Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2000, 1 - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEMS (NPDES) PERMIT NEGOTIATIONS AND RECENT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY council October 17,2000 acEnaa REpoitt 1�N.6w CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director Prepared By: David Hix, Waster Division Manager SUBJECT: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit Negotiations and Recent Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements for the Water Reclamation Facility CAO RECOMMENDATIONS: Receive and file report. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Recent changes in water quality programs and legislation may have significant impacts to the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). Currently staff is hoping to negotiate a reasonable 2000 NPDES permit for the WRF with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the City's requests are not incorporated into the new permit then the City will continue to be subject to automatic and non-discretionary fines from SB 709 and may be precluded from pursuing ground water projects within the City. A recent letter from the RWQCB placed the City on notice that some new regulations and programs were being implemented. These regulations and programs may require the City to significantly modify the WRF to comply with more stringent discharge requirements. The newly adopted California Toxics Rule (CTR) and possible discharge requirements for nitrates may necessitate the addition of several more processes at the WRF to comply with the new regulations. Design, construction and operations and maintenance of the new processes will have significant capital and ongoing costs. City staff are very concerned that some of the new requirements are not scientifically based or technically justified, do not explore alternatives and are not accurate water quality issues. The City has submitted a proposal to the RWQCB outlining three strategies it hopes will clarify and resolve these issues. DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is provide an overview of the City's wastewater treatment and compliance history and offer a discussion of the approach the City will take in addressing the issues and requirements contained in the Regional Water Quality Control Board's July 25`x', 2000 correspondence and in negotiating a revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit System(NPDES) permit for the Water Reclamation Facility. 1-1 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 2 The City's Wastewater Treatment History The City of San Luis Obispo has been treating wastewater and discharging the effluent into San Luis Obispo Creek for almost 60 years. Since the construction of the first sewage treatment plant in the 1920's the City has had to periodically expand and upgrade the facility for population growth and to meet ever increasing discharge regulations. In the 1980's new federal and state water quality regulations forced the City to drastically change the processes and operations at the treatment plant, in order to comply with new discharge requirements. In 1987 the City entered into a consent decree with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, (RWQCB) that required the City to construct a wastewater treatment plant that could comply with the discharge requirements that have been developed for San Luis Obispo Creek as a result of the Federal Clean Water Act. Prior to this the City's wastewater treatment plant had not been able to meet discharge limits for several years. Toxicity, turbidity, temperature and a variety of other constituents were being discharged in concentrations that were determined to be in violation. During this time period the City was required to comply with interim discharge limits under the consent decree court order while designing and constructing the new facility. Design was completed in 1991 and construction began several months later. In 1994 the City's new Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) was completed and began discharging tertiary effluent that met all of the RWQCB requirements for discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek. Soon after that, the RWQCB rescinded the consent decree and in 1995 the City's revised NPDES permit for the WRF was approved by the RWQCB. The WRF has had an excellent compliance record with the new permit, even though it has some extremely stringent requirements. Currently the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) discharges high quality tertiary treated effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek. Processes at the WRF include primary and secondary treatment for removal of solids and BOD, nitrification to convert the to?dc ammonia found in wastewater to nitrate, filtration to remove any small particles still remaining in the wastewater, cooling to preserve the cold water habitat found in San Luis Obispo Creek and disinfect ion and dechloronation to disinfect the effluent of harmful pathogens and remove the toxic chlorine used for disinfection respectively. This facility complies with some of the most stringent requirements in the state including requirements for acute and chronic toxicity and temperature. The City's NPDES Permit On February 2, 2000, the City submitted an application to the RWQCB, Attachment 1, for renewal of its NPDES permit and subsequently a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) document, Attachment 2, requesting changes to the new permit that would continue to protect water quality, but allow relief from sampling for constituents not found in the WRF's effluent. The Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program regulates the discharge of all point source pollutants, including municipal treatment plants, onto waterways such as San Luis Obispo Creek. NPDES permits are the basis of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and intended to preserve and protect the Nation's waterways. Renewal of the permit is required under the CWA every five years and allows the RWQCB and the City to 1-2 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 3 make and request changes respectively. California is responsible for the implementation of the CWA and develops, issues and enforces the NPDES permit program through the Regional Boards. The renegotiation of the City's NPDES permit is critical because under the current permit the City is very vulnerable to fines from SB709 (Migden) for violations from many of the WRF's more stringent discharge requirements. SB 709 was written to assess automatic and non- discretionary fines for a variety of discharge violations. This legislation was attached as a budget rider and circumvented several key legislative committees and organizations before becoming law on January 1, 2000. This legislation has taken the discretion and authority away from the regulatory agencies because it was felt that the agencies weren't adequately enforcing the discharge requirements. What has resulted is the automatic and mandatory assessment of fines and penalties for violations, many of which are very minor. Before SB 709, regulators and dischargers developed permits with very stringent requirements based upon common goals for water quality and a commitment to meet those requirements as a desired achievable objective. Violations were analyzed by RWQCB staff and addressed as to their impact on water quality. The City had never been fined for these types of violations in the past. Now violations of these stringent discharge limits result in fines that are $3,000 each, automatic and non-discretionary. Many of the difficulties the WRF experiences with minor discharge violations may be attributed to the sophisticated nature of operating biological processes for treatment. Biological processes can be very sensitive to everything from weather changes to variable influent characteristics and require time to recover and stabilize. Some of the VW's other processes can also be difficult to operate because they rely on very strict operational requirements, so when a process upstream is disrupted, processes downstream may also incur problems. Even with the occasional upset or operational problem, the WRF has an outstanding compliance record and is in compliance over 99% of the time for all of its discharge constituents. The combination of extremely stringent discharge requirements, recent SB 709 legislation and operating a sophisticated water reclamation facility has resulted in the current penalty situation faced by the City. The recent discharge violations that have resulted in SB 709 penalties have not resulted in any harm to public health, water quality or the environment. On May 25, 2000, staff sent a letter to the RWQCB, Attachment 3, requesting several discharge requirements be changed on its revised 2000 NPDES permit. These requested changes are to ensure the City is able to achieve consistant compliance, prevent SB 709 violations and protect water quality. The major changes are: Total Dissolved Solids (7DS). Currently the City's limit varies based upon the water supply. The current limit is the TDS found in the City's water supply plus an additional 450 mg/l. The WRF has experienced several violations of this limit because of increased TDS concentrations in the WRF's influent and TDS added by the disinfection and dechloronation process. The City is requesting a limit that reflects the State's primary drinking water standard, and is still protective of San Luis Obispo Creek. This request is critical if the City is to maximize its use of the ground water resources in the basin below the City. Treatment is necessary for the groundwater because the level of nitrate exceeds the State's drinking water standard. To remove the nitrate the City must use a Reverse Osmosis (RO) or ion exchange treatment systems which produce a brine that 1-3 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 4 is high in TDS. Staff has determined that with the current discharge limit, the WRF would be in violation of its limit if the brine from groundwater treatment were discharged to the WRF. Discharge of the brine to the WRF is the most desirable disposal and treatment alternative for the brine because other methods are prohibitively expensive Toxici . The City is required to test its effluent's toxicity by determining the mortality of rainbow trout when introduced into 100% to the City's effluent. An equal number of Rainbow Trout are placed in a "control" (laboratory pure water) and 100% effluent for 96 hours and the results are generally measured by the mortality of the trout. Currently this requirement allows the mortality or death of two juvenile trout to occur in the control sample, but only one for the City's effluent sample, thus if two die in the control, but only one dies in the City's effluent, the City fails the test. The purpose of the control test is to verify that other factors such as diseased specimens, etc. do not inappropriately bias the test results. Therefore it makes no sense that the control sample should be allowed greater mortality than the 100% effluent sample. The City is requesting equal numbers of mortalities for both samples. Although the City has never been in non-compliance for toxicity, this request will result in a more equitable and scientific discharge requirement. The viability of the toxicity test procedure has been the subject of debate in the wastewater treatment industry for some time. Coliform Limit. Coliform bacteria are the indicator organism that is used to determine the effectiveness of the City's disinfection processes. The City's current limit of a Most Probable Number (MPN) of coliform organisms of<2.2 per 100 milliliters is essentially zero. This limit is extremely stringent and impossible to consistently meet because of the challenges of continually treating wastewater with our complicated processes. The City has violated this limit several times and may be fined under the SB 709 legislation. Staff has sampled the creek upstream of the WRF's outfall and found coliform levels hundreds or thousands of times higher that the WRF's discharge. Presently to comply with this requirement VW staff utilize significantly greater amounts of chlorine and dechloronating chemicals than under past operating conditions to ensure compliance. The RWQCB basin plan has established a goal of 240 MPN fecal coliform for San Luis Obispo Creek, a considerably less stringent limit. The City has requested a less stringent coliform limit that will better allow the City to achieve consistant compliance and better use of disinfection and dechloronation chemicals, and is consistant with the basin plan goals for San Luis Obispo Creek. Residual Chlorine. The City is required to dechloronate its effluent before discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek. The City's current limit is "no chlorine residual" and has led to numerous violations. The City is requesting a performance based limit that allows no ongoing chlorine discharges, but will allow small intermittent and minor chlorine discharges. The City's request will allow the City to remain in compliance and will not jeopardize the beneficial uses and inhabitants of San Luis Obispo Creek The City's pH limit is a receiving water limit which means the sample is collected downstream of the VW's discharge to San Luis Creek. The current limit is "the discharge shall not cause pH to fall below 7.0 or exceed 8.3, or change by more than 0.5 pH units". Because the City makes up the majority of the flow in San Luis Obispo Creek during the months of June through November, it makes it difficult for the WRF to consistently comply with its current pH 1-4 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 5 limit. Although the WRF's pH discharge doesn't cause the pH to fall below 7.0 or above 8.5, the City sometimes causes a change of more than 0.5 units. The City has requested that the pH limit be modified to allow a change of 1.0 instead of 0.5 units for a greater range of flexibility during the months of June through November. Although many of the requested changes to the 2000 NPDES permit are small, they will have significant impacts to the City and future City programs. The requested changes will allow the City to better comply with its discharge requirements which will result in no or fewer SB 709 fines for minor violations, allow for more efficient operations and allow the City to pursue local ground water resources. City staff was anticipating that the new permit would be approved at the October 2000 RWQCB meeting. On March 2, 2000 the California Toxics Rule (CTR) was approved and presently the City's NPDES permit renewal has been removed from the RWQCB's agenda while Board staff evaluate the requirements for the constituents under the CTR in the City's revised permit. Proposed New Requirements On July 25, 2000, the RWQCB sent the City a letter, Attachment 4, requiring submittal of technical reports and time schedules for compliance with two constituents; trihalomethanes (THMs) and nutrients. Trihalomethanes are formed by the chemical reaction between chlorine and organic matter found in water and wastewater. Nutrients, specifically nitrogen/nitrate, are common constituents in wastewater. The RWQCB contends that these constituents need to be reduced to acceptable limits to protect the beneficial uses and prevent the impairment of San Luis Obispo Creek. Recent adoption of the California Toxic Rule (CTR) has required the development of discharge limits for a large number of priority pollutant constituents. Two THMs, chlorodibromomethane and dichlorobromomethane, have been detected in the VW's effluent in concentrations exceeding the limits listed in the CTR. The CTR is essentially the same as the similar federal National Toxic Rule (NTR) and were drafted to protect receiving waters from a variety of organic and non-organic pollutants. The WRF has been discharging nitrogen in concentrations 2 '/2 times greater than the State's drinking water concentration for several years. Some of the beneficial uses listed for San Luis Obispo Creek are; domestic and municipal water supply, groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat and cold and warm freshwater habitat. The RWQCB contends that the WRF's discharge impairs these beneficial uses and is requesting that the City reduce the amount of nitrates discharged to the Creek to the State drinking water level of 10 mg/l. The RWQCB listed San Luis Obispo Creek as an impaired water body in 1994 and again in 1998 for nutrients, pathogens and priority pollutants. This listing has resulted in beginning the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the creek. One source of nutrients has been identified as the City's WRF. RWQCB staff have determined that in order to prevent the continuing impairment of the creek under the TMDL program that the City must reduce the VW's nitrate discharge to 6mg/l or less. The TMDL process requires a regulator, such as the RWQCB, to calculate the total load of a particular pollutant that an individual water body can receive on a daily basis without violating 1-5 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 6 applicable water'quality standards and beneficial uses. Once this load is determined, the regulator allocates portions of that load to all sources of that pollutant within a particular watershed in rough proportion to their relative contribution of the pollutant. Sources would be "non-point", such as runoff from the many uses found in the drainage basin and "point", such as the WRF. TMDLs were established by the CWA over 20 years ago, but their use has been almost non- existent until recently. This is a very complicated process and if not done correctly and scientifically could result in a new stringent discharge limit for the WRF for nitrate. It is also possible that other constituents could be identified as impairing San Luis Obispo Creek at future dates and new TMDLs would be required to be developed. How future TMDLs will affect the City is unknown, but will probably have wide ranging implications bec4use of the inevitable development of more stringent water quality regulations and the City being required to implement the new phase II storm water or non-point source NPDES program in the next several years. After meeting with the City's Utilities Director, Roger Briggs, Executive Officer of the RWQCB sent a letter on August 30, 2000, Attachment 5, clarifying the Board's position in the July 25, 2000 letter. The letter states that the Board was overly ambitious on its requirement for technical reports and schedules The letter also states that because no work has been done to develop a nutrient limit and that limit is unknown at this time, the City is in no position to commit to a strategy for construction. Even with this new information the RWQCB still required the City to respond to their July 25a' letter regarding these issues and stated that the City should consider a possible target number of 10 mg/1 for nitrates. Impacts if the New Requirements are Implemented Meeting the requirements as proposed by the RWQCB could cost several million dollars and could significantly increase annual operating costs. Compliance with THMs, as the RWQCB has proposed, would require the City to use another type of disinfection process other than chlorine. Options the City can explore are Ultra-Violet light (UV), ozone and chlorine dioxide. UV is the most common alternative of non-chlorine wastewater disinfection systems, but .is still rather new, would cost several million dollars to install, requires more maintenance and consumes significant amounts of electricity. UV would also be unable to consistently meet the WRF's stringent discharge requirements for coliform bacteria. Ozone and chlorine dioxide are very new processes for wastewater disinfection and will require more analysis to see if an application is feasible. These options will have, at a minimum, similar capital and operating costs as U.V. Other required uses of chlorine at the plant limits our ability to completely eliminate its use at the WRF. Removal of nitrates requires the conversion of the nitrate molecule to nitrogen gas and can be accomplished using biological and/or chemical processes. Modification of the WRF nitrification process to accommodate a denitrification process, would cost millions and have significant operational costs. 1-6 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 7 City's Response Staff was very concerned that the RWQCB's letter offered the City no alternatives and provided only brief time lines for a highly technical response. The RWQCB letter also offers no documentation or data that supports the RWQCB's position and requirements. Currently City staff has been provided very little information by RWQCB staff and are continuing to request supporting documentation. On September 22, 2000, staff submitted a letter to the RWQCB responding to the Board's request, Attachment 6. Listed below are brief descriptions of the City's responses to the RWQCB's letter: The Schedule. Based on the technical nature of the request, it is not possible to submit any type of report and compliance timeline within the requested timeframe. The City disagrees with the findings and conclusions of the RWQCB's letter and would like to meet and discuss all aspects of the Board's action with RWQCB staff. Trihalomethanes. The City cannot meet its current disinfection requirements by using any type of system other than chlorine. The City has requested a revised limit for its pending NPDES permit, but has yet to receive official word back. The current levels of THMs in the City's effluent are significantly lower than the state drinking water requirements and the City has never failed a chronic or acute effluent toxicity test. The City also wants to explore its option of requesting site-specific objectives (SSOs) for THMs. SSOs are limits that are developed and approved by the RWQCB that may be more lenient if it is determined that more lenient requirements will still protect water quality. Impairment and Nutrients Many of the documents that the RWQCB is using to determine if San Luis Obispo Creek is impaired were prepared prior to the WRF's upgrade to its current level of treatment, and use poor or flawed scientific methods and procedures. Determining that San Luis Obispo Creek is impaired using these documents does not use good, technically supported science. Although the City does discharge nitrates to San Luis Obispo Creek in concentrations greater than the State drinking water standard, this does not mean it impairs the beneficial uses of the creek. The City has not been presented with information demonstrating that the WRF's discharge has degraded downstream wells or any other beneficial use. City staff is collecting water quality information below the WRF's outfall to support the City's position. Recent projects and studies with the Nation Marine Fisheries show good numbers of steelhead are reared in San Luis Obispo Creek and are persistently present in pools below the outfall. RWQCB staff have stated that they will probably require the City in its NPDES permit to perform more sampling and work below the WRF's outfall to better characterize the impact of nitrates from the WRF's discharge. Staff will carefully review the RWQCB proposal and request modifications to the sampling program if it is too ambitious, costly or lacks scientific basis. 1-7 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 8 TMDLs City staff are also very concerned about the development of TMDLs without the City being an involved stakeholder. TMDL development should be a watershed approach to determining where sources of pollutants come from and how they can be controlled. The City has a strong commitment to water quality for San Luis Obispo Creek, which is evident in its many creek protection, open space and regulatory programs and would like to be an active member in a TMDL workgroup. As stated previously, the current TMDL development group at the RWQCB are using reports and documents that were poorly developed, old and do not appropriately characterize San Luis Obispo Creek. City's Proposal In the City's September 22, 2000 letter to the RWQCB, the City proposed a three- part strategy for resolving these issuesand determining the best approach for protecting San Luis Obispo Creek's water quality. Briefly, the three strategies are: 1. Begin a series of meetings or workshops with RWQCB staff where information and ideas can be exchanged for solving these issues. City staff believe that RWQCB staff does not have the information required to make key decisions regarding impairment of beneficial uses. 2. Request that the City's NPDES permit be handled separately from the issues addressed in the RWQCB's July 25, 2000 letter. Continue to work with RWQCB staff to ensure that the City's recommendations are adopted into the new permit. This will allow the WRF to operate with a permit it can comply with and protects the City from future SB 709 violations. 3.. If San Luis Obispo Creek remains an impaired water body, then request that the City be an involved stakeholder in the development of TMDLs for San Luis Obispo Creek. City staff are hopeful that reasonable solutions can be found for these issues using technically justified methods and policy. The sampling program is important to provide the information needed to document the WRF's true impact on the creek. This information, along with the other studies the City is currently pursing in the creek, will help verify the true impacts in a technically defensible manner. If these issues cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner then the City should consider hiring consultants and legal specialists that can assist the City in addressing these issues. Several of these issues, such as; SSOs, impairment studies, appealing decisions to a higher authority and other design feasibility studies may require additional technical expertise to provide the City with the information necessary to ensure the City maintains a technically defensible position. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Fiscal impacts may result from the contracting of technical experts and legal specialist, increased sampling requirements or studies. 1-8 Council Agenda Report—Study Session, New RWQCB Water Quality Requirements Page 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. City February 2, 2000, application for renewal of NPDES permit. 2. Reasonable Potential Analysis Document 3. City's May 25, 2000 letter requesting NPDES changes. 4. RWQCB July 25, 2000 letter. 5. RWQCB August 30, 2000 letter 6. City's September 22, 2000 response letter. 1-9 Attachment 1 �n�Nll�llllllffllllllll�l�������l�lUll��ll�ll ���� cityO sAn hili oBispo 2- Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 February 2, 2000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Attn: Mr. Mike Higgins 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-5427 SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S NPDES PERMIT No. CA0049224 Dear Mr. Higgins : Attached with this letter are EPA NPDES application form 1 and short form A for renewing the City of San Luis Obispo's (NPDES) Permit No. 0049224. No significant changes to the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) have taken place since the adoption of the City's current permit. No contributions of over $250.00 or more for any federal, state or local election to any Regional Board members have been made over the last year. The City looks forward to working with you on developing an effective and reasonable permit that will meet both parties goals of protecting water quality using existing resources. If you have any questions regarding the application forms or the WRF please contact me at(805) 781-7039 or at dhixna slocity.org. Sin r l yy David Hix Wastewater Division Manager c: John Moss Doug Marks h:\dhix\NPDES\applicationcwltr.itr 1-10 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all 01 its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 761-7410. . ~ {{{{' G E� t • r ti nrn 1 I I 1 1 r_1_l��il3..}� ��C � .� 'IcC �. -� b ',.\ \�-.-tea �� `+o. �Tr7i]i��'^"^-►- c ,\, ��—'tom.. • --.` \\ t _4 \�', C\ T� S 1 "rt r"_C n`'tf"�-.'�,+, „h rl-r.� r:���1 ��1 �`IZ�� Wit` ti. . \ \ I ? t :, �'•�. �\ :-.\ \c � r �(`'..-l..l--i k�1_tl S TjT.,,J/�Atv l�slllr,7 jr t` Et?�-1 J{`tI '� •` 7 � \' \ � � , c - \ �.� �- � 111;. 1"1�-}..�.,,/.�,.�� ,-�'� 1�-��.'7 [Fr__: 1! �tti rr E' a� �� `� \ � �" � ! '•.� ti �`• /L ZF. :t h�"(.-L ��f� 1. '!f,lGF �� 2r. X7"4. � �i117I• ISI t��-�.,'.j � -t. -( f.i..�;?y'(���"7r 4! 4} }�ij 0 W y��vv` cy5•Ll ,- /i 'tS�IL f �-.,- ` a� \t �„ -.�3� \ \ r •.� `4 �� z.'CL��r`+'i r•C-1 L.I�j I ., rW^�'yit h�l zf r`'� - : ���� � C :� � 'r'�•^ t.�v �'. < \ t'� � \� : \ ��,..� A r � r+j ll,1J'r+,S .�rJl� i� :\� ' I� SI'[ 1 (C> -7 IT1'� ' t � ' r� - '. i -t"'f � rt. �- I ��r� r 1` 1rS1 - 1 ,�1 jt [j';r rl�1' '•'-' ; � �I la ' >•�'4 ' � 1,!71, ? Ir . fit. `c �. !_Ir � ti - r II r�-./ter F _Ic II�Zi;_JI )r �-...il�! ..��' �1� J},-4r ��1-#�i.��(' j7:.�i )(La' i I I i t r Him 1 t4 3.r[ _ _ J �_r ~ (:ti r � f r,�--i ■©— 1 1 �i- ,q fI- I Ir, _ ' 1� I ,�L)i ME® °:.1�.:_�.. n � r �. . Cl•JYr V1', '2�rre�. r � r� .l 1 - I): rel.;, _J � - N/ Ir }h`„4'. . L _ ' t�. L- 1 � :Ir J_r! -J. r �1 /1 t n J , `r•z 7.� 'r; J - v _ 1 3 ! 4 � I SystemsSewerage 77 � t ti� .lY -- --_�—.._c-:•.-:.. LLQ� _]�?�'177_r_ -- ' � s �--�y• _ s -jy1�C» 'LT"bZi17 r•�, ,1� ri�._i���''- `., •' _srtr?i�l� ? -:.0?.) 1Ta -IT,.�f ;. ' r.7�' 3 r • '�• �` J a r r �rsl-uJ-7�.;.�Fr �" "'•,•--T yr fi Z.��,! ;�"k��'Z`-��-�--.r r �.'��-�+-+_1 �r- [T'�.[ZT ?' �L[IFS 7'..+��•��C-i-•s-,•�;T L _ 71 j 1a n L u i s • . • • I J�ySl rt;LY r.r rI Llfi I� et9rr� r 1 ' [ l 11 - �1 J 7.Jr' I , �r I} r lrci U7 � r �,�i.t�l�-•t FT r�� yy^Yt��SS f' IJ7 1 r { � 1-�[Ilt �f rl Ir l I^)l I�1 fill [�I15 ,J`7 Y3 ♦•- - • --- ll ...�1 7.1..It�l„•t I. ..F '�Iti�l \!!-1� • T`^{�'J"a�.la•�7y. �:�'F.__-Txjy .� _ - " Collection, n • reclamation of domestic and industrial wastewater forthCity e : . Luis Obispo. r _ l,. rr IIFY, f1/I 51. - - - - 7 �.J - I !, r / ! r r ~r I fir 1 �!•'�'_[lry/ l _I_I Lr/ /1).ryYj • ri l 1 � J q rf i! J rrr I. r r •lr lI(I 11 ••' r' - _ � , - , - I I I. /r� ( �•! /1 r f! / rl. I/ r r %,1�1�r r(� Il.r 112 I)Ylll�� a d 1' 'r - � .. . ^r-••-•_- ^P r-r-r i'�'r•'^r-�r^r-r-�r-.-.t._.r-f- •_ _ _-.__� r Form Approved r -Al NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHAkuE ELIMINATION SYSTEM OMB No. 158-R0096 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE - SHORT FORM A APPLICATION NUMBER FOR To be filed only by municipal wastewater dischargers AGENCY USE DATE RECEIVED YEAR MO. DAY Do not attempt to complete this form before reading the accompanying instructions Please print or type 1. Name of organization responsible for facility City of San Luis Obispo 2. Address, location, and telephone number of facility producing discharge: A. Name City of San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Facility B. Mailing address: 1. Street address 955 Morro St. 2. City San Luis Obispo 3. County San Luis Obispo 4. State CA 5. ZIP 93401 C. Location: 1. Street 35 Prado Rd. 2. City San Luis Obispo 3. County San Luis Obispo 4. State CA D. Telephone No. 805 781-7039 Area Code If all your waste is discharged into a publicly owned waste treatment facility and to the best of your knowledge you are not required to obtain a discharge permit, proceed to item 3. Otherwise proceed directly to item 4. 3. If you meet the condition stated above, check here 0 and supply the information asked for below. After completing these items, please complete the date, title, and signature blocks below and return this form to the proper reviewing office without completing the remainder of the form. A. Ndme of organization responsible for receiving waste B. Facility receiving waste: 1. Name 2. Street address 3. City 4. County S. State 6. ZIP 4. Type of treatment: A.o None B.0 Primary C.o Intermediate D.0 Secondary E. 'Advanced S. Design flow (average•daily)-of facility-J.Z mgd. 6. Percent BOD removal (actual): A.0 0-29.9 B.0 30-64.9 C.0 65-84.9 D.o BS-94.9 E.X95 or more 7. Population served: A.0 1-199' B.0 200-499 {.0 500-999 D.o 1.000-4,999 E.a 5,000-9,999 F.MO.000 or more B. Number of separate discharge points: A.CM B,o 2 C.0 3 D.0 4 E.0 5 F.0 6 or more EPA Form 7550.6 (1.73) C 1 ✓4N<, T 1-13 9. Description of waste water scharged to surface waters only (check as applicable). Flow, MGD (million gallons per operating day) Volume treated before Discharge per discharging (percent) operating day 0_ 0.01- 0.05- 0.1- 0.5- 1.0- 5 orNone 0.0099 0.049 0.099 0,49 0.99 4.9 more 0,1- 35- 65- 95- 34.9 64.9 94.9 100(12) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (B) (9) (10) (11) A. Average X B. Maximum X X X 10. If any waste water, treated or untreated, is discharged to places other than surface waters, check below as applicable. Flow, MGD (million gallons per operating day) Haste water is 0-0,0099 0.01-0.049 0.05-0.099 0.1-0.49 0.5-0,99 1.0_ discharged to 4.9 5 or more (1) (2) (3) (4) A. Deep well (5) (6) (7) B, Evaporation lagoon C. Subsurface percolation system D. Other, specify: 11. Is any sludge ultimately returned to a waterway? A.a yes B.06 12, a. Do you receive industrial waste? 1.9yes 2,0 no b. If yes, enter approximate number of industrial dischargers into system 3 13. Type of collection sewer system: A.X Separate sanitary B,o Combined sanitary and storm C.0 Both separate and combined sewer systems 14. Name of receiving water or waters San Luis Obispo Creek 15. Does your discharge contain or is it possible for your discharge to contain one or more of the following substances:-ammonia, cyanide, aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, phenols. Alyes B.o no I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in the application and that to the best of my knowledge and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate, �af/i.� C• �X Printed Name of Person Signin War�F�W�/ �i✓r io�l .yaHa�.Ci� Title 2 2 �000 Date Applitation Signed Signatum'of Applictnt 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 ptovfdes that; Whoever,-fn any matter wtthfn the/ud"ection of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wilfully falalfies, conceers, or covers up by any.trick, achene, or device a material fact, ormakee any(else, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations; or makes or uses any false wrffing or document knowing same to,contaln any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shelf be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisonednot more than 5 ream or both. EPA Form 75504 0.73)(Reverse) 1-14 ]e c "4, h •o yet . Meadow- ' •�- •O "1 ra er Park �•" a \ �•' '` 'y ar . Radio Tower, f - t' •u --?IKATYI cc '.t yx, 14, • 3+ .-- --- 17: AthletC ^t 4i a r� a \.` �•�. -- _ field Wa ,/� :. .•• w '.pf �!, �/ l`\T'e k •<]<• ^� am Ili. ith'A.." il. \' �- mss, :`• � •`��•��{�,.. a ��r+ '•Y � _ I. ,1 •]90, \„ � . 1, r• rib / Park •F i- r��•r _. I Galt ...�./.•r /_. Lours 'Drive-in, IT TMdaL `, `\'\Yell ( Theater Park '. ��= ='� ! City of San Luis Obispo _ 3 — _. ~ %.�� Barra-` . � ! Water Reclamation Facilityit nkTL ,.=•�.%1-.arm` / \•�ey.' .�' e ' •�� \� •:. �\ i=i ��� Well v 4• Diits 1' "a9r!�-`t '/ A• t 7 Well Intake r—. .�_ ` r• -n• Trade ria ,.° Park Structure ����� ��`��` ._... ..—•� 'i ie �moi; �- � YC/•^` ��� : nom•• �' /� r _ Trailer ��l 1\`• \ ?&IIG �"� -['._ �`� 101 �4• �'�. Park 9ilu pinlL " �Station -� < 1-CA ;+ r `% �.� '�• ':n L : ! ei�ti / .. •1 ® : moi,, �t`f •.y``� /1610 _ l 1 •. arm'\U'''� C S \ �\\•�,�� :` fir, •. —��,' *�:-.' 1 ��+`�c', o , /%�) .' 1 ` Discharge Outfall Va e� v ,_ES •a,� ISH 176V. M• .''�'.��.. .1\•: \..ti_.^..._�. 1. —-J'�n ( VIM Gi01° AND 19/8 MAGN(1,( °'� 'a•: - _ .} UCCtvu l.p.. al (thi(n Or �..�\, yr •, .. •. _ -'-� - -'�. _ •..-z:'-r� V Nor Location Map ^,�-- City of San Luis Obispo WaterNuc anon Facility /op-:�• i, _ ��r�/'` USGS Maw :.,� �,, .��/ �✓, ,. �'�.��� San Luis Obispo,CA. 1978 Attachment 2 ��uIIVII��VIIIIII��IIIIIIII�IIIII���������ll IIIIII of SAn Luis oBispoClt y 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 12, 2000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Attn: Mike Higgins 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-5427 SUBJECT: Reasonable Potential Analysis for the City of San Luis Obispo, NPDES Permit No. CA0049224 Dear Mr. Higgins: This letter is a request for removal of many of the constituents listed in the City of San Luis Obispo's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES). In accordance with the federal Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Board must adopt a NPDES permit that specifies effluent or receiving water limitations for specific chemical constituents or for toxicity if a reasonable potential exists that the constituent's concentration or effect will exceed a water quality standard. Conversely, where no such potential exists, no limitation should be adopted. The following discussion describes the City's chemical specific and whole effluent toxicity analysis as applied to the chemical constituents found in the City's existing NPDES permit. As per the EPA's Technical Support Document for the Water Quality-based Toxics Control, the City has provided the chemical specific analysis to demonstrate that no reasonable potential exists for the constituents listed and discussed in this letter. The EPA requires that a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) be conducted for all constituents of concern for which a discharge limit is considered. The City of San Luis Obispo annually tests its effluent for almost 100 different constituents. The majority of these constituents have tested below the detection limit since the City began its Monitoring and Reporting Program(M&RP No. 95-48). The majority of the constituents tested Non Detectable (ND) prior to discharge to the receiving water and those constituents that were detected were significantly below the permit limit before dilution with the receiving water. The City's request is for the constituents listed in this letter be removed from the City's NPDES permit. The listed constituents have been measured in the effluent rather than in the RW because the City has a monitoring option in the its M&RP to analyze a single effluent sample rather than two RW samples. The effluent samples give a more accurate -16 lies. The City O1 San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities. Telernmmunications Device for the Deaf(8os) 781-741o. Reasonable Potential Analysis City of San Luis Obispo,NPDES Permit No.CA0049224 May 12,2000 Page 2 of 6 measurement of the constituents because they have not been diluted in the receiving water. Chemical Specific Analysis Listed below in table 1 are the constituents that the City is required to monitor under its existing permit for the receiving water that have consistently tested Non Detected (ND) or at very low levels. The table lists the constituent, the approved testing method, the detection limit for the testing method, the permit limit, the four year mean of the test result and City's analysis of the limit requirement. Constituents that have no permit limit are noted by a Not Applicable (NA) in the WDR Limit column. The sampling occurred in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Table 1 Constituent Method Limit Limit Mean Note �uentvrv:: rq1�"-., ' r mill tA: For oc .• fechon. MIM WQ Acrolein 624 100µg/1 NA ND RPA Acrylonitrile 624 100µg/1 NA ND RPA Atrazine 507 2.0µg/l 0.003 mg/I ND RPA Benzene 624 0.5µg/1 0.001 mg/l ND RPA Benzidine Mod 625 50µg/I NA ND RPA Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 625 10µ9/1 NA ND RPA Bis(2—chloroisopropyl) 625 10µg11 NA ND RPA ether Carbon tetrachloride 624 0.5µg/1 0.5µg/1 ND RPA Endrin 608 0.05µg/1 02µg/1 ND RPA Ethylbenzene 624 0.5µg/1 0.680 mg/1 ND RPA Ethylene Dibromide 504.1 0.02µg/1 0.02µg/1 ND RPA Hexachlorobutadiene 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA Hexachlorocyclopenta- 625 10µ9/1 NA ND RPA diene Hexachloroethane 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA Isophorone 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA Lindane 608 0.05µg/1 0.004 mg/1 ND RPA Methoxychlor 608 0.05µg/1 0.1 mg/1 ND RPA Monochlorobenzene 624 3.0µg/1 0.030 mg/I ND RPA Nitrobenzene 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA N nitrosomethylamine Mod 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA N-nitrosodiphenylamine Mod 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA Phenols 625 10-50µg/1 O.lmg/1 I ND I RPA Phthalate Ester 625 10µg/1 0.002µg/ NDRPA WDR<DL 1-17 �3 Reasonable Potential Analysis City of San Luis Obispo,NPDES Pemrit No.CA0049224 May 12,2000 Page 3 of 6 Constituent Method Limit Limit Mean Note en tcs �eio&j Polychlorinated Biphenyls 608 0.5µg/1 0.3µg/1 ND RPA WDR< DL Simazine 507 2.0µg/1 0.01 mg/l ND RPA Tetrachloroethylene 624 0.5µg/l 5.0µg/1 ND RPA Toxaphene 608 2.0µg/1 0.005 mg/1 ND RPA Trichloroethylene 624 1.0µg./1 0.005 mg/l ND RPA Vinyl Chloride 624 0.5µg/1 0.5µg/1 ND RPA Xylenes 624 1.0µg/1 1.750 mg/I ND RPA 2,4-D 8150 2.0µg/1 0.1 mg/l ND RPA 2,4,5-TP-Silvex 8150 2.0µg/l 0.01 mg/1 ND RPA 1,4,-dichlorobenzene 624 1.01ug/( 0.005 mg/l ND RPA 1,2-dichloroedme 624 1.Oµg/l 0.5µg/1 ND RPA WDR< DL 1,1 -dichloroethylene 624 1.0µg/1 0.006 mg/1 ND RPA 1,3-dichloropropene 624 2.0µg/l 0.5µg/1 ND RPA WDR< DL 3,3-dichlorobenzidine 625 20µg/1 NA ND RPA 2,4-dichlorophenol 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA 2,4-dinitrotoluene 625 Mµg/1 NA ND RPA 2-methyl-4,6- 625 10µg/1 NA ND RPA dinitrophenol 1,2-diphenylhydrazine Mod 625 50µg/1 NA ND RPA 1,1,2,2- 624 1.0µg/1 0.001 mg/1 ND RPA Tetrachloroethane 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 624 0.5µg/l 0.200 mg/l ND RPA 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 624 0.5µg/1 0.032mg/1 ND RPA Constituent M6thode Limit Limit Mean Note s eI is= ME, - Aluminum 200.7 0.1 mg/1 7.5 mg/l ND RPA Antimony 200.7 0.01 mg/1 NA ND RPA Arsenic 200.7 0.01 mg/l 0.05 mg/l ND RPA Barium 200.7 0.005 mg/l 1.0 mg/1 0.08 mg/l RPA Beryllium 200.7 0.005 mg/1 NA ND RPA Boron 200.7 0.1 mg/l 0.6 mg/l 0.30 mg/l RPA Cadmium 200.7 0.005mg/1 3.0µg/1 ND RPA WDR<DL Chromium 200.7 0.01mg/1 0.075mg/l ND RPA Cobalt 200.7 0.01 mg/l NA ND RPA 1-18 Reasonable Potential Analysis City of San Luis Obispo,NPDES Permit No.CA0049224 May 12,2000 Page 4 of 6 Constituent Method Limit Limit Mean Note wsr e e oii. or r . T.9. tr. Cyanide 4500 NCE 0.01 mg/1 NA ND RPA Fluoride 300.0 0.1 mg/1 1.5 mg/l 0.6 mg/1 RPA Iron 200.7 0.05 mg/l 7.5 mg/l 0.15 mg/I RPA Lead 200.7 0.01 mg/1 0.045 mg/1 ND RPA Manganese 200.7 0.01 mg/1 0.3 mg/l .02 mg/l RPA Mercury 245.2 0.00001 mg/1 0.3µg/1 ND RPA Molybdenum 200.7 0.01 mg/l 0.015 mg/l ND RPA Selenium 200.7 0.01 mg/1 0.03 mg/1 ND RPA Silver 200.7 0.01 mg/1 0.05 mg/l ND RPA Thallium 200.7 0.01 mg/1 NA ND RPA Zinc 200.7 0.02 mg/1 0.3 mg/l ND RPA RW=Receiving Water. As applied here:the WDRs are for the RW but the effluent is sampled and analyzed as RW. NA=Not applicable ND=Not detected RPA=Reasonable Potential Analyses:Recommend seeking relief from sampling and reporting WDR=Waste Discharge Requirements DL=Detection Limit The constituents in the table fall within four categories: detected, but significantly below the permit limit, not detected where the detection limit was below the permit limit, not detected where the permit limit was below the detection limit and not detected where no permit limit exists. There are no analytical results that suggest any of the constituents that are ND with a detection limit lower that the permit limit or have no permit limit are present in the City's effluent. Since the constituents' detection limits are significantly lower than the permit limits,the discharge cannot contain more of these compounds than the limits. All of the permit limits for the constituents that have been detected are at least twice tht; level that the constituents have been detected. These constituent have not been diluted by the receiving water and would be significantly diluted prior to receiving water sampling. Since the constituents are significantly below the permit limit prior to dilution they would be in even lower levels and many would probably be ND. The constituents that have a permit limit lower that the detection limit are typically compounds that persist in the environment for long periods of time and tend bioaccumulate in the food chain, are toxic to aquatic life forms and/or threaten human health. Four of these constituents, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Phalate Esters, 1,2-dichloroethnae and 1,3-dichloropropene are found in this table. PCB's,which were used primarily as a cooling liquid in electrical transformers have been banned since 1977. Phthalate esters, which cover a large range of compounds, are used as the plasitizers for plastic products and also as a constituent in insect repellents. 1,2- 1-19 Reasonable Potential Analysis City of San Luis Obispo,NPDES Permit No.CA0049224 May 12,2000 Page 5 of 6 dichloroethane is a solvent used in the processing or waxes, fats and oils and also used as a fumigant and 1,Michloropropene is used as a soil fumigant. The City has no industries within its jurisdiction that use these compounds. The City's pretreatment program and hazardous materials programs regularly inspect every facility in the City to verify activities, hazardous materials and waste management, and discharges to the City's wastewater collection system. Since there are no sources where these compounds could be discharged to the City's wastewater collection system, it is highly unlikely that they are in the City's discharge at concentration higher than the permit limit. Currently the City's pretreatment program and industries are in compliance. The pretreatment program also analyses the City's biosolids to deterune the accumulation of compounds in the WRF's solids. All the organic compounds listed in the table have not been detected, further indicating that they are not present in the WRF's discharge. Metals are present in the City's biosolids because metals have a very strong ionic bond that readily attach to solids. Influent concentrations of these metals are very low and a significant portion of the metals are captured in the biosolids, resulting in very low, if any, concentrations in the WRF's effluent. Whole Effluent Toxicity The City has been in compliance with both its acute and chronic toxicity analysis since it has become a requirement of its permit. The City is required to perform these toxicity analyses to determine the effects of the City's effluent on several forms of aquatic life. These tests determine the synergistic effects or effects of every constituent on aquatic life in one test. Since the City has not failed a toxicity test this is further evidence that the constituents listed ND in table 1 are not present and the constituents that are detected are at such low concentrations that they pose no risk to aquatic life, human health or the beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek. Based on the analysis in this RPA the City of San Luis Obispo is requesting that the constituents listed in table 1 be removed from the City's 2000 NPDES permit No. 0049224. Because this RPA is based on the concentration of the constituents found in the effluent rather than the receiving water it offers additional protection to the beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek because the effluent samples have not been diluted by the receiving water. 1-20 Reasonable Potential Analysis City of San Luis Obispo,NPDES Permit No.CA0049224 May 12,2000 Page 6 of 6 The City of San Luis Obispo has a strong commitment to maintaining water quality and protection of San Luis Obispo Creek's beneficial uses. If you have any questions regarding this Reasonable Potential Analyses, any of the data or the City's Monitoring and Reporting Program,please contact me at(805) 781-7039 or dhix(a-,)slocity.org. '1 Sincere David C. Hix Wastewater Division Manager C: John Moss,Utilities Director Doug Marks, Water Reclamation Supervisor hldhix/NP DES2000WA.Itr 1-21 Attachment 3 ►►�a������a���aNi���►�II�11111h����������� IIIA city of san hues oBispo i y 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 25, 2000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Attn: Mr. Mike Higgins 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-5427 SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S NPDES PERMIT No. CA0049224 Dear Mr. Higgins: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed WDR's for the City of San Luis Obispo's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The City is committed to preserving the water quality of its receiving water, San Luis Obispo Creek, its tributaries and corresponding riparian areas. The City has devoted significant resources to ensure the WRF's daily operations and maintenance is efficient, that compliance with all regulatory requirements are maintained and that capital improvement needs are addressed. Several of the requirements in the City's existing permit are overly stringent and the City appreciates this opportunity to propose changes that will continue to protect water quality,be technically justified and be more consistently achievable. In addition to WRF compliance, the City has also devoted significant resources to ensure the long term preservation of open space, riparian areas and watersheds. These projects, purchases, programs and policies help preserve water quality by limiting the introduction of pollutants and nutrients and maintaining natural healthy ecosystems. The City would like to take this opportunity to outline some of these activities it is pursuing for creek enhancement and preservation, and limiting the introduction of pollutants and nutrients into the City's creek system. Following is a discussion outlining some of the City's creek enhancement and pollutant control activities followed by a discussion of proposed changes to the City's 2000 NPDES permit. 1-22 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 2 of 9 Creek Enhancement and Pollutant Control The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to protecting, preserving and enhancing its natural creek systems and water quality. The City has aggressively adopted many regulations, requirements and policies that seek to meet this goal. Along with the adoption of these policies the City has also made many purchases of adjacent creek properties that will preserve, as a whole, entire segments of creek ecosystem and watershed. Below are some of the activities that the City is doing to enhance its creek system, control the introduction of pollutants and manage its resources: ■ Purchase of Properties. As mitigation to the City's water reuse project, and its continuing commitment to open space, preservation of native and endemic species, riparian corridors, ecosystems and watersheds, several parcels of property have been acquired adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek or within its drainage basin. These large parcels of land adjacent to creeks allow for the natural control of pollutants and nutrients while continuing to maintain the natural riparian ecosystem. Below is a brief list of some City properties. Filliponi Property — This newly acquired property is approximately 80 acres situated at the junction of San Luis Obispo Creek and the East fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. This property is part of the mitigation for the water reuse project and will be used to create and maintain 12,000 square feet of pond habitat. Reservoir Canyon — The City owns property in Reservoir canyon for open space, preservation of species and watershed. Railroad property — The City recently purchased approximately 50 acres of property in Stenner canyon adjacent to the National Forest. ■ Creek Set Back Ordinance. The City's Creek Set Back Ordinance limits construction 20 to 50 feet from top of back. The set back is dependant upon which creek the development is adjacent to and if the area was annexed into the City after 1996. Areas that were annexed into the City after 1996 have wider setbacks. The City's Creek Set Ordinance is intended to: a) Protect scenic resources, water quality and natural creek side habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,rest and movement. b) Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat corridor can be established. c) Allow for the natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor, 1-23 ,3 3 City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 3 of 9 d) Help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding. e) Enable the implementation of adopted City plans. ■ Native Revegetation. The City has been actively revegetating several areas along San Luis Obispo Creek with native species. The removal of exotic non- native species and replanting of native species allows for the naturalization of the riparian zone by the reintroduction of the native ecosystem. Native ecosystems attract a greater variety of native species and are effective in enhancing and preserving the creek's water quality. ■ Bank Stabilization. The City has worked closely with the Army Corp of Engineers to identify and stabilize portions of San Luis Obispo's banks that were failing and or unstable. The City has adopted construction techniques that stabilize the creeks banks and adjacent areas using methods that promote naturalization of the area and offer native species places to live and thrive. ■ Sewer Ordinance. The City's sewer use ordinance prohibits the discharge of any polluted water, garbage, rubbish, sewage or any other polluted material into the storm drain or natural outlet. Only unpolluted water is permitted to be discharged into the storm drain. The City's pretreatment section enforces this ordinance and works with restaurants, industrial facilities, contractors, business owners, other agencies, City departments and the public to ensure that polluted water is not discharged to the storm drains or creeks. This non-point source program has been very effective by using a mix of education and enforcement. • Storm Water Permitting. Currently the City's WRF and bus maintenance facility are permitted under the industrial storm water facilities program for non point source discharges (phase I). Sampling during storm events, development of Best Management Practices (BMPs), training, inspection and reporting have made this a compliant and successful program that is committed to a reduction in non- point source pollutant discharges to San Luis Obispo Creek. The City is now analyzing and preparing for the future phase II storm water regulations that will encompass the entire City. ■ Street Sweeping. The City has an aggressive street sweeping program that removes tons of materials from City streets each year. Every month, all City streets are swept. The City's downtown, which is immediately adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek, and receives the heaviest amount of traffic and concentration of activities, is swept daily. ■ Permitting. The City conditions many of its construction permits to control or restrict any activities that would result in illegal discharges to City creeks, disturb 1-24 City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 4 of 9 the adjacent vegetation or alter creek banks where a project may be sited. The City also manages construction activities that are not adjacent to creeks, but may have potential negative effects from runoff or drainage. These activities are, but are not limited to: pavement saw cutting, truck washouts, material storage and other contractor activities. ■ Enhancement and Preservation of Riparian Creek Corridor Upstream, Downstream and within the City of San Luis Obispo. The City has an ongoing policy and programs for the enhancement and preservation of creek corridors that run through the City. The City continues to purchase or acquire long tern rights for open space and natural areas that preserve valuable watershed and ensure long term health of the City's creeks and water quality. ■ Management. The City is one of a select few municipalities of its size to have a Natural Resources Manager(NRM) and a soon to be hired biologist that will have a fisheries biology emphasis. The NRM is responsible for acquiring and maintaining open space, consults with other departments and agencies regarding projects and programs and works to ensure the preservation of the City's valuable natural resources. The NRM has been responsible for the setting aside of significant amounts of riparian area and other valuable watershed, open space and natural areas. All of these acquisitions benefit the City's natural riparian areas and enhance the water quality in its creeks. The biologist position will offer the City a"field presence"that will enhance and compliment the work of the NRM. • Resource Inventory—The City is just completing a natural resource inventory to be used for planning and resource preservation. This inventory gives the City a comprehensive inventory of natural resources throughout the City and will be used as a tool for planning and development to ensure preservation of the City's natural resources. NPDES Permit Comments and Requests. The City has had an excellent compliance record under its current NPDES permit (Order No. 95-48) and has strived to ensure the proper resources have been made available to consistently achieve compliance. The majority of the terms and conditions outlined in the City's current permit are satisfactory, fair and share the City's desire to implement an effective program that protects water quality. Although the City has a better than 99% compliance record, there are several constituent limits that have been very hard to consistently achieve and the City is requesting to change for the 2000 NPDES permit. These limits are extremely stringent and often times do not offer the protection to beneficial uses of the receiving water for which they were originally developed. The recent passage of SB 709 and its arbitrary mandatory fines also put the City in a position of being subject to fines and penalties even when there has been no negative 1-25 3s City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 5 of 9 effects to the receiving water. SB 709 legislation requires automatic fines and penalties that may cost the City tens of thousands of dollars yet offer no mechanism to determine if the violation has any measurable detrimental effect or technical justification. These permit limits tend to be very stringent with no appreciable benefit to the protection of the receiving water. To protect itself from unjustified fines and penalties and continue to protect the receiving water, the City is requesting some of its permit limits and conditions be changed to sensible and justified limits that continue to protect the beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek. The City is also actively reviewing plans to utilize a greater share of water from its local groundwater basin. The use and/or treatment of this water could have some detrimental effects at the WRF. The City is requesting adjustments of a few constituents based upon the development of this local, reliable and renewable water source. Effluent Limitations Total Dissolved Solids. Currently the City's Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) discharge varies based on water supply. The City has experienced several violations of this limit because of elevated TDS present in the City's influent and TDS added from disinfection and dechloronation processes at the WRF. Both of these factors make this stringent limit very difficult to consistently achieve. The primary drinking water limit for TDS is 1200 mg/1 and would continue to offer protection to the receiving water. The City is studying the increased development of additional ground water resources and seeks a limit that not only protects beneficial uses of the receiving water, but allows for development of a local water resource and protects the City from fines and penalties per SB 709 ■ The City proposes the drinking water limit of 1200 mg/1 be the maximum effluent TDS limit. Chloride. The City's current chloride effluent concentrations have fluctuated between highs of 160mg/1 and lows of 100mg/l. As previously stated the City is currently exploring increasing its use of groundwater. Chloride is one of the constituents that would increase when new groundwater resources are developed. The drinking water standard for Chloride is 500mg/l. This limit would allow the City flexibility in examining new water sources while continuing to protect the receiving water. ■ The City proposes a maximum effluent chloride limit of 500 mg/1. Sodium. As with chloride, sodium this is another limit that will be effected by the development of groundwater resources. The City would propose adoption of the drinking water standard of 500 mg/l. ■ The City proposes a maximum effluent sodium limit of 500 mg/l. 1-26 3(� City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 6 of 9 Acute Toxicity. The City has always been in compliance with its acute toxicity limit, but the current limit is not equitable and places the City in potential risk of fines and penalties. Currently the test does not allow for the control sample to be incorporated into the evaluation of the results. The tests allows two mortalities of juvenile rainbow trout in the control to be "pass" and considered toxicity free, while if the concurrent effluent sample suffers two mortalities, it would fail. Allowing the two mortalities in the control as a "pass", while an equal number of mortalities experienced in the concurrent effluent sample is assumed to be caused by toxicity, has no technical or statistical justification. Both the control and the sample TUa's need to be statistically analyzed for significant differences. ■ The City proposes to incorporate the control sample in the evaluation of the results and change the limit to TUa=.59 for the acute toxicity limit. (The numerical acute Toxicity Unit(TUa) value for two mortalities is .59.) Coliform Limit. The City's current limit of a median WN < 2.2 is an exceedingly stringent requirement. The WRF has averaged 15 violations annually with very small concentrations, usually less than 8 NIPN, when concurrent samples of the upstream receiving water were hundreds to thousands of times higher in concentration, usually greater than 2000 NTN. This limit places the WRF in constant jeopardy of being out of compliance while doing little for the protection of the beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek. The adopted Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) lists Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) as the most stringent beneficial use for our receiving water. The limit per the Basin Plan, (page III-10, Water Contact Recreation,Rec-1) is a mean of 200 WN for fecal coliform in a 30-day period. This limit is the technically justified limit for our receiving water, and is still significantly lower than the natural background coliform count found upstream of the WRF's effluent discharge. If this limit was adopted, the City would still strive towards the lowest possible MPN of<2.2/100 ml for total coliform,but would not be in violation for minor exceedences of that goal. ■ The City proposes a mean limit of 200 NTN for fecal coliform based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30 day period. Residual Chlorine. The City's current residual chlorine limit is no detectable chlorine - 0.0 mg/l. This present limit requires the City to report any and all detections of chlorine compounds no matter how minute, with no determination if any free chlorine is associated with discharge. The City would like to adopt a 99% compliance format that allows for reasonable yet stringent limits. The format would allow a limited month discharge with maximum concentrations and discharge durations. The City of Riverside has this limit and has been able to achieve consistant compliance while not negatively 1-27 3-7 City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 7 of 9 affecting the receiving water. The City would still strive towards a undetectable chlorine discharge, but would not be in violation for very small, nontoxic discharges. The City is also requesting the measurable limit to be 0.2 mg/l of free chlorine. Compliance determinations for total chlorine residual should be based on the presence of free chlorine as defined in the EPA document, Water Quality Criteria, (EPA, #400/5-86- 001), pages 161-163 and the effluent toxicity requirements as outlined in the 1994 update of the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan, page III-4, Toxicity. Chlorine toxicity as defined in the EPA's Water Quality Criteria uses only free chlorine as the reference toxicant, and does not reference any other chlorine compounds. Since there are no other standards for combined chlorine compounds, any component of measurable effluent toxicity that is related to chlorine is only related to available free chlorine and not combined chlorine compounds. Combined chlorine is not included as a reference toxicant and its toxicity properties are not defined. The 0.2 mg/l limit of free chlorine will provide protection for aquatic organisms while allowing the City a reasonable and technically justified limit. ■ The City proposes a 99% compliance format. To determine 99%compliance with the effluent limitation the following conditions shall be satisfied; (1) The total time during which the free chlorine residual values are above 0.2 mg/l shall not exceed 7 hours and 26 minutes in any calendar month; (2) No individual excursion from 0.2 mg/l shall exceed 45 minutes (10% of 7 hours and 26 minutes); and (3) No individual excursion shall exceed 2.Omg/l and; ■ The City proposes to change the chlorine residual concentration limit to 0.2 mg/l of free chlorine. Receiving Water Limitations pH. Because the WRF makes up the majority of the steam flow in San Luis Obispo Creek during the months of June through November, it is difficult for the WRF to consistently comply with its current pH permit limit. Since the normal nitrification process at the WRF lowers the effluent pH, the WRF frequently experiences effluent related pH changes in the receiving water. The WRF has experienced several violations because of this situation. Receiving water pH is changed very slightly during this time and pH is always in the region of the pH 7.0 (neutral) range. No negative effects to the receiving waters have occurred because of these discharges. During normal operations Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) is added to the nitrification process to provide alkalinity and balance pH. However adding NaOH to adjust the final 1-28 3-9 City of San Luis Obispo WDR comments. May 25,2000 Page 8 of 9 effluent pH would be prohibitively expensive, very difficult to control and would also increase the effluent's TDS. The addition of 0.5 pH units to the City's current limit would allow the WRF to comply with its WDR's while continuing to protect the receiving water. Keeping the current limit may subject the WRF to unnecessary fines and penalties from SB 709. ■ The City proposes changing the current 0.5 pH unit change to 1.0 pH unit during the months of June through November, and at no time shall the discharge cause the receiving water pH to fall below 7.0 units. Monitoring Discharger Monitoring Report. Currently the City's Permit requires that the Discharger Monitoring Report (DMR) be submitted by the 20' of the following month. Often sampling results have not been received from our contract lab by the 20'', resulting in late DWR and warnings from the RWQCB staff. The City's prior NPDES order (Order No. 90-12)reporting limit was 40 days after the end of the reporting month. This requirement would allow the City sufficient time to submit complete reports containing data that has been adequately reviewed and analyzed and allow for any inquiries or retests to be run by the lab in the event of an unusual or abnormal result. ■ The City proposes extending the DWR due date to 40 days after the end of the reporting month. Thank you once again for allowing the City to comment on the proposed WDR's for the WRF. The City looks forward to working with you on a permit that will protect the beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek by using technically justified methods and existing resources. The City has a genuine desire to continue its water quality commitment and stewardship in a fashion that will benefit both the environment and City residents. Please contact me at your convenience for more information, to arrange a meeting or discuss our proposals at (805) 781-7039 or dhixpslocity.org. Sinc y David C. Hix Wastewater Division Manager c: John Moss,Utilities Director Doug Marks,Water Reclamation Facility Supervisor h:\2000N P DES\Novi&permi 1.1 lr 1-29 Attachment California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Winston H.Hickox Gray T 'e Secrelmy for Internct Address: httpJ/wwwswreb.ca.gov/-rwgcb3 GO" 0 Ewwrownenral gl Higucra Street,Suite 200,San Luis Obispo,California 93401- Protection Phone(805)549-3147•FAX(805)543-0397 D l�J^ 0 July 25,2000 JUL 2 6 2000 Mr. John Moss City of San Luis Obispo CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 955 Morro Street, CA 93401 UTILITIES DEPT. Dear Mr.Moss: TECIMCAL REPORT AND COMPLIANCE TIME SCHEDULES, CALIFORNIA TOXICS RULE AND NITRATE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS,CITY OF SAN LUIS OBSIPO California Toxics Rule. On May 18, 2000, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published the following Rule in the Federal Register: Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California (Toxics Rule). The Toxics Rule, at 40 CFR 131, promulgates water quality standards for 126 toxic pollutants, including the following b ihalomethanes: dichlorobromomethane and chlorodibromomethane. On March 2, 2000, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (Implementation Policy). The Implementation Policy establishes procedures for developing effluent limitations based on the water quality standards promulgated in the Toxics Rule. Since 1995, the City's Wastewater Reclamation Facility's (Facility) discharge of treated municipal wastewater to San Luis Obispo Creek has invariably contained the tribalomethanes noted above at concentrations exceeding effluent limitations developed according to the Implementation Policy, as shown in the following table: Constituent Observed mean Monthly Average Daily Maximum Effluent concen-tration,pg/L1 Effluent Limitation,pg/L Limitation,pg/L Chlorodibromo 12.8 0.40 0.82 -methane Dichlorobromo 28.6 0.56 1.12 -methane t Annual grab samples taken in 1995 through 1999. Therefore, in accordance with CWC §13267(6), by October 1, 2000, please submit, for the approval of the Executive Officer,a technical report that includes the following: 1. A description of the means the City will employ to reduce the trihalomethanes listed above to levels in compliance with the effluent limitations based on the Toxics Rule's water quality standards,and 2. A time schedule according to which the City will implement the measures. In acccordance with the Implementation Policy, the time schedule should be as short as practicable, but in no case shall exceed five years from the date of your permit's reissuance. California Environmental Protection Agency ea Reewkd Paper -30 v2 City of San Luis Obispo 2 July 25,2000 Nitrate's Impairment of Beneficial Uses. The Water Quality Control Plan(Basin Plan) for the Central Coast Region, adopted by this Board on November 17, 1990, establishes the beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek's waters. As described in Finding No. 10 in Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. 95- 48, adopted by this Board on October 13, 1995, existing beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek include,but are not limited to,the following: • drinking water for domestic and municipal uses, • water for groundwater recharge, • wildlife habitat,and • cold and warm freshwater habitat. In addition, the beneficial uses for the groundwater downgradient of the point of discharge includes the supply of drinking water for domestic and municipal uses. Effluent monitoring from November 1998 through November 1999 found that the discharge to San Luis Obispo Creek and the downgradient groundwater contained an average of 25.1 mg/L of nitratetnitrite, expressed as nitrogen. The State of California's Drinking Water Standard at 22 CCR §64431 specifies the Primary Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate and nitrite at a maximum of 10 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen. Moreover, the April 7, 1995 report entitled Hydrology and Ground-water Modeling of Lower San Luis Obispo Creek for the Water Reuse Project described the Creek's relationship to groundwaters downgradient of the discharge as follows: "The ground-water system consists of a shallow and narrow alluvial aquifer that is in direct hydraulic communication with San Luis Obispo Creek. Most of the recharge to the aquifer occurs as leakage from the Creek with lesser amounts from direct precipitation and subsurface inflow." The report also states: "The surface water hydrology consists of natural San Luis Obispo Creek flow above the Water Reclamation Facility(WRF),tributary inflow,and WRF discharge,which has often been greater than the existing surface water contributions to the Creek in the summer months." In summary, monitoring demonstrates that the discharge, over the past year, contained two-and-one-half times the State's water quality standard, as an annual average. During fall months, the discharge may comprise all of the Creek's flow. Therefore, the discharge may directly impair the Creek's existing 'beneficial use as a domestic and municipal supply of drinking water. Additionally, as noted above, Creek waters comprise most of the recharge for the small groundwater basin downgradient of the discharge point. Consequently, elevated nitrogen levels in the discharge.likely contribute to the degradation of groundwater quality, and thereby threaten to impair the groundwater's beneficial use as a supply of domestic and municipal drinking water. Therefore, in accordance with CWC §13267(b), by October 1, 2000, please submit, for the approval of the Executive Officer,a technical report that includes the following: 1. A description of the treatment processes you propose to install at the Facility to reduce nitrogen in the discharge to less than 10 mg/L,and 2. A detailed time schedule whereby you shall ensure the discharge achieves compliance with the standard. The time schedule should reflect the shortest reasonable time necessary to install the necessary treatment processes. California Environmental Protection Agency 0 Recyckd Paper 1-31 y3 City of San Luis Obispo 3 July 25,2000 Nitrate Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The Basin Plan establishes additional beneficial uses for the Creek, including wildlife habitat, and cold and warm freshwater habitat. Board staff conducted an analysis of the TMDLs allowable from each source of nitrogen in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, and have established a target maximum nitrogen concentration for the Creek. Furthermore, the TMDL estimates..that, on an annual basis, the discharge is responsible for most of the elevated nitrogen concentrations in the Creek. High nitrogen concentrations contribute to excessive algal growth, followed by eutrophication, which depletes oxygen in the Creek's waters, resulting in habitat degradation and loss of aquatic life. Accordingly, the Creek is listed as an impaired water body in accordance with the Clean Water Act's Section 303(d). This Board will likely adopt the TMDL document near the end of the 2001-2002 State fiscal year; that is, in June 2002. During the two years or so remaining until the Board adopts the TMDL, the target may change, but we believe it will not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrogen,because this is the Primary Drinking Water Standard established in California statutes. In its present state, the TMDL recommends that nitrate discharged from all sources in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed be redubed by 76 percent. Such a reduction from last year's average results in a target of 6 mg/L in the discharge. Standard wastewater denitrification processes include suspended growth and packed bed systems, which can achieve effluent nitrate (as nitrogen) concentrations below 1 mg/L. We recommend the City construct a denitrification system capable of achieving similar effluent nitrate concentrations. If you have comments or questions,please call Michael Higgins at(805) 5424649 or Gerhardt Hubner at(805) 542-4647. Sincerely, -AA X��- Roger W. Briggs IExecutive Officer cc: San Luis Obispo County Environmental Division County Goverment Center San Luis Obispo,CA 93408 s:/sowhenJstafvmhiggkWpc=tVslo/w4mieW report California Environmental Protection Agency a RecXkd Paper ���®2 Attachment S California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Winston H.Hickox Gray D Secretaryfor Internet Address: httpJ/www.swtsb.ca.gov/rwgcb3 Govern Environmental 81 Higuera Street,Suite 200.San Luis Obispo,California 93401-5411 Protection Phone(805)549-3147•FAX(805)543-0397 August 30,2000 Mr.John Moss City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject: Permit and TMDL Issues—San Luis Obispo Creek Dear Mr.Moss: You and I had a good exchange of information at our meeting on August 280, regarding San Luis Obispo Creek and the City's discharge permit. Thank you for arranging the meeting. Our July 25,2000 letter was overly ambitious on a couple of fronts and this letter serves to modify a couple of points. As you pointed out, regarding the October 1, 2000 due date for a technical report, the City needs additional time to formulate a strategy for dealing with Irihalomethanes and the California Toxics Rule(CTR). You will provide a letter by October.1, 2000, on how the City intends to proceed toward a resolution, even though we agreed the two months allowed by our letter is insufficient to perform alternatives analysis, feasibility studies, and to obtain approvals within the City in order to describe "the project." In addition to arriving at a decision on how to proceed, the five-year period may or may not be adequate for planning, designing, and constructing. However,we do not have discretion beyond five years for compliance with the CTR I pointed out that our last paragraph of our July 25th letter had a sentence that was misplaced,"We recommend the City construct a denitrification system capable of achieving similar effluent nitrate concentrations." I said the sentence would have been more appropriate in the previous paragraph,.referring to the possible target of 10 mg/l, and that the City should consider such an approach. At this point, the target could be higher (via pollutant trading,consideration of nitrogen attenuation in the creek via uptake,dilution prior to use, etc.)or it could be lower (considering MUN designation and possible reduction due to future TMDL). -With this uncertainty, the City is not in a position to commit to a strategy and construction of a specific type of additional treatment. The above.statement regarding timing for decision-malting also applies. Nevertheless, our letter serves to raise the issues that we need to address as we move into the permit cycle and TMDL development.. Your letter response will address all the issues in our letter. Lastly, I entailed the USEPA draft TMDL guidance tp you immediately after our meeting on August 280,so please let me know if you did not receive iL Thank you again for the meeting. Call me(549-3140)if you have any questions about thiS`follow-up letter. Sincerely, ° D E CE 0 VIED R ger W. Briggs SEP - 1 2000 Executive Officer CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i ,,,wore.:-rmu UTILITIES DEPT. California Environmental Protection Agency 1-33 Recycled Paper Attainment (o ��������flfli��i►��I�IIIIh��������� Iatyo san hues oBispo 4 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 September 22,2000 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region Attn: Mr. Roger Briggs 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401-5427 SUBJECT: Technical Reports and Compliance Schedules for California Toxics Rule, Nutrients and TMDLs. Dear Mr. Briggs: The City of San Luis Obispo has received your July 25, 2000, letter requesting technical reports and compliance schedules for the City to attain compliance with proposed limits under the California Toxics Rule (CTR) and for nitrates. The City is extremely concerned with the findings in the letter and the approach Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) staff have taken concerning the significance of these requirements. The letter requests that the City respond in 60 days with technical reports and compliance schedules for requirements that are neither supported by technical documents or analysis and without regard to the impact these requirements would have on the City. As you are aware, the City operates a Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) that produces high quality tertiary effluent which is subsequently discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. In 1994, only six years ago, the City completed a $25 million dollar upgrade to comply with water quality regulations placed upon the City by the RWQCB at the time. The City continues to spend nearly $2.5 million annually for operations, maintenance and capital improvements to ensure the facility is operated and maintained in an efficient and complaint manner. Based on our investigations it appears that the premise for the majority of the requirements in the your letter is based upon the assumption that beneficial uses of San Luis Obispo Creek are being impaired. The City contests these assumptions of impairment. The assumptions have not been adequately documented or demonstrated to justify limits being placed on the City. 1-34 The City of San Luis Obispo is oommHted to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(a05) 781-7410. • �p'oZ. City of San Luis Obispo California Toxics Rule and Nutriments and TMDLs September 22,2000 Page 2 of 7 Removal of Trihalomethanes (THMs) and reduction or removal of nutrients from the City's effluent will cost millions of dollars and increase annual operational costs. Before spending any funds on studies, design and construction the City must be certain that the findings regarding the present water quality of San Luis Obispo Creek and the City's responsibility for the water quality are valid and technically justified. Preservation of San Luis Obispo Creek's water quality is a high priority to the City and it has a long list of activities, programs and projects that are dedicated to its preservation. It is essential that the City be an involved stakeholder on any water quality issue in San Luis Obispo Creek. Listed below are the City's concerns and issues relating to your July 25, 2000 letter. The Schedule It simply was not possible to respond to your request for technical reports and compliance schedules by the October I" deadline. The City strongly disagrees with the findings in your letter and would like an opportunity to meet with you and your staff to discuss these issues. With no documents, analysis, evidence or alternatives submitted to the City by the RWQCB regarding the proposed requirements the City is unable to begin a process that may ultimately costs millions of dollars. Even if the City agreed with the findings in the letter, this type of sophisticated engineering would take much longer than 60 days for a thorough and analytical response. California Toxics Rule and Trihalomethanes (THMs) Since adoption of the California Toxics Rule (CTR) .and its implementation policy on March 2, 2000, Trihalomethanes C flHvis) in the WRF's discharge have been identified as a pollutant that exceeds the new effluent limitation in the CTR. THMs are created by the reaction of organics and chlorine and can be created by the disinfection process the WRF utilizes. The WRF.uses large amounts of Hyopchlorite to disinfect its effluent to ensure constant compliance with its stringent coliform requirement of<2.2 MPN. Chlorine is the most effective disinfectant currently available for the WRF because of these stringent requirements. Alternative disinfection systems that do not utilize chlorine, such as ultraviolet light, are very expensive and have high energy and operations and maintenance costs. It is our understanding that ultraviolet disinfection will not consistently meet the City's current coliform requirement of<2.2 MPN. Recent sampling of the WRF's effluent have shown that the average total THMs are lower than the State's drinking water requirement of 100 ug/l and the WRF's effluent has always passed acute and chronic toxicity testing. Besides being at levels below the drinking water standard, the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB), Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, does provide for the development of Site Specific Objectives (SSOs) for priority pollutants such as THMs. SSOs would provide the City and the 1-35 l01 City of San Luis Obispo California Toxics Rule and Nutriments and TMDLs September 22,2000 Page 3 of 7 RWQCB specific information that would facilitate determining if a different limit would provide protection to the receiving water. This is a desirable option because it would be specific to San Luis Obispo Creek and its beneficial uses instead of a general statewide limit. This option was never discussed in your letter and needs to be explored as a reasonable alternative to replacing the WRF's disinfection system. Hyopchlorite also has many other uses at the WRF besides disinfection that would make its elimination nearly impossible. Impairment Listing. San Luis Obispo Creek has been listed in the section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for nutrients, priority organics and pathogens. This listing and the high priority given by staff has resulted in the need for development of TMDL's for San Luis Obispo Creek. The section 303(d)requirements for water bodies call for the water body to fall under one or more of six criteria for impairment. The only information the City of San Luis Obispo has regarding the listing of San Luis Obispo Creek is a scientifically flawed report and some vague'reasoning that nutrients from the WRF are impairing the creek because steelhead trout were once abundant in the water body. Scientific evidence needs to be used to determine if San Luis Obispo Creek is truly impaired. Listing this water body with any less information will result in large expenditures of resources for every agency involved with no positive impact on water quality. The City is extremely interested in the documentation and studies that RWQCB staff used to determine that San Luis Obispo Creek is impaired. According to documents submitted to the City, RWQCB staff is utilizing the Coastal Resources Institute's Nutrient Objectives and Best Management Practices for San Luis Obispo Creek This report makes conclusions based upon poor scientific methods and procedures, old data and out dated references and was completed before the WRF was upgraded to its current level of treatment. The use of these studies or similar studies that do not follow the same requirements that the City is required to follow for development of technical documents, sampling and reporting, and do not provide accurate and scientifically defendable results, is unsatisfactory. The City continues, as it has in the past, to regard theses studies as flawed and lacking any real scientific use. Beneficial Uses, Nutrients and Impairment Several of the existing and anticipated beneficial uses listed in the City's NPDES permit for San Luis Obispo Creek are not actual uses and never have been documented. These include domestic and municipal supply, commercial and sports fishing, shellfish harvesting and aquaculture. The most important of these beneficial uses found listed in the City's NPDES permit and discussed in the RWQCB staffs letter is domestic and municipal supply. The biggest problem with this use, as the City has pointed out in past letters, is there are no municipal or domestic users of San Luis Obispo Creek's surface water. Listing municipal and domestic drinking water as a beneficial use is not appropriate because there are no users or any anticipated users of San Luis Obispo Creek surface water for municipal and domestic water supply. 1-36 City of San Luis Obispo Califomia Toxics Rule and Nutriments and T IMLs September 22,2000 Page 4 of 7 The City does discharge a higher level of nitrate/nitrite, expressed as nitrogen than the State of California's Drinking Water Standard. This has been the case for approximately 6 years. As mentioned above, no one is, or ever has utilized San Luis Obispo Creek surface water for municipal and domestic drinking water supply. Continuing to list this beneficial use places the City of San Luis Obispo in a position of having to meet requirements for a beneficial uses that isn't legitimate and doesn't exist. The City has been discharging effluent to San Luis Obispo Creek for approximately 75 years and has no information that any domestic or municipal well has experienced increased nitrate levels. The City has not been presented any information,by any agency, that shows any degradation or signs that degradation of.downstream groundwater is occurring as a result of WRF discharges. Because the City has been discharging nitrogen/nitrates into the creek for so long it would seem that high levels of nitrogen in downstream wells would have become evident some time ago. With no evidence of impairment or degradation to downstream wells, how can the RWQCB make any conclusion regarding impairment of groundwater resources? Using the hydrology and ground water modeling document for the City's water reuse project,RWQCB staff surmise that the City's "discharge may directly impair the Creek's beneficial uses for domestic and municipal supply of drinking water" and "elevated nitrate levels in the discharge likely contribute to the degradation of groundwater quality". Likely and may are not the type of findings that the City is willing to accept as a reason to commit significant resources for studies, plans and construction of processes and facilities. The City's hydrology report was not developed to study the effects of the WRF's discharge on-groundwater quality and is not an appropriate document to base the WRF's impact on groundwaters down gradient of the WRF. There has been no study presented to the City that shows a direct correlating link to the WRF's discharge and its affect and relationship to down gradient groundwater, much less its degradation. There has been no study that characterizes the dynamics of the lower groundwater basin, how and how often it is replenished and impacts that may be occurring. This same argument is valid for the other beneficial uses listed in the RWQCB letter that may be impacted. This year the City was required to trap, count and release Steelhead Trout smolt migrating down San Luis Obispo Creek to determine the extent and timing of Steelhead trout migration in San Luis Obispo Creek for its water reuse project. The City's fisheries biologist and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had estimated we might capture 300 to 500, to date the City has counted more than 1,500 individuals. Other recent studies in the lower stretches of the creek have also found Steelhead and other species to be persistently present and frequently observed. How can RWQCB staff conclude that wildlife and cold and fireshwater habitat beneficial uses are impaired when observations, facts, data and conclusions based on adopted scientific principles and procedures, monitored by a third party agency,point otherwise? 1-37 City of San Luis Obispo California Toxics Rule and Nutriments and TMDLs September 22,2000 Page 5 of 7 Because the City discharges nutrients to the creek does not mean the creek is impaired. No scientific information, using empirical and technically defendable data has been developed to demonstrate an impairment. In fact, more evidence suggests that there is no impairment to San Luis Obispo Creek. TMDLs. This letter was the first official notification the City has received informing us that Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Nitrate were being developed for San Luis Obispo Creek. The City was ,never notified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) about the commencement of development of TMDLs and never asked to participate or provide input. Development of TMDLs should be a interactive process involving the input of stakeholders and interested parties. It appears that this was not the intention of the RWQCB. The letter goes on to state that discharge from the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) may result in excessive algal growth, eutrophication, habitat degradation and loss of aquatic life in the Creek, and maximum nitrogen concentration limits for San Luis Obispo Creek are currently being developed. San Luis Obispo Creek does not exhibit excessive. algal growth, eutrophication or habitat degradation and loss of aquatic life. The City has provided the RWQCB with this information. Recent fish trapping projects and habitat studies would suggest the opposite; that the water discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek is not degrading the water body. Because San Luis Obispo Creek has been listed as impaired, the TMDL process has begun. If the RWQCB continues TMDL development, the City is very interested in being an -active participant and stakeholder in their development. As mentioned previously, studies of San Luis Obispo Creek have used poor data collection techniques, non-EPA approved analysis and observations which have resulted in erroneous conclusions and recommendations that offer little merit and cannot be defended scientifically. The City is requesting to be a participant in the development of the TMDLs for San Luis Obispo Creek, should the impaired listing for San Luis Obispo Creek stand and TMDL development is justified. The City's 2000 NPDES Permit Due to the serious nature and significant amount of work and resources that resolving the above issues will take the City is requesting that its revised 2000 NPDES permit be considered for adoption by the RWQCB separate from the resolution of the above issues. Issues and concerns from your July 25, 2000 letter should be handled separately so the City's permit is not indefinitely delayed. Delay in the adoption of the City's revised NPDES permit will result in the City being vulnerable to more SB 709 fines. These fines are the result of the State's unrealistic compliance requirements for several constituents. These automatic and non- discretionary fines do little to aid the City in attaining compliance or protect water quality 1-38 - �rV City of San Luis Obispo California Toxics Rule and Nutriments and TMDLs September 22,2000 Page 6 of 7 and will only serve to drain City resources. Relief from the unreasonable and unattainable requirements in our current permit can only be accomplished through issuance of a revised permit in a timely manner. Summary/Requests. The City proposes several recommendations we believe will help resolve these issues and help determine the best strategy for protecting San Luis Obispo Creek's water quality. These requests are: California Toxics Rule 1. The City requests to meet with you and RWQCB staff and discuss the issues outlined in your letter. The City is committed to resolving these issues by exchanging information and ideas in a workshop type environment. The City would like to explore the development of site specific objectives for San Luis Obispo Creek. The City believes the RWQCB staff does not currently have adequate information or has considered all the options to make key decisions regarding compliance with the California Toxics Rule. NPDES Permit 2. The City is requesting that the WRF's NPDES permit be handled separately from the issues addressed in the RWQCB's July 25, 2000 letter. The issues detailed in your letter will require significant amounts of staff time and effort to resolve. Renewal of the City's permit, with consideration of the City's requests for changes, will allow the WRF to operate with a permit that ensures water quality and protects the City from future SB 709 violations. Nutrients and TMDLs 3. The City requests to meet with you and your staff and discuss the issues surrounding nutrients and the TMDLs for San Luis Obispo Creek. The City would also like to use a workshop environment for theses issues. There is a significant amount of information that needs to be discussed and exchanged. If San Luis Obispo Creek remains an impaired water body, the City requests to be an involved stakeholder in the development of TMDLs for San Luis Obispo Creek. 1-39 City of San Luis Obispo California Toxics Rule and Nutriments and TMDLs September 22,2000 Page 7 of 7 The City looks forward to working with you and your staff on resolving these issues. As you are aware the City is committed to preserving the water quality of San Luis Obispo Creek and commits millions of dollars annually in water quality programs and projects. The City is hopeful that reasonable solutions can be found for these issues using technically justified methods and policy. Please contact me at (805) 781-7039 or dhix(-,slocity.org to coordinate meetings and workshops or if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter. 7to, ?' David C. Hix Wastewater Division Manager C: John Moss, Utilities Director John Dunn, City Administrative Officer h:\dhix\200ONPDES\NutTMDLTHM.Itr 1-40 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Gooemor CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - CENTRAL COAST REGION 81 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 200 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5427 (BOi) 549.3147 l� October 19, 1995 Mr. John E. Moss City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5414 Dear Mr. Moss: Enclosed is a copy of Order No. 95-48, "Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of San Luis Obispo's Water Reclamation Facility, San Luis Obispo County, and Indirect Dischargers and Local Sewering Dischargers of California Polytechnic University and San Luis Obispo County Airport". This order was adopted by this Board on October 13, 1995. Sincerely, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, CENTRAL COAST REGION BY ROGER W. BRIGGS Executive Officer Enclosure cc: State Water Res Control Board Deborah Johnston Jim Kassel, DWQ State Dept. of Fish & Game P.O. Box 100 20 Lower Ragsdale Ave., Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Monterey, CA 93940 Terry Oda Ahmad A. Hassan U.S. Environmental Prot Agency State Dept. of Water Resources Region IX, Permits W-5-1 P.O. Box 29068 75 Hawthorne Street Glendale, CA 91203-1035 San Francisco, CA 94105 Tim Gannon Paul Cleveland Dept. of Health Services Central Coast Salmon Enhancement PO Box 4339 Post Office Box 277 Santa Barbara, CA 93140-4339 Avila Beach, CA 93424 John Wallace 4115 Broad Street, St. B5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 113#3 400107001 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL COAST REGION 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, California 93401-6427 ORDER NO. 95-48 NPDES NO. CA0049224 WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO's WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS AND LOCAL SEWERING ENTITIES OF CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, issued NPDES Permit No.CA0049224 on April Central Coast Region, (hereafter Board), finds that: 13, 1990 (Order No. 90-12). 1. The City of San Luis Obispo (hereafter 4. The Discharger's Water Reclamation Facility is Discharger) operates a wastewater collection, located on property owned by the Discharger in treatment and disposal system to provide San Luis Obispo County (T3 IS, R12E, Section sewerage service to the City of San Luis 10, MD B&M) as shown on Attachment "A". Obispo,California Polytechnic State University and the San Luis Obispo County Airport. 5. The Board adopted Cease and Desist Order No. 90-14, which specifies interim effluent and 2. The University and Airport retain ownership and receiving water limits, and a construction time direct responsibility for wastewater collection schedule for advanced wastewater treatment and transport systems up to the point of facilities, on April 13, 1990. discharge into the wastewater treatment plant and/or interceptors owned and operated by the 6. Existing treatment facilities include wet-weather Discharger. It is incumbent upon these local flow equalization, screening, grinding, aerated sewering entities to protect the environment to grit removal, primary settling, biofiltration, the greatest degree possible and insure thew secondary settling, nitrification using activated local collection systems,as well as the receiving sludge, final settling, cooling using evaporative sewerage system, are protected and utilized cooling towers, dual media filtration, properly. This responsibility includes preventing chlorination/dechlorination.Solids are thickened overflows and may include restricting or in a dissolved'air floatation thickener,stabilized prohibiting the volume,type,or concentration of in anaerobic digesters and dewatered either by wastes that might be added to the system. belt presses or drying beds. Stabilized solids are applied to nonfood agricultural crops. The 3. On July 26, 1994, the Discharger submitted an treatment plant has a design capacity (Average application for authorization to discharge wastes Dry Weather Flow) of 5.1 million gallons per under the National Pollutant Discharge day (mgd). Elimination System (NPDES). The Board last WDR Order No. 95-48 -2- City of San Luis Obispo 7. Treated municipal wastewater is discharged to C. Industrial supply. San Luis Obispo Creek at 35014'40"N. Latitude, 120°40'45" W. Longitude, as shown in 11. Waste discharge requirements for this discharge Attachment "A". Land-based disposal options are exempt from the provisions of the California were considered during planning under the Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources federal Clean Water Grants Program. Code, Section 21100, et seq.) in accordance with Section 13389 of the California Water 8. The Environmental Protection Agency and Board Code. classify this discharge as a major discharge. 12. A permit and the privilege to discharge waste 9. The Water Qualily Control Plan.Central Coastal into waters of the State are conditional upon the Basin,(Basin Plan)was adopted by the Board on discharge complying with provisions of Division November 17, 1989, and approved by the State 7 of the California Water Code and of the Clean Board on August 16, 1990. The Board approved Water Act (as amended or as supplemented by amendments to the Basin Plan on February 11, implementing guidelines and regulations) and 1994 and September 8, 1994. The Basin Plan with any more stringent effluent limitations incorporates State Board plans and policies by necessary to implement water quality control reference and contains a strategy for protecting plans, to protect beneficial uses, and to prevent beneficial uses of State waters. nuisance. This Order shall serve as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 10. Existing and anticipated beneficial uses of San pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Luis Obispo Creek and Estuary, downstream of Compliance with this Order should assure the discharge include: conditions are met and mitigate any potential changes in water quality due to the project. Existing uses 13. On May 12, 1995, and again on August 25, a. Domestic and municipal supply, 1995, the Board notified the Discharger and b. Agricultural supply, interested agencies and persons of its intent to c. Groundwater recharge, reissue waste discharge requirements for. the d. Non-contact water recreation, discharge and has provided them with a copy of e. Water-contact recreation, the proposed Order and an opportunity to submit f. Wildlife habitat, written views and comments, and scheduled a g. Cold freshwater habitat, public hearing. h. Warm freshwater habitat, i. Fish migration, 14. In a public hearing on October 13, 1995, the j. Fish spawning, Board heard and considered all comments k. Estuarine habitat, pertaining to the discharge and found this Order 1. Freshwater replenishment, consistent with the above findings. m. Commercial and sports fishing, and n. Aquaculture Anticipated Uses o. Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance, p. Rare,threatened or endangered species; and q. Shellfish Harvesting. r. Existing and anticipated beneficial uses of ground water downgradient of the discharge . include: a. Domestic and municipal supply, b. Agricultural supply, and WDR Order No. 95-48 -3- City of San Luis Obispo IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to authority in Sections 13263 and 13377 of the California Water Code, that the City of San Luis Obispo, its agents, successors, and assigns, may discharge waste from the San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Facility providing compliance is maintained with the following: (Note: General permit conditions, definitions and the method of determining compliance are contained in the attached"Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits," dated January, 1985. Applicable paragraphs are referenced in paragraph E.5. of this Order.) Throughout this Order, the following footnotes provide the sources of the waste discharge requirements: B = State Disinfection Guidelines C = U.S. EPA National Ambient Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria D = State Drinking Water Standard E = Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan A. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS 1. Discharge of treated wastewater at a location other than 35'14'40" N. Latitude, I NF40'45" W. Longitude, as shown on Attachment "A," is prohibited, unless permitted by other waste discharge requirements or NPDES permit. 2. Discharge to the river of wastewaters containing bentazon, molinate, or thiobencarb is prohibited! B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 1. "Removal efficiencies"for Suspended Solids and Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD)shall not be less than 85%. In addition, effluent shall not exceed the following limits: Monthly Weekly Unit of (30-Day) (7-Day) Daily Constituent Measurement Average Avenee Maximum B.O.D., 5-day mg/l 10 30 50 lbs/day 425* 1280* 2130.* Suspended Solids mg/1 10 30 75 lbs/day 425* 1280* 3190* * For flows less than 5.1 MGD, mass emission rates shall not exceed the "Maximum Allowable Mass Emission Rate." 2. Effluent shall not exceed the following limits: Monthly Unit of (30-Day) Monthly Daily Constituent Measurement Average Median Maximum Grease and OiIE mg/I 5 10 lbs/day 2202 4252 Monthly WDR Order No. 9548 4- City of San Luis Obispo Unit of (30-Day) Monthly Daily Constituent Measurement Average Median Maximum Total Dissolved Solids mg/I Water Supply + 450 mg/I Sodium mg/l 200 Chloride mg/1 200 Settleable Solids' ml/l 0.1 0.3 Toxicity Concentration' Acute'' tui 0.3 Chronic' tu, 1 ' The factor of 0.3 is used to adjust the typical LCs,endpoint of an acute toxicity test(50%mortality) to an LC, value (virtually no mortality). 2 For flows less than 5.1 MGD, mass emission rates shall not exceed the "Maximum Allowable Mass Emission Rate". 3. Effluent daily dry weather flow shall not exceed a monthly average of 5.1 MGD. 4. The discharge shall be continuously disinfected so that the effluent contains a median most probable number (MPN)of coliform organisms of less than 2.2 per 100 milliliters. The median is to be based on the results of the last seven samples for which analyses have been completed. No single sample shall exceed 240 MPN per 100 ml.' 5. The discharge shall not have a dissolved oxygen concentration less than 4.0 mg/l or so low that it adversely affects beneficial uses.' 6. The discharge shall not have a pH of less than 6.5 or greater than 8.3, or be at a level that adversely affects beneficial uses.' 7. The discharge shall not contain substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, or animal (particularly fish or aquatic) life' 8. The discharge shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams and scum, which cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses e 9. The discharge shall be free of coloration,temperature,turbidity,and taste or odor producing substances,that cause nuisance or that adversely affect beneficial uses.' 10. The discharge shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations which promote aquatic growths that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.' 11. The discharge shall contain no chlorine residual. 12. Freeboard shall exceed two feet in ponds at all times. 13. Effluent shall be essentially free of materials and substances that:' a. Float or become floatable upon discharge, b. May form sediments which degrade benthic communities or other aquatic life, C. Accumulate to toxic levels in surface waters, sediments or biota; d. Significantly decrease the natural light to benthic communities and other aquatic life; e. Result in aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the water surface. WDR Order No. 9548 -5- City of San Luis Obispo C. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS (Many factors,some unrelated to the discharge,contribute to receiving water quality. This Order considers these factors and is designed to minimize receiving water quality degradation by the discharge.) 1. The discharge shall not cause the following limits to be exceeded in San Luis Obispo Creek: Maximum (mg/l, Constituent unless otherwise noted) Un-ionized ammonia 0.025 (as N)E Sulfate 200E Boron 0.6 Aluminum 7.5E Arsenic 0.05° Barium 1.0E Cadmium 3.0E µg/I Chromium 0.075° Copper 0.045E Fluoride 1.5° Iron 7.5E Lead 0.045E Manganese 0.3E Mercury 0.3 µg/IE' Molybdenum 0.015E Nickel 0.6E Selenium 0.03E Silver 0.05E Zinc 0.3E M.B.A.S. 0.2E Phenols 0.1E Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.3 µg/1' Endrin 0.2 µg/IE Lindane 0.004E Methoxychlor 0.1E Toxaphene 0.005E 2, 4-D 0.1E 2, 4, 5-TP Silvex 0.01E Atrazine 0.003E Benzene 0.001E Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 µg/IE 1,4 - dichlorobenzene 0:005E 1,2 - dichloroethane 0.5 µg/IE 1,1- dichloroethylene 0.006E 1,3 - dichloropropene 0.5 µg/IE Ethylbenzene 0.680E Ethylene Dibromide 0.02 µg/IE Monochlorobenzene 0.030E Maximum (mg/I, Constituent unless otherwise noted) Phenols 0.1E Phthalate esters 0.002 µg/IE WMR Order No. 95-48 -6- City of San Luis Obispo Simazine 0.01E 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001E Tetrachloroethylene 5.0 gg/IE 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.200E 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.032E Trichloroethylene 0.005E Vinyl Chloride 0.5 gg/IE Xylenes 1.750E (for either single isomer or the sum of the isomers) ' The average concentration shall not exceed 0.05 µg/1. 2. The discharge shall not cause': a. pH to fall below 7.0 or exceed 8.3, or to change by more than 0.5 units. b. Temperature to increase more than 5° F above receiving water temperature.' If, due to the Creek's low temperature as determined by early-morning monitoring, the discharge causes the Creek's temperature increase to exceed the limit, the Discharger must ensure the discharge does not exceed 72.5° F (22.5° C). The Discharger shall monitor the Creek again four hours afterdiscovering the exceedance and shall report both results to the Executive Officer within 24 hours. C. Turbidity to exceed the following, when the discharge adds to the Creek's natural surface flow: Natural Turbidity(NT). NTU' Maximum Increase NT<_ 25 5 NTU 25<NT!�50 20% 50 <NT:5100 10 NTU >100 10% Natural Turbidity shall be determined from receiving water samples taken upstream of the discharge point d. Dissolved oxygen concentrations to be depressed below 5.0 mg/l from May through September or 7.0 mg/I from October through April. e. Coloration to cause nuisance or to adversely affect beneficial uses. Coloration attributable to materials of waste origin shall not be greater than 15 units or 10 percent above natural background color, whichever is greater.' f. Taste and odor producing substances in concentrations that impart undesirable tastes or odors to.fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic origin,that cause nuisance,or that adversely affect beneficial uses.' g. Floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses E h. Suspended material in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial usesE i. Settleable material in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses WDR Order No. 95-48 -7- City of San Luis Obispo j. Oils,greases,waxes or other similar materials in concentrations that result in a visible film or coating on the water surface or on objects in the water, that cause nuisance or otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses.' k. Biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.' 1. Radionuclides in concentrations that are deleterious to human, plant, animal or aquatic life, or result in the accumulation of radionuclides in the food web to an extent which presents a hazard to human, plant, animal or aquatic life.' C. GROUND WATER LIMITATIONS I. The discharge shall not cause nitrate concentrations in the ground water downgradient of the discharge point to exceed 8 mg/1 (as M.' 2. The discharge shall not cause a statistically significant increase of mineral constituent concentrations in underlying ground waters,as determined by comparison of samples collected from wells located upgradient and downgradient of the discharge point' 3. The discharge shall not cause concentrations of chemicals and radionuclides in ground water to exceed limits set forth in Title 22, Chapter 15, Articles 4 and 5 of the California Code of Regulation$. D. PRETREATMENT SPECIFICATIONS 1. The discharger shall be responsible for the performance of all pretreatment requirements contained in 40 CFR 403 and shall be subject to enforcement actions, penalties, fines and other remedies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA),or other appropriate parties,as provided in the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 USC 1351 et seq.) (hereafter "Act'). The Discharger shall implement and enforce its Approved POTW Pretreatment Program. The Discharger's Approved POTW Pretreatment Program is hereby made an enforceable condition of this permit. EPA or the Board may initiate enforcement action against an industrial user for noncompliance with applicable standards and requirements as provided in the Act. 2. The Discharger shall enforce the requirements promulgated under Sections 307(b),307(c),307(d)and 402(b) of the Act. The Discharger shall cause industrial users subject to Federal Categorical Standards to achieve compliance no later than the date specified in those requirements or, in the case of a new industrial user, upon commencement of the discharge. 3. The Discharger shall perform the pretreatment functions as required in 40 CFR 403, including, but not limited to: (1) Implement the necessary legal authorities as provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1); (2) Enforce the pretreatment requirements under 40 CFR 403.5 and 403.6; (3) Implement the programmatic functions as provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2); and, (4) Provide the requisite funding and personnel to implement the pretreatment program as provided in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(3). WDR Order No. 95-48 -8- City of San Luis Obispo E. PROVISIONS 1. The requirements prescribed by this Order supersede the requirements prescribed by Order No. 90-12, adopted by the Board on April 13, 1990. Order No. 90-12 is hereby rescinded. 2. Cease and Desist Orders No. 86-64, 87-113 and 90-14 are hereby rescinded. 3. Discharger shall comply with "Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 95-48," as ordered by the Executive Of- ficer. 4. Discharger shall comply with all items of the attached "Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits," dated January, 1985, except paragraph (a) of Item E.I. shall apply only if the bypass is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. 5. Where toxicity monitoring shows a violation of toxicity limitations in Effluent Limitation B.2 of this Order, the Discharger shall resample and submit the results within 10 days after the test to the Executive Officer (EO). The EO will determine whether to initiate enforcement action, whether to require Discharger to implement toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) requirements, or to implement other measures approved by the Executive Officer. . Discharger shall implement a TRE as outlined below: (EPA's Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Procedures, Phases 1,2, and 3 (EPA Document Nos. EPA 600/3-88/034, 600/3-88/035 and 600/3-88/036, respectively) and TRE Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (EPA 600/2-88/062) shall be the basis for this plan]. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Upon identifying noncompliance,in accordance with the reporting requirement noted above,the Discharger shall initiate a TRE according to the following schedule: TASK TIME SCHEDULE a Take all reasonable measures necessary to Within 24 hours of identification of noncompliance immediately reduce toxicity, where source is known. b Submit to the EO a TRE study plan describing Within 60 days of identification of noncompliance the toxicity reduction procedures to be employed. c Initiate the TRE. Within 7 days of notification by the EO d Conduct the TRE following the procedures in the plan One year period or as specified in the plan e Submit the results of the TRE, including summary of findings, required corrective Within 60 days of completion of the TRE action, and all results and data. f Implement corrective actions to meet permit limits and conditions. To be determined by the EO g Return to regular monitoring after implementing corrective measures and To be determined by the EO approval by the EO. WDR Order No. 9548 -9- City of San Luis Obispo 6. If effluent or receiving water monitoring detects a chemical compound or metal both specified in Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 95-29 and not limited in this Order's Effluent Limitations or Receiving Water Limitations, the Discharger shall immediately resample and analyze for the constituent. If the constituent is detected again, the Discharger shall comply with the following time schedule in conducting a study of the constituent's source and measures to reduce its concentration. Compliance Date a Submit Workplan and Time Schedule Within 30 days after submitting Monitoring report containing analytical results. b Begin study Within seven days of approval of the Executive Officer. c Complete study When established by the Executive Officer d Submit study report Within 30 days of completion of study. If, after review of the study results, the Executive Officer determines that the discharge has reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality objective, this Order will be reopened and effluent limitations added for the subject constituent(s). 7. This Order expires October 12, 2000 and the Discharger must file a Report of Waste Discharge in accordance with Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 9, of the California Code of Regulations, not later than March 1, 2000, if it wishes to continue the discharge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the California Polytechnic State University and the San Luis Obispo County Airport shall: I. Comply with the attached"Standard Provisions and Reporting Requirements," including:A,General Permit Conditions, paragraphs numbered 1-4, 6-11, 14-18, 20 and 21; C, General Reporting Requirements, paragraph numbers 4,5, 13, 14, 15,and 17;D,General Pretreatment Provisions;F,Enforcement,paragraph numbers 3, 4, and 5; and G, Definitions. 2. Cooperate with the Discharger in implementing its pretreatment program. I, ROGER W.BRIGGS, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full,true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,Central Coast Region,on October 13, 1995. e ) Executive Officer mlh9/slo\95-48.wdr CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL COAST REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. 95-48 FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND WATER RECLAMATION PLANT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Influent Monitoring Samples of the influent to the treatment plant shall be collected at the plant headworks and analyzed for the following constituents: Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Frequency Suspended Solids mg/l 24-hr. composite Monthly BOD, 5-day mg/l 24-hr. composite Monthly Effluent Monitoring When discharging at Discharge Point 001, composite samples shall be taken at the effluent structure after the last treatment process, and grab samples shall be taken at Discharge Point 001. Representative samples of the effluent discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek shall be collected and analyzed for the following constituents: Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Frequency Daily Flow MG Metered Daily Instantaneous Maximum MGD Metered Daily Flow Rate pH units Grab Daily Chlorine Residual mg/l Grab Daily' Total Chlorine Ibs/day Recorded Daily' Turbidity NTU Grab Daily Temperature °C Instantaneous 5 days per week Coliform Organisms MPN/100 ml Grab 5 days per week Settleable Solids ml/l Grab 5 days per week Suspended Solids mg/1 24-hr. Composite 5 days per week Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 Grab Weekly Color Grease and Oil mg/l Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) " Nitrate/nitrite " Total Phosphorus " Dissolved Orthophosphate (as P) " M&RP No. 9548 -2- Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Freauencv BOD, 5-Day mg/I 24-hr. Composite Every ten days Maximum Daily Flow MGD Calculated Monthly Mean Daily Flow MGD Calculated Monthly Toxicity Concentration: Acute' tun Grab Quarterly Chronic' tui Annually (in October) Report minimum and maximum pH and maximum chlorine residual. Also report if there is natural flow in San Luis Obispo Creek. ' Acute toxicity tests shall be 96-hour static-renewal tests conducted in accordance with Methodsfor Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (EPA 600/4-94-27F, August 1993, or subsequent editions). Test species shall be:Rainbow trout and Ceriodaphnia dubia(cladoceran). The samples shall be 100 percent effluent and a control. Reference toxicant tests shall be conducted concurrently with the effluent tests. Both tests must satisfy the test acceptability criteria specified in the reference cited above. If the test acceptability criteria are not achieved, the Discharger shall resample and retest within 14 days. The Discharger shall report the test results according to the chapter on report preparation in the reference cited above, and shall attach the results to the monthly monitoring report. The presence of effluent acute toxicity is represented by the statistically significant mortality of the test organisms in the wastewater sample compared with their mortality in the control sample. Statistical methods include measurements of lethal or effect concentrations, no observed effect level or t-test. Effluents are considered to be acutely toxic when the monthly median survival of all the samples taken during the month is less than 90 percent or, if in more than 10 percent of the samples, less than 70 percent survive. ' Chronic toxicity tests shall be conducted in accordance with Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxty of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms (Second Edition, EPA/600/4-89/001, March 1989, or subsequent editions) and Supplement to Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Or anism (Revision 1, EPA/600/4-89/OOIa, September 1989). The Discharger shall conduct the following tests monthly for the first three months: a. survival and reproduction tests for the cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia; b. larval survival and growth tests with the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas; and C. the growth test for the alga, Selenastrum capricomum. After the three months screening period, the most sensitive species shall be used during the tests. Annually, the Discharger shall test the three species listed above and shall monitor for the most sensitive species. Five wastewater dilution ratios bracketing the waste concentration in the discharge, in addition to a control, shall be tested. Four replicates (minimum) are required per dilution ratio for the minnow and the alga. The toxicity tests shall be conducted concurrently with the reference toxicant tests. Both the toxicity and reference M&RP No. 95-48 -3- toxicant tests must meet the test acceptability criteria specified in the reference cited above. If the criteria are unmet, the Discharger must resample and retest within 14 days. The Discharger shall report the test results according to the chapter on report preparation provided in the reference cited above,and shall attach the report to the monthly monitoring report. The Discharger shall submit the test data on electronic disk according to Suuested Standardized Reporting Requirements for Monitoring Chronic Toxicity (SWRCB, August 1993). Compliance with chronic toxicity shall be expressed as TU,, which equals 100/NOEC. NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration) is the highest toxicant concentration, in terms of percent effluent to dilution water ratio, to which test organisms are exposed which causes no observable adverse effect. A sample is considered chronically toxic when the TUc exceeds 1 or any test exceeds 50 percent effect. The Discharge may propose in writing that compliance with the acute toxicity effluent limitation be based on the mortality data from the chronic toxicity tests. Receiving Water Monitoring Receiving water monitoring stations shall be established as follows: Station No. Location 1 At Fox Canyon Road 2 At Mission 3 At Marsh Street Bridge. 4 50 feet upstream of Discharge Point 001. 5 San Luis Obispo Creek immediately upstream of confluence with Prefumo Canyon Creek. 6 Prefumo Canyon Creek 50 feet upstream from confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. 7 Approximately 0.5 mile downstream from Discharge point 001. 8 At Higuera Street Bridge, near U.S. 101 Representative samples of the receiving water shall be collected and analyzed for the following: Minimum Sampling and Analyzing Constituent Units Station No. Frequency 'Flow cfs 3 or 4 Weekly Flow MGD 5 (Concurrent with effluent ammonia sampling) 'Turbidity NTU 4,5 Weekly 'Temperature °C " 'Color Units " 'Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 'pH pH units " Dilution factor: Calculated (Streamflow: Wastewater flow) M&RP No. 9548 4- Minimum Sampling and Analyzing Constituent Units Station No. FreQuency- Total Ammonia(as N)' mg/I 4,5 Weekly Temperature' °C 11 " pH Units " Un-Ionized Ammonia' mg/I (Calculated) " Ammonia (Total), as N mg/l Monthly Dissolved Oxygen " Phosphorus (Total) " Sulfate (SO4) Quarterly (Jan, Apr, Jul, Oct) Total Dissolved Solids " Sodium " Chloride Antimony µg/I Annually (Oct)' Aluminum Arsenic " Asbestos " Barium Beryllium " Boron Cadmium " Chromium " Cobalt " Copper " Cyanide Fluoride Iron " Lead " Manganese Mercury " Molybdenum " Nickel " Selenium " Silver " Thallium Lindane Methoxychlor " 2 4-D „ 2, 4, 5-TP Silvex " M.B.A.S. „ Atrazine Phthalate esters " Simazine Xylenes " Endrin " Toxaphene " M&RP No. 9548 -5- Minimum Sampling and Analyzing Constituent Units Station No. Frequency Acrolein µg/1 4,5 Oct, 1995" Acrylonitrile 11 " Benzene " Benzidine " Bis (2 - chloroethyl) ether Bis (2 - chloroiso- propyl) ether " Carbon tetrachloride It It 1,4 - dichlorobenzene It 3,3 - dichlorobenzidine It " .1,2 - dichloroethane " I,1- dichloroethylene " 2,4 - dichlorophenol " 1,3 - dichloropropene " 2,4 - dinitrotoluene " 2 - methyl - 4, 6 - dinitrophenol It " 1,2.- diphenylhydrazine It Ethylbenzene It " Ethylene Dibromide " Hexachlorobutadiene " Hexachlorocyclopentadiene " Hexachloroethane Isophorone " Monochlorobenzene " Nitrobenzene " N -nitrosomethylamine " N -nitrosodiphenyl- " amine Phenol It 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro- It " ethane Tetrachloroethylene It " 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 11 " 1,1,2-Trichloroethane It " Trichloroethylene " Vinyl Chloride " PCBs " ' The San Luis Obispo Creek flowrate shall determine the upstream and downstream stations where these constituents shall be monitored,as follows. If the creek flows underground between Station 2 and the discharge point, samples shall be obtained from Station 2. If the creek flows aboveground from Station 2 to the discharge point, samples shall be obtained from Station 4. In either case, Station 7 shall be the downstream location. M&RP No. 9548 -6- 2 Temperature and pH are to be measured at the same time the Total Ammonia sample is collected. Results shall be used to calculate and report Un-ionized Ammonia concentrations. The Discharger may sample the effluent instead of the receiving water. Sampling shall commence in 1995 and, if pollutants are not found in significant quantities, may be conducted on odd-numbered years only,providing the Discharger certifies quarterly that such substances are not added to the waste stream, and that no change has occurred that would cause the substances to be found in the waste stream. The Discharger must continue to comply with all effluent and receiving water limitations. If review of effluent analysis shows a constituent concentration is less than the applicable receiving water limitation, no further sampling is required. However, if the constituent concentrations in the effluent sample exceeds the applicable receiving water limitation,the Discharger shall obtain three more samples:one from the effluent and one each at receiving water Stations 4 and 5. The Discharger shall obtain the new samples within two days of learning a constituent exceeds an applicable limit, have the sample promptly analyzed for the constituent and report the analytical results in the next monitoring report. Sample in 1995 and certify quarterly that the substances are not added to the waste stream,and that no change has occurred which would cause these substances to be found in the wastestream. As directed above, the Discharger may sample the effluent,and comply with the requirements in the second paragraph under footnote three. Nutrient Monitoring Program Minimum Frequency Constituent Units Type of Sam—pk Stations of Analysis Nitrate/nitrite mg/l . Grab 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Monthly(Apr through Nov) Dissolved Oxygen " " Temperature °C " Flow cfs Algal description' — Visual observation ' Narrative description of algae present at station shall include algal color, location with respect to stream banks and depth of water, appearance (filamentous, matting, attached, etc.), percent coverage of water surface. Sludge Monitoring Samples shall be collected from the last point in the sludge handling process (i.e., the drying beds just before removal)where representative samples of residual solids from the treatment process can be obtained and analyzed for the following parameters at the specified frequencies: Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Frequency Quantity Cubic yds. Measured During Removal & kilograms Disposal location M&RP No. 95-48 -7- Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Frequency Moisture Content % Grab Quarterly (Jan,Apr,July,Oct) Total Phosphorus mg/kg* Grab Quarterly (Jan,Apr,July,Oct) pH pH units " Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/kg* " Ammonia (as N) mg/kg* Composited grabs2 Annually (Oct) Nitrate (as N) mg/kg* " Grease and Oil mg/kg* " Boron mg/kg* " Cadmium mg/kg* Copper mg/kg* " Chromium (Total) mg/kg* " Lead mg/kg* " Nickel mg/kg* " Mercury mg/kg* " Silver mg/kg* " Zinc mg/kg* " Antimony gg/kg " Arsenic " Beryllium Cadmium Total Chromium " Copper " Lead Mercury " Nickel " Selenium " Silver Thallium Zinc " Cyanide " Asbestos' " 2,3,7.8 - TCDD (Dioxin) " Acrolein " Acrylonitrile " Benzene " Bromoform " Carbon Tetrachloride " Chlorobenzene " Chlorodibromomethane " Chloroethane " 2 - Chloroethylvinyl ether " Chloroform " Dichlorobromomethane " M&RP No. 9548 -8- Mimmum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent nit Sample Frequency 1,1 - Dichloroethane µg/kg Composited grabs2 Annually (Oct) 1,2 - Dichloroethane " 1,1 - Dichloroethylene " 1,2 - Dichloropropane " 1,3 - Dichloropropylene " Ethylbenzene " Methyl Bromide " Methyl Chloride " Methylene Chloride " 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane " Tetrachloroethylene " Toluene " 1,2 - Trans-dichloroethylene " 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane " 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane " Trichloroethylene " Vinyl Chloride " 2 - Chlorophenol " 2,4 - Dichlorophenol " 2,4 - Dimethylphenol " 2 - Methyl - 4,6 - dinitrophenol " 2,4 - Dinitrophenol " 2 - Nitrophenol " 4 -Nitrophenol " 3 - Methyl -4 - chlorophenol " Pentachlorophenol " Phenol " 2,4,6 - Trichlorophenol " Acenaphthene " Acenaphthylene " Anthracene " Benzidine " Benzo(a)anthracene " Benzo(a)pyrene " Benzo(b)fluoranthene " Benzo(gh)perylene " Benzo(k)fluoranthene " Bis(2 - chloroethoxy)methane " Bis(2 - chloroethyl)ether " Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether " Bis(2 - ethylhexyl)phthalate " 4 - Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether " Burylbenzyl Phthalate " 2 - Chloronaphthalene " 4 - Chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether " M&RP No. 9548 -9- Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Frequency Chrysene µg/kg Composited grabe Annually (Oct) Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene " 1,2 - Dichlorobenzene " 1,3 - Dichlorobenzene " 1,4 - Dichlorobenzene " 3,3 - Dichlorobenzene " Diethyl Phthalate " Dimethyl Phthalate " Di - n - Butyl Phthalate " 2,4 - Dinitrotoluene " 2,6 - Dinitrotoluene " Di - n - Octyl Phthalate " 1,2 - Diphenylhydrazine " Fluoranthene to It " Fluorene " Hexachlorobenzene " Hexachlorobutadiene to " Hexachlorocyclopentadiene " Hexachloroethane " Indeno(1,2,3 -cd)pyrene " Isophorone " Naphthalene " Nitrobenzene " N -Nitrosodimethylamine N -Nitroso - n - propylamine to N -Nitrosodiphenylamine " Phenanthrene " Pyrene 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene " Aldrin 11 11to alpha- BHC " " " beta- BHC " gamma- BHC " delta- BHC " Chlordane 4,4' - DDT " 4,4' - DDE to " " 4,4' - DDD " Dieldrin " alpha- Endosulfan " beta- Endosulfan to " " Endosulfan Sulfate " " " Endrin Endrin Aldehyde " Heptachlor " M&RP No. 9548 -10- Minimum Sampling Type of and Analyzing Constituent Units Sample Frequency Heptachlor Epoxide gg/kg Composited grabs2 Annually (Oct) PCB - 1242 " PCB - 1254 " PCB - 1221 " PCB - 1232 " PCB - 1248 " PCB - 1260 " PCB - 1016 " Toxaphene " * Total sample (including all solids and any liquid portion)to be analyzed and results reported as mg/kg or µg/kg, as appropriate, based on the dry weight of the sample. The Discharger is not required to sample and analyze for asbestos until EPA promulgates an applicable analytical technique under 40 CFR Part 136. a For the annual sample,at least three samples shall be obtained from random locations from the drying beds. The samples shall be thoroughly, but gently, mixed together to form a composite sample which shall be analyzed. The composite sample for grease and oil shall be composed of three randomly obtained samples from the drying beds. Pretreatment Reporting pollutants which the Discharger believes may be causing or contributing to interference, By January 30th of each year, the Discharger shall pass-through or adversely impacting sludge submit an annual report to the State Board, Regional quality. Sampling and analysis shall be Board and EPA describing the Discharger's performed in accordance with the techniques pretreatment activities over the previous 12 months. prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 and In the event that the Discharger is not in compliance amendments thereto. with any condition or requirement of this Order and permit, including any noncompliance with 2. A discussion of upset, interference, or pass- pretreatment audit or compliance inspection through incidents, if any, at the POTW requirements, then the Discharger shall also include which the Discharger knows or suspects the reasons for noncompliance and state how and were caused by industrial users of the POTW when the Discharger shall comply with such system. The discussion shall include the conditions and requirements. This report shall reasons why incidents occurred, corrective contain, but -not be limited to, the following actions taken and, if known, name and information: address of the industrial user(s),responsible. Discussions shall also include a review of . 1. A summary of analytical results from applicable pollutant limitations to determine representative, flow-proportioned, 24-hour whether any additional limitations or changes composite sampling of the plant's effluent and to existing requirements may be necessary to sludge as provided in the relevant sections of this prevent pass-through, interference, or Monitoring and Reporting Program. The noncompliance with sludge disposal Discharger shall also provide any influent, requirements. effluent or sludge monitoring data for nonpriority M&RP No. 9548 -11- 3. The cumulative number of industrial users that Board, Regional Board and EPA. The report shall the Discharger has notified regarding Baseline . identify the specific compliance status of each such Monitoring Reports and the cumulative number industrial user. This quarterly reporting requirement of industrial user responses. shall commence upon issuance of this Order and Permit. Quarterly reports shall be submitted April 30, 4. An updated list of the Discharger's industrial July 31, and October 31. The fourth quarter report users, including their names and addresses, or a shall be incorporated in the annual report. Quarterly list of deletions and additions keyed to a reports shall briefly describe POTW compliance with previously submitted list. The Discharger shall audit/pretreatment compliance inspection provide a brief explanation for each deletion. requirements. If none of the aforementioned The list shall identify the industrial users subject conditions exist,at a minimum,a letter indicating that to Federal Categorical Standards by specifying all industries are in compliance and no violations or which set(s)of standards are applicable. The list changes to the pretreatment program have occurred shall indicate which categorical industries, or during the quarter must be submitted. specific pollutants from each industry,are subject to local limitations that are more stringent than 5. A summary of inspection and sampling activities the Federal Categorical Standards. The conducted by the Discharger during the past Discharger shall also list the noncategorical year to gather information and data regarding industrial users that are subject only to local industrial users. The summary shall include: discharge limitations. The Discharger shall characterize the compliance status of each (a) Names and addresses of the industrial users industrial user by employing the following subject to surveillance by the discharger descriptions: and an explanation of whether they were inspected, sampled, or both and the (a) In compliance with Baseline Monitoring frequency of these activities at each user; Report requirements (where applicable); and (b) Consistently achieving compliance; (b) Conclusions or results from the inspection or sampling of each industrial user. (c) Inconsistently achieving compliance; 6. A summary of compliance and enforcement (d) Significantly violated applicable pretreatment activities during the past year. The summary requirements as defined by 40 CFR shall include names and addresses of the 403.8(f)(2)(vii); industrial users affected by the following actions: (e) On a schedule to achieve compliance (include the date final compliance is (a) Warning letters or notices of violation required); regarding the industrial users' apparent noncompliance -with Federal Categorical (f) Not achieving compliance and not on a Standards or local discharge limitations. compliance schedule; or For each industrial user, identify whether the apparent violation concerned the Federal (g) The Discharger does not know the industrial Categorical Standards or local discharge user's compliance status. limitations; A report describing the compliance status of any (b) Administrative Orders regarding the industrial user characterized by descriptions in industrial users'noncompliance with Federal Items 4 (c) through (g) above shall be submitted Categorical Standards or local discharge quarterly from the annual report date to the State limitations. For each industrial user, M&RP No. 9548 -12- identify whether the violation concerned the Reports shall be signed by a principal executive Federal Categorical Standards or local officer, ranking elected official, or other duly discharge limitations: authorized employee if such employee is responsible for overall operation of the POTW. Signed copies of (c) Civil actions regarding the industrial users' these reports shall be submitted to the Regional noncompliance with Federal Categorical Administrator and the State at the following Standards or local discharge limitations. For addresses: each industrial user, identify whether the violation concerned the Federal Categorical CA Regional Water Quality Control Board Standards or local discharge limitations; 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5427 (d) Criminal actions regarding the industrial user's noncompliance with Federal State Water Resources Control Board Categorical Standards or local discharge Div. of Water Quality-Pretreatment Unit limitations. For each industrial user,identify 901 P Street whether the violation concerned Federal Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Categorical Standards or local discharge limitations; Pretreatment & Compliance Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (e) Assessment of monetary penalties. For each Region 9, Attn: W-5-2 industrial user, identify the amount of the 75 Hawthorne Street penalties; San Francisco, CA 94105 (f) Restriction of flow to the POTW; or Reporting (g) Disconnection from discharge to the POTW. All reports required in this monitoring and reporting program are required pursuant to Water Code § 7. Description of any significant changes in 13267. Monthly monitoring reports shall be operating the pretreatment program which differ submitted by the 20th day of each month following from the information in the Discharger's sampling. Approved POTW Pretreatment Program including,but not limited to changes concerning: C � the program's administrative structure; local . ORDERED BY: - industrial discharge limitations; monitoring Executive Officer program or monitoring frequencies; legal authority or enforcement policy; funding October 13. 1995 mechanisms; resource requiiements; or staffing Date levels. 8. A summary of the annual pretreatment budget, including the costs of pretreatment program functions and equipment purchases. 9. A summary of public participation activities to involve and inform the public. 10. A description of any changes in sludge disposal methods and a discussion of any concerns not described elsewhere in the report.