler and 10th 011 Willamette River Glenwood PumB Statian 012 Willamette River . Barger/Greenhi I Pump Statian 013 A-2 Channel - North Santa Clara Pump Station 014 Spring Creek FACILITY TYPE AND LOCATION: RECEIVING STREAM INFORMATION: Activated Sludge MWMC . 410 River Ave.,. Eugene, Oregan 97404 Eugene and SpnngtIeld ' Treatment System Class: Level IV Collection System Class: Level N Basin: Willamette Sub-Basin: Upper Willamette Receiving Stre3m: Willamette River Hydro Cade: 22~ WILL 178 D County: Lane EPA REFERENCE NO: OR-003122-4 Issued in respanse to Application No.. 992653 received December 31, 1996. . ' . , This permit is issued based an thdand use findings in the permit record. . '''(('~'' . m'/""'-~'I-i,",l.../.f."j:;~I(,;. . M I' ,', ~ ". . i .. , d ~ 6 , Mav 1. 2002 Gary Mess~}Vater-'QualityiManager Effective Date Western RegIOn. ."', . r>_l-:. . . ,,.v, ..~,;.;-~,? ......'i" "r\ '\." . Date Received MAY17,0~ PI::Inn.Qro BJ .-. ." ~ Number: 55999 . age 2 of26 Pag<:s PERMITTED ACTIVITIES , , Until this permit:c;xpires or is modified or revoked, the perinittee is authorized to construct, install,.inodity, or operate a wastewater collection, treatment, control and disposal system and discharge to public waters adequately treated wastewater only fromthe authorized discharge point ar points established in Schedule A and anly in' conformance with all the requirements, limitations, and conditions set farth in the attilched schedules as follows: . . Page Schedule A - Waste Discharge Limitations not to be Exceeded .................................3 Schedule B - Minim?m Monito~i!lg and Reporting Requirements .............................6. Schedule C -.Camphance <:~ndltlOns and Schedules ................................................11 Schedule'D - Special Conditions ..............................................................;.................12 Schedule E - Pretreatment Activities.......................................................................... 16 Schedule F - General Conditions...........;.......................................................:.............18 Unless specifically authorized by this permit, by another NPDES or WPCF permit, orby Oregon Administrative .Rule, any other direct or indirect discharge to waters of the state is prohibited,including discharge to an. underground injection control system. ' '. ., " " "V',t; ; --J~ f ~~;.,rt' . Date R~ceived MAY 1 7/oq . Planner: 8J .. n:,,"'n (~l' . .-:).tf.J u. '.~:.' '\, H" ,P\/i~,',IJ. ~,l ' ~(;;: '(J 'I" .,' ".. ~...', '..,' . ,,~ .' . ... 14' ,,-, '". .,~ "'''''.r",..,,'":(*ij . '.~.i!:' "I' ,:,.1. 'l! .' , SCHEDULE A File Number: 55999 Page 3 af 26 Page:: 1. Waste Discharge Limitatians not to. be exceeded after permit-issuance. a. Treated Effiuent Outfall 001and 001A. (Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge) . . " (1) May 1'- October 31: !,;,",; " {\C1~~h~~6~1t' . '~~A$!~~.~j;~~~~:~,)':fu~!~~~r ," Parameter Mohih1y Weekly Ib/day'" lb/day' . :" .Ibs,., " .CBODs 10 mg/L 15 mg/L .4100 6100 8200 (See Note I) I 'rSS 10 ml!/L 15 ml!/L 4100 6100 8200 (2) Navember 1 - April 30: A verage:Effiuent , " Concentratians , , MonthWWeekly' 25 mg/L 40 mg/L . -.::'--'-. . Parameter CBODs (See Note I) 'rSS 30 ml!/L 45 mg/L 'Monthly.. . Averag\?" lti/day ,,' , 16,000 19,000 , Wee(9y.. ,'Average, " Ib/day , I 24,000 I 28,000 ,'DailY' . . Maximum ' 'Ibs',: 32,000 38,000 ,. No discharge from Outfall OOIA from May 22 through October 31 unless approved by the Department. .. Average dry weather design flow to the facility equals 49 MGD. Summer mass load limits based upon average dry weather design flow to the facility. Winter mass load Iifnits . based upon average wet weather design flow to the facility equaling 75 MGD. The daily mass load limit is suspended on any day in which .the flow to the treatment facility exceeds 98 MGD (twice the design average dry weather flaw). , I I" ", :t0ilier4parameterstf:l'eiit;roundV"":'~lih~';i!.;;~.\.~";l':ft:<;!elLtjffiitliti9ns.;::\~#.:stt::IiI12:ii'111r ' E. coli Bacteria Shall not exceed 126 organisms per-- 100 ml monthly geometric mean. No single sample shall exceed 406 organisms per 100 m!. (See Note 2). I Shall be within the range af6.0 - 9.0 " (See Note 3). . Shall not be iess than 85% monthly average for CBODs and 85% monthly for TSS. (See Note 4) Shall not exceed a monthly average concentration af 0.05' mg/l ar a daily average concentration of 0.12 mg/l (See Note 5). Shall not exceed a weekly average of 3.1 Billion BTUs per day ( See Note 6). ' Shall not exceed 22 mg/I daily maximum and 12 mg/l monthly average. ' (See Note 7) L.j: rl! ':!~\f.~}j..(4) i1K~\Th~ allowable mixing zone is that portion afthe WilIamette River from 20 feet Qa.ta Received the diffuser to 200 feet downstream of the diffuser. In addition, the Zone ofImmediate :.' . ; V;t Dilution (2ID) shall include that portion of the WiIlamette river within'50 feet downSMl\l(nl 7 0 ~ of the diffuser. , } (3) pH CBODs and TSS Remaval Efficiency Total Chlarine Residual Excess Thermal Loading: ' May I - October 31 '(Summer) . ' Ammonia: May 1 - October 31 (Summer) ._l' :1- . .' ~-'". _ , " . ',',. I" t, ,', '," '_,'., . _,' ~; ,I \ Plann.e,f;;:,:~BJ ~""'. .'$>...... " " ,. ,Number: 55999 rdge 4 of26 Page,:; ! . This permit contains either technology or water quality based effluent limits for those parameters discharged by the permittee that the Department has determined require effluent limitations to camply with the water quality standards found inOAR 340-41-445 outside the above mixing zones. The limits , . were established on the basis of the informatibnprovided by the permittee and following the Department's rules, including <;JAR 340-41-026. Other parameters also were identified in the permittee's application for which the Department did not establish effluent limitations. The Department has determined that those parameters do not present a reasonable potential to violate applicable water quality standards. The permittee is required to notify the department if changes occur in its processes or influent stream which.(:ould significantly change,the effluent stream for any of those parameters. _ r b. Reclaimed Wastewater Outfall 101 and Outfall 102 (See Note'S) (1) No discharge to state waters is permitted. 1I.ll reclaimed water reuse shall prevent: a. Prolonged ponding of treated reclaimed water on the ground suiface; .b. ,Suiface runoff or subsuiface drainage, through drainage tile; c. The creation of odors, fly and,niosquito breeding or other nuisance conditions; d. The averloading of land with nutrients, organics, or other pollutant parameters; and, e. , Impairment af existing or reasonably probable beneficial uses of groundwater. (2) Outfall'l 0 I, ,Prior to reuse of the reclaimed. water,.it shall receive at least Le-.:el II treatment as defined in OAR 340-55 to: (3) -I Reduce Tatal Colifomi to 240 organisms per 100 ml in two consecutive samples, and a.7-day medjan af23 organisms per 100 m!. Outfall 102 Priar to re~se of the reclaimed water, it shall receive at least Level ill treatment as defined inOAR340-55 to: Reduce Total'Colifarm to a 7-day median af2.2 arganisms per 100 mL and, maximum of23 organisms per 100 ml. . Irrigation shall confoim to the irrigatianmanageinent plan approved by the D~!,~...uent in accordance with OAR 340-55 for agricultural, commercial or indiIstrial use. c. Emergency Overflow Outfalls 002 thraugh 014: . (4) (I) (2) ';-:,", ,':1,\ )j" ,.1-,; ~ t~~J' . '/i--} v' ".,'. ,:-,k;': ". if! oJ'-' I,..,,, "'.."t"', .. I,'" ~ ,:, If ''f}[i.ti l' "': ~ '"\1;""/1::'1 , )'..( , j ,(- ~I No wastes shall be discharged from these outfalls and no. activities shall be conducted which 'violate water quality standards as adopted in OAR 340-41 "0445, unless the cause afthe discharge is due to starm events as allowed under OAR 340-41-120 (13) or (14) as follows: Raw sewage discharges are prohibited to waters of the State from November I through May 21, except during a storm event greater than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm, . and from May 22 through October 31, except during a storm event greater than the ane-in- ten-year, 24-hour duration. storm. , Ifanoverflow occurs between May 22 and June I, and if the permittee demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that no increase in risk to beneficial uses occurred because of the '. d overflow, no violatia.n shall be triggered if the s~orm associated with the ave~w)y.II!' n 'eceNa greater than the one-m-five-year, 24-hour duratIOn stann. , Ua\~ f\ , Mfl,'I 1 7 (O~ Planner; 13J NOTES: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. , .j~) ." ""7. 8. '.. , . File Number: 55999 Page 5 of 26 Pages d. Groundwater (I) All wastewater and process related residuals shall be managed and disposed of in a manner that will prevent: A violatian ofthe Department's Groundwater Quality . . Protection Rules (OAR 340-040); and A violation of any permit-specific groundwater concentration limits, established pursuant to OAR 340-040-0030, which have been subsequently incorporated into this permit. The Department may reopen this permit, if necessary, to include groundwater parameters, concentration limits; and. compliance points that are determined based on the revised data analysis report required by Schedule C. (2) The CBODs concentration limits are considered equivalent to the minimum design criteria, for BODs specified in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-41., These limits and CBODs mass limits may be adjusted (up or down) by permit action if more accurate informiltion regardingCBODslBODs becomes available. If a single sample exceeds 406 arganisms per 100 ml; then five consecutive re-samples maybe taken at four- hour intervals beginning within 28 hours after the original sample was taken. If the log mean of the five re- samples is less than or equal to 126 organisms per 100 ml, a violation shall natbe triggered. If continuous monitoring for pH is candueted, pH values shall not be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0 for more than a total of 7 hours and 26 minutes in any calendar month; and nO. individual excursion from this range shall exceed 60 minutes. ' < I , Upon review and approval of the engineering studies specified in Schedule D, Condition 8., and at the request afthe permittee, the Department intends to modify this permit and include revised permit limits. Any exc~rsion beyond the daily average effluent limitation determined using analyti<;al methods approved in 40 CFR Part 136 requires the permittee to provide written documentation. with the manthly discharge, monitoring report. ,The written documentation will provide a detailed explanation for the excursion. IT the permittee can show that the excursian did not result in a stream condition which exceeds the water quality standard for chlorine, then the excursion shall not be considered a violation of this permit. Continuous monitoring of the effluent Tatal Residual Chlorine using analytical methods not approved in 40 CFR Part 136 may be used for process control, but will not be used for verifying compliance with this permit. The excess thermallOlid limit was calculated using the average dry weather design flow and the 7-day maving.average maximum effluent temperature. The excess thermal load limit applies anly during the summer discharge season between May I. and October 31, wheri the Willamette River is water quality limited for temperature. The excess thermal load limit was calculated using the average dry weather design flow and the degrees Fahrenheit that the maximum 7-daymaving average effluent temperature exceeds the applicable stream temperature standard, as 'fallows: 49 DADWF (MGD) x 1,000,000 x 8.34 Ibs/gallon x (71.6 maximum effluent temperature in OF - 64 applicable standard in "F) = 3.1 Billion B1Zl!~/day (rounded to two significant figures). The weekly average excess thermal load (BTUslday) ~ i be ~a..lculate~ as fallows: 'Weekly avera~e ~ow (MGD) x 1,000,000 x 8.34 (lbs/gallon) x (weekly averati) ofcl/!-dy maxImum effluent temperature In F - 64 OF). .. ,", .> " Th;:~ermit limitations for ammonia are based upon the current Ore~on Water Quality Standards, OAR 3~ ': 041 'Table 20. This permit may be re-opened and the limits modified upon adoption a new Oregon standaCiD ~: farlupmonia. Continuous manitoring of the effluent for ammonia using analytical methods not approvect:iii: 409rR Part '136 may be used for process control, but willnat be used for verifying compliance with this CD peI111!t. " ' ........ " '. ,'. ctS , Reclaimed 'wate'r reuse may be used to miti~ate temperature impacts to the receiving stream. However, Q :permittee must submit an approvable ReclaImed Water Use Plan to the Department prior to effluent reuse. J CO /::)...: . . ~' - t-' (]) - s:: >- c: <( :2 ctS '- a.. ?~ Number: 55999 ,_t,e 6 of26 Pag"" SCHEDULE B ". 