HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWRCB - Final Draft Revisions Re Mercury Monitoring Menchaca, Clarissa
From: Bennett, Robin
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:28 AM
To: Raevsky, Cathy; Danz, Doug; Gosselin, Paul; Newlin, Vickie; Mendoza, Louie
Cc: Hahn, Paul; Snyder, Ashley; Menchaca, Clarissa
Subject: FW: CHANGE SHEET#1 FOR ITEM 6 (MERCURY) - MAY 2, 2017 BOARD MEETING
Attachments: 050217-6-cs#l,pdf
A Notiee fron� the, SVIICB on final draft revisions re i'Vlercmry monitoring.
Robin Herut(w.
E'A11v(,u1ir(,,, Assisutnt
(5,70) 872-6304
Btate Cou,nty Su,1,mrvisor's Of
_f ice
Supervisoi- Dotig, Teeter,
Board of'Sit er't7i,sorsDistrilcl 5
p
747 .Elliott fload
["(tradise, CA 95969
From: lyris@swrcbl8.waterboards.ca.gov [mailto:lyris@swrcbl8.waterboards.ca,gov]
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2017 6:42 PM
To: Bennett, Robin <RBennett@ butteco,u nty.net>
Subject: CHANGE SHEET#1 FOR ITEM 6 (MERCURY) - MAY 2, 2017 BOARD MEETING
This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board
Attached is Change Sheet#1 for Item 6 at the May 2, 2017 Board Meeting.
...........
You are currently subscribed to regs_general as: rbennett@buftecounty.net.
To unsubscribe click here: leave-646,29010-
5085298.f8efclfel463a520fef6,bd5dcld1 b9f4@,swrcbl8.waterboards,ca,gov
I
05/02/17 BOARD MEETING—ITEM 6
CHANGE SHEET#1 (CIRCULATED 05101117)
Necessary format and other typographical changes may be made to the proposed Revised Draft
Final Part 2 of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and
Estuaries of California—Tribal and Subsistence Fishing Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions
(generally referred to as "the Provisions"), noticed and made available to the public on
April 21, 2017. The Revised Draft Final Provisions contains text in red single underline and
to reflect initial revisions to the Draft Provisions noticed and circulated on
January 3, 2017. Necessary format and other typographical changes may be made to the
proposed Draft Resolution (made available to the public on April 21, 2017) for Item 6. The
revisions shown in black bold single underline aid-s+r�:c c+�e�r reflect subsequent
changes to the Provisions and the Draft Resolution made with Change Sheet#1:
PROVISIONS
1. Modify Chapter IV.D.1 (p. A-8) to state:
1. General Applicability of the Mercury Implementation Provisions
The implementation provisions of Chapter [V.D, which apply only to discharges
identified in Chapters IV.D.2 through IV.D.7 below, shall be implemented through
NPDES permits issued pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water Act, water quality
certifications issued pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, waste discharge
requirements (WDRs), and waivers of WDRs where any of the MERCURY WATER
QUALITY OBJECTIVES apply.
2. Modify the last paragraph in Chapter IV.D.1 (p. A-9)to state:
A Regional Water Board may adopt a new mercury TMDL associated with the CUL,
T-SUB, or SUB beneficial uses that substantially relies on the assumptions, technical and
scientific basis, and requirements of an EXISTING MERCURY TMDL, if the analyses and
assumptions underlying the EXISTING MERCURY TMDL remain valid. In such
circumstances, the new mercury TMDL may effectively include the same actions and
waste load allocations of the EXISTING MERCURY TMDL with the exception of
including a longer period of time to ensure the water quality objective associated with the
CUL T-SUB or SUB beneficial use is attained. Such EXISTING MERCURY TMDL and
new mercury TMDL may be utilized to establish interim and final effluent limitations
in permits in accordance with Chapter IV.D.2.c.2.ii, as applicable.
3. Modify Chapter IV.D.2.a (p. A-9)to state:
2. Municipal Wastewater and Industrial Discharges
a. Applicability
Chapter IV.D.2 applies to dischargers issued individual non-STORM WATER National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for municipal wastewater or
industrial discharges. The PERMITTING AUTHORITY shall incorporate the following
requirements, as applicable, into NPDES permits during every permit issuance or
renewal.
1
05/02/17 BOARD MEETING—ITEM 6
CHANGE SHEET#1 (CIRCULATED 03101117)
4. Modify Chapter IV.D.2.c.1 (p. A-12) to state:
Step 5: Apply as set forth in the SIP, but replace the determination of the "maximum"
ambient background concentration for mercury (denoted as B in the SIP), with the highest
observed annual average ambient background concentration. The annual average shall
be calculated as an arithmetic mean, as described in Section 1.4.3.2 of the SIP, except_if
the arithmetic mean sample is below the reported detection limit, then one half of the
detection limit shall be used, using all ambient background total mercury samples
collected during a CALENDAR YEAR.
5. Modify Chapter IV.D.2.c.2 (p. A-12)to state:
2) Calculation of the Effluent Limitations
If, upon the completion of applying the REASONABLE POTENTIAL analysis set forth in
Chapter IV.D.2.c.1, a water quality based effluent limitation is required, and the Permitting
Authority does not establish effluent limitations for mercury in accordance with
section 1.4.4 of the SIP (Intake Water Credits), then the PERMITTING AUTHORITY
shall calculate the effluent limitationh„ �^^',,;n^ c _+;_n 1 A „p"e_S�D as follows:
Thert B of seGtiaR4-. "t �'o ���'^� *"^ PERMITTING AUTHORITY shall apply
Steps 1-7 contained in part B of section 1.4 of the SIP as modified by#ie-fallGwRg Chapter
IV.D.2.c.2.i below. If, however, an EXISTING MERCURY TMDL is in effect for the
applicable water body that implements a water quality objective other than one of the
MERCURY WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES, as applicable, for CUL, T-SUB, or SUB, the
PERMITTING AUTHORITY may apply Chapter IV.D.2.c.2.ii below. in applying Chapter
IV.D.2.c.2.1i,the Permitting Authority may utilize an EXISTING MERCURY TMDL and a
new mercury TMDL as described in the last Para-graph in Chapter IV.D.1.
6. Modify Chapter IV.D.2.d.4 (p. A-14) to state:
4) Compliance Schedule. The PERMITTING AUTHORITY may include a compliance
schedule in NPDES permits to achieve the mercury effluent limitation in accordance with the
Policy for Compliance Schedules in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permits (State Water Board Resolution No. 2008-0025) (Compliance Schedule Policy).
The duration of the compliance schedule in a permit may not exceed ten years from
the date of the adoption, revision, or new interpretation of the applicable water quality
objective, except where a compliance schedule in a permit is established in a "single
ermlittinq action" or implements or is consistent with the waste load allocations
specified in a TMDL as provided by the Compliance Schedule Policy. If a compliance
schedule is authorized in a permit, interim requirements and final effluent limitation
„
shall e included, as provided by the Compliance Schedule Policy. The compliance
schedule may also include requirements-be consistent with Chapter IV.D.2,c.2.ii if
applicable.
2
05/02/17 BOARD MEETING—ITEM 6
CHANGE SHEET#1 (CIRCULATED 05101117)
RESOLUTION
1. Modify recital 10 (p. 2)to state:
10. The Provisions (Chet. II) provides that the Regional Water Boards shall use the
beneficial use definitions contained in the Provisions for CUL, T-SUB, and SUB, to the
extent the Regional Water Boards describe such uses in a water quality control plan
after the effective date of the Provisions. The Provisions does not require the
Regional Water Boards to designate specific waters within their regions with the CUL,
T-SUB, or SUB beneficial uses nor does it set forth a prioritization schedule for such
designations to occur. The Water Boards generally consider prioritizing the
designation of waters beneficial uses during their triennial review process.
2. Insert a new recital after recital 17 (p. 3):
18. The Provisions (Chet. III.D.3) expressly provides that, except for the two mercury
water guality objectives identified therein the Mercu Water QuaIi Objectives
do not supersede any site-specific mercury water quality objectives established
in a water quality control plan. Such site-specific mercury water quality
objectives include those established on, before, or after the effective date of the
Provisions in accordance with Water Code section 13241. The State Water
Board acknowledges that the development of site-specific mercury water quality
objectives may be appropriate to account for potential variations in the fish
consumption rate, the form of consumption (e.g. whole, fillet with skin, skinless
fillet), and the fish species consumed.
3. Modify existing recital 18 (p. 3) to state:
18. The Provisions (Chpts. IV.D.5-IV.D.7) provide that the State Water Board and Regional
Water Boards (collectively referred to as Water Boards) have authority under existing
law to include permit requirements for nonpoint source discharges and applicants for
wetlands projects or dredging activities to control mercury. The Provisions provide that
in areas with elevated levels of mercury, the Water Boards should consider requiring
wetland design features or management practices to minimize methylation or control
sediment from transporting out of the wetland. However, the Staff Report(Section 6.10)
recognizes that wetlands and wetland restoration projects provide valuable water
quality, wildlife habitats and flood control functions and should not be dis-incentivized
due to mercury concerns.
4. Modify subpart(c) of existing recital 21 (p. 4)to state:
c. With respect to the development of the beneficial uses, eleven focus group meetings
with relevant and interested stakeholders and representatives of California Native
American tribes were held between May 2016 and July 2016.
3
05/02/17 BOARD MEETING—ITEM 6
CHANGE SHEET#1 (CIRCULATED 05101117)
5. Insert the following new recital after the existing recital 20 (p. 3):
21. The State Water Board further acknowledges that it may be appropriate for
Regional Water Boards to adopt new mercury TMDLs associated with the CUL,
T-SUB or SUB beneficial use that substantially relies on the assumptions,
technical and scientific basis, and requirements of a mercury TMDL approved by
U.S. EPA for a COMM, WILD, or RARE beneficial use, if the analyses and
assumptions underlying the existing mercury TMDL remains valid. In such
circumstances the new mercurV TMDL maV effectiveIV include the same actions
and waste load allocations of the existing mercury TMDL with the exception of
including a longer period of time to ensure the water quality objective
associated with the CUL, T-SUB, or SUB beneficial use is attained.
5. Modify the existing recital 27 (p. 5) to state:
27. The State Water Board complied with the tribal consultation requirements established
by Governor's Executive Order No. B-10-11 (Sept. 19, 2011) and Assembly Bill 52
(Gatto) (Stats. 2014, ch. 532) which ensure tribal governments have the
opportunity to provide meanin ful input in the development of regulations,
rules, policies, or projects that may affect tribes.
7. Modify the existing recital 30 (p. 5)to state:
30. The Provisions do not become effective until approved by the Office of Administrative
Law and the Provisions' beneficial uses,and Mercury Water Quality Objectives, and
the requirements for a compliance schedule(Chat. IV.113-2.c.2.ii) are effective for
Clean Water Act purposes upon approval by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
4