Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Mike Altherton - 2 - • 7 December 2001 <br /> 2. The confirmation soil samples and soil samples from the boring indicate that the ponds were not <br /> clean closed and the report failed to make an effective demonstration that the remaining <br /> contamination is not a threat to water quality. Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 97-204 <br /> Discharge Specification B. 6. requires that: At closure of the lime ponds, all residual wastes, <br /> including liquids, sludges,precipitates, settled solids, and liner materials and adjacent natural <br /> geologic materials contaminated by wastes, shall be completely removed. If after reasonable <br /> attempts, the Discharger demonstrates the removal of all remaining contamination is infeasible, <br /> the impoundment shall be closed as a landfill. <br /> Because the lime waste has been determined to be a designated waste and in compliance with the <br /> requirements of the WDRs for your site, the lime pond area must be re-closed as a Class H <br /> landfill. <br /> 3. A Water Quality Protection Standard(WQPS) has not been approved for your facility. In <br /> compliance with WDRs a proposed WQPS report was submitted on 6 January 1998. The letter <br /> from Board staff dated 2 November 1998 expresses the following concerns about that report: <br /> a. That the report does not set concentration limits for individual constituents at background <br /> levels; <br /> b. That in proposing concentration limits greater than background (CLGB), the report did <br /> not provide the economic analysis, nor did it demonstrate that cleanup was not <br /> economically or technically feasible as required in Title 27; <br /> c. That beneficial uses of drinking water and agricultural supply were considered to not <br /> exist in shallow groundwater because it exceeded applicable standards for some <br /> constituents; and <br /> d. That the proposed concentration limit for TDS exceeded its MCL, and Title 27 prohibits <br /> the Board from setting CLGBs that are greater than MCLs. <br /> In a letter dated 15 June 2000 Board staff requested submittal of a revised Water Quality <br /> Protection Standard report by 1 September 2000. To date the required report has not been <br /> received. <br /> California Water Code <br /> Section 13267 of the California Water Code states, "In conducting an investigation specified in <br /> subdivision (a), the regional board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is <br /> suspected of discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region, or any citizen or <br /> domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of <br /> discharging, or who proposes to discharge, waste outside of its region that could affect the quality of <br /> waters within its region shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports <br /> which the regional board requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable <br /> relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports." <br /> Section 13268 of the California Water Code states, "Any person failing or refusing to furnish technical <br /> or monitoring program reports as required by subdivision (b) of Section 13267, or failing or refusing to <br /> furnish a statement of compliance as required by subdivision (b) of Section 13399.2, or falsifying any <br /> information provided therein, is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be liable civilly in accordance with <br />