SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_CASE 2

Home Browse Search

KLbIVIVHI VVH I LR DVHRU RLJr- 'VJL IJ WRl.O/V V V rI1C N-I O40�d� tlIIV H-/O40�U�� w- PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF W E DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO. R5-2007-0036 (NPL-., NO. CA0079154)AND TIME SCHEDULE ORDER NO. R5-2007-0037 CITY OF TRACY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT notification to the public was provided through publication of a notice of public hearing in the Tracy Press, and by posting the notice at the Facility and the nearest Post Office. CSPA submitted timely written comments on each tentative Order. CSPA additionally submitted supplemental comments on the May 2006 tentative Order after the comment due date, but the comments were accepted into the record. ELF submitted timely written comments only on the March 2007 tentative Order. The Regional Water Board provided a response to the comments on the May 2006 and March 2007 tentative Orders, which are included in the record. The Regional Water Board adopted WDR Order No. R5-2007-0036 (NPDES No. CA 0079154), and TSO No. R5-2007-0037 for the City of Tracy Wastewater Treatment Plant on 4 May 2007. CSPA and ELF filed petitions on 27 May 2007 and 1 June 2007, respectively, for the State Water Board to review the decision of the Regional Water Board. The State Water Board determined on 21 February 2008, that the petition was complete. RESPONSES TO ELF'S CONTENTIONS fA-1846(a)l The following are the Regional Water Board's responses to discrete contentions raised in ELF's petition. For convenience, the responses are correlated to the issues as they appear in the petition. ELF— CONTENTION A: The Regional Water Board erred by using present-day ambient water quality as the baseline for its Antidegradation Analysis. The State Water Board should remand Order No. R5-2007-0036 with instructions for the Regional Water Board to redo the antidegradation analysis employing a proper baseline—the best water quality in Old River since 1968. The Regional Water Board's Antidegradation Analysis calculated baseline by taking into account previously permitted lowering of water quality, as compared to the existing water quality as of 1968 or 1975 (the baselines for State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR § 131.12, respectively). This is consistent with the State Water Board's guidelines for implementing the Antidegradation Policy. (Administrative Procedures Update (APU) 90-004.) For existing discharges, the APU requires an antidegradation analysis only when the resissued permit allows a substantial increase in pollutant concentrations or mass loading. (APU 90-004 at 3.) When degradation has already been permitted, the antidegradation baseline is the most recent permitted water quality. (Id. at 4.) The time for challenging any prior action to permit lowered water quality has long since expired. (CWC §§ 13320, 13330.) ELF cites Region 9's Guidance on Implementing the Antidegradation Provisions of 40 CFR 131.12, but takes it out of context. The Guidance discusses actions that will significantly lower water quality. As discussed above, the Order will improve water quality. Nothing in the Guidance suggests that a complete new antidegradation analysis is necessary each time a reissued permit allows the continuation of an existing discharge. (See also, Water Quality