1. Minimum Manitarinl' and Renartiul' Reouirements (unless otheiwise approved in writing by the Department). The pennittee shall monitor the parameters as specified below at the locations indicated. ,The laboratory used by the pennittee to analyze saniples shall have a quality assurance/quality control (QAlQC) program'to verify the accuracy of sample analysis. If QAlQC requirements are not met for any analysis, the results shall be included in the report, but not used in calculations required by this penn it. When possible, the pennittee shall re-sample in a timely manner for parameters failing the QAlQC requirements, al]alyzethesamples, and report. the results. ' a. Influent The facility influent sampling locations are the following: The plant headworks following the bar screens and, prior to. grit removal. I : Item'br,;Plirameter', " I Total Flow (MGD). I Flow Meter'ClilibratioiJ. I CBOD5" I TSS IpH ":'::1' MiiJ.imuniFrequencL..::' "TyPeofcSample ---...---- Daily Measurement, Semicannuallv 'f Verification 3/Week 24-hour Composite' I 3/Week 24-hour ComFosite I Daily Grab or Continuous b. Treated Effluent Outfall 001 and OOIA ~'-,.> ,~~::~I, The facility effluent sampling locations are the follo,wing: , The plant effluent channel following dechlarinatian. I, , 1~;~:t~~~iO:~etei'wr!\i;'t!.i;?;1 i~;i;;ilii\1iumw~qm;i1'iSy'jit~ 1:~:::::~~ftSamllle,:'";';;i;'t~: I Flow Meter Calibration Semi-annuallv . Verification I CBOD5 3/Week 24-hour Composite I TSS 3/Week ' 24.-haurComposite pH Daily Grab or Continuous Temperature (Daily Max) Daily (Mav - October) Recard I E. coii '3/Week Grab (See Note I) I 9ilantiry, Chlorine Used Daily Measurement I Total Chlorine Residual Daily Grab I Paunds Dis9harged(CBODs 3/Week Calculation and TSS) , Average PerCent Removed (CBODs and TSS~ Ammonia (NH3-N) I Nutrients 111Sl", N02+N03"N, Total Pho'sphorus . , ) I Bioassay (See Note 2) Monthly . Calculation 3/Week 24-hourCamposite I/Week (May-Oct). 24:-hour Composite Ouarterly Acute & Cbranic ",'I, .t'~' . ',..~. .~ -~~:. . ~ " '.1 ' -~->I ,,' " " ' -, .....; ,. c~, "::,; )~ .J) .;..,..0;, ji -T,' 'Pij " ..J,. -:1.:." ,r,~ . , " " "0 ~ ~ ~, 00 "m '<:)' . . "- U ~ (J.) Q) t- a:: i-< c: , >- C CD <( +- :2 ctI as I;l:.~ 0 u.. " c. Pretreatment Program File Number: 55999 Page 7 of 26 Page~ (i.:";"J::,,EQC"a_.t10i! '!~i'~';;':1 :"MiiiinlU~'iT;;;i.:r. 'e.6fS. am."'le'.'=+.'," """.,:,,,,,,,~~>>, m'." iall"_.l'~"';jjji l&&:';;,YP", ,....".. "B~NI)i, ~~h~i~ . . . . ~. ." 1F~~qu.~!l~Q' ~ ~~?i~~~~~;:fp~~1 . Metals (Ag, As, Cd, Cu, Cr, Hg, Mo, Influent Mantbly, 24-hour Camposite ' Ni, Pb, Se, & Zn) measured as total in ugIL(microgramsper liter). Total Cyanide (See Nate 3) Priority Pallutant Organics (See Note 4) , Taxics Removal Rate: Metals, Cyanide, and Priority Organic Pallutants d. Biosalids Management :':--":-\~J'!,:~ft:7k;:"~Item;.or{8anunel~f~\:;~,::-;\':;\:'.. ; . Sludge analysis including: , Total Salids (% dry wt.) V alatile solids (% dry wt.) Biosolids nitragen far: NH3-N; NOrN; & TKN (% dry wt) Phaspharus (% dry wt.) Potassium (% dry wt.) . . pH (standard units) Sludge metals cantent for: Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ma, Ni, Pb, Se & Zn, measured as total in mg/kg . ..;;::::-: -~. , ..., ., ~ ).<, ',.~ .:~.~ .~ ."..... .f~' Effluent (Outfalls DOl and OOIA) Biosolids (Sludge Holding. Tank) Influent -Effluent (Outfalls 001 and OOIA) / Influe~t . I Effluent (Outfalls 001 and OOIA) , Biosalids (Sludge Holding' Tank) I Manthly Quarterly I Monthly '.IManthly IAnnual, .' IAmiuai Annual Annual , :Mihiniunl'J:tett"iJencYi:; Bimonthly when iand applying' , ' Bimanthly when land applying ,/24-hour Composite Grab I 24-hour Composite I 24-haur Camposite j24.hour Compasite _ ./24-haur Camposite Grab <:;alculation (see Note 5) < ;I;:,::::,:,},i;Type:of-Sample ,....J,." I Composite sample to be representative of the product to be land applied. (See Note 6) Composite sam:ple to be representative of the praduct to. be land applied. (See Nate 6) I ~ " 1:-0..... ~ Record aflocatians where biasalids Each Occurrence . -Date, volume & lacations where are applied on each DEQ approved sludges were applied recorded, site::' (Site locatian maps to be on site lacation map. "'0 maintained at treatment facility for , . >(1) review. upon request by DEQ) Recatil:of% valatile salids reduction I Monthly" I Calculation (See Note 7) "CD accamplished through stabilization . (.) .Record of digestion days (J,Ilean cell .1 Monthly * Calculation (See Note 8) (1) residence timel ' " ex: . DailY:Sludge Temperature for each Daily * Grab (1) ,digestor in operation from digestor " 1ti overflow. . a ~' , ' , .. ".., Manharing frequency shall be as indicated. However, results shall be reported in the Biasalids Annual Repart. - . " .... Q) c: c: CG - 'Q" ,>- <( ::5; . . '~Number: 55999 . dge 8 of 26 Pag~s " e. Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse: Outfall 101 ,,', ""..Jtemor:Parameter. " '" ~c,'~i:,:'F 'Minimum 'f'requency, 'Ii Type,:ofSa'!!!ple::.. Quantity Reused (inches/acre when Daily Calculation irrigated) , , " Flow Meter Calibration Annually Quantity Chlorine Used ' Daily Chlorine Residual' Daily pH 2fWeek Total Coliform I IfWeek Nutrients (TKN; N02+NO)-N, NH), I Quarterly Total Phosphorus) Verification Measurement Grab I Grab I ,Grab I Grab J I I I I I I :1 Outfall 102 Le'.':" '\':i<Itefuior:,Earamet(:'r) ., :t,; i;,'Miniihum!Fieqifency 'I' Quantity Irrigated (inches/acre when Daily irrigated) . I Flow Meter Calibration I Quantity Chlorine Used , I Chlorine Residual IllH I TotalCalifoim I Nutrients (TKN, N02+NO)-N, NH), Total Phasphorus)' ' Annually" I Daily 'Daily' 2/Week 3fWeek Quarterly . -,.- ;r~6:::::n~amRk_ " Verification I Measurement Grab I Grab I Grab., I Grab < f. Emergency Overflow Outfalls 002 through 014: I 1':;;:ijIte.rii!l:lt~Rarame-~r,j:')'ll~!'~i'.il'f,"M.injffiUfulRi:e.qi.!e1l.(i;W~i::itii' .jl~f;,;",,7i;f.;;:~,lliype~o1!'Saihblei;jiiifll:i1., I Flow '" IDaily (dUring each occurrehce) I Estimate duration and volume . ," , , r ~ ~-f ,'; j . \ ;.;1 -< g. Grauhdwater Minimum Monitaring and Reparting Requirements (I) Graundwater monitaring shall be cortducted in,accordance with the Department approved Graundwater Monitaring Plan titled, Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan, by Geofechnical Consultants, Inc., dated May 1991. (2) Reporting Requirements (A)' 'Quarterly Reparting: Analytical results of groundwater monitoring for the parameters listed above and for any other parameters identified in the approved, Groundwater Monitoring Plan, shall be reported quarterly ina Department approved format. At a minimum, the report shall contain the quarterly reporting , information identified in the approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Reports are due to the Department by the 30th day afthe month following th~sampling 95t. (B) An~ual Data Analysis and Reparting: Anannual.groundwat~r data analysi~ report shall be submitted to. the Department byAprill of the follawing year. "65' annuaheport shall cantain the annual data analysis and reporting information (.) identified in the appraved Groundwater Monitoring Plan. " Q) Groundwater Monitoring ResampUng Requirements' . ~ .' - (A) If monitaring indicates that a concentration limit has been exceeded at a complia~ 'liaint, .the permittee shall notify the Department within 10 days arid shall " 0 --::... ; , . , , ,"" "f~- <<.....~ ".,...~ .'" """ .~ . ',t'.... "",.. { 0\ .;:r"'l r'~:-r" , , ,'- J CO 1::>-: " . '" '- t- O) .- c: ~ c: :2 C\1 - a.. .. I:, , , , , , '.'1 ..' . ,":':'1 ." .,....::< .;no (3) - """'~,'~ . , '--." File Number: 55999 Page 9 of26 Page~ immediately resample the monitoring well for the exceeding parameter and other parameters deemed necessary by the Department. The results of both sampling events shall be reported to the Department within 10 days af receipt af the laboratory data. . (B) Ifmonitoring indicates a statistically significant increase (increase or decrease for pH) in the value af a parameter monitared, thf? permittee shall immediately resample the monitoring well for the increased Or decreased parameter and other parameters deemed necessary by tbe Department. If the resampling confirms a change in water quality, the permittee shall: ' ' , (I) , Repart the results to the Department within 10 days af receipt of the laboratory data; and ' (2) Prepare arid submit to the Department within 30 days a plan for developing a preliminary assessment unless another time schedule is approved by the Department. . h. Willamette River (Monitored only during May 1 - October 31) , TemperatUre monitoring afthe Willamette River shall be conducted in accordance with the , Department approved Temperature Management Plan, dated October 2001. ' 2. Renartinl! Pracedures a. Monitoring results shall be reparted anapproved forms. Th~ reporting period is the calendar month. Reports must be submitted to the appropriate Department office by the 15th day of the follow~ng month. ' , . b. S~te monitoring reports shall identifY the name, certificate classification and grade level of each principal aperator designated by the permittee as responsible for supervising the wastewater ' collection arid treatment systems dUring,the reporting period. Monitaring reports shall also identifY each system classification as found on page one of this permit. " c. A record oftbe quantity and method of use of all sludge removed fram the Biosolids Management facility and a record of all applicable equipment breakdowns and bypassing shall be included in the Biosolids Annual report and submitted in accordance with 3(b) below.- 3. Renort Submittals' ~ b. , Of /r;. ~o' _,"'t' " ~. '.,T. ..-"" ,~.( , l-t..!;.... ~.~ .~~ a. The permittee shall have in place it program to identifY and reduce inflow and infiltration intotbe sewage collection system, An annual report shall be submitted to the Department by September I each year which details sewer collection mairitenance activities that reduce inflow and infiltratian. The report shall state those' activities that have been done in the previaus fiscal year (July I through June 30) and thoseactiyities planned for the following fiscal year. For any year in which biosolids are land applied, a report shall be submitted to the Department by February 19 of the following year that describes solids handling activities for the previous year and ",includes, but is nat limited to, the required information outlined in OAR 340-50-035(6)(a)-(e). : _"I'j ~ :":: ": ~:;: . ;" '''>t.''' ,~~ "~ry, , . .-.-.' Date Received MAY 17,~f Planner: BJ o f;~ " . .". , NOTES: I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. "Number: 55999 ,-t,e 10 of26 Pages E. coli monitoring must be conducted according to any of the following test procedures as specified in Standard Methads far the Examinatian of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, or according to any , test procedure that has been authorized and approved in writing by the Director or his authorized representative: Methad mTEC agar, MF . NA-MUG, MF Chromogenic Substrate, MPN CoIilert QT Reference Standard Methods, 19th Editian Standard Methods, 19th Edition Standard Methods, 19th Editian Idexx Laboratories. Inc. Pae:e 9-28 9-63 . 9-65 Methad Number 9213 D 9222 G 9223 B Beginning no later than July 1 2002, the permittee shall c6nduct bioassay testing for a periad of one (1) year in accordance with the frequency specified above. If the bioassay tests show that the effluent samples are not acutely toxic at the dilution determined to occur at the Zone of lnunediate Dilution and chronically toxic atthe Mixing Zone, no further bioassay testing will be required during ,this permit cycle.' Biaassay results required with the next NPDES penIlit renewal application are as follows: At a minimum, quarterly testing for a 12-month period within the past one year, or the 'results from four tests performed atleast annually in the f()ur and one half years prior to the application, using the species listed in Schedule D. ' For influent and effluent cyanide samples, at least,six (6) discrete grab samples shall be collected over the aper:ating day. Each,aliquat shall be naHess than 100' ml and shall be collected andcomposited into a larger container which has been preserved with sodium hydroxide for cyanide samples to protect sample integrity. The permittee shall perform chemical analysis of its influent, effluent and biosolids to be beneficially used for the toxic organic pollutants listed in Tables II of Appendix D of40 CFR Part 122 in accardance with the sampling frequency in Schedule B. The influent and effluent samples shall be 24chour daily composites, except where sampling volatile' compounds. In this case, six (6) discrete samples (not less than 100 rrtl) collected over the operating day are acceptable. The permittee shall ,take special precautions in compositing the individual grab samples for the volatile organics to insure sample integrity (i.e. no expa~ure to the outside air). Alternately, the discrete samples collected for.,valatiles'may be analyzed separately and averaged. for biosolids analyses, a grab s~ple from the sludge holding tank overflaw shall be used. The resultsafthe Priority PollutaIlt Scan analysis shall be submitted with the annual pretreatment report. , ,Daily 24-hour composite samples shall be analyzed and reported separately. Toxic monitoring'results and toxics removal efficiency calculations shall be tabulated and submitted with the Pretreatment Program Annual Report as required in Schedule E. Subinittal oftoxic monitoring results with the monthly Discharge Monitoring Report is not required. ,". . Composite samples nom the sludge lagoons shall consistofblending equal volumes of grab samples taken from the center of9 or more like-size units resulting from an imaginary grid placed over each lagoon. The grab samples shall include the entire depth of sludge in the area sampled. Composite saniples fram the air , drying beds shall consist of blending equal volumes af grab samples taken from each air drying bed in use. Samples shall be representative of the sludge being landal'plied. Inorganic pollutant monitoring must be conducted according to Test Method,~ fOT EvaluatinQ: Solid Waste. PhvsicaUChemical Methods. Second Edition (1982) with Updates 1 and II and third Edition (1986) with Revision L "C Fecal Coliform monitoring must be conducted according to Fecal Calif.orm, Part 9221 E. or Part 9222D., ~ "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", 18th Edition, 1992, American Public om Health Association, 1015 15th Street, NW., Washingtan, DC'20005. () Q) Calculation afthe % volatile solids reduction for the anaerobic digesters is to be based an camparison of a a: , ' rep'resentative,~Jj"sample of total and volatile solids entering the digestion process and a representative CD 'jr)11;'omp'O"s"ite1sailipie;of sludge salids exiting the sludge holding tanks. ' , ' m The daysafcligestion shall be calculated by dividing the digester liquid volume by the average daily volumQ of sludge production. I ,,'" "1 '''If,,r;,';li('\ \:,1' . i3"~.