Laserfiche WebLink
REGIONAL WATER BOARD RESPONSE (SWRCB/OCC File A-1846(a) an(4 4-1846(b)) -27- <br /> PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF '�*Mw TE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS \/ <br /> ORDER NO. R5-2007-0036 (NPDr6 NO. CA0079154) AND <br /> TIME SCHEDULE ORDER NO. R5-2007-0037 <br /> CITY OF TRACY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT <br /> schedules in NPDES permits when it is including an effluent limitation that is a "new <br /> interpretation" of a narrative water quality objective. This conclusion is also consistent with the <br /> United States Environmental Protection Agency policies and administrative decisions. (See, <br /> e.g., Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Control Policy.) As indicated in the Order's Findings <br /> (Finding II.K., pgs. 4-5) the Regional Water Board understood that it was not required to <br /> include a schedule of compliance, but chose to exercise its discretion to do so. <br /> CSPA — CONTENTION V. Substantial late modifications were made to the Order that <br /> were not circulated for public review as required by law. Significant late revisions were <br /> incorporated into the adopted Order that substantially changed and weakened the permit. The <br /> late changes should have been publicly circulated for comments, as required by law. <br /> The following late revisions were made to the permit prior to adoption. <br /> 1. Removal of effluent limitations for settleable solids and oil and grease. The <br /> change was based on comments by the Discharger, which commented that the record <br /> did not include sufficient information to impose effluent limits for these constituents. <br /> The Regional Water Board agreed with the Discharger. This issue was discussed in <br /> the Response to Comments, 24 April 2007, p. 4, Response to Comment #9, and posted <br /> at <br /> http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board decisions/tentative orders/0705/tra <br /> cy/trace-npdes-rtc.pdf. The Order contains receiving water limits and monitoring. If <br /> further information demonstrates the need for effluent limits, the Order may be <br /> reopened to add effluent limits for these constituents. <br /> 2. Change in compliance schedule for meeting new effluent limitations for <br /> aluminum. The tentative Order required that the discharge comply with the final <br /> effluent limitations for aluminum prior to increasing the discharge flow rate to Old River. <br /> Staff initially thought this was required for compliance with the antidegradation policies. <br /> However, the Discharger commented that "it is not clear that the antidegradation policy <br /> applies since the background waters may not be 'high quality waters' as the Fact Sheet <br /> states that background currently exceeds the translated narrative objectives being <br /> applied. See Fact Sheet at pgs. F-32 and F-57." (City of Tracy comments, 6 April 2007, <br /> p. 17.). The Fact Sheet disclosed to the public that the receiving waters exceed the <br /> objectives in question. The receiving water is therefore not a "high quality water" for <br /> purposes of Resolution 68-16, and is a "Tier I" water for purposes of 40 CFR § 131.12. <br /> Therefore, a late revision was made to allow the discharge flow to increase to 10.8 mgd <br /> prior to compliance with the final effluent limitations for aluminum. The late revision <br /> was posted on the Regional Water Board's website before the meeting. (See, <br /> Response to Comments, 24 April 2007, p. 17, Response to Comment #30.) (Note that <br /> there is an error in the Response to Comment #28.) <br /> The Discharger is still subject to the compliance schedule for aluminum, in addition to <br /> any other limits on increasing the discharge to 10.8 mgd. The five-year compliance <br />