My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1980-1999
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
THORNTON
>
12751
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0516806
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 1980-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2019 8:48:37 AM
Creation date
9/26/2019 8:26:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
1980-1999
RECORD_ID
PR0516806
PE
2965
FACILITY_ID
FA0012817
FACILITY_NAME
WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTRO
STREET_NUMBER
12751
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
THORNTON
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LODI
Zip
95241
APN
05513016
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
12751 N THORNTON RD
P_LOCATION
02
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
319
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
more restrictive water quality-based limitations (i.e., more stringent than secondary <br /> treatment) must be based on a water quality objective. The DHS recommendation is not a <br /> water quality-based objective, but rather a technology-based requirement based on <br /> anticipated performance using a sequence of treatment processes. (Hultquist Testimony at <br /> p. 109 (regarding Pomona Study).) Thus, imposition of a 2.2 MPN limit is unlawful, as <br /> there is no direct nexus to an applicable water quality objective. <br /> The record indicates that a 23 MPN effluent limitation results in effluent quality <br /> that is clearly sufficient to meet any relevant water quality-based objective and even <br /> achieves the underlying intent of the more restrictive DHS guidelines. (See Generally, <br /> DHS Response to Comments on the EID Deer Creek Permit at pp. 4, 16 (Sept. 16, 1999), <br /> Attachment 5.) Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that a more restrictive permit <br /> limitation is necessary to protect beneficial uses. <br /> 3. Failure to Demonstrate Effluent Limitation is Necessary <br /> to Protect Beneficial Use <br /> It is inherent in the implied Regional Board imposition of stringent disinfection <br /> requirements that the Basin Plan bacteria standard of 200 MPN/100 ml fecal coliform • <br /> applied as a 30-day geometric mean to protect REC-1 use is not applicable or protective. <br /> Having discarded the Basin Plan objective, the Regional Board states that 2.2 MPN is <br /> appropriate based on DHS' advice. As discussed below, there are no factual bases <br /> supporting this determination. <br /> a. Basin Plan ObJective is Applicable <br /> The Basin Plan established that water containing less than 200 MPN/100 ml fecal <br /> coliform is protective of water contact recreation (REC-1) beneficial use: <br /> In waters designated for contact recreation (REC-1), the <br /> fecal coliform concentration based on a minimum of not <br /> less than five samples for any 30-day period shall not <br /> exceed a geometric mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall more <br /> than ten percent of the total number of samples taken <br /> during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 ml. <br /> NMESPzrmitComments Exhibit 2 Page 11 12/17/99 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.