~ :.! II." ' c ( S-.: Q r:-'- I - ! >- I <:( ::::. I .':1. - C ..\ File Number: 55999 Page II af26 Pages SCHEDULE C . Comoliarice Schedules a'nd Conditions, L By no later thaIl July 9, 2002, the permittee shall submit to the Department a revised water quality data analysis report for the Biosolids Management Facility. At a minimum, the report shall include: a. Identification of-background and compliance wells, b. Determination of background groundwater quality, c. Analysis of existing water quality data and existing impacts, and d. Analysis of potential impacts from facility activities. Based an the water quality data analysis report, the peimittee' shall: Propose permit specific concentration limits pursuant to OAR 340-40-030(3) for, the. Department's consideration; and/or submit to the Department an application,for'a concentration limit variance pursuant to OAR 340-40-030(4). . . .:.!' '. . . \.' . 2. The permittee is expected to meet the compliance dates which have been established in this schedule. Either prior to or no later than 14 days following any lapsed compliance date,the permittee shall submit to the Department a notice of compliance ar noncompliance with the established schedule. The Director may revise a schedule of compliance ifhe determines good and valid cause resulting from events over which the ' permittee has little or no. cantrol. -( .,:. !'(~'::~ --4- .(.. i'r' : I ..,;.- '"". "....... () ",. " .~. ~ 't,f, '-n \..'" ,'~ Date Received MAY 17,vy Planner: BJ .' .::~ J) -< .';.':'-< *: o ...,;po J:J ,........ , "<.;t:. ~~i . , Number: 55999 Ie u,;e 12 of26 Pages SCHEDULE D Soecial Canditions , I. ' Prior to increasing thermal load beyond the current permit limitations, the Permittee shall notify the Department and apply for and be issued a permit modification allowing the increase. ' 2. Effluent temperatme shall be managed in accordance with the Temperature Management Plan (TMP) (submitted October 2001) approved by the Department by this permitting action. Implementation af short and long term activities initiated in the approved Temperature Management Plan shall not necessarily constitute apermit modification. 3. All biasolids shall be managed in accordance with the current, DEQ approved biosolids management plan, and the site authorization letter~ issued by the DEQ. Any changes in solids inanagement activities that sig'nificantly,differ'from operatians specified under the approved plan req\lire the prior written approval of the DEQ. . . ' , All new biosolids application sites shall meet the site selection criteria'set forth in OAR 340-50- 0070. All currently approved sites are located in Oregon. No new public Ilotice isrequired for'the continued use of these currently appraved sites. Property owners adjacent to any newly approved application s!tesshall be notified, in writing ar by any method approved byDEQ, of the proposed activity priar to the ~tart of applicatian. Far proposed new application sites .that are aeemed by the DEQ to be sensitive 'Vith respect to residential hausing, runoff potential or threat to groundwater, an opportunitY far public comment shall be provided in accordance with OAR 340- 50-0030. 4. This permit maybe modified to incorporate aoyapplicable standard for biosolids use or disposal promulgated under section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act, if the standard for biosolids use or dispQSal is mare'stringent than any requirements for biosolids use or disposal in the permit, or controls a pollutant or practice not limited in this permit. . 5. Whole Effluent Taxicity Testing, a. The permittee sQall conduct whole effluent toxicity tests as specified in Schedule B of this permit. b. Bioassay tests may be dual end-paint tests, in which both acute and chronic end-points can be determined fram the results of a single chronic test (the acute end-point shall be based upon a 48~ hour time period). ' , c. Acute Toxicity Testing - Organisms and Protocols (I) Tbe permittee shall conduct 48-hour static renewal tests with the Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea) and the Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). (2) The presence of acute toxicity will be determined as specified in Methads far Measuring ,the Acnte Taxicity af Effluents and Receivillg Waters to. Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Editian, EPN600/4-90/027F, August 1993. (3) An acute bioassay test shall be considered to shaw toxicity if there is a statistically significant difference in survival between the control and 100 percent effluent, unless !JJ!:, permit specifically provides.for a'Zone ofImmediate Dilution (ZID) for biotoxicity. IIm permit specifies such a ZID, acute toxicity shall be indicated when a statistically . > significant difference in survival occurs at dilutions greater than that which is faund to"(j)' occur at the edge afthe ZID. ,. ' '. (,) [i..:0"d!d~\€hlorii~',J:g~icity Testing - Organisms and Protocols ~ ,; "(1) '!r.;~ The permittee shall condu~t tests with: Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea) for reproduct~ , . , and survival test endpoint, Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) for growth and "~ctS ;! '~._" ;-/'f;'_":"'':' 1/;\.,.. -. . - J:::l ,;~ ; l ;". h ~, !~ """'J CO I~ . . <:>' "- .... <- Q) - C ~ c: :::E as - a.. . ^ . File Number: 55999 Page 13 of 26 Pag~s survival test endpoint, and Raphidocelis subcapitata (green alga formerly known as Selanastrum capricornutum) forgrawth test endpoint. (2) The presence of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in short-term Methads far'Estimating the Chranic Taxicity afEffIuents and Receiving Waters to. ' :Freshwater Organisms, Third Edition, EPN600/4-911002, July 1994. . (3) A chronic bioassay test shall be considered to shaw toxicity. if a statistically significant difference in survival, ,growth, or reproduction occurs at dilutions greater than that which , is known to occur at the edge of the mixing zone. . e. Quality Assurance , (I) Quality assuranc~ criteria, statistical analyses and data reporting for the bioassays shall be in accordance with the EP A documents stated in this condition and the Department's Whale EffIuent Taxicity Testing Guidance Dacument, January 1993. f. Evaluation of Causes and Exceedances , (I) If toxicity is shown,as defined in sections c.(3) or d:(3) of this permit condition, another toxicity test 'using the same species and Department approved methodology shall be conducted within two weeks, unless otherwise approved by the Department. If the second test also indicates toxicity, the permittee shall follow the procedure described in section f.(2)of this permit condition. (2) rftwo consecutive bioassay test results indicate acute and/or chronic toxicity, as defined in sections c.(3) or d.(3) ofthis permit condition, the permittee shall evaluate the's01lrce of the toxicity and submit a plan and time schedule for demonstrating campliance with water quality standards. Upon approval by the Department, the permittee shall implement the , plan until compliance has been achieved. , Evaluations shall be completed and plans submitted to the Departmqnt within 6 months unless atherwise approved in writing by the , Department. I g. ReportIng " (I) Along with ,the test results, the permittee shall include: 1. the dates af sample callection and initiation af each toxicity test; and 2. the flow rate at the time af sample collection. Effiuent at the time of sampling for bioassay,testing should include samples of required param~ters stated under Schedule B, Canditian I. afthis permit. ,. The permittee shall make available to the Department, on request, the written standard , operating procedures they, or the labaratory performing the bioassays, are using for all toxicity tests required by the Department. h. Reopener, .'--,"'- J . ':3~~ ,'co \ 6. (2) .~ .. , (I) . If bioassay testing indicates acute and/or chronic toxicity, the Department may reopen and modify this perinit to include new limitations and/or conditions as determined by the 'U Department to be apprapriate, and in accordance with procedures outlined in Oregon CJ) Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 45.' .=::. CJ) (.) CJ) c: 'CJ) The permittee shall.have its wastewater system supervised by ane or more operators who are . <<S certified in a classification and grade level (equal to ar greater) that corresponds with the 0 classification (collectian and/or treatment) of the system to. be supervised as specified on page ane~,: of this permit. ' """) CO ~ . . .... '-. (]) t- ..... c: >- c: <:( :;: as - Cb 4, . .~ l'!le permittee shall comply with Oregan Administrative Rules (OAR), Chapter 340, Division 49, '~Regulations Pertaining To Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel" and accordingly: ".'.' " " ,', , :~.,' '.,:;' . 1-:-' a.~.': :'~ '('-. " F1I"' r!'. ,,~~~, '-~ . ......... ,-. ..~..,., .'""..... ....;.\ 1 ., ~ ','S. " ,Number: 55999 t dge, 14 of 26 ,I'ages Nate: A "super.Visar" is,defined as the persan exercising autharityfar establishiug and executing the specific practice and procedures af aperating the system in accardance with the palicies af the permittee and requirements af the waste discharge permit. "Supervise" means respansible faF the technical aperation ofa system, which may affect its perfarmance ar the quality afthe effluent produced. Supervis()rs are not required to be an-site at all times,: '. b. The permittee's wastewater system may not be without supervision (as required by SpeCial Condition 6.a. abave) for more than thirty (30) days. During this period, and'atany time that the supervisor is not available to respond on-site (i.e. vacation, sick leave or off-call), the permittee must make available another person who is certified at no less than one grade lower then the syste'm classification. c. If the wastewater system has mare than one daily shift, the permittee shall have the shift supervisor, . if any, certified at no less than one grade lower than the syst(;l1TI classification. " , d: ' The permittee is responsible for ensuring the wastewater system has a properly certified supervisor , ,available at all times to respond an-site at the request of the permittee and to any other operator. e. The permittee shall notifY the Department ofEnviranmentalQuality in writing within-thirty (30) days of replacement or redesignation of certified operators responsible fo.r supervising wastewater system operation. The notice shall be filed with the Water Quality Division, Operator Certification , Program,811 SW 6th Ave, Portland, OR 97204. This requirement is in addition to the reporting requirements contained under Schedule B of this permit. , f. Upon written request, the Department may grant the permittee reasonable time, not to exceed 120 days, to obtain the services of a qualified person to supervise the wastewater system. The written request must include justification for the time needed, a schedule for recruiting and hiring, the date , the system supervisor availability ceased and the name of the alternate system supervisor(s) as required by 6.b. above. " ',' .. , 7. Managem~nt'and'Maintenance of Gi"oundi"ater Monitoring Wells a. The permittee shall protect and maintain each graundwater monitoring well so,that samples collected are representative of actual canditions. b. All mpnitoring well abandonments, replacements, repairs, and installationsmust.be conducted in accordance with the Water Resaurces Department Oregan Administrative Rules, Chapter 690, Divisian 240, and with the Department's guidance."Groundwater Monitoring Well Drilling, ' Construction, and Decommissioning", dated August 22, 1992. All monitoring' well abandonments, replacements, repairs, and installations must be documented in a report prepared by an, Oregon registered geologist. ~:E ,. c. If a monitaring well becames damaged ar inaperable, the permittee shall notifY the Department in writing within 14 days of when the permittee becomes aware afthe circumstances. The written report shall describe: what problem has occurred, the remedial measures that have been or will be taken to correct the problem, and the measures taken to prevent the recurrence of damage or, ' inoperation. The Department may require the replacement of inoperable monitoring wells. Prior to installation of new or replacement monitoring wells, the pla~e~ent or design must be 16 approved in writing by the Department. ,Well logs and a well completion report shall be > submitted to the Depa~ment within 30 days of installation afthe ~ell. The report shall include a"CD survey drawing showing the location af all monitaring wells, dispasal ~ites, and water bodies. (.) Q) a: ~~~~ ' aba,nilo\lment plan must be submitted to the Department far review and approval. Q) ,'.'