SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS -26- City Of Stockton -Regional Wastewater Control Facility NPDES No. CA0079138 26 April 2002 Board Meeting limitation, or that a 2.2 MPN limitation is necessary to protect beneficial uses. The tentative order has also failed to consider the economics associated with imposing a limitation more restrictive than the Basin Plan objective or a demonstration that such limitation is "reasonable." As such, imposition of the more restrictive limit violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), applicable" Porter-Cologne Act sections, and the NPDES provisions of the Clean Water Act and their implementing regulations that have been adopted by reference into the state's program. Imposition of more restrictive water quality-based limitations (i.e., more stringent than secondary treatment)must be based on a water quality objective. The DHS recommendation is not a water quality-based objective, but rather a technology-based requirement predicated on anticipated performance using a sequence of treatment processes. Thus, imposition of a 2.2 MPN limit is unlawful, as there is no direct nexus to an applicable water quality objective. RWQCB Response: The Regional Board has considered the legal, regulatory, and technical grounds for the coliform limitations. The permit fact sheet adequately addresses the evidence regarding public health threat, and the economics of imposing a limitation more restrictive than the Basin Plan objective. Stockton Comment No. Art. II.e: The Regional Board imposition of stringent disinfection requirements implies that the Basin Plan bacteria standard to protect REC-1 use is not applicable or protective. There are no factual bases supporting this determination. RWQCB Response: See response to Stockton Comment No. Att. II.c. Stockton Comment No. Att. Il1.1: DHS has published a guidance document entitled Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches (updated April 23, 1999) containing the pathogen levels that it has determined pose a threat to public health by exposure during body contact with fresh waters. The purpose of that document is to assist"local health agencies with regard to the healthfulness of recreational waters and beaches" (Beach Guidance, p. 2). This guidance is directly applicable to the receiving water in the context of this permitting action since the Regional Board has determined that these fresh waters have a beneficial use of body contact recreation. RWQCB Response: The Beach Guidance published by DHS, applies to bodies of water where there is extensive dilution and is used to determine the need for posting warnings, closing beaches, and reopening beaches for times when possible contamination has taken place. This guidance isnot directly applicable to the receiving waters in the context of this permitting action. In addition to REC- 1 uses, the receiving waters in question have municipal supply, domestic supply, and agricultural irrigation beneficial uses, as well as documented significant shellfish harvesting. Stockton Comment No. Att. II.f.2: The Basin Plan also states that the Regional Board will rely on published federal criteria documents to determine the level of water quality necessary to protect beneficial uses where numeric objectives have not been set (Basin Plan at III-1.00). Based on health impacts studies and criteria documents, EPA recommends that states use fecal coliform, E. coli, or