Laserfiche WebLink
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. R5-2002-XXXX <br /> 11 <br /> MARLEY COOLING TOWER COMPANY <br /> SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY <br /> The Basin Plan does not provide a numeric water quality objective for chlorine, but the Basin Plan <br /> does contain a narrative toxicity objective. At p.III-9.00 the Basin Plan provides that relative to <br /> toxicity: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce <br /> detrimental physiological responses in human,plant, animal, or aquatic life." At page 1, the <br /> USEPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD)provides <br /> that "Where States have not developed chemical specific numeric criteria, States may interpret <br /> their narrative standards for specific chemicals by using EPA criteria updated with current <br /> quantitative risk values." The TSD fixrther states on page 1 "The integrated approach must <br /> include the control of toxics through implementation of the "no toxics" criterion and/or numeric <br /> criteria for the parameter of toxicity, the control of individual pollutants for which specific <br /> chemical water quality criteria exist in a state's standard, as well as the use of biological criteria. <br /> Reliance solely on the chemical specific numeric criteria or the narrative criterion or biological <br /> criteria would result in only a partially effective State toxics control program." <br /> For determining whether there is reasonable potential for an excursion above this narrative <br /> objective, the Regional Board used the second method prescribed by 40 CFR 122.44(d)(vi) for <br /> determining reasonable potential, which relies on USEPA criteria and other information. The <br /> Regional Board chose this method because USEPA's recommended ambient water quality <br /> criteria for chlorine have been developed using methodologies that are subject to public review, <br /> as is the individual recommended criteria guidance document. USEPA's ambient water quality <br /> criteria for protection of aquatic life are 11 pg/L(ppb) as a 4-day average(chronic) <br /> concentration, and 19 gg/L (ppb) as a 1-hour average (acute) concentration for total residual <br /> chlorine. Based upon results of monitoring, the Regional Board finds that the discharge does <br /> have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an in-stream excursion above a water quality <br /> objective. This Order includes new maximum daily(0.02 mg/L(ppm)) and average monthly <br /> (0.01 mg/1 (ppm)) effluent limitations for residual chlorine based upon the USEPA criteria. <br /> Previous Orders did not include effluent limitations for chlorine. The source of chlorine is <br /> unknown, therefore it is unknown whether the Discharger can immediately comply with these <br /> new limitations. Dechlorination techniques are readily available for interim treatment to <br /> maintain complaince with these new limitations. <br /> 25. In the past, results of effluent chronic toxicity testing using EPA/600/4-91/002 have indicated <br /> sporadic instances of reduced Ceriodaphnia Dubia reproduction. Also, previous Order <br /> No. 93-221 included an effluent limitation for acute toxicity. This new Order retains an effluent <br /> limitation for acute toxicity, and includes continued monitoring of effluent and receiving water <br /> for chronic toxicity. <br /> 26. The beneficial uses of the underlying groundwater are municipal and domestic, industrial, and <br /> agricultural supply. <br /> 27. The pennitted discharge is consistent with the antidegradation provisions of 40 CFR 131.12 and <br /> SWRCB Resolution 68-16. Compliance with these requirements will result in the use of best <br /> practicable treatment or control of the discharge. The impact on existing water quality will be <br /> insignificant. <br />