ACWAWaterQualityCommittee (WQC) Meeting Summary

Date: November 2, 2017

Time: 10:00 – 11:45a.m.

Location: Remote teleconference

Attendees / Organization
Todd Miller (co-chair) / Springfield/MWMC
Raj Kapur (co-chair) / Clean Water Services
Shane Sinclair / Corvallis
Dave Gilbey / Albany
Kristin Preston / Albany
Julia Crown / Gresham
Andrew Degner / Gresham
Steve Covey / McMinnville
April Catan / Newberg
Brian Laurent / Portland BES
Loren Shelly / Portland BES
Josh Newman / Springfield/MWMC
Jeff Hart / Kennedy-Jenks Consultants
Anita Panko / Salem
Karen Bill / HDR
Sharon Olson / Eugene
Tom Mendes / Eugene
Roger Dills / Clean Water Services
Jamie Hughes / Clean Water Services
Ron Weirenga / Clackamas County WES

1. Welcome/Introductions

  • Introductions over the phone. Call for note taker – April Catan agreed to take notes for Raj and Todd.
  • Agenda review – no changes.
  • September meeting notes review: there was no review in October due to joint committee meeting. No additions/edits – Todd will adopt as final pending any corrections noted by end of Friday Nov. 3.

2. Joint committee meeting review

  • Good series of presentations put together. All presentations are available on the Google Drive. Will put up on the ACWA website as well. Would like to have a joint meeting with Pretreatment. Next Pretreatment meeting in Salem is in May 2018.

3. Mixing zones

  • As initially discussed at the September meeting, Clackamas County had issues with DEQ while renewing the Hoodland facility’s permit. Hoodland submitted a renewal application in 2013. Part of the application included a mixing zone study; the outfall was previously washed out due to a flood. The new mixing zone proposed was appropriate for the new outfall based on study of RMZ expert Dave Wilson with CH2M, using IMD guidance and generating a much smaller mixing zone than had previously been in Hoodland’s permit.
  • DEQ went through process using dilution factors on mixing zone to run RPAs to find an area that would have a reasonable potential. Clackamas County didn’t understand what DEQ was doing and submitted comments that the process the County used was well established and appropriate. DEQ determined Hoodland could have a smaller mixing zone and not have a reasonable potential. Hoodland requested a meeting to avoid a hearing for the appeal.
  • Notable takeaway: DEQ is now using RPA to establish a regulatory mixing zone. Hoodland may be the first permit that they have used this approach. DEQ claims has established thisinternally and process was well vetted. Sounds like this will be a new process organization wide. DEQ made the response that the IMD is guidance and they are not required to follow it. Hoodland asked if DEQ would reopen permit so they can public comment. A way to get the message out to other regulatory agencies.
  • WQ committee’s take: there are criteria to establish a mixing zone. RPA is the application of that data. It’s a misuse of RPA. There is not broad agreement within DEQ about this approach. Susie Smith has brought this up with DEQ. Expect this to be brought up again.
  • Comment by attendee: Arbitrary and capricious of DEQ to say they don’t have to follow their own IMD. Municipalities are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to follow them.
  • Clackamas WES’s comment letter to DEQ is available for review on WQ committee Google drive (Nov. meeting).

4. Air Toxics Proposed Rules

  • Roger Dills from CWS briefed the committee on air toxics update: DEQ developed new set of regulations following the Bullseye Glass outcry in Portland; It is up for public comment through Dec. 22 and is 119 pages.
  • Any source (permitted or not) can be required to submit inventory and perform a risk assessment, and be required to do so every 3 years. There may be some potential impacts for POTWs. It would require them to do a risk assessment for new sources. Existing sources are also subject to risk assessments. DEQ will apply the program first to Tier 1 sources.Implementation of Tier 1 will continue for five years or more; at the end of that time DEQ will continue to implement the program by applying it to Tier 2 sources.
  • First 5 years (1st tier): DEQ picks top 80 sources. It will be based on information they already have. They will rank sources and go through list. Starting with highest risk, and require risk assessments on each of those sources. Unsure if any POTWs would come up in that list.
  • DEQ will also choose one area that is called multi-source risk. Select an area with multiple sources and rank all those sources in that area. Once they define that area, then they will notify all existing sources in that area, and those sources must do a risk assessment.
  • After 5 years (tier 2): All the rest in state will have to do risk assessments.
  • There are exemptions, need to demonstrate that toxics are unlikely to discharge.
  • Detail on how to do the risk assessments? There are risk reduction plans.
  • It’s hard to tell if POTWs would fall into these requirements.
  • Comment: Suggest DEQ do more threshold settings, so we don’t have to demonstrate that we are de minimis. It’s like we have to apply to be exempt.
  • Roger and Sharon will draft a comment letter. Raj will contact Don Caniparoli at CH2M and get a take on what these rules mean to POTWs. Seems like they are implementing something that is still evolving.
  • LRAPA (Lane County) will eventually adopt similar rules based on DEQ program.
  • Conclusion: Keep on our radar and update as new info develops

