Final
Region 10 NPDES Program and Permit Quality
Review
Oregon
August 2020
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Suite 155
Seattle, WA 98101
Final May 2022
Page 1 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Contents
Executive Summary 3
I. PQR BACKGROUND 5
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND 7
A. Program Structure 7
B. Universe and Permit Issuance 10
C. State-Specific Challenges 11
D. Current State Initiatives 11
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS 12
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application 12
1. Facility Information 12
2. Permit Application Requirements 13
B. Developing Effluent Limitations 14
1. Technology-based Effluent Limitations 14
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 16
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation 19
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 21
D. Standard and Special Conditions 22
E. Administrative Process 24
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet 25
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 26
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters 27
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions 29
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements 31
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 32
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 33
Table 1. Essential Action Items Identified During Last PQR 2015 33
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 35
Table 2. Recommended Action Items Identified During 2015 PQR 35
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE 39
Table 3. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 39
Table 4. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 40
Appendix A: Review of Draft Permit Quality Review for 2020, Oregon DEQ NPDES Permit
Program 41
Final May 2022
Page 2 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Executive Summary
Purpose and Approach
This report presents results of a Program and Permit Quality Review (PQR) of the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) NPDES permitting program National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) in Region 10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) conducted the PQR in 2020 to provide oversight of the state NPDES program under the
authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Helping states ensure that their NPDES permits are
consistent with Federal requirements is a fundamental priority for EPA.
The review examined DEQ's NPDES administrative record for selected permits, gathered
information from the State about their NPDES program structure and organization. As part of
the review the EPA review team conducted a virtual visit during which the EPA review team
collected additional information and shared preliminary findings with the State. The review
followed EPA's national NPDES PQR Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), examining permit and
program "core" elements, and permit requirements associated with national topic areas for the
current PQR cycle. Core elements include permit administration, effluent limits, monitoring
requirements, standard conditions, and special conditions. The national topic areas for the
fiscal year (FY) 2018 - 2022 PQR cycle are:
• Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters,
• Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions,
• Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements
Region 10 did not elect to review any regional topic areas in this PQR.
Oregon administers 331 individual permits and 19 general permits that cover 3,346 permittees.
As of July 20, 2020, 24 percent of Oregon's individual permits are current.
Major Findings
The PQR found permits issued by Oregon DEQ were generally well-developed and consistent
with federal regulations. The Oregon DEQ has made significant improvements and forward
progress towards improving permit and program quality, developing and implementing
standard processes and templates, developing a unified and dedicated permit team, and
reducing permit backlog.
The PQR recognizes the many state and region-specific challenges faced by the state of Oregon,
including significant permit backlog. The PQR identified areas for improvement associated with
the processing of permit renewal applications being submitted past due or incomplete in terms
of effluent monitoring data requirements, nutrient permitting, and pretreatment inspections.
In addition to these items listed above, the report provides an overview of the Oregon NPDES
permitting program.
Final May 2022
Page 3 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
The PQR identifies four essential and four recommended action items. Essential action items
must be addressed by DEQ to meet NPDES regulations and will be subject to agreed-upon
milestones and due dates as a part of a workplan to be developed by both EPA and DEQ.
Essential action items from this PQR concern permit application requirements and nutrient
permitting. Essential and Recommended action items from this PQR are listed in Table 3 and 4
at the end of this document.
The state of Oregon reviewed and provided comments on the draft PQR report. The state has
reviewed the draft PQR's findings and recommendations and committed to working with EPA
on prioritizing and implementing solutions for essential action items. Several of these actions
are already underway and are described later in this document.
Final May 2022
Page 4 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
I. PQR BACKGROUND
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Permit Quality
Reviews (PQRs) are an evaluation of a select set of NPDES permits to determine whether
permits are developed in a manner consistent with applicable requirements established in the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and NPDES regulations. Through this review mechanism, EPA promotes
national consistency, and identifies successes in implementation of the NPDES program as well
as opportunities for improvement in the development of NPDES permits.
EPA conducted a PQR of the Oregon NPDES permitting program on September 14-18, 2015.
The PQR summary report is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
08/documents/npdes permit quality review for oregon feb 2016.pdf. The evaluation team
proposed various action items to improve the Oregon NPDES permitting program. As part of
the current PQR, EPA requested updates from Oregon on the progress on those action items. Of
the 14 action items identified during the last PQR as being Essential1 tasks, 11 have been
resolved and the remainder represent actions that are either longer-term activities or lower-
level actions which Oregon is still addressing. In addition, EPA identified Recommended action
items to improve Oregon's program. Oregon has chosen to implement 18 of the Recommended
actions. Sections VI and VII of this report contain a detailed review of the progress on action
items identified during the last PQR.
During this review, the evaluation team proposed action items to improve Oregon NPDES
permit program. The proposed action items are identified within sections III, IV, and V of this
report and are divided into two categories to identify the priority that should be placed on each
Item and facilitate discussions between regions and states.
• Essential Actions - Proposed "Essential" action items address noncompliance with
respect to a federal regulation. EPA has provided the citation for each Essential action
item. The permitting authority must address these action items in order to comply with
federal regulations.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items are recommendations
to increase the effectiveness of the state's or Region's NPDES permit program.
The Essential actions are used to augment the existing list of "follow up actions" currently
tracked by EPA Headquarters on an annual basis and are reviewed during subsequent PQRs.
EPA's review team, consisting of ten Region 10 staff and one EPA contractor staff person,
conducted a review of the Oregon NPDES permitting program. The PQR was conducted
remotely, meaning a review of materials was conducted off-site, for materials DEQ was able to
provide electronically. Further, the remote PQR included interviews and discussions conducted
via conference calls. An opening interview was held on July 20, 2020, a discussion with DEQ
1 During the 2012-2017 PQR cycle, these action items were known as "Category 1" and address deficiencies or
noncompliance with respect to federal regulations. EPA is now referring to these action items going forward, as
Essential. In addition, previous PQR reports identified recommendations as either "Category 2" or "Category 3"
action items. EPA is now consolidating these categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Final May 2022
Page 5 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
staff regarding specific permit questions on July 21 and 22, 2020, and a closing meeting on July
23, 2020.
The Oregon PQR included reviews of core permit components and national and regional topic
areas, as well as discussions between the PQR review team and Oregon staff addressing their
program status and permit issuance process. The permit reviews focused on core permit quality
and included a review of the permit application, permit, fact sheet, and any correspondence,
reports or documents that provide the basis for the development of the permit conditions and
related administrative process. The PQR also included conversations between EPA and the state
on program status, the permitting process, responsibilities, organization, staffing, and program
challenges the state is experiencing.
A total of ten individual permits and two general permits were reviewed as part of the PQR. Of
these, all ten individual permits were reviewed for the core review, two individual permits and
one general permit were reviewed for national topic areas. Some permits were reviewed for
both the core review and one or more topic areas reviews. Permits were selected based on
issue date and the review categories that they fulfilled. See summary table below.
NPDES No.
Permit Name
POTW
Non-
POTW
Major
Minor
Nutrients
in Non
TMDL
Waters
Pre-
treatment
Food
Processors
Small
MS4
OR0020354
BROOKINGS, CITY
OF
OR0001635
DYNO NOBEL INC.
OR0001341
GEORGIA-PACIFIC
TOLEDO LLC
OR0020621
ONTARIO, CITY OF
OR0020401
SEASIDE, CITY OF
OR0020664
TILLAMOOK, CITY
OF
OR0020524
TROUTDALE, CITY
OF
OR0020605
JOSEPH, CITY OF
OR0027219
SUNDOWN
SANITARY SEWER
DISTRICT
OR0026905
COLUMBIA
BOULEVARD
WWTP
PHASE II
GENERAL PERMIT
700PM GENERAL
PERMIT
Core Review
The core permit review involved the evaluation of selected permits and supporting materials
using basic NPDES program criteria. Reviewers completed the core review by examining
Final May 2022
Page 6 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
selected permits and supporting documentation, assessing these materials using standard PQR
tools, and talking with permit writers regarding the permit development process. The core
review focused on the Central Tenets of the NPDES Permitting Program2 to evaluate the Oregon
NPDES program. Core topic area permit reviews are conducted to evaluate similar issues or
types of permits in all states.
Topic Area Reviews
The national topics reviewed in the Oregon NPDES program were Permit Controls for Nutrients
in Non-TMDL Waters, Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
Requirements, and Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions.
Regional topic area reviews target regional-specific permit types or particular aspects of
permits. EPA did not select any regional topics for this PQR, as there were no systemic issues
identified during routine real-time review of permits that elevated to the PQR review level.
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND
A. Program Structure
DEQ's water quality permitting program is located within the Water Quality Program (WQP). In
2018, DEQ underwent reorganization towards a media-specific administration (previously it was
two programs: Environmental Solutions and Operations), divided into three programs: Air
Quality, Land Quality, and Water Quality, in addition to a division for Lab Administration.
Further, DEQ includes supporting groups focused on Implementation (facilitates collaboration
between DEQ headquarters and regional offices), Policy and External Relations (supports
communications, legislative, and budgetary proposals), and Central Services (supports internal
administration and business functions for DEQ).
The WQP is led by a Division Administrator and Deputy Administrator. The WQP is comprised of
the following sections: Watershed Management, Permitting and Program Development,
Standards and Assessments, Community and Program Assistance, 401 Certifications and Water
Quality Trading, Stormwater and Underground Injection Control (UIC), and Water Pollution
Control Facilities. The WQP is also responsible for developing policy and implementing Oregon's
state-specific programs, including groundwater protection, biosolids management, water reuse,
and regulation of onsite sewage systems.
In addition to a location at DEQ's headquarters office in Portland, the WQP operates in three
regions, each having additional offices: Northwest (Portland, and Tillamook), West (Salem,
Eugene, Medford, and Coos Bay), and East (Pendleton, Klamath Falls, The Dalles, and Bend).
WQP also includes a water quality monitoring and assessment group within DEQ's Laboratory
and Environmental Assessment Division. Each regional office implements the permits program
within the region by writing and administering permits, ensuring compliance through discharge
monitoring report (DMR) review and inspections, initiating enforcement actions, responding to
2 https://www.epa.gov/npdes/central-tenets-npdes-permitting-program
Final May 2022
Page 7 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
complaints, and conducting plan reviews. Regional office staff also draft minor and major
domestic and industrial wastewater permits and implement the general permits.
The previous PQR report cited an action item related to regional differences in permitting
approaches. DEQ has addressed this issue as the agency no longer designates region-specific
permit writers; rather, there is a focus on identifying the expertise and skill required for the
specific permit assignment. In addition, DEQ has realized improved coordination between the
headquarters office and regional offices. Further, the culture at DEQ has shifted away from a
regionalized culture and towards a culture of "One DEQ."
The WQP section has eight full-time equivalents (FTE) for NPDES individual wastewater permit
writing and three FTE for stormwater permit writing. On average, each permit writer drafts five
permits per year. In addition to permit writers, DEQ staff that also support NPDES permitting
includes approximately nine other positions in headquarters that act as subject matter experts
in a variety of fields (e.g., pretreatment, biosolids, reuse water, temperature, monitoring and
data, mercury), a quality assurance (QA) team, a general permit coordinator, plus management
and coordination staff. In addition, the regional offices employ compliance staff and
engineering staff to conduct plan reviews; regional staff are not solely dedicated to NPDES
support. Staff supporting stormwater permitting include 2.5 FTE for permit coordination work
and 9 FTE for implementation support (e.g., inspections, compliance and enforcement,
application review and approval).
DEQ trains new permit writers through internal mentoring with a more experienced permit
writer, completing EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Course online and when available, attending
the course in person. Further, EPA Headquarters notes that DEQ permit writers have attended
EPA's NPDES Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) training course (held at a neighboring state's
location). EPA also notes that an NPDES WET online training course is available to permit
writers on EPA's NPDES website. In addition, collaboration with the WQP's subject matter
experts and working through the WQP QA process offers a continuous training tool for DEQ
permit writers. A team of individuals referred to in DEQ's flow and process charts as "Direct
Support" oversee permit writers and provides them with managerial, technical, and program
support. In addition, WQP permit writers collaborate with subject matter experts who provide
additional technical support for specialized program areas. For example, the WQP includes
subject matter experts for biosolids, pretreatment, mixing zones, temperature water quality
criteria implementation, reasonable potential analysis (RPA) and toxics criteria implementation,
antidegradation, compliance and enforcement, and engineering, amongst other unique
program areas.
DEQ uses several data systems to support the NPDES program. DEQ's Water Quality Source
Information System database (WQSIS) contains information on NPDES permits. The database is
searchable by staff and the public and is available on DEQ's website:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/sisdata/sisdata.asp. In addition, DEQ's Agency Wide
Compliance and Enforcement System database (ACES) assists in managing compliance and
enforcement information. DEQ manages permit monitoring data using NetDMR and EPA's
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)-NPDES system. DEQ obtains stream and
Final May 2022
Page 8 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
effluent data related to toxic parameters and input values for the Copper and Aluminum Biotic
Ligand Model (BLM) from the Ambient Water Quality Management System (AWQMS).
WQP permit writers use a variety of tools and document templates to develop individual NPDES
permits to ensure consistency in permit writing and guide data requirements necessary for
developing appropriate effluent limitations and permit conditions. For instance, DEQ developed
a permit writing process flow chart to support permit writers and identify subject matter
experts with whom they should collaborate during permit development. The flow chart
illustrates the permit development process according to WQP role (e.g., permit writers, direct
support, or subject matter expert) and permit component (e.g., mixing zone analysis, RPA,
effluent limitation development, and public notice). Permit writers use templates for most
permit components, including permits, fact sheets, public notices, and data request letters. In
addition, general permit approval and acknowledgment letters and forms are developed based
on templates. DEQ houses many permit tools and development templates on their website:
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/NPDES-lndividual-Permit-Template.aspx.
DEQ also uses other tools such as various RPA spreadsheets, the Streeter-Phelps model and
CORMIX, and an extensive set of permitting resources. DEQ has developed numerous written
guidance documents for permit development, including a variety of Internal Management
Directives (IMDs), legal guidance and interpretation, policies, and specific SOPs prepared by
WQP subject matter experts. DEQ's WQP IMDs address RPAs, implementing specific water
quality criteria (e.g., mercury, temperature, bacterial indicators), implementing the State's
antidegradation policy, compliance schedules, and mixing zones. IMDs are located on DEQ's
website: https://www.oregon.gov/deq/Get-lnvolved/Pages/imd.aspx.
The previous PQR report indicated that DEQ did not use a standardized QA process for permit
development and review; however, DEQ has made noteworthy strides in improving this
program component. DEQ implements a formalized QA process that utilizes the WQP's
extensive review checklist for the identifying specific permit, fact sheet, and public notice
procedures for each permit. The checklist includes numerous questions and prompts, or
guidance, for permit writers, to ensure the permit and fact sheet include correct information,
appropriate permit conditions, and adequate rationale. In addition, DEQ supports WQP's
permit writers collaboration with subject matter experts early in the permit development
process. During review of the initial draft permit, direct support staff verify that communication
between permit writer and subject matter experts has occurred using a checklist which is
submitted with the draft permit to the internal QA review team. The internal QA review occurs
prior to applicant review, the public comment period, and final permit issuance. Permits,
including all major and minor modifications, are not issued unless they complete the QA
process.
The previous PQR report indicated that DEQ does not have consistent file management
procedures. However, DEQ has implemented consistent practices between the headquarters
offices and regional offices. DEQ maintains all new permit development documentation on a
common network drive. Historical permit documents as well as permit correspondence,
monitoring and reporting, and compliance records may be stored on a common network drive,
a regional office's network drive, or in a physical hard copy file. In addition, new permit
Final May 2022
Page 9 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
documents are stored in Oregon's Records Management System (ORMS).3 Further, DEQ retains
official copies of record (wet signatures) for permits, fact sheets, and applications at the
appropriate regional office, and all official copies of record are available through ORMS.
B. Universe and Permit Issuance
Based on information provided by DEQ, as of June 18, 2020, the universe of individual,
non-stormwater NPDES permits includes the following (Source: PQR Advance Questionnaire):
• 197 POTWs
o (50 major and 147 non-major)
• Individual Stormwater Permits
o 12 permittees
• 122 non-POTWs
o (17 major and 105 non-major)
• 19 general permits that cover numerous categories including:
o 2,530 stormwater dischargers
¦ 1,063 industrial
¦ 1,450 construction permittees
¦ 17 municipal
o 816 non-stormwater general permittees.
DEQ reported in the PQR Advance Questionnaire that 57 major individual and 196 non-major
individual permits are administratively continued, which equates to 24 percent of individual
permits being current. In addition, 14 general permits, or 74 percent, are administratively
continued. DEQ continues to make concerted efforts towards reducing the permit backlog.
Every October, DEQ publishes a permit issuance work plan to identify NPDES permits DEQ
intends to issue in the upcoming federal fiscal year (October 1-September 30).4 The permit
issuance plan provides permittees with a schedule of the permit development process, as well
as the public, permittees, and legislators with progress updates. DEQ developed the first permit
issuance work plan in 2018. In 2020, DEQ developed the first 5-year permit issuance work plan
which incorporates the entire individual permit universe (addressing 331 permits). A key
feature of the 5-year plan is conducting a high-level gap analysis of the permit file and data
submitted by permittees, to identify data and information gaps, to allow DEQ to ensure each
permit is ready for issuance according to the plan. This initial file and data review supports
efficiency in the permit development process.
Significant industries in the state are related to lumber processing, mining, and agriculture.
3 https://ormswd2.svnergydcs.com/HPRMWebDrawer/Search
4 https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/wqpip-fs.pdf
Final May 2022
Page 10 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
C. State-Specific Challenges
Oregon faces challenges common to other states; however, DEQ's individual NPDES permit
backlog rate remains a challenge. DEQ is making widespread improvements to the permitting
process, but currently, DEQ's primary focus is on reducing permit backlog. In addition, certain
general permits are listed as priorities that DEQ is currently targeting for reissuance. DEQ noted
that future staffing and budgets will be integral into addressing backlog issues.
D. Current State Initiatives
The previous PQR report indicated Oregon's NPDES permit backlog and timely issuance of
permits was a significant concern and in need of improvement. Since the previous PQR, Oregon
has made measurable positive developments resulting in program and permit quality
improvements. Specifically, DEQ has implemented the NPDES Individual Permit Improvement
Project, which is described in detail, including links to relevant resource documents, on DEQ's
website: https://www.oregon.gov/deq/wq/wqpermits/Pages/WQ-Permitting-Program-
Review.aspx. In 2015, the Oregon Legislature directed DEQ to hire an independent consultant
to evaluate the NPDES permitting program and develop recommendations for improving the
program and reduce permit backlog. DEQ received the Recommendations and Implementation
Plan5 in December 2016. In 2017, Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA) filed litigation
on DEQ for the permit backlog which resulted in DEQ entering into a Settlement Agreement6 in
2018. The Settlement Agreement identifies actions DEQ is implementing to take positive steps
towards improving program operations and transparency, reducing permit backlog, and
improving permit quality. In 2017, DEQ worked with a consultant to continue to evaluate the
program and develop specific technical recommendations, actions, and implementation
approaches for addressing the NPDES backlog systematically. In 2016, DEQ created a dedicated
team of eight permit writers under central oversight, focused on permit writing, which provides
staff with clearly defined and specialized roles. Prior to 2016, permit writers were responsible
for a wide variety of tasks, including permit compliance and enforcement. WQP staff are
dedicated to implementing consistency throughout the permit program and committed to
reducing the permit backlog.
As discussed in section II.B, in 2018, DEQ developed its first permit issuance plan, and a
subsequent annual plan followed in 2019, and a 5-year plan issued in 2020. DEQ finds
significant internal value to the permit issuance plan, as it allows for greater communication
within DEQ and invites participation from external partners and stakeholders. In addition, the
permit issuance plan sets expectations for program areas beyond the NPDES program, such as
the water quality standards and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) programs. Further,
communicating the plan with permittees provides them an opportunity to consider the permit
5 https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/wqp-FinalReport.pdf
6 Oregon DEQ Water Quality Report: 2019 Annual Report - NPDES Permit Program
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/WQNPDESProgramUpdateFY2019.pdf: 2020 Annual Report - NPDES
Permit Program https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/WQ-NPDESAnnualReport2020.pdf
Final May 2022
Page 11 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
reissuance cycle with respect to any facility changes they have planned and work with DEQ on
timing of permit reissuance, to the extent possible.
DEQ received unanimous approval from the Environmental Quality Commission to increase
permitting fees, which is a positive sign of support for DEQ's progress, especially in times of
budget uncertainties.
DEQ reported the agency is in the process of developing and implementing an agency-wide
electronic web-based permit filing system, EDMS/YourDEQ, which will house all future
permitting and compliance-related documents and eventually much of the facility monitoring
data. DEQ is planning for phased-in implementation to begin in 2020, with the phase for
monitoring data to begin after 2021.
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
1. Facility Information
Background
Basic facility information is necessary to properly establish permit conditions. For example,
information regarding facility type, location, processes, and other factors is required by NPDES
permit application regulations (40 CFR 122.21). This information is essential for developing
technically sound, complete, clear, and enforceable permits. Similarly, fact sheets must include
a description of the type of facility or activity subject to a draft permit.
Program Strengths
Permits clearly identify the necessary authorization-to-discharge information, including facility
location and identification of outfalls. Fact sheets include a good description of the facility
activities, wastewater treatment process, and identify the name of the receiving water.
Areas for Improvement
Permits do not consistently identify the physical location of outfalls; some permits provide
latitude and longitude coordinates and others specify the river mile. The previous PQR report
identified this as a recommended action item. Permits would be strengthened with consistent
identification of outfall locations.
Final May 2022 Page 12 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
• Consider updating permit and fact sheet templates to consistently
identify the physical location of outfalls using specific site descriptions,
latitude/longitude, NHD codes, and/or pictures.
2. Permit Application Requirements
Background and Process
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.22 specify application requirements for
permittees seeking NPDES permits. Although federal forms are available, authorized states are
also permitted to use their own forms provided they include all information required by the
federal regulations. This portion of the review assesses whether appropriate, complete, and
timely application information was received by the state and used in permit development.
DEQ uses EPA's application forms in addition to a general state form (NPDES-R). DEQ's NPDES-R
form requests general identification information and requires submittal of EPA's application
forms (EPA Form 2A, 2B, 2C, 2E, or 2F) in conjunction with the state form NPDES-R. DEQ's
website includes links to EPA's website for the application forms as updated in 2019.
Previously, managers in each region assigned permits to be developed based on factors such as
complexity of the facility and discharge, workload, and permit writer experience. As part of the
permit program improvement process, DEQ revised the permit assignment process—permits
are assigned based on DEQ's permit issuance work plan. In August of each year, DEQ begins
working on the permit issuance plan for the upcoming federal fiscal year and at that time
assigns permits to permit writers.
DEQ staff send letters to permittees, 240 days prior to permit expiration, reminding them of
permit application requirements. DEQ Permit Coordinators, located in each of the regional
offices, lead the permit application process, ensure correct information is submitted
(administrative), and assist with the administrative process. Permit Coordinators receive
applications and conduct a review for administrative completeness and will send the applicant
a letter indicating the application is complete or is incomplete and requires additional
information. For applications determined to be incomplete, DEQ sends a letter and email to the
applicant identifying the missing information and requires submittal of the missing information
by a specific date. DEQ retains these letters in the permit administrative record.
Upon assignment, permit writers conduct a technical completeness review. As part of that
review, DEQ also examines the permit file to identify available facility monitoring data (i.e.,
compliance monitoring data and wastewater characterization data) to determine whether
sufficient data exist to move forward with permit reissuance. If DEQ identifies missing data,
Final May 2022
Page 13 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
staff notify the permittee and request the missing data so that DEQ can proceed with the
permit development process.
Program Strengths
Permit administrative records consistently included permit application packages. Applications
reviewed are submitted on the correct forms, given the time of application. DEQ's website
directs applicants to the current EPA NPDES application forms (updated as of 2019).
Applications reviewed include appropriate signatories, topographic maps, and process flow
diagrams.
Areas for Improvement
One POTW application was submitted after the permit expired. In addition, two permits
reviewed appear to lack certain pollutant testing data; one is a POTW application that lacks
effluent testing data from EPA Form 2A, Part D.
Action Items
•Ensure permit applications are submitted timely and complete in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(d).
•Ensure applications include data requirements consistent with EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 as partofthe application process.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
Essential
Recommended
B. Developing Effluent Limitations
1. Technology-based Effluent Limitations
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.3(a) require that permitting authorities develop technology-
based requirements where applicable. Permits, fact sheets and other supporting
documentation for POTWs and non-POTWs were reviewed to assess whether technology based
effluent limitations (TBELs) represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a
permit.
TBELs for POTWs
Background and Process
POTWs must meet secondary or equivalent to secondary standards (including limits for BOD,
TSS, pH, and percent pollutant removal), and must contain numeric limits for all of these
parameters (or authorized alternatives) in accordance with the secondary treatment
Final May 2022
Page 14 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
regulations at 40 CFR Part 133. A total of eight POTW permits were reviewed as part of the
PQR.
WQP permit writers apply federal secondary treatment standards and confer with TBEL subject
matter experts to verify the permit includes appropriate effluent limitations for POTWs. POTW
permit fact sheets include a description of the treatment system, wastewater treatment
process, and applicability of federal secondary treatment standards.
Program Strengths
POTW permits reviewed include appropriate effluent limitations based on federal secondary
treatment standards. Effluent limitations are established in appropriate units and forms. POTW
permit fact sheets contain a useful description of facility and treatment processes and identify
applicable effluent limitation standards and the basis for final effluent limitations.
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Action Items
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
Essential
Recommended
TBELsfor Non-POTW Dischargers
Background and Process
Permits issued to non-POTWs must require compliance with a level of treatment performance
equivalent to Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) or Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for existing sources, and consistent with New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for new sources. Where federal effluent limitations guidelines
(ELGs) have been developed for a category of dischargers, the TBELs in a permit must be based
on the application of these guidelines. If ELGs are not available, a permit must include
requirements at least as stringent as BAT/BCT developed on a case-by-case using best
professional judgment (BPJ) in accordance with the criteria outlined at 40 CFR 125.3(d). Two
non-POTW permits were reviewed as part of the PQR.
WQP permit writers review facility information, application information, and conduct site visits
ahead of permit reissuance (COVID protocols greatly reduced site visits for the 2020 and 2021
permit issuance plans), to confirm an understanding of current facility operations and
Final May 2022
Page 15 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
treatment processes. Permit writers establish TBELs for industrial facilities based on applicable
ELGs and standards. Permit writers may use template spreadsheets to calculate ELG-based
TBELs. Permit writers collaborate with TBEL subject matter experts during permit development
and the QA process to confirm that appropriate TBELs are implemented correctly. DEQ
indicated it is rare that effluent limitations are based on BPJ, but in those scenarios, permit
writers will document the BPJ in a memorandum and the permit fact sheet.
Program Strengths
Permit fact sheets for non-POTW facilities include a description of the facility operations and
resulting waste streams. In addition, the fact sheets clearly identify the applicable ELGs and
categorization. The two permits reviewed establish appropriate TBELs based on the applicable
ELGs and in appropriate units and forms. Fact sheets also identify the previous TBELs and
provide a comparison to the proposed TBELs, demonstrating that the permit writer evaluated
the stringency of proposed final effluent limitations.
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Background
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i) require permits to include any requirements in
addition to or more stringent than technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve
state water quality standards, including narrative criteria for water quality. To establish such
"water quality-based effluent limits" (WQBELs), the permitting authority must evaluate
whether any pollutants or pollutant parameters cause, have the reasonable potential to cause,
or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard (WQS).
The PQR for Oregon assessed the processes employed to implement these requirements.
Specifically, the PQR reviewed permits, fact sheets, and other documents in the administrative
record to evaluate how permit writers and water quality modelers:
• determined the appropriate water quality standards applicable to receiving waters,
Final May 2022
Page 16 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• evaluated and characterized the effluent and receiving water including identifying
pollutants of concern,
• determined critical conditions,
• incorporated information on ambient pollutant concentrations,
• assessed any dilution considerations,
• determined whether limits were necessary for pollutants of concern and, where
necessary,
• calculated such limits or other permit conditions.
For impaired waters, the PQR also assessed whether and how permit writers consulted and
developed limits consistent with the assumptions of applicable EPA-approved TMDLs.
Process for Assessing Reasonable Potential
Oregon's WQS for toxic pollutants are established in Oregon's Administrative Rules (OAR) at
OAR-340-041-0033. In 2017, Oregon updated the aquatic life freshwater criterion for copper,
based on EPA's BLM.
Oregon's RPA IMD provides step-by-step guidance for identifying pollutants of concern,
conducting the RPA, calculating WQBELs, and addresses certain technical and policy topics.
Oregon's RPA methodology is based on that contained in EPA's Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD). Streeter-Phelps dissolved oxygen modeling, CORMIX,
and other models are available to determine the reasonable potential of the discharge to cause,
have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any State water
quality standard. DEQ developed unique template RPA spreadsheets for toxic parameters,
copper, dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and ammonia.
WQP permit writers or subject matter experts conduct the RPA. In accordance with the RPA
IMD, permit writers identify pollutants of concern as follows:
• Pollutants with effluent limitations in the current NPDES permit;
• Pollutants with monitoring requirements in the current NPDES permit;
• Pollutants contributing to an impairment for the receiving water (303(d) listed);
• Pollutants "known" to be present in significant concentrations in the source/intake
water;
• Pollutants "known" or otherwise expected to be present in significant concentrations in
the effluent; and
• Pollutants identified through the permit application process.
Pollutants of concern are identified for POTWs through a priority pollutant effluent scan
submitted with the permit renewal application; the data are then evaluated for RP through a
comparison to applicable WQS. Pollutants of concern in discharges from existing non-POTWs
are evaluated based on monitoring data submitted through pollutant scans required by the
permit renewal application. In addition, for discharges for which ELGs apply, permit writers
review ELGs to identify potential pollutants of concern. For discharges from new non-POTWs,
Final May 2022
Page 17 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
regional permit writers may evaluate permits for similar facilities to identify potential pollutants
of concern.
DEQ uses all effluent data collected during the permit term for the RPA, unless there were
treatment system upgrades during the permit term which would render the data
unrepresentative of the discharge. Data are not censored unless after analysis data are
considered an outlier; in these scenarios, permit writers will document the analysis in the fact
sheet. Effluent data, including compliance monitoring and wastewater characterization data,
are retrieved from the Electronic Data Delivery (EDD) System and input into the RPA template.
In addition, permit writers consider ambient data from the AWQMS and any other monitoring
reports required by the previous permit.
Permit fact sheets clearly identify the receiving waterbody, applicable water quality standards,
the receiving stream's impairment status, applicable TMDLs, and pollutants of concern. Permit
writers include a summary of the RPA and rationale for RPA results in an appendix to the permit
fact sheet. Further, fact sheets discuss the rationale for each WQBEL.
Process for Developing WQBELs
Permit writers or the RPA subject matter expert calculate WQBELs. The RPA template
spreadsheets also calculate WQBELs consistent with the procedures in the TSD. The
methodology to calculate WQBELs accounts for allowable dilution, background concentration,
effluent variability, and sampling frequency. Mixing zones are allowed by Oregon's WQS, at
OAR 340-041-0053. In addition, DEQ has developed an IMD for allocating regulatory mixing
zones, as well as a separate IMD addressing how to ensure consistency during review of mixing
zone studies. WQP also has a mixing zone subject matter expert on staff to support appropriate
implementation of Oregon's mixing zone policy. The mixing zone subject matter expert typically
provides a memorandum discussing the mixing zone considerations to the permit writer to
justify WQBELs development and include in the permit administrative record.
Program Strengths
Reasonable Potential
DEQ maintains extensive guidance and procedural documents related to conducting RPAs.
DEQ's permit fact sheets include useful and well-organized supporting documentation of
RPAs conducted. Fact sheet appendices clearly present RPA results and identify those
pollutants of concern for which reasonable potential exists. Fact sheets adequately identify
the receiving stream, applicable water quality standards, impairment status, and applicable
TMDLs.
WQBEL Development
DEQ has developed thorough IMDs that describe the methodology for calculating WQBELs,
allocating mixing zones, and reviewing mixing zone studies. DEQ's fact sheets and
supporting appendices provide sufficient documentation of WQBELs development. WQBELs
appear to be appropriately calculated and implemented. WQBELs are established in
appropriate units and forms.
Final May 2022
Page 18 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Action Items
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
Essential
Recommended
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation
Background and Process
Permits must include all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including technology
and water quality standards, and must include effluent limitations that ensure that all
applicable CWA standards are met. The permitting authority must identify the most stringent
effluent limitations and establish them as the final effluent limitations in the permit. In
addition, for reissued permits, if any of the limitations are less stringent than limitations on the
same pollutant in the previous NPDES permit, the permit writer must conduct an anti-
backsliding analysis, and if necessary, revise the limitations accordingly. In addition, for new or
increased discharges, the permitting authority should conduct an antidegradation review, to
ensure the permit is written to maintain existing high quality of surface waters, or if
appropriate, allow for some degradation. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 131.12 outline the
common elements of the antidegradation review process.
In addition, permit records for POTWs and industrial facilities should contain comprehensive
documentation of the development of all effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent limits
should include assessment of applicable standards, data used in developing effluent limitations,
and actual calculations used to develop effluent limitations. The procedures implemented for
determining the need for WQBELs as well as the procedures explaining the basis for
establishing, or for not establishing, WQBELs should be clear and straight forward. The permit
writer should adequately document changes from the previous permit, ensure draft and final
limitations match (unless the basis for a change is documented), and include all supporting
documentation in the permit file. The permit writer should sufficiently document
determinations regarding anti-backsliding and antidegradation requirements.
Permits reviewed during the PQR included effluent limitations appropriate to the facility and
discharge and included effluent limitations that are at least as stringent as those in the previous
permit. Fact sheet appendices discuss pollutants of concern and summarize the RPA and
Final May 2022 Page 19 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
WQBEL development. The RPA and WQBEL calculations are retained in electronic format but
summaries of both are included in the permit fact sheet as appendices. Fact sheets discuss
applicable standards and effluent limitations and identify the most stringent effluent limitation
which is then established in the permit.
As required by 40 CFR 124.8, DEQ's fact sheets describe the facility operations and wastewater
treatment processes; the description is adequate. DEQ's fact sheets clearly and consistently
identify the regulatory basis for each effluent limitation. Further, fact sheets identify the
applicable basis of effluent limitations (i.e., TBELs or WQBELs) and provide the regulatory basis
forTBELs.
Anti-backsliding is triggered if there is a change in an effluent limitation where it becomes less
stringent than the limitation in the previous permit. A justification is required to change the
effluent limitation, sometimes justified by the consideration of new information during a
reasonable potential evaluation. Permit fact sheets will include a justification for a change in
effluent limitations.
Oregon's antidegradation policy and implementation plan are contained in the WQS at OAR
340-041-0004. An IMD has been developed for implementing DEQ's antidegradation policy. An
antidegradation review must be performed for every DEQ water quality action and the results
documented in the fact sheet, providing transparency to the agency's consideration of
antidegradation. In general, permit writers complete an antidegradation checklist and generally
include in at as appendix to the fact sheet.
Program Strengths
Final effluent limitations are clearly presented in DEQ's permits and are established in
appropriate units and forms. Permit fact sheets adequately document the development of
TBELs for POTWs and non-POTWs, including a useful description of facility operations,
treatment processes, and pollutants expected in the discharge. Further, fact sheets adequately
identify receiving stream information and discuss the RPA procedures and results. Permit
writers and subject matter experts develop appropriate documentation of TBELs, WQBELs, and
proposed effluent limitations, in the fact sheet, fact sheet appendices, or standalone memos
included in the administrative record. Permit fact sheets consistently and clearly demonstrate
the permit writer applied the most stringent of TBELs and WQBELs.
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Final May 2022
Page 20 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Background and Process
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j) require permittees to periodically evaluate compliance
with the effluent limitations established in their permits and provide the results to the
permitting authority. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.41(j)(l) requires that "Samples and
measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored
activity." NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.41(j)(4) requires that "Monitoring must be
conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 unless another
method is required under 40 CFR subchapters N or O." Monitoring and reporting conditions
require the permittee to conduct routine or episodic self-monitoring of permitted discharges
and where applicable, internal processes, and report the analytical results to the permitting
authority with information necessary to evaluate discharge characteristics and compliance
status.
Specifically, 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) requires NPDES permits to establish, at minimum, annual
reporting of monitoring for all limited parameters sufficient to assure compliance with permit
limitations, including specific requirements for the types of information to be provided and the
methods for the collection and analysis of such samples. In addition, 40 CFR 122.48(b) requires
that permits specify the type, intervals, and frequency of monitoring sufficient to yield data
which are representative of the monitored activity. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2) also
require reporting of monitoring results with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge. 40 CFR Part 127 requires NPDES-regulated entities to submit certain data
electronically, including discharge monitoring reports and various program-specific reports, as
applicable.
NPDES permits should specify appropriate monitoring locations to ensure compliance with the
permit limitations and provide the necessary data to determine the effects of the effluent on
the receiving water. A complete fact sheet will include a description and justification for all
monitoring locations required by the permit. States may have policy or guidance documents to
support determination of appropriate monitoring frequencies; documentation should include
an explicit discussion in the fact sheet providing the basis for establishing monitoring
frequencies, including identification of the specific state policy or internal guidance referenced.
Final May 2022
Page 21 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Permits must also specify the sample collection method for all parameters required to be
monitored in the permit. The fact sheet should present the rationale for requiring grab or
composite samples and discuss the basis of a permit requirement mandating use of a
sufficiently sensitive Part 136 analytical method.
DEQ staff have developed a matrix for standard monitoring and reporting frequency based on
the facility type, volume discharged, and other factors. DEQ recommends different frequencies
for lagoons, trickling filter plants, and activated sludge treatment plants and for industrial
wastewater treatment facilities. Permit writers implement a standardized approach to
establishing monitoring requirements; however, they may tailor requirements in certain
scenarios. Monitoring results are reported electronically, and noncompliance events are
reported at the time monitoring reports are submitted. Permits specify when monitoring
reports are due.
Program Strengths
DEQ's permits consistently establish clear monitoring requirements, including identifying the
monitoring location, minimum sampling frequency, and sample type. DEQ's permits
consistently require the use of sufficiently sensitive EPA-approved analytical methods and
require the electronic submittal of monitoring reports. Permits clearly identify reporting
requirements.
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
D. Standard and Special Conditions
Background and Process
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 require that all NPDES permits, including NPDES general
permits, contain certain "standard" permit conditions. Further, the regulations at 40 CFR 122.42
require that NPDES permits for certain categories of dischargers must contain additional
standard conditions. Permitting authorities must include these conditions in NPDES permits and
may not alter or omit any standard condition, unless such alteration or omission results in a
requirement more stringent than those in the federal regulations.
Final May 2022
Page 22 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Permits may also contain additional requirements that are unique to a particular discharger.
These case-specific requirements are generally referred to as "special conditions." Special
conditions might include requirements such as: additional monitoring or special studies such as
a mercury minimization plan; best management practices [see 40 CFR 122.44(k)], or permit
compliance schedules [see 40 CFR 122.47]. Where a permit contains special conditions, such
conditions must be consistent with applicable regulations.
Oregon's permits include standard permit conditions in Schedule F. DEQ uses boilerplate
language for standard conditions that was last updated in 2015. The POTW permits reviewed
include the additional standard condition regarding notification of new introduction of
pollutants and new industrial users. Similarly, the non-POTW permits contain the additional
standard condition regarding notification levels.
DEQ's permits include compliance schedules, when granted, in Schedule C. One permit
reviewed includes a compliance schedule for chlorine and ammonia and the compliance
schedule appears appropriate, with a schedule consistent with 40 CFR 122.47.
DEQ's permits establish special conditions in Schedule D and generally address spill response
plans, operator certification, and biosolids. Schedule D also addresses WET testing protocols
which are in addition to the WET testing requirements contained in Schedule B of the permit.
The permit condition in Schedule B addresses the type of WET test required (i.e., acute or
chronic), the minimum frequency, sample type and location, and information required for
reporting WET test results. The WET permit condition in Schedule D is specific to testing
protocols, addressing organisms and protocols, sampling requirements, evaluation of causes
and exceedances, quality assurance and reporting, and a reopener clause if WET testing data
indicate acute and/or chronic toxicity, a change in the RPA for WET, or if the facility undergoes
any process changes. Pretreatment special conditions are established in Schedule E.
Program Strengths
DEQ's permits include standard conditions that are consistent with federal requirements
established at 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42. Permit special conditions were clearly presented. The
compliance schedule included in one permit reviewed appears appropriate for the discharge.
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Final May 2022
Page 23 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
Essential
Recommended
E. Administrative Process
Background and Process
The administrative process includes documenting the basis of all permit decisions (40 CFR 124.5
and 40 CFR 124.6); coordinating EPA and state review of the draft (or proposed) permit (40 CFR
123.44); providing public notice (40 CFR 124.10); conducting hearings if appropriate (40 CFR
124.11 and 40 CFR 124.12); responding to public comments (40 CFR 124.17); and, modifying a
permit (if necessary) after issuance (40 CFR 124.5). EPA discussed each element of the
administrative process with Oregon, and reviewed materials from the administrative process as
they related to the core permit review.
Following DEQ's internal review of the draft permit, the applicant receives a copy of the draft
permit for a 14-day applicant review. Following receipt of the applicant's comments, DEQ may
revise the draft permit. The draft permit is then distributed for public comment, for a 35-day
period. Public notice regulations for NPDES permits are specified in OAR 340-45-0027. Public
notices are provided electronically on the DEQ website and major and critical permits are also
published in a newspaper. Notices for minor permits are posted on the respective region's
website and distributed to interested parties via a mailing list. Public notices are available at
http://www.oregon.gov/deq/Pages/publicnotice.aspx and available to receive via listserv. DEQ
receives comments in electronic and hard copy format. DEQ's communications group monitors
interested parties and will conduct outreach to stakeholder groups, including tribal groups. As
part of that outreach, DEQ provides the permit issuance plan to offer transparency and
engagement in the permitting process.
During and following the public notice period, the permit writer is responsible for reviewing and
responding to public comments. DEQ provides a response to comments document and a copy
of the signed final permit to the permittee and anyone who submitted comments on the draft
permit. DEQ staff indicated permit appeals are rare; one permit has been appealed in the last 4
years.
Program Strengths
Permit files reviewed included comments submitted on the draft permit as well as DEQ's
responses to comments. DEQ's public notice procedures appear appropriate. Permit writers
Final May 2022
Page 24 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
maintain the QA checklist throughout the public comment period to continue tracking of the
permit development process.
Areas for Improvement
The review team did not identify any areas for improvement in this core area.
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet
Background and Process
The administrative record is the foundation that supports the NPDES permit. If EPA issues the
permit, 40 CFR 124.9 identifies the required content of the administrative record for a draft
permit and 40 CFR 124.18 identifies the requirements for a final permit. Authorized state
programs should have equivalent documentation. The record should contain the necessary
documentation to justify permit conditions. At a minimum, the administrative record for a
permit should contain the permit application and supporting data; draft permit; fact sheet or
statement of basis;7 all items cited in the statement of basis or fact sheet including calculations
used to derive the permit limitations; meeting reports; correspondence between the applicant
and regulatory personnel; all other items supporting the file; final response to comments; and,
for new sources where EPA issues the permit, any environmental assessment, environmental
impact statement, or finding of no significant impact.
Current regulations require that fact sheets include information regarding the type of facility or
activity permitted, the type and quantity of pollutants discharged, the technical, statutory, and
regulatory basis for permit conditions, the basis and calculations for effluent limits and
conditions, the reasons for application of certain specific limits, rationales for variances or
alternatives, contact information, and procedures for issuing the final permit. Generally, the
administrative record includes the permit application, the draft permit, any fact sheet or
7 Per 40 CFR 124.8(a), every EPA and state-issued permit must be accompanied by a fact sheet if the permit:
Incorporates a variance or requires an explanation under 124.56(b); is an NPDES general permit; is subject to
widespread public interest; is a Class I sludge management facility; or includes a sewage sludge land application
plan.
Final May 2022
Page 25 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
statement of basis, documents cited in the fact sheet or statement of basis, and other
documents contained in the supporting file for the permit.
As described in section II.A, DEQ retains the administrative record for NPDES permits in the
respective regional office, or at headquarters for general permits that are issued from that
office. DEQ maintains all new permit development documentation on a common network drive.
In addition, new permit documents are stored in ORMS. Historical permit documents as well as
permit correspondence, monitoring and reporting, and compliance records may be stored on a
common network drive, a regional office's network drive, or in a physical hard copy file.
Further, DEQ retains official copies of record for permits, fact sheets, and applications at the
appropriate regional office, and all official copies of record are available through ORMS.
Permit writers develop fact sheets in tandem with permit development. DEQ develops fact
sheets for all individual NPDES permits, including non-major permits. Permit writers use a
template to develop fact sheets.
Program Strengths
DEQ's electronic permit files are well organized, clearly named, and easy to understand; the
permit records reviewed are complete. DEQ develops consistent and complete fact sheets for
both industrial and municipal permits. In addition, the fact sheets and supporting appendices
are well organized and make useful information readily available.
Areas for Improvement
One permit reviewed appears to have had language related to groundwater removed from the
current permit whereas it was included in the previous permit.
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
•Ensure that fact sheets include all relevant discussions from
previous permit cycles, especially when they directly relate to
potential impacts to surface water (in this case, via groundwater).
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
National topic areas are aspects of the NPDES permit program that warrant review based on
the specific requirements applicable to the selected topic areas. These topic areas have been
determined to be important on a national scale. National topic areas are reviewed for all state
Final May 2022
Page 26 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
PQRs. The national topics areas are: Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters,
Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions, and Small MS4
Permit Requirements.
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters
Background
Nutrient pollution is an ongoing environmental challenge, however, nationally permits often
lack nutrient limits. It is vital that permitting authorities actively consider nutrient pollution in
their permitting decisions. Of the permits that do have limits, many are derived from wasteload
allocations in TMDLs, since state criteria are often challenging to interpret. For this section,
waters that are not protected by a TMDL are considered. These waters may already be
impaired by nutrient pollution or may be vulnerable to nutrient pollution due to their hydrology
and environmental conditions. For the purposes of this program area, ammonia is considered
as a toxic pollutant, not a nutrient.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i) require permit limits to be developed for any
pollutant with the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion of any state
water quality standard, including state narrative criteria for water quality.
To assess how nutrients are addressed in the Oregon NPDES program, EPA Region 10 reviewed
the City of Tillamook Wastewater Treatment Plant permit. The permit requires monthly (from
May - October) sampling of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen,
nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, and total phosphorus. RPA was not conducted for any of these
nutrient parameters and there are no nutrient effluent limits. DEQ acknowledged that the
monitoring of these nutrient parameters is required to fulfill the permit renewal application
requirements and that the data may be used for future RPA if numeric nutrient criteria are
available. Further, DEQ noted that the data may be used in future evaluations if and when
nutrient impairments are identified in the receiving water and subsequent numeric criteria are
developed or to inform the development of a TMDL.
In addition to the Tillamook permit, EPA reviewed Oregon's Nutrient Management Program8
and the Analysis of Oregon Preliminary Nutrient and Biological Data (Periphyton) for the
Nutrient Scientific Technical Exchange Partnership Support (N-STEPS).9 In DEQ's review of the
PQR report, DEQ noted that the Oregon Nutrient Management Program was developed to
report on the current progress of nutrient projects in Oregon and is not intended to direct any
future actions related to nutrients.
As outlined in Oregon's Nutrient Management Program, DEQ's primary tools for managing
nutrients are to establish TMDLs for waters identified in DEQ's 303(d) water quality assessment
as not meeting one or more of the following water quality standards: chlorophyll a, dissolved
oxygen, pH, deleterious algal growth, biocriteria, and site-specific phosphorus. Through the
8 An updated report is available. Oregon's Nutrient Management Plan, June 2014,
https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/NutrientManageRep.pdf
9 https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policv-data/n-steps
Final May 2022
Page 27 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
TMDL, DEQ identifies the causes of the water quality impairment. If nutrient loading is a
contributing factor, the sources of nutrients are identified, and a pollution-reduction plan is
developed. Nitrogen and phosphorus targets and load and waste load allocations are
established and assigned to the contributing sources to reduce the pollutant load.
In general, prior to development of a TMDL, Oregon permits do not address nutrients. Numeric
WQBELs for nitrogen and phosphorus are uncommon. When a numeric WQBEL is included for
these nutrients, it is likely the outcome of a completed TMDL.
Oregon does not have numeric criteria for phosphorus or nitrogen. Oregon does have multiple
narrative criteria pertaining to possible responses to excess nutrients to prevent deleterious
algal bloom formation, which are typically used to assess nutrient impacts to fresh and marine
waters. In addition, Oregon has numeric criteria for chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, and pH,
which are used to assess nutrient impacts to rivers and streams. In their review of the PQR
report, DEQ noted that they perform RPA and/or require monitoring when a point source
discharges into a stream impaired for these pollutants. However, that evaluation is not
conducted within the context of nutrients impairments. DEQ highlighted that the relationship
between these specific pollutants and nutrients is very site-specific and is best evaluated
through a TMDL.
Program Strengths
As discussed above, Oregon does have multiple narrative criteria pertaining to possible
responses to excess nutrients. These criteria have been used to assess nutrient impacts to fresh
and marine waters as part of the 303(d) listing program and TMDL development.
Once a TMDL is developed, DEQ includes WQBELs consistent with wasteload allocations from
the TMDLs to address nutrient impairments.
Areas for Improvement
The 2015 Oregon PQR also reviewed nutrients as a national topic area; the findings made in
2015 continue to apply. The 2015 PQR recommended that DEQ:
• Conduct RPA for nutrients if the type of facility is known to have discharges that contain
nitrogen or phosphorus, or the receiving waters are known to have nutrient
impairments.
