HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2002, 7 - REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S PROPOSED NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WAS council
a. (moi toot
j acEnda nEpoRt '
CITY O F SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Direct��
Prepared By: David Hix,Wastewater Di ' ion
SUBJECT: REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD'S PROPOSED
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR THE WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to file an appeal with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) if the
proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not appropriately
modified.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On March 0, 2002 the RWQCB released its latest draft of the City's proposed NPDES permit for
the wastewater discharge at WRF. Staff has submitted comments back to the Board regarding many
of the statements made in the RWQCB staff report, and the limits, studies and fiscal impacts found
in the permit.
Staff is concerned with the permit's use of inappropriate methodology in the determination of some
of the derived limitations. The implications of the permit may range from relatively minor
(<$100,000 per year) fiscal impacts associated with additional..studies and increased laboratory
monitoring, to potentially significant (>$10,000,000) impacts associated with construction of
improvements and additional treatment processes to the WRF in order to achieve compliance with
the new limitations. In as much as these limitations are not appropriately and/or technically based,
staff is recommending the City pursue an appeal of those permit requirements to the SWRCB.
DISCUSSION
(The following report is extremely technical by nature. A glossary of terms has been provided as
Attachment 2 to this report to assist the reader in understanding some of the technical terms used in
the report. Staff will provide additional clarification as requested during the presentation and
discussion of the report).
On March 0, 2002 the RWQCB released its latest draft of the City's proposed NPDES permit for
the wastewater discharge at WRF. Staff has submitted comments back to the Board regarding many
of the statements made in the staff report and the limits, studies and fiscal impacts found in the
permit. This report is to update Council on the recent proposed permit and recommendation for
1-1
Council Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF
Page 2
City action if this permit is not appropriately modified prior to adoption by the RWQCB on May 31,
2002.
Background
The City's WRF produces a high quality tertiary effluent and discharges into San Luis Obispo
Creek. The effluent meets extremely stringent Federal and State discharge requirements including
requirements for-acute and chronic toxicity and is often indistinguishable from drinking water. The
City has had to periodically expand the facility's capacity and/or upgrade its treatment capabilities
to comply with new discharge requirements; the last upgrade was completed in 1994. The WRF's
NPDES permit is renewed every 5 years.
On February 2, 2000, the City submitted an application to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) for renewal of its NPDES permit, and later in May, submitted comments and
requests for the revised permit that were protective of water quality and would protect the City from
SB 709 violations. In July of that same year, the RWQCB submitted a letter that explained new
State regulations: the California Toxics Rule (CTR) and the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and
requested the City submit a time schedule for compliance. Staff felt that the application of the
regulations and their implementation were inappropriate and began working with RWQCB staff to
find a workable timetable and reasonable application of the new regulations. City staff met with
Board staff in April 2001 to discuss a draft permit,but little was accomplished and the second draft
of the permit that was released in July 2001 was no better. As a result, the permit did not move
forward. During this time the City requested interim discharge limits (less restrictive limits in
which the City could assure compliance) for protection from SB 709 violations now known as
California Water Code(CWC) 13385(h),but received no response from the RWQCB.
On October 2e, 2001, the City was fined $48,000 for effluent violations per SB 709. City staff
gave testimony as to the real impacts of these violations and also presented documentation
regarding the requests for interim limits, but the $48,000 fine was not reduced because of the non-
discretionary nature of the law. After the hearing, the RWQCB informed the City that the only way
limits could be changed was to issue a revised permit. At this time City and RWQCB staff decided
to move forward with the revised permit.
The Proposed AIDES Permit
On January 10th, 2002, City staff submitted preliminary comments to the RWQCB on the July 2001
draft of the permit. The RWQCB released a revised draft of the proposed permit March 4, 2002,
with comments being due back to the RWQCB on April 19, 2002. The permit is scheduled for
adoption at the RWQCB's May 31'` meeting. The proposed permit is significantly different from
the current permit and past drafts. City staff has submitted extensive comments and proposals for
modifying the proposed permit. Please refer to the Attachment 1.
The latest draft of the proposed NPDES permit has numerous items of concern for the City. First
and foremost is the development and implementation of discharge limitations for protection of the
Municipal and Domestic Supply(MUN)beneficial use designation for San Luis Obispo Creek. The
1-2
Council Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF
Page 3
discharge standards necessary to ensure the protection of this beneficial use of San Luis Obispo
Creek are perhaps the most stringent. Since this beneficial use does not actually exist, staff
questions the appropriateness of these requirements. There are numerous discharge limitations that
City staff and our consultant, Larry Walker Associates, feel have been placed in the permit
incorrectly. Additionally there are very aggressive sampling and study provisions requiring
significant resources to accomplish, that have not been appropriately justified. Finally, the permit
lacks consistency with other recently adopted permits that have been issued to agencies with similar
discharge conditions and receiving waters.
Several factors have contributed to the recent problems encountered in our City's as well as other
agencies renewing their NPDES permits. The adoption of the State Implementation Plan (SII') in
March of 2000 for the implementation of Federal/State regulations relative to toxics standards
requires certain procedures and criteria be followed for the development of discharge limits. The
SIP provides guidance for the development and implementation of limits for constituents that have
been identified as a concern to the beneficial uses of receiving water, which in our case is San Luis
Obispo Creek. To determine if a constituent or contaminant is of concern, extensive sampling and
analysis are required and a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) document is developed. The RPA
determines if there is reasonable potential for the identified constituent to exist in the discharge at
concentrations that may interfere with the beneficial use(s) of the creek. Not all constituents listed
in the Federal/State rule would exist in all discharges and therefore not all listed constituents will
require regulation. From the information in the RPA, an effluent limit is developed if the
constituent exceeds the State adopted limit. The SIP is significant because, by State Board policy,
almost all receiving waters in California have been given the Municipal and Domestic Supply
(MUN)beneficial use designation, regardless of whether or not they are actually used for domestic
drinking water supply, which requires the most stringent application of the guidance. In addition,
the SIP used for the City's permit, does not address and was not intended to be used for the
development of limitations as applied to effluent dependent waters (EDW's), such as San Luis
Obispo Creek.
San Luis Obispo Creek at times will have most if not all of the its flow coming from the discharge
from the WRF. This receiving water does not benefit from the dilution of natural flow,and requires
special guidance for the development of appropriate discharge limits. Currently SWRCB staff'is
developing EDW guidance (SIP II) for these situations, which may significantly alter the
development of discharge limits, as well as affect the application of the MUN and other beneficial
use designations for many receiving waters. This is discussed in the RWQCB staff report for the
City's proposed permit, but RWQCB staff has made no effort to apply any discretion in the
development of discharge limits, and/or defer any of the requirements until SIP II is completed. As
stated previously, San Luis Obispo Creek is an EDW and should be given this consideration in the
development of this proposed permit.
The City of San Luis Obispo is not alone in believing that the requirements of its proposed permit
are too stringent. Other agencies have been experiencing similar overly stringent new discharge
limits and have been appealing their permits to the SWRCB. The City of Vacaville has appealed
their permit based upon the placement of overly stringent discharge requirements driven by the
application of the MUN beneficial use designation. A ruling on the Vacaville appeal is expected
sometime in May 2002 and many experts in the regulatory field feel its decision will establish new
1-3
Council.Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF
Page 4
policy for the MUN designation as it applies to EDWs. The City has asked the RWQCB to proceed
with the permit but postpone the placement of any final effluent limit related to these issues until
this matter is resolved.
The following are brief descriptions of the major issues facing the City with this permit and the
City's response to those issues. The following discussion has been broken into; the City's
comments regarding the RWQCB staff report and the proposed discharge limits, studies, and
monitoring requirements identified in the proposed permit. Staff has provided extensive comments
and proposals on the RWQCB staff report and the proposed permit. The issues discussed below are
those of greatest concern that must be addressed and/or modified prior to this permit being adopted.
The RWQCB Staff Report
The RWQCB staff report that accompanies the proposed permit is intended to clarify and justify the
permit's requirements. City staff has been concerned about the statements and logic used to justify
and explain everything from the applied beneficial uses to the development of studies and the
calculation of limits. Below are staffs two major concerns with the RWQCB's staff report,
MUN Beneficial Use Designation - The City has long disputed the MUN beneficial use
designation being applied to San Luis Obispo Creek because there are no municipal or domestic
(drinking water) uses of San Luis Obispo Creek. The MUN designation drives many of the
requirements for sampling, studies and development of the most stringent discharge regulations.
There are no existing or anticipated MUN users on San Luis Obispo Creek,and use of the creek as a
municipal drinking water supply would not be allowed by the California State Department of Health
Services (DHS) because the majority of its flow is comprised of wastewater effluent. The MUN
beneficial use designation is applied to nearly all of the state's surface waters as a matter of State
policy, whether or not there was an actual or potential MUN use. City staff is very concerned with
the RWQCB staff's flawed logic in explaining the MUN as an existing use(because the Board has
adopted it as such)and discounting the City's right to process regarding studies to analyze changing
this beneficial use. As mentioned above, several other agencies, including the City of Vacaville, are
appealing their permits based on this same criteria and the City feels this issue may be addressed in
the near future. The City has asked the RWQCB to provide documentation and/or evidence of any
MLN users of San Luis Obispo Creek and if they cannot, the City requests they remove this
beneficial use and the requirements it drives.
Consistency - The proposed permit differs significantly from the permit that was issued to the
California Men's Colony(CMC) only a year earlier. This is important because CMC has the same
beneficial uses for its receiving water, Chorro Creek, so the application of the Basin Plan objectives
and the SII' should be very similar. No significant changes to regulations or requirements have
occurred since adoption of CMC's permit, yet the City's permit has a significantly greater number
of effluent limitations and other requirements. In October of 2001, the City provided comments to
the RWQCB regarding the consistent application of the Basin Plan and our ongoing concern that
regulations were not being consistently applied to like receiving waters and/or programs. RWQCB
staff responded that ensuring consistency is a policy and is very important to the Board. Issues
remain as to how the City's proposed permit differs so much from CMC's.
1-4
1
Council Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF
Page 5
Discharge Limits,Studies and Monitoring
Effluent limits are the numerical limits for constituents that are sampled prior to discharge to San
Luis Obispo Creek, so there is no dilution with the receiving water. SB 709 fines are applied to
effluent limit violations. Reasonable and properly calculated effluent limits are essential for
consistant compliance, preservation of water quality and protection from inappropriate SB 709
violations. Receiving water limits are numeric limits that are sampled in a predetermined area after
discharge to the receiving water. San Luis Obispo Creek is the WRF's receiving water.
Interim Discharge limits for Trihalomethanes(THMs) - Interim discharge limits for constituents
that have a reasonable potential to negatively effect the receiving water should be developed and
included in the permit,prior to the development of the final limit. However,the City disagrees with
the placement of the proposed interim limits in our permit because it is not known how these limits
have been derived and/or if they would result in violations. The City is requesting these limits be
developed using a performance-based process and appropriate statistical procedures. This is critical
because without the proper development of these interim limits the City could be vulnerable to SB
709 fines for violations of these constituents.
Mass Limits - The RWQCB proposed mass-loading limit (measured in lbs./day) could lead to
effluent violations during the WRF's normal peak flows at compliant concentrations (as measured
in parts per million). The City has proposed changing these limits using the WRF's peak flow
instead of its average dry weather flow to ensure mass loadings are based on maximum flow rates at
compliant concentrations.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Chloride and Sodium - The City will not be able to consistently
meet the proposed 850 mg/1 limit for TDS. This constituent has also led to past SB 709 fines.
Along with the TDS limit, the Board has also proposed the City develop a salts management
program to determine sources of salts,their impacts on water quality and efforts to control or reduce
salt discharges to the wastewater collection system. The City agrees with the development of a salts
management plan, but has proposed that an interim performance based limit be developed and
included in the permit during the development of a final effluent limit based upon the results of the
salts management plan.
Toxicity-The proposed permit contains the same toxicity as our current permit,but the City is now
requesting this be changed. There is no adopted numeric limitation for this constituent and past
SWRCB actions demonstrate that this should be a narrative limit instead of a numerical effluent
limit because the state has not yet performed sufficient economic analysis of application of this limit
as required by law, and other factors. Adequate protection for the water body will be provided
using the revised approach recommended by City staff(narrative limit) and the City will not be
vulnerable to numeric effluent limit violations that could lead to fres and other enforcement
actions.
Ammonia - This limit is currently a receiving water limit for un-ionized ammonia, while the
proposed limit is an effluent limit for total ammonia. Currently the WRF cannot meet the proposed
limit and would be in a weekly violation scenario of$3,000 per violation if it remains in the pemut.
The RWQCB staff report gave no indication as to why this limit was modified and placed in the
1-5
Council Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF .
Page 6
permit as an effluent limit. The City is proposing that it remain a receiving water limit for un-
ionized ammonia.
Basin Plan Effluent Limits - The identified constituents are found in the RWQCB Basin Plan
document, but are identified only as receiving water limits and should not be included in the permit
as effluent limits. An RPA for these constituents has not been completed. Placing them in the
proposed permit as effluent limits is inappropriate and may result in effluent violations and fines.
The City has requested removing these constituents from the permit pending the outcome of the
RPA.
Final Effluent THMs - As mentioned previously, there is inadequate monitoring information to
calculate a final effluent limit for these constituents. The proposed permit also requires a mixing
zone study to determine the fate of these constituents after discharge. This study along with
monitoring should be performed, as allowed in the SIP, before a final limit is calculated. There is
no compelling reason to place a final limit in the permit until all the required work has been
performed. Additionally, development of a final limit under the current SIP is inappropriate for an
EDW as the current SIP was not intended to be applied to EDW's:The City has requested that final
limits for these constituents be removed from the permit pending the outcome of monitoring, the
adoption of SIP II(appropriate for EDW's)and guidance from the Vacaville appeal.
Coliform Bacteria - This constituent has been the leading cause of the City's SB 709 violations.
Because of the difficult nature of wastewater treatment, disinfection is impossible to achieve
100% of the time, as the current limit of 2.2 total coliform MPN/100 ml, is the equivalent of
undetectable. RWQCB staff has proposed a limit of 23 WN/100 ml total coliform for the
revised permit, which is still considerably more stringent than the Basin Plan objective of 200
fecal coliform NTN/100 ml (which is supposed to guide the regulation), but is reasonable and
achievable and should alleviate violations and SB 709 fines.
Narrative Effluent Limits-There are narrative effluent limits which are also included as
receiving water limits in the permit. These need to be removed from the effluent portion of the
proposed permit because they represent a double jeopardy for the City when contained as both
receiving water and effluent limitations. The City is requesting that this language remain in the
receiving water section of the permit where it is intended and appropriate. The City's past
chlorine residual violations were because of an exceedance of the narrative limit.
Chlorine Residual - Chlorine residual violations have been the other major source of SB 709
fines because of the difficulty in consistently achieving 100% compliance with a zero limit.
RWQCB staff have proposed a reasonable 99% compliance format for chlorine residual, but at a
detection limit which City staff have been unable to find an approved Environmental Protection
Agency analytical method. Board staff's proposed 99% compliance format for this limit is
reasonable, but will require the installation of continuous chlorine residual monitoring
equipment, which is a State recognized method for determining 99% compliance. The City has
requested an interim sampling protocol to determine the 99% compliance, and a timeline that
would allow funding to be approved during the City's 2003-05 Financial Plan and a reasonable
time for installation of the new equipment.
1-6
Council Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF
Page 7
Provisions and Studies - The City has agreed to all but one of the studies in the provisions section
of the proposed permit and has asked for extended time schedules to permit adequate funding and
study. The City disagrees with the proposed ground water nutrient study provision because it is
entirely too vague, should encompass and include all of the stakeholders in the watershed and
makes the City responsible for a study that should otherwise be performed by the RWQCB. For the
sampling and studies the City has agreed'to perform, extended timelines have been requested to
provide adequate funding during the City's next financial plan and reasonable time for the
monitoring, preparation, study and analysis required for these studies. These provisions and studies
are required under the State's clean water regulations and will be important in appropriately
developing water quality criteria for the WRF.
Monitoring - As mentioned above, increased and more stringent monitoring and laboratory
sampling criteria will require additional funding. The City does not agree with providing the
RWQCB the extensive additional nutrient sampling it is requesting. Again, the nutrient sampling
required for the Total Maximum Daily Load program is not the sole responsibility of the City and
the City has already provided the RWQCB with over 5 years of nutrient information. The proposed
extensive nutrient monitoring would cost approximately $22,000 in laboratory costs alone in
addition to the required sampling and additional monitoring for the other required studies.
Impacts of the Proposed Permit
Meeting the requirements of the proposed permit as it stands will result in significant additional cost
to the City. The majority of the identified short-term issues will result in effluent violations from
improperly calculated and/or inappropriately placed interim and final limits in the permit, that will
then result in SB 709 violations. An example of this is the previously discussed effluent ammonia
limit that will result in a.$3,000 per week violation or$156,000 annually. Many of the other limits
identified as basin plan constituents, have never been sampled for previously and the City has no
idea if these constituents are present and if the limits can be met. Many of these limits have been
placed in the permit without using the guidance provided by the SIP, without the application of
other State policies and permit decisions, and without the benefit of an RPA and the other required
studies. As the permit is currently written, extra funding for the monitoring and studies would be
required prior to the City's two year financial plan process, which would not allow the careful
planning and analysis required for operating and capital programs of the sewer fund. This could
significantly affect existing capital and operating programs and/or sewer rates. Also, many of the
proposed studies do not allow enough time for adequate and representative monitoring and analysis,
and thus would not produce quality results.
The long term issue is that without the information from the proposed studies, and the pending
direction and guidance that will be provided by the SIP II and the results of other agency appeals,
the City will be inappropriately put on a mandatory five year compliance time frame to construct
improvements at the WRF. Currently State law allows only a five-year time frame to achieve
compliance with any adopted final limitation. This could result in possibly tens of millions of
dollars being spent before definitive policy, regulations and appropriate guidance have been
adopted. State policy regarding the Vacaville decision, SIP IL other State decisions and the City's
continuing challenge of the MUN designation all need to be resolved prior to any significant
improvements being initiated at the WRF..
1-7
Council Agenda Report—Proposed NPDES Wastewater Permit for the WRF
Page 8
Summary
Staff is seeking Council authorization to file an appeal with the SWRCB if the proposed permit is
not significantly modified. The items discussed in this report are of major concern for the City and
must be appropriately modified before adoption. If not modified, the City will have only 30 days
after adoption of the permit to file an appeal with the SWRCB..
If an appeal is filed, the process can go two different ways: one is to go through with the entire
process to the SWRCB, which is time consuming and expensive for both parties; the second is to.
request the permit to be held in abeyance, which would temporarily set aside the permit and provide
stays for constituents that would result in violations. If the permit were held in abeyance,then time
may be granted to negotiate with RWQCB staff,collect more information, and wait until legislation
has been adopted that could change the disputed conditions in the permit.
Staff would prefer to work with RWQCB staff to avoid an appeal, The City's requests relative to
this proposed permit are reasonable and will achieve the majority of the goals that the RWQCB
identifies in the staff report and proposed permit. The City's requests and proposals also conform to
the SIP and other permitting policies and decisions that have been adopted in other regions of the
State. Staff believes that the City and RWQCB are actually very close in meeting their objectives
for this permit and the receiving water;but differ largely on the approach and time schedule.
FISCAL BRACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Fiscal impacts will result when this permit
is adopted by the RWQCB and may be significant if the permit is not appropriately modified
prior to adoption. If an appeal is filed by the City with the SWRCB, staff will return to Council
prior to expenditure of any funding not already approved with a full discussion of probable fiscal
impacts and a request to authorize funding.
ATTACBNMNTS
1. City's April 19th'2002 letter providing comments and requests for the WRF's proposed
NPDES Permit.
2. Glossary of terms
Council Reading File: Draft RWQCB StaffReport and Proposed NPDES Permit.
1-8
Attachm®t 1
�Il��ll�lnlll�lll����������lll QIUIIIIIIII�
11 IIII
cityo san l�uis OBISPO
Mi& -
25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
April 19, 2002
Mr. Roger Briggs, Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Coast Region
81 Higuera Street, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-5414
Subject: Comments and Requests for the Administrative Draft, Order No. RBS-2002-
047, NPDES No. CA0049224, for the City of San Luis Obispo's Water Reclamation
Facility and Request for Evidence, Information and/or Documentation of Existing and/or
Anticipated Municipal and Domestic Supply Uses for San Luis Obispo Creek.
Dear Mr. Briggs:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of San Luis Obispo's draft
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit No. CA0049224. As has been
expressed in numerous past correspondence the City is very interested in securing
attainable and reasonable discharge limitations that protect and preserve the water quality
of San Luis Obispo Creek and its beneficial uses and protect the City from further
unwarranted California Water Code (CWC) 13385(h) violations, formally SB 709. The
City has an excellent compliance record and is very interested in ensuring the limits being
proposed for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) will best serve the beneficial uses of
San Luis Obispo Creek while making effective use of City resources. The City also has
numerous other programs that are designed to.preserve and protect water quality. These
programs include the preservation of open space, watersheds and riparian areas, street
sweeping, ordinances and other programs.
MUN Designation
The City continues to have serious concerns regarding the placement of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) existing and anticipated Municipal and
Domestic Supply (MUN) beneficial use designation for San Luis Obispo Creek before
the outcome of the City of Vacaville's appeal and the adoption of phase two of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP Il). As proposed, this permit will cost the City of San Luis
Obispo significant resources for short term and ongoing compliance, for little or no water
quality benefit, and for protection of beneficial uses that do not exist. As you are aware,
pending regulations, guidance and appeals, may change the requirements for water bodies
such as San Luis Obispo Creek.
I in
® 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. �!/
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 2
The City's single most serious concern is the MUN beneficial use designation for San
Luis Obispo Creek. This single factor is driving the majority of the studies and the.
development of overly stringent unachievable discharge limitations and criteria. As you
know this beneficial use will require the development of extrememnly stringent
requirements using phase I of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) methodologies.
Because the City knows of no existing or anticipated MUN uses for San Luis Obispo
Creek, the application of MUN limitations is not appropriate. San Luis Obispo Creek is
an Effluent Dependant Waterbody (EDW) and the SIP lacks guidance for EDWs, so
using the SIP, for anything other than the development of some statistically based interim
limits, is a misapplication of the SIP guidance.
RWQCB staff uses flawed logic to explain why they believe that the Domestic and
Municipal Water Supply (MUN) beneficial designation is an existing use. Board staff
argues that when the City constructed treatment works, it reduced wastewater pollutants
to levels protective of the MUN beneficial use. None of the City's upgrades to the WRF,
including the latest upgrade completed in 1994, were ever intended to protect the MUN
use because it was not a beneficial use during the facility's design. The fact is: there has
never been an existing MUN use in San Luis Obispo Creek and the State Department of
Health Services (DHS) states in their 1987 Uniform Guidelines for wastewater
disinfection, page 3, category 3, "There shall be no discharge of sewage effluent to
streams and rivers used for domestic water supply". DHS will not allow wastewater
effluent to be used as a drinking water source and therefore San Luis Obispo can not be a
drinking water source.
• The City is requesting that the RWQCB provide the City evidence, information
and/or documentation establishing an existing or anticipated MUN use for San
Luis Obispo Creek. If no evidence or information can be provided then the City
is requesting that the existing and anticipated MUN beneficial use designation for
San Luis Obispo Creek be removed from the City's permit.
The MUN designation is a State policy that blanketed most every water body in
Califomia. Once again these issues may be clarified with the outcome of the Vacaville
appeal and/or SIP H. The City requests this section of the staff report be modified.
Site Specific Objectives and the City's Right to Process
The RWQCB staff seemed opposed to the City pursuing site specific objectives and
performing a Use Attainability Analysis,(UAA) for San Luis Obispo-Creek. As stated
previously, the City wants to keep every option open regarding the discharge limitations
for San Luis Obispo Creek. The current language in the proposed permit suggests that
the City should not attempt to pursue these options. The City believes that it is premature
to make such predictions and is not comfortable with the language in this section of the
staff report. Much of the language relative to SSOs and UAAs is speculative and should
not be adopted by the RWQCB. These items can be addressed separately from the permit
if and when the issues arise. This is another area where SIP lI and/or the Vacaville
appeal may provide significant guidance. Again the City would like this language
removed or modified.
1-10
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 3
As mentioned previously, and in past correspondence, some of the limits in this draft
permit have been developed incorrectly using the SIP methodology. Conversely this
permit contains significant departures from SIP guidance including the placement of final
Trihalomethanes (THMs) and Basin Plan effluent limitations in this permit without using
SIP guidance for their development. Again .the City would like to see these limits
removed from the permit until information and guidance from sampling, studies, the
Vacaville appeal and SIP II is available.
The City agrees to sampling and studies to address THMs, salts and Basin Plan
objectives, but requests deferral of final limitations and a permit reopener pending the
outcome of the studies and sampling and the adoption of the SIP II and Vacaville appeal..
As mentioned previously and in past correspondence, without the information from
sampling, studies and guidance from SIP H and the Vacaville appeal any placement of
final effluent limitations is premature. This approach is allowed under SIP, EPA guidance
and the Basin Plan and is key in determining the City's approach to compliance.
The City also agrees to the establishment of interim performance based limits for THMs
and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), statistically based. These limits will protect the City
from violations due to historic fluctuations of the constituents and protect water quality
while studies and sampling are being performed to develop final effluent limits. More
specific detail is provided later in this letter.
The City appreciates Board staff consideration regarding coliform and chlorine residual
limitations. The coliform limit will alleviate costly effluent violations while ensuring
water quality and protecting public health. The City would like to modify the proposed
chlorine residual limit to one that conforms to the City's current technology and sampling
procedures while it explores the cost and feasibility of the Board staffs proposal of
continuous monitoring. More specific detail is provided later in this letter.
Consistency
The City has met with Board staff regarding the development of TMDLs in San Luis
Obispo Creek and understands the need for the development of the TMDLs at this time,
While the development of the TMDL for San Luis Obispo Creek is important, the City
seems to be the only stakeholder that is contributing significant resources to the project.
The proposed sampling and monitoring in.this,proposed order will be very expensive to
implement and is not necessarily the City's responsibility. The TMDL is a RWQCB
project for the entire watershed and needs to assess all stakeholders for resources. For
these reasons the City is proposing a reduced monitoring program for many of these
constituents. Also the City is very concerned about the application of different beneficial
use designations for different TMDLs or different portions of San Luis Obispo Creek. It
appears that the MUN designation applies for nutrients while the less stringent REC 1
designation applies for pathogens. These issues needs to be clarified.
This permit is significantly different than the permit that was issued to the California
Men's Colony (CMC) last year. The Men's Colony permit has very similar beneficial
1-11
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 4
uses including MUN and is a EDW, yet significantly different limitations have been
placed in their permit compared to the limits being proposed for the City of San Luis
Obispo's WRF. CMC's permit contains no interim effluent limits for TBMs, a
compliance based effluent TDS limitation that compares and considers the receiving
water limit, no effluent ammonia limit, no effluent basin plan limitations, no final
effluent limitations for THMs, different species requirement requirements for acute
toxicity, significantly less nutrient monitoring, no collection system maintenance and
monitoring program and significantly fewer studies.
The City understands that permits will vary, but the discrepancies between the CMC's
permit and the proposed City permit lack reasonable explanation. CMC and the City of
San Luis Obispo's WRF discharge to very similar water bodies that have the same
beneficial uses, therefore the discharge limitations and monitoring plans should be very
similar. On October 21, 2001, the City provided comments for the RWQCB's water
quality control plan, triennial review, regarding the consistency and the consistant
application of basin plan requirements. Board-staff responded that there is a statewide
policy and efforts are being made to ensure the consistency. The City remains concerned
that consistency is not a priority or that the consistency policy was not applied to the
City's proposed permit.
Below are specific comments from the proposed order.
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (WDRs)
Permit Effective Date..
The Draft Permit states that"The Regional Board will base all enforcement actions on the
date of Order adoption". (See page 5, top paragraph, last line.). The September 29, 1989
Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
California State Water Resources Control Board("MOA") states:
"NPDES Permits, other than general permits, adopted by the State Board or
Regional Board shall become effective on the 50a' day after the date of adoption if
EPA has made no objection to the permit; if:
a) there has been significant public comment; or
b) changes have been made to the latest version of the draft permit that was
sent to EPA for review (unless the only changes were made to
accommodate EPA changes)."
See MOA at 22, section F.2. The Draft Permit has received and will continue to receive
significant public comment by the City until the Regional Board adopts the Permit.
Therefore, the effective date of the NPDES Permit should be 50 days after the Permit is
formally adopted by the Regional Board. .In order to comply with this requirement, the
sentence on page 5,cited above, should be replaced with the following statement:
1-12
Attachment i
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 5
■
'This NPDES Permit shall become effective 50 days after its adoption by the
Regional Board."
A. Discharge Prohibitions.
This section should make reference to the City's change in place of use permit. SWRCB
Order#2000-07 DWR.
B. Interim Effluent Limitations.
The City agrees that under the SIP,interim, performance-based limits are required where
reasonable potential has been found to exist, but insufficient data exist to calculate final
effluent limits. It is unclear, however, how the interim effluent limitations in B.1 were
calculated and, as calculated, may result in a costly violation. The very nature of
performance-based limits suggests that they are to be established at levels that, based on
historic performance, should not be exceeded.
Although there is no formal State or Regional Board policy concerning the establishment
of performance-based limits, the State Board addressed this issue in its recent Tosco
Decision (Order WQ 2001-06). In that Order, the State Board agreed that statistical
procedures should be used to calculate interim performance-based limits (See Order,page
26), but ruled that the San Francisco Bay Regional Board had used inappropriate
statistical methods for that purpose (See Order,gage 59). The San Francisco Board had
used an Excel spreadsheet to calculate the 99.7 percentile of historic data. (See Order,
page 32). The City understands that the San Francisco Bay Board, as a result of the
Tosco Order, now has standardized on the following procedure. They first test the data to
determine whether it is normally or log-normally. distributed, and then based on the
distribution, they calculate the mean plus,three standard deviations, and that becomes the
interim, performance-based limit. Where there are non-detects in the data set, they use
the log-probit method to determine the mean plus three standard deviations.
• The City requests that the Central Coast Regional Board use appropriate statistical
procedures to calculate interim, performance-based effluent limits, either the
method used by the San Francisco Bay Board, or some equally supportable
method.
Effluent Limitations
The CMC permit allows the receiving water to be sampled to determine compliance for
some constituents, TDS, Chloride and Sodium, if there is an exceedance in the effluent
limit. This language effectively looks at,the.real.impact to the water body and utilizes
Basin Plan objectives to do so. The City feels this is a realistic approach to compliance
and water quality and would like to see this language applied to the City's permit for
applicable and appropriate constituents.
1-13
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 6
Weekly and daily Mass Limits for BOD, Suspended Solids and Oil and Grease.
The City is concerned that the weekly average and daily maximum mass limits for these
constituents may unnecessarily subject the City to permit violations and enforcement
actions even if we operate the plant within the authorized design capacity and comply
with the effluent concentration limits in C.1 and C.2. That is because the maximum
weekly and daily mass limits are calculated based on the average dry weather design
flow, rather than the weekly and daily flow capacities. Thus, whereas we are
theoretically allowed to discharge at a daily maximum daily effluent suspended solids
limit of 75 mg/L, when we are operating at our maximum daily design capacity of 10
mgd, we will violate the mass limit if we exceed a daily maximum concentration of 39
mg/L. This is an especially significant item of concern for the City because our daytime
population is 75,000 and since effluent concentrations commonly go up during peak flow
periods, it can be expected that this will present a problem as our daily flows increase in
the future.
Y The City requests one of two alternatives, listed in order of preference: (1) base
the mass limits on the allowable concentration times the actual observed flow
rate, which is the approach specified in the California Ocean Plan (See page 12);
or (2) base the daily maximum mass loads on the daily maximum concentration
limit and the daily maximum design.flow..of 10 MGD and the weekly average
mass limit on the weekly average concentration limit and maximum weekly flows
that would reasonably be expected when the.plant reaches its design capacity.
Both of these alternatives are acceptable under,applicable law and regulations and
would protect the City against unnecessary violations.
Total Dissolved Solids, Sodium, and Chloride Effluent Limit.
The City supports the requirement to develop a Salt Management Program, as required by
Section G of the proposed Order. We are very concerned, however, about the imposition
of the 850 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) effluent limit prior to completion of the
study. We have exceeded this TDS level in the past and we would expect to occasionally
exceed it in the future. Moreover, the TDS levels in our discharge are largely dependent.
upon factors beyond our reasonable control, at least in the near-term and possibly in the
long-term. Until we complete the Salt Management Program, and identify the sources of
TDS and other salts, we cannot be certain what reductions can be achieved through
practicable source reduction efforts. Therefore, we are requesting that you delete the
TDS limit from the proposed Order. Alternatively, it would be acceptable to calculate an
interim, performance-based effluent limit:.pending:the results of the Salt Management
Program. If an interim, performance-based limit were to be imposed, we would request
that an appropriate statistical procedure would be utilized to calculate the interim limit.
(See above discussion under"Calculation of Interim Effluent Limitations for THMs.'�
In addition, we do not believe it is appropriate to employ a Daily Maximum effluent limit
for TDS, sodium, or chloride, when the Basin Plan objectives are based on annual mean
concentrations. The issues with salts is long-term, not short term. In fact, to be
consistent with the Basin Plan, the effluent limits for these salts should be annual mean
1-14
i Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 7
effluent concentrations based on annual mean dilution and annual mean background
levels, or some equivalent method. At a minimum, the limits for these constituents
should be monthly averages,rather than daily maximums.
The City is requesting the removal of the TDS limit from the proposed Order and
development and establishment of an interim, performance-based effluent limit
pending the results of the Salt Management Program. The City proposes using
the appropriate statistical procedure to calculate the interim limit. (See above
discussion under"Calculation of Interim Effluent Limitations for THMs.')
Chronic Toxicity.
The current Chronic Toxicity Effluent.Limit of 1.0 TUc is another requirement that the
City previously accepted, but is now requesting to be removed, primarily because of the
increased emphasis on enforcement and related regulatory actions by the State Board.
The current permit and the proposed Order. cite_the Basin Plan as the basis for this
requirement. However, the Basin Plan does not contain a numeric water quality objective
for Chronic Toxicity, let alone an objectiveror 10 TUc. The Basin Plan Toxicity
Objective isa narrative objective. The;bbJdgt ve states that 96-hour acute bioassays,
together an unionized ammonia limit of 0.025 mg/L, will be used to assess compliance
with the objective,but makes no mention of the chronic toxicity test.
The State Board adopted a Chronic Toxicity Objective of 1.0 TUc in the Ocean Plan and
the Inland Surface Waters Plan. The Inland Surface Waters Plan,which would have been
applicable to San Luis Obispo Creek,was subsequently rescinded by the State Board as a
result of a court order. The court ruled that the Inland Plan and the objectives contained
therein were illegal on grounds the State Board failed to consider economics and other
factors required to be considered under Water Code section 1324.1 prior to adopting the
objectives. More recently, the State Board considered adopting a numeric water quality
objective for Chronic Toxicity when it:.adopted.the SIP. (See Functional Equivalent
Document, Chapter 4.1, Chronic Toxicity Objective.) However, rather than adopt a
numeric objective, the State Board chose the no_action alternative, i.e., the Regional
Boards would continue to apply the existing narrative toxicity objectives contained in
their basin plans. In rejecting the numeric,objective alternative, the State Board stated "It
would restrict permitting approaches and:response actions, and would not address the
variability of toxicity test results." (See FED,page V-126.) Had the State Board opted to
adopt a numeric objective for Chronic Toxicity, it would have had to first consider
economics and other factors, as required by Water Code section 13241. It seems
inappropriate for the Regional Board to employ a numeric objective for chronic toxicity
that was rejected by the court for failure to consider economics and other factors and
which the State Board chose not to adopt in part because of test variability, without first
amending the Basin Plan to adopt a specific numeric objective and considering the
various factors required to be considered under the Water Code. Moreover, both the
Inland Plan objective and the current Basin Plan narrative toxicity objective are receiving
water objectives and it is inappropriate to apply those objectives directly as effluent
limits. In fact, it is inappropriate to impose a toxicity-based effluent limit, other than the
acute bioassay test requirement referenced in the Basin Plan, without a determination that
1-15
}
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 8
the discharge has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an in stream
exceedance of the narrative objective.
Finally, the City is unaware of any other regional board that currently implements its
narrative toxicity objective by including a 1.0 TUc effluent limit in NPDES permits.
Rather, most regional boards utilize 1.0 TUc as a trigger for initiation of a Toxicity
Identification Evaluation (TIE). This is the approach the City is requesting be employed
with respect to its permit.
■ The City requests that the Chronic Toxicity Limit of 1.0 TUc be deleted from the
permit and instead that Provision H.13 be modified as follows:
"Where toxicity monitoring shows an exceedance of 1.0 TUc a ielatien e€
xc)Eisit}-fimitatieasin Effluat I iniitg* ,a G.2 of this n am, the Discharger shall
resample and submit the results within 10 days after the test to the EO. The EO
will determine whether to require
Discharger to implement Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) requirements, or
to implement other measures approved by the EO. Discharger shall implement a
TRE as outlined below: EPA's Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Procedures,
Phases 1, 2, and 3 ... shall be the basis for this plan. ..."
Ammonia
The proposed limit for ammonia has been.revised in this permit to be an effluent where in
previous City permits it has been a receiving water limit. This limit is based on a
receiving water limitation in the basin plan.(III-4).of 0.025mg/1 (as N) for un-ionized
ammonia. There is no language in the proposed Order or Board staff's report that
identifies this proposed change or its rationale. Previous City permits identify this
constituent as un-ionized ammonia with a receiving limitation of 0.025mg/l (as N). This
proposed limit is also for total rather than un-ionized ammonia. There is no basis for
making this an effluent limitation. Finally this constituent is listed as a.receiving water
limitation, consistant with the Basin Plan, in the recently adopted California Men's
Colony permit.
■ The City is this requesting that the current un-ionized ammonia receiving water
limitation of 0.025 mg/1 (as N) be retained in lieu of making it an effluent
limitation as shown in,the draft permit.
Basin Plan Effluent Limitations
The proposed Order includes as effluent limitations, the Title 22 Drinking Water
Standards (MCLS) contained in the Basin Plan,.although some of the proposed limits do
not conform to the Basin Plan objectives. These limits, while now proposed as Effluent
Limits, are contained in the current permit as Receiving Water Limits. Neither the
proposed Order nor the Staff Report explain.why the Regional Board is proposing to
change these limits from Receiving Water Limits to Effluent Limits.
1-16
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence.and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 9
In this regard, the City wishes to reiterate its concern that the municipal drinking water
use designation for San Luis Obispo Creek is erroneous. Municipal drinking water is
neither an existing nor an anticipated use of the creek waters. As previously stated, the
City anticipates that the State Board's Decision on the Vacaville Permit will address the
appropriateness of applying municipal drinking water standards to effluent dependent
waters where municipal use is neither an existing or probable future beneficial use. We
therefore request that the Regional Board remove these limits from the permit, pending
the Vacaville Decision.
As previously stated, several of the proposed effluent limits appear to be inconsistent
with the Basin Plan. Examples include, but are not necessarily limited to: antimony,
beryllium, cadmium, selenium, endrin, and lindane. To the extent the municipal drinking
water MCLS cover priority toxic pollutants,they fall under the implementation provisions
of the SIP. In that case, adoption of final effluent limits in advance of monitoring and a
reasonable potential analysis would be inconsistent with the SIP.
■ The City requests that these limits be removed entirely from the permit, pending
the outcome of the monitoring required under the Monitoring and Reporting
Program. Once the results of the monitoring is completed and it is determined
whether reasonable potential exists, the permit can be reopened and appropriate
effluent limits incorporated into the permit. This is consistent with._EPA
regulations governing the placement of.effluent limits in permits—i.e.,when there
is a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedance of an in stream
standard. If the effluent limits are put in before the monitoring is completed,what
is the purpose of the required monitoring?
Final Effluent Limitations for THM's
As stated in previous comments, final effluent limitations for THMs should not be placed
in the Waste Discharge Requirements of the City's NPDES permit. Development of the
limitation should await the sampling and mixing zone analysis per the SIP. Instead they
should be placed iri the findings sections of the WDR and not placed in the final effluent
limitations until SIP II, or interim guidance from the Vacaville appeal has been finalized.
Placing the final THM effluent limitations in the permit now may require the City to
incur significant costs for limits that may be modified after final guidance has been
adopted.
■ The City of San Luis Obispo requests this limit be removed from the order
pending the outcome of required monitoring and studies, adoption of the SIP II
and guidance from the Vacaville decision...
pH
San Luis Obispo Creek has had a pH of 8.3 or greater approximately 23 times in the past
.5 years, and 8.6 is not uncommon. This can result in an effluent violation for a discharge
that exceeds the effluent limit but is lower than the pH of the receiving water. The City
1-17
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo-Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 10
may suffer a CWC 13385(h) fine for a violation that had no negative effect on the
receiving water or its beneficial uses.
■ The City requests the pH limit be changed to read"The discharge shall not have a
pH of less than 6.5 or greater than the 8.3 or the pH of the receiving water, or be
at a level that adversely affects the beneficial uses
Narrative Effluent Limitations (4e through 4h).
These items are similar in wording and content as the items found in the receiving water
limitations section. This language is intend for receiving water limitations not effluent
limitations This represents a double jeopardy for the City because the limitation is in
both the effluent and receiving water limitations section..
■ The City is requesting that items 4 e through h be removed from the WDR
effluent limitations section.
Chlorine Residual
The City greatly appreciates Board stafr09%o compliance format and believes that this
format will greatly alleviate costly minute chlorine violations that had no impact to water
quality. The City's concern is that the 0.02mg/1 limit is significantly below the detection
limit for that constituent and is not an actual limit,but a derived limit taken from ambient
water quality table. The City contacted and consulted with several laboratories and found
the lowest possible analytical detection limit for chlorine is 0.1 mg/l. It is not possible to
analytically determine 0.02 mg/l chlorine residual. The City's proposed limit is
consistent with the limit found in CMC's permit.
■ 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 0.1
mg/1 shall not exceed 7 hours and 26 minutes in any calendar month;
(2) No individual excursion from 0.1 mg/1 shall exceed 45 minutes (10% of 7
hours and 26 minutes); and
(3) No individual excursion shall exceed 2.0mg/1.
D. Receiving Water Limitations
Temperature
The wording found in the temperature limitation D.l.b. needs to reference the receiving
water and requires the City to report a violation to the RWQCB's Executive Officer
(EO). This requirement is additional and inconvenient reporting for both the Board and
1-18
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 11
the City and leaves the City open to a (CWC) 13385(h) fine if the City is late with a
report. The City would prefer to report these violations in the City's monthly DMR-
The
MRThe City is requesting the language found on line 7 of D.Lb.be changed from"...
the discharge does not exceed 72.5 F", to, ".... The discharge shall not cause the
receiving water to exceed..." and eliminate the 24 hour reporting requirement to
the EO.
F. Collection Svstem Maintenance and Renovation
The City believes this new requirement is premature and should be deferred until EPA.
issues its new rule on sewer system overflows, which will require implementation of a
"capacity, management, operation, and maintenance" ("CMOM") program. The objective
of the CMOM program is identical to the objective of the new requirement, namely the
reduction of sewer system overflows and spills. That rule will provide a regulatory basis
for a program to mimmie sewer system overflows._ At the present time, there is no
regulatory basis (e.g., in the Basin Plan or State regulations) for requiring such a program
and, in fact, no regulatory basis was cited in the proposed Order or in the Staff Report.
The other concern is that once EPA publishes its rule, the City will be required to
implement a parallel program to that required in the proposed Order. This will result in a
waste of public funds. Even if the new program is ceased, it is inevitable that public
funds will have been wasted in that certain aspects of the program will certainly be
unnecessary under the EPA rule.
Furthermore, whereas EPA's proposed rule, would allow local agencies to evaluate
alternative approaches for reducing overflows and focus their resources on the most
effective approaches, the proposed Order presupposes that the best way to prevent sewer
system overflows in the City is through correction of infiltration/inflow. The proposed
Order therefore is inconsistent with what is expected to be in EPA's new rule. Because
of this and other potential inconsistencies with EPA's rule, once it is published, the
program should be deferred.
Finally, in dictating the particular method<by.which the City must reduce sewer system
overflows, the Regional Board appears to violating the Water Code. Under Water Code
section 13360(a),waste discharge requirements may not"specify the ...particular manner
in which compliance may be had."
■ The City requests the Collection System Maintenance and Renovation.Program be
removed from the proposed order
H. Provisions/Studies
Comments
These proposed studies will be expensive and time consuming and will require securing
adequate funding and approval. Also the timelines and schedules for all of the sampling
and studies are unrealistic because many will require developing and soliciting proposals
and/or protocols, evaluation and analysis of the proposals and data and hiring of
1-19
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit.Comments
April 19;2002
Page 12
consultants. Because of the costs and magnitude of these projects the City needs to use
its bi-annual budgeting process to secure funding and approval. This process looks at not
only the cost of the projects, but also analyzes its impact on revenue sources so that
adequate revenues (rates) can be developed and approved. Without this type of
budgeting, capital improvement and/or operations and maintenance programs may have
to be deferred or modified to pay for these programs; this would have significant adverse
effects for the City's wastewater programs. The City begins its financial plan later this
year and adoption will be July 1 2003. The City proposes to move forward with some
sampling for pollutants using its existing budget, and will budget appropriately for the
estimated costs of the provisions discussed below. Because the City lacks experience in
the scope of many of these studies the City would like language in the proposed permit
that would allow for the modification of the submittal dates at a later time if they appear
unrealistic or unachievable.
H.6
As discussed above, this date does not give the City adequate time to secure funding,
develop, send out and analyze proposals and then make a submittal to the Board.
Because these studies will have significant costs and are not currently budgeted, it may
be a significant hardship for the City to secure funding. The proposed dates would allow
adequate time to secure proposals and provide submittals.
■ The City requests the date for submittals of scope of work for provisions HA and
H.5 be changed to November 1, 2003.
H.7
This study needs to be better defined and involve all stakeholders that are currently
within the San Luis Obispo watershed. Why is the City solely responsible to study the
groundwater downstream of its discharge when the entire watershed and other
groundwater basins influence this basin? This is especially true in the case of nutrients.
Currently the groundwater basin the lies beneath the Dalidio property is contaminated
with Nitrates and spills into Perfurno Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek downstream of
the City's outfall . Perfurno Creek also take receives agricultural runoff. .Much of this
has been identified in the RWQCB's own TMDL study. Also, what evidence does the
RWQCB posses that the WRF is impacting the groundwater basin downstream? If
contamination is found, how would it be determined that it was a related to the WRF?
No compelling argument, documentation or regulations has been presented to the City to
justify this study. Past studies several years ago showed no high levels of nutrients in
downstream wells. This study will be expensive and inconclusive and provide little more
than data that the RWQCB could attain in other, less expensive ways.
■ The City is requesting this provision be removed from the permit.
H.8.
As previously discussed, these studies will require significant time to develop, study,
analyze and prepare. Adequate time is essential to the preparation of a good1qua
Zlty
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 13
study. It is difficult for the City to give the RWQCB a firm date for submittal of these
studies until proposals have been received and analyzed. The proposal below is a
estimate and the City would like to retain the right to request time extensions if this work
can not be completed by the proposed dates.
■ The City requests the date for submittal of study results for provisions H.4 be
changed to April 1, 2005 and H.5 be changed to November 1, 2005.
H.9.
As mentioned previously, the current sampling schedule proposed in this section and the
Monitoring and Reporting Program (M&RP) is unrealistic and has significant fiscal and
operational impacts. Finding reliable laboratories that can produce accurate results to the
requestedlevels takes time along with sample collection and finally producing the
analysis. The sampling dates are also very close together and will have significant
impact to the WRF's laboratory sampling budget and resources. Currently the City does
not have the budgeted resources to perform this sampling.
■ The City is requesting that the effluent monitoring requirements in this provisions
be modified to December 2002, July 2003 and October 2003 and sampling results
be submitted by February 1, 2004. The City is also requesting the M&RP be
modified accordingly.
H.10.
This submittal is unrealistic for the development of a sophisticated document such as a
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA). This document will take significant time and
resources to develop. The City may also consider contracting for this work which will
also require more time and additional funding. Additional sampling and information may
also need to be collected.
■ The City requests that the date for submittal be changed to October 1, 2004.
H.11
This provision needs to be modified so it corresponds to the dates proposed by the City.
■ The City requests that this language be changed to read "Within 180 days
following November 1, 2005..."
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (M&RP)
As previously discussed, the cost of additional sampling and installation of continuous
monitoring will be very costly. The City acknowledges that some of this sampling is
required to develop a RPA and fulfill other State regulation, but disagrees with the
proposed time schedules, extent of some of the sampling and approach to collecting some
of the samples. The City has agreed to provide extensive sampling data as outline �tr�t1e
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo-Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 14
proposed order's WDRs, see WDR comments H. Provisions/Studies, but after these
projects can be budgeted and properly outlined. Listed below are comments and requests
regarding the M&RP.
Effluent Monitoring
Maximum Daily Flow.
This needs clarification. Does this require the reporting of the highest flow day of the
month?
pH Sampling.
The footnote marked as 1 at the end of the table requires that the City shall report both
maximum and minimum pH. This requires clarification since the requirement is for one
daily grab sample.
Continuous Chlorine Monitoring.
Currently the City does not continuously monitor chlorine residual, but uses Oxidation-
Reduction Potential (ORP) technology to control chemical dose, not monitor chlorine
residual. The City does not possess adequate reliable continuous chlorine residual
monitoring equipment, but would like to pursue a chlorine monitoring program as
proposed in this permit. The City will need time to investigate and budget for reliable
continuous chlorine monitoring equipment and its best application. The proposed
alternatives are interim solutions, until continuous chlorine monitoring equipment can be
installed, using an approved accurate methodology and the WRF's existing resources.
Because the City's outfall is '/4 of a mile remote from the WRF,purchase and installation
of the equipment will take significant planning.
■ The City agrees to install continuous chlorine monitoring equipment by December
31, 2004.
■ During the interim period, before continuous chlorine monitoring equipment can
be installed, the City is requesting the adoption of one of the two proposed
alternatives listed below;
Alternative 1:
Discharger shall collect an effluent grab sample from the outfall during the time of
greatest plant loading and analyze for residual chlorine. A minimum of one daily
residual chlorine sample shall be collected at this time. Discharger shall monitor its
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) chlorination/dechlorination control and monitoring
system for readings that fall outside established dechlorination set points. If the ORP
system alarms discharger that a dechlorination set point is not being met or exceeded,
discharger shall immediately resample and analyze facility effluent for residual chlorine
compliance.
1-22
'Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 15
If residual chlorine is detected, discharger shall continue to sample and analyze until
residual chlorine compliance is confirmed. Discharger shall record the date and time of
the incident and the duration of noncompliance.
Alternative 2:
Discharger shall collect effluent grab samples from the outfall during peak flow, and
analyze for residual chlorine. If more than one peak flow occurs in 24-hour period, grab
samples shall be alternated between the peak's. (e.g., one month the first peak, the next
month the second peak and so on...). Discharger shall monitor its oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP) chlorination/dechlorination control and monitoring system for readings
that fall outside established dechlorination set points. If the ORP system alarms
discharger that a dechlorination set point is not being met or exceeded, discharger shall
immediately resample and analyze facility effluent for residual chlorine compliance.
If residual chlorine is detected, discharger shall continue to sample and analyze until
residual chlorine compliance is confirmed. Discharger shall record the date and time of
the incident and the duration of noncompliance.
Temperature.
The City currently does not continuously record temperature and this proposed change
would be an expensive monitoring requirement because of the remote nature of the
receiving water to the WRF. The City is unaware of any significant changes in the
effluent that would necessitate a change to continuous monitoring.
■ The City is requesting that the current instantaneous grab requirement for
temperature be retained.
Suspended Solids.
The City has an exceptional compliance record for suspended solids and believes that
sampling twice monthly would continue to provide valuable sampling information.
■ The City is requesting that suspended solids be sampled twice monthly.
Acute Toxicity.
The footnote marked 2 at the end of the table says we should test two species (rainbow
trout and Ceriodaphnia). The test protocol calls for only one species to be tested and the
City has always used trout. If we are required to perform this analysis of two species, it
is actually two separate tests. This is unwarranted, expensive, and no explanation has
been offered as to why this criteria has been changed. Acute toxicity in CMC's permit
allows the use of a single species,trout or fathead minnow depending on temperature.
■ The City is requesting that only one species be required for the acute toxicity, if
required.
1-23
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 16
Chronic Toxicity.
The City currently tests for both acute and chronic; both are very expensive and
redundant. The chronic test is much more sensitive and comprehensive and would detect
acute toxicity. The City has an excellent compliance record for toxicity and would like to
substitute the chronic test for the acute test.
■ The City is requesting the that acute toxicity test be removed from the WDRs and
M&RP and be substituted with the chronic toxicity test.
Priority Toxic Pollutants.
Please refer to the comments for sampling frequencies in the City's comments for the
proposed order WDRs, Section H Provisions/Studies.
Dioxin
The proposed order refers to the City as a'minor industrial user and therefore must
monitor its effluent for dioxins. More information regarding the City's classification
would be helpful. Also the reporting requirement for dioxin congeners says "...to
report the sum of these values...", does this mean to report as total dioxin?
Title 22 Pollutants Not Specified in the Basin Plan
The City understands that SIP requires sampling for the California Toxic and National
Toxic Rule (CTR & NTR) pollutants, but is concerned about sampling for these
constituents. Why is the City being asked to sample for constituents not specified in the
basin plan? No explanation or basis has been made other than a cover-all reference to
Title 22. The City believes that a reasonable reading of the Basin Plan is that only the
listed constituents with MCLS constitute objectives for MUN uses. For example, under
the Organic Chemicals section, the Basin Plan states "...shall not contain concentrations
...in excess of the concentrations set forth in ...Title 22 and listed in Table 3-1." Similar
language appears in the Chemical Constituents section - "... specified in ...Tile 22 ...as
listed in Table 3-2." Basin Plans in other regions-typically contain language which is an
all encompassing adoption of all present and future drinking water MCLs,but the Central
Coast Plan contains no such language. Also the CMC's permit does not require the
sampling of many of these constituents, or if they do, its for the receiving water.
■ The City is requesting the removal of all constituents that do not have a.listed
MCL in the Basin Plan be removed from the proposed order.
Receiving Water Monitoring.
The City has provided significant resources of staff time and budget to nutrient
monitoring over the last 5 years and this information has been used to draft develop the
draft TMDL document for San Luis Obispo Creek. The City is willing to continue to
provide nutrient information to the RWQCB, but not at the all of the proposed monitoring
1-24
�. Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo-Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 17
sites. The City is not the sole source of nutrients in San Luis Obispo Creek nor is it the
City's duty to provide the majority of the data. If the City were to sample all 8 stations
that are in the proposed M&RP it would cost approximately $22,000 annually additional
to the required effluent sampling. This again is a significant hardship for the City.
Provided below is a modified receiving water monitoring table from the proposed order
and the constituents and monitoring stations the City is proposing to sample. Changes to
the proposed order as discussed above are outlined in the table below. The table also
contains several reiterations for the same constituents which are suggested to be removed.
zGoIIStltllent K 1 T,y7iu_tts. v . 3Type u Station I Eiequ�
Flow cfs can& 2 or 4 and-7 5Wo � onthl A r J
Instantaneous throueh Oct
Flow MGD Gentinu 4+5 Weekly concurreni with
Instantaneous — effluent ammonia
Turbidity Units Grab 2-(w--4 and-7 5 Weekly
Color True Units Grab �4 and:7Y5 Weekly
PH pH units Grab 2-Gr--4 and�5 Weekly
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Grab 415 - Weekly_
Temperature °C Grab 415 Weekly
� PH-units G� 43 weeiily .
Un-Ionized Ammonia mg/L Grab 4,5 Weekly
l�isselwd Q— "gen H1g/� G� 4,3
Total Dissolved Solids �L Grab 4,5 Quarterly (Jan, Apr, Jun,
Aug)
Sodium mg/L Grab 4,5 Quarterly
Chloride mg/L Grab 4,5 Quarterly
c€s Grab ' � � � c �'Q
Now G& Meathly
$H-URAS Grab r n c s MeatWy
Nitrate as N mg/L Grab 14;5, Monthly(April-Oct)
I3issei..,,a=-,�WisGn mgtL Gib Meaty
Total Phosphate as P mg/L Grab 443,4,5,6,x,$ Monthly AQ-Oct
Chlorophyll-a, mg/L Grab- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Monthly -Oct
Algal description Visual Grab 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Monthly A W-Oct
Observation
M99- _ - GFab 44, 4,4,5,6,:7,8 MGathly
Ammonia as N mg/L Grab 4-, -,4,54, ,-7-,8 Monthly A ril-Oct
TKN as N mg/L_ Grab �3,4,5,6r7-,g Monthly A rrl-Oct
Dissolved Orthophosphate mg/L Grab ,.,' ,4,5,68 Monthly (April-Oct
as P
Table Notes
RW 7 has been replaced with RW 5. Because RW 7 exhibits the impacts of Prefu no
Creek and to a lesser extent our effluent. Please see the footnote comments below.
The City also requests that several of the:`monthly' and `weekly' sampling frequencies
be changed to `April through October' as the winter months make sampling San Luis.
Obispo Creek too dangerous
1-25
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 18
Footnote 1
The last sentence of the first footnote (1) says, "In either case, Station 7 shall be the
downstream location." Station 5 would be better because Station 7 is influenced by
Prefumo Creek which has poor water quality relative to our effluent. Station 5 would
better characterize our impact to the receiving water.
■ The City requests that this language be changed to from station 7 to station 5 for
the downstream sampling
Footnote 2
The City would like to add RW 4 and 5 to this footnote. Please see the comments for
footnote 1.
■ The City requests that this language be changed to add RW 4 and 5 and remove
RW 7.
Reporting
Recently the EO changed the City's reporting criteria to the 40`h day after the last'day of
the sampling month. This has helped the City avoid costly CWC 13385(h) violations
because sampling information was not available from our contract lab for our monthly
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). The annual report requires the preparation,
compilation and analysis of large amounts of information and data that often takes longer
than the 40 day reporting period that is adequate for monthly DMRs. As an example;
dioxin has an extended lab turn around time and requires extensive staff analysis and
sampling results and December experiences longer turn around times because of the
holidays. The City believes that 45 days following_ the last day of the sampling month
would be an adequate due date for the City's annual report.
■ The City requests that the due date for the City's annual report be the 45`s day
following the last day of the sampling month..
Summary
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed order. The comments
and proposals requested by the City are extensive; but I believe that there is much
common ground between our agencies and a shared dedication to water quality and
cooperation. The City is very interested in working withyou and your staff on resolving
these issues and feels this can be accomplished by meeting with you and your staff and
thoroughly discussing each issue. Both of our agencies face the challenging task of
trying to meet stringent regulations in a reasonable.and effective manner. The City of
San Luis Obispo is committed to the protection of water quality in San Luis Obispo
Creek and looks forward to providing further comments or information on the this permit.
1-26
Attachment 1
City of San Luis Obispo—Request for MUN Evidence and NPDES Permit Comments
April 19,2002
Page 19
I would like appreciate an opportunity to set up a meeting with you and your staff in a
couple of weeks. If you have any questions regarding this letter, the City's Water
Reclamation Facility or would like to schedule meeting these, please contact me at (805)
781-7039 or dhixna,slocity.org.
Sinc a y,
David C. Hix
Wastewater Division Manager
C: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney
City Council
Larry Walker
John Moss,Utilities Director
Doug Marks, Water Reclamation Supervisor
1-27
I
Attachment 2
Glossary of Terms
Basin plan—a document adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and State Water
Resources Control Board setting water quality objectives for the waters of the San Luis Obispo
water basin.
Beneficial use designation—identified beneficial use(s) of San Luis Obispo Creek that must be
protected through regulation of discharge and water quality
Constituents—chemicals, organics, and other substances found in the effluent..
EDW-Effluent Dependent Waters. Receiving waters that>50%of the flow at certain times of
the year consist of wastewater effluent discharged to the receiving water.
Effluent—the treated wastewater discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek
Effluent limitations—numerical limits for maximum constituent concentrations in the effluent
Mass limits—total discharge of a given constituent usually expressed as pounds per day.
MUN—Municipal and Domestic Supply beneficial use designation. Identifies San Luis Obispo
Creek as a municipal drinking water supply
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. The permit regulating the
City's discharge of wastewater to San Luis Obispo Creek.
Receiving water—San Luis Obispo Creek
Receiving water limit—numerical limits for maximum constituent concentrations in San Luis
Obispo Creek downstream of the Water Reclamation Facility discharge location
SB709—Legislation enacted in 2000 mandating minimum penalties for exceedance of effluent
discharge limitations.
SIP—State Implementation Plan,policy addressing the implementation of the California Toxics
Rule. Sets schedules, criteria and formulas for implementing the numeric objectives of the
California Toxics Rule.
THM's—Trihalomethanes. A byproduct of chlorine disinfection formed by the reaction of
chlorine with certain organic substances
Toxicity—the affect of the discharge on the life functions of organisms in the receiving water.
1-28
(' F/LE
MEETIIAGENDA
iuillll!IIII!II' (I�101i�11��,1 �y b 2 ITEM #
• COUNCIL MEMORA bum
May 9, 2002
To: Mayor Settle and City Council
Via: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
From: John E.Moss,Utilities Directo
Subject: WRF NPDES Permit—May 1 Agenda Item.#1
I am pleased to inform you that on May 7, 2002 David Hix, Wastewater Division Manager, Larry
Walker, our consultant, and I met with Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff to review our written
comments to the proposed discharge permit and their response to those comments. We were most
pleased with both the direction and tenor of the discussions, and Board staff has agreed to support the
majority of the modifications to the permit we have requested.
What this may ultimately mean is yet to be determined, as the.Regional Board may not adopt staff's
recommendations. However, with our concurrence, Board staff will be placing our permit on the
uncontested (consent) calendar for the 'Board on May 3151. We will still be proceeding with our
discussions with Council on this item next Tuesday(May 14th) and will seek your authorization to file an
appeal of the permit should things go awry. At the May 14th meeting we will also provide you with the
current position of Board staff on our recommendations.
If the permit proceeds as discussed at our meeting with Board staff,we will be required to complete some
additional studies and will be facing increasing regulation in the future. However, based on our analysis
of the law, it does appear the Board staff are now being reasonable and are providing us the\relief
(protection) we are allowed under the law. While this is by no means an impact free permit, it is
substantially better than where we started a few months ago. If you have any questions regarding the
staff report,or this memo,please give me a call (x205)or you may call Dave Hix at x039.
c: Dave Hix,WWDM
[q.6d'uNCIL ❑ EDD DIR
�Q' ❑ FIN DIP
Cs7.A�6 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
p,XRNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ CLERK/ORIQ " 0 POLICE CHF'
❑ DE H DS CI TEC Dip
❑ 0 UTIL[SIR
❑ ISR OIR
RECEIVED
MAY 13 2002
SLO CITY COUNCIL