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
level of treatment." (Finding 36.) The Regional Board has failed to provide further <br /> justification for the imposition of this burdensome turbidity requirement. Apparently, the <br /> Regional Board has imposed this new effluent limitation on turbidity to provide an <br /> additional layer of protection for disinfection requirements that are designed to protect <br /> against short-term excursions. Putting aside these generalizations, there is no support for <br /> the turbidity limit in the record or that for the City, there is any significant correlation <br /> between turbidity and vines levels or other appropriate indicators. <br /> Moreover, DHS' Uniform Guidelines specifically state that coliform readings are <br /> dispositive of whether or not adequate disinfection has occurred. (See, Uniform <br /> Guidelines at Category II.c.) As there is no evidence that virus levels are excessive, there <br /> is also no evidence demonstrating that the turbidity limit is necessary to protect contact <br /> recreational uses. This provision should be deleted from the Permit. <br /> 12. Recommendations for Disinfection Requirements <br /> The Regional Board has failed to demonstrate that the imposition of 2.2 MPN/100 <br /> total coliform effluent limitation is necessary to protect public health or beneficial uses in <br /> Dredger Cut, White Slough, or Bishop Cut. There is no evidence in the record that the <br /> City's current discharge, which consistently and reliably performs superior to the 23 <br /> MPN/100 ml effluent limitation in its existing waste discharge requirements, poses a <br /> threat to public health. Furthermore, the Regional Board's determination that a seasonal <br /> adjustment for less restrictive standards in the winter months is not justified is simply <br /> without merit. Reasonable people do not swim or engage in other body contact recreation <br /> activities that have a reasonable likelihood of significant ingestion of receiving waters in <br /> the colder months from November through April. For the foregoing reasons, the City <br /> requests that the Regional Board revert back to the disinfection requirements of 23 <br /> MPN/100 ml 30-day median, 500 daily maximum effluent limits as required by WDR <br /> Order 93-030. <br /> NPDESPermitComments Exhibit 2 Page 21 12/17/99 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.