. ,., ,- nt~rpermii:tee may qu~lifY for a iawer percentageremova! af C:BOD and TSS than sha~ in Schedule A ofCtS this permit, purSuant to 40 CFR 133.1 03( d), provided the permittee ,can adequately demonstrate'that the 0 >- <:( ::;;; """-f d::f': ,~ << ~' ~: i t-. ..... "l ......1 S ( - C r~ ;--":.' (Jj! '1 - Q: e.:.j~~ ' Priar to abandanment of existing wells deemed 'unsuitable for groundwateniionitoring, an " File Number: 55999 Page 15 af 26 Pagtls 11. conditions for a lesser percentage removal exist or will exist in the design life of the treatment facility. If the permittee wishes to make this demonstration, the permittee must conduct engineering studies to demonstrate that flows to. the,treatment facility are nat the result af excessive infiltration and inflow, and canduct an engineeririg evaluatian of the attainable percentage removal for BOD and TSS at the peak month design flow (using two-year high month precipitation amaunt) and the highest monthly flow at which 85% removal can be achieved, 'and include the following information and evaluations: a. The entire system must b~ flaw mapped, by subbasin, and all sewer system overflow points identified. ' b. Unless atherwise approved in writing by the Department, all inflow sources must be identified. c. The treatment facility shall be evaluated to de~ermine the maximum monthly flow at which 85 % removal of BOD and TSS can be achieved. In addition, the permittee shall evaluate what , percentage reduction of BOD and TSSis achievable at peak design monthly flows consistent.with a two-year high month precipitation event. Far both of these evaluations, projected flows after inflow removal as required in Condition 9, afthis schedule are to be used. 9. The Department hereby approves the MWMC Wet Weather Flow Management Plan dated August 27, 2001. The permittee shall implement the Plan as approved. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department, all inflow sources identified du~ing implementation ofthe Plan are to be perman~ntly disconilected from the sanitary sewer system.. 10. The permittee shall meet the requirements for use ofcreclaimed water under Division 55, including the following: a., All reclaimed water shall be managed in accordance with'the approved Reclaimed Water Use Plan. ,No substantial changes ,shall be made in the. approved plan witho.ut written approval of the . Department. . { b. No reclaimed water shall be released by the permittee to another person, as defined in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 468.005" far use unless there is a valid contract between thepenrtittee and that person that meets the requirements of OAR 340-55-015(9). ,". t ' c. The permittee shall natify the Department within 24 hours if it is determined thatthe treated effluent is being used in a manner not in compliance with OAR 340-55. When the Department offices are not apeD,' the permittee. shall report the incident of noncompliance to the Oregon Emergency Response System (Telephone Number 1-800-452-0311), d. No reclaimed water shall be ~ade available to a person proposing to recycle unless that person certifies in wri.ting that they have read and understand the provisians in these rules. This written certification shall be kept an file by the sewage treatment system owner and be made available to the Departmentfor inspectian. The permittee shall notify the DEQWestem Region - Salem Office (phone: (503) 378-8240) in accordance with the response times noted in the General Conditions afthis permit, of any malfunction so that corrective action can be coordinated between the permittee and the Department. -' " ....:0. '- , ....r " 't;.';;, .' ......~ J;~ ; ,. , ' '........ :.,-:-- -' Date Received MAY 1 7 I oq Planner: BJ . , . "" 'I~'. (, 1'- ~;' h~ - ..,.~. '>::>, :~:., ...~. ,Number: 55999 1 age 16 of 26 Pages SCHEDULE E Pretreatment Activities The permittee shall impleme."t the'following pretreatment activities: . .r . ". . I. The permittee shall canduct, and enforce its Pretreatment Pro grall)., 'as approved by the Dep,artment, and comply with the General Pretreatment Regulatians (40 CFR Part 403). The permittee shall secure and maintain sufficient resources and qualified persannel to carry out the program implementatian procedures described in this permit. ' , '. , " 2. The permittee' shall adopt all legal authority necessary to fully implement its approved pretreatment program and to comply with 'all applicable State and Federal pretreatm'ent regulations;, The permittee must also establish, where necessary, contracts or agreeqIents with contributing jurisdictions to ensure compliance with pretreatment requirements by industrial.users within these jurisdictions. Thesecontracts . or agreements shall identify the agency responsible for all implemeiitation and enforcimient activities to , , be performed in the contributing jurisdictions. , Regardless of jurisdictional situatian, the permittee is responsible for ensuring that all:ispecfs of the pretreatment program are fully implemented and enforced. , . ,- , 3. The permittee ..shall update its inventory ,of'industrialusers at a frequency and diligel)ce adequate to ensure proper identification of industrial users subject to pretreatment standards, but no less than once per year. The permittee shall notify these industrial users of applicable pretreatment standards in accordance with 40 CFR ~ 403.8(f)(2)(iii). " 4. The permittee shall enfarce categorical pretreatment standards promulgated pursuant to Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act, prohibited discharge standards. as set forth in 40CFR ~,403.5(a) and (b), or local limitations 'developed by the permittee in accordance with 40 CFR ~ 403.5(c), whichever are more stringent" or are applicable to non-domestic users discharging wastewater to the, callection system. Locally derived discharge limitations shall be defined as pretreatment standards under Section 3tl7(d) of the Act. . ' 5. A technical ,evaluation afthe need to revise'locallimits'shall beperfonnedat least once during the term af ~is permit, and must be submitted Jto, 0e D~partment. as part' a.f the permitte~'s .NPDES pennit apphcation, unless the Department requIres m wntmg that It be submItted soaner. LImIts 'development will be in accardance with the procedures established by the Department. . ,Theperniittee shall issue individual discharge permits to all Significant Industrial Users in a timely manner. The permittee shall also reissue and/or modify permits, where necessary, in a timely manner. Discharge permits must contain, at a miniiimm, the con.ditions identified in 40 CFR ~ 403.8(f)(1)(iii). Unless a more stringent definition has been adopted by the permittee, the definition of Significant Industrial User shall.be as stated in 40 CFR ~ "403.3(t). 6. The permittee shall randomly sample and analyze industrial user effluents at a frequency commensurate with the character ,cansistency, valume of discharge. At a minimum, the permittee shall sample all Significant Industrial Users for all regulated pollutants twice per year. Alternatively, at a minimurIl, the permittee shall sample all Significant Industrial Users for all regulated pollutants once per year, if the permittee has pretreatment program criteria in its approved procedures for determining appropriate sampling levels for industrial users, and provided the sampling criteria indicate ance per year sampling is adequate. At a minimum, the permittee shall conduct a complete facility inspection once per year. Additianally, at least once every two years the permittee shall evaluate the need far each Significant Industrial User to develop a slug cantrol plan. Where a plan is deemed necessary, it shall conform to. the requirements of 40 CFR~ 403.8(f)(2)(v). "0 , . m Where the permittee elects to. conduct all industrial user monitaring in lieu of requiring self-monitari~ by user, the permittee shall gather all information which would otherwise have been submitted by thC2) . user. The permittee shall also perform the sampling and analyses in accordance with the protoco~ ,~s.ta.l.Jlis~f..~~r th~w.~,er,j.' . ~ ... ,I,". ...1l".1.'1.,,-!!.:;:;,,;,,- ~ Sample 'c~lleciia~ a~danalysis, and the gathering af other compliance data, shall be performed witt!l) suffiCienCcan::to.produce evidence :ldmissible in enforcement proceedings ar in judicial actions. ttS o Ii. ~'., ~> '.__'1.,\ _:, '. " " ''1 ", ,. "!~ (.. "1 , .,Id :/ It. .' "',~' .; ,- .~,. : ... 0 ~. . ~ L t-~ <l ..... I: >-- I: <J: :2 (1 - .. a File Number: 55999 Page 17 of 26 Pages 7. The permittee shall review reports submitted by industrial users and identify all violations of the user's permit or the permittee's local ordinance. ' 8. The permittee shall investigate all instances of industrial user noncampliance and shall take all necessary steps .to return users to compliance. The permittee's enforcement actions shall track its approved Enforcement Response Plan, developed in accordance with 40 CFR ~ 403.8(t)(5). If the permittee has not developed an approved, Enforcement. Response Plan, it' shall develop and submit a draft to the Department for review within 90 days of the issuance of this permit. 9. The permittee shall publish, at least annually in. the largest daily newspaper published in the permittee's service area, a list af all industrial users which, at any time in the previous 12 months, were in, Significant , Noncompliance with applicable pretreatment requirements. For the purposes of this requirement, 'an industrial user is in Significant Noncompliance if it meets one or more of the criteria listed in 40 CFR 403.8(t)(2)(vii).' , 10. The permittee must develop and maintain a data management system designed to track the status of the industrial user inventory, discharge characteristics, and compliance. In accordance with 40 CFR ~ 403.12(0), the permittee shall retain all records relating to pretreatment program activities for a minimum of three years, and shall make such records available to the Department and USEP A upan - request. The permittee shall also provide public access to information considered effluent data under 40 CFR Part 2. 11. The permittee shall submit by March I of each year, a,report that describes the permittee's pretreatment prograrri during the previous calendar year. The ' content an,d format of this report shall be as established by theDep~i1ment. . '12. , The penriiitee shall submit. in writing to the Department a statement of the basis for any pr~posed modification of its approved program and a description of the proposed modification in accordance with 40 CFR ~ 403.18(b). No substantial program modificatians may be implemented by the permittee prior to. receiving written authorization from the Department. "I" ;'"r '--.. . . ..~ ...,.;\ "... ";.-<' ~". '::;i '"-...~. .J ! :?, :!.i"':' . . " Date Received MAY 1 7 f &q' Planner: . BJ - ) I. ~i .. ":1 .'-:J'., ,.]"s -.0:" Number: 55999 '_t!,e 18 of 26 Pages NPDES GENERAL CONDITIONS (SCHEDULE F) SECTION A. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Dutv to Comolv ,The permittee .must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violatian of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 468B.025 al).d is grounds for. enforcement action; for permit termination, suspension, or modification; or,for denial of a permit renewal application. 