SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

� v City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 61 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments and pollutants discharged to groundwater must be included in the Permit. These controls are also called for by Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act. Response: With regard to the first paragraph of this comment, the Regional Board's Response to DeltaKeeper's Comment 8 explains that new source performance standards do not exist for storm water discharges and that storm water discharges, even through new development, are not"new sources"within the meaning of the CWA. With regard to the second paragraph, the Tentative Order is consistent, as it must be, with the precedential provisions of State Board Order WQ 2000-11 regarding SUSMPs. 16. Comment: (DK Comment 2(g))Improperly delegates authority to the Executive Officer that is reserved for the Regional Board. The proposed Permit ignores mandatory procedures for issuing or modifying NPDES permits. It attempts to expand the types of modifications which can be issued without resorting to a formal permitting process required by 40 C.F.R. 122.63. The Permittees failed to submit an acceptable Report of Waste Discharge containing an acceptable SWMP. Consequently, the Regional Board is approving a conceptual permit that requires the Permittees to develop a SWMP and subsequently submit it for approval. While Regional Board approval, including public comment, is required for the SWMP, there are a number of other future Permit requirements that are left to the discretion of staff. For example, the pesticide, pathogen, dissolved oxygen and Smith Canal water quality-based programs are required to be submitted to the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer may then accept or reject the proposed plan, or schedule it for a hearing before the Regional Board. Likewise, a number of requirements in the Monitoring and Reporting Program are left to the discretion of staff. For example, the the Monitoring and Reporting Program states that "[t]he Permittees shall not implement any changes to this MRP unless and until the Regional Board or Executive Officer issues a revised MRP"and "[bly 1 April 2004, the Permittees shall submit the following water quality based program for approval by the Executive Officer:..." Those provisions must be amended to limit any administrative modifications to the list contained in 40 CFR § 122.63. Only minor modifications are allowed without reopening the permitting process. Such modifications are limited to: (a)correct typographical errors: (b)Require more frequent monitoring or reporting by the permittee; (c) Change an interim compliance date in a schedule of compliance, provided the date is not more than 120 days after the date specified in the existing permit and does not interfere with attainment of the final compliance date requirement; or(d) Allow for a change of ownership or operational control [under certain conditions], [or] (e)(1) Change the construction schedule for a discharger which is a new source . . . (e)(2) Delete a point source outfall when the discharge from that outfall is terminated. . . . 40 C.F.R. § 122.63. Each of the provisions of the permit that leaves the formulation of a discharge requirement to the dischargers subject solely to the discretion of the executive officer fails to take into account the