• Include monitoring requirements for phosphorus and nitrogen in permits for such
facilities where the receiving waters are known to have nutrient impairments.
For nutrients, the RPA can be either qualitative or quantitative. Section 3.2 of EPA's TSD
provides discussion of considerations for a permit writer in conducting a qualitative RPA. EPA is
committed to continue engaging with DEQ on an approach for evaluating nutrients when a
TMDL or numeric criteria are unavailable.
Final May 2022
Page 28 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i)(l)(iii) provide authority to include monitoring requirements
in permits to yield data for development of a permit in the next permit cycle. Being proactive in
collecting effluent data allows for the permit writer to be better informed about nutrient
problems associated with certain types of facilities, provide data for RPA in subsequent permit
cycles, and aid in the development and implementation of nutrient TMDLs.
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•Conduct RPA for nutrients if the type of facility is known to have
discharges that contain nitrogen or phosphorus or the receiving
waters are known to have nutrient impairments.
•Include monitoring requirements for phosphorus and nitrogen in
permits for such facilities where the receiving waters are known to
have nutrient impairments.
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor
Contributions
The general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403) establish responsibilities of federal, state,
and local government, industry and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control
pollutants from industrial users which may cause pass through or interfere with POTW
treatment processes, or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
Background
Indirect discharges of food processors can be a significant contributor to noncompliance at
recipient POTWs. Food processing discharges contribute to nutrient pollution (e.g., nitrogen,
phosphorus, ammonia) to the nation's waterways. Focusing specifically on the Food Processing
Industrial Sector will synchronize PQRs with the Office of Enforcement Compliance and
Assurance (OECA)'s Significant Non-compliance (SNC)/National Compliance Initiative (NCI).
The goal of the PQR was to identify successful and unique practices with respect to the control
of food processor discharges by evaluating whether appropriate controls are included in the
receiving POTW NPDES Permit and documented in the associated fact sheet or Statement of
Basis; as well as by compiling information to develop or improve permit writers' tools to be
used to improve both POTW and industrial user compliance.
The PQR also assessed the status of the pretreatment program in Oregon as well as specific
language in POTW NPDES permits. With respect to NPDES permits, focus was placed on the
following regulatory requirements for pretreatment activities and pretreatment programs:
Final May 2022
Page 29 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• 40 CFR 122.42(b) (POTW requirements to notify Director of new pollutants or change in
discharge);
• 40 CFR 122.44(j) (Pretreatment Programs for POTWs);
• 40 CFR 403.8 (Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation
by POTW), including the requirement to permit all SlUs;
• 40 CFR 403.9 (POTW Pretreatment Program and/or Authorization to revise
Pretreatment Standards: Submission for Approval);
• 40 CFR 403.12(i) (Annual POTW Reports); and
• 40 CFR 403.18 (Modification of POTW Pretreatment Program).
Oregon received authorization from EPA to implement the pretreatment program on March 13,
1981. Oregon Laws, ORS 454.020, 468B035 and 468B.101, authorize DEQ to implement the
CWA, NPDES program and pretreatment program. Acting on this authority, the Environmental
Quality Commission (EQC) adopted rules for implementing the pretreatment program under
OAR 340-045-0063.
DEQ has added an NPDES permit requirement for all municipalities to conduct Industrial User
Surveys and submit results to the Pretreatment Program. Upon identification of a significant
industrial user, DEQ works with municipalities to develop an approved program and comply
with the federal pretreatment standards and requirements. The pretreatment staff coordinates
with DEQ permit writers in reviewing pretreatment requirements prior to permit issuance.
DEQ oversees 25 approved POTW programs. DEQ reported in the 2019 Pretreatment Annual
Report that there are a total of 298 significant industrial users (SlUs). Out of 298 SlUs, 109 are
categorical industrial users (ClUs), 176 non ClUs and 13 No Discharge CIU (NDCIUs). DEQ does
not have any POTWs without an approved pretreatment program that have SlUs. EPA noted
that the POTW permits consistently include the requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(j)(l) and 40 CFR
122.44(j)(2)(ii). DEQ requires POTWs with SlUs to develop and implement pretreatment
programs.
As part of this PQR, EPA reviewed the following:
• Columbia Boulevard permit with an approved pretreatment program and SIU food
processors;
• Information and data provided by the Columbia Boulevard permittee and DEQ (including
the state dental amalgam program); and
• Adherence to the Compliance Monitoring Strategy program policy for frequency of
regional and state reviews of POTW pretreatment programs.
Final May 2022
Page 30 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Strengths and Areas for Improvement
EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy10 recommends one pretreatment compliance audit
(PCA) every five years and one pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI) every other year for
approved pretreatment programs. The state has conducted 15 PCAs and zero PCIs from 2016 -
2019. DEQ received assistance from a contractor (PG Environmental) to conduct three PCAs:
Gresham, Clean Water Services and Salem. Compliance monitoring is an essential component of
EPA's program to protect and restore water quality and adherence to the Compliance
Monitoring Strategy helps EPA and DEQ to achieve this goal.
EPA reviewed the NPDES permit and other pretreatment documents for this PQR. The Columbia
Boulevard permit contains standard pretreatment boilerplate language that meets all federal
requirements. Under the Industrial User Survey, the permit requires the permittee to
determine the presence of any industrial users discharging to the POTW. For all permittees,
including minor permittees with design flows less than 1 million gallons per day (mgd), the
permit's standard conditions include the requirements at 40 CFR 122.42(b) (DEQ Standard
Condition under D10) with the permit language taken directly from the federal regulations.
Permittees must notify DEQ of the new introduction or substantial change in pollutant into the
POTW.
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
Recommended
•DEQ should ensure adherence to the latest Compliance Monitoring
Strategy: one PCA every 5 years and one PCI every other year of
approved pretreatment programs.
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
Requirements
Background
As part of this PQR, EPA reviewed the state's MS4 Phase II General Permit (as issued on November 30,
2018 and effective March 1, 2019) for consistency with the Phase II municipal stormwater permit
regulations. In 2017, EPA updated the Phase II small MS4 permitting regulations to clarify: (1) the
procedures to be used when using general permits (see 40 CFR 122.28(d)); (2) the requirement that the
permit establish the terms and conditions necessary to meet the MS4 permit standard (i.e., "to reduce
10 Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Compliance Monitoring Strategy, 2014,
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/npdescms.pdf
Final May 2022 Page 31 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water
quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act"), including
conditions to address the minimum control measures, reporting, and, as appropriate, water quality
requirements (see 40 CFR 122.34(a) and (b)); and (3) the requirement that permit terms must be
established in a "clear, specific, and measurable" manner (see 40 CFR 122.34(a)).
Program Strengths
The state has a comprehensive general permit with prescriptive expectations addressing the six
minimum control measures. The permit includes enhanced requirements to address all MS4 discharges
to impaired waters with applicable EPA approved TMDLs, and at least one section of unique TMDL-
derived requirements specific to an individual MS4 permittee. The permit also successfully incorporates
the use of tiered requirements and deadlines for 'new vs. existing' and 'large population' vs. 'small
population' MS4 permittees. All permit terms are expressed in clear, specific, and measurable terms and
the permit was written in accordance with the updated small MS4 permitting regulations.
Areas for Improvement
When planning for the next permit term, the state should consider adding more explicit stormwater
monitoring or assessment expectations for the MS4 permittee(s), perhaps organized by watershed or
applicable TMDL.
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this section.
Recommended
• Consider including additional specificity in the permit text for
stormwater monitoring by MS4 permittee(s) based on applicable
TMDL requirements by watershed/receiving water.
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
EPA Region 10 has elected not to include the optional Regional Topics in this review.
Final May 2022
Page 32 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the main findings from the last PQR and provides a review of the status of the state's efforts in
addressing the action items identified during the last PQR, conducted September 14-18, 2015. As discussed previously, during the
2012-2017 PQR cycle, EPA referred to action items that address deficiencies or noncompliance with respect to federal regulations as
"Category 1". EPA is now referring to these action items going forward, as Essential. In addition, previous PQR reports identified
recommendations to strengthen the state's program as either "Category 2" or "Category 3" action items. EPA is consolidating these
two categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Table 1. Essential Action Items Identified During Last PQR 2015
Program Area Action Item Title Status Update
Basic Facility
Information and
Application
Address all outfalls from which pollutants are or may
be discharged including emergency outfalls, in the
permit
( Resolved ) DEQ implemented their permit quality review
process, ensuring consistency between the permit and fact sheet
(PFS)
Ensure permit applications are submitted in a timely
manner.
( Resolved ) DEQ updated expectations and procedures with
permit coordinators. DEQ also ensure permittees receive a letter
reminding them of the application due date a minimum of 240
days prior to the permit expiration date. DEQ review the
reminder letter templates for both clarity and completeness.
Ensure that permit applications are current and
complete, including all required data and
information.
( Resolved ) DEQ updated expectations and procedures with
permit coordinators. DEQ also ensure permittees receive a letter
reminding them of the application due date a minimum of 240
days prior to the permit expiration date. DEQ review the
reminder letter templates for both clarity and completeness.
Technology-based
Effluent Limitations
Ensure a complete understanding of when processes
began operation in order to correctly apply the
applicable technology basis (BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS).
( Resolved ) DEQ developed training materials for determining
how to correctly apply the applicable technology basis. This
material will be included in the training program for Permit
Writers. (ELG is a component of the training)
For facilities subject to multiple subcategories within
an ELG, effluent limitations should be derived using
all applicable subcategories proportioned based on
flow or production. In no circumstance should only
( Resolved ) DEQ developed training materials for determining
how to correctly apply the applicable technology basis. This
material will be included in the training program for Permit
Writers. (ELG is a component of the training)
Final May 2022
Page 33 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status Update
the most stringent limitation from multiple
subcategories be used as the basis for determining
the appropriate effluent limitation to use.
Ensure that all limits must be subject to at least
annual monitoring.
( Resolved ) Completed 9/16/2016
Monitoring and
Reporting
Ensure appropriate monitoring type for different
parameters (e.g., temperature whether continuous
i/s grab is appropriate in given permit).
( Resolved ) DEQ revised the monitoring matrix to ensure that
the appropriate monitoring type is applied for any given
monitoring parameter and develop training program for Permit
Writers.
