SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 60 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments allowing certain non-storm water discharges into the storm drain system is flawed because, even where the Discharger demonstrates that such discharges are contributing pollutants to the storm drain system, the permit would allow those discharges to continue under an MEP standard,rather than prohibit such discharges, as specifically called for by the Clean Water Act. The language in Discharge Prohibition A3 that prohibits only dischargers that have not been reduced to the MEP or Prohibition B2 and B3 that prohibits categories of non-storm water discharges only if they area significant source of pollutants to waters of the United States are ambiguous and not equivalent to "effective prohibition" of such discharges. The word"significant" is only used to describe fire fighting discharges at 40 C.F.R. 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1). The Act does not say prohibit non-storm water to the "maximum extent practicable," as the permit's language suggests. The Act says "effectively prohibit." That is what the permit must do. Response: CWA Section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) "does not require permits for municipalities to prohibit certain discharges of flows of non-storm water to waters of the United States . . . in all cases." [55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48037 (16 Nov. 1990); 57 Fed. Reg. 41236, 41262-3 (9 Sept. 1992)]. USEPA has determined that the mechanism for"effectively prohibiting"illicit discharges is the formation of illicit discharge prevention programs [55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48037 (Nov. 16, 1990]. Municipalities must address certain categories of"permissible"non-storm water discharges in their SWMP. According to USEPA, permits may contain conditions allowing the permittee to either"prohibit or otherwise control any of these types of discharges where appropriate."The Tentative Order is consistent with this requirement. Prohibition B.1 of the Tentative Order states that the Permittees shall"effectively prohibit all types of non-storm water discharges into its municipal storm sewer systems"with some exceptions. Prohibition B.2 sets forth the categories of non-storm water discharges that are permissible. The Tentative Order further provides that any discharges within these permissible categories are prohibited unless they are appropriately controlled(Prohibition B.3). Thus, the CWA does not require a flat prohibition on non-storm water discharges, and the Tentative Order"effectively prohibits"such discharges in a manner and with a process that is consistent with the CWA and the USEPA's interpretation of the Act. 15. Comment: (DK Comment 2(f)(6)) The Permit's new development standards are inconsistent with the prohibition on permitting new sources and new discharges of pollutants already impairing a water body. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.4(i)prohibits the permitting of new sources or new discharges of pollutants already impairing receiving waters unless a waste load allocation has been assigned to that new source. The proposed Permit simply ignores this provision despite its clear applicability to the State's program and this Permit. In addition to neglecting that prohibition, the new development standards also are inconsistent with the Clean Water Act's mandate that municipal storm water programs reduce storm water pollutants to the MEP. While the SUSMP provisions are a welcome step in the right direction,they do not effectively deal with the dissolved and most environmentally damaging forms of metals and pesticides. Nor do they effectively prohibit impacts to groundwater, especially groundwater that is hydraulically connected to surface waters. Specific requirements that address dissolved constituents