SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

City of Stockton and County of San Joaquin Page 64 NPDES Permit CAS0083470 Response to Comments Finding should be rewritten to state that the Permittees' are required to develop BMPs and provide sufficient rationale to establish that the Storm Water Management Plan will ensure attainment of water quality standards within three years of the issuance of the Order. Response: Comment noted. Board staff s response to DeltaKeeper's Comment 10 addresses the issues of why numeric effluent limitations are infeasible at this time, and appropriate compliance schedules for MS4 permits. 19. Comment: (DK Comment 3(c))Finding 34 states that"[i]t is not feasible at this time to establish numeric effluent limits for pollutants in non-storm water discharges from facilities owned or operated by the Permittees. This is a conclusionary statement unsupported in the record. Section 402(p)(3)(B)(ii) mandates that"[p]en-nits for dischargers from municipal storm sewers shall include a requirement to effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges into the storm sewers:.." 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B). It is not clear whether the statements in Finding 34 are intended to be read as a legal conclusion or a finding of fact. In either case they are misplaced. As a legal conclusion, Finding 34 misstates the applicable law. In fact, it directly contradicts the requirements of the Clean Water Act. If it is intended as a factual finding then the fording is wholly unsupported by evidence in the record. The Finding should be rewritten to state that the Permittees' are required to develop BMPs, with quantifiable performance standards, and provide sufficient rationale to establish that the Storm Water Management Plan will ensure attainment of water quality standards within three years. Response: Non-stormwater discharges are de minimus flows, which must meet BAT/BCT if quantifiable. As a group they are, effectively prohibited by the Tentative Order. It not the discharge must be permitted through the NPDES permit process. The Permittees can then take no further action if the discharge is authorized by the permit and determined not to be a source of pollutants. 20. Comment: (DK Comment 3(d))Finding 44 should be modified to state that the goal of the Permittees' S WMP is to comply with water quality standards. Response: Finding 44 (changed to Finding 45)has been modified to include compliance with water quality standards as a SWMP objective. 21. Comment: (DK Comment 3(e))Finding 46 should be modified to state that the City of Stockton has not completed Provision D-4 of Order No. 95-035 requiring a report outlining how"special studies shall enable the City to directly, or indirectly, calculate, or estimate, the reduction in pollutants in storm water discharges as a result if implementing its source control BMPs." Response: The purpose of Finding 46 (changed to Finding 47) is to support Provision D.3, which specifies tasks to be completed by the County in the near future. Adding DeltaKeeper's requested information will add nothing to this finding's purpose. If DeltaKeeper wishes, it can exercise its right to inform the Regional Board of the City's historical shortcomings at the Board hearing to consider approval of the Tentative Order. 22. Comment: (DK Comment 3(f)) Finding 47 should be modified to require the City to implement the BMPs it develops in the Smith Canal Water Quality Improvement Program.