2. Penalties for Water Pollution'and Perillit Condition Vinlations , Oregon Law (ORS 468.140) allows the Director to impose civil penalties' up to $1 O,OOO'per day for vialation of a term, conditian, or, requirement of a permit. Inaddition, a person who unlawfully pollutes water as specified in ORS468;943 or ORS 468.946 is subject to criminal prosecution. . " 3. Dutv to Mitil!ate The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or preventanydischarge or sludge use or disposal in violatian afthis permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting ~liman health or the , environment. In addition, upon request of the Department, the perinittee shall correct any adverse impact on the environment or human health resulting from noncompliance with this permit, including such accelerated or additianal monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impac~ af the noncomplying discha,fge. 4. Dutv to Reaoolv If the permittee wishes to continue an actiyity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and have the permit renewed. The application shall be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit. ' , The Director may grant permission to submit an application less than 180 days in advance but no later than the permit expiration date. 5. Permit Actions This permit may be modified, suspended, revoked and reissued, ar terminated for cause including, but not 'limited to., the following: ' a. Violation of any term, condition, or requirementof this permit, a rule, ar a statute; b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or fail~ to disclose fully all material facts; or c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of ,the authorized discharge: " " ~ The filing 6fa reque"st by the permittee for a permit moditlcatian or a notification of planned changes or .~ anticip~ted I).oncompliance, does not stay any perri1.it candition. (,) .. ! I, 1'\ Q) 6, Toxlc.Pollutants,{;\ a: i,-../t...", j' ::-J~ 'I'i.;:;.? <I .,'~' .. . .. . : .', 'ihepermittee:~,~all comply with any applicable. effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section,fQ 307(a) of the 'Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish ctS those standards or p~ohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been madified to incorporate the requirementO , '. . ""',/f '.,r," . t ,- It ",,1\, ,....... ~ [ ~; , ~' I r:- "- I .... I ~ I :;;: C - c: File Number: 55999 Page 19 of 26 Pages 7, Prooertv Rillhts The issuance of this permit does not conve)'any property.rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. 8. Permit References ':','. , Except for effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) ofthe Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under Section 405( d) of the Clean Water Act, all rules and statutes referred to in this permit are those in effect on the date this permit is issued. SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS I. Prooer Ooeration and Maintenance The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain alf facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to. achieve compliance with the canditions ofthis permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls, and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up ar auxiliary facilities or similar systems that are installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. 2. Dutv to Haltor Reduce Activity a. Defmitions (lj "Bypass" means intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of the treatment facility. The term' "bypass" daes nat include nanuse af singular ar multiple. units ar processes of a treatment warks when the nanuse is insignificant to the quality and/or , quantity of the effiuent produced by the treatment warks. The term "bypass" does not apply if the diversion does not cause effiuent limitations to be exceeded, provided the diversion is to. allow essential maintenance to assure efficient aperation. (2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities or treatment processes which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the abse~ce of a bYpass. Severe property damage'does not mean el'l{lOlpic lMos , caused by delays 10 productIOn. < ' Uare MeCelVed b. Prohibition afbypass. 'MAY 1 7 I J t.( ~ ;'I~..'l\ /~,,_,.,,-":;:\~.; (.I.'),',I,''',.i \l .. " " ,- .' loJ' " '.. (b) ,Bypass is Prohibi.ted,unless: . " PI B J ,.' '. anner: , ' (a) Bypass was necessary to prevent loss oflife,personal injury, or severe property damage; There were no feasible alternatives to the bypaSs, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, ar maintenance during normal , 1/,:' ~"'I .r.- :1 '1,." 'l , , r Number: 55999 } -oc 20 af26 Pages periods af equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequ~te backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods af equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and (c) The permittee submitted notices and requests as required under General Condition B.3.c. (2) The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects and any altematives to bypassing, when the Director determines that it will 'meet the three conditions listed above in General Condition B.3.b.(I). c. N~tice 'and' request for bypass. (I) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior written notice, i(possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass. (2) ,.' Unanticipated bypass, The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticip~ted bypass as required in General Con4ition D.5. 4. Upset a. Definition. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is urtintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations because, of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent" caused by operatian error, improperly designed treatment facilities, in;tdequate ...""...uenHacilities, lack of preventative main,tenarice, or careless or improper operation. -( , b. . Effect af lI!l upset. An upset constitutes anaffllTI1ative defense to an actian brought for nancomplianee,with such technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of General Conditian B.4.c are met. No. determination made during administrative review of claims that nancompliance was caused by upset, and before an actiop far noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review. c. Canditians,necesswy far a demanstratian afupset. A permittee who. wishes to establish the affllTI1ative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, ar ather relevant evidence that: .. ' (I) An upset occurred.andthat the permittee can identify the causes(s)ofthe upset; (2) The permitted facility was 'at Ute time,being 1",vl",,,Iyoperated; (3) The permittee submitted natice afthe lJpset as required in General Condition D5; hereof (24-hour notice); and (4), The permittee complied with any re~edial measures reqoired under General Candition A.3 hereof. ' , - . .' .:' :.;";' ,;,:,J IrYl1"!~{ . " ~ ~';I'o:' ,;:7"1 Burdeli'ofproof. In any enforcement proceeding the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence " . of,an upset has the burden of proof. . ' \ ,;.1 l~hl> 5. Treatment ofSity;rle Ooerational Event Date Received .' ;. .-~,~_-:~'l,.~l. . Fo~ 'Pu~gse~ cif this permit, A Si~gle Operational Event which leads to simultaneous violations of m~rM?T 7 0 q ane pollutant parameter shall be treated as a single vialation. Asingle operational event is an exceptional I inci~ent which c\luses ~imultaneous, unintentional, unknowing (not the,result af a knowing act ~~ission), . BJ . , . .. . " ,lJnanner, .. .' File Number: 55999 Page 21 af 26 Pages temporary noncompliance with more than one Clean Water Act effluent discharge pollutant parameter. A single operational event does not include Clean Water Act violations involving discharge withaut a NPDES permit or noncompliance to. the extent caused by improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities. Each day qf a single operational event is a violation. 6. Overflows from Wastewater Convevance Svstems and Associated Puml) Stations , a. ,Definitions (I) "Overflow" means the diversion and discharge of waste streams from any portion af the wastewater conveyance system including pump stations, through a designed overflow device or structure, other than discharges to the wastewater treatment facility. (2) '~Severe 'property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the conveyance system or pump station which causes them to become inaperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of an overflow. ' (3) "Uncontrolled averflow" means the diversion of waste streams other than through a designed averflow device or structure, for example to averflowing manholes or overflowing into residences, commercial establishments, or industries that may be connected to a conveyance system. b. Prohibition of overflows. Overflows are prohibited unless: (I) Overflows were unavoidable to prevent an uncontrolled averflow, lass of life, personai injury, or severe property damage; -."..', ,(2)" (3) There were no feasible alternatives to the overflows, such as the use of auxiliary pwnping ar conveyance systems, or maidmizatian af canveyance system storage; and The averflows are the result af an upset as defined in General Condition B.4. and meeting all requirements of this conditian. . c. Uncontrolled overflaws are prohibited where wastewater is likely to escape or be carried into the waters of the State by any means. ' d. Reporting reqliired. Unless atherwise specified in writing by the Department, all overflows and uncantrolled averflows must be reported arally to the Department within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the overflow. Reporting procedures are described in more detail in General Condition D.5. 7. Public Natification of Effluent Violation ar Overflow. " .- So!id,s:,~llJd~e~,jfilter ~ackwash, ~r otherpollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of h')'\..;Il"wastewaterssfiall be disposed ofm such a manner as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering public waters, causing nuisance conditions, or creating a public health hazard. ' .;, , (!\r.i;. ,- If effluent limitations specified in this permit are exceeded or an overflow occurs, upon request by the Department, the permittee shall take such steps as are necessary to alert the public about the extent and '0 nature of the discharge. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, posting of the river at access points Q) and other places, news releases, and paid announcements on radio and television. > , Q(j) Removed Substances (.) Q) cr: Q) - ctS '0 ""'J 00 8. ''::Y-' " ..... ~ . 0 L- ID C C (tl ~, ..(L ..... >- <:{ ::;;; ., "j .'.~," , ; / "1: ,', ~ Number: 55999 , _t,e 22 of 26 Pages SECTION C. MONITORING AND RECORDS " . I. Reoresentative Samolin~ Sampling and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. All samples shall be taken atthe monitoring points specified in this permit and shall . be taken, unless 'otherwise specified, 'before the effluent joins ar is diluted by any other waste stream, body of water, or substance. Monitaring points shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the Director. . 2. Flow Measurements' , ' App~opriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent ;'ith accepted scientific practices shall be selected and used to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained to insure that the accuracy of the measurements is consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices selected shall be capable af measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than ol=. 10 percent fro'm true discharge rates . throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. 3. Monitorinl! Procedures Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit. ' , 4. Penalties ofTamoerinl! The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies,tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punishedby a fine af not more than $10,000 per vialation, or by imprisonment for not more than two',years, or by both; If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person, punishment is a fine not more than $20,000 per day of vialatian, ar by imprisonment of nat more than faur years or both. 5. Reoortinl! ofMonitorinl! Results Monitoring results shall be summarized each month an a Discharge Monitoring'Report form approved by the Department., The reports shall be submitted monthly and are to be mailed, delivered or otherwise transq1,itted by the I5!h day of the following month unless specifically approved atherwise in Schedule B of this peimit. . . ' 6. . Additional Monitorinl! bv the Permittee .. ;<O:l' , .. ~f the permittee monitors any pollutant more, frequently than required by this permit; using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the Discharge Monitoring Report. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated. ' Far a pallutant parameter that may be sampled more than once per day , ,(e.g., Total Chlorine Residual), only the average daily value shall be recorded unless otherwise specified in ~t!!i.spermit.' ' A ~~ernl!inl! of Measurements 7. .'. ", " ;:::t Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean, .:: . ~~pt for bacteria which shall be averaged as speCified in this permit. ". Da' te R' , d :,' ) "ace/va :if.: r'"" ~ ~\ MAY 1. 