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
ways that result in body contact significant enough to result in full immersion or a <br /> measurable volume of ingestion. Overall, the possibility of exposure is less in White <br /> Slough and Bishop Cut than in the San Joaquin River. Furthermore, the dilution in White <br /> Slough/Bishop Cut is approximately the same as the San Joaquin River. Thus, the results <br /> of the Stockton Study should apply to Lodi's discharge. <br /> At a minimum, the City should have the same opportunity to conclusively <br /> demonstrate that 2.2 is not necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters. <br /> The Regional Board should allow Lodi to apply the conclusions of the Stockton Study to <br /> the maximum extent scientifically defensible. There is no rational basis to deny the City <br /> the same opportunity to prove that the assumed public health threat does not actually <br /> exist given the millions of dollars in local costs at stake. <br /> 10. Seasonal Use is Appropriate <br /> a. People Do Not Swim in the Receiving Waters During Wet <br /> Weather Events or Periods of Cold Temperatures <br /> Lodi's discharge occurs on a seasonal basis and generally avoids the period when <br /> contact recreation may occur(i.e., May—August). There is no evidence of contact <br /> recreation use during the winter season (November tuber—April) or during storm events. <br /> Common sense leads one to the obvious conclusion that reasonable people do not <br /> immerse themselves or engage in activities where there is the likelihood of ingesting <br /> Slough water during heavy rains or in the colder months when water temperatures drop <br /> significantly. Therefore, since there is a dramatically reduced likelihood of significant <br /> body contact and ingestion during the cold, wet months, and no potential for exposure . <br /> during summer months, less restrictive disinfection standards appropriately apply. <br /> Unquestionably, there is no basis to impose a more restrictive permit.limit than 23 MPN <br /> (30-day) currently imposed. <br /> 11. The Uniform Guidelines Provide no Basis for Turbidity Limitation <br /> The Regional Board has asserted that in addition to coliform testing, it included a <br /> turbidity limit as a second indicator"to ensure compliance with the DHS recommended <br /> NPDESPermitComments Exhibit 2 Page 20 12/17/99 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.