DWQ-2024-005519

Template updated 2/26/2024

Official Draft Public Notice Version Month Day, year
The findings, determinations, and assertions contained in this document are not final and subject to
change following the public comment period.

FACT SHEET AND STATEMENT OF BASIS
SPRINGVILLE CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE, BIOSOLIDS
UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0020834
UPDES BIOSOLIDS PERMIT NUMBER: UTL-020834
MAJOR MUNICIPAL

FACILITY CONTACTS

Operator Name: Springville City
Contact: Brad Stapley
Position: Public Works Director

Person Name: Thad Monson
Position: Wastewater Plant Manager

Person Name: Morgan Heiner
Position: Sewer Pretreatment
Inspector

Permittee Name: Springville City
Facility Name: Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mailing Address: 110 South Main Street
Springville, Utah 84663
Telephone: [phone]
Facility Address: 500 West 700 North
Springville, Utah 84663

DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY

The City of Springville operates a Wastewater Treatment Facility (Springville WWTP) to treat sanitary
sewer flows from the community before discharging them to Utah Lake. The population of Springville is
about 33,000 people. Over the past 15 to 20 years Springville has been changing from a small-town
community to a suburban bedroom community to the Provo/Orem area about 55 miles south of the Salt
Lake City area.

Nestlé USA-Food Division, Inc., contributes a significant portion of the wastewater flow to the plant and
is located just inside the city limits on the north side of Springville. About 30% of the total flow is from
Nestlé, however, Nestlé contributes about 50% of the total organic loading to the plant. Due to the high
percentage of loading coming from Nestlé, the wastewater surcharge required of Nestlé has contributed
financially to the construction of some of the treatment units operating at the plant.

Historically, after the Nestlé facility (the building is labeled with Stouffers, Stouffer is the food
corporation of Nestlé) was built (1985), the Springville wastewater treatment plant experienced severe
Commented [JN1]: Is this true. I think Nestle is only about 15%
of our flow now
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 2

problems with a grease load. Early on, the city constructed 2 dissolved air floatation (DAF) units to
pretreat and remove the grease from the trunk line coming from Nestlé. About 15 years ago the city
leased the pretreatment facilities to Nestlé, and currently Nestlé operates and maintains the facilities
(located within the boundaries of the wastewater treatment plant property).

Wastewater comes to the treatment plant from 2 trunk lines, one from Nestlé and the other is the City’s
main sewer trunk line. The Nestlé trunk line is treated with the two dissolved air floatation (DAF) units
(350 gpm; with overflow rate 1 MGD), after which it goes directly to a roughing tower and then to a
primary clarifier, bypassing the headwork’s. Effluent from the roughing tower mixes with effluent from
the primary clarifiers in the pump station to continue to be treated in the system. The plant operator can
route the Nestlé flow through the headworks and primary clarifier, but they have chosen not to because of
odor problems when it has been routed that way in the past. The roughing tower has counter current
ventilation with blowers, plastic media (plastic blocks with square tunnels running diagonally top to
bottom). Engineering specifications indicate it is capable of a 1 MGD flow and 8,340 lbs/day of BOD.
The roughing tower takes only the waste stream from Nestlé, unless Nestlé is shutdown. When the flow
from Nestlé is interrupted the operator routes wastewater from the main sewer trunk line coming from the
City to the roughing tower to keep the biologically active film alive until the waste stream from Nestlé
resumes.

Under normal operating conditions, wastewater from the City’s main sewer trunk line goes directly to the
headworks for screening and grit removal, and on to the primary clarifiers. Effluent from the clarifiers
goes to the pump station where it mixes with effluent from the roughing tower and is sent to the trickling
filters and through a snail trap before returning to the pump station and being pumped back to the
activated sludge/aerator basins. Effluent from the basins is split between three secondary clarifiers;
effluent from there goes to the granular filters, then ultra violet disinfection and is discharged.

Solids from the secondary clarifiers are sent back to the primary clarifiers. Solids from the newest and
largest clarifier (#1) can also be routed to the belt press and in the future through a sludge thickener.
Solids from the primary clarifiers are routed to the primary digester (#3), then secondary (#2) and then
final digester (#1). From the final digester the solids are dewatered in belt presses and processed through
composting for distribution. Press-ate from the filter presses and decant from digesters can be sent back to
the primary clarifiers, or it can be sent to the roughing tower.

The headworks consist of a 36" Palmer-Bowlus flume, fine bar screens and an aerated grit chamber
(detention time 7.6 minutes at 7.0 MGD). The primary clarifiers are circular that, combined, have a 4.0
hours detention time at 5.2 MGD with a weir loading of 10,358 gal/ft/day. The trickling filters are counter
current (without blowers) with plastic media the same as the roughing tower. Trickling filter #1 is
somewhat smaller than trickling filter #2. Together they can handle 6,200 lbs/day of BOD. There are
three secondary clarifiers (varying in size), all circular with a total detention time of 3.2 hours at 5.2
MGD, and a weir loading of 7,704 gal/ft/day.

Solids (sludge) are treated in an anaerobic digester that operates with a 56 days detention period. The
sludge is dewatered with a belt press. The sludge is composted and then sold to the public as a soil
amendment.

The discharge outfall is located approximately a ¼ mile northwest of the treatment plant in a manhole
(latitude of 40°10’45.8” and a longitude 111°37’28.8”), with outfall STORET Number 499628.

Water Quality adopted UAC R317-1-3.3, Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) Rule in
2014. The TBPEL rule as it relates to "non-lagoon" wastewater treatment plants establishes new
regulations for the discharge of phosphorus to surface waters and is self-implementing. The TBPEL
Commented [JN2]: The roughing tower flow does not go through the Primary Clarifiers.
Commented [JN3]:
Commented [JN4]: Should this be 12,000 lbs?
Commented [JN5]: Do we do this?
Commented [JN6R5]:
Commented [JN7]: The new DAFT process needs added here.
Commented [JN8]: Is this true?

Commented [JN9]: Can we do 56 days?
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 3

requires that all non-lagoon wastewater treatment works discharging wastewater to surface waters of the
state shall provide treatment processes which will produce effluent less than or equal to an annual mean
of 1.0 mg/L for total phosphorus. This TBPEL shall be achieved by January 1, 2020.

Springville requested and was granted a Variance to the compliance deadline for the rule until March 31,
2021 when they completed the installation of a chemical addition system to help them achieve
compliance with the TBPEL rule.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT

WLA
Due to changes is receiving stream flows, the water quality based effluent limit (WQBEL) for ammonia
changed in the wasteload analysis (WLA). The seasonal Acute and chronic limits all increased with the
exception of the chromic winter WQBEL which decreased. Restrictions on the relaxation of effluent
limits will prevent the limits from being raised, so they will remain as is in the current permit. The
chronic winter WQBEL for ammonia will be decreased to 7.9 mg/L to comply with the WLA.

Reasonable Potential Analysis
A screening of the metals effluent monitoring results indicated that a full Reasonable Potential Analysis
(RP Analysis) for mercury should be conducted. The results of the RP are included in Attachment 4 of
this FSSOB and were an increase in the effluent monitoring frequency for mercury from quarterly to
monthly. The minimum monitoring frequency for the rest of the metals remains the same.

DISCHARGE

DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE
The discharge flows into an unnamed ditch, which flows to Little Spring Creek, which flows to Spring
Creek, thence to Utah Lake.

Outfall Description of Discharge Point

001 The discharge is located approximately a ¼ mile
northwest of the treatment plant in a manhole in the
middle of the road where South Pasture Road turns into
Spring Creek Place at a right angle turn in the road.
Located at latitude 4010'45.8" and longitude
11137'28.8".

RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
The discharge flows into an unnamed ditch, which flows to Little Spring Creek, which flows to Spring
Creek, thence to Utah Lake. The unnamed ditch is Class 4; Little Spring Creek is Class 2B, 3D, and 4;
Spring Creek is Class 2B, 3B, and 4; and Utah Lake is Class 2B, 3B, 3D, and 4 (Utah Administrative
Code “UAC” R317-2-13). A WLA was developed (attached in the addendum) at the point of discharge
for Little Spring Creek, considering limits protecting the following classes:

Class 2B -- Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also protected for secondary contact
recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of water or a low degree of bodily
contact with the water. Examples include, but are not limited to, wading, hunting, and
fishing.
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 4

Class 3B -- Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life,
including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.
Class 3D -- Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not included in
Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.
Class 4 -- Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) REQUIREMENTS
According to the Utah’s Final 2022 Integrated Report on Water Quality dated December 9, 2022, the
receiving water for the discharge, “Tributary to Spring Creek (Utah County) which receives the
Springville City WWTP effluent from confluence with Spring Creek to headwaters (Assessment Unit
Spring Creek-Springville, AU ID: UT16020202-042_00)” was listed as “Fully Supporting”.

Utah Lake (Assessment Unit Utah Lake-Lower Provo River, AU ID: UT-L-16020201-004_01) was listed
as “Not Supporting” for E. coli, eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, total dissolved solids, total
phosphorus, and PCBs in fish tissue on the 2022 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. Furthermore, Provo
Bay (Assessment Unit Utah Lake-Lower Provo River, AU ID: UT-L-16020201-004_02) was listed as
“Not Supporting” for eutrophication, harmful algal blooms, total phosphorus, pH, total ammonia, and
PCBs in fish tissue on the 2022 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. The Utah Lake Water Quality Study
is ongoing with the objective to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Utah Lake and Provo Bay.

BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Limitations on total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), E. coli, pH and
percent removal for BOD5 and TSS are based on current Utah Secondary Treatment Standards, UAC
R317-1-3.2. The oil and grease limit is based on best professional judgment (BPJ). Attached is a WLA
for this discharge into Little Spring Creek. It has been determined that this discharge will not cause a
violation of water quality standards. An Antidegradation Level II review is not required since the Level I
review shows that water quality impacts are minimal. The permittee is expected to be able to comply with
these limitations.

Reasonable Potential Analysis
Since January 1, 2016, DWQ has conducted RP on all new and renewal applications received after that
date. RP for this permit renewal was conducted following DWQ’s September 10, 2015 Reasonable
Potential Analysis Guidance (RP Guidance). There are four outcomes defined in the RP Guidance:
Outcome A, B, C, or D. These Outcomes provide a frame work for what routine monitoring or effluent
limitations are required

A quantitative RP was performed on mercury to determine if there was reasonable potential for the
discharge to exceed the applicable water quality standards. The RP for mercury indicates increase
monitoring is required. A copy of the RP is included at the end of this Fact Sheet.

The permit limitations are

Parameter
Effluent Limitations (1)
Maximum
Monthly Avg
Maximum
Weekly Avg
Yearly
Average
Daily
Minimum
Daily
Maximum
Total Flow 6.6 - - - -
BOD5, mg/L
BOD5 Min. % Removal
25
85
35
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TSS, mg/L
TSS Min. % Removal
25
85
35
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 5

Parameter
Effluent Limitations (1)
Maximum
Monthly Avg
Maximum
Weekly Avg
Yearly
Average
Daily
Minimum
Daily
Maximum
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L - - - 5 -
Total Ammonia (as N), mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)

1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

8
8
7.9
8
E. coli, No./100mL 126 157 - - -
Total Phosphorus, mg/L - - 1 - -
WET, Chronic
Biomonitoring (2) - - - - IC25 > 83%
effluent
Oil & Grease, mg/L - - - - 10.0
pH, Standard Units - - - 6.5 9
1. See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.
2. The Chronic WET must pass with an IC25 of > 83% effluent. If chronic toxicity occurs that
might be or is believed to be due to an acute toxicity failure, then the facility may be
required to test for acute toxicity. This acute testing will be done in a manner dictated by
the Director. Monitoring for Chronic WET is quarterly, but the test may be performed on
one species if the testing species are alternated each quarter using Ceriodaphnia dubia one
quarter and Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) the next quarter.

SELF-MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The following self-monitoring requirements have been updated in this permit due to the RP as described
above. The permit will require reports to be submitted monthly and annually, as applicable, on Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) forms due 28 days after the end of the monitoring period. Effective January 1,
2017, monitoring results must be submitted using NetDMR unless the permittee has successfully
petitioned for an exception. Lab sheets for biomonitoring must be attached to the biomonitoring DMR.
Lab sheets for metals and toxic organics must be attached to the DMRs.

Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements (1)
Parameter Frequency Sample Type Units
Total Flow (3), (4) Continuous Recorder MGD
BOD5, Influent (5)
Effluent
2 Times Weekly
2 Times Weekly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
TSS, Influent (5)
Effluent
2 Times Weekly
2 Times Weekly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
E. coli 2 Times Weekly Grab No./100mL
pH 2 Times Weekly Grab SU
Total Ammonia (as N) 2 Times Weekly Composite mg/L
DO 2 Times Weekly Grab mg/L
WET – Biomonitoring, Chronic Quarterly Composite Pass/Fail
Oil & Grease (6) Monthly Grab mg/L
Orthophosphate (as P),
Effluent

Monthly Composite mg/L
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 6

Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements (1)
Parameter Frequency Sample Type Units
Total Phosphorus (as P), (5)
Influent
Effluent
Monthly
Monthly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN (as N), (5)
Influent
Effluent
Monthly
Monthly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate, NO3 Monthly Composite mg/L
Nitrite, NO2 Monthly Composite mg/L
Mercury, Effluent (7), (8) Monthly Composite mg/L
Metals, Influent (5), (7), (8)
Effluent
Quarterly
Quarterly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Organic Toxics (9) Yearly Grab mg/L
1. See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.
3. Flow measurements of influent/effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the
permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained.
4. If the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be reported.
5. In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for
this constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge.
6. Oil & Grease sampled when sheen is present or visible. If no sheen is present or visible, report
a no data indicator (NODI) code of 9 (Conditional Monitoring -Not Required This Period).
7. See Part II of the permit for additional requirements regarding sampling for metals and organic
toxics.
8. See table below for the list of metals that must be included in the metals monitoring.
9. A list of the organics to be tested can be found in 40CFR122 appendix D table II.

Metals to be Monitored for RP
Total Arsenic
Total Cadmium
Total Chromium
Total Copper
Total Cyanide
Total Lead
Total Mercury
Total Molybdenum
Total Nickel
Total Selenium
Total Silver
Total Zinc

BIOSOLIDS

For clarification purposes, sewage sludge is considered solids, until treatment or testing shows that the
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 7

solids are safe, and meet beneficial use standards. After the solids are tested or treated, the solids are then
known as biosolids. Class A biosolids, may be used for high public contact sites, such as home lawns and
gardens, parks, or playing fields, etc. Class B biosolids may be used for low public contact sites, such as
farms, rangeland, or reclamation sites, etc.

DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Solids from the secondary clarifiers are sent back to a dissolved air flotation (DAF) system to be
thickened and then to the primary digestor. Solids from the primary clarifiers are routed to the primary
digester, then secondary and then final digester. From the final digester the solids are dewatered in belt
presses and processed through composting for distribution.

The solids (sewage sludge) at Springville are stabilized in an anaerobic digester that operates with a 56
days detention period, and dewatered with a belt press. The dewatered solids are mixed with green waste
and wood chips, then formed into windrows and composted to meet Class A biosolids composting
requirements. After the composting process, the windrows are left to cure for odor reduction for an
additional 60-90 days.

Springville submitted their 2023 annual biosolids report on February 15, 2024. The report states the
Permittee produced 2,335 dry metric tons (DMT) of solids. Over the previous decade they have averaged
1,100 DMT of biosolids production every year. This last year they had increased the chemical addition to
the system to reduce the phosphorus in the effluent, and cleaned out the digestors, which resulted in a
doubling of the biosolids produced. They also monitored a total of six times over the last year to account
for the additional productions.

Biosolids are processed using the windrow method to meet Class A biosolids requirements. The piles are
maintained at minimum operating temperatures of 55° C (131° F) for at least three (3) days. Piles
typically exceed the three (3) day temperature requirements. After leaving the process, which is typically
six (6) to eight (8) weeks, the composted solids are moved to curing piles for an additional eight (8) to
twenty-four (24) weeks until no odor is present and final screening occurs. All composted material is
tested for Salmonella in accordance to 503 Regulations.

The last biosolids inspection conducted at the Springville facility was April 10, 2024. The inspection
showed that facility was in compliance with all aspects of the biosolids management program.

SELF-MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Under 40 CFR 503.16(a)(1), the self-monitoring requirements are based upon the amount of biosolids
disposed per year and shall be monitored according to the chart below.

Minimum Frequency of Monitoring (40 CFR Part 503.16, 503.26. and 503.46)
Amount of Biosolids Disposed Per Year Monitoring Frequency
Dry US Tons Dry Metric Tons Per Year or Batch
> 0 to < 320 > 0 to < 290 Once Per Year or Batch
> 320 to < 1650 > 290 to < 1,500 Once a Quarter or Four Times
> 1,650 to < 16,500 > 1,500 to < 15,000 Bi-Monthly or Six Times
> 16,500 > 15,000 Monthly or Twelve Times

Springville WWTP has disposed of, on average, 1180 DMT of biosolids over the past 10 years, therefore
they need to sample at least four times a year.
Commented [JN10]: 56 days again
Commented [JN11]: Do we do this?
Commented [JN12]: I did not know this
Commented [JN13]: Is this our process?
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 8

Landfill Monitoring
Under 40 CFR 258, the landfill monitoring requirements include a paint filter test. If the biosolids do not
pass a paint filter test, the biosolids cannot be disposed in the sanitary landfill (40 CFR 258.28(c)(1).

BIOSOLIDS LIMITATIONS

Heavy Metals

Class A Biosolids for Home Lawn and Garden Use
The intent of the heavy metals regulations of Table 3, 40 CFR 503.13 is to ensure the heavy metals do not
build up in the soil in home lawn and gardens to the point where the heavy metals become phytotoxic to
plants. The permittee will be required to produce an information sheet (see Part III. C. of the permit) to
made available to all people who are receiving and land applying Class A biosolids to their lawns and
gardens. If the instructions of the information sheet are followed to any reasonable degree, the Class A
biosolids will be able to be land applied year after year, to the same lawns and garden plots without any
deleterious effects to the environment. The information sheet must be provided to the public, because the
permittee is not required, nor able to track the quantity of Class A biosolids that are land applied to home
lawns and gardens.

Class A Requirements With Regards to Heavy Metals
If the biosolids are to be applied to a lawn or home garden, the biosolids shall not exceed the maximum
heavy metals in Table 3 below. If the biosolids do not meet these requirements, the biosolids cannot be
sold or given away for applications to home lawns and gardens.

Class B Requirements for Agriculture and Reclamation Sites
The intent of the heavy metals regulations of Tables 1, 2 and 3, of 40 CFR 503.13 is to ensure that heavy
metals do not build up in the soil at farms, forest land, and land reclamation sites to the point where the
heavy metals become phytotoxic to plants. The permittee will be required to produce an information sheet
(see Part III. C. of the permit) to be handed out to all people who are receiving and land applying Class B
biosolids to farms, ranches, and land reclamation sites (if biosolids are only applied to land owned by the
permittee, the information sheet requirements are waived). If the biosolids are land applied according to
the regulations of 40 CFR 503.13, to any reasonable degree, the Class B biosolids will be able to be land
applied year after year, to the same farms, ranches, and land reclamation sites without any deleterious
effects to the environment.

Class B Requirements With Regards to Heavy Metals
If the biosolids are to be land applied to agricultural land, forest land, a public contact site or a
reclamation site it must meet at all times:

The maximum heavy metals listed in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b) Table 1 and the
heavy metals loading rates in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b) Table 2; or

The maximum heavy metals in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b) Table 1 and the monthly
heavy metals concentrations in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b) Table 3.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Heavy Metal Limitations

Pollutant Limits, (40 CFR Part 503.13(b)) Dry Mass Basis
Heavy Metals Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4
Ceiling Conc.
Limits 1, (mg/kg)
CPLR 2,
(mg/ha)
Pollutant Conc.
Limits 3 (mg/kg)
APLR 4,
(mg/ha-yr)
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 9

Pollutant Limits, (40 CFR Part 503.13(b)) Dry Mass Basis
Heavy Metals Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4
Ceiling Conc.
Limits 1, (mg/kg)
CPLR 2,
(mg/ha)
Pollutant Conc.
Limits 3 (mg/kg)
APLR 4,
(mg/ha-yr)
Total Arsenic 75 41 41 2.0
Total Cadmium 85 39 39 1.9
Total Copper 4300 1500 1500 75
Total Lead 840 300 300 15
Total Mercury 57 17 17 0.85
Total Molybdenum 75 N/A N/A N/A
Total Nickel 420 420 420 21
Total Selenium 100 100 100 5.0
Total Zinc 7500 2800 2800 140
1, If the concentration of any 1 (one) of these parameters exceeds the Table 1 limit, the
biosolids cannot be land applied or beneficially used in any way.
2, CPLR - Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate - The maximum loading for any 1 (one) of the
parameters listed that may be applied to land when biosolids are land applied or beneficially
used on agricultural, forestry, or a reclamation site.
3, If the concentration of any 1 (one) of these parameters exceeds the Table 3 limit, the
biosolids cannot be land applied or beneficially used in on a lawn, home garden, or other high
potential public contact site. If any 1 (one) of these parameters exceeds the Table 3 limit, the
biosolids may be land applied or beneficially reused on an agricultural, forestry, reclamation
site, or other high potential public contact site, as long as it meets the requirements of Table
1, Table 2, and Table 4.
4, APLR - Annual Pollutant Loading Rate - The maximum annual loading for any 1 (one) of
the parameters listed that may be applied to land when biosolids are land applied or
beneficially reused on agricultural, forestry, or a reclamation site, when they do not meet
Table 3, but do meet Table 1.

Any violation of these limitations shall be reported in accordance with the requirements of Part
III.F.1. of the permit. If the biosolids do not meet these requirements they cannot be land applied.

Pathogens

The Pathogen Control class listed in the table below must be met;

Pathogen Control Class
503.32 (a)(1) - (5), (7), (8), Class A 503.32 (b)(1) - (5), Class B
B Salmonella species –less than three (3) MPN1
per four (4) grams total solids (DWB)2 or Fecal
Coliforms – less than 1,000 MPN per gram
total solids (DWB).
Fecal Coliforms – less than 2,000,000 MPN or
CFU3 per gram total solids (DWB).
503.32 (a)(6) Class A—Alternative 4
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 10

Pathogen Control Class
503.32 (a)(1) - (5), (7), (8), Class A 503.32 (b)(1) - (5), Class B
B Salmonella species –less than three (3) MPN
per four (4) grams total solids (DWB) or less
than 1,000 MPN Fecal Coliforms per gram total
solids (DWB),
And - Enteric viruses –less than one (1) plaque
forming unit per four (4) grams total solids
(DWB)
And - Viable helminth ova –less than one (1)
per four (4) grams total solids (DWB)
1 - MPN – Most Probable Number
2 - DWB – Dry Weight Basis
3 - CFU – Colony Forming Units

Class A Requirements for Home Lawn and Garden Use
If biosolids are land applied to home lawns and gardens, the biosolids need to be treated by a specific
process to further reduce pathogens (PFRP), and meet a microbiological limit of less than less than 3 most
probable number (MPN) of Salmonella per 4 grams of total solids (or less than 1,000 most probable
number (MPN/g) of fecal coliform per gram of total solids) to be considered Class A biosolids. The
Springville WWTP has chosen to achieve PFRP through a method of Composting.

1. Windrow Method- Using the windrow method of composting, the temperature
needs to be maintained at 55 oC (131 oF) or higher for fifteen
days, with a minimum of five turnings during those fifteen days.

This composting method is found under (40 CFR 503.32(a)(8)(ii)).

The practice of sale or giveaway to the public is an acceptable use of biosolids of this quality as long as
the biosolids continue to meet Class A standards with respect to pathogens. If the biosolids do not meet
Class A pathogen standards the biosolids cannot be sold or given away to the public, and the permittee
will need find another method of beneficial use or disposal.

Pathogens Class B
If biosolids are to be land applied for agriculture or land reclamation the solids need to be treated by a
specific process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP). The Springville WWTP has chosen to achieve
PSRP through composting:

1. Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(2), Springville WWTP may test the biosolids and must
meet a microbiological limit of less than 2,000,000 MPN of fecal coliform per
gram for the biosolids to be considered Class B biosolids with respect to
pathogens.

3. Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(3) the PSRP may be accomplished through
composting. To achieve this, the temperature must be above 40o C (104o F) or
higher, and remain at 40o C or higher for a minimum of five days. For four hours,
during the five days, the temperature needs to exceed 55o C (113o F).

Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR)
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 11

If the biosolids are land applied Springville WWTP will be required to meet VAR through the use of a
method of listed under 40 CFR 503.33. The Springville WWTP intends to meet the vector attraction
reduction requirements through one of the methods listed below.

1. Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(1) The mass of volatile solids in the sewage sludge shall be reduced
by a minimum of 38 percent.

2. Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(5) the solids need treated through composting with a temperature of
40° C (104° F) or higher for at least 14 days with an average temperature of over 45° C (113°
F).

If the biosolids do not meet a method of VAR, the biosolids cannot be land applied.

If the permittee intends to use another one of the listed alternatives in 40 CFR 503.33, the Director and
the EPA must be informed at least thirty (30) days prior to its use. This change may be made without
additional public notice

Landfill Monitoring
Under 40 CFR 258, the landfill monitoring requirements include a paint filter test to determine if the
biosolids exhibit free liquid. If the biosolids do not pass a paint filter test, the biosolids cannot be
disposed in the sanitary landfill (40 CFR 258.28(c)(1).

Record Keeping
The record keeping requirements from 40 CFR 503.17 are included under Part III.G. of the permit. The
amount of time the records must be maintained are dependent on the quality of the biosolids in regards to
the metals concentrations. If the biosolids continue to meet the metals limits of Table 3 of 40 CFR
503.13, and are sold or given away the records must be retained for a minimum of five years. If the
biosolids are disposed in a landfill the records must retained for a minimum of five years.

Reporting
Springville WWTP must report annually as required in 40 CFR 503.18. This report is to include the
results of all monitoring performed in accordance with Part III.B of the permit, information on
management practices, biosolids treatment, and certifications. This report is due no later than February 19
of each year. Each report is for the previous calendar year.

MONITORING DATA

METALS MONITORING DATA
The Springville WWTP has been required to sample for metals at least four times annually, which they
have done consistently for over 10 years. All biosolids distributed for land application met Table 3 of 40
CFR 503.13, therefore the Springville WWTP biosolids qualify as EQ with regards to metals. The
monitoring data is below.

Springville WWTP Metals Monitoring Data

Springville WWTP Metals Monitoring Data
Parameter Table 3, mg/kg
(Exceptional Quality)
Average, mg/kg Maximum, mg/kg
Arsenic 41.0 7.4 31.7
Cadmium 39.0 1.3 7.4
Copper 1,500.0 184 458
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 12

Lead 300.0 14.7 27.9
Mercury 17.0 0.5 1.8
Molybdenum 75.0 3.6 9.3
Nickel 400.0 10.6 19.9
Selenium 36.0 8.8 99
Zinc 2,800.0 622 2160

PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA
The Springville was required to monitor the biosolids for pathogens at least four times a year during the
previous permit cycle. The Springville had the choice to sample for fecal coