FIELD DOCUMENTS_2000-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INFORMATION SHEET 0 11 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIRMENTS ORDER NO.R5-2003-XXXX SPX CORPORATION MARLEY COOLING TOWER COMPANY STOCKTON, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 1000 mg/L(ppm), as results of monitoring indicate the Discharger is capable of meeting this existing limitation. 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 Water 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 applNing existing water quality objectives, 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 v. EPA (91s 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 122.47. Currently, monthly average concentrations of TDS in the final effluent exceed the new effluent limitation established in this Order. 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 fully 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 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. Chlorine Results of monitoring submitted by the Discharger for the period of January 2001 through May 2002 indicate effluent chlorine residual concentrations have ranged from less than detectable concentrations to 0.2 milligrams per liter(mg/L, ppm) (13 June 2001). The Basin Plan does not provide a numeric water quality objective for chlorine, but the Basin Plan does contain a narrative toxicity objective. At p.111-9.00 the Basin Plan provides that relative to toxicity: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human,plant, animal, or aquatic life." At page 1, the USEPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD)provides that