Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT 2 <br /> Comments on Proposed NPDES Permit <br /> For the City of Lodi <br /> Hall & Associates, as consultant to and on behalf of the City of Lodi ("the City" <br /> or "Lodi"), has prepared the following comments on the tentative Waste Discharge <br /> Requirements NPDES Permit No. CA0079243 ("WDRs" or the "Permit") for the White <br /> Slough `Vater Pollution Control Plant received by the City on November 8, 1999. The <br /> proposed Permit includes numerous new or more stringent requirements than the <br /> previously issued permit that was determined protective of beneficial uses. Applicable <br /> NPDES regulations require the presentation of the technical basis for the effluent <br /> limitations placed in the permit. Absent the presentation of supporting information, these <br /> more restrictive limitations should be deleted. The City reserves the right to supplement <br /> these comments if new information regarding the bases for the requirements becomes <br /> known during the permitting process and as data collection efforts are completed. <br /> Application of Narrative Criteria <br /> 1. The Federal Rules as Adopted by the Regional Board Require the <br /> Consideration of Site-specific Information <br /> The Regional Board failed to follow the procedures set forth in 40 CFR § <br /> 122.44(d) and the Water Orality Control Plan, Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin <br /> River Basin, (3`d Ed. 1994) (the "Basin Plan") narrative criteria for toxicity that require <br /> the consideration of all relevant site-specific information in evaluating the need for water <br /> quality-based effluent limitations. American Paper Institute v. EPA, 996 F.2d 346, 352 <br /> (DC Cir. 1993) (the regulation"requires the permit writer to tailor the federal standard to <br /> any relevant site-specific circumstances"). In the case of zinc, lead, and cyanide, the <br /> Regional Board simply applied EPA's water quality criteria without considering site- <br /> specific toxicity information, relevant updated scientific data, or the existence of <br /> applicable criteria. Such action has been riled "arbitrary and capricious" in similar cases. <br /> Simpson Tacoma Craft Co. v. Department of Ecology, 119 Wash. 2d 640 (Wash. 1992). <br /> NPDESPermitComments Exhibit 2 Page 1 12/17/99 <br />