HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-10 City Council (16)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NOVEMBER 10, 1997 CMR:461:97
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT (RWQCP)
DISCHARGE PE .RMIT UPDATE
This is an informational report on the discharge permit for the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP). No action by Council is required.
BACKGROUND
The RWQCP discharges treated wastewater to San Francisco Bay. The discharge is
permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Discharge
limits for many of the p611utants are based on standards for San Francisco Bay which were
invalidated by a State court. Efforts by State and Federal regulatory agencies to adopt new
standards for the Bay have fallen behind schedule, but several important activities are now
occurring which are addressed below.
Because the State had not acted to put new Bay standards in place for toxic pollutants, e.g.,
copper~ nickel, mercury, PCBs, dioxins, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
proposed standards the "California Toxics Rule," or "CTR" on August 5, 1995. Palo
Alto staff worked through a statewide organization of sewage treatment plants (Tri-TAC)
which provided in depth comments on the proposal and the cost/benefit study which
accompanied it. Based on these extensive comments, staff believes it will take EPA many
months or even a year or more to f’malize the rule.~ The fundamental concern of sewage
treatment operators is that the rule would ultimately require massive new capital projects
to treat the wastewater to new, ultra-low pollutant levels.
Knowing that EPA was Worl6ng on the California Toxics Rule, Palo Alto staff and other
Tri-TAC members encouraged the State to develop a policy which would explain how to
translate EPA’s Bay standards into effluent limits. Detailed recommendations were made
through a year-long task force process. Formulas for considering averaging times, data
uncertainty, dilution, toxicity reduction, and numerous other technical issues were
CMR:461:97 Page 1 of 3
addressed. The State released its proposed Policy in mid-September and Palo Alto and
others are preparing comments for a November 17, 1997, .hearing. The State’s Policy is
as important as EPA’s CTR because both are needed to calculate the discharge limits
which would be placed in the NPDES permit. Many changes to the proposed Policy will
be sought, because it fails to incorporate many of the recommendations of the task force,
a group consisting of dischargers and regulators. Anticipating major comments, it is
predicted that it will take the State many months to f’malize its policy.
The RWQCP’s current NPDES permit was issued July 21, 1993, and expires July 21,
1998. Palo Alto believes that the toxic pollutant portion of the permit was invalidated and
rendered unenforceable by the State court action referenced earlier. It does not appear
likely that the California Toxics Rule and the State Implementation Policy (Policy), will
be finalized before the expiration permit date. Thus, it would not be possible to utilize
new Bay Standards to develop toxic pollutant discharge limits for Palo Alto’s permit. Two
scenarios are possible: 1) the State could take no action, causing the old permit to remain
in effect indef’mitely; or 2)-the State could issue a revised permit, albeit without the new
toxics limits.
Under the first scenario, the existing permit would remain in effect and the lack of
enforceable standards for toxic pollutants would continue, at least until the CTR and Policy
were finalized and the permit was reopened. It is not known exactly how many months
would pass before the CTR and Policy would be ready.
Under the second scenario, the permit would be revised in July 1998 to do one or both of
the following:
1.Include a schedule for conducting studies to support use of the CTR and Policy
and develop f’mal effluent limits.
2.Include interim discharge requirements to keep. pollutant levels at current
discharge rates until the new standards and limits are ready.
The first scenario imposes no new requirements upon the RWQCP in the July 1998 time
frame (as contrasted to the second scenario) and is therefore preferable with respect to
RWQCP operations. However, depending on the exact nature of the new requirements
"imposed in the second scenario, the second scenario could also be acceptable.
CMR:461:97 Page 2 of 3
Watershed. Management Initiative
The Cities and other stakeholders with interests in the Santa Clara Basin have formed the
Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative (the Initiative) to prepare a plan to
protect beneficial uses. The Santa Clara Basin has been defined as the watershed draining
to San Francisco Bay-south of the Dumbarton Bridge. It includes much of Santa Clara
County and small, areas in SanMateo and Alameda Counties.
A portion Of the Planning being conducted by the Initiative is designed to determine
acceptable pollutant 1..oadings to the Bay from the three sewage treatment plants (Palo Alto,
San Jose, and Sunnyvale). Certain permit modifications could be made immediately after
finalization of EPA’S CTR and the State’s Policy. But for some pollutants, detailed source
identification, mathematical modeling, and control strategy evaluation studies will be
needed. This work will take several years to complete and has just been initiated. Palo
Alto staff and consultants are involved in this process. The UAC and Council will be
updated as the work proceeds.
FISCAL IMPACT
This is an informational report and has no fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
No Environmental Assessment is required as this report is informational.
PREPARED BY: Philip Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance Division
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMII~"~ HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:461:97 Page 3 of 3