SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 2000-2018

Home Browse Search

REGIONAL WATER BOARD RESPONSE (SWRCB/OCC FILE A-1886) • -5- PETITION FOR REVIEW OF WAa DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. R5-2007-0113 (NPDES NO. CA0079243) CITY OF LODI, WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY CONTENTION B: COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR ALUMINUM IMPROPER The Permit contains a compliance schedule for aluminum based on "a new interpretation of the Basin Plan" but fails to provide any defensible explanation or definition of the "new interpretation" of the Basin Plan. There are a number of Basin Plan narrative objectives that are the basis for numeric effluent limits. The two most common narrative objectives impacting NPDES Permits are the "Narrative Toxicity Objective", and the "Taste and Odor" objective. Compliance schedules may be included in permits for effluent limitations based upon "new interpretations" of narrative water quality objectives. The Second District California Appeals Court Ruling agreed with the State Water Board's interpretation of the San Francisco Bay Water Board's Basin Plan narrative objective "new interpretation". (Communities for a Better Environment v. SWRCB (2005) 132 Cal.App.3d 1313, 1333-1334.) Effluent limits based upon a narrative water quality objective may be considered a "new interpretation" that will allow a compliance schedule to be placed in an NPDES Permit when that effluent limit is first applied to that discharger. In this case, the previous NPDES permit did not include an effluent limit for aluminum. The inclusion of an effluent limit for aluminum for this discharge is, therefore, a new interpretation. Mr. Landau's memorandum is an internal staff document that provides guidance to staff, but is not the applicable law or policy. The State Water Board's order and CBE set forth the applicable policy. CONTENTION C: INADEQUATE REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED The Order fails to contain an adequate reasonable potential analysis because it uses incorrect statistical multipliers contrary to Federal Regulations 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(ii). Until adoption of the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (State Implementation Policy of SIP) by the State Water Board, USEPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) was the normal protocol followed for permit development for all constituents. The SIP is required only for California Toxics Rule (CTR) and National Toxics Rule (NTR) constituents and prescribes a different protocol when conducting a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA), but is identical when developing water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs). For some time after SIP adoption, SIP protocols were used for CTR/NTR constituents, and TSD protocols were used for non-CTR/NTR constituents. While neither protocol is necessarily better or worse in every case, using both protocols in the same permit has led to confusion by dischargers and the public, and greater complexity in writing permits. Currently there is no State or Regional Water Board Policy that establishes a recommended or required approach to conduct an RPA or establish WQBELs for non-CTR/NTR constituents. However, the State Water Board has held that the Regional Water Board may use the SIP as guidance for water quality-based toxics control. The SIP states in the introduction "The goal of this Policy is to establish a standardized approach for permitting discharges of toxic pollutants to non-ocean surface waters in a manner that promotes statewide consistency." Therefore, for consistency in the development of NPDES permits, the RPA procedures from the SIP are used to evaluate reasonable potential for both CTR/NTR and non-CTR/NTR constituents.