SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1980-1999

Home Browse Search

objective, the Regional Board may not exercise that discretionary authority in this case. The Regional Board is required to act in a manner that is consistent with both federal and State law. In exercising any discretionary authority allowable under USEPA regulations and guidelines, the Regional Board must proceed in a manner that is consistent with both the Basin Plari and State law. The draft permit would require the City to construct tertiary treatment, yet there has been no analysis of the costs of such treatment or the adverse environmental impacts that may result. The City estimates a capital cost of$10 to $15 million to design and construct the tertiary treatment, and $300,000 to $500,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Even with tertiary treatment, the City does not believe it can comply with all of the permit limitations. If the City is required to install advanced treatment, such as reverse osmosis or lime precipitation, to comply with the proposed limits, adverse environmental impacts that may result include additional energy consumption and demand, generation of brine and solids requiring disposal, and other impacts. Further, adoption of the effluent limitations would be inconsistent with the requirements of Water Code Section 13263(x). Specifically, the Regional Board would be adopting requirements that do not implement the Basin Plan numeric water quality objectives and that do not properly implement the Basin Plan narrative toxicity objective. In addition, prior:to adopting the subject effluent limitations, the Regional Board is required under Water Code Section 13263(a) to take into consideration the provisions of Section 13241, including but not limited to_.(c) water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved in the receiving stream; and (d) economic considerations. 3) The Data Do Not Support the Draft Reasonable Potential Findings. The City has consistently complied with the toxicity requirements in its current permit, as demonstrated by the results of three species chronic and acute bioassay tests. Thus, there is no evidence that the discharge has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the narrative toxicity objective. 4) The Proposed Groundwater Limitations Are Inconsistent with Porter-Cologne, the Basin Plan and State Policy. ` Provision GA of the draft permit states that the discharge of reclaimed water shall not cause groundwater to "be degraded." This provision prohibits any additional increment of any constituent beyond the background level in the groundwater, regardless of the beneficial uses of that groundwater. This is inconsistent with the Basin Plan, Resolution No. 68-16, Water Code Section 13262, and at least ten permits issued by the Regional Board to other similarly situated dischargers within the last two years. Provision G.1 is not supported by evidence in the record or the findings, and the feasibility of compliance with the provision is unknown. The groundwater provision creates a new water quality objective, yet there has been no evaluation under the Water Code, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under state law, Waste Discharge Requirements "shall implement any relevant water quality control plans." Water Code §13263(a). The Basin Plan adopted by the Regional Board, applicable to all ground waters potentially affected by the discharge, includes the following water quality objective: "Ground waters shall not contain concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses." Basin Plan at III-9.00. ,—oni rvr.Tn ,.,.. C .l-�F.i{ '? D'i•ten '