FIELD DOCUMENTS_2000-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIIAMENTS ORDER NO. R5-2003-XX-XX • 1 I SPX CORPORATION MARLEY COOLING TOWER COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY monthly average effluent limitation for TDS applied at the point of discharge which is necessary to comply with the secondary California MCLS contained in Title 22. California Code of Regulations (CCR) and incorporated as chemical constituent water quality objectives in the Basin Plan. There are no USEPA TDS water quality criteria for protection of aquatic organisms. However, its presence can be growth limiting to certain agricultural crops and TDS affects the taste of water for human consumption. The Regional Board has considered the factors specified in California«Vater Code (CWC) Section 13263, including considering the provisions of CWC Section 13241 where appropriate. The Regional Board is not required to consider the factors in CWC Section 13241 in applying existing water quality objectives of the Basin Plan, including adopting the new monthly average TDS effluent limitation in this Order. The Regional Board must implement the CWC consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA precludes the consideration of costs when developing effluent limitations for NPDES permits necessary to implement water quality standards (See Ackels . EPA (91h Cir. 1993) 7 F.3d 862, 865-66). The Regional Board may consider costs in developing compliance schedules. The Regional Board finds, on balance, that these requirements are necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the Stockton Diverting Canal and the Calaveras River. This Order provides for time schedules for meeting this new average monthly effluent limitation. Time schedules are authorized to be included in this Order based upon 40 CFR Section 1".47. Currently, monthly average concentrations of TDS in the final effluent exceed the new effluent limitation established in this Order. The Regional Board. however. C'oes not have sufficient information to determine if there is reasonable potential to violate the narrative water quality objective. Preliminary data provided by the Discharger indicate the SDC may provide some dilution and have some limited assimilative capacity for TDS, however, the receiving water characteristics have not been dully evaluated with respect to TDS. The Discharger may elect to further study the characteristics and potential assimilative capacity of the SDC, consider the appropriateness of the MUN and/or AGR beneficial use designation of the SDC, and/or consider disposal and treatment alternatives. As this is a new effluent limitation, the Discharger has not had an opportunity to conduct additional studies, undertake a Basin Plan amendment study, or provide a cost estimate for additional treatment or alternative disposal methods which may be necessary to comply with this limitation. A time schedule for compliance with this new TDS effluent limitation is provided in a Provision of this Order. In the interim, this Order retains the average monthly limitation for TDS in the previous Order of 1000 m=L (ppm), as results of monitoring indicate the Discharger is capable of meeting this existing limitation. The new final effluent limitation for TDS effective 1 February 2005 may not be fully protective of the SDC for unlimited AGR use under all conditions. The TDS water quality criteria concentration for unrestricted AGR use, considering application of water to the most sensitive crops, is lower than the MUN water quality protective criteria(450 mg L, ppm). This TDS concentration also corresponds to the SWRCB's Salinity Plan's promulgated standards of 700