Laserfiche WebLink
6. DHS Recommendation is Not a Nater Quality-based Limit <br /> and is Therefore Unlawful <br /> The Uniform Guidelines provided by DHS indicate that 2.2 MPN is strictly a <br /> technology-based standard. DHS did not establish a risk-based water quality standard <br /> when it recommended that the effluent be disinfected, coagulated, filtered, oxidized, and <br /> clarified. Rather DHS simply determined that "virus are bad" and technologies are <br /> capable of treating effluent consistently to meet a 2.2 MPN limitation. (See, Hultquist <br /> Testimony at p. 109.) There was no determination that such an effluent limitation is <br /> necessary to protect public health from any specifically identified risk associated with the <br /> City's discharge. Therefore, the Regional Board has no basis to conclude that a 2.2 MPN <br /> limitation is necessary to protect public health in YYhite Slough/Bishop Cut/Dredger Cut <br /> or that the failure to achieve a 2.2 MPN limit on a 7-day versus 30-day basis poses a <br /> threat to public health. <br /> The federal regulations at 40 CFR 5 122.44 (used by the Regional Board to <br /> establish permit limits) state that effluent limitations must either be based on applicable <br /> technology or water quality needs. The only technology-based limitations that have been <br /> adopted for publicly owned treatment works ("POTWS") are secondary treatment; there <br /> are no technology-based requirements for disinfection. See, 40 CFR § 133; Clean Water <br /> Act § 301(b)(1)(B). Originally, EPA included technology-based disinfection <br /> requirements in the secondary treatment effluent guidelines for POTWs, but these were <br /> removed because the better approach was to proceed on a case-by-case water quality <br /> basis. Thus, imposition of a technology-based coliform limitation is not authorized by <br /> applicable riles. <br /> The standard in California is whether the effluent limitation is necessary to protect <br /> beneficial uses, not what is the best performance that treatment technology can achieve <br /> consistently. See, Southern California Edison Co. v. STVRCB, 116 Cal. App. 3d 751, 758- <br /> 761 (1951). The fact that the City could spend enormous sums of money to achieve an <br /> insignificant improvement in effluent quality is not a basis for imposing such a limit. <br /> NPDESPermitComments Exhibit 2 Page 16 12/17/99 <br />