Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit Number: OR-003409-6
Date: xxxx
Public Notice Expiration Date: xxxx
Technical Contact: Kelly Huynh 206/553-8414
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Plans To Issue A Wastewater Discharge Permit To Discharge
Pollutants And To Dispose Of Sewage Sludge (Biosolids) Pursuant
To The Provisions Of The Clean Water Act To:
Cow Creek Gaming Center Wastewater Treatment Plant
146 Chief Miwaleta Lane
Canyonville, Oregon 97417
EPA Proposes NPDES Permit Issuance
The EPA proposes to issue a. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
to the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. The draft permit sets conditions for the
discharge-or release-of pollutants from the Cow Creek Gaming Center Wastewater Treatment
Plant to the South Umpqua River from November 1 through April 30. It also authorizes the
facility to transport commercial septage to a solids handling facility and dispose of biosolids from
the gravel filters in a municipal solid waste landfill. In order to ensure protection of water quality
and human health, the permit places limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be
discharged, and places conditions on the use of biosolids.
This Fact Sheet includes:
information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures
a description of the proposed discharge, current septage practice, and future biosolids
practice
a listing of proposed effluent limitations, monitoring schedules, and other conditions
a map and description of the proposed discharge location
detailed technical material supporting the conditions in the permit
Public Comment
The EPA will consider all substantive comments before issuing the final permit. Those wishing to
comment on the draft permit may do so in writing by the expiration date of the Public Notice. A
request for public hearing must state the nature of the issues to be raised as well as the requester's
-------
name, address and telephone number. After the Public Notice expires, and all comments have
been considered, EPA's regional Director for the Office of Water will make a final decision
regarding permit issuance.
If no substantive comments are received, the tentative conditions in the draft permit will become
final, and the permit will become effective upon issuance. If substantive comments are received,
the EPA will address the comments and issue the permit. The permit will become effective 30
days after the issuance date, unless a request for an evidentiary hearing is submitted within 30
days.
Documents are Available for Review
The draft NPDES permit and related documents can be reviewed or obtained by visiting or
contacting the EPA's Regional Office in Seattle between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday at:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, OW-130
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206)553-1214 or
1-800-424-4372 (within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington)
Draft permits, Fact Sheets, and other information can also be found by visiting the Region 10
website at www.epa.gov/rlOearth/offices/water/npdes.html. To ensure effective communication,
additional services can be made available to persons with disabilities by contacting the above EPA
numbers.
The Fact Sheet and draft permit are also available at:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Oregon Operations Office
811 S.W. 6th Avenue 3rd Floor
Portland, Oregon 97204
(503) 326-3250
-2-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. APPLICANT -4-
II. FACILITY ACTIVITY -4-
III. RECEIVING WATER -4-
IV. FACILITY BACKGROUND -5-
V. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS -5-
A. Effluent Limits -5-
VI. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS -6-
A. Effluent/Influent Monitoring -6-
B. Ambient Monitoring -7-
VII. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS -8-
A. Quality Assurance Plan -8-
B. Septage and Biosolids Management -8-
C. Additional Permit Provisions -8-
VIII. OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS -8-
A. Endangered Species Act -8-
B. State Certification -9-
C. Interstate Waters -9-
D. Permit Expiration -9-
LIST OF ACRONYMS -10-
APPENDIX A- COW CREEK PLANT DESCRIPTION AND MAP -A-l-
APPENDIX B- BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS -B-l-
APPENDIX C- BIOSOLIDS/SEPTAGE -C-l-
APPENDIX D- ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT -D-l-
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE V-l: Outfall 001 Effluent Limitations -6-
TABLE VI-1: Outfall 001 Effluent/Influent Monitoring Requirements -7-
TABLE VI-2: Outfall 001 Ambient Monitoring Requirements -7-
-3-
-------
I. APPLICANT
Cow Creek Gaming Center Wastewater Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit No.: OR-003409-6
Facility Location: Mailing Address:
146 Chief Miwaleta Lane 2371 NE Stephen, Suite 100
Canyonville, Oregon 97417 Roseburg, Oregon 97470
Facility contact: Tonya Theiss-Skrip, Special Projects Officer
II. FACILITY ACTIVITY
The Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians (hereafter referred to as "the Tribe")
owns, operates, and maintains the Cow Creek Gaming Center Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) located within the Tribe's reservation in Canyonville, Oregon in Douglas
County. The WWTP provides treatment equivalent to secondary for domestic sewage
from the Tribally owned Seven Feather Hotel and Casino Resort (including a 156 unit
hotel, casino, convention center, 33 unit RV park, and three food establishments) and
training facility. There are no industrial discharges to the system. The facility's maximum
design flow is 0.0865 million gallons per day (mgd). Details about the wastewater
treatment process and a map with the location of the treatment plant and discharge are
included in Appendix A.
The commercial septage removed from the WWTP septic tanks is transported to a solids
handling facility where it is treated and disposed of off-reservation. If the biosolids within
the recirculation tank or drainfield gravel beds need disposing of, they shall be disposed of
in a municipal solid waste landfill.
III. RECEIVING WATER
The draft permit allows the discharge of treated effluent from the Cow Creek WWTP to
the South Umpqua River from November 1 through April 30 (high flow season).
Although the Tribe does not have water quality standards for this water body, EPA must
assure adjacent or downstream standards are met for the water body for the purpose of
developing permit limitations and conditions. Therefore, the State of Oregon's water
quality standards were applied to this permit. The South Umpqua River is designated by
the September 1992 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 340-41-282) as being protected
for public and private domestic water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, livestock
watering, anadromous fish passage, salmonid fish rearing and spawning, cold water
resident fish and aquatic life, wildlife and hunting, fishing and boating, water contact
recreation, aesthetic quality, and hydro power. The South Umpqua River has been listed
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as not attaining Oregon water quality
-4-
-------
standards for biological criteria and water contact recreation/bacteria during the time of
the proposed discharge. Where the receiving water quality does not meet water quality
standards after the imposition of technology-based effluent limitations, Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act requires the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Plan to ensure that these waters will come into compliance. A TMDL is a determination
of the amount of a pollutant, or property of a pollutant, from point, nonpoint, and natural
background sources, including a margin of safety, that may be discharged to a water body
without causing the water body to exceed the water quality criterion for that pollutant. A
TMDL has been drafted for the South Umpqua River. The TMDL will not however,
effect the limits imposed in the permit.
The EPA's national database of sampling sites and associated water quality data,
STORET, was searched for the South Umpqua River. Flow data (4,556 days) where
Days Creek meets the South Umpqua River from 1975 to 1990 clearly show the seasonal
nature in the river. Flows range from a high of 25,000 cfs (16,125 mgd) in the winter
months to a low of 29 cfs (45 mgd) during the summer months. Because of the minimal
mixing available and the 303(d) limited nature of the river from May 1 through October
31, the Tribe will continue to discharge to its drainfields during this period.
IV. FACILITY BACKGROUND
The Tribe applied for a NPDES permit for a year round WWTP discharge to the South
Umpqua River on October 3, 1995. The EPA was concerned about a year round
discharge to the South Umpqua due to the 303(d) listing and lack of a TMDL. Permit
development began after receiving a March 2, 1998 letter from the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality stating that a winter discharge would pose a minimal problem to
the river if bacteria was addressed in the permit.
Monitoring data provided to the EPA from September 1996 to September 1998, indicate
the average effluent five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) values are 9.3 mg/L and 9.3 mg/L respectively. The associated average
percent removal rates for BOD and TSS are 95.9% and 86.6%. Currently disinfection is
not being used (resulting in high fecal coliform values) because the Tribe is discharging to
drainfields surrounding the WWTP.
V. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
A. Effluent Limits
The EPA followed the Clean Water Act, state and federal regulations, and the
EPA's 1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control (TSD) to develop the draft effluent limits. Appendix B provides the basis
for the development of effluent limits.
-5-
-------
In general, the Clean Water Act requires that the effluent limits for a particular
pollutant be the more stringent of either the technology-based or water quality-
based limits. Technology-based limits are set based on the level of treatment that is
achievable using available technology. Water quality-based limits are required for
pollutants that are discharged at (or have the reasonable potential to discharge at)
levels that could cause or contribute to an exceedance above the water quality
standards in the South Umpqua River.
The draft permit includes both technology-based and water quality-based limits
(See Appendix C). Technology-based limits have been developed for BOD5 and
TSS. In addition, water quality-based limits have been developed for Escherichia
coli (E. coli). Table V-l presents the effluent limits contained in the draft permit.
TABLE V-l: Outfall 001 Effluent Limitations
Parameter
BODj1
TSS1
E. coli2
Monthly
Average Limit
30mg/L
22 Ibs/day
30mg/L
22 Ibs/day
126/lOOml
Average Weekly Limit
45 mg/L
33 Ibs/day
45 mg/L
33 Ibs/day
—
Daily Maximum Limit
—
—
406/lOOml
Notes: 1. The average monthly percent removal shall be greater than 85%
2. When five or more samples are taken for the month, the monthly average limit shall
be reported as a monthly log mean
Consistent with Oregon state standards, the draft permit requires that the WWTP
effluent pH be within the range of 6.5-8.5 standard units and that the discharge be
free from objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sleek or floating solids. The
discharge shall not cause appreciable bottom or sludge deposits. The draft permit
also prohibits discharges of waste streams that are not part of the normal operation
of the facility, as reported in the permit application.
VI. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Effluent/Influent Monitoring
Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and federal regulation 40 CFR 122.44(i)
requires that monitoring be included in permits to determine compliance with
effluent limitations. Monitoring may also be required to gather data for future
effluent limitations or to monitor effluent impacts on receiving water quality.
Effluent monitoring for total ammonia and temperature is included to verify
-6-
-------
compliance with the state standards for ammonia and to gather data for a future
ammonia limit if one is needed. The permittee is responsible for conducting the
monitoring and for reporting results by the 10th day of the month following the
calendar quarter on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to the EPA. Table
VI-1 presents the draft monitoring requirements based on the minimum sampling
necessary to adequately monitor the facility's performance. Effluent monitoring
shall be conducted after the last treatment unit and prior to discharge (such as at
the pump stations). Influent monitoring shall be before any treatment process of
the WWTP.
TABLE VI-1: Outfall 001 Effluent/Influent Monitoring Requirements
Parameter
Flow, mgd
BODjmg/L1
TSS, mg/L1
pH, standard units2
E. coli, organisms/100 ml
Total Ammonia as N, mg/L
Temperature, °C
Sample Frequency
Continuous
I/week
I/week
2/week
I/week
I/quarter
I/quarter
Sample Location
Influent or Effluent
Influent and Effluent
Influent and Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Notes: 1. Percent Removal Monitoring: The percent BOD5 and TSS removal will be
reported on each quarterly DMR form.
2. The permittee shall report the pH values and number and duration of pH
excursions during the quarter with the DMR for that quarter.
B. Ambient Monitoring
The draft permit requires the Permittee to conduct quarterly ambient (in-stream)
monitoring upstream of outfall 001. The Permittee shall submit the upstream
ambient site to EPA and indicate the location on the quarterly DMRs. Table VI-2
presents the monitoring requirements that will be used to verify compliance with
ammonia standards. Based on the results of this study, EPA will determine
whether to include ammonia permit limits when the permit is renewed.
-7-
-------
TABLE VI-2. Outfall 001 Ambient Monitoring Requirements
Parameter
Ammonia, mg/L
pH, standard units
Temperature, °C
Sample Frequency
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
VII. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS
A. Quality Assurance Plan
Federal regulation 40 CFR 122.41(e) requires the permittee to develop and submit
a Quality Assurance Plan to ensure that the monitoring data submitted is accurate
and to explain data anomalies if they occur. The plan must also address sampling
location, variability in the receiving water, appropriate sampling and analytical
methods, analytical variability, and quality assurance/quality control for sampling
and analysis. The permittee is required to submit a Quality Assurance Plan within
120 days of the effective date of the draft permit. The Quality Assurance Plan
shall consist of standard operating procedures the permittee must follow for
collecting, handling, storing and shipping samples, laboratory analysis, and data
reporting.
B. Septage and Biosolids Management
Commercial septage is generated by the Cow Creek WWTP septic tanks. This
septage is transported from the WWTP to a solids handling facility off of the
reservation where it is treated and land applied.
The only biosolids potentially generated by the WWTP would be from the disposal
of the gravel from the recirculation tanks or drainfields. Because it is unclear if the
gravel biosolids will ever need disposing of, the draft permit contains the
contingency that they either be disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill or or
cleaned and recycled with the biosolids being hauled to a solids handling facility.
Appendix D details which regulations apply to biosolids disposal.
C. Additional Permit Provisions
Sections III, IV, and V of the draft permit contain "boilerplate" requirements.
Boilerplate is standard regulatory language that applies to all permittees and must
be included in NPDES permits. Because they are regulations, they cannot be
challenged in the context of an NPDES permit action. The boilerplate covers
-------
requirements such as monitoring, recording, reporting requirements, compliance
responsibilities, and general requirements.
VIII. OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if their actions
could beneficially or adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. The
EPA has completed informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service and is in the process of informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding whether the issuance of this permit will affect any of the
threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the discharge. See Appendix E
for further details.
B. State Certification
Since the WWTP discharge is from a facility located within the boundaries of the
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians Reservation, the provisions of
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requiring state or tribal certification of the
permit do not apply and the EPA will conduct the 401 certification of this permit.
However, copies of the draft permit action have been provided to the Cow Creek
Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians as well as the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality.
C. Interstate Waters
Under 40 CFR 124.10(c)(l)(iii), the EPA must give notice of this permit action to
any affected state. Notice has been given to the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality and other Oregon state agencies (as defined in this
regulation) potentially impacted by this action.
D. Permit Expiration
This permit will expire five years from the effective date of the permit.
-9-
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BAT Best Available Technology economically achievable
BCT Best Conventional pollutant control Technology
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BPJ Best Professional Judgement
BPT Best Practicable control Technology currently available
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSD Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA
1991)
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USFWS United State Fish and Wildlife Service
UV Ultraviolet Radiation
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
-10-
-------
APPENDIX A - COW CREEK PLANT DESCRIPTION AND MAP
The influent wastewater from the gaming center and training facility is collected in a conventional
gravity sewer system and discharged into a community septic tank system where it receives
preliminary treatment. The 150,000 gallon septic tank has three walls that make up a meander
route for the wastewater. The wastewater is screened before entering the discharge compartment
and screened again before being pumped to a series of 24-3,000 gallon recirculation tanks. The
two-50 gpm pumps in the recirculation tanks transfer the effluent onto the gravel filter, three to
five times a day, at a maximum daily application rate of five gallons/ft2/day. Twenty percent
(20%) of the effluent is collected in a 4-inch diameter pipe at the bottom of the gravel filter and
either disinfected by ultra violet (UV) and discharged to the South Umpqua River (November 1
through April 30) or discharged to sixteen separate drainfields (May 1 through October 31). The
remaining eighty percent (80%) of the effluent is recirculated through the gravel filter tanks again
for additional biological treatment.
The commercial septage from the septic tank is transported by a commercial hauler to a solids
handling facility off-reservation where it is treated and land applied. If the gravel filter material
from the recirculation tank or drainfield ever becomes ineffective and needs replacing, disposal
shall be to a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF).
For a color hard copy of the following map, send a request to:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, OW-130
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206)553-1214 or
1-800-424-4372 (within Region 10 only)
Be sure to reference the NPDES permit number for this facility (OR-003409-6) in addition to the
file name.
A-l
-------
MAP OF COW CREEK GAMING CENTER FACILITY AND DISCHARGE LOCATION
Cow Creek Gaming Center
Wastewater Treatment Plant
This computer representation has bean compiled by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from sources which have
supplied data or information that has not boon verified by the EPA. This
data Is offered here as a general representation only, and Is not to tie
used for commercial purposes without verification by an I nd spend ant
prolessional qualified to verify such data or information. The EPA
does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the
information shown, and shall not be liabls for any loss or injury
resulting from reliance upon the information shown.
LEGEND
General Land Ownership
| I Agricultural Research I 1 U.S. Forest Service
nu.S. Bureau of I I National Park Service
Land Management I I
r~ I U.S. Department
| | ^f™^
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.7 0.8 0.9 1
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B - BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Sections 101, 301(b), 304, 308, 401, 402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provide the
basis for the effluent limitations and other conditions in the draft permit. The EPA evaluates
discharges with respect to these sections of the CWA and the relevant NPDES regulations to
determine which conditions to include in the draft permit.
In general, the EPA first determines which technology-based limits must be incorporated into the
permit. The EPA then evaluates the effluent quality expected to result from these controls, to see
if it could result in any exceedences of the water quality standards in the receiving water. If
exceedences could occur, the EPA must include water quality-based limits in the permit. The draft
permit limits will reflect whichever requirements (technology-based or water quality-based) are
more stringent. The limits which the EPA is proposing in the draft permit are found in Section
V. A of this Fact Sheet.
A. Technology-based Evaluation for Municipals
The 1972 CWA required publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to meet
performance-based requirements based on available wastewater treatment
technology. Section 301 of the CWA established a required performance level,
referred to as "secondary treatment," that all POTWs were required to meet by
July 1, 1977.
More specifically, Section 301(b)(l)(B) of the CWA requires that EPA develop
secondary treatment standards for POTWs as defined in Section 304(d)(l) of the
CWA. Based on this statutory requirement, EPA developed secondary treatment
regulations which are specified in 40 CFR Part 133. These technology-based
regulations apply to all municipal wastewater treatment plants and identify the
minimum level of effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment in terms of
BOD5, TSS and pH. According to 40 CFR 122.2 a municipality refers to a city
town, borough, county, parish, district, association or Indian tribe or an authorized
Indian tribal organization. The Part 133 regulations provide for special
considerations regarding combined sewers, industrial wastes, waste stabilization
ponds, and less concentrated influent wastewater for combined and separate
sewers. Pursuant to Section 304(d)(4) of the CWA, the regulations also define
"treatment equivalent to secondary treatment" and the alternative standards that
apply to facilities meeting this definition.
An important aspect of municipal wastewater is that it is amenable to biological
treatment. The biological treatment component of a municipal treatment plant is
B-l
-------
termed secondary treatment and is usually preceded by simple settling (primary
treatment). In response to the CWA requirements, EPA evaluated performance
data for POTWs practicing secondary treatment and established performance
standards based on its evaluation.
B. Water Quality-based Evaluation
In addition to the technology-based limits discussed above, the EPA evaluated the
discharge to determine compliance with Section 301(b)(l)(C) of the CWA. This
section requires the establishment of limitations in permits necessary to meet water
quality standards by July 1, 1977.
NPDES regulation 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l) requires that permits include limits for all
pollutants or parameters which "are or may be discharged at a level which will
cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above
any state water quality standard, including state narrative criteria for water
quality." The limits must be stringent enough to ensure that water quality
standards are met, and must be consistent with any available wasteload allocation
(WLA).
EPA used the approach outlined below when determining whether water quality-
based limits are needed and when developing those limits. Water quality-based
limits were needed for Escherichia coli (E. coli).
1. Determine the appropriate criteria
2. Determine whether there is "reasonable potential" to exceed the criteria
3. If there is reasonable potential to exceed the criteria, then develop effluent
limits
C. Effluent Limitations
This discussion outlines the basis for each of the effluent limitations in the Cow
Creek WWTP draft NPDES permit. The limitations proposed are either
technology-based or water quality-based.
1. Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Suspended Solids
The WWTP is a POTW. As such, the facility is subject to the technology-
based requirements for BOD5 and TSS in 40 CFR 133.102, as outlined in
Table C-l.
B-3
-------
Table B-l: Secondary Treatment Requirements
Parameter
BOD,
TSS
Monthly Average
(mg/L)
30
30
Weekly Average
(mg/L)
45
45
Percent
Removal
(%)
85
85
In addition to the concentration limits, 40 CFR 122.45(f) requires that
NPDES permits contain mass-based limits for such pollutants as BOD5 and
TSS. The draft permit establishes loading limits based on the WWTPs
current design capacity of 0.0865 mgd (40 CFR 122.45(b)). The limits are
calculated by multiplying the concentration limits by the design flow and a
conversion factor of 8.34 pound»liter/milligram»million gallons, as shown
below:
Monthly Average Load:
Weekly Average Load:
pH
= (0.0865 mgd)(30 mg/L)(8.34)
= 22 Ibs/day
= (0.0865 mgd)(45 mg/L)(8.34)
= 33 Ibs/day
In addition to limits on BOD5 and TSS, 40 CFR 133.102 specifies a pH
range from 6.0 to 9.0 standard units for POTWs. The State water quality
standards for protection of fresh water (OAR 340-4 l-285(2)(d)) requires
that ambient pH be in the range of 6.5 - 8.5 standard units. Therefore, the
draft permit incorporates the more stringent water quality-based
requirements.
Bacteria/E. coli
Criteria for bacteria has been adopted by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ), based on the beneficial uses of the South
Umpqua River (See Section III of the Fact Sheet). The criteria is expressed
as E. coli. The ODEQ water quality standard, OAR 340-4l-285(2)(e),
limits E. coli to 126 organisms per 100 ml, based on a minimum of five
samples and 406 organisms per 100 ml never to be exceeded. Although
effluent monitoring data is not available for E. coli, past studies have
shown a direct relationship between fecal coliform and E. coli in domestic
waste. Therefore, because past fecal coliform monitoring (ranging from
B-4
-------
16,000/100ml to 240,000/100ml) indicates a significant exceedence of the
state criteria for E. coli, a reasonable potential analysis is not necessary.
The Cow Creek WWTP will disinfect the effluent to the South Umpqua
River by ultra violet radiation.
Dilution is unavailable in the development of bacteria permit limits because
the receiving water exceeds the state criteria for bacteria. Therefore, the E.
coli limits are applied "end-of-pipe" (prior to discharge to the river). The
draft limits for E. coli include a monthly average limit of 126/100 ml based
on a minimum of five samples and a maximum daily limit of 406/100 ml.
4. Floating, Suspended or Submerged Matter
In accordance with OAR 340-410285(j and k) the formation of
objectionable discoloration, scum, oily sleek or floating solids shall not be
allowed. The formation of appreciable bottom or sludge deposits is also
not allowed.
C-4
-------
APPENDIX C - BIOSOLIDS/SEPTAGE
The sludge (biosolids) management regulations of 40 CFR 503 were designed so that the
standards are directly enforceable against most users or disposers of biosolids, whether or not
they obtain a permit. Therefore, the publication of Part 503 in the Federal Register on February
19, 1993 served as notice to the regulated community of its duty to comply with the requirements
of the rule, except those requirements that indicate that the permitting authority shall specify what
has to be done.
Even though Part 503 is largely self-implementing, Section 405(f) of the CWA requires the
inclusion of biosolids use or disposal requirements in any NPDES permit issued to a Treatment
Works Treating Domestic Sewage. In addition, the biosolids permitting regulations in 40 CFR
Section 122 and 124 have been revised to expand the Agency's authority to issue NPDES permits
with these requirements. This includes all biosolids generators, biosolids treaters and blenders,
surface disposal sites and biosolids incinerators. Therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 503 have
to be met when biosolids are applied to the land, placed on a surface disposal site, placed on a
MSWLF unit, or fired in a sewage sludge incinerator.
Requirements are included in Part 503 for pollutants in biosolids, the reduction of pathogens in
biosolids, the reduction of the characteristics in biosolids that attract vectors, the quality of the
exit gas from a biosolids incinerator stack, the quality of biosolids that are placed in a MSWLF
unit, the sites where biosolids are either land applied or placed for final disposal, and for a
biosolids incinerator.
A. Management
D. Commercial Septage: The commercial septage generated in the septic
tanks periodically needs disposing of. The Tribe sends the septage to a
solids handling facility that treats and land applies it off-reservation.
Commercial septage is excluded from coverage under the Biosolids
management regulations (40 CFR 503.6), therefore, conditions for
transporting the septage to another facility are not included in the draft
permit.
E. Biosolids: The permittee currently does not generate biosolids from the
WWTP. However, there is the potential for the Permittee to need a
disposal method for the gravel filter beds, in the recirculation tanks and
drainfields, should they need replacing. Currently, the gravel beds are
performing well and the consultant who designed the WWTP does not
envision the need to replace or clean the filter material during the life of the
permit. However, if the filter material needs replacing or cleaning, the
material shall be disposed of either in a MSWLF or cleaned and recycled.
The material cleaned from the gravel shall be hauled to a solids handling
C-l
-------
facility off of the reservation. A MSWLF unit is the area of the solid waste
landfill operation that actually receives the household waste. The permittee
shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the MSWLF complies with 40
CFR 258 and Subtitle D of RCRA (56 FR 50978).
B. Permit Requirements
To ensure compliance with the CWA and the federal standards for the use or
disposal of biosolids (40 CFR 503), the draft permit contains the following
requirements:
1. State Laws and Federal Standards: Pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41 (a), a
condition has been incorporated into the draft permit requiring the
Permittee to comply with all existing federal laws and state laws, and all
regulations applying to biosolids use and disposal. These standards are
interpreted using the specific EPA guidance documents listed in paragraph
2, below. These documents are used by EPA Region 10 as the primary
technical references for permitting and enforcement activities.
2. Health and Environmental General Requirement: The CWA requires that
the environment and public health be protected from toxic effects of any
pollutants in biosolids. Therefore, the Permittee must handle and
use/dispose of biosolids in such a way as to protect human health and the
environment.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture assists facilities in evaluating potential
nutrient or micronutrient problems. Additionally, the EPA has published
the following guidance to assist facilities in evaluating their biosolids for
pollutants other than those listed in 40 CFR 503: Part 503 Implementation
Guidance., EPA 833-R-95-001 and Environmental Regulations and
Technology: Control of Pathogens and Vector Attraction in Sewage
Sludge, EPA/625/R-92/013.
3. Protection of Surface Waters from Sludge Pollutants: Section 405(a) of
the CWA prohibits any practice where biosolids removed in a treatment
works at one location would ultimately enter surface waters at another
location. Under this requirement the Permittee must protect surface waters
from metals, nutrients, and pathogens contained in the biosolids.
4. Biosolids Use/Disposal Practices: Information from the Tribe indicates the
facility will dispose of its biosolids in a MSWLF if needed, therefore, these
practices are authorized in the draft permit.
C-2
-------
The facility does not receive biosolids from other treatment works,
therefore the permit prohibits this activity.
5. Monitoring and Recording: Monitoring that is representative of the
biosolids quality and variability shall occur prior to disposal at the
MSWLF. The paint filter test (40 CFR 258.28) shall be performed each
time biosolids are transported to a MSWLF to ensure that the biosolids do
not contain free liquids. The biosolids shall also not contain hazardous
materials in accordance with 40 CFR 258.20. If the biosolids are used as
landfill cover, they must be suitable for that purpose according to 40 CFR
258.21. The quality of the biosolids must also meet 40 CFR Parts 260
Subpart B and 261, Subpart C RCRA requirements for materials disposed
in a MSWLF unit. Records shall be kept and a report submitted to the
EPA, with the subsequent quarterly DMR, each time the biosolids are
disposed of documenting the results of the monitoring.
6. Planned Changes: Disposal options other than in a MSWLF off-
reservation are not authorized during the life of the permit because
information given by the Permittee does not indicate that such activities
would comply with the necessary federal standards. Disposal of biosolids
elsewhere at the landfill, such as in a separate trench, or stockpiling of
biosolids for longer than two years, would be a different biosolids practice
known under the federal biosolids rules as "surface disposal." The
requirements of the 503 rules for surface disposal in 503.20-29 must be
met in this case. This would be a major change in biosolids practices and
would require a permit modification. The Permittee must apply for a
permit modification 180 days before making a major change in biosolids
management (40 CFR 122.21).
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D - ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
In a letter dated September 4, 1998, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identified the
following federally-listed species in the area of discharge:
A. Threatened Species
• Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Orcorhynchus clarki clarki)
• Oregon coast coho salmon (including Umpqua River coho, O. kisutch)
The EPA has completed informal consultation with the NMFS. Both agencies agree that the
discharge from the Cow Creek WWTP is not likely to adversely affect the Umpqua River
cutthroat trout or Umpqua River coho. Factors for the decline of the Umpqua River cutthroat
trout include logging; recreational fishing; predation by marine mammals, birds, and native and
nonnative fish species; adverse environmental conditions resulting from natural factors such as
droughts, floods, and poor ocean conditions; non-point and point source pollution caused by
agriculture and urban development; disease outbreaks by hatchery introduction and warm water
temperatures; unscreened irrigation inlets; competition with other trout; loss and alteration of
estuarine areas; and loss of habitat by dam construction. The major activities responsible for the
decline of the Umpqua River coho in Oregon are logging, road building, grazing and mining
activities, urbanization, stream channelization, dams, wetland loss, beaver trapping, water
withdrawals, and unscreened diversions for irrigation.
In a letter dated November 12, 1998 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) identified the
following federally-listed species in the South Umpqua River.
A. Threatened Species
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
• Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
• Coho salmon (Oregon coast, Oncorhynchus kisutch)
B. Critical Habitat
• Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)
C. Endangered Species
• Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocioleus virginianus leucurus)
• Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)
• Umpqua River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki)
D. Proposed Species
• Kincaid's lupine (Lupinus sulphureus var. kincaidif)
The EPA is currently in informal consultation with the USFWS in order to determine if the draft
permit has no affect on the above listed species.
D-l
------- |