Laserfiche WebLink
and were never subject to public comment or an evaluation of the potential costs <br /> associated with such a mandate. (See, Attachment 4, Testimony of Bob Hultquist <br /> (California Department of Health Services) at EID Deer Creek Plant permit hearing (Sept. <br /> 17, 1999) ("Hultquist Testimony") at pp. 106-107.) The Regional Board failed to find <br /> that the applicable contact recreation standard for bacteria contained in the Basin Plan is <br /> not protective. Other than making broad analogies, the Regional Board has not presented <br /> evidence that the existing discharge (23 MPN/100 ml assessed on a 30-day basis with no <br /> single sample to exceed 500 MPN/100 nil) presents any threat to public health. As <br /> described below, the proposed coliform limits are unnecessarily stringent to ensure <br /> beneficial use protection and are not consistent with applicable state and federal laws and <br /> guidance. <br /> 2. More Restrictive Disinfection Requirements Are Not Necessary <br /> to Protect the Uses of the Receiving Waters <br /> The City objects to the imposition of more restrictive coliform limitations on a <br /> number of legal, regulatory, and technical grounds. Simply because a person may <br /> construct, at high cost, a facility to meet a 2.2 MPN/100 ml limitation does not mean that <br /> the Regional Board has demonstrated that it is necessary to do so to protect beneficial <br /> uses in the receiving waters. The record is devoid of evidence that a public health threat <br /> exists if the City maintains compliance with the 23 MPN/100 ml permit limitation, or that <br /> a 2.2 MPN limitation is necessary to protect beneficial uses. <br /> The Regional Board has also failed to consider the economics associated with <br /> imposing a limitation more restrictive than the Basin Plan objective or a demonstration <br /> that such limitation is "reasonable." As such, imposition of the more restrictive limit <br /> violates the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), applicable Porter-Cologne <br /> Act sections, and the NPDES provisions of the Clean Water Act and their implementing <br /> regulations which have been adopted by reference for implementing the state program. <br /> The Regional and State Boards have adopted specific procedures for the <br /> derivation of effluent limitations. See generally, Water Code §§ 13260— 13274; <br /> Guidance for NPDES Permit Issuance, USEPA Region IX (Feb. 1994). Imposition of <br /> MESPermitComments Exhibit 2 Page 10 12/1V99 <br />