7/ ()4 P'anner~ .8J '11-', -f. , '. " File Number: 5599'9 Page 23 of 26 Pages 8. Retentian ofRecard~ Except for records of monitoring information required by this permit related to the permittee's sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least 'five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR part 503), the permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records of all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies af all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the,' application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time. 9. Records Contents' Records of monitoring information ,shall include: a. The date, exactpla~e,time and methods of sampling or measurements; b. 'The individual(s)who perforined the sampling or measurements; c. , The date(s) analyses were performed; d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses; e. The analJ1ical techniques or methods used; and f. The results of such analyses. 10. InsDection and Entry < .' \ The permittee shall allow the Directar; or an authorized representative upon the presentation of credentials to:,' , I a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or canducted, or where records must be kept under the conditians of this permit; b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit; , c. Inspect at reas6nable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit, and d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by state law, any substances ar parameters at any location. SECTION D. REPORTING REOUIREMENTS. 1. Planned Chanl!:es , "0 The permittee shall comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340, Division 52, "Review ofPla~ and Specifications". Except where exempted under OAR 340-52, no construction, installation, or __ modification involving disposal systems,.treatment works, sewerage systems, or common sewers shall b~ com~enced. unti~ the pl~ns and specifications are submitted t? and approved by ~he D,epartment. The CI) . .), . '. ,'d~~~J%e.s~l\IlJglve ~otlce to .tJ;te Department as soon as possIble af any planned phYSical alternations 00::: 'Hc,I,"".l:;aodltlans to.thepermltted faCIlIty. CI) -.. ttS '0 'i Vi\~;'l ':... 4,;.. i; ,.:<j~ ~~, ~ . ".....{l.i.... ' -,.~' '.~I:'; I. J CD ~. - . G L.. ..... Q) J:- - c:: >- c: -<t: :2 CO - a.. ,..."'" Number: 55999 t age 24 of 26 Pages 2. Anticioated Noncomoliance The permittee shall ,give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity that may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. ' 3. Transfers ,. This permit may be transferred to a new permittee provided the transferee acquires a property interest in the permitted-activity and agrees in writing to fully comply ,with all the terms and conditions of the permit and, the rules of the Commission. No. permit shall be transferred to a third party without prior written approval from the Director. The permittee shall notify the Department when'a transfer of property interest takes place. - 4. Comoliance Schedule ,Reports of compliance or ilOncompliance with; 'or any progress reports on interim and final requirements contained in any compliance schedule afthis permit shall be submitted no later thanJ4 days following each scheduie date. Any'reports of noncompliance shall include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial , actions taken, and the probability, of meeting the next scheduled requirements. . 5. Twenl\'-Four flour Reoorting The pemittee shall report any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment. . Any information shall be provided orally (by telephane) within 24 hours, unless otherwise specified in this permit, from the time the permittee becames aware of the circumstances.- During normal business hours, the , Department's Regianal office shall be called. Outside of normal business hours; the Department shall be cOlltact~d at 1-800-452-0311 (Oregon Emergency Response System). ' A written submission shall ~lsabe provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. If the permittee is establishing an affirmative defense of upset ar bypass to any offense under ORS 468.922 to 468.946, and in which c~e if the original reporting notice was oral, delivered written notice must be made to the Department or ather agency with regulatory jurisdiction within 4 (four) calendar days. ' The written submission shall contain: -: , a. A descriptian afthe nancompliance and its cause; b. The period af nancompliance, including exact dates and times; c. The estimated time noncampliance is expected to caittinue if it has not beencorreeted; d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and'prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance; and e. Public notification steps taken, pursuant to General Candition 8.7. The fallawing shall be, included as information that must be reported within 24 hours under this paragraph: a. - - Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in this permit. o r'~.!:"'" . '~''''t~',' , Or- !,~.j " " ~)) l;O..otII"~ .0 , b.. :r, Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in',this permit. ..-:"';~. '.' 'c. . ~;', Violatian afmaximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed by the Director in . "!!~~.,, this permit. "", 0 t fl" , .' "~~, " " '. ,a e ecelv . . <The"I)epartment may waive the Written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been receive ed , l'5vithiti\:f4 haurs. 'MAY I 7/04 \J::i .~... ~. -J Planner: BJ , ..-~ ({;, ~':J ''':<~ ~. .. " " , File Number: 55999 Page 25 of 26 Pages 6. Other Noncomoliance The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under General Condition DA or D.5, at the time>monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain: a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause; b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has no~ been corrected; and d. Steps taken or plannedto reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. 7. Dutv to Provide Information The penriittee shall furnish to the Department, within a reasonable tiine, any information that the Department may request to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also fumish,to the Department, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit. ,. Other Information: When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a peffi.1it application or any report to the Department, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. " , ' , ' 8. Si!matorv Reouirements All applications, reports or information submitted to the Department shall be signed and certified in -( accordance with 40 CFR 122.22. 9. Falsification ofInformation . u. , A person who supplies the Department with false information, ~r omits material or required infarmatian, as specified in ORS 468.953 is subject to criminal prosecution. 10. Chanl!'es to Indirect Discharl!'ers - [Applicable to. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (pOTW) a.nly] , Thepenriittee must provide adequate notice to the Department of the following: a. Any new intraduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be' subject to section 30 lor 306 aftheCleanWater Act if it were directly discharging those pollutants and; b. Any substantial change inthe volume or character of pollutantsbeing intraduced into the POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit. ' For the purpases of this paragraph, adequate notice shall include information on (i) the qUlility and quantity of effiuent introduced into the POTW, and (ii) any anticipated impact of the change on thU quantity or quality of effiuent to be discharged from thePOTW.' , , Q) > Chanl!'es to Discharl!'es of Toxic Pollutant - [Applicable to existing manufacturing, commercial, mininga) and silvicultural dischargers only] , () Q) ~:l~~:~}':::Jh,C?)~e~~)j~e,irt.i1st notify the Depa,fu.ent as soan as they know ar have reasan to believe of the fallowinlf): , ' . Q) , 'a. '" .:r;~,at any activity has occ~n:ed or will oc~ur .which .w~uld ~esult in th~ di.scharge: on a routi.ne or Jii ' frequent basiS, af any tOXIC pollutant which IS not limIted In the permit, If that discharge Will excO the h,ighes.t o'rthe following "notification levels:' ":Ji< ,:~;:li':.1, . ' , c. 11. 'J ''::P CO . .. ~ L... ~'- Q) c: c: ct1 - .n. -< >- <:r: :;;: ( -~, J r' '\Iuinber: 55999 Lo~ 26 of26 Pages (1) One hundred micrograms per liter (l00 JigIL); (2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200'/-lgIL) for acrolein and a9rylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 /-lgIL) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and far 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and ane milligram per liter (l mgIL) for antimony; (3) Five (5) times the maximum concentratian value reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); ar (4) The level established by the Department in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(0. b. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification levels": (1) (2) (3) Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 /-lgIL); , ' . One milligram per liter (I mgIL) for antimony; (4) . . Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value ,reported for that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or' ' The level established by the Department in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(0. SECTION E. DEFINITIONS , { , BOD means five-day biochemical oxygen demand. TSS means total suspended solids: mgILmeans milligrams per liter. kg means kilograms. m3/d means cubic meters per day. MGD means million gallons per day. Composite sample means a sample formed. by collecting and mixing discrete samples taken periadically and , based on time or flaw. ' FC means fecal colifom1 bacteria. . . , Technology based permit effluent limitatians means technolagy-based treatment requirements as defined in 40 CFR 125.3, and concentration and mass load effluent limitatians that are based on minimum design criteria specified in OAR 340-41. CBOD means five day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand. ' Grab sample means an individual discrete sample collected over a period oftlme not to exceed 15 minutes. Quarter means January through March, April through June, July through September, ar October throu?h December." ' ~ .-- 13. ~Month.means calendar month. J,:} 14. 'W'eek means a calendar week afSunday through Saturday. 15. riltal residual chlorine means combined chlorine forms plus free residual chlorine. ' , 71,; 16. The term "bacteria" includes but is not limited to fecal coliform bacteria, total coliform bacteria, and E. coli \~..j . ..:..:':,. ~~c,.. ~eria. . :::'~ ,- ~ ""'''I 17:.< POTW, means a publicly owned treatment works. ~." ~ .;') .." " 'J} " ~'~:I' '..~ Updated:2"5-02 PN 107381 der tf~ '~"', , .;t...J . Jj. ~."'~ ~.':' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ". ~."'.:l .", Date Fleceived MAY 17;0{ Planner: BJ ,: A I I ACHMENT 3 'MWMC DRAFT 05-06-04 MEETING MINUTES " Date Received MAY 1 7 I o~ Planner: BJ Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission s SPR'NGFOELD iij Ai --- ..... . partners in wastewater management MEMBERS PRESENT: MWMC MEETING Thursday, 7:30 a.m., May. Springfield Library Mee . ~ oom Anne Ballew , Deborah Evans Walt Meyer, by cont STAFF IN Dave Breitenstein ATTENDANCE: Dan Brown Gary Colwell Bob B Do E Susie Smith teve Templin Sprick en Vanderford Tonja Kling Len Goodwin Bill Bennett GUESTS: , ,---,.-'-'---' "'C J Q) m > .- ~ . . Q) <::) s- O I:-~ (]) Q) a:: - c Q) ~ c as ::;: CO -- 0 n.. I. CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 04-22-04 Meeting Minutes b. Contract Award for Financial Advisor SerVices, Resolution 04-08 Item 1.b. was removed from the Consent Calendar in order to allow discussion. Commissioner Morrison asked what was the hourly rate of the Financial Advisor Services selected. Ms. Smith indicated the figure was not readily available but staff would have the answer before the V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC May 6, 2004 I. .. ' end of the meeting. Commissioner Morrison also asked if funds were budgeted in the current budget. Ms. Smith indicated there were no monies in the current fiscal year specifically budgeted for these services. However, in the Regional Wastewater portion of the Finance Department's budget there is about $7,000 budgeted in Contractual Services that will be used to start the consultant:s services. In the FY 04-05 proposed budget, there is $40,000 budgeted. The services ofthe consultants will be to prepare for a bond issuance July 1, 2005. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSION KEELER TO APPROVE TH ' MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMI PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PRIL 22, 2004, MWMC ER EVANS. MOTION III. MWMC FACILITIES PLAN & 20..YEAR PR ' There was no public comment. II. PUBLIC COMMENT President Ballew opened the Public Hearing. ers Association of Lane County , Continuin ar said that, regarding odor control, the Plan mentioned new 14' bioscrubber vesse with the implementation of the bioscrubber vessels, the existing biofilters can be phas of service and the new bioscrubbers will handle the existing odor control needs in additio to the new needs. Ms. Cuellar said this is replacement again, to a certain extent, and improvement fees cannot be charged to the extent that (MWMC) is simply replacing existing capaCity. The HBA has an issue with that. Another issue, Ms. Cuellar said, is that sometimes HBA feels not enough credit is being given for performance versus capacity. She quoted an example as the gravity belt thickener, which is listed as 100% capacity and yet in the description of the project drivn~f~tR~e~1~~~ V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC 2 MAY 1 71 ()~ May 6, 2004 Planner: BJ , . l requir~d by the NPDES 1permit.and increasing wastewater flows and 'loads generates more solids. Ms. Cuellar said tnis is ~erformance because of the ammonia requirement and would be billed differently because of that. NOTE: At this point, co~missioner Meyer was connected to the meeting via conference call. Ms. Cuellar statJ she had one more issue and that is that she had no clue the Facilities , document (Plan) existed until she met with Eugene staff the previous w ' k and she called to request a copy of the PI~n. However, when she called, there were n' ies available for the public and staff had not decided how they would make copies or uch to charge. She stated she is grateful for the coPY she got in a few hours for $60. Her' at there was a hearing the previous week and these documents needed to be avail lic and the public needs to know these documen s exist long before the public hea . Terrv Connollv. Eugene Chamber of Com mer Connolly expressed app~eciation to the staff for m Commerce regarding th~ Facilities Plan. He com j with the Plan and said there is a finite amount of re needs. He added that Uie Plan is complicated and co at the public really doesn't have the ~nowledge of ~hat .t~e Plan en~ails am h?w mu~h is ", g to cost. He said it is difficul~ to decide If the Plan IS dOing the maxlmu d or IS there~~wer threshold that would satisfy all the necessary requirem~nts and are all tions built i , ' . e Plan that DEQ says needs to be done. Mr. Connolly dommented that, forwa mmunities should be prepared that this is a m~jor price tag and i ha governments are considering or problems th aling wit GQ should be mindful that this will be a challenge. "0.. missioner Morn " state was not excited about the answers to the questions and that the~~ not clear ~no so peo Ie could understand them. Her overall concern is that the average citl~JJ!li2oes not hav clue about what is going to hit them in July in regards to the fee increases, nor~Q'0ut thelSD She stated that staff is suppose to be outreaching to the ,community and~c . but "stuffers" in the utility bills are allowed only twice a year and nothing had been tuffer" regarding the pending fee increases, She said she is concerned about edu n of the public. Camilla Pratt: 120 Westbrook Way, Eugene, member of the WWFMP CAC. Ms, Pratt said she questioned how much th~ public is willing to be educated and this Plan is very basic, public service. She urged the ~ommission to accept the staff's recommendation. She stated she had a tremendous amount of r~spect for all the people that put in time on this project and hoped the Commission approved the Plan as it beats being sued into submission. I ' ' Date Received V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC 3 MAY 1 7 off ( May 6,2004 Planner: "B.J '. ~ .~ PhiliD Farrinaton, Director, Land Use Planning and Development, PeaceHealth Oregon Region. Mr. Farrington stated that PeaceHealth is interested in insuring that adequate infrastructure will be available to meet current needs and future demands for planned health care facilities and that the community's environmental stewardship objectives are met as well. He commented that PeaceHealth will be paying a significant amount in SDCs and are also major contributors towards the standard rate structure and will be paying towards improvements one way or the other. He stated that the 2003 increase to the SDC resulted in nearly a 50% increase in SDCs and the proposal now proposed would result in yet another SDC increase of 780" He commented on DEQ's evaluation of MWMC's NPDES permit which identified that th operated at 60% design capacity in dry weather, 42% during wet weather period a etropolitan Public Facilities Plan was adopted as part of the Metro Plan under th~~~ tion, consistent with the previously approved MWMC Facilities Plan, that there is ade.g1i[Ate ca it in the regional wastewater plant to meet projected growth through the pia, nmgperiod. aid it appeared that much of the basis for the projects that are proposed in t. cilities Plan a address thermal loading and peak flows during wet weather. Mr. Farr" ' ',n said the wet wea, 'ssue is addressed by reducing inflow and infiltration (III) w' '!rermalloading is addre.awith a new river outfall. He stated that his concern is that th osed soluf' s describe a diWiPortionate burden to new development to address both of the blem elieved the inefficient existing sewer pipes and connections should have the regulat , borne by all system users and ratepayers, and not a disproportionate a ount by new ment. pened to the capacity identified in previously adopted plans? ut he had a hard time following it. He asked if there had 97 or n the 2001 Metro Public Facilities Plan? He also asked DC cr its and how are they determined. Another question he tes match up with other communities or how would the rates esidential SDCs. Mr. Farrington asked about SDC rates re or if this is the last time these rates are going to be increased He said it is not clear to him the basis for the percentages that are allocated to growth in WMC Facilities Plan 20-Year Project List. Regarding the Project List, Mr. Farrington said a new bank site outfall is identified and 38% of that is described as new growth, but he asked if a new outfall that is established to address issues of mixing in receiving waters and allow for potential reuse be appropriately described as being as responsibility of all ratepayers. He didn't feel the outfall was a consequence of growth, doesn't directly relate to capacity or peak flow reduction or perhaps not to a 38% proportion. Mr. Farrington stated that Peace Health support the reuse concept and are looking to accept reclaimed wastewater at the Cottage Grove Community Hospital site and they would be a willing customer if that opportunity arose i~~Efleceived MAY.l 7 I()~ V:\ENVIROSV\COMMISH\MINUTES\05-06-04.DOC 4 May 6,2004 Planner: 'BJ tions. First, can the d on the gross square ,f. ! nita wer services? He heard gro .' are footage in the broadest is has Sl . I icant cost implications and ry SDCs be assessed against mechanical d hospital is mechanical space that serves ..~r ancillary services within the first three ission to direct staff to appropriately direct I. ., . Mr. Farrington said that, while MWMC should reduce the risk of sewage overflows, 1/1 may be a contributor and new growth represents a nominal part of that problem. Therefore, new development is shouldering a disproportionate financial burden for addressing this 1/1. He said Peace Health is going to be paying large sums to this community towards the improvements that are needed and they acknowledge the improvements that all applicable requirements and laws are met and the infrastructure is going to be available to support current needs and future development. PeaceHealth appreciates the work put forth by MWMC, st ,consultants, and citizen volunteers who worked on this important project. Joshua Skov. Member of SDC CAC. Mr. Skov said that protects quality of life. MWMC has fulfilled its responsibility t, thorough and transparent public process; and the SDCs geed by t Facilities Plan are low by any reasonable standard or b . ark. He sai address growth in Lane County and rising water qual' uirements' Wate '1:1 water quality issues are increasingly becoming a concern in m i g a quality of life. He s Facilities Plan is vital to addressing the needs of munity. re received by the deadline and CH2M Hill . mmissioners were given a copy of the Itants' included. Regarding the public process ith indicated e hearings and meetings were widely adve . nd the fir ertisl or the public hearing was in the April 16th and 17th papers and the ~ ents were aval de for,e(:' on April 16th. The reason extra copies of the Facilities Plan Were"not made is be~ the 1tilt~et cost at Kinkos was over $90 a book and based on the City's p~i\l~ copy charge oul~ h1lt'e c~st $210. Staffs first. objective was to put the Plan on a CD so It would be avallabl n InexpenSive rate. It took a while to get the new technology for laser fiche tO~~l;lat accom ed, however, a copy was provided in a fairly quick manner and settled on a $60 c, as considerably under MWMC's cost. Continuing on, Ms. Smith stated that flyers w directly to an ongoing list of interested parties. engaging a wide variety of r. He stated that the SDCs are Oregon has higher SDCs. He tive to the SDCs of the past, ,'ous reasons and therefore a MWMC, staff and consultants v Ms. Smith introd ced Matt Noesen and Shawn Clark from CH2M Hill who would be responding to the comments received. Commissioner Morrison requested a copy of the list of people that received notices: Mr. Noesen covered two topics. One was in response to Commissioner Morrison's request for additional data analysis and the second one was to look at and respond to the submitted written comments. Date Received MAY 1 7(6~ V:\ENVIROSVlCOMMISH\MINUTES\05-06-04.DOC 5 Pian~~t:ot3J '. Regarding Commissioner Morrison's question on What frequency does the historical data bump up against the dry season 49 mgd and wet season 75 mgd , Mr. Noesen said that the information was mailed to the Commissioners earlier in the week. A statistical analysis was done to look at what percent of the time the historical flows were above the 49 mgd rating and 43.8 is the current utilized capacity in the SDC methodology. When you look at that, 2.1 % of the time the historical data was above the 49 mgd and looking at the number used for the current utilized capacity, 12.5% of the time historical data was above. Looking at the wet season, which is 75 mgd, 21.1 % of the time the historical data was above that value. Com Emting on CBOD (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand), Mr. Noesen said this i dicator of fluid strength coming into the treatment facility. It does not capture ammonia, another parameter pollutant that is now in the NPDES'permit and which does use a bit of existing and available capacity. Looking at Total Suspends Solids (TSS) ted capacity is 2.5% of the time of the historical period is greater than the rated ca. the time in the current rated capacity. Mr. Commissioner Inge asked if "control" mean Noesen said the draft Facilities Plan is not devel ''I'!!~,'' exceedances. This is a topic being discussed with m' exceedances would be acceptable. e standard in Oregon for summer E!ry 10 years, it is considered an standard in the Water EQ mitted a letter stating that, ,~ed based on maximum flows tandards form the basis for the permit limit hese are based on Federal guidance that or chronic toxicity criteria. The Federal , every three years, which equates to .09% an en question from the H by HBA was associated with mentioned were th looked at. ments submitted, Mr.Noesen indicated that one letter was tiJ SDCs, The second letter had a series of issues and ent on 0 address some of those issues brought up in the letter letter and comments attached). He said a key issue brought up Master Plan capacity assessment to the capacity assessment 4 Facilities Plan and SDC methodology. Other issues HBA ' . cation and the alternatives evalu?tion and 'what technologies were Regarding the comparison of the 1997 Master Plan and the 2004 Facilities Plan, Mr. Noesen said there are significant differences in the two analyses. For dry season flow, there is an 11 % difference in population as well as a 9% decrease in per capita values that go into projecting flows. Mr. Noesen also commented on the use of maximum month instead of average in assessing capacity, The DEQ letter (attached) states that maximum flows (monthly, weekly, and daily) need to be looked at when assessing capacity, which is what has been dBate~~eived MAY 1 7 / ~ Y V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC 6 May 6, 2004 Planner:. BJ '. ., . <' , Facilities Plan and the SDC methodology. Mr. Noesen said the capacity assessment that is in the NPDES fact sheet was from 1996 when the staff submitted the permit renewal application to DEQ. Staff took information from the 1997 Master Plan, which was under development at the time. It took a number of years for DEQ to re"issue the permit and DEQ kept that 1996 data sheet and never re-evaluated it. There is a 12% increase in the maximum peaking factor between the 1997 data and today. Mr. Noesen said a critical point is CBOD and TSS are now ac . ammonia. Ammonia and thermal load are now in the permit and t permit in 1996, when the capacity assessment was done for th SDC methodology was being evaluated, ammonia and ther parameters. Mr. Noesen said the reason these could not (industrial, residential, and commercial) is because ther implement SDCs and monthly user rates for these tw ammonia versus removing one' pound of CBOD is captured in the current data but was not part of tl1 n was not submitted to DEQ for review, like the 2004 Facilities Plan. The 2004 accordance with DEQ guidelines since the Plan a project anticipate numbers are sewer rates, th tion projections' that formed the base for the 2004 Facilities . al data and growth rates were evaluated and used to that i he basis used for the Facility Plan. It reflects an lation growth. He said if the argument is used that the population' when it comes down to determining SDC rates and monthly be a big impact. lewed the dry season maximum month flow historical and projected data. He said DEQ ha statistical method to arrive at the 1 O-year dry season and five-year wet season data and staff is in ongoing discussions with DEQ to use the Plan's projections, which are conservative, instead of DEQ's numbers, which would be even more conservative. He commented that the 2004 Facilities Plan is based on projections that are reasonable, lower than what was developed in 1997, and significantly lower than what DEQ would like to be used. V:\ENVIROSVlCOMMISH\MINUTES\05-06-04.DOC 7 Date Received MAY17/oq Planner~6B~ '. " . " ", Commissioner Inge asked what the impact would be for facilities that needed to be built if the projections were raised or lowered. Mr. Noesen said orieofthings that could be impacted would be the phasing of the tertiary filters. It wouldn't necessarily enable the Commission to get rid of, or have more filters, but would impact when they would need to be built, al1d may not impact what needs to be built at all. Regarding the allocations, Mr. Noesen said that the allocations that have been developed are a combination of what is in Chapter 8 of the Facilities Plan, plus wh~ in the SDC methodology. the actual allocation of the 20-Year Project List will a ~.te the cost of those projects between growth and existing users. The development of in Chapter 8 of the Facilities Plan and some of the numbers that are used in applyi me from the SDC methodology, the besUadvanced technology might not have rocess. He stated many alternatives and ses showed that re-using the existing t cost-effective solution to do for the MC could divert to new, different technology.in a few years ilities Plan is a "roadmap" and is designed to be flexible, ITWA' PLAN AND 20- ' EVANS. MISSIONER MEYER TO APPROVE THE MWMC FACILITIES LIST. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Ms. Smith asked if the motion could reflect approval of Resolution 04-04. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-04. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EVANS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH 6 VOTING FOR THE MOTION AND ONE (COMMISSIONER MORRISON) O~OSEQ.. 'd " uate HeCelVe MAY 1 7 ! O~ Planner~aJi3~4 V;\ENVIROSV\COMMISH\MINUTES\05-06-04.DOC 8 '. ., . , Commissioner Poling stated that he believed staff, the consultants and the assistants, involved in this project have put in a lot of time. He said this is an extremely technical information and his primary reason for voting in favor of the Resolution is to move forward. He said he was not totally convinced that MWMC is going down the right road but MWMC is not absolutely "married" to this master plan. With different population growths and advancement in technology, it can be changed if necessary. He added that he is voting yes but he is not totally convinced that this is the right path at this time. He said MWMC did an excellent job in getting the word out to people. The people receive it, but they don't pay ~ttention to it uritil it is up for a final ' te. Commissioner Keeler commente ' change his vote, is that such a good jo . that to become somethin'g that is so wel that standard. He requ~sts that staff kee At this point, Commissioner Meyer had to terminate the conferenc the hard work done by staff. The very best consultants were hir project and he was confident that CH2M Hill did good work . He said he appreciated e an extensive look at this , doing the right thing. Ms. Smith made some comments on the next ste ' She reminded the Commissioners that the preferred 0 system-wide set of improvements. As the Plan m officials of the governing bodies, it will also be gal that DEO will require additional improvements. oes from here. least cost e elected is possible e with the Plan, which would not Iternative 4 that we don't want EO to try and hold MWMC to ey go forward with the Plan.' Ms. Smith added th with the projects that ca primarily pre-design a able to check on thi , is essentially going forward ear Project List was closed. IVa. Me BUDGE ,API IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IVb. EuY,~04-05 SEWER OSSR RA1\ES~& SEPTAGE RATES V" ommissioners that the Public Hearings for the FY 04-05 gram and for the FY 04-05 Sewer User Rates were being ted that for the purposes of preparing the draft FY 04-05 budget, te scenario. Ms. BudgetlCapit combined as on staff selected the Gary Colwell, Environmental Services Manager, made the' staff presentation. He re-iterated that the proposed budget was based on the 24% scenario so it the Commission selected a different scenario, the changes will be made for the final document. ' .V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC President Ballew opened the Public Hearing for the FY 04-05 Budget and User ' Rates/Septage Rates. Date Received MAY 1 7 I 6 ~ Planne~yB84 . .' '!J! .. 9 \ ,., ". . No one responded and President Ballew closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Keeler indicated that, because he was not aU he previous Commission meeting, he didn't have an understanding where each Commissioner wanted to go as far as the user rate was concerned. President Ballew answered that the Commission was wavering between the 24% and 38% increase. Ms. ,Smith told Commissioner Keeler that she did state that the 12% increase was preferred by him so that it would be in the record. At this point, President Ballew polled the Commissioners regarding their preference, After further discI!! ion, the Commission members present settled on the 24% increase option,' IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO AP~ c~HE MWMC BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR'FY 2004- · 0$, UMENTED CURRENTLY AND ADOPT THE 24% USER RATE INCR~ ' ,WHIC CENARIO 0, IN RESOLUTIONS 04-05 AND 04-06. THE MOTION WA 'LONDED B MISSIONER POLING, COMMISSIONER KEELER AM SEPTAGE RATES TO $0.102 PER GPI WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE Mr. Colwell interjectea that the septage rat recommended an increase to $.102 per gallon for s in the motion. tate-wide averag in separate motions. He ase. Commissioner Inge said an what users will be paying. If d 24%, the same should be done to the , as one action and the rates as a second ED TO SEPARATE THE TWO MOTIONS FOR E MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER USLY. Beca ~he first moti id not include consideration of the septage rates, it now stood as stated. Comrfiissloner'Balle lied for a vote on the motion made by Commissioner Keeler, seconded by C:!,':::,;ssion e ing, to approve the MWMC Budget and Capital Improvement Program for FY 2_,Q" v documented currently and adopt the 24% user rate increase, which is scenario 0, in Res"(5i1\l1iifns 04-05 and 04-06. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ..., Discussion followed on septage rates: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER INGE TO INCREASE THE SEPTAGE HAULER RATE CONSISTENT WITH THE INCREASES IN THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INCREASES (24%) UNDER SCENARIO D. V:IENVIROSV\COMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC 10 Date Received MAY I 7.(~~ Plan nErt!' ~J \ '" '", . -~ . , Ms. Smith requested that part of the motion make clear that the Commission is waiving a previously established Commission policy guiding septage rates. COMMISSIONER INGE AGREED TO THE INCLUSION IN THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EVANS. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Colwell indicated that the schedule attached to-Resolution 04-06 needed to have the septage rate removed from Exhibit A of the Resolution. This rate didn't need to be on the schedule since the cities do not implement the rate. only the treatment plant. He' icated the rate would be approximately $1.10 per gallon under the Scenario D increase. ean that the septage issioner Evans indicated Commissioner Inge also clarified that his motion was inte hauler rate will continue to increase consistent with the other~~s. that was her understanding as well. W , Ms. Smith indicated that staff will bring back a V. FY 04-05 SDC CHARGES methodology was adopted on April 1, 2 ' were approved earlier in the meeting. ndicated that the SDC 'es Plan and 20-Year Project list IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIO - CHARGES AND ADOPT RESOLUTION Ol1!~~. TH COMMISSIONER KEELE N PASS U Commissioner by the Citizens Adv' Commission to addr IV. :<<LMANAGER. AND WASTEWATER WMrofessional Financial Advisor (Item 1.b. removed from the Ms. S. commented that Commissioner Morrison had requested Financial Advisor Contract and said it was $165 per hour. She receive the services of two partners and the intent of using these the amount of the work that can be done internally, seeking the ners provide. IT WAS M t' BY COMMISSIONER POLING TO APPROVE ITEM 1.b. THE y MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Mr. Ruffier informed the Commissioners that on May 1st the plant was made aware of a leak from the force main at the Irving Station. The flow was controlled and channeled into a manhole in the sanitary system so there was no exposure to tlJtl publi~ ~~Q Jlas been notified and concurred that the plant could take more time to ~te ~lDtved V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC. 11 MAY 17(O{ PI May 6.j.q,oJ4 anner: lj \~ ,: , ''li . . . '---./ deal with this. The leak was in an area that is complicated with a lot of utilities, difficult to get to, plus part of it is in the County and part in the City. Mr. Ruffier didn't feel this would be recorded as a violation to the permit. Mr. Breitenstein, Wastewater Plant Manager, added that by acting responsibly, it is not considered a violation and the plant has not been issued a Notice of Noncompliance in regards to reported overflows. c. Mr~ Ruffier said the first phase of the poplars have been Pla~ Ms. Smith added her appreciation to Steve Templin, Biocycle Farm Project 1,",lr, who has worked, extremely hard on this project. indicat d she recently read information regarding prior converted es that information, she will forward it to staff. Ms. Smith made a d staff is not working under prior converted land but under farmed d. Mr. Ruffier ded t~e Commission about the Wastewater Division being accepted into EPA's Performance Track Program and commented that he attended a meeting of the program participants. He will bring information to the Commission at a future date. V:IENVIROSVlCOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06-04.DOC e. Ms. 'Smith indicated that an updated Governing Bodie's calendar was given to the Commissioners. She said she would be contacting some of the Commissioners to see if they could accompany staff to some of the scheduled meetings witlJJhe ottw a!lenCies'd ' uate HecelVe MAY I 7l~ 'May 6~Oi Planner: 0'"' 12 ., .. , ..,; ,:i. .\ . ,~ The Facilities Plan is now the Commission's Plan. The calendar will continually be updated. f. In light of all the activities going on, Commissioner Inge inquired on the status of filling the Public Information and Education Specialist position vacated by Rachael Dillman. How is MWMC going to get the education and information to the public during the interim search for a replacement? Ms. Smith said the position was currently being advertised. It will not be filled in time for the adoption process, but as the 'i n process proceeds and before any type of dirt turning occurs, the position will ed. Commissioner Inge asked how much notice the pub!" ' Mr. Ruffier indicated the City of Eugene will send information 'on the rate and there will be a publi Eugene citizens will get more advanced notic in an EWEB bill. She indicated she was 10 earlier billing information sent out with t hearing notices are posted and Ms. Sm newspaper. She also added that staff is coverage on the adopted plans. g. Commissioner Evans indicat and costs were discussed in the the Commission. Ms. Smith ck to the Commission and uncils to change the osal from SUB for increases p this up to the City Council for h. ood and hard work that has been done by , . ers. He said "today was a culmination of a v Next meeting: Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:30 a.m. Springfield Library Meeting Room Date Received MAY 1 7 I o~ Planner: BJ V:\ENVIROSVlCOMMISH\MINUTES\05-06-04.DOC 13 May 6, 2004