5. Integrated Report Update

  • DEQ undertaking an effort for an Integrated WQ Report for 2018. CWA, 303d & 3b. The previous efforts by DEQ had lots of issues. Listing criteria. Methodology not available for review. DEQ would list a stream they were concerned about and ask questions about the listing later, not thinking about how that affects the permit holder. DEQ is opening their review. A workgroup was created. Raj is representing ACWA. Other stakeholders include pulp/paper, farm bureau, industry.
  • Issues they have identified:
  • General listing process - Previously based on the pollutant, not stream reaches. Lots of overlapping on their listings. Now updating to hydrologically logical assessment units of stream reaches.
  • Once they divided into assessment units, how will they look at this data?
  • A White paper was put together to talk about these issues of data aggregation and assessment units
  • ACWA has provided feedback already, largely on data considerations, listing process, and handling of large data sets. Other issues to note:
  • ACWA objected to many of the 2012 listings in DEQ’s report. They weren’t warranted and we don’t want DEQ to carry them forward. DEQ has agreed to look at them first and determine if they should be carried forward
  • DEQ received input from Columbia River Keepers and Umatilla Tribal Council that they are very interested in utilizing fish tissue data to list streams. DEQ indicated they don’t have the bandwidth to implement but are considering it. ACWA will look at this in the future. Umatilla Tribal not happy with Oregon Health Authority and believe more streams should be listed and that why they want fish tissue fish consumption levels to indicate impaired streams.
  • Look at website presentation and approach.
  • Keep an eye on DEQ’s expanding definition of pollutant. Concerned that definition of pollutant is including biotic factors or algal blooms. How much latitude does DEQ have in defining new pollutants? This definition is being pushed by EPA; Seems to be outcomes of pollution not an actual pollutant. At a National level, the head EPA is trying to curtail overreach. Wondering if biotic criteria in pollutant definition is above their reach.
  • EPA included in the call for DEQ’s methodology update
  • What do they do with the 2012 listings? Listing methodology changes: (current - if you have 3 exceedances you were listed regardless of how many data points) if they change to more reasonable methodology, then what happens to that listing (i.e. delisting process)? For streams that DEQ can’t make final determination they can use other categories, such as “insufficient data.” DEQ could use this if they are concerned about a stream but need more data and can make a more robust finding. Listing needs to be based on valid data.
  • Has EPA made any comments to the 2012 listing? EPA had not taken final action on DEQ’s 2012 list and hase not responded to comments. Their plan is finalize the list by the end of this year. It does appear that EPA has looked through comments and is receptive to some of the comments, but it is unknown how they will respond.

6. Water Quality Trading

  • GAO created a report looking at nutrient trading. They cataloged how many states authorize trading for nutrients and how many states are currently taking advantage of that. Conclusions: very few permittes are using trading credits. Of those that do, they use only a small percent of their overall permit mitigation requirement. Biggest obstacle appears to be uncertainty on the value of the trade and how credits will hold up. Todd had thought nutrient was well dialed in (as a trading framework) but appears not to be the case. Take home for us, is what can Oregon learn to move forward with trading for temperature?
  • Todd announced a “nutrient utility” white paper produced by NACWA and WEF. Proposal sounds similar to the Willamette River Alliance concept and making it more widespread. Tomorrow (Nov. 3) there is a webinar. You can Google NACWA to find it. Or email Todd and he’ll send you a link. Raj plans to listen in and can provide an update next meeting.

7. NACWA WQ meeting 10/30/17 Highlights

  • Todd listened in on NACWA’s WQ committee phone call on Monday; has summary of discussion:
  • EPA priorities 2018-22: see EPA priorities document linked in agenda. Public comment closed on Tues Oct 31. Not aware of ACWA members making comments, but there has been some discussion.
  • EPA’s Mission: To Protect Human Health and the Environment
  • Goal 1 – Core Mission: Deliver real results to provide Americans with clean air, land, and water.
  • Goal 2 – Cooperative Federalism: Rebalance the power between Washington and the states to create tangible environmental results for the American people.
  • Goal 3 – Rule of Law and Process: Administer the law, as Congress intended, to refocus the Agency on its statutory obligations under the law.
  • Permit enforcement will be key to EPA role. Appears climate change has been pulled out of mission moving forward.
  • Ongoing frustration with EPA voiced by NACWA members is: instead of addressing an issue nationwide instead settled on case by case basis to set precedent. Strategic plan focus on infrastructure (in line with Trump platform; proposed budget does bolster state revolving fund money).Strategic plan called out affordability and inequity to disadvantaged communities and put money into that.
  • Noted new appointee for Office of Water seems to be good for that position. Science & Technology point person very involved in water permits and knows them very well, that could be beneficial.
  • Nutrient survey initially rolled out as a CWA requirement. Push back from municipalities and new administration. The survey will now be voluntary. Expect to see notice in Federal Register this month. Public comment for 30 days. Expect to see survey available early next year.
  • Criteria updates:
  • Chloride: On hold. Waiting for new studies. Toxicity on cation ratios and treatability.
  • Conductivity guidance: No update.
  • Aluminum: Comment period closed last week. Couple of participants’ noted being pretty good, less stringent. Toxicity for aluminum; neither total nor dissolved methods of measurements get to the toxicity, which is linked to aluminum flocs. Natural background could prompt a 303d listing.
  • Cyanotoxins: NACWA not happy with it; Todd did not capture what the issue is.
  • Selenium: Choice of fish tissue based or water column based. ACWA wants fish tissue.
  • Recreational waters: Criteria updates at the end of this year

TMDL alternatives: NACWA exploring alternative listing categories. 4b provides other controls. 5 provides for restoration. If adopted, provides more collaborations and brings in Ag partners. A way to address permitting type issues from integrated report process. Raj pointed out that category 5 has implications for permitting while the 4b “other controls” category does not.

8. Mercury

  • TMDL update: Variance application. Clean Water Services submitted a variance application. DEQ looked at it, but no movement. One element of a variance is a mercury minimization plan. There is disconnect of what a plan should look like (among ACWA members, DEQ HQ, and DEQ staff). ACWA previously worked on a mercury minimization plan to make it easier for municipalities. Discussions again with DEQ to agree on what the Mercury Minimization Plan should look like, and then roll that out for the municipalities again. Update at next meeting.
  • Willamette TMDL update: DEQ committed to updating TMDL in the next couple of years. EPA is going to be leading the way. Tetra Tech will be doing the technical modeling. DEQ workgroup implementation issues. Material posted in the next a couple of weeks. Requested 4 from ACWA to represent large, small and storm. Raj is representing Large, Christine is representing the small, Kristin and Matt are representing stormwater.
  • Bleedover into providing feedback. See how receptive EPA is to feedback. EPA trying to keep DEQ at arm’s length during process. Interim process hopefully to provide feedback.

9. Copper

  • BLM monitoring: DEQ plans to establish criteria through BLM. Most critical are organic carbon and pH. Default values through various regions of the state. Wants everyone to collect data in the state. Hiring a boat for a large river can be very expensive. DEQ could use the default as a screening tool to see who actually needs to go out and sample. Or can reasonable potential be made from default?
  • Type of monitoring concerns, upstream & downstream with effluent? Can you do bank sampling? Todd/Raj can bring up at DEQ permit strategy group meeting this month.
  • ACWA needs to have DEQ update their approach - different answers from different people (i.e. DEQ standards, implementation, or permit writers). Need consistency. Sampling is encouraged but not a requirement if not in permit. Julia noted that if 2 years of monitoring needed prior to permit, their clock started months ago; if not, that’s a different issue for planning – permittees need consistent direction/answers.

10. National Interest Items

  • Integrated Planning Bill. Link to NACWA. Not a done deal. Passed Senate not the House yet. Hopefully will take a lot of handwringing out of things. Moving forward generally with bipartisan support.
  • Phthalate ban– recent phasing out in children toys. Not complete ban - levels of less than 0.1%. Will get some out of circulation, but not address to extent needed for source control.
  • Blending/bypass: 8th circuit ruling (blending is not a bypass) EPA rejects. Confusing nationwide that can cause. Might be right time for POTW community to push EPA on it. Todd saw a presentation where a permittee got language defining wet weather blending as a designed process and will not be a bypass. DEQ not putting that language in permits. Maybe ACWA can work with DEQ on it. (Region 10 has not been receptive to it). Trying to take court ruling and take it nationwide. Should we bring up at next DEQ permit strategies meeting? - check with Susie. Up to EPA not DEQ.
  • ACWA has money budgeted in special projects for legal (Cable Houston) review of new permits. Legal review benefits a large number of ACWA members. If Hoodland would like a permit review through Cable Houston on the RMZ issue, it’s available. Committee agrees this is an appropriate use of Cable Houston contract, and could benefit ACWA members.

11. Mass Loads Rule

  • No new updates. DEQ-ACWA permit strategy meeting this month - opportunity to quiz them on this.DEQ previously indicated they don’t have the bandwidth to handle this issue, they want to table it: Revert back to methods they’ve been using instead of what they were trying to do.

12. ACWA/Committee

  • Committee results captured interests. How to improve meetings - How often? In person?
  • Results: Every other month in-person meetings continue.
  • Salem works for most people (but we could consider alternative locations on occasion).
  • Suggestion: Make call in meetings more brief. Less review of ongoing topics – make them new news.
  • Topics of interest were permit compliance and strategy. Copper. Will continue to focus meeting efforts to discuss those issues. Provided input on from the Water Quality committee on ACWA’s website improvement efforts.
  • No board news.
  • Reminder: As issues come up send Todd and Raj a note to bring them up on the monthly agenda so we can discuss.

1