Update permit and PFS template to implement
requirements of the Electronic Report Rule.
( Resolved ) DEQ developed and incorporated language into the
permit template to instruct permittees on complying with the E-
Reporting rule.
Standards and
Special Conditions
Under standard conditions, ensure penalty provisions
are consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(a).
( Resolved ) DEQ revised standard conditions, ensuring penalty
provisions are consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(a).
Nutrients
Conduct reasonable potential analysis for nutrients if
the type of facility is known to have discharges that
contain nitrogen or phosphorus or the receiving
waters are known to have nutrient impairments.
(In progress ) No facilities with discharges into DO, pH or
chlorophyll a, algal nuisance impaired waters have been drafted.
Pretreatment
The DEQ should ensure adherence to the Compliance
Monitoring Strategy (CMS): one PCA every five years
and one PCI every approved pretreatment program.
40 CFR 403.8(f)(3) states: "The POTW shall have
sufficient resources and qualified personnel to carry
out the authorities and procedures described in
paragraph (f)(1) and (2) of this section."
( Resolved ) DEQ will continue to implement the Performance
Partnership Agreement with U.S. EPA Region 10 and implement
the pretreatment program following the Compliance and
Monitoring Strategy.
DEQ must require all approved pretreatment
programs to adopt the mandatory provisions of the
Streamlining Rule as soon as possible
( Resolved ) All Oregon approved pretreatment programs have
adopted the mandatory provisions of the Streamlining Rule.
Final May 2022
Page 34 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area Action Item Title Status Update
Stormwater
EPA recommends that all NPDES Permit cover pages
should indicate the permit's issuance date, effective
date and expiration date.
( Resolved ) DEQ revised permit template cover pages to
indicate the permit's issuance date, effective date, and
expiration date.
Combined Sewer
Overflows
( CSOs)/Sanitary
Sewer Overflows
(SSOs)
DEO should ensure that the permits require event-
based reports for each CSO discharge and that these
report elements are addressed in terms of the
electronic reporting rule requirements.
( Resolved ) DEQ updated the template specifically for CSOs
event reporting.
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the recommendations from the last PQR, conducted September 14-18, 2015, and notes any state
efforts to act on those recommendations. As discussed previously, during the 2012-2017 PQR cycle, EPA referred to action items
that are recommendations to strengthen the state's program as either "Category 2" or "Category 3" action items. EPA is
consolidating these two categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Table 2. Recommended Action Items Identified During 2015 PQR
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status
Basic Facility
Information and
Clarify the location of permitted outfalls by including latitude and longitude in the permit
or fact sheet
( Resolved ) Resolved for
permits issued after the
2015 PQR.
Application
Clarify the effective date of NPDES permits or that the effective is upon signature
( Resolved )
Technology Based
Effluent Limits
Understand the processes at a facility resulting in process wastewater discharges and
ensure those processes are applicable to the ELG being considered
( Resolved )
Final May 2022
Page 35 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status
Follow the instructions in the RPA IMD to determine pollutants of concern. Update the
fact sheet template to include a discussion of pollutants of concern.
( Resolved )
Water Quality-
Based Effluent
In the fact sheet, provide a comparison ofTBELs and WQBELs for each pollutant to
ensure the most stringent effluent limitation is contained in the permit. This can be
either in a table or narrative discussion.
( Resolved )
Limitations
Thoroughly describe the data used in the RPA and where it was obtained for both
effluent and ambient data.
( Resolved )
Ensure a robust set of ambient water quality data is available for use in permit
development or required ambient monitoring as a requirement in permits.
( Resolved )
Monitoring and
Improve consistency in identifying monitoring locations for each outfall from which
discharge is authorized under the permit.
( Resolved )
Reporting
Ensure that permits are clear that quantitation limit must be at or below limit.
( Resolved )
Administrative
Processes
Consider explicitly documenting whether public comments are received or whether no
comments are receivedand where responses to comments are maintained.
( Resolved )
(including public
notice)
Consider providing a consolidated response to comments document for all permits that
is made publicly available upon permit issuance.
( Resolved )
Establish procedures and processes that ensure complete and consistent permit records
across regions for all permits.
( In progress)
Documentation
(including fact
sheet)
Ensure that there is documentation of the public notice process in all permit files.
( Resolved )
Ensure that permit files include all significant documentation of the basis for limits and
permit conditions, including the documents referenced in the applicable fact sheet.
( Resolved )
Document in the fact sheet whether and why significant changes have been made to
outfalls from the prior permit to the current permit.
( Resolved )
Final May 2022
Page 36 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status
Document when current permit data/information is used to supplement older permit
application data.
( Resolved )
Nutrients
Include monitoring requirements for phosphorus and nitrogen in permits for such
facilities where the receiving waters are known to have nutrient impairments.
( In progress ) DEQ
continues to follow a
monitoring approach for
conventional and non-
convention pollutants that
follows existing TMDL's and
water quality standards but
has not finalized a
permitting approach to
nutrient impaired waters.
Pretreatment
DEQ should insert the following condition to all the permits of all approved pretreatment
programs: "The permittee shall submit a complete proposal of mandatory and voluntary
streamlining program modifications to the Department for approval within one year
from the date of re-issuance of this NPDES permit. This includes proposed changes to the
City of Portland's pretreatment-related municipal ordinance and operating procedures
to reflect the revisions to 40 CFR 403 that became effective November 14, 2005, and to
attain consistency with Schedule E of this permit. The Department may extend the
submission date if requested by the permittee. These proposed modifications will be
considered non-substantial pretreatment program modifications under 40 CFR 403.18
unless otherwise determined by the Department to be significant." This permit language
is from the City of Portland.
( Resolved )
Stormwater
If a NPDES Permit is modified after its effective date, EPA recommends that the Permit
cover page, and all relevant modified pages, be revised to reflect the modified
provisions, in order to inform readers of the final enforceable provisions resulting from
the permit modifications process.
( Resolved )
DEQ should earnestly continue its efforts to provide current permit coverage for the City
of Ashland, and other Phase IIMS4 communities in Oregon, under a statewide MS4
General Permit.
( Resolved )
Final May 2022
Page 37 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area Action Item Title Status
Oregon would benefit from developing a stand-alone BMP manual or similar to
augment the permit Oregon has clearly tried to keep the permit short and simple. The
result is simultaneously too specific in suggested BMPs and not comprehensive enough
in the assessment approach suggested for operators to use to figure out what BMPs
might work.
( Not pursuing)
Combined Sewer
Overflows
(CSOs)/Sanitary
Sewer Overflows
(SSOs)
The MOA's are a weak enforcement tool that do not ensure that permittees reduce CSO
discharges and meet performance targets on a timely schedule. EPA recommends that
permits incorporate compliance schedule to ensure timely implementation of the LTCP
where the permittee is not yet under an enforcement mechanism such as a consent
decree or state-issued order or where progress to control CSOs is insufficient.
( In progress)
DEO should strive to keep CSO permits current by reducing the time permits are
administratively extended to as short as possible to ensure that permittees are making
swift progress toward controlling CSO discharges.
( In progress)
DEO should ensure that the permits require event-based reports for each CSO discharge
and that these report elements are addressed in terms of the electronic reporting rule
requirements.
( In progress)
Total Maximum
Daily Loads
(TMDLs)
The high permit backlog has delayed implementation of TMDLs into permits.
( In progress)
WLAs in TMDLs are complicated and are carried into permits as equations and
calculated limits especially for temperature TMDLs where thermal load is used as a
surrogate for temperature. Excess thermal load (ETL) limits in permits provide a variety
of options for the permittee to calculate ETL. Permits that provide the option for
calculated limits rather than containing final effluent limits or compliance schedules lack
transparency and hinder the "due process" requirements for public notice of permit
conditions. DEO permit writers should avoid including such calculated limit options in
permits.
( Not pursuing)
Permit writers must work closely with TMDL staff during development of the TMDL to
ensure that the WLA can be adapted into water quality-based effluent limits in the
permit.
( In progress)
Final May 2022
Page 38 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE
This section provides a summary of the main findings of the PQR and provides proposed action items to improve Oregon NPDES
permit programs, as discussed throughout sections III, IV, and V of this report.
The proposed action items are divided into two categories to identify the priority that should be placed on each Item and facilitate
discussions between Regions and states.
• Essential Actions - Proposed "Essential" action items address noncompliance with respect to a federal regulation. EPA has
provided the citation for each Essential action item. The permitting authority is expected to address these action items in
order to comply with federal regulations. As discussed earlier in the report, prior PQR reports identified these action items as
Category 1. Essential actions are listed in Table 3 below.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items are recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the
state's or Region's NPDES permit program. Prior reports identified these action items as Category 2 and 3. Recommended
actions are listed in Table 4 below.
The following tables summarize only those action items that were identified in Sections III, IV, and V of the report.
Table 3. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
Topic
Actio n(s)
Permit Application Requirements
• Ensure permit applications are submitted timely and complete in accordance with
40 CFR 122.21(d).
• Ensure applications include data requirements consistent with EPA regulations at
40 CFR 122.21 as part of the application process.
Nutrients
• Conduct RPA for nutrients if the type of facility is known to have discharges that
contain nitrogen or phosphorus or the receiving waters are known to have nutrient
impairments.
• Include monitoring requirements for phosphorus and nitrogen in permits for such
facilities where the receiving waters are known to have nutrient impairments and
the facilities are known to discharge nitrogen and phosphorous.
Final May 2022
Page 39 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Table 4. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
Topic
Actio n(s)
Facility Information
• Consider updating permit and fact sheet templates to consistently identify the physical
location of outfalls using specific site descriptions, latitude/longitude, NHD codes, and/or
pictures.
Administrative Record and Fact Sheet
• Ensure that fact sheets include relevant discussions from previous permit cycles,
especially when they directly relate to potential impacts to surface water (in this case, via
groundwater).
Pretreatment: Food Processing Sector
• DEQ should ensure adherence to the EPA's CWA NPDES Compliance Monitoring Strategy:
one PCA every 5 years and one PCI every other year of approved pretreatment programs
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
• Consider including additional specificity in the permit text for stormwater monitoring by
(MS4s)
MS4 permittee(s) based on applicable TMDL requirements by watershed/receiving
water.
Final May 2022
Page 40 of 45
-------
Oregon NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Appendix A: Review of Draft Permit Quality Review for 2020,
Oregon DEQ NPDES Permit Program
Department of Environmental Quality
Agenty Headquaitezs/fVater Qaality
700 NE Multnomah Street; Suite 600
Portland; OK 97232
(503) 229-5696
FAX (503) 229-6124
TT^ 711
August 6, 2021
Susan Paulson
U.S. EPA Region 10 Permitting Program
RE: Review of DRAFT Permit Quality Review Report for 2020
Oregon DEQ NPDES Permit Program
Dear Susan:
Oregon
ICate Brown. Governor
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Permit Quality Review {PQR) of
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
{NPDES) Program. We appreciate the time you and the PQR team spent reviewing our permit program.
Addressing both the Essential and Recommended Action Items is a priority for Oregon's NPDES program.
Our comments on the draft report have been included in the attached document, and the following
table will provide the actions taken or to be taken by DEQon the 2015 Action Items not indicated as
resolved and the 2020 Action Items:
2015 Remaining Essential Action
Items
DEQ Actions
Ensure a complete understanding of
when processes began operation in
order to correctly apply the
applicable technology basis (BPT,
BCT, BAT, NSPS).
This has been developed and fully implement by DEQ as part
of its permit writer training. Further, DEQ has identified an
EIG Subject Matter Expert as part of the permit development
process.
For facilities subject to multiple
subcategories within an ELG, effluent
limitations should be derived using all
applicable subcategories
proportioned based onflow or
production. In no circumstance
should only the most stringent
limitation from multiple
subcategories be used as the basis for
determining the appropriate effluent
limitation to use.
This has been implement by DEQas part of its continuous
process improvement and addressed within permit writer
training. Further, DEQ has identified an ELG Subject Matter
Expert as part ofthe permit development process.
Conduct reasonable potential
analysis for nutrients if the type of
facility is known to have discharges
that contain nitrogen or phosphorus
or the receiving waters are known to
have nutrient impairments.
DEQ is working with EPA to utilize Oregon's established
narrative biocriteria standard to assess site specific nutrient
impairments, when and where appropriate. Performing
reasonable potential analyses for nutrients at all facilities
that contain nitrogen or phosphorous, without a TMDL, is
Final May 2022
Page 41 of 45
-------
Program and Permit Quality Review
Oregon NPDES
Department ot Environmental Quality
Agency Headquarters/Water Quality
700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 229-5696
FAX (503) 229-6124
TTY 711
important. Developing a statewide process for nutrient
evaluation continues to be a high priority for the agency.
DEQ is working diligently to have the proper, protective
processes in place to address nutrients in permits.
2015 Remaining Recommended
Action Items
DEQ Actions
Clarify the location of permitted
outfalls by including latitude and
longitude in the permit or fact sheet
Resolved for permits issued after the 2015 PGR.
Administratively extended permits are being addressed
during the renewal process.
Clarify the effective date of NPDES
permits or that the effective is upon
signature
Permit effective dates are clearly enumerated on the cover
page of the permit.
Ensure a robust set of ambient water
quality data is available for use in
permit development or required
ambient monitoring as a requirement
in permits.
The data gap analysis process ensures ambient monitoring is
requested and utilized prior to permit development when
necessary. Ambient monitoring is also included in permit
renewals when necessary.
Establish procedures arid processes
that ensure complete and consistent
permit records across regions for ail
permits.
Your DEQ. Online will fully address this action item. YDO is
expected to be fully operational in 2022.
Document in the fact sheet whether
and why significant changes have
been made to outfalls from the prior
permrt to the current permit.
In 2020, DEQ developed a new fact sheet template that
includes instruction for identifying significant changes to
outfalls. This new fact sheet is currently in use.
Include monitoring requirements for
phosphorus and nitrogen in permits
for such facilities where the receiving
waters are known to hwe nutrient
impairments.
DEQ is actively engaged in productive discussion with EPA on
ways to address nutrients concerns with NPDES wastewater
permits through the existing state permitting framework.
Site specific approaches are being utilized because of the
complexity of nutrient impairments.
Oregon would benefit from
developing a stand-alone BMP
manual or similar to augment the
permit. Oregon has clearly tried to
keep the permit short and simple. The
result is simultaneously too specific in
suggested BMPs and not
comprehensive enough in the
assessment approach suggested for
operators to use to figure out what
BMPs might work.
Forstormwater permits DEQ no longer includes prescriptive
BMPS within the stormwater permits. This allows permittees
to utilize existing industry specific manuals to address the
required performance standards.
on
iR" ate Srown. Governor
Final May 2022
Page 42 of 45
-------
Program and Permit Quality Review
Oregon NPDES
%
A
Oregon
Kate Brown. Governor
Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Headquarteis/Water Quality
700 NE Multnomah Street, Smte 600
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 229-5696
FAX (503) 229-6124
TTY7U
The MOA's are a weak enforcement
tool that do not ensure that
permittees reduce CSO discharges
and meet performance forgets on a
timely schedule. EPA recommends
that permits incorporate compliance
schedule to ensure timely
implementation of the LTCP where
the permittee is not yet under an
enforcement mechanism such as a
consent decree or state-issued order
or where progress to control CSOs is
insufficient.
DEQ has renewed 1 of 3 CSO permits and intends to renew
the remaining two in the next five years, Astoria STP (2022)
and Corvallis (2025). Renewal of these permits will
incorporate any MAO's and include development of
compliance schedules where applicable.
DEQ should strive to keep CSO
permits current by reducing the time
permits are administratively
extended to as short as possible to
ensure that permittees are making
swift progress toward controlling CSO
discharges.
This is being addressed in the overall approach to reducing
the current backlog of permits.
DEQ should ensure that the permits
require event-based reports for each
CSO discharge and that these report
elements are addressed in terms of
the electronic reporting rule
requirements.
This is being addressed and implemented as the permits are
being renewed.
The high permit backlog has delayed
implementation of TMDLs into
permits.
The permit backlog is a top agency priority that is being
actively addressed and reduced in a deliberate and
prescriptive manner.
WLAs in TMDLs are complicated and
are carried into permits as equations
and calculated limits especially for
temperature TMDLs where thermal
load is used as a surrogate for
temperature. Excess thermal load
(ETL) limits in permits provide a
variety of options for the permittee to
calculate ETL. Permits that provide
the option for calculated limits rather
than containing final effluent limits or
compliance schedules lack
transparency and hinder the "due
Not pursuing: DEQ believes that the current process is
appropriate and ensures that effluent limitations, as required
by NPDES regulation, are consistent with the assumptions
and requirements of the TMDL WtAs. While the flow-based
equations used for the ETL limits are more involved than the
static limits, they still ensure that the discharges will comply
with the applicable water quality standards. All of the data
used to calculate these limits, along with the calculated limits,
are required to be reported in discharge monitoring
reports. This reporting ensures a transparent process that is
available for public review and consideration.
Final May 2022
Page 43 of 45
-------
Program and Permit Quality Review
Oregon NPDES
"Oregon
Kate Brovm, Gc-vexrioi
Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Headquarters/Water Quality
700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite €00
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 229-5696
FAX (503) 229-6124
TTY 711
process" requirements for public
notice of permit conditions. DEQ
permit writers should avoid including
such calculated limit options in
permits.
Permit writers must work closely with
TMDL staff during development of
the TMDL to ensure that the WLA can
be adapted into water quality-based
effluent limits in the permit.
Permit writing and TMDL work closely on both TMDL
development and permit development with respect to WLAs.
Further, DEQ created and filled a new position to support and
perpetuate the discussions between the water quality
sections.
2020 Essential Action Items
DEQ Actions
Ensure permit applications are
submitted timely and complete in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(d).
While this issue only occurred with a few facilities, YDO will
address the timeliness of renewal applications.
Ensure applications include data
requirements consistent with EPA
regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 as part
of the application process.
Active DMR and permit data gap analysis are fully addressing
this issue since 2020.
Include monitoring requirements for
phosphorus and nitrogen in permits
for such facilities where the receiving
waters are known to have nutrient
impairments and the facilities are
known to discharge nitrogen and
phosphorous.
DEQ is actively engaged in productive discussion with EPA on
ways to address nutrients concerns with NPDES wastewater
permits through the existing state permitting framework.
Site specific approaches are being utilized because of the
complexity of nutrient impairments.
DEQ should ensure adherence to the
Compliance Monitoring Strategy: one
PCA every five years and one PCI
every other year of approved
pretreatment programs
The DEQ pretreatment program has met its commitment as
identified in the DEQ-EPA Performance Partnership
Agreement for the years 2016-2019. The PCI requirement
was not identified in the PPA until 2020.
DEQ will continue to implement the Performance Partnership
Agreement with U.S. EPA Region 10.
2020 Recommended Action Items
DEQ Actions
Consider updating permit and fact
sheet templates to consistently
identify the physical location of
outfalls.
The updated and implemented permit and fact sheet
templates address this concern
Ensure that fact sheets include
relevant discussions from previous
permit cycles, especially when they
directly relate to potential impacts to
DEQ will continue to include references to previous permit
cycle discussions when applicable to the renewed permit.
The updated permit and fact sheet templates support this
endeavor.
Final May 2022
Page 44 of 45
-------
Program and Permit Quality Review
Oregon NPDES
Department of Environmental Quality
Agency Head quarters/Water Quality
700 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 60D
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 229-5696
FAX (503) 229-61.24
TTY 711
surface water (in this case, via
groundwater).
Consider including additional
specificity in the permit text for
stormwater monitoring by MS4
permittee(s) based on applicable
TMDL requirements by
watershed/receiving water.
The upcoming Phase 1 MS4 permits will include this in them.
Should you have any further questions about DEG's comments on the draft PQR report or our described
approach to address the action items, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience-
Thank you,
f~ f\r\ff Digitally signed by Goaf?
Rabinowitz
Rabinowitz
Geoff Rabinowitz
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Water Quality Permitting and Program development Manager
Tel: 503-229-5589
Email: geoff. rabi nowttz(® deq .state.or. us
F4
(- ;t*
* %
! Oregon
Kite Bxom*. Governor
Final May 2022
Page 45 of 45
------- |