Laserfiche WebLink
CENTRAL VALLEY WATER BOA RESPONSE (SWRCB/OCC File A-1846; -8- <br /> PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF WA'ST'E DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS <br /> ORDER NO. R5-2007-0036 (NPDES NO. CA0079154)AND <br /> TIME SCHEDULE ORDER NO. R5-2007-0037 <br /> CITY OF TRACY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT <br /> similar requirements. (Basin Plan, Chapter 3 and pp. IV-16,00-IV.18.00.)3 Whatever EPA <br /> may have expected when promulgating these regulations, the regulations wisely do not <br /> sunset if a state cannot or does not adopt numeric objectives for all constituents for all <br /> uses by any particular date. The Discharger's dilemma regarding compliance with the Bay <br /> Delta Plan's electrical conductivity limit and the new information discussed in Response to <br /> Contention F regarding appropriate aluminum limitations highlight the problems that can <br /> arise when numeric objectives are adopted prematurely or require adjustments due to <br /> changing science. <br /> In sum, the EPA regulations and the Basin Plan narrative objectives and implementation <br /> policies are as binding today as when EPA promulgated them, and will remain so until <br /> there are pollutant-specific objectives for all pollutants with reasonable potential to cause or <br /> contribute to toxicity or impairment of beneficial uses. Since the Central Valley Water <br /> Board must implement these objectives through permit limitations, the limitations by <br /> definition are not more stringent than the Clean Water Act and no "section 13263 analysis" <br /> [sic] or section 13241 analysis for individual limitations is required.4 The Supreme Court <br /> explicitly ruled that numeric requirements implementing narrative objections do not require <br /> a section 13241 analysis unless the requirements are more stringent than the Clean Water <br /> Act requires. (City of Burbank v. SWRCB (2005) 35 CalAth 613, 622 [provisions in <br /> question were based on narrative objectives], 626-627 [section 13241 only applies to <br /> requirements that exceed Clean Water Act]). <br /> CONTENTION D: Compliance schedules for complying with the final effluent limits for <br /> nitrate and nitrite should be allowed in the permit, not in a separate time schedule <br /> order. <br /> The compliance schedules established for nitrate and nitrite we believe were consistent <br /> with the Basin Plan at the time of permit adoption in 2007 and remain consistent with the <br /> current State Water Board's Policy for Compliance Schedules in National Pollutant <br /> Discharge Elimination System Permits. <br /> CONTENTION E: Effluent limits based on improperly incorporated reference to MCLs. <br /> The Third Edition of the Basin Plan adopted in 1994 and all subsequent editions contained <br /> MCLs as numeric water quality objectives, narrative objective, and a policy for <br /> implementation of the objectives. Therefore, compliance with Water Code section 13241 <br /> 3 The Discharger has not argued that calculating numeric limitations is infeasible, except for electrical <br /> conductivity. However, the electrical conductivity limitations were based on the Bay Delta Plan's numeric <br /> objectives, and not narrative objectives in the Basin Plan. <br /> Petition, p. 12, lines 1-2. Although not required, the permit does include a section 13241 analysis for tertiary or <br /> equivalent requirements. (Fact Sheet, p. F-40— F41.) <br />