SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1980-1999

Home Browse Search

for Interim Effluent Limitations (B.7.) and San Francisco Bay Regional Board Staff Response to Written Comments on the Reissuance of Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Petaluma (July 13, 1998) regarding Response to Comment A.2 from BayKeeper.1 Irrespective of the City's position on the proposed Cease and Desist Order, the proposed time schedule is insufficient to allow the City to do anything other than immediately initiate project planning for end-of-pipe facilities. For example, it does not allow the City time to explore source control or regulatory relief option before expending considerable sums on planning, environmental studies, and design efforts. The City estimates that planning studies, an environmental impact report, and project design for the end-of-pipe facilities necessary to achieve the limitations could cost between $1 million and $3 million. To force the City to expend such sums without first allowing investigation of source control and other options is unreasonable and contrary to the historic practice of USEPA and other Regional Boards. The City is also greatly concerned that the proposed draft permit and Cease and Desist Order would expose the City to civil liability in the form of third party lawsuits. Citizen suits are a very real possibility in today's climate; the docket for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alone reflects more than 25 citizen suits pending against POTV1/s and industrial dischargers. The existence of a cease and desist order will not preclude a citizen suit against the City for violation of its effluent limitations. (See Citizens for a Better Environment v. Union Oil, 83 F.3d 1111, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 1996).) Thus, despite the draft permit's recognition that the City cannot meet the effluent limitations for lead and zinc, the City would be potentially exposed to civil penalties of up to $27,000 per day, per violation, from the date the permit takes effect. With regard to the groundwater provisions, the District would have no protection against either citizen suits or regional board enforcement actions. 9) Beneficial Uses: The beneficial uses of Dredger Cut are not delineated in the Basin Plan. The draft permit does not differentiate among the beneficial uses in Dredger Cut and those of downstream waters. The City questions whether the beneficial uses listed in- Finding No. 9 are the actual uses of the receiving water, and requests that the Regional Board provide additional information regarding the bases for listing these uses. Although the City's position is that a time schedule may be placed in the permit,the City maintains that the proposed effluent limitations for chlorine,cyanide,lead and zinc are inappropriate. This comment,therefore,is not intended to suggest that the City would accept the effluent limitations if the time schedule were included in the permit.