SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gregory Torlai, Jr. . - 3 - • 3 August 2009 H&H Marina On 16 June 2009, Central Valley Water Board staff sent a reply to H & H's comments via email. Our final responses are summarized in this letter and incorporated into the new MRP, which is currently undergoing management review. On 17 June 2009, Central Valley Water Board,staff determined that H & H had failed to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to discharge from the treatment system going forward from 1 January 2009. During the normal course of events, permission to discharge from the treatment system is renewed annually through submission of a fee. However, on 17 June 2008, Central Valley Water Board staff notified H & H that NPDES Order No. 5-00-119 had been revised. Dischargers were given 180 days to submit an NOI in order to discharge under the revised NPDES permit. Order No. R5-2008-0085, which replaced Order No. 5-00-119 effective 1 January 2009. On 30 June 2009, staff in the San Joaquin Delta Permitting unit at the Central Valley Water Board determined that H & H had submitted the required annual renewal fee of $6,970 in November 2008 but failed to submit the NOI. When we contacted AGE on 17 June 2009, they stated that H & H had received the notice of the requirement to submit the new NOI but had failed to do so. Mr. Arthur Deicke of AGE stated that an NOI would be prepared shortly and submitted to us. On 30 June 2009, however, Mr. Deicke stated that he had not received permission from H & H to proceed with preparation of the NOI. He added that AGE would require about 40 man hours to complete the NOI, which would have to be reviewed by H & H prior to being submitted. Because H & H failed to submit the NOI, H & H is discharging treated effluent without the coverage under Order No. R5-2008-0085. Our comments are presented below. 1. The downward trending COC concentrations at MW-2 have decreased the mass of petroleum hydrocarbons in groundwater sufficiently to merit consideration of eliminating the extraction well at MW-2, proposed in the Assessment Report. Although the TPHg concentration still far exceeds the water quality objective of five pg/L, the distinctly attenuated petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in MW-2 and other groundwater data will be monitored to determine whether installation of an extraction well in this location will continue to be warranted. 2. The 19 June 2009 submission of the First QMR and IRR constitute a violation of the quarterly schedule specified in MRP No. R5-2004-0828, which was issued by the Executive Officer (EO) of the Central Valley Water Board and can only be changed by the EO. Based on the correspondence between H & H and Central Valley Water Board staff up to 12 June, we will not recommend enforcement for this incident. However, failure to submit the Second QMR and IRR by the due date of 1 August 2009, as required in the MRP, will result in staff recommending enforcement. 3. Central Valley Water Board staff offers the following responses to H & H's comments on the draft MRP: