# Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and

Estuaries of California

2005

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD California Environmental Protection AgencyFor further information regarding this publication, please conta ct the Division of Financial Assistance at (916) 341-5700.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Dr. Alan Lloyd, Secretary

STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 (916) 341-5250

Celeste Cantú, Executive Director Harry M. Schueller, Chief Deputy Director Thomas Howard, Deputy Director Homepage: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov

Pete S. Silva, Member Arthur G. Baggett, Jr., Chair

Richard Katz, Member Gary M. Carlton, Member Nancy H. Sutley, Member

### S T A T E W A T E R B O A R D

R E S O L U T I O N N O

. 2 0 0 5

- 0 0 1 9

A D O P T A M E N D M E N T S T O T H E P O L I C Y F O R
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F T O X I C S S T A N D A R D S F O R
I N L A N D S U R F A C E W A T E R S

, E N C L O S E D B A Y S

, A N D E S T U A R I E S O F C A L I F O R N I A ( S I P )

W H E R E A S :

1

. I n M a r c h 2 0 0 0

, t h e S t a t e W a t e r a d o p t e d t h e S I P

, w h i c h i m p l e m e n t s c r i t e r i a f o r p r i o r i t y t o x i c
p o l l u t a n t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a T o x i c s R u l e p r o m u l g a t e d b y t h e U

. S

. E n v i r o n m e n t a l
P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y ( U S E P A ) a s w e l l a s o t h e r p r i o r i t y t o x i c p o l l u t a n t c r i t e r i a a n d o b j e c t i v e s

.

2

. S e c t i o n 3 0 3 o f t h e f

e d e r a l W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t ( C l e a n W a t e r A c t ) m a n d a t e s t h a t

w a t e r q u a l i t y s t a n d a r d s b e r e v i e w e d a n d r e v i s e d

, a s n e c e s s a r y , a t l e a s t o n c e e v e r y t h r e e y e a r s

. A s p a r t o f t h e s t a n d a r d s d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m , t h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d p e r i o d i c a l l y r e v i e w i t s
p o l i c i e s

.

3

. I n O c t o b e r 2 0 0 2

, t h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d s o l i c i t e d c o m m e n t s o n p o t e n t i a l r e v i s i o n s t o t h e S I P

.

4

. I n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2

, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 1 3 c o m m e n t s w e r e r e c e i v e d f r o m 2 6 i n d i v i d u a l s a n d

o r g a n i z a t i o n s

.

5

. S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d s t a f f r e v i e w e d

, c a r e f

u l l y c o n s i d e r e d

, a n d r e s p o n d e d t o a l l c o m m e n t s

r e c e i v e d

.

6

. S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d s t a f f p r e p a r e d a n A u g u s t 2 0 0 3 r e p o r t t h a t c o n t a i n s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r

r e v i s i o n s t o t h e S I P

. S t a f f ’ s r e c o m m e n d e d r e v i s i o n s a r e t h o s e t h a t w i l l i m p r o v e t h e S I P ’ s

c l a r i t y a n d f

u n c t i o n a l i t y a n d t h a t c a n b e m a d e i n a r e a s o n a b l e a m o u n t o f t i m e w i t h e x i s t i n g

r e s o u r c e s

.

7

. T h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d n o t i f i e d i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s o f i t s r e c o m m e n d e d S I P r e v i s i o n s a n d

p r o v i d e d a n a d d i t i o n a l 3 0

- d a y c o m m e n t p e r i o d

.

8

. T h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d h e l d a p u b l i c w o r k s h o p o n S e p t e m b e r 3 0

, 2 0 0 3 r e g a r d i n g i s s u e s t o b e

a d d r e s s e d i n f

u t u r e S I P a m e n d m e n t s

.

9

. T h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d a d o p t e d R e s o l u t i o n N o

. 2 0 0 3

- 0 0 7 0 a u t h o r i z i n g s t a f f t o p r e p a r e d r a f

t

a m e n d m e n t s a n d s u p p o r t d o c u m e n t s t o t h e S I P o n O c t o b e r 1 5

, 2 0 0 3

.

1 0

. S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d s t a f f c o m p l e t e d t h e r e v i s i o n s t o t h e S I P a n d p r o v i d e d a f u n c t i o n a l

e q u i v a l e n t d o c u m e n t f

o r p u b l i c r e v i e w o n D e c e m b e r 1 5

, 2 0 0 4

.

1 1

. I n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 5

, p u b l i c c o m m e n t s w e r e r e c e i v e d f r o m s i x o r g a n i z a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e
p r o p o s e d a m e n d m e n t d o c u m e n t s

.

1 2

. T h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d h e l d a p u b l i c h e a r i n g o n F e b r u a r y 2

, 2 0 0 5 r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p o s e d S I P

a m e n d m e n t s a n d a d d r e s s e d p u b l i c c o m m e n t s

.- 2

-

1 3

. I n O r d e r W Q O 2 0 0 3

- 0 0 1 2

, t h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t ( 1 ) t h e p r o p r i e t y o f
i n c l u d i n g n u m e r i c e f

f l u e n t s f o r c h r o n i c t o x i c i t y i n N P D E S p e r m i t s f o r p u b l i c l y

- o w n e d

t r e a t m e n t w o r k s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d i n a r e g u l a t o r y s e t t i n g , i n o r d e r t o a l l o w f o r f u l l p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n a n d d e l i b e r a t i o n ; a n d ( 2 ) t h e S I P b e m o d i f i e d t o s p e c i f

i c a l l y a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e

.

T H E R E F O R E B E I T R E S O L V E D T H A T :

T h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d :

1

. A d o p t s a m e n d m e n t s t o t h e S I P ( A t t a c h m e n t A ) t h a t :

a

. A l l o w w a t e r e f

f e c t s r a t i o s t o b e e s t a b l i s h e d i n i n d i v i d u a l N a t i o n a l P o l l u t a n t D i s c h a r g e E l i m i n a t i o n S y s t e m p e r m i t s , r a t h e r t h a n i n t h e B a s i n P l a n n i n g p r o c e s s a s c u r r e n t l y

r e q u i r e d

. b

. E l i m i n a t e t h e r e a s o n a b l e p o t e n t i a l t r i g g e r f o r s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e a m b i e n t b a c k g r o u n d

p o l l u t a n t c o n c e n t r a t i o n s a r e g r e a t e r t h a n a p r i o r i t y p o l l u t a n t o b j e c t i v e o r c r i t e r i o n

.
c

. M a k e n o n

- r e g u l a t o r y l a n g u a g e c o r r e c t i o n s t o i m p r o v e c l a r i t y

. d

. A d d m u t u a l w a t e r c o m p a n i e s t o s e c t i o n 5

. 3 ( e x c e p t i o n s )

.

2

. A u t h o r i z e s t h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r t o s i g n t h e C e r t i f i c a t e o f F e e E x e m p t i o n ( A t t a c h m e n t B )

.

3

. A u t h o r i z e s t h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r o r d e s i g n e e t o s u b m i t t h e S I P r e v i s i o n s
t o t h e O f f i c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e L a w a n d t h e U S E P A f o r f i n a l a p p r o v a l

.

4

. D i r e c t s s t a f

f t o i n t r o d u c e a n a m e n d m e n t t o t h e S I P t o a d d r e s s n a r r a t i v e t o x i c i t y c o n t r o l

p r o v i s i o n s b y J a n u a r y 2 0 0 6

.

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

T h e u n d e r s i g n e d

, C l e r k t o t h e B o a r d

, d o e s h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h e f

o r e g o i n g i s a f

u l l

, t r u e , a n d

c o r r e c t c o p y o f a r e s o l u t i o n d u l y a n d r e g u l a r l y a d o p t e d a t a m e e t i n g o f t h e S t a t e W a t e r B o a r d
h e l d o n F e b r u a r y 2 4

, 2 0 0 5

.3/17/2005

1 Table of Contents

Section Page

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. ........... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................... ............... 3 1 ESTABLISHING WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES ...................................................... 4 1.1 Applicable Priority Polluta nt Criteria and Objectives.............................................4 1.2 Data Requirements and Adjustments ...................................................................... 5 1.3 Determination of Priority Pollutants Requiring Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Calculation of Effluent Limitations......................................................................... 7
1.4.1 Translators for Metals and Selenium.......................................................14 1.4.2 Mixing Zones and Dilution Credits .........................................................15
1.4.2.1 Dilution Credits...................................................................... 15 1.4.2.2 Mixing Zone Conditions........................................................17 1.4.3 Ambient Background Concentrations...................................................... 18 1.4.3.1 Ambient Background Concentration as an
Observed Maximum ....................................................... 18 1.4.3.2 Ambient Background Concentration as an
Arithmetic Mean............................................................. 18
1.4.4 Intake Water Credits ................................................................................ 19
2 DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH PRIORITY POLLUTANT CRITERIA/ OBJECTIVES AND WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES .................................................... 20 2.1 Compliance Schedules .......................................................................................... 20 2.1.1 TMDL-Based Compliance Schedule...................................................... 21 2.2 Interim Requirements ............................................................................................ 22 2.2.1 Interim Requirements Under a Compliance Schedule.......................... 22
2.2.2 Reserved ................................................................................................ 22 2.3 Monitoring Requirements...................................................................................... 22 2.4 Reporting Requirements........................................................................................ 23 2.4.1 Reporting Levels...................................................................................... 23 2.4.2 Selection and Use of Appropriate Minimum Level (ML) Value............. 23 2.4.3 Deviation from MLs Listed in Appendix 4 ............................................. 24 2.4.4 Reporting Protocols ................................................................................. 25 2.4.5 Compliance Determination ...................................................................... 25

2.4.5.1 Pollutant Minimization Program .............................................. 26 3 2,3,7,8-TCDD EQUIVALENTS ....................................................................................... 27

4 TOXICITY CONT ROL PROVISIONS............................................................................ 29

5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................. 30 5.1 Non-Point Source Discharges ...............................................................................30 5.2 Site-Specific Objectives ........................................................................................ 30 5.3 Exceptions ............................................................................................................. 323/17/2005

2 Appendix 1 Definition of Terms.................................................................................1-1 Appendix 2 Determination of Pollutants Requiring Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (flowchart).............................................................2-1 Appendix 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conversion Factors .................3-1 Appendix 4 Minimum Levels (MLs) .........................................................................4-1 Appendix 5 Special Studies Guidance........................................................................5-1 Appendix 6 Watershed Management and TMDLs.....................................................6-13 POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF TOXICS STANDARDS FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS, ENCLOSED BAYS,
AND ESTUARIES OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

This state policy for water quality control (Policy), adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on March 2, 2000 and effective by May 22, 2000 (See “Note” below), applies to discharges of toxic pollutants into the *inland surface waters, *enclosed bays, and *estuaries of California subject to regulation under the State's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the Water Code) and the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Such regulation may occur through the issuance of National Polluta nt Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, or other relevant regulatory approaches. 1 The goal of this Policy is to establish a standardized approach for permitting discharges of toxic pollutants to non-*ocean surface waters in a manner that promotes statewide consistency. As such, this Policy is a tool to be used in conjunction with watershed management approaches and, where appropriate, the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to ensure achievement of water quality standards (i.e., water quality criteria or objectives, and the beneficial uses they are intended to protect, as well as the State and federal antidegradation policies).

This Policy establishes: (1) implementation provisions for priority pollutant criteria promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) through the National Toxics Rule (NTR) 2 (promulgated on December 22, 1992 and amended on May 4, 1995) and through the California Toxics Rule (CTR) 3 , and for priority pollutant objectives established by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) in their water quality control plans (basin plans) 4 ; (2) monitoring requirements for 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents; and (3) chronic toxicity control provisions. In addition, this Policy includes special provisions for certain types of discharges and factors that could affect the application of other provisions in this Policy.

Note: This Policy was effective on April 28, 2000 with respect to the priority pollutant criteria promulgated by the U.S. EPA through the National Toxics Rule and to the priority pollutant objectives established by Regional Water Quality Control Boards in their water quality control plans (basin plans), with the exception of the provision on alternate test procedures in section 2.3., item (1). The alternate test procedures provision was effective on May 22, 2000. This Policy was effective on May 18, 2000 with respect to the priority po llutant criteria promulgated by the U.S. EPA through the

California Toxics Rule.

1 This Policy does not apply to discharges of toxic polluta nts from combined sewer overflows. These discharges will continue to be regulated in accordance with the federal “Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy,” published April 19, 1994 (59 Fed. Register 18688-18698). This Policy doe s not apply to regulation of storm water discharges. The SWRCB has adopted precedential decisions addressing regulation of municipal storm water discharges in Orders WQ 91-03, 91-04, 96-13, 98-01, 99-05, and 2001-15. The SWRCB has also adopted two statewide general permits regulating the discharge of pollutants contained in storm water from industrial and construction activities. See SWRCB Orders 99-08-DWQ and 97-03-DWQ. This Policy does not apply to regulation of nonpoint source discharges.

2 40 CFR 131.36

3 65 Fed. Register 31682-31719 (May 18, 2000), adding Section 131.38 to 40 CFR.

4 If a water quality objective and a CTR criterion are in effect for the same priority pollutant, the more stringent of the two applies.4 With the exception of Appendix 5 (Special Studies) and Appendix 6 (Watershed Management and TMDLs), the provisions of this Policy have fu ll regulatory effect. Appendix 5 is provided as guidance that may be followed in planning and conducting special studies that may be needed to implement the provisions of this Policy. Appendix 6 is provided as information on the role of watershed management approaches and TMDL development in achieving water quality
standards.

Except as provided in section 4, this Policy supersedes basin plan provisions to the extent that (1) they apply to implementation of water quality standards for priority pollutants, and (2) they regard the same subject matter as that addressed in this Policy with respect to priority pollutant standards. For example, the Policy supersedes basin plan mixing zone provisions to the extent that they apply to implementation of water quality standards for priority pollutants.

Reference to a RWQCB also refers to SWRCB, where appropriate. Terms indicated with an asterisk (*) are defined in Appendix 1.

1. ESTABLISHING WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR
PRIORITY POLLUTANT CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES

The following sections address the issues of: (1) applicable priority pollutant criteria and objectives (section 1.1); (2) data requirements and adjustments (section 1.2); (3) determining priority pollutants requiring water quality-based effluent limitations (section 1.3); (4) calculating effluent limitations (section 1.4); (5) translators for metals and selenium (section 1.4.1); (6) mixing zones and dilution credits (section 1.4.2); (7) ambient background concentrations (section 1.4.3); and (8) intake water credits (section 1.4.4). Notwithstanding the provisions of these sections, effluent limitations must protect beneficial uses and comply with the State and federal antidegradation policies 5 , federal antibacksliding requirements 6 , and other applicable provisions of law.

1.1 Applicable Priority Pollutant Criteria and Objectives

Federal water quality criteria and State water quality objectives for priority pollutants have been established for non-ocean surface waters of California by the U.S. EPA and some RWQCBs, respectively. Federal priority pollutant criteria have been promulgated by the U.S. EPA in the 1992 NTR (amended in 1995) and in the 2000 CTR. For California, the criteria in the CTR supplement the criteria in the NTR (i.e., the CTR does not change or supersede any criteria previously promulgated for California in the NTR, but it does include them in the table of criteria for convenience). State priority pollu tant objectives are contained in RWQCB basin plans. 4

The RWQCB basin plans designate the beneficial uses that apply to the surface water bodies within their respective regions. Priority pollutant criteria/objectives are specifically established for the protection of aquatic life and human health beneficial uses designated in basin plans. Aquatic life criteria/objectives are established for fresh and salt waters. The CTR specifies the salinities to which the freshwater and saltwater criteria apply. The CTR also states that, except

5 SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 (Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California), and 40 CFR 131.12 (revised as of July 1, 1996), respectively.

6 CWA Sections 402(o)(1) and 303(d)(4), and 40 CFR 122. 44(l) and 40 CFR 122.62 (revised as of July 1, 1996).5 as specified in the CTR, the federal criteria apply to all waters assigned any aquatic life or human health use designated in basin plans. It further states that the application of the criteria are based on the presence in all waters of some aquatic life designation and the presence or absence of the municipal and domestic supply (MUN) designation (i.e., the aquatic life criteria and the human health criteria for consuming water and organisms apply to MUN-designated water bodies; the aquatic life criteria and the human health criteria for consuming organisms only apply to non-MUN water bodies).

Designated beneficial uses to which aquatic lif e criteria or objectives would apply include, but are not necessarily limited to, warm freshwater habitat (WARM), cold freshwater habitat (COLD), and estuarine habitat (EST). Designated beneficial uses to which human health criteria/objectives would apply include, but are not necessarily limited to, municipal and domestic supply (MUN) and water contact recreation (REC1). Human health criteria/objectives are differentiated by whether organisms alone from the water body are consumed compared to whether both organisms and water from the water body are consumed. Where MUN is designated, the latter situation applies.

1.2 Data Requirements and Adjustments

The RWQCB may adjust the criteria/objective for metals with *discharger-specific Water Effect Ratios established in accordance with U.S. EPA guidance – Interim Guidance on Determination
and Use of Water Effect Ratios for Metals (EPA-823-B-94-001) or Streamlined Water-Effect Ratio Procedure for Discharges of Copper (EPA-822-R-01-005), if appropriate 7

.

It is the discharger’s responsibility to provide all data and other information requested by the RWQCB before the issuance, reissuance, or modification of a permit to the extent feasible. When implementing the provisions of this Policy, the RWQCB shall use all available, valid, relevant, representative data and information, as determined by the RWQCB. The RWQCB shall have discretion to consider if any data are inappropriate or insufficient for use in implementing this Policy. Instances where such consideration is warranted include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence that a sample has been erroneously reported or is not representative of effluent or ambient receiving water quality; questionable quality control/quality assurance practices; and varying seasonal conditions. The lack of a site-specific objective for a priority pollutant shall not be considered insufficient data.

When implementing the provisions of this Policy, the RWQCB shall ensure that criteria/objectives are properly adjusted for hardne ss or pH, if applicable, using the hardness or pH values for the receiving water, and that translators are appropriately applied (in accordance with section 1.4.1), if applicable. The RWQCB shall also ensure that pollutant and flow data are expressed in the appropriate forms and units for purposes of comparability and calculations.

1.3 Determination of Priority Pollutants Requiring Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations

The RWQCB shall conduct the analysis in this section for each priority pollutant with an applicable criterion or objective, excluding priority pollutants for which a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been developed, to determine if a water quality-based effluent limitation is

7 A Water Effect Ratio may also be used to develop a site-specific metal objective, as described in Section 5.2.6 required in the discharger’s permit. It is the discharger’s responsibility to provide all information requested by the RWQCB for use in the analysis. The RWQCB shall use all available, valid, relevant, representative information, as described in section 1.2, to determine whether a discharge may: (1) cause, (2) have a reasonable potential to cause, or (3) contribute to an excursion above any applicable priority pollutant criterion or objective. If the following analysis (which is depicted as a flowchart in Appendix 2) indicates that a limitation for a pollutant is required, the RWQCB shall establish the limitation in accordance with section 1.4. Within each step below, if it is necessary to express a dissolved metal or selenium value as total recoverable and a site-specific translator has not yet been developed, as described in section 1.4.1, the RWQCB shall use the applicable U.S. EPA conversion factor (Appendix 3).

Step 1 : Identify applicable water quality criteria and objectives for priority pollutants as described in section 1.1. Determine the lowest (most stringent) water quality criterion or objective for the pollutant applicable to the receiving water (C). Adjust the criterion or objective for hardness and/or pH, if applicable, as described in section 1.2.

Step 2 : Identify all effluent data for the pollutant as described in section 1.2 and proceed with Step 3 . If effluent data are unavailable or insuffici ent, as described in section 1.2, proceed with Step 5

.

Step 3 : Determine the observed maximum pollutant concentration for the effluent (MEC). If the pollutant was detected, proceed with Step 4. If the pollutant was not detected in any of the effluent samples and any of the reported detection limits are below the C, use the lowest detection limit as the MEC and proceed with Step 4 . If the pollutant was not detected in any of the effluent samples and all of the reported detection limits are greater than or equal to the C value, proceed with Step 5

.

Step 4 : Adjust the MEC from Step 3, if applicable, as described in section 1.2. Compare the
MEC from Step 3 or the adjusted MEC to the C from Step 1 . If the MEC is greater than or equal to the C, an effluent limitation is required and the analysis for the subject pollutant is complete. If the MEC is less than the C, proceed with Step 5

.

Step 5 : Determine the observed maximum ambient background concentration for the pollutant (B) as described in section 1.4.3.1. If the pollutant was detected, proceed with Step 6 . If B data are unavailable or insufficient, as described in section 1.2, proceed with Step 7

.

Step 6 : Adjust the B from Step 5, if applicable, as described in section 1.2. Compare the B from Step 5 or the adjusted B to the C from Step 1 . If the B is greater than the C and the pollutant is detected in the effluent, an effluent limitation is required and the analysis for the subject pollutant is complete. If B is greater than the C and the pollutant was not detected in any of the effluent samples, effluent monitoring is required (as described in Step 8) proceed with Step 7. If the B is less than or equal to the C, proceed with Step 7

.

Step 7 : Review other information available to determine if a water quality-based effluent limitation is required, notwithstanding the above analysis in Steps 1 through 6 , to protect beneficial uses.7 Information that may be used to aid in determining if a water quality-based effluent limitation is required includes: the facility type, the discharge type, solids loading analysis, lack of dilution, history of compliance problems, potential toxic im pact of discharge, fish tissue residue data, water quality and beneficial uses of the receiving water, CWA 303(d) listing for the pollutant, the presence of endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, and other information. If data or other information is unavailable or insufficient, as described in section 1.2, to determine if a water quality-based effluent limitation is required, proceed with Step 8.

Step 8 : If data are unavailable or insufficient, as described in section 1.2, to conduct the above analysis for the pollutant, or if all reported detection limits of the pollutant in the effluent are greater than or equal to the C value, the RWQCB shall require additional monitoring for the pollutant in place of a water quality-based effluent limitation. Upon completion of the required monitoring, the RWQCB shall use the gathered data to conduct the analysis in Steps 1 through 7 above and determine if a water quality-based effluent limitation is required. If, upon completion of the monitoring required by Step 8 and the subsequent analysis in Steps 1 through 7 , a specific pollutant was not detected in any effluent or if ambient background sample and applicable detection limits are greater than or equal to the C value, the RWQCB may require periodic monitoring of the pollutant.

The RWQCB shall require periodic monitoring (at least once prior to the issuance and reissuance of a permit) for pollutants for which criteria or objectives apply and for which no effluent limitations have been established; however, the RWQCB may choose to exempt low volume discharges, determined to have no significant adverse impact on water quality, from this monitoring requirement.

1.4 Calculation of Effluent Limitations

When a RWQCB determines, using the procedures described in section 1.3, that water quality-based effluent limitations are necessary to control a priority pollutant in a discharge, the permit shall contain effluent limitations developed using one or more of the following methods:

A. If a TMDL is in effect, assign a portion of th e loading capacity of the receiving water to each identified priority pollutant source of waste, point and non-point, based on the TMDL (see Appendix 6);

B. Use the following procedure based on a steady-state model:

Step 1 : For each priority pollutant identified in section 1.3, identify the applicable water quality criteria/objectives for the pollutant as described in section 1.1. Adjust the criterion or objective, if applicable, as described in section 1.2. If it is necessary to express a dissolved metal or selenium criterion/objective as total recoverable and a site-specific translator has not yet been developed, as described in section 1.4.1, the RWQCB shall use the applicable U.S. EPA conversion factor (Appendix 3). If da ta are insufficient to calculate the effluent limitation, the RWQCB shall establish interim requirements in accordance with section 2.2.2.8 Step 2 : For each water quality criterion/objective, calculate the effluent concentration allowance ( ECA ) using the following steady-state mass balance equation:

ECA = C + D (C - B) when C > B , and
ECA = C when C ≤ B

,

where C = the priority pollutant criterion/objective, adjusted (as described in section 1.2), if necessary, for hardness, pH, and translators (as described in section 1.4.1);

D = the dilution credit (as determined in section 1.4.2); and

B = the ambient background concentration. The ambient background
concentration shall be the observed maximum as determined in accordance with section 1.4.3.1 with the exception that an ECA calculated from a priority pollutant criterion/objective that is intended to protect human health from carcinogenic effects shall use the ambient background concentration as an arithmetic mean determined in
accordance with section 1.4.3.2.

The concentration units for C and B must be identical. Both C and B shall be expressed as total recoverable, unless inappropriate. The dilution credit is unitless.

Step 3 : For each ECA based on an aquatic life criterion/objective, determine the long-term average discharge condition ( LTA ) by multiplying the ECA with a factor (multiplier) that adjusts for effluent variability. The multiplier shall be calculated as described below, or shall be found in Table 1. To use Table 1, the *coefficient of variation ( CV ) for the effluent pollutant concentration data must first be calculated. If (a) the number of effluent data points is less than ten, or (b) at least 80 percent of the data are reported as not detected, the CV shall be set equal to 0.6. When calculating CV in this procedure, if an effluent data point is below the detection limit for the pollutant in that sample, one-half of the detection limit shall be used as a value in the calculations. Multipliers for acute and chronic criteria/objectives that correspond to the CV can then be found in Table 1.

ECA Multipliers

ECA multiplier acute 99 = e (0.5 σ 2 - z σ )

ECA multiplier chronic 99 = e (0.5 σ 4 2 - z σ 4 )

Where σ = *standard deviation

σ = [ ln (CV 2 + 1)] 0.5

σ 2 = ln (CV 2 + 1)

σ 4 = [ ln (CV 2 /4 + 1)] 0.5

σ 4 2 = ln (CV 2 /4 + 1)
z = 2.326 for 99 th percentile probability basis9 

### Table 1. Effluent Concentration Allowance (ECA) Multipliers for Calculating Long-Term Averages (LTAs)

Coefficient
Of
Variation (CV) Acute Multiplier

99 th

Percentile Occurrence Probability Chronic Multiplier

99 th

Percentile Occurrence Probability

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5 0.797

0.643

0.527

0.440

0.373 0.891

0.797

0.715

0.643

0.581

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0 0.321

0.281

0.249

0.224

0.204 0.527

0.481

0.440

0.404

0.373

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5 0.187

0.174

0.162

0.153

0.144 0.345

0.321

0.300

0.281

0.264

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0 0.137

0.131

0.126

0.121

0.117 0.249

0.236

0.224

0.214

0.204

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5 0.113

0.110

0.107

0.104

0.102 0.195

0.187

0.180

0.174

0.168

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0 0.100

0.098

0.096

0.094

0.093 0.162

0.157

0.153

0.148

0.144

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5 0.091

0.090

0.089

0.088

0.087 0.141

0.137

0.134

0.131

0.128

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0 0.086

0.085

0.084

0.083

0.082 0.126

0.123

0.121

0.119

0.11710 LTA Equations

LTA acute = ECA acute *ECA multiplier acute 99 (from Table 1 or as calculated above)

LTA chronic = ECA chronic *ECA multiplier chronic 99 (from Table 1 or as calculated above)

Step 4 : Select the lowest (most limiting) of the LTA s for the pollutant derived in Step 3

.

Step 5 : Calculate water quality-based effluent limitations (an *average monthly effluent limitation, AMEL, and a *maximum daily effluent limitation, MDEL) by multiplying the most limiting LTA (as selected in Step 4 ) with a factor (multiplier) that adjusts for the averaging periods and exceedance frequencies of the criteria/objectives and the effluent limitations, and the effluent monitoring frequency as follows:

AMEL aquatic life = LTA * AMEL multiplier 95 (from Table 2 or as calculated below)

MDEL aquatic life = LTA * MDEL multiplier 99 (from Table 2 or as calculated below)

The AMEL and MDEL multipliers shall be calculated as described below, or shall be found in Table 2 using the previously calculated CV and the monthly sampling frequency ( n ) of the pollutant in the effluent. If the sampling frequency is four times a month or less, n shall be set equal to 4. For this method only, maximum daily effluent limitations shall be used for publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) in place of average weekly limitations.

AMEL and MDEL Multipliers

AMEL multiplier 95 = e (z σ n – 0.5 σ n 2 )

Where σ n = [ ln (CV 2 /n + 1)] 0.5

σ n 2 = ln (CV 2 /n + 1)
z = 1.645 for 95 th percentile probability basis n = number of samples per month

MDEL multiplier 99 = e (z σ – 0.5 σ 2 )

Where σ = [ ln (CV 2 + 1)] 0.5

σ 2 = ln (CV 2 + 1)
z = 2.326 for 99 th percentile probability basis

Step 6 : For the applicable human health criterion/objective, set the AMEL equal to the ECA (from Step 2 ).

AMEL human health = ECA

To calculate the MDEL for a human health criterion/objective, multiply the ECA by the ratio of the MDEL multiplier to the AMEL multiplier.11 

### Table 2. Long-Term Average ( LTA) Multipliers for Calculating
Effluent Limitations

MDEL Multiplier AMEL Multiplier MDEL/AMEL Multiplier
Coefficient
of
Variation 99 th Percentile
Occurrence Probability 95 th Percentile Occurrence Probability MDEL = 99 th Percentile
AMEL = 95 th Percentile Occurrence Probability

(CV) n = 4 n = 8 n = 30 n = 4 n = 8 n = 30

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 1.25
1.55
1.90
2.27
2.68 1.08
1.17
1.26
1.36
1.45 1.06
1.12
1.18
1.25
1.31 1.03
1.06
1.09
1.12
1.16 1.16
1.33
1.50
1.67
1.84 1.18
1.39
1.60
1.82
2.04 1.22
1.46
1.74
2.02
2.32
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0 3.11
3.56
4.01
4.46
4.90 1.55
1.65
1.75
1.85
1.95 1.38
1.45
1.52
1.59
1.66 1.19
1.22
1.26
1.29
1.33 2.01
2.16
2.29
2.41
2.52 2.25
2.45
2.64
2.81
2.96 2.62
2.91
3.19
3.45
3.70
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5 5.34
5.76
6.17
6.56
6.93 2.04
2.13
2.23
2.31
2.40 1.73
1.80
1.87
1.94
2.00 1.36
1.39
1.43
1.47
1.50 2.62
2.70
2.77
2.83
2.89 3.09
3.20
3.30
3.39
3.46 3.93
4.13
4.31
4.47
4.62
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0 7.29
7.63
7.95
8.26
8.55 2.48
2.56
2.64
2.71
2.78 2.07
2.14
2.20
2.27
2.33 1.54
1.57
1.61
1.64
1.68 2.93
2.98
3.01
3.05
3.07 3.52
3.57
3.61
3.65
3.67 4.74
4.85
4.94
5.02
5.09

Note: n = monthly sampling frequency of the effluent concentration data12 

### Table 2. Continued

MDEL Multiplier AMEL Multiplier MDEL/AMEL Multiplier
Coefficient
of
Variation 99 th Percentile
Occurrence Probability 95 th Percentile Occurrence Probability MDEL = 99 th Percentile
AMEL = 95 th Percentile Occurrence Probability

(CV) n = 4 n = 8 n = 30 n = 4 n = 8 n = 30

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5 8.83
9.09
9.34
9.58
9.81 2.85
2.91
2.97
3.03
3.08 2.39
2.45
2.50
2.56
2.61 1.72
1.75
1.79
1.82
1.86 3.10
3.12
3.15
3.17
3.18 3.70
3.72
3.73
3.74
3.75 5.14
5.19
5.22
5.25
5.27
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0 10.0
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8 3.13
3.18
3.23
3.27
3.31 2.67
2.72
2.77
2.82
2.86 1.90
1.93
1.97
2.00
2.04 3.20
3.22
3.23
3.25
3.26 3.76
3.76
3.77
3.77
3.77 5.29
5.30
5.30
5.30
5.30
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5 11.0
11.1
11.3
11.4
11.6 3.35
3.38
3.42
3.45
3.48 2.91
2.95
2.99
3.03
3.07 2.07
2.11
2.14
2.17
2.21 3.27
3.29
3.30
3.31
3.32 3.77
3.77
3.77
3.77
3.77 5.29
5.28
5.27
5.25
5.24
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0 11.7
11.8
11.9
12.1
12.16 3.51
3.53
3.56
3.58
3.60 3.10
3.14
3.17
3.21
3.24 2.24
2.27
2.30
2.34
2.37 3.33
3.34
3.35
3.36
3.37 3.76
3.76
3.76
3.76
3.76 5.22
5.20
5.18
5.16
5.14

Note: n = monthly sampling frequency of the effluent concentration data.13 MDEL/AMEL multiplier = MDEL multiplier 99 ÷ AMEL multiplier 95

MDEL human health = ECA *MDEL/AMEL multiplier

Step 7 : Identify the lower of (1) the AMEL and MDEL calculated based on the aquatic life criteria/objectives, and (2) the AMEL and MDEL calculated based on the human health criterion/objective.

C. Apply a *dynamic model, approved by the RWQ CB, where sufficient effluent and receiving water data exist; or

D. Establish effluent limitations that consider intake water pollutants according to section 1.4.4.

The RWQCB shall impose more restrictive water quality-based effluent limitations (e.g., discharge prohibitions established in accordance with Water Code Section 13243) where necessary for the protection of beneficial uses or where otherwise required by law 1 . Seasonal effluent limitations may be established where a ppropriate (such as in applying translators and mixing zones/dilution credits). Any significant change in effluent quantity or quality shall be
cause for reevaluation of effluent limitations.

Regardless of which method is used for deriving water quality-based effluent limitations, the calculated water quality-based effluent limitations shall be compared to the technology-based effluent limitations for the pollutant, and the most protective of the two types of limitations shall be included in the permit.

Effluent limitations shall apply to the total effluent of a waste discharge at the end-of-pipe, except in the rare situations where it is impractical or infeasible (e.g., where the final discharge point is inaccessible, or the pollutants are so diluted by cooling water as to make monitoring impractical, or interferences among pollutants make analysis infeasible). In these cases, some effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for the discharge may be modified to apply to internal waste streams instead, provided that the permit fact sheet fully states the circumstances for allowing this to occur and the permit also contains the unmodified effluent limitations (see 40 CFR 122.45(h), revised as of July 1, 1996).

For pollutants that are so diluted by cooling water as to make monitoring impractical, effluent limitations for internal waste streams shall be based on the same averaging periods as
the unmodified effluent limitations and shall be calculated as follows

1 For example, to implement the State and federal antidegradation policies, and the federal antibacksliding requirements.14 IL = EL + (EL - CC) * CF/IF IL = EL + (EL - CC) * (EF - IF)/IF

where IL = the limitation for the internal waste stream;

EL = the unmodified effluent limitation;
CC = the concentration of the pollutant in the cooling water;
CF = the cooling water flow, which is equal to the effluent flow minus the internal waste stream flow;

IF = the internal waste stream flow; and

EF = the effluent flow.

These equations do not apply when intake water credits (as described in section 1.4.4) are being provided.

1.4.1 Translators for Metals and Selenium

To derive total recoverable effluent limitations for aquatic life metals and selenium criteria/objectives that are expressed in the dissolved form, a translator first must be applied to the criterion/objective to express it as total recoverable. The translator shall be the U.S. EPA conversion factor (see Appendix 3) that applies to the dissolved aquatic life metals criterion as specified in the CTR (i.e., the dissolved criterion/objective would be divided by the applicable U.S. EPA conversion factor to calculate a total recoverable criterion) unless:

A. the discharger, in the permit application, (1) commits to (a) completing a defensible site-specific translator study and (b) proposing a dissolved to total recoverable translator to the RWQCB, and (2) describes the method(s) to be used in developing the translator; and

B. the discharger, within a time period specified by the RWQCB not exceeding two years from the date of issuance/reissuance of the permit, submits to the RWQCB (1) the proposed translator, and (2) all data and calculations related to its derivation.

Site-specific translators can be developed from fi eld data by either direct determination of the fraction dissolved, or by development of a site-specific partition coefficient that relates the fraction dissolved to ambient background conditions such as pH, suspended load, or organic carbon. The fraction of metal that is dissolved in a water body can vary depending on when and where measurements are taken. A site-specific translator must (1) account for spatial and/or seasonal variability in areas of the water body that are affected by the discharger’s effluent and (2) protect against toxic effects during critical c onditions. The translator shall be derived using
the *median of data for translation of chronic criteria and the *90 th percentile of observed data for translation of acute criteria. If systematic seasonal variation in the translator is demonstrated, seasonal effluent limitations may be justified. If a spatial gradient in the translator is demonstrated, the highest translator value should be used unless the permit allows for a mixing zone (in accordance with section 1.4.2), in which case measurements should be taken outside the mixing zone. The site-specific study plan (including sampling design) must be approved by the RWQCB, after consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game, prior to conducting the study. Translator studies may be conducted by one or more dischargers discharging to the same receiving water body, as described in the permit application, subject to approval by the RWQCB. The planning and undertaking of the study may follow the guidelines presented in Appendix 5, as applicable.15 Alternatively, the RWQCB may consider applying a previously approved site-specific translator or translator based on a study completed prior to the adoption of this Policy if the RWQCB believes the translator adequately reflects existing conditions (including spatial and/or seasonal variability) in the areas of the water body affected by the discharger’s effluent.

While a translator study is being conducted, a final effluent limitation based on the applicable U.S. EPA conversion factor shall be included in the provisions of the permit and interim requirements shall be established (in accordance with section 2.2.2). An interim deadline to submit the results of the study shall be specified by the RWQCB, and shall not exceed two years from the date of issuance/reissuance of the permit. Once the translator is developed by the discharger(s) and approved by the RWQCB, the RWQCB shall reopen the permit and a new effluent limitation shall be calculated using a method described in section 1.4 after adjusting the dissolved metal or selenium criterion/objective by dividing it by the translator. In the event a translator study is not completed within the specified time, the U.S. EPA conversion factor-based effluent limitation in the provisions of the permit shall become effective as a default limitation.

1.4.2 Mixing Zones and Dilution Credits

With the exception of effluent limitations derived from TMDLs, in establishing and determining compliance with effluent limitations for applicable human health, acute aquatic life, or chronic aquatic life priority pollutant criteria/objectives or the toxicity objective for aquatic life protection in a RWQCB basin plan, the RWQCB may grant *mixing zones and *dilution credits to dischargers in accordance with the provisions of this section. To the extent permitted by applicable law, mixing zones may be considered for TMDL-derived effluent limitations. Effluent limitations based on a TMDL shall meet the mixing zone conditions specified in
section 1.4.2.2.A.

The applicable priority pollutant criteria and objectives are to be met throughout a water body except within any mixing zone granted by a RWQCB. The allowance of mixing zones is discretionary and shall be determined on a discharge-by-discharge basis. A RWQCB may consider allowing mixing zones and dilution credits only for discharges with a physically identifiable point of discharge that are regulated through an NPDES permit issued by the RWQCB.

1.4.2.1 Dilution Credits

The dilution credit, D, is a numerical value associated with the mixing zone that accounts for the receiving water entrained into the discharge. The dilution credit is a value used in the calculation of effluent limitations (described in section 1.4). Dilution credits may be limited or denied on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, which may result in a dilution credit for all, some, or no priority pollutants in a discharge.

Before establishing a mixing zone and a dilution credit for a discharge, it must first be determined if, and how much (if any), receiving water is available to dilute the discharge. In determining the appropriate available receiving water flow, the RWQCBs may take into account actual and seasonal variations of the receiving wa ter and the effluent. For example, a RWQCB may prohibit mixing zones during seasonal low flows and allow them during seasonal high flows. However, for year-round mixing zones, the mixing zone and dilution credit shall be16 determined using the parameters specified in Table 3.

Table 3. Effluent and Receiving Water Flows for Calculating Dilution Ratios

In calculating a dilution
ratio for: Use the critical receiving water flow 1

of: Use the discharged effluent
flow of:

Acute aquatic life criteria/objectives *1Q10 *maximum daily flow during period of discharge

Chronic aquatic life criteria/objectives

Chronic toxicity objective for aquatic life 2 *7Q10 *four-day average of daily maximum flows during period of discharge

Human health criteria/objectives *harmonic mean *long-term arithmetic mean flow during period of discharge

The approach to making a mixing zone determination also depends on whether a discharge is *completely-mixed or *incompletely-mixed with the receiving water as discussed below.

Completely Mixing Discharges

For completely-mixed discharges, as determined by the RWQCB and based on information provided by the discharger, the amount of receiving water available to dilute the effluent shall be determined by calculating the *dilution ratio (i.e., the critical receiving water flow divided by the effluent flow) using the appropriate flows in Table 3. In no case shall the RWQCB grant a dilution credit that is greater than the calculated dilution ratio. The dilution credit may be set equal to the dilution ratio only if the site-specific conditions concerning the discharge and the receiving water do not indicate that a smaller dilution credit is necessary to protect beneficial uses and meet the conditions of this Policy. If, however, dilution ratios that are calculated using the Table 3 parameters are inappropriate for use due to site-specific issues, the mixing zone and dilution credit shall be determined using site-specific information and procedures detailed for incompletely-mixed discharges.

Incompletely-Mixed Discharges

Dilution credits and mixing zones for incompletely-mixed discharges shall be considered by the

1 U.S. EPA’s *biologically-based receiving water flows may be used in place of these critical receiving water flows

where sufficient data are available.

2 These objectives are included in RWQCB basin plans and may address both chronic and acute toxicity to aquatic life. The flows in Table 3 apply to the chronic component of the objective.17 RWQCB only after the discharger has completed an independent mixing zone study and demonstrated to the satisfaction of the RWQCB that a dilution credit is appropriate. Mixing zone studies may include, but are not limited t o, tracer studies, dye studies, modelling studies, and monitoring upstream and downstream of the discharge that characterize the extent of actual dilution. These studies may be conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in Appendix 5.

1.4.2.2 Mixing Zone Conditions

A mixing zone shall be as small as practicable. The following conditions must be met in allowing a mixing zone:

A. A mixing zone shall not :

(1) compromise the integrity of the entire water body; (2) cause *acutely toxic conditions to aquatic life passing through the mixing zone; (3) restrict the passage of aquatic life; (4) adversely impact biologically sensitive or critical habitats, including, but not limited to, habitat of species listed under federal or State endangered species laws; (5) produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life; (6) result in floating debris, oil, or scum; (7) produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity; (8) cause *objectionable bottom deposits; (9) cause nuisance; (10) dominate the receiving water body or overl ap a mixing zone from different outfalls;

or (11) be allowed at or near any drinking wate r intake. A mixing zone is not a *source of drinking water. To the extent of any conflict between this determination and the Sources of Drinking Water Policy (SWRCB Resolution No. 88-63), this determination supersedes the provisions of that policy.

B. The RWQCB shall deny or significantly limit a mixing zone and dilution credit as necessary to protect beneficial uses, meet the conditions of this Policy, or comply with other regulatory requirements. Such situations may exist based upon the quality of the discharge, hydraulics of the water body, or the overall discharge environment (including water column chemistry, organism health, and potential for bioaccumulation). For example, in determining the extent of or whether to allow a mixing zone and dilution credit, the RWQCB shall consider the presence of pollutants in the discharge that are *carcinogenic, *mutagenic, *teratogenic, *persistent, *bioaccumulative, or attractive to aquatic organisms. In another example, the RWQCB also shall consider, if necessary to prot ect the beneficial uses, the level of flushing in water bodies such as lakes, reservoirs, enclosed bays, estuaries, or other water body types where pollutants may not be readily flushed through the system. In the case of multiple mixing zones, proximity to other outfalls shall be carefully considered to protect the
beneficial uses.

If a RWQCB allows a mixing zone and dilution credit, the permit shall specify the method by which the mixing zone was derived, the dilution credit granted, and the point(s) in the receiving water where the applicable criteria/objectives must be met. The application for the permit shall include, to the extent feasible, the information needed by the RWQCB to make a18 determination on allowing a mixing zone, including the calculations for deriving the appropriate receiving water and effluent flows, and/or the results of a mixing zone study. If the results of the mixing zone study are unavailable by the time of permit issuance/reissuance, the RWQCB may establish interim requirements in accordance with
section 2.2.2.

1.4.3 Ambient Background Concentrations

Ambient background concentration, B, of a priority pollutant in the receiving water body shall becalculated on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis and on a discharge-by-discharge or water body-bywater body basis at the RWQCB’s discretion. The ambient background concentration shall be
the observed maximum ambient water column concentration in accordance with section 1.4.3.1
or the *arithmetic mean of observed ambient water concentrations in accordance with section 1.4.3.2 where these sections are specifically referenced in this Policy (i.e., sections 1.3 and 1.4).

1.4.3.1 Ambient Background Concentration as an Observed Maximum

Step 1 : Identify all available, applicable ambient background data for the pollutant in accordance with section 1.2. If possible, preference should be given to ambient water column concentrations measured immediately upstream or near the discharge, but not within an allowed mixing zone for the discharge. The RWQCB shall have discretion to consider if any samples are invalid for use as applicable data due to evidence that the sample has been erroneously reported or the sample is not representative of the ambient receiving water column that will mix with the discharge. For example, the RWQCB shall have discretion to consider samples to be invalid that have been taken during peak flows of significant storm events.

Step 2 : If all samples are below the reported detection limits, the ambient background concentration shall be set equal to the lowest of the individual reported detection limits. If any sample is reported with a detected concentration, as either measured or estimated by the laboratory, the ambient background concentration shall be set equal to the maximum of the individual reported measured or estimated concentrations.

1.4.3.2 Ambient Background Concentration as an Arithmetic Mean

Step 1 : Identify all available, applicable ambient background data for the pollutant in accordance with section 1.2. If possible, preference should be given to ambient water column concentrations measured immediately upstream or near the discharge, but not within an allowed mixing zone for the discharge. The RWQCB shall have discretion to consider if any samples are invalid for use as applicable data due to evidence that the sample has been erroneously reported or the sample is not representative of the ambient receiving water column that will mix with the discharge.

Step 2 : If all samples are below the reported detection limits, the ambient background concentration shall be set equal to the lowest of the individual reported detection limits. If any sample is reported with a detected concentration, as either measured or estimated by the laboratory, the ambient background concentration shall be set equal to the arithmetic mean of the individual reported measured or estimated concentrations. The arithmetic mean shall be calculated using the reported detection limits for samples that are reported below detection19 limits.

1.4.4 Intake Water Credits

A RWQCB may consider priority pollutants in intake water on a pollutant-by-pollutant and discharge-by-discharge basis when establishing water quality-based effluent limitations, provided that the discharger has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the RWQCB that the following conditions are met:

(1) The observed maximum ambient background concentration, as determined in section 1.4.3.1, and the intake water concentration of the pollutant exceeds the most stringent applicable criterion/objective for that pollutant;

(2) The intake water credits provided are consistent with any TMDL applicable to the discharge that has been approved by the RWQCB, SWRCB, and U.S. EPA;

(3) The intake water is from the same water body as the receiving water body. The discharger may demonstrate this condition by showing that:

(a) the ambient background concentration of the pollutant in the receiving water, excluding any amount of the pollutant in the f acility’s discharge, is similar to that of the intake water;

(b) there is a direct hydrological connection between the intake and discharge points;

(c) the water quality characteristics are similar in the intake and receiving waters; and

(d) the intake water pollutant would have reached the vicinity of the discharge point in the receiving water within a reasonable period of time and with the same effect had it not been diverted by the discharger.

The RWQCB may also consider other factors when determining whether the intake water is from the same water body as the receiving water body;

(4) The facility does not alter the intake water pollutant chemically or physically in a manner that adversely affects water quality and beneficial uses; and

(5) The timing and location of the discharge does not cause adverse effects on water quality and beneficial uses that would not occur if the intake water pollutant had been left in the receiving water body.

Where the above conditions are met, the RWQCB may establish effluent limitations allowing the facility to discharge a mass and concentration of the intake water pollutant that is no greater than the mass and concentration found in the facility’s intake water. A discharger may add mass of the pollutant to its waste stream if an equal or greater mass is removed prior to discharge, so there is no net addition of the pollutant in the discharge compared to the intake water. Where proper operation and maintenance of a facility’s treatment system results in the removal of an intake water pollutant, the RWQCB may establish limitations that reflect the lower mass and20 concentration of the pollutant achieved by such treatment.

Where intake water for a facility is provided by a municipal water supply system and the supplier provides treatment of the raw water that removes an intake water pollutant, the concentration of the intake water pollutant shall be determined at the point where the water enters the water supplier’s distribution system.

Where a facility discharges pollutants from multiple sources that originate from the receiving water body and from other water bodies, the RWQCB may derive an effluent limitation reflecting the flow-weighted amount of each source of the pollutant provided that adequate monitoring to determine compliance can be established and is included in the permit. When calculating the flow-weighted effluent limitati on, the pollutant from the receiving water body shall be assumed to have a concentration that is no greater than the concentration in the facility’s intake water; the same pollutant from other sources shall be assumed to have a concentration that is no greater than the most stringent applicable criterion/objective.

The permit shall specify how compliance with mass- and concentration-based limitations for the intake water pollutant will be assessed. This may be done by basing the effluent limitation on ambient background concentration data. Alternatively, the RWQCB may determine compliance by simultaneously monitoring the pollutant concentrations in the intake water and in the effluent. This monitoring may be supplemented by monitoring internal waste streams or by a RWQCB evaluation of the use of *best management practices.

2. DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WI TH PRIORITY POLLUTANT CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES AND WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT CRITERIA/OBJECTIVES

Compliance with priority pollutant criteria/objectives and water quality-based effluent limitations established pursuant to section 1 shall be determined according to the following provisions for (1) compliance schedules (section 2.1), (2) interim requirements (section 2.2), (3) monitoring requirements (section 2.3), and (4) reporting requirements including compliance determinations (section 2.4). In determining compliance with effluent limitations based on intake water credits, only the monitoring requirements (section 2.3) and the reporting requirements (section 2.4) apply. In determining compliance with effluent limitations derived from TMDLs, only the compliance schedule provisions (section 2.1) apply.

2.1 Compliance Schedules

Based on an *existing discharger’s request and demonstration that it is *infeasible for the discharger to achieve immediate compliance with a CTR criterion 3 , or with an effluent limitation based on a CTR criterion, the RWQCB may establish a compliance schedule in an NPDES permit. Compliance schedules shall not be allowed in permits for *new dischargers.

A schedule of compliance shall include a series of required actions to be undertaken for the purpose of achieving a CTR criterion and/or effl uent limitations based on a CTR criterion. These actions shall demonstrate reasonable progress toward the attainment of a CTR criterion and/or effluent limitations. The compliance schedule shall include a schedule for completion

3 CTR criteria, for purposes of th is section, exclude NTR criteria.21 that reflects a realistic assessment of the shortest practicable time required to perform each task. The compliance schedule shall contain a final compliance date based on the shortest practicable time required to achieve compliance. The deadlines to complete each action in the compliance schedule shall be specified in the NPDES permit and shall be accompanied by interim requirements as described in section 2.2.1. When a compliance schedule exceeds one year from the date of permit issuance, interim limitations with specific compliance dates (as described in section 2.2.1) shall be included in the NPDES permit. If the final compliance date extends beyond the permit term, the final compliance date and supporting explanation shall be included in the permit findings.

The discharger shall submit to the RWQCB the following justification before compliance schedules may be authorized in a permit: (a) documentation that diligent efforts have been made to quantify pollutant levels in the discharge and the sources of the pollutant in the waste stream, and the results of those efforts; (b) documentation of source control and/or pollution minimization efforts currently underway or completed; (c) a proposed schedule for additional or future source control measures, *pollutant minimization actions, or waste treatment (i.e., facility upgrades); and (d) a demonstration that the proposed schedule is as short as practicable.

The schedule of compliance for point source dischargers in an NPDES permit shall be as short as practicable but in no case exceed the following:

A. Up to five years from the date of permit issuance, reissuance, or modification to complete actions (such as pollutant minimization or facility upgrades) necessary to comply with CTR
criterion-based effluent limitations that are deri ved with or without a TMDL. Such actions shall include the development and adoption of a site-specific objective, if appropriate, as provided in section 5.2.

B. Up to 15 years from the effective date of this Policy to develop and adopt a TMDL, and accompanying Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) and Load Allocations (LAs), as described in section 2.1.1, below.

In no case (unless an exception has been granted in accordance with section 5.3) shall a compliance schedule for these dischargers exceed, from the effective date of this Policy: (a) 10 years to establish and comply with CTR criterion-based effluent limitations; or (b) 20 years to develop and adopt a TMDL, and to establish and comply with WLAs derived from a TMDL for a CTR criterion (i.e., up to 15 years to complete the TMDL and up to five years to comply with a TMDL-derived effluent limitation).

2.1.1 TMDL-Based Compliance Schedule

The compliance schedule provisions for the development and adoption of a TMDL only apply when: (a) the discharger requests and demonstrates that it is *infeasible for the discharger to achieve immediate compliance with a CTR criterion, or with an effluent limitation based on a CTR criterion; and (b) the discharger has made appropriate commitments to support and expedite the development of the TMDL. In determining appropriate commitments, the RWQCB should consider the discharge’s contribution to current loadings and the discharger’s ability to participate in TMDL development.

For *bioaccumulative priority pollutants for which the receiving water has been included on the22 CWA Section 303(d) list, the RWQCB should consider whether the mass loading of the bioaccumulative pollutant(s) should be limited to representative, current levels pending TMDL development in order to implement the applicable water quality standard.

2.2 Interim Requirements

If a compliance schedule is allowed (in accordance with section 2.1) or a schedule is allowed to collect and provide data needed to establish water quality-based effluent limitations for a CTR criterion (in accordance with provisions in section 1), interim requirements shall be included in an NPDES permit.

2.2.1 Interim Requirements Under a Compliance Schedule

If a compliance schedule is granted (in accordance with section 2.1), the RWQCB shall establish interim requirements and dates for their achievement in the NPDES permit. If the compliance schedule exceeds one year, the RWQCB shall establish interim numeric limitations for the priority pollutant in the permit and may also impose interim requirements to control the pollutant, such as *pollutant minimization and source control measures. Numeric interim limitations for the pollutant must be based on current treatment facility performance or on existing permit limitations, whichever is more stringent. If the existing permit limitations are more stringent, and the discharger is not in compliance with those limitations, the noncompliance under the existing permit must be addressed through appropriate enforcement action before the permit can be reissued, unless antibacksliding provisions are met.

There shall be no more than one year between interim dates. The interim requirements shall state that the discharger must notify the RWQCB, in writing, no later than 14 days following each interim date, of its compliance or noncompliance with the interim requirements.

If the compliance schedule is within the term of the permit, the final effluent limitations shall be included in the permit provisions. If the compliance schedule exceeds the length of the permit, the final effluent limitations shall be included in the permit findings. In the latter case, the findings shall include: (1) the water quality to be achieved; (2) the reason that a final water quality-based effluent limitation is not being incorporated into the permit as an enforceable limitation at this time; (3) a statement that it is the intent of the RWQCB to include, in a subsequent permit revision, the final water quality-based effluent limitation as an enforceable limitation (based either on the CTR criterion directly or on future regulatory developments, such as TMDL or site-specific objective development). The permit findings shall also state the appropriate enforcement actions that may be taken by the RWQCB if interim limitations and requirements are not met.

2.2.2 Reserved

2.3 Monitoring Requirements

The RWQCB shall require dischargers to conduct self-monitoring programs and shall clearly state in all permits the objective and purpose of the monitoring. Furthermore, the RWQCB shall determine, and specify under the monitoring and reporting requirements, the sampling parameters, monitoring frequencies, locations, and analytical methods to be used. To evaluate compliance with effluent limitations, effluent and ambient monitoring should occur within a23 brief enough period to be able to evaluate the effect of the effluent on the ambient water quality. All data shall be reported in accordance with section 2.4. Options for analytical methods are:

(1) those methods listed in Appendix 4 and described in Tables 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E of 40 CFR 136.3 (revised as of May 14, 1999); or a lternate test procedures for individual discharges that have been approved by the U.S. EPA Regional Administrator pursuant to 40 CFR 136.4 (a) through (c), inclusive, and 40 CFR 136.5 (a) through (d), inclusive (revised as of May 14, 1999); or

(2) where no methods are specified for a given pollutant in the tables described in (1) above, methods approved by the SWRCB or RWQCB.

Laboratories analyzing monitoring samples shall be certified by the Department of Health Services, in accordance with the provision of Water Code Section 13176, and must include quality assurance/quality control data with their reports.

Dischargers are also encouraged to submit monitoring data in electronic formats approved by the SWRCB or RWQCB.

Furthermore, it is the policy of the SWRCB that individual permit monitoring complement and be coordinated with water body, watershed, and regional monitoring programs to the extent practicable.

2.4 Reporting Requirements

The discharger shall submit to the RWQCB reports necessary to determine compliance with effluent limitations for priority pollutants in permits. The reports shall comply with the requirements of sections 2.4.1 through 2.4.4.

2.4.1 Reporting Levels

The RWQCB shall require in the permit that the discharger shall report with each sample result:

1. The Reporting Level (RL) (selected from the MLs listed in Appendix 4 in accordance with section 2.4.2 or established in accordance with section 2.4.3); and

2. The laboratory’s current *Method Detection Limit (MDL), as determined by the procedure found in 40 CFR 136 (revised as of July 3, 1999).

2.4.2 Selection and Use of Appropriate ML Value

Reporting Level Selection : When there is more than one ML value for a given substance, the RWQCB shall include as RLs, in the permit, all ML values, and their associated analytical methods, listed in Appendix 4 that are below the calculated effluent limitation. The discharger may select any one of those cited analytical methods for compliance determination. If no ML value is below the effluent limitation, then the RWQCB shall select as the RL, the lowest ML value, and its associated analytical method, listed in Appendix 4 for inclusion in the permit.

ML Usage : The ML value in Appendix 4 represents the lowest quantifiable concentration in a24 sample based on the proper application of all method-based analytical procedures and the absence of any matrix interferences. Assuming that all method-specific analytical steps are followed, the ML value will also represent, afte r the appropriate application of method-specific factors, the lowest standard in the calibration curve for that specific analytical technique. Common analytical practices sometimes require different treatment of the sample relative to calibration standards. Some examples are given below:

Most Common Substance or Grouping Method-Specified Treatment Method-Specific Factor(s) Volatile organic No differential treatment 1 Semi-Volatile organic Samples concentrated by extraction 1000 Metals Samples diluted or concentrated 1⁄2, 2, and 4 Pesticides Samples concentrated by extraction 100

Other factors may be applied to the ML depending on the specific sample preparation steps employed. For example, the treatment typically applied in cases where there are matrix-effects is to dilute the sample or sample aliquot by a factor of ten. In such cases, this additional factor must be applied in the computation of the reporting limit. Application of such factors will alter the RL (as described in section 2.4.1).

Dischargers are to instruct laboratories to establish calibration standards so that the ML value (or its equivalent if there is differential treatment of samples relative to calibration standards) is the lowest calibration standard. At no time is the discharger to use analytical data derived from extrapolation beyond the lowest point of the calibration curve. The discharger’s laboratory(ies) may, as allowed for by the rules governing alterations to ML values in section 2.4.3 below, employ a calibration standard lower than the ML value in Appendix 4.

2.4.3 Deviation from MLs Listed in Appendix 4

The RWQCB, in consultation with the SWRCB’s Quality Assurance Program, shall establish an RL that is not contained an ML in Appendix 4 to be included in the discharger’s permit in any of the following situations:

1. When the pollutant under consideration is not included in Appendix 4.

2. When the discharger and the RWQCB agree to include in the permit a test method that is more sensitive than those specified in 40 CFR 136 (revised as of July 3, 1999).

3. When a discharger agrees to use an RL that is lower than the MLs listed in Appendix 4.

4. When a discharger demonstrates that the calibration standard matrix is sufficiently different from that used to establish the ML in Appendix 4 and proposes an appropriate
ML for their matrix.

5. When the discharger uses a method whose quantification practices are not consistent with the definition of an ML. Examples of such methods are the U.S. EPA-approved method 1613 for dioxins and furans, method 1624 for volatile organic substances, and method 1625 for semi-volatile organic substances. In such cases, the discharger, the RWQCB, and the SWRCB shall agree on a lowest quantifiable limit and that limit will substitute for25 the RL for reporting and compliance determination purposes.26 2.4.4 Reporting Protocols

The discharger shall report the results of analyti cal determinations for the presence of chemical constituents in a sample using the following reporting protocols:

1. Sample results greater than or equal to the RL shall be reported as measured by the laboratory (i.e., the measured chemical concentration in the sample).

2. Sample results less than the RL, but greater than or equal to the laboratory’s MDL, shall be reported as “Detected, but Not Quantified,” or DNQ. The *estimated chemical concentration of the sample shall also be reported.

For the purposes of data collection, the laboratory shall write the estimated chemical concentration next to DNQ as well as the words “Estimated Concentration” (may be shortened to “Est. Conc.”). The laboratory may, if such information is available, include numerical estimates of the data quality for the reported result. Numerical estimates of data quality may be percent accuracy ( + a percentage of the reported value), numerical ranges (low to high), or any other means considered appropriate by the laboratory.

3. Sample results less than the laboratory’s MDL shall be reported as “Not Detected,” or ND.

2.4.5 Compliance Determination

Compliance with effluent limitations shall be determined as follows:

1. Dischargers shall be deemed out of compliance with an effluent limitation, if the concentration of the priority pollutant in the monitoring sample is greater than the effluent limitation and greater than or equal to the RL.

2. Dischargers shall be required to conduct a Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP) in accordance with section 2.4.5.1 when there is evidence (e.g., sample results reported as DNQ when the effluent limitation is less than the MDL, sample results from analytical methods more sensitive than those methods included in the permit in accordance with sections 2.4.2 or 2.4.3 above, presence of whole effl uent toxicity, health advisories for fish consumption, results of benthic or aquatic organism tissue sampling) that the priority pollutant is present in the effluent above an effluent limitation and either:

a. A sample result is reported as DNQ and the effluent limitation is less than the RL; or

b. A sample result is reported as ND and the effluent limitation is less than the MDL.

RWQCBs may include special provisions in the permit to require the gathering of evidence to determine whether the constituent of concern is present in the effluent at levels above a
calculated effluent limitation.

When determining compliance with an AMEL and more than one sample result is available in a month, the discharger shall compute the arithmetic mean unless the data set contains one or more reported determinations of DNQ or ND. In those cases, the discharger shall compute the median27 in place of the arithmetic mean in accordance with the following procedure:

1. The data set shall be ranked from low to high, reported ND determinations lowest, DNQ determinations next, followed by quantified valu es (if any). The order of the individual ND or DNQ determinations is unimportant.

2. The median value of the data set shall be determined. If the data set has an odd number of data points, then the median is the middle value. If the data set has an even number of data points, then the median is the average of the two values around the middle unless one or both of the points are ND or DNQ, in which case the median value shall be the lower of the two data points where DNQ is lower than a value and ND is lower than DNQ.

If a sample result, or the arithmetic mean or median of multiple sample results, is below the RL, and there is evidence that the priority pollutant is present in the effluent above an effluent
limitation and the discharger conducts a PMP (as described in section 2.4.5.1), the discharger
shall not be deemed out of compliance.

2.4.5.1 Pollutant Minimization Program

The goal of the PMP shall be to reduce all potential sources of a priority pollutant(s) through *pollutant minimization (control) strategies, including *pollution prevention measures as appropriate, 4 to maintain the effluent concentration at or below the water quality-based effluent limitation. The RWQCB may consider cost-effectiveness when establishing the requirements of a PMP. The program shall include, but not be limited to, the following actions and submittals acceptable to the RWQCB:

1. An annual review and semi-annual monitoring of potential sources of the reportable priority pollutant(s), which may include fish tissue monitoring and other bio-uptake sampling;

2. Quarterly monitoring for the reportable priority pollutant(s) in the influent to the wastewater treatment system;

3. Submittal of a control strategy designed to proceed toward the goal of maintaining concentrations of the reportable priority pollutant (s) in the effluent at or below the effluent limitation;

4. Implementation of appropriate cost-effective control measures for the reportable priority pollutant(s), consistent with the control strategy; and

5. An annual status report that shall be sent to the RWQCB including:

a. All PMP monitoring results for the previous year;

b. A list of potential sources of the reportable priority pollutant(s);

c. A summary of all actions undertaken pursuant to the control strategy; and

4 Pollution prevention measures may be particularly appropria te for persistent bioaccumulative priority pollutants where there is evidence that beneficial uses are being impacted.28 d. A description of actions to be taken in the following year.

The permit shall contain a reopener clause authorizing modifications, or revocation and reissuance of the permit, as a result of the detection of a reportable priority pollutant generated by special conditions included in the permit. These special conditions in the permit may be, but are not limited to, fish tissue sampling, whole effl uent toxicity tests, monitoring requirements on internal waste stream(s), and monitoring for surrogate parameters. Additional requirements may be included in the permit as a result of the special condition monitoring data.

The completion and implementation of a pollution prevention plan, required pursuant to Water Code Section 13263.3(d), shall be considered to fulfill the PMP requirements of this section.

3. 2,3,7,8-TCDD EQUIVALENTS

The CTR includes criteria for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlor odibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). In addition to this compound, there are many congeners of chlorinated dibenzodioxins (2,3,7,8-CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (2,3,7,8-CDFs) that exhibit toxic effects similar to those of 2,3,7,8- TCDD. The U.S. EPA has published toxic equivale ncy factors (TEFs) for 17 of the congeners. The TEFs express the relative toxicities of the congeners compared to 2,3,7,8-TCDD (whose TEF equals 1.0). In June 1997, participants in a World Health Organization (WHO) expert meeting revised TEF values for 1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDD, OctaCDD, and OctaCDF. The current TEFs for the 17 congeners, which include the three revised values, are shown in Table 4:

Table 4. Toxic Equivalency Factor s (TEFs) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD Equivalents

Congener TEF

2,3,7,8-TetraCDD 1

1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDD 1.0

1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDD 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDD 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDD 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDD 0.01

OctaCDD 0.0001

2,3,7,8-TetraCDF 0.1

1,2,3,7,8-PentaCDF 0.05

2,3,4,7,8-PentaCDF 0.5

1,2,3,4,7,8-HexaCDF 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-HexaCDF 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-HexaCDF 0.1

2,3,4,6,7,8-HexaCDF 0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HeptaCDF 0.011

, 2

, 3

, 4

, 7

, 8

, 9

- H e p t a C D F 0

. 0 1

O c t a C D F 0

. 0 0 0 1

_________________ TEF Reference: Van den Berg, M., et al. (22 additional au thors). 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs, for hum ans and wildlife. Envi ronm ental Health Perspectives 106(12):775-792.

W h ether or not an effluent lim itation is required for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in accordance with section 1.3 of this Policy, each RW QCB shall require (as described below) m a jor and m i nor POTW and industrial dischargers in its region to conduct effluent m onitoring for the 2,3,7,8- TCDD congeners listed above. The purpose of the m onitoring is to assess the presence and

am ounts of the congeners being discharged to inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries
f o r the developm ent of a strategy to control these chem icals in a f u ture m u lti-m e dia approach.

W ithin one year of the effective date of th is Policy, each RW QCB shall either (1) am end the NPDES perm its, or (2) send a written request f o r the inf o rm ation pursuant to Calif ornia W a ter Code Section 13267 or 13383, for NPDES perm ittees in their respective regions, requiring, for a period of three consecutive years from the date the perm it is am ended or the request is sent, that: (1) each m a jor POTW and m a jor industrial discharger m onitor its effluent for the presence of the 17 congeners once during dry weather and once during wet weather each of the three years; and (2) each m i nor POTW and m i nor industrial discharger m onitor its effluent for the presence of the 17 congeners once during dry weather and once during wet weather for one year during the three-year period.

The RW QCB should coordinate this region-wide m onitoring to provide data that are consistent with the purpose of the provisions of this section to the extent possible. The RW QCB shall encourage public and private dischargers, and local governm e nts, to develop a coordinated, cooperative regional m onitoring program to gather this inform ation.

The RW QCB shall require the discharger to report for each congener the analytical results of the
effluent m onitoring, including the quantifiable lim it 5 and the MDL, and the m easured or
estim ated concentration. In addition, the RW QCB shall require the discharger to m u ltiply each

m easured or estim ated congener concentration by its respective TEF value (presented above) and report the sum of these values. This inf o rm ation shall be subm itted to the RW QCB as part of the discharger’s self-m onitoring reports, in accordance with section 2.3. The RW QCB shall, subsequently, subm it the inform ation to the SW RCB.

Based on the m onitoring results, the RW QCB m a y, at its discretion, increase the m onitoring requirem e nt (e.g., increase sam p ling frequency) to further investigate frequent or significant detections of any congener. At the conclusi on of the three-year m onitoring period, the SW RCB
and RW QCBs will assess the data (a total of six sam p les each from m a jor POTW s and industrial dischargers, and a total of two sam p les each from m i nor POTW s and industrial dischargers), and
determ ine whether further m onitoring is necessary.

5 As determ ined by the procedure found in section 2.4.3, num ber 5.

2930 4. TOXICITY CONTROL PROVISIONS

This section establishes minimum toxicity control requirements for implementing the narrative toxicity objectives for aquatic life protection in RWQCB basin plans. These provisions are intended to supplement basin plan requirements and do not supersede existing RWQCB toxicity requirements.

Water Quality-Based Toxicity Control

A chronic toxicity effluent limitation is required in permits for all discharges that will cause, have reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to chronic toxicity in receiving waters.

To determine compliance with the chronic aquatic life toxicity objective in a RWQCB basin plan, or an effluent limitation based on the objective, the RWQCB shall require, in a permit or other appropriate order, the use of short-term chronic toxicity tests. At least three test species with approved test protocols shall be used to m easure compliance with the toxicity objective. If possible, the test species shall include a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and an aquatic plant. After a screening period, monitoring may be reduced to the most sensitive species. Dilution and control waters should be obtained from an area unaffected by the discharge in the receiving waters. For rivers and streams, dilution water should be obtained immediately upstream of the wastewater outfall. Standard dilution water can be used if the above sources exhibit toxicity or if approved by the RWQCB. The sensitivity of the test organisms to a reference toxicant shall be determined concurrently with each bioassay and reported with the test results.

The tests contained in Appendix II, "Chapter IV. Compliance With Toxicity Limitations and Objectives ", of the California Ocean Plan (amended March 20, 1997 and effective July 23, 1997) are incorporated by reference and one or more of these tests shall be used to measure toxicity in salt water. This incorporation-by-reference is prospective, including future changes to the incorporated provisions as the changes take effect. One or more of the tests in Table 5 shall be used to measure chronic toxicity in fresh water.

Table 5. Short-term Methods for Estimating Chronic Toxicity-Fresh Water

Species Effect Test duration (days)

fathead minnow larval survival; 7 ( Pimephales promelas ) growth

water flea ( Ceriodaphnia dubia ) survival; number 6 to 8 of young

alga ( Selenastrum capricornutum ) growth rate 4

Toxicity Test Reference: U.S. EPA. 1994. Short-term me thods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater organisms. Third edition. U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA/600/4-91-002.31 Toxicity Reduction Requirements

If a discharge causes or contributes to chronic toxicity in a receiving water body, a *toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) is required. Where multiple dischargers to the same water body are required to conduct TREs, the TREs may be coordinated with the approval of the RWQCB. The TRE shall include all reasonable steps to identify the source(s) of toxicity. Once the source of toxicity is identified, the discharger shall take all reasonable steps necessary to eliminate toxicity.

The following shall be incorporated into permits: (1) a requirement to conduct a TRE if repeated tests reveal toxicity as a result of the waste discharge; (2) a provision requiring a discharger to take all reasonable steps to control toxicity once the source of toxicity is identified; and (3) a statement that failure to conduct required toxicity tests or a TRE within a designated period shall result in the establishment of effluent limitations for chronic toxicity in a permit or appropriate
enforcement action.

5. SPECIAL PROVISIONS

The following sections include provisions that addr ess certain discharges and factors that could affect the application of other provisions in this Policy. They include: (1) nonpoint source discharges (section 5.1); (2) site-specific objectives (section 5.2); and (3) exceptions to the Policy provisions (section 5.3).

5.1 Nonpoint Source Discharges

It is the intent of the SWRCB, in adopting this Policy, that the implementation of the priority pollutant criteria/objectives and other requirements of this Policy for nonpoint source discharges shall be consistent with the State's “ Policy for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, 2004.”

5.2 Site-Specific Objectives

If a priority pollutant criterion or objective is inappropriate for a particular water body (i.e., it does not protect the beneficial uses or, based on site-specific conditions, a less stringent standard may be warranted), a water quality objective that differs from the applicable criterion or objective may be developed for the site. A RWQCB may develop site-specific objectives whenever it determines, in the exercise of its professional judgement, that it is appropriate to do so. Where a priority pollutant criterion or objective is not being attained in the water body, under certain circumstances, it may be more appropriate to pursue other approaches to achieve the applicable criterion or objective rather than develop a site-specific objective. These approaches include, but are not limited to, watershed management and development of TMDLs (see Appendix 5 and Appendix 6). The RWQCB may investigate, facilitate, or implement such approaches as appropriate.

Regardless of an action taken by the RWQCB as described above, the RWQCB shall, at a public meeting, consider initiating the development of a site-specific objective under the following
conditions:32 (1) A written request for a site-specific study, accompanied by a preliminary commitment to fund the study, subject to development of a workplan 6 , is filed with the RWQCB; and

(2) Either:

(a) a priority pollutant criterion or objective is not achieved in the receiving water; or (b) a holder of an NPDES permit demonstrates that they do not, or may not in the future, meet an existing or potential effluent limitation based on the priority pollutant criterion or objective; and

(3) A demonstration that the discharger cannot be assured of achieving the criterion or objective and/or effluent limitation through reasonable treatment, source control, and *pollution prevention measures. This demonstration may include, but is not limited to, as determined by the RWQCB:

(a) an analysis of compliance and consistency with all relevant federal and State plans, policies, laws, and regulations; (b) a thorough review of historical limits and compliance with those limits; (c) a thorough review of current technology and technology-based limits; and (d) an economic analysis of compliance with the priority pollutant criterion or objective
of concern.

During the period when site-specific objectives studies are being conducted, the RWQCB shall place effluent limitations based upon the applicable priority pollutant criteria or objectives into permits only in conjunction with an appropriate compliance schedule and interim requirements,
as described in sections 2.1 and 2.2.

A discharger subject to a schedule for compliance with a CTR criterion or CTR criterion-based effluent limitations, as described in section 2.1, may choose to, concurrently with the actions necessary to achieve compliance, conduct the studies necessary to support the development and adoption of a site-specific objective. 7

Following adoption of a site-specific objective by the RWQCB, existing effluent limitations shall be replaced with effluent limitations (calculated as described in section 1.4) based on the adopted site-specific objective if the analysis in section 1.3 indicates that a limitation for the pollutant is required. In the event that, for reasons beyond the control of the discharger, a decision whether or not to adopt site-specific objectives has not been made by the RWQCB before the end of the compliance schedule, the compliance schedule shall be extended for an additional period to allow time for a decision whether or not to adopt the objective. However, in no event may a compliance schedule exceed the maximum time period allowed for compliance with the CTR criteria (as described in section 2.1) or priority pollutant objectives (as described in the basin plan, if applicable), unless an exception has been granted (in accordance with section 5.3).

6 The elements presented under the “Special Studies Proce ss” in Appendix 5 should be considered in developing the site-specific objectives workplan.

7 A RWQCB may include a compliance schedule in a water quality standard based on a site-specific objective. Such a compliance schedule is separate and distinct from th e compliance schedules established by this Policy.33 Development of Site-Specific Objectives

Water quality objectives shall be developed in a manner consistent with State and federal law and regulations. In accordance with the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the Water Code), objectives must provide for the reasonable protection of
beneficial uses based on consideration of the factors listed in Water Code Section 13241. In accordance with federal law (CWA) and regulations (40 CFR 131.11, revised as of July 1, 1997), the objectives must be based on sound scientific rationale and protect the designated beneficial uses of the receiving water.

The RWQCB shall use scientifically defensible methods appropriate to the situation to derive the objectives. Such methods may include U.S. EPA-approved methods (e.g., Water Effects Ratio [WER] procedure, recalculation procedure, a comb ination of recalculation and WER procedures, Resident Species Procedure), and/or other methods specified in the workplan.

A site-specific objective adopted by the RWQCB may include a compliance schedule. However, if attainment of the potential objective(s) developed under the study is anticipated to be infeasible (as defined in 40 CFR 131.10(g), revised as of July 1, 1997), or if the RWQCB otherwise determines it is appropriate, a *use attainability analysis (UAA) may be conducted. The RWQCB shall conduct, with the participation of interested persons, as appropriate, the UAA in accordance with 40 CFR 131.10(j) (revised as of July 1, 1997). If the UAA shows that attainment of the designated beneficial use(s) is not feasible (pursuant to 40 CFR 131.10(g) (revised as of July 1, 1997), the RWQCB shall designate an alternative beneficial use or subcategory of use, and develop appropriate water quality objectives to protect the new use(s). Both the use(s) and the objective(s) established to protect it would be reevaluated during the triennial reviews of the State's water quality standards.

5.3 Exceptions

Categorical and case-by-case exceptions to this Policy may be granted pursuant to the provisions
below.

Categorical Exceptions

The RWQCB may, after compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), allow short-term or seasonal exceptions from meeting the priority pollutant criteria/objectives if determined to be necessary to implement control measures either:

1. for resource or pest management (i.e., vector or weed control, pest eradication, or fishery management) conducted by *public entities or *mutual water companies to fulfill statutory requirements, including, but not limited to, those in the California Fish and Game, Food and Agriculture, Health and Safety, and Harbors and Navigation codes; or

2. regarding drinking water conducted to fulfill statutory requirements under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act or the California Health a nd Safety Code. Such categorical exceptions may also be granted for draining water supply reservoirs, canals, and pipelines for maintenance, for draining municipal storm water conveyances for cleaning or maintenance, or for draining water treatment facilities for cleaning or maintenance.34 For each project, the discharger shall notify potentially affected public and governmental agencies. Also, the discharger shall submit to the Executive Officer of the appropriate RWQCB, for approval:

(1) A detailed description of the proposed action, including the proposed method of completing the action;

(2) A time schedule;

(3) A discharge and receiving water quality monitoring plan (before project initiation, during the project, and after project completion, with the appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures);

(4) CEQA documentation;

(5) Contingency plans;

(6) Identification of alternate water supply (if needed); and

(7) Residual waste disposal plans.

Additionally, upon completion of the project, the discharger shall provide certification by a qualified biologist that the receiving water beneficial uses have been restored.

To prevent unnecessary delays in taking emergency actions or to expedite the approval process for expected or routine activities that fall under categorical exceptions, the discharger is advised to file with the appropriate RWQCB, in advance of seeking RWQCB approval, the information required in items (1)-(7) above, to the extent possible.

Case-by-Case Exceptions

Where site-specific conditions in individual wate r bodies or watersheds differ sufficiently from statewide conditions and those differences cannot be addressed through other provisions of this Policy, the SWRCB may, in compliance with the CEQA, subsequent to a public hearing, and with the concurrence of the U.S. EPA, grant an exception to meeting a priority pollutant criterion/objective or any other provision of this Policy where the SWRCB determines:

1. The exception will not compromise protection of enclosed bay, estuarine, and inland surface waters for beneficial uses; and

2. The public interest will be served.

An example of where a case-by-case exception would be appropriate is where it is necessary to
accommodate wastewater reclamation or water conservation.APPENDIX 1

Definition of Terms

ACUTELY TOXIC CONDITIONS , as used in the context of m i xing zones, ref e rs to lethality
that occurs to m obile aquatic organism s that m ove or drift through the m i xing zone.

ARITHMETIC MEAN ( μ ), also called the average, is the sum of m easured values divided by the

num ber of sam p les. For am bient water concentrations, the arithm e tic m ean is calculated as

f o llows:

Arithm e tic m ean = μ = Σ x / n where: Σ x is the sum of the m easured am bient water concentrations, and

n is the num ber of sam p les.

AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT LIMITATION (AMEL) m eans the highest allowable average of daily pollutant discharges over a calendar m onth, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges m easured during a calendar m onth divided by the num ber of m easurem ents.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs) are m e thods, m easures, or practices designed and
selected to reduce or elim inate the discharge of pollutants to surface waters from point and nonpoint source discharges including storm water. BMPs include structural and non-structural controls, and operation and m a intenance procedures, which can be applied before, during, and/or after pollution producing activities.

BIOACCUMULATIVE pollutants are those substances taken up by an organism from its surrounding m e dium through gill m e m b ranes, epithelial tissue, or from food and subsequently concentrated and retained in the body of the organism

.

BIOLOGICALLY-BASED RECEIVING W A TER FLOW refers to the m e thod for determ ining receiving water flows developed by the U.S. EP A Office of Research and Developm ent which directly uses the averaging periods and exceedance frequencies specified in the acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for individual pollutants (e.g., 1 day and 3 years for acute criteria, and 4 days and 3 years for the chronic criteria). Biologically-based flows can be calculated using the program DFLOW

.

CARCINOGENIC pollutants are substances that are known to cause cancer in living organism s.

COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION ( CV ) is a m easure of the data variability and is calculated as
the estim ated standard deviation divided by the arithm e tic m ean of the observed values.

COMPLETELY-MIXED DISCHARGE condition m eans not m o re than a 5 percent difference, accounting f o r analytical variability, in the concentration of a pollutant exists across a transect of the water body at a point within two stream /river widths from the discharge point.

APPENDIX 1 - 1DILUTION CREDIT is the am ount of dilution granted to a discharge in the calculation of a water quality-based effluent lim itation, based on the allowance of a specified m i xing zone. It is
calculated from the dilution ratio or determ ined through conducting a m i xing zone study or

m odeling of the discharge and receiving water.

DILUTION RATIO is the critical low flow of the upstream receiving water divided by the flow of the effluent discharged.

DISCHARGER-SPECIFIC W E R is a W E R that is applied to individual pollutant lim its in an NPDES perm it issued to a particular perm it holder. A discharger-specific W E R applies only to the applicable lim its in the discharger’s perm it. Discharger-specific W E Rs are distinguished for

W E Rs that are developed on a waterbody or watershed basis as part of a water quality standards action resulting in adoption of an SSO.

DYNAMIC MODELS used for calculating effluent lim itations predict the effects of receiving
water and effluent flow and of concentration variability. The outputs of dynam i c m odels can be
used to base effluent lim itations on probability estim ates of receiving water concentrations rather than critical conditions (which are used in the steady-state m odel). The three dynam i c m odeling techniques recom m e nded by the U.S. EPA for cal culating effluent lim itations are continuous
sim u lation, Monte Carlo sim u lation, and lognorm a l probability m odeling.

EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION ALLOW ANCE (ECA) is a value derived from the water quality criterion/objective, dilution credit, and am bient background concentration that is used, in conjunction with the coefficient of variation for the effluent m onitoring data, to calculate a longterm average (LTA) discharge concentration. The ECA has the sam e m eaning as waste load allocation (W LA) as used in U.S. EPA guidance (Technical Support Docum e nt For W a ter Quality-based Toxics Control, March 1991, second printing, EPA/505/2-90-001).

ENCLOSED BAYS m eans indentations along the coast that enclose an area of oceanic water within distinct headlands or harbor works. Enclosed bays include all bays where the narrowest
distance between the headlands or outerm o st harbor works is less than 75 percent of the greatest
dim e nsion of the enclosed portion of the bay. Enclosed bays include, but are not lim ited to,

Hum boldt Bay, Bodega Harbor, Tom a les Bay, Dr ake’s Estero, San Francisco Bay, Morro Bay, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, Upper and Lower Newport Bay, Mission Bay, and San Diego Bay. Enclosed bays do not include inland surface waters or ocean waters.

ESTIMATED CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION is the estim ated chem ical concentration that
results from the confirm e d detection of the substance by the analytical m e thod below the ML
value.

ESTUARIES m eans waters, including coastal lagoons, located at the m ouths of stream s that
serve as areas of m i xing for fresh and ocean waters. Coastal lagoons and m ouths of stream s that

are tem porarily separated from the ocean by sandbars shall be considered estuaries. Estuarine
waters shall be considered to extend from a bay or the open ocean to a point upstream where there is no significant m i x i n g o f f r e s h w a t e r a n d s e a w a t e r

. E s t u a r i n e w a t e r s i n c l u d e d , but are not

lim ited to, the Sacram ento-San Joaquin Delta, as defined in W a ter Code Section 12220,

APPENDIX 1 - 2Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait downstream to the Carquinez Bridge, and appropriate areas of the

Sm ith, Mad, Eel, Noyo, Russian, Klam ath, San Diego, and Otay rivers. Estuaries do not include
inland surface waters or ocean waters.

EXISTING DISCHARGER m eans any discharger that is not a new discharger. An existing discharger includes an “increasing discharger” (i.e., an existing f acility with treatm e nt system s in place for its current discharge that is or will be expanding, upgrading, or m odifying its existing

perm itted discharge af ter the ef f ective date of this Policy).

FOUR-DAY AVERAGE OF DAILY MAXIMUM FLOW S is the average of daily m a xim u m s taken from the data set in four-day intervals.

HARMONIC MEAN flows are expressed as Q hm = (n)/( Σ n i=1 1/x i ), where x i = specific data
values and n = num ber of data values.

INCOMPLETELY-MIXED DISCHARGE is a discharge that contributes to a condition that does

not m eet the m eaning of a com p letely-m ixed discharge condition.

INFEASIBLE m eans not capable of being accom p lished in a successful m a nner within a reasonable period of tim e, taking into account econom ic, environm ental, legal, social, and technological factors.

INLAND SURFACE W A TERS are all surface waters of the State that do not include the ocean, enclosed bays, or estuaries.

LOAD ALLOCATION (LA) is the portion of a receiving water' s total m a xim u m daily load that is allocated to one of its nonpoint sources of pollution or to natural background sources.

LONG-TERM ARITHMETIC MEAN FLOW is at least two years of flow data used in calculating an arithm e tic m ean as defined in this appendix.

MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW is the m a xim u m f

l ow sam p le of all sam p les collected in a calendar day.

MAXIMUM DAILY EFFLUENT LIMITATION (MDEL) m eans the highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant, over a calendar day (or 24-hour period). For pollutants with lim itations expressed in units of m a ss, the daily discharge is calculated as the total m a ss of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with lim itations expressed in other units of

m easurem ent, the daily discharge is calculated as the arithm e tic m ean m easurem ent of the pollutant over the day.

MEDIAN is the m i ddle m easurem ent in a set of data. The m e dian of a set of data is found by first arranging the m easurem ents in order of m a gnitude (either increasing or decreasing order). If

the num ber of m easurem ents ( n ) is odd, then the m e dian = X ( n +1)/2 . If n is even, then the m e dian = (X n/2 + X (n /2 )+1 )/2 (i.e., the m i dpoint between the n /2 and n /2+1).

APPENDIX 1 - 3METHOD DETECTION LIMIT (MDL) is the m i nim u m concentration of a substance that can
be m easured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero, as defined in 40 CFR 136, Appendix B, revised as of May 14, 1999.

MINIMUM LEVEL (ML) is the concentration at which the entire analytical system m u st give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point. The ML is the concentration in a sam p le that is equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed by a specific analytical procedure, assum i ng that all the m e thod specified sam p le weights, volum es, and processing steps have been followed.

MIXING ZONE is a lim ited volum e of receiving water that is allocated for m i xing with a wastewater discharge where water quality criteria can be exceeded without causing adverse effects to the overall water body.

MUTAGENIC pollutants are substances that are known to cause a m u tation (i.e., change in a gene or chrom o som e ) in living organism s.

MUTUAL W A TER COMPANY is defined in the Public Utilities Code, section 2725 as: “any private corporation or association organized for the purpose of delivering water to its
stockholders and m e m b ers at cost, including use of works for conserving, treating and reclaim i ng water”.

NEW DISCHARGER includes any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is, or m a y be, a discharge of pollutants, the c onstruction of which com m e nced after the effective date of this Policy.

OBJECTIONABLE BOTTOM DEPOSITS are an accum u lation of m a terials or substances on or
near the bottom of a water body, which creates conditions that adversely im pact aquatic life,
hum an health, beneficial uses, or aesthetics. These conditions include, but are not lim ited to, the

accum u lation of pollutants in the sedim e nts and other conditions that result in harm to benthic organism s, production of food chain organism s, or fish egg developm ent. The presence of such deposits shall be determ ined by RW QCB(s) on a case-by-case basis.

OCEAN W A TERS are the territorial m a rine waters of the State as defined by California law to the extent these waters are outside of enclosed bays, estuaries, and coastal lagoons. Discharges to ocean waters are regulated in accordance with the SW RCB’s California Ocean Plan.

PERSISTENT pollutants are substances for which degradation or decom position in the
environm ent is nonexistent or very slow.

POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION m eans waste m i nim i zation and pollution prevention actions that include, but are not lim ited to, product substitution, waste stream recycling, alternative

waste m a nagem e nt m e thods, and education of the public and businesses.

POLLUTION PREVENTION m eans any action that causes a net reduction in the use or generation of a hazardous substance or other pollutant that is discharged into water and includes,

APPENDIX 1 - 4but is not lim ited to, input change, operational im provem e nt, production process change, and product reform ulation (as defined in W a ter Code Section 13263.3). Pollution prevention does
not include actions that m e rely shift a pollutant in wastewater from one environm ental m e dium
to another environm ental m e dium , unless clear environm ental benefits of such an approach are
identified to the satisfaction of the SW RCB or RW QCB.

PROCESS OPTIMIZATION m eans m i nor changes to the existing f acility and treatm e nt plant operations that optim ize the effectiveness of the existing treatm e nt processes.

PUBLIC ENTITY includes the federal governm e nt or a state, county, city and county, city, district, public authority, or public agency.

SOURCE OF DRINKING W A TER is any water designated as m unicipal or dom estic supply (MUN) in a RW QCB basin plan.

STANDARD DEVIATION ( σ ) is a m easure of variability that is calculated as f o llows:

σ = ( ∑ [(x - μ ) 2 ]/(n – 1)) 0. 5

where:

x is the observed value;

μ is the arithm e tic m ean of the observed values; and

n is the num ber of sam p les.

TERATOGENIC pollutants are substances that are known to cause structural abnorm a lities or birth defects in living organism s.

TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION (TRE) is a study conducted in a step-wise process designed to identify the causative agents of effluent or am bient toxicity, isolate the sources of toxicity, evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity control options, and then confirm the reduction in toxicity. The first steps of the TRE consist of the collection of data relevant to the toxicity, including additional toxicity testing, and an evaluation of facility operations and m a intenance practices, and best m a nagem e nt practices. A Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) m a y be required as part of the TRE, if appropriate. (A TIE is a set of procedures to identify the specific
chem ical(s) responsible for toxicity. These procedures are perform e d in three phases (characterization, identification, and confirm a ti on) using aquatic organism toxicity tests.)

USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS is a structured scientif ic assessm ent of the f actors af f e cting
the attainm e nt of the use which m a y include physical, chem ical, biological and econom ic factors as described in 40 CFR 131.10(g) (40 CFR 131.3, revised as of July 1, 1997).

W A TER-EFFECT RATIO (W ER) is an appropriate m easure of the toxicity of a m a terial obtained in a site water divided by the sam e m easure of the toxicity of the sam e m a terial
obtained sim u ltaneously in a laboratory dilution water.

1Q10 is the lowest flow that occurs for one day with a statistical frequency of once every 10 years.

APPENDIX 1 - 57Q10 is the average low flow that occurs for seven consecutive days with a statistical frequency of once every 10 years.

90 th PERCENTILE OF OBSERVED DATA is the m easurem ent in the ordered set of data (lowest to highest) where 90 percent of the reported m easurem ents are less than or equal to that
value.

APPENDIX 1 - 6APPENDIX 2

Determination of Pollutants Re quiring Water Quality-Based

Effluent Limitations

Identify C (1)

Is Effluent Data Avail? (2)

Was Pollutant Detected In Effluent? (3)

All

DLs>C?

(3)

MEC= Sample Max (3) MEC= Min (DL) (3)

Is

MEC>=C? (4)

Is Ambient Background Data Avail? (5)

B=Maximu m Background Concentratio n (5)

Is B>C? (6)

With All

Non-Detects (6) With Any
Effluent Detects (6)

A n y
A dditional
Info?

(7)

Effluent Limit Is Required Effluent Limit Is NOT Required Additional Monitoring Required (8) Any Additional Info? (7) Yes

No

No

Adjust MEC

Yes Yes

No Yes

Yes No

Adjust B

BPJ No

or No

Insuff Info Yes

APPENDIX 2 - 1APPENDIX 3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conversion Factors

Metal Conversion Factor (CF)
for
Freshw ater Acute Criteria CF for
Freshw ater Chronic Criteria CF for
Saltw a ter Acute Criteria CF(a) for
Saltw a ter Chronic
Criteria

Antim o n y ( d ) ( d ) ( d ) ( d )
A r s e n i c 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 1

. 0 0 0 Beryllium ( d ) ( d ) ( d ) ( d )
Cadm ium ( b ) 0

. 9 4 4 0

. 9 0 9 0

. 9 9 4 0

. 9 9 4
Chrom i um (III) 0.316 0.860 (d) (d)
Chrom i um ( V I ) 0

. 9 8 2 0

. 9 6 2 0

. 9 9 3 0

. 9 9 3
C o p p e r 0

. 9 6 0 0

. 9 6 0 0

. 8 3 0

. 8 3

L e a d ( b ) 0

. 7 9 1 0

. 7 9 1 0

. 9 5 1 0

. 9 5 1

M e r c u r y 0

. 8 5 0

. 8 5 0

. 8 5 0

. 8 5
N i c k e l 0

. 9 9 8 0

. 9 9 7 0

. 9 9 0 0

. 9 9 0
Selenium ( c ) ( c ) 0

. 9 9 8 0

. 9 9 8
S i l v e r 0

. 8 5 ( d ) 0

. 8 5 ( d )
Thallium ( d ) ( d ) ( d ) ( d )

Z i n c 0

. 9 7 8 0

. 9 8 6 0

. 9 4 6 0

. 9 4 6

Footnotes:

(a) Conversion Factors for chronic m a rine criteria are not currently available. Conversion
Factors for acute m a rine criteria have been used for both acute and chronic m a rine
criteria. (b) Conversion Factors for these pollutants are hardness dependent. CFs are based on a
hardness of 100 m g /l as calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 ). Other hardness can be used; CFs should be recalculated using the following equations:
Cadm ium : Acute: CF = 1.136672 - [(ln {hardness})(0.041838)]
Cadm ium : Chronic: CF = 1.101672 - [(ln {hardness})(0.041838)] Lead: Acute and Chronic: CF = 1.46203 - [ln {hardness})(0.145712)] (c) Bioaccum u lative com pound and inappropriate to adjust to percent dissolved. (d) U.S. EPA has not published an aquatic life criterion value.

NOTE: The term “Conversion Factor” represents the recom m e nded conversion factor for converting a m e tal criterion expressed as the total recoverable fraction in the water colum n to a criterion expressed as the dissolved fraction in the water colum n. See “Office of W a ter Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Im plem entation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria,” October 1, 1993, by Martha G. Prothro, Acting Assi stant Adm i nistrator for W a ter, available
from the W a ter Resource Center, USEPA, 401 M St. SW ., m a il code RC 4100, W a shington, DC 20460; and 40 CFR §131.36(b)(1).

Source : CTR (65 Fed. Register 31682-31719 (May 18, 2000), adding Section 131.38 to 40 CFR).

APPENDIX 3 - 1APPENDIX 4

SWRCB Minimum Levels in ppb ( μ g/L)

The Minim u m Levels (MLs) in this appendix are for use in reporting and com p liance determ ination purposes in accordance with section 2.4 of this Policy

. These MLs were derived from data for priority pollutants provided by State certified analy tical laboratories in 1997 and 1998. These MLs shall be used until new values are adopted by the SWRCB and becom e effective. The following tables (Tables 2a - 2d) present MLs for four m a jor chem ical groupings: volatile substances, sem i-volatile substances, inorganics, and pesticides & PCBs.

Table 2a - VOLATILE SUBSTANCES* GC GCMS 1,1 Dichloroethane 0.5 1 1,1 Dichloroethene 0.5 2 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.5 2 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 0.5 2 1,1,2,2 Tetrachloroethane 0.5 1 1,2 Dichlorobenzene (volatile) 0.5 2 1,2 Dichloroethane 0.5 2 1,2 Dichloropropane 0.5 1 1,3 Dichlorobenzene (volatile) 0.5 2 1,3 Dichloropropene (volatile) 0.5 2 1,4 Dichlorobenzene (volatile) 0.5 2

A c r o l e i n 2

. 0 5

A c r y l o n i t r i l e 2

. 0 2

B e n z e n e 0

. 5 2

Brom oform 0

. 5 2

Brom om e t h a n e 1

. 0 2

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 2

C h l o r o b e n z e n e 0

. 5 2

Chlorodibrom o-m e t h a n e 0

. 5 2

C h l o r o e t h a n e 0

. 5 2

Chloroform 0

. 5 2

Chlorom e t h a n e 0

. 5 2

Dichlorobrom o-m e t h a n e 0

. 5 2

Dichlorom e t h a n e 0

. 5 2

E t h y l b e n z e n e 0

. 5 2

T e t r a c h l o r o e t h e n e 0

. 5 2

T o l u e n e 0

. 5 2 trans-1,2 Dichloroethylene 0.5 1

T r i c h l o r o e t h e n e 0

. 5 2 Vinyl Chloride 0.5 2

*The norm a l m e t hod-speci fi c fact or for t h ese subst a nces i s 1, t h erefore, t h e l o west st andard concent r at i on i n t h e calibration curve is equal to the a bove ML value for each substance.

APPENDIX 4 - 1Table 2b - SEMI-VOLATILE
SUBSTANCES* GC GCMS LC COLOR

1,2 Benzanthracene 10 5 1,2 Dichlorobenzene (sem ivolatile) 2 2 1,2 Diphenylhydrazine 1 1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene 1 5 1,3 Dichlorobenzene (sem ivolatile) 2 1 1,4 Dichlorobenzene (sem ivolatile) 2 1 2 Chlorophenol 2 5 2,4 Dichlorophenol 1 5 2,4 Dim e thylphenol 1 2 2,4 Dinitrophenol 5 5 2,4 Dinitrotoluene 10 5 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol 10 10 2,6 Dinitrotoluene 5 2- Nitrophenol 10 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 1 1

2

- C h l o r o n a p h t h a l e n e 1 0 3,3’ Dichlorobenzidine 5 3,4 Benzofluoranthene 10 10

4 Chloro-3-m ethylphenol 5 1 4,6 Dinitro-2-m e thylphenol 10 5 4- Nitrophenol 5 10

4-Brom ophenyl phenyl ether 10 5 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 5

A c e n a p h t h e n e 1 1 0

. 5

A c e n a p h t h y l e n e 1 0 0

. 2

A n t h r a c e n e 1 0 2

B e n z i d i n e 5 Benzo(a) pyrene(3,4 Benzopyrene) 10 2

B e n z o ( g , h

, i ) p e r y l e n e 5 0

. 1

B e n z o ( k ) f l u o r a n t h e n e 1 0 2 bis 2-(1-Chloroethoxyl) m e thane 5 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 10 1 bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether 10 2 bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 10 5 Butyl benzyl phthalate 10 10

C h r y s e n e 1 0 5 di-n-Butyl phthalate 10 di-n-Octyl phthalate 10

D i b e n z o ( a , h )

- a n t h r a c e n e 1 0 0

. 1 Diethyl phthalate 10 2

APPENDIX 4 - 2Table 2b - SEMI-VOLATILE GC GCMS LC COLOR
SUBSTANCES*

Dim e thyl phthalate 10 2

F l u o r a n t h e n e 1 0 1 0

. 0 5

F l u o r e n e 1 0 0

. 1

H e x a c h l o r o

- c y c l o p e n t a d i e n e 5 5

H e x a c h l o r o b e n z e n e 5 1

H e x a c h l o r o b u t a d i e n e 5 1

H e x a c h l o r o e t h a n e 5 1

I n d e n o ( 1

, 2

, 3

, c d )

- p y r e n e 1 0 0

. 0 5

I s o p h o r o n e 1 0 1 N-Nitroso diphenyl am ine 10 1

N-Nitroso-dim e thyl am ine 10 5 N-Nitroso -di n-propyl am ine 10 5

N a p h t h a l e n e 1 0 1 0

. 2

N i t r o b e n z e n e 1 0 1

P e n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l 1 5

P h e n a n t h r e n e 5 0

. 0 5

Phenol ** 1 1 50

P y r e n e 1 0 0

. 0 5

* W ith the exception of phenol by colorim e tric technique, the norm a l m e thod-specific factor for these substances is 1000, therefore, the lowest standard concentration in the calibration curve is equal to the above ML value for each substance m u ltiplied by 1000.

** Phenol by colorim e tric technique has a factor of 1.

APPENDIX 4 - 3Table 2c –
INORGANICS* FAA GFAA ICP ICPMS SPGFAA HYDRIDE CVAA COLOR DCP

Antim o n y 1 0 5 50 0.5 5 0

. 5 1000

A r s e n i c 2 10 2 2 1 2 0 1000 Beryllium 2 0 0

. 5 2 0.5 1 1000

Cadm ium 1 0 0

. 5 10 0.25 0.5 1000

Chrom i um (total) 50 2 10 0.5 1 1000

Chrom i um V I 5 1 0

C o p p e r 2 5 5 10 0.5 2 1000

C y a n i d e 5

L e a d 2 0 5 5 0.5 2 10,000

M e r c u r y 0.5 0

. 2

N i c k e l 5 0 5 20 1 5 1000

Selenium 5 10 2 5 1 1000

S i l v e r 1 0 1 10 0.25 2 1000

Thallium 1 0 2 10 1 5 1000

Z i n c 2 0 20 1 1 0 1000

* The norm a l m e thod-specific factor for these substances is 1, therefore, the lowest standard concentration in the calibration curve is equal to the above ML value for each substance.

APPENDIX 4 - 4Table 2d - PESTICIDES – PCBs* GC

4

, 4 ’

- D D D 0

. 0 5

4

, 4 ’

- D D E 0

. 0 5

4

, 4 ’

- D D T 0

. 0 1

a

- E n d o s u l f a n 0

. 0 2

a

- H e x a c h l o r o

- c y c l o h e x a n e 0

. 0 1

A l d r i n 0

. 0 0 5

b

- E n d o s u l f a n 0

. 0 1

b

- H e x a c h l o r o

- c y c l o h e x a n e 0

. 0 0 5

C h l o r d a n e 0

. 1

d

- H e x a c h l o r o

- c y c l o h e x a n e 0

. 0 0 5

D i e l d r i n 0

. 0 1

Endosulfan Sulfate 0.05

E n d r i n 0

. 0 1 Endrin Aldehyde 0.01

H e p t a c h l o r 0

. 0 1 Heptachlor Epoxide 0.01

L i n d a n e ( g

- H e x a c h l o r o

- c y c l o h e x a n e ) 0

. 0 2

PCB 1016 0.5

PCB 1221 0.5

PCB 1232 0.5

PCB 1242 0.5

PCB 1248 0.5

PCB 1254 0.5

PCB 1260 0.5

T o x a p h e n e 0

. 5

* The norm a l m e t hod-speci fi c fact or for t h ese subst a nces i s 100, t h erefore, t h e l o west st andard concent r at i on i n the calibration curve is equal to the above ML value for each substance m u ltiplied by 100.

Techniques:

GC - Gas C h rom a t ography

GC M S - Gas C h rom a t ography / M ass Spect rom e t r y HR GC M S - Hi gh R e sol u t i on Gas C h rom a t ography / M ass Spect rom e t r y (i .e., EPA 1613, 1624, or 1625)

LC - Hi gh Pressure Li qui d C h rom a t ography

FAA - Flam e Atom ic Absorption GFAA - Graphite Furnace Atom ic Absorption HYDRIDE - Gaseous Hy dride Atom ic Absorption CVAA - Cold Vapor Atom ic Absorption

IC P - Induct i v el y C oupl ed Pl asm a IC PM S - Induct i v el y C oupl ed Pl asm a / M ass Spect rom e t r y SPGFAA - Stabilized Platform Graphite Fu rnace Atom ic Absorption (i.e., EPA 200.9)

DCP - Direct Current Plasm a COLOR - Co lo rim e tric

APPENDIX 4 - 5APPENDIX 5

Special Studies

Pre-Evaluation for Special Studies

Decision Tree w i th Attached Narrative Discussion

A special study is som e tim es conducted as part of a regulatory process (standard setting and

perm it writing) and m a y be conducted as part of a collaborative watershed planning effort. Special studies can provide site-specific data th at can assist in decision-m a king regarding water quality and benef i cial use issues.

Many water quality problem s m a y be best addressed on a watershed or water body basis. The

SW RCB believes that stakeholders should be able to develop flexible and innovative solutions for water quality problem s in their watershed. For special studies conducted as part of a
watershed m a nagem e nt plan, the watershed m a na gem e nt group should be involved in the design of the study, and study inform ation should be provided back to the com m ittee. W a tershed or water body studies m a y gather data regarding topics such as:

• TMDLs, W L As, and LAs (see Appendix 6);

• Regional am bient m onitoring (regional am bient m onitoring is the collection of scientific

inf o rm ation regarding water quality and im pacts to benef i cial uses f o r a specif i ed portion of

, or an entire, watershed or water body); and

• Contam inant fate and transport m onitoring (contam inant fate and transport m onitoring is the gathering of scientific inform ation regarding how a specific pollutant[s] m oves through the
environm ent and how the pollutant[s] degrades or is otherwise transform e d in the
environm ent).

These types of studies are useful to collect integrated, com p rehensive, and system atic data regarding:

• Baseline concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water and sedim e nt;

• Seasonal, annual, and long-term trends in water quality;

• Causes and ef f ects of water quality problem s;

• Ef f ectiveness of a water quality control ef f o rt;

APPENDIX 5 - 1• Greater certainty regarding existing m onitoring data; etc.

Any of the studies discussed below m a y be undertaken as part of a watershed approach to addressing regional water quality issues. Inf o rm ation collected as part of a watershed or water body study can be used as a way to define param e ters (e.g., am bient background concentrations,

m i xing zones, etc.) related to the developm ent of ef f l uent lim itations as part of the perm itting process or to evaluate whether changes in water quality standards are appropriate. A watershed or water body approach is also useful to dischargers because inform ation collected as a part of
one effluent lim itation or standard-setting study can be shared with other stakeholders in the

sam e water body.

Studies for Setting Effluent Lim itations

Studies regarding establishing effluent lim itations can be done as part of the perm itting process.
Such studies m a y be sim p ler and there m a y be fewer interested stakeholders than studies involving m o re than one discharger, or an entire water body or watershed. However, when such studies are undertaken individually, the discharg er, the RW QCB, and other stakeholders do not gain the benefit of data collected from others in the watershed.

Special studies m a y address topics such as the following:

• Determ ining pollutants requiring effluent lim itations (see section 1.3);

• Metals translators (see section 1.4.1); or

• Mixing zones (see section 1.4.2).

Studies For Changes to W a ter Quality Standards

Establishing or m odif y ing water quality standards (i.e., benef i cial uses and water quality criteria/objectives) m a y involve com p lex and resource intensive studies. A detailed workplan
will norm a lly be needed because early planning and coordination with the RW QCB and U.S. EPA is critical to the developm ent of a successful study. In addition, a workplan will

norm a lly be appropriate because there will be m o re stakeholder interest and involvem e nt of other public agencies (e.g., Departm e nt of Fish and Gam e , U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, etc.).
Involvem e nt in a watershed m a nagem e nt pla nning effort would facilitate the sharing of
inform ation am ong stakeholders in the watershed, both in gathering inform ation for the study and in sharing the results. Studies related to changes in water quality standards m a y address topics such as the following:

• Site-specific objective studies (see section 5.2); and

APPENDIX 5 - 2• Use attainability analysis (UAA) (see section 5.2).

Pre-Evaluation

As a first step in determ ining whether and how to conduct a special study, the RW QCB or other
stakeholders m a y want to evaluate whether it would be appropriate to address a water quality issue through a watershed m a nagem e nt approach. To do that, the factors in the following
flowchart m a y be considered:

1. Is there a watershed m a nagem e nt group? a

↓ Yes

2. Has a watershed m a nagem e nt approach been developed? b →→→→→ No GO TO start of Decision Tree d if
water issue involves toxics.

↓ Yes

3. Are toxic pollutants part of the reason
beneficial uses are im paired or water quality objectives are exceeded? c →→→→→ No Issue is outside scope of this Policy.

↓ Yes

GO TO #9 in Decision Tree d , or other point in Decision Tree as determ ined by
stakeholders.

a Is t h ere a com m i t t ee of l o cal i n t e rest s i n bot h t h e publ i c and pri v at e sect ors t h at are act i v el y i nvol ved i n t h e

m a nagem e nt of t h e wat e rshed area?

b Has a wat e rshed m a nagem e nt approach t h at i d ent i f i e s key i ssues, boundari es, object i v es, and earl y act i ons been devel oped?

c A st udy m a y be necessary t o det e rm i n e whet her t oxi cs ar e part of t h e cause of t h e i m pai r m e nt of benefi ci al

u s es. Th is Po licy ap p lies o n l y to th e CTR an d NTR criteria; and applicable chem i cal-specific basin plan

o b

j ectiv es fo r p r io rity to x i c p o llu tan t s.
d The deci si on t r ee i s on page DR AFT APPENDIX 5 - 6.

APPENDIX 5 - 3The decision tree and associated narrative disc ussion in Appendix 5 are provided to assist

RW QCBs and stakeholders in identif ying whether there is a current or potential water quality issue requiring attention [ C om pliance Status]

, the nature of the identif ied water quality issue [Screening-level Evaluation], and possible acti on to address the issue [Potential Options].

Based on this inform ation, the RW QCB and stakeholders can determ ine whether a special study is needed and the scope of the study. This approach can help avoid initiation of costly and tim econsum ing studies which are not appropriately designed to resolve the specific issue in question.
The decision tree is not m eant to preclude the exploration of any other creative solutions; it is

m eant to encourage constructive dialogue am ong stakeholders.

Two specific considerations should be kept in m i nd when conducting the pre-evaluation suggested by this decision tree. First, users m u st be fam iliar with the quality of the data under review and the potential need to augm ent data which are not of adequate quality. Second, users should know what the existing beneficial uses are (i.e., uses attained since 1975).

Special Studies Process

A. W o rkplan

If appropriate, the RW QCB m a y participate in developing a detailed workplan with interested persons (which can include, but are not lim ited to, U.S. EPA, the RW QCB, the SW RCB, and affected dischargers) prior to proceeding with a special study. The workplan m a y include the

f o llowing elem ents:

(1) Form ation of a project team for the workpl an, which m a y include the Departm e nt of Fish
and Gam e , the U.S. Fish and W ildlife Service, and other stakeholders;

(2) Purpose of the workplan;

(3) Responsibilities of the persons associated with the workplan;

(4) Budget and cost-sharing plan. This plan m u st be determ ined on a case-by-case basis; however, the SW RCB encourages sharing of costs (based on availability of funding),
where there are m u ltiple persons who wish to support the goals of the study;

(5) Developm ent of the f o llowing elem ents:

(a) Identification of tasks(s), (b) Purpose of tasks(s), (c) Method by which task(s) will be im plem ented, (d) Products of the tasks(s), (e) Schedule for the task(s), (f) Responsibility for im plem enting the task(s), and (g) Budget and funding for the task(s);

APPENDIX 5 - 4(6) Adm i nistrative policies and procedures to govern oversight of the special studies process (e.g., am ending the workplan, conflict resolution, etc.); and

(7) Project schedule.

B. Scientific Review Panel

If, during the data interpretation phase of a special study, the RW QCB, SW RCB, U.S. EPA, or other stakeholders have differing opinions with re gard to the interpretation of data, the RW QCB
and stakeholders m a y want to seek the advice of an independent scientific review panel. The

m e thod of selecting the panel, cost reim bursem e nt, and other details regarding the conflict resolution process could be included in the workplan.

C. Com p liance Schedule

A perm it com p liance schedule (as described in section 2.1) m a y allow sufficient tim e for collection of data, com p letion of a study, and determ ination of com p liance m easures. W h ile special studies are being conducted, interim requirem e nts m a y be established by the RW QCB (as described in section 2.2). However, in no event m a y a com p liance schedule exceed the tim e period allowed in this Policy, unless an exception has been granted.

D. Environm ental and Econom ic Im pacts

To ensure that environm ental and econom ic im pacts are adequately addressed, the RW QCB staff shall, as part of the special study workplan:

(1) Com p ly with CEQA, if applicable; and

(2) Direct the preparation of an analysis docum enting econom ic im pacts if site-specific objectives or a change in designated beneficial uses is being considered under 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6), revised as of July 1, 1997.

E. Antidegradation and Other Legal Requirem e nts

RW QCB staff shall, as part of the special study workplan, ensure com p liance with SW RCB Resolution No. 68-16 (Statem e nt of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of W a ters in California) and any other applicable legal requirem e nts.

APPENDIX 5 - 5Yes4. Are criteria /objectivesexceeded?5. Is there any otherevidence of relevant waterqualityimpactsYes1a.Does/willthedischarge(s)exceedexistingorpotentialpermit limits?1b. If no permit,does/will thedischarge(s) causeexceedancesofcriteria/objectives?No1c. If no permit and no specificdischarge under review, are/will thecriteria/objectivesbe exceededYes2a. Are there waterpollution controlmeasureswhichmight improve thedischargequality?Yes2b. Are there BMPswhich might improvethe discharge quality?Goto#34. Are criteria /objectivesexceeded?No5. Isthere any other evidence ofrelevant waterqualityimpacts?No6. Are there permit relief options which will result in permitcompliance while maintaining receiving water quality?8. Are beneficial uses andrelevant criteria/objectives allappropriate for the waterbody?10. Are beneficial uses appropriate,but not criteria/objectives?NoNo12. Are beneficial usesinappropriate?NoGoto#3Yes3. Consider implementation ofwater pollution control measuresand/or BMPs. Continue to #4 ofappropriateYes9.ConductaTotalMaximumDailyLoad(TMDL)analysis&Implement the results.Yes11. Conduct a Site SpecificObjectives(SSO) analysis&Implementation.Yes13. Conduct a Use AttainabilityAnalysis (USAA) & implement resultsIf necessary or adopt new use.YesYesYesNoYesNo7. Implement permit relief options.Continue to #8 if full compliance willNot be achieved bythis meansGo toSTARTtodeterminecompliancestatusGoto#8IN COMPLIANCEGoto#8Potential OptionsPre-EvaluationforSpecialStudiesDecision Tree with Attached Narrative DiscussionScreening-level EvaluationNoNoCompliance StatusNoNo

APPENDIX 5 - 6STARTwith1a., 1b.,or 1c.Narrative Discussion of Decision Tree:

la. Does/will a discharge exceed existing or potential perm it lim its for toxic pollutants? This question applies to discharges regulated by a National Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System (NPDES) perm it or W a ste Discharge Requirem e nts (W DRs). If the discharge(s) in question is not regulated by a discharge perm it, proceed to #1b. It is assum e d that data used to answer this question are reliable.

1b. If no perm it, does the discharge(s) cause exceedances of criteria/objectives? This question prim arily applies to nonpoint discharges, though it could conceivably apply to point source discharges which are not currently perm itted. It is assum e d that data used to answer this question are reliable.

1c. If no perm it and no specific discharge(s) are under review, are criteria/objectives
exceeded? It is assum e d that data used to answer this question are reliable.

2a. Are there water pollution control m easures which m i ght im prove the water quality? A water pollution control program m a y include, as appropriate: pollution control technologies; pretreatm e nt requirem e nts; and pollution prevention, waste m i nim i zation,
and source control m easures. This question is m eant to elicit consideration of effluent quality control m easures which could be im plem ented as a f u ll or partial solution to the identified perm it noncom pliance issue. It is not intended as a barrier to the exploration of other potential form s of regulatory adjustm e nt.

2b. Are there Best Managem e nt Practices (BMPs) which m i ght im prove water quality? BMPs are pollution m a nagem e nt m easures designed to reduce the water quality im pacts, where they exist, associated prim arily with non-point source discharges. As with #2a above, this question is m eant to elicit consideration of discharge control m easures which could be

im plem ented as a full or partial solution to the identified noncom pliance issue. It is not intended as a barrier to the exploration of other potential form s of regulatory adjustm e nt.

3. Consider whether im plem entation of water pollution control m easures and/or BMPs will
lead to com p liance. Sim u ltaneously, continue to #4 if deem ed appropriate, considering such questions as whether or not f u ll com p liance will be achieved by these m e ans, or whether it would be cost effective. As stated, the sim p le determ ination that

im plem entation of pollution control m easures and/or BMPs m i ght im prove the discharge or water quality should not preclude the explorati on of other potential regulatory adjustm e nt options, as well. For clarity, the reviewer should proceed not to box four prim e, but to box
four.

4. Are criteria/objectives exceeded? It is assum e d that data used to answer this question are reliable and appropriate hardness adjustm e nts have been m a de.

APPENDIX 5 - 75. Is there any other evidence of relevant water quality im pacts? This question is m eant to capture those situations, where the criteria/objective for the pollutant of concern do not exist or appear to be under protective. "Other evidence" m i ght include: bioconcentration or biocriteria data, population studies, food web anal yses, etc. Im pacts to wildlife should be
considered as should im pacts to threatened and endangered species. The potential for

im pacts to be of a seasonal nature should also be considered in this pre-evaluation. "Relevant water quality im pacts" are those im pacts which have a dem onstrable relationship to the pollutant(s) of concern.

6. Are there perm it relief options which will result in perm it com p liance while m a intaining receiving water quality? Perm it relief options m i ght include, where appropriate: developm ent of a m i xing zone, m odification of the averaging periods, adoption of a variance, etc. For unperm itted discharges or pre-evaluations involving no specific discharges, the user should continue to box #8.

7. Im plem ent perm it relief options. Continue to #8 if f

u ll com p liance will not be achieved by
these m eans. The developm ent of perm it relief options would occur through a request to
the RW QCB.

8. Are beneficial uses and criteria/objectives bot h appropriate for the water body? To answer this question, a screening-level evaluation m a y be necessary, including an evaluation of the associated regulatory history; the site-sp ecific conditions; and the status of current, applicable scientific understanding. It is assum e d that data used to answer this question are
reliable.

This question is best answered when a watershed stakeholder group has form ed and collectively either: 1) evaluated the condition of the watershed through a watershed

m a nagem e nt plan, 2) evaluated the condition of the watershed through less form al m eans, or 3) convened discussions regarding the condition of the watershed. If one does not currently exist, a watershed stakeholder group should be form ed if it appears to be a useful
forum for discussion and review. The follo wing m o re specific questions m a y apply:

• Is the water effluent dom inated, agricultural drainage water dom inated, etc.? These
water bodies m a y be likely candidates for the appropriate application of regulatory adjustm e nts (e.g., SSO or UAA).

• W e re the current beneficial uses applied on a national, state-wide, or region-wide basis or have they been specifically designated for the water body in question? W h ile not the only candidates, water bodies for which beneficial uses have been applied on a national, state-wide, or region-wide basis m a y be ca ndidates for the appropriate application of regulatory adjustm e nts (e.g., SSO).

• Are there rare, threatened, or endangered species, or ecological conditions which the currently applied benef i cial uses do not adequately describe or the water quality objectives do not fully protect?

APPENDIX 5 - 8• Has the beneficial use and the water quality necessary to m a intain the beneficial use been
attained since 1975?

• How do anti-degradation requirem e nts apply?

• Are elevated constituents the result of 1) natural phenom ena or 2) anthropogenic activities that ceased prior to 1975?

• Do the currently designated beneficial uses protect all existing and appropriate potential

uses?

• Are natural, ephem e ral, interm ittent, or low flow conditions or water levels preventing
the attainm e nt of the designated non-existing uses?

• Are there hum an-caused conditions or sources of pollution which prevent attainm e nt of
the uses but either cannot be rem e died or would cause greater environm ental dam a ge if
corrected?

• Does the presence of dam s , diversions, or other types of hydrologic m odifications preclude the attainm e nt of designated non-existing beneficial uses?

• Do the physical conditions of the water body preclude attainm e nt of aquatic life protection uses (i.e., lack of proper substrat e, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like)?

• Does attainm e nt of designated beneficial uses require the application of controls which would result in substantial and widespread econom ic and social im pact?

• Have the appropriate water characteristics (e.g., hardness, pH) been accounted for in the
CTR criteria?

• Has an appropriate set of species been evaluated in setting the CTR criteria and toxicity objective?

9. Conduct a total m a xim u m daily load analysis and im plem ent the results. Conducting a TMDL could result in, am ong other things, waste load allocations, BMP im plem entation for non-point dischargers, and/or effluent trading options for point and non-point source dischargers. (See Appendix 6 regarding TMDLs.)

10. Are beneficial uses appropriate but not cr iteria/objectives for toxic pollutants? See #8
above.

11. Conduct a site-specific objectives analysis. An SSO study will include one or m o re of the

f o llowing activities:

APPENDIX 5 - 9• Recalculation of objective;

• W a ter effects ratio or other sim ilar m e thod; or

• Any scientifically defensible process

.

U.S. EPA' s "Guidelines f o r Deriving Num e rical Aquatic Site Specif i c W a ter Quality Criteria by Modifying National Criteria, " dated 1984 (EPA-600/3-84-099) provides guidance for conducting an SSO study.

U.S. EPA' s "W ater Quality Standards Handbook" dated 1994 also provides general guidance in this area.

12. Are beneficial uses inappropriate? See #8 above.

13. Conduct a use attainability analysis (UAA) and im plem ent the results. W h en a use is proposed for dedesignation, i.e., rem oved or replaced with a subcategory requiring less stringent standards, a UAA is necessary. In a case where a use is proposed to be added, a UAA is not necessary. A new use designation can be added for a water body following the

norm a l public review process. A UAA will determ ine if physical, chem ical, and/or biological factors affect the attainability of a designated use via a water body survey and

assessm ent. An analysis of econom ic factors can also be included to determ ine whether substantial and widespread econom ic and social im pacts would be caused by stringent pollution control requirem e nts.

U.S. EPA' s "Technical Support Manual: W a ter body Survey and Assessm ent for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses" dated 1983 provides guidance for conducting a UAA as does Region 9' s Interim Final "Guidance for Modifying W a ter Quality Standards and Protecting Effluent-Dependent Ecosyste m s " dated 1992. U.S. EPA' s "W ater Quality Standards Handbook" dated 1994 also provides general guidance in this area.

APPENDIX 5 - 10APPENDIX 6

Watershed Management and TMDLs

W a tershed Managem e nt

The SW RCB will utilize and prom ote, to the extent feasible, a watershed approach to address water quality issues involving toxic pollutants. Com p ared to the m o re traditional, program m a tic approach to water m a nagem e nt, the watershed approach can look at all types of pollution and all sources of pollution. One consequence of the m o re global perspective is that attention can be
trained on the m o st effective strategies for m a nagem e nt (rather than the m o st program m a tically expedient). Another consequence is that a m u ch larger universe of interested persons becom e s im portant to the m a nagem e nt of water quality, and the ability to work with these people creates
added value for water m a nagem e nt. In utilizing the watershed approach, the SW RCB will work

to m a rshall the expertise and resources of other agencies and the private sector to collaboratively

m a nage water quality.

In a collaborative, stewardship effort, local interests are engaged with State and federal interests,
and land m a nagers, to work with water m a nagers to solve com p lex resource m a nagem e nt problem s. A watershed perspective can also enhance interagency coordination by focusing

program s on resource needs throughout the watershed.

W a tershed m a nagem e nt is an integrated holistic approach for restoring and protecting aquatic
ecosystem s and protecting hum an health in a geographic area. W a tershed m a nagem e nt m a y include diverse issues as defined by the watershed' s stakeholders (persons with som e interest in the watershed) to ensure com p rehensive solutions. It reflects a growing consensus that m a ny of the existing water quality problem s can be best addressed by a m o re integrated, basin-wide approach. The purpose of watershed m a nagem e nt is variously viewed as (1) a m e thod for increasing participation at the local level in water quality protection, (2) an approach to reducing
the im pact of nonpoint sources, (3) a strategy for integrating m a nagem e nt of all com ponents of aquatic ecosystem s, and (4) a process for optim izing the cost effectiveness of a blend of point and nonpoint source control efforts.

W h ichever purpose or blend of purposes predom inates, watershed m a nagem e nt is not a new centralized program that com p etes with or replaces existing program s. The significant advantage of the watershed m a nagem e nt approach is that it encourages a collaborative, stewardship-driven process where diverse inte rests (individuals, landowners, farm ers, POTW s, industries, environm entalists, and agencies) can work in conjunction with SW RCB and RW QCB staff to develop a consensus on, and share responsibility for, addressing water quality problem s. The watershed approach assum e s all stakeholders are brought to the table; therefore, there should be one watershed group that can develop a plan for the watershed that addresses the interests of
stakeholders in the watershed. Furtherm ore, watershed m a nagem e nt provides a m echanism for considering social and econom ic interests, in the context of resolving water quality issues. The

SW RCB and RW QCBs will work to preserve the integrity of the watershed process and facilitate an open and tim ely resolution of issues.

APPENDIX 6 - 1In som e cases, there is no active watershed m a nagem e nt group that has evolved far enough to have identified key issues, boundaries, objectives, and early actions. In these instances, a group of governm e nt agencies m a y work together to define the conditions in a water body and to identify the specific param e ters contributing to beneficial use im pairm e nts. In any event, the

RW QCBs m a y have to act m o re or less independently to m eet legal requirem e nts using prim arily in-house staff. Participation from other interested persons, under these circum stances, is

accom p lished through the SW RCB and RW QCB public hearing processes.

W a tershed m a nagem e nt planning and im plem entation actions will occur prim arily at the

RW QCB and local level. However, the SW RCB will provide training in stewardship and
watershed m a nagem e nt, and support educationa l efforts involving K through 12 program s as well as land owners/m anagers.

TMDLs and W a tershed Managem e nt

TMDLs are required for all waters listed pursuant to CW A Section 303(d)(1)(A). The SW RCB
is com m itted to expeditiously addressing these water quality problem s.

A TMDL establishes the am ount of a pollutant that m a y be discharged into a water body and still

m a intain water quality standards with seasonal variations and a m a rgin of saf e ty that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent lim itations and water quality. The TMDL process is defined in federal regulations (40 CFR 130.7, revised as of July 1, 1996) and generally consists of five steps:

(1) Identification by each state of water quality-lim ited waters that do not now, or are not expected to, attain state water quality standards after im plem entation of technology-based
effluent lim itations, m o re stringent effluent lim itations required by federal, State, or local authority, and other pollution control requirem e nts (e.g., best m a nagem e nt practices) required by local, State, or federal authority, and identification of im pairm e nt;

(2) Establishm ent of priority rankings for the developm ent of TMDLs;

(3) Developm ent of waste load allocations (W LAs), load allocations (LAs), and TMDLs;

(4) Incorporation of the loadings in the RW QCB basin plans; and

(5) Subm ittal of segm ents identified, priority ranking, and loads established to U.S. EPA for approval.

Developm ent of TMDLs can utilize the watershed approach to assess and identify water qualitylim ited segm ents and pollutants causing im pairm e nt, identify sources, and allocate pollutant loads. The watershed approach m a y address a broader range of issues than the TMDLs, but the approach can: (1) result in achieving or m a intaining water quality standards so that waters are not added to the 303(d) list; (2) result in attainm e nt of water quality standards, through m e ans other than the TMDL process, so that waters can be rem oved from the 303(d) list; or (3) be used to develop TMDLs. A watershed group can develop a TMDL if the TMDL com p lies with applicable federal requirem e nts.

APPENDIX 6 - 2SISKIYOU

MODOC DEL NORTE

HUMBOLDT TRINITY SHASTA LASSEN

PLUMAS TEHAMA

SIERRA

NEVADA

PLACER

EL DORADO

AMADOR CALAVERAS ALPINE BUTTE GLENN MENDOCINO

LAKE

NAPA

COLUSA YUBA

SUTTER
SACRAMENTO YOLO SONOMA

ALAMEDA MARIN

SAN JOAQUIN TUOLUMNE

MARIPOSA MONO STANISLAUS SAN MATEO SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA

CLARA SANTA CRUZ MERCED

FRESNO INYO

TULARE

KINGS MONTEREY

SAN LUIS

OBISPO

SANTA BARBARA KERN

VENTURA

LOS

ANGELES SAN BERNARDINO

ORANGE SAN BENITO

RIVERSIDE

IMPERIAL

SAN DIEGO MADERA SOLANO

CONTRA COSTA

State of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

California Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Alan Lloyd, Secretary

State Water Resources Control Board Arthur G. Baggett, Jr., Chair
Celeste Cantú, Executive Director Office of Public Affairs: (916) 341-5254 Office of Legislative Affairs: (916) 341-5251 Financial Assistance information: (916) 341-5700 Water Quality information: (916) 341-5455 Water Rights information: (916) 341-5300

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS

1/12/05 P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 • www.waterboards.ca.gov info@waterboards.ca.gov

NORTH COAST REGION (1) www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast 5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A Santa Rosa, CA 95403 info1@waterboards.ca.gov
(707) 576-2220 TEL • (707) 523-0135 FAX

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION (2) www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612 info2@waterboards.ca.gov

(510) 622-2300 TEL • (510) 622-2460 FAX CENTRAL COAST REGION (3) www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 info3@waterboards.ca.gov

(805) 549-3147 TEL • (805) 543-0397 FAX

LOS ANGELES REGION (4) www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles 320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90013 info4@waterboards.ca.gov

(213) 576-6600 TEL • (213) 576-6640 FAX

CENTRAL VALLEY REGION (5) www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 info5@waterboards.ca.gov

(916) 464-3291 TEL • (916) 464-4645 FAX

Fresno branch office 1685 E Street, Suite 200 Fresno, CA 93706

(559) 445-5116 TEL • (559) 445-5910 FAX

Redding branch office

415 Knollcrest Drive Redding, CA 96002

(530) 224-4845 TEL • (530) 224-4857 FAX LAHONTAN REGION (6) www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan

2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 info6@waterboards.ca.gov

(530) 542-5400 TEL • (530) 544-2271 FAX

Victorville branch office 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 100 Victorville, CA 92392

(760) 241-6583 TEL • (760) 241-7308 FAX

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION (7) www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver 73-720 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 100 Palm Desert, CA 92260 info7@waterboards.ca.gov
(760) 346-7491 TEL • (760) 341-6820 FAX

SANTA ANA REGION (8) www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana

California Tower 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501-3339 info8@waterboards.ca.gov

(951) 782-4130 TEL • (951) 781-6288 FAX

SAN DIEGO REGION (9 ) www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego 9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92123 info9@waterboards.ca.gov

(858) 467-2952 TEL • (858) 571-6972 FAX

Printed on Recycled Paper