SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_CASE 2

Home Browse Search

REGIONAL WATER BOARD RESPONSE (SWRCB/OCC File A-1846(a) and A0846(b)) 5 PETITIONS FOR REVIEW OF V� E DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS ORDER NO R5-2007-0036 (NPDES NO. CA0079154) AND TIME SCHEDULE ORDER NO. R5-2007-0037 CITY OF TRACY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Standards Handbook: Second Edition, Appendix G, Q&A 15 (new and expanded uses are subject to antidegradation analysis).) The State Water Board cited the Region 9 Guidance in the APU, and did not draw the same conclusion ELF does based on this language. Chapter 4 of the Water Quality'Stanadtds Handbook is also consistent with the Regional Water Board's interpretation. Chapter 4 states: Such activities as new discharges or expansion of existing facilities would presumably lower water quality and would not be permissible unless the State conducts a review consistent with the previous paragraph. In addition. no permit may be issued, without an antidegradation review, to a discharger to high-quality waters with effluent limits greater than actual current loadings if such loadings will cause a lowering of water quality (USEPA, 1989c). (Water Quality Standards 2d, Ch. 4, p. 4-7.) ELF also cites Arizona's antidegradation policy. The fact that Arizona may have a state implementation policy that is different or more stringent than California's has no bearing in California. State implementation procedures for antidegradation policies are subject to the review and approval of the USEPA Regional Administrator. (Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition (1987), Chapter 4 "Antidegradation", p. 4-2; id., Appendix G, Q&A- 5.) USEPA can also veto permits that improperly implement antidegradation requirements. (ld.) USEPA has had 18 years to require California to change APU 90-004 or veto permits based on the State Water Board guidance, and has not done so. ELF— CONTENTION B: The Regional Board Erred by Failing to Conduct Socioeconomic and Alternatives Analyses Despite Predicted Degradation. Order R5-2007-0036 complies with the antidegradation policies. The federal and state antidegradation policies are triggered only if the discharge could result in degradation of high- quality water below the applicable baseline. In this case, the Order would authorize an expansion of the facility, which could theoretically result in degradation of water quality. However, the Order is significantly more stringent than the previous order; it requires implementation of tertiary treatment to protect beneficial uses, which is more stringent than federal technology-based standards, and will result in the addition of nitrification and denitrification facilities. The Order does not allow the discharger to increase the mass loading of salinity despite expansion of the facility. Due to the increase in treatment requirements, the Order will result in maintenance or improvement of existing water quality. The commenter has provided no evidence to the contrary.