SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_CASE 2

Home Browse Search

Response to Written Comments -2- 24 April 2007 City of Tracy WWTP San Joaquin County CITY OF TRACY - NPDES COMMENT #2: Finding II.F. The tentative permit inaccurately added language stating that the discharge must meet "Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) in accordance with Part 125, section 125.3." Section 125.3. The quoted part of this sentence should be removed as the imposition of effluent limits using BPJ is no longer allowed under the regulations cited. Request: Remove the phrase, which says: "and Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) in accordance with 40 CFR §125.3." RESPONSE: The Regional Water Board agrees that 40 C.F.R. §125.3(a)(2)(i)(B) does not apply to POTWS and will proposed to delete that phrase from the permit as a late revision. CITY OF TRACY - NPDES COMMENT #3: Finding M. Alaska Rule. The text included is not wholly accurate and should be amended to read: On March 30, 2000, USEPA revised its regulation that specifies when new and revised State and Tribal water quality standards (WQS) become effective for CWA purposes (40 CFR 131.21, 65 FR 24641, April 27, 2000 effective date of May 30 2000). . . . The final rule also provides that standards already in effect under State law and submitted to USEPA for approval by May 30, 2000, may be used for CWA purposes, whetheF or not oppre_ed b, USEPA unless or until USEPA has promulgated a more stringent water quality standard. However, if the State standards submitted before May 30 2000 were disapproved by USEPA prior to Mav 30. 2000, as was the case with portions of the 1994 Basin Plan the Alaska Rule did not apply to grandfather in these disapproved standards RESPONSE: The Finding clearly sets forth the Alaska Rule and no changes are being made in the Finding. CITY OF TRACY - NPDES COMMENT #4: Finding P. Anti backsliding. This finding should include language stating that effluent limitations can be removed upon new information, including a determination of no reasonable potential. See accord SWRCB Order No. 2003-0009 at pg. 9 ("the antibacksliding exception for new information applies where new monitoring data indicate that the discharge of a pollutant does not have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a water quality standards violation"). Request: Amend the finding to address allowable removal of effluent limits based on new information. RESPONSE: The tentative Order contains Provision VI.C.1.a. that allows the permit to be reopened and modified in the event new information becomes available. Therefore, it is not necessary to add this language to Finding P. Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region Board Meeting — 3/4 May 2007 Item#17