SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 51 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments Through the iterative process set forth in the Tentative Order, as stated above, each Permittee is required to timely implement control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in the discharge to the MEP in accordance with the SWMP. If exceedances of water quality standards persist,the Permittees are required to assure compliance through a process whereby they submit a Report of Water Quality Exceedance (RWQE) that describes currently implemented BMPs and additional BMPs that will be implemented to prevent or reduce the exceedances. The RWQE must include a monitoring program, a rationale for the new BMPs, a discussion of the expected pollutant reductions and how implementation of the BMPs will prevent future water quality standard exceedances. In addition, the RWQE must include an imiplementaion schedule, with milestones and performance standards. (See Tentative Permit, Provision D.1.) 10. Comment: (DK Comment 2(f)(1))the Permit must contain compliance schedules. Finding 33 states that"[i]t is not feasible at this time, to establish numeric effluent limits for pollutants in storm water discharged from MS-4s. Therefore effluent limitations are narrative and include the requirement to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the MEP," and "[i]mplementation of performance standards and BMPs in accordance with the Permittees' SWMP and their schedules constitutes compliance with MEP requirements, and with requirements to achieve water quality objectives" Staff has provided no substantive evidence that numeric limitations are"infeasible" as required by EPA regulations. Since the state clearly has the statutory authority to require numeric limitations if it elects to do so, it is not acceptable to simply declare that numeric limitations are infeasible. There must be substantial evidence in the Findings and Fact Sheet to support the claim. Finding 26 states that"[t]his Order shall ensure compliance with water quality standards. This Order, therefore, includes requirements to the effect that discharges shall not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards that would cause or create a condition of nuisance,pollution, or water quality impairment in receiving waters. Accordingly, the Regional Board is requiring that these requirements be addressed through the effective implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs)to reduce pollutants in storm water." As we established above, this Finding never escapes the realm of wishfully fantasy. The is no nexus between the Permit's performance standards and BMPs and reductions in contaminate loadings or attainment of water quality standards,which, as of this writing, are being exceeded. A performance standard cannot simply be a measure of implementing a given BMP that may or may not have a reasonable expectation of improving water quality. A performance standard must be the measure of a given BMPs effectiveness in actually reducing impairment. There must be substantial evidence in the Findings and Fact Sheet to support the claim that the BMPs and performance standards in the Permit are likely to be successful in achieving compliance with water quality standards. The boilerplate approach of iterative BMP implementation violates the CWA requirement that storm water permits must comply with their required terms within 3 years after the date of issuance of the permit. 33 USC § 1342(p)(4) &(5). The Regional Board's use of EPA's interim permitting approach clearly conflicts with the statutory deadline.