NPDES - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

ta,, ,~'~`r `''" ~` + ('~? ~ j ~.~. Memorandum ~'~~ . ~~:~,. __ To: Greg GeiSt, Annette Liebe, Neil Mullane From NPDES MS4 Phase I Permittees Date: September 17, 2008 . Subject: Draft MS4 NPDES F~nit Template ACWA Phase I NPDES pernutted municipalities (permittees) appreciate the opportunity to review DEQ's initial draft MS4 permit temp~ate and permit evaiuation report (RER). The permittees have been successfully implerneuting and adaptively managing their respective municipal NPI?ES pernnit programs for aver 18 years. As the Oregon Phase I permit has evolved, the perinittees and DEQ have agreed on the need for a clearer gemut that the permittees, DEQ and the public can understand and interpret consistently. We appreciate DEQ's focus and hard work on the preparation of this draft permit and PER, as well as DEQ's effoits to undeistand municipal issues. To this end, we appreciate many of the changes to the new pernut in terms of organization, condensed text, clarifica.tion of terminolagy, and the remov~l of circular references. However, we still need additional time to understand and clarify DEQ's intent with respect to some of the new language and requirements in both the draft permit template and the PER We would like to have time to identify and present our issues, concems, and need ~or clarifications prior to wider distribution of these documents. We believe that time speut now on clarifying these issues will prevent unrealistic expectations and confusion on the part of the public and will facilitate e~ective-comments by both permitt~ees and the public. The purpose of this memo is to request additional time for discussions. The sections of the memo are organized as follows: • Proposed approach and process for working with DEQ to clarify permit condirions. • Summary of the permittee's issues of greatest concern in the dratt permit template. • Summary of additional issues where permittees are requesting clarification. • Overall memo summary. Proposed Apprnach and Process Prior to early distribution of the August draft permit template and September draft PER to the public, we request a pro~ss that allows for a more thorough discussion of proposed permit language. We believe it is necessary to clarlfy the intent of certain permit sections and to discuss and understand items that were not discussed previously, such as the requirement for liydromodification assessments. We would like to propose an approach of focused meetings that break down the specific issues or sections bf the template and PER, discuss why we see certain issues as problematic, and find alternative language if necessary and appropriate that will work to ensure the desired intent of the template and underpinning federal regulations continue to be met. The approach we are propc~sing is as follows and would be completed in no mt~re than 60 days following the September 18'~ meeting: • Meet with DEQ on Septe~ber 18 to get a better understanding of DEQ expectations, review the draf~ template and the permit evaluation report for C: Daamn~ mtd Serongc Tr~ D.~tap Mmo W DFl1 fm legal Revc.w.dac ~:~ ~ 09 ~6 ~ , Page 1