SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

REGIONAL BOARD RESPONSE (SJfRCB/OCC FILE A-1483) -26- PETITION FOR REVIEW OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NOS. R5-2002-0083 AND R5-2002-0084 CITY OF STOCKTON REGIONAL WASTEWATER CONTROL FACILITY Order R5-2002-0083 includes an offset program for mercury. Providing that the City is in compliance with the terms of the compliance schedules in Provisions G.1, G.6, G.7, and G.8, actual mass loading above or below the interim mass limitation for mercury can be "banked" until such time a discharge. specific offset program is adopted by the Regional Board into the Order to provide a means for offsetting these loads. This banking provision allows for growth in the RWCF service area in the event that source controls and Title 22 tertiary filtration are ineffective in reducing effluent mercury concentrations. The State Board Office of Chief Counsel has prepared a Memorandum15 that concludes that offset programs are appropriate in certain circumstances. The circumstances are present in this situation. "119. The Permit includes a requirement to prepare Treatment Feasibility Studies. (Provision G.7.) This requirement is not supported by evidence in the record, is unreasonable, and not reasonably related to the need for the information: to be obtained" Resolution 68-16 and the federal antidegradation policy require, among other requirements, that the discharge be regulated to achieve best practicable treatment or control. The Treatment Feasibility Studies are necessary to assure compliance with Resolution 68-16. Also, as in the case of diazinon,the results of the treatment feasibility studies are necessary for compliance schedules in future permits. Water Code section 13383 authorizes the Regional Board to require dischargers subject to NPDES permits to, among other requirements, sample effluent,retain records, and provide other information as reasonably required. The requirement to conduct treatment feasibility studies is consistent with section 13383. It is also consistent with Water Code section 13267. "120. The Permit includes a requirement to conduct a TRE if the chronic whole effluent toxicity results are less than zero chronic toxicity in 100% of the effluent. (Provision G.12.) This is arbitrary and unreasonable. This requirement is not reasonable related to the need for the information to be obtained and is unsupported." Review of toxicity data 16 indicates that RWCF effluent has been discharged in excess of 1 toxicity unit (TUC) on multiple occasions. Because the Regional Board determined that no dilution should be granted, the report of any measurable toxicity in excess of 1 TUC is considered significant. Therefore, Order No. R5-2002-0083 requires the submittal of a Toxicity Identification Evaluation and Toxicity Reduction Evaluation(TIE/TRE) to investigate the causes of and to identify corrective control actions in response to effluent toxicity incidents. CONCLUSION The Regional Board requests that the State Board deny the petition because the action of the Regional Board was appropriate and proper. The Regional Board applied applicable law and regulations and addressed past directives from the State Board in adopting Order Nos. R5-2002-0083 and R5-2002-0084. is 16 October 2001 Memorandum from Craig M.Wilson, Chief Counsel,to Arthur G.Baggett,Jr.,Chair, State Water Resources Control Board, (Administrative Record,Binder 2,Item 78) e Figures 13-1 through 13-5 of Order No.R5-2002-0083 display toxicity data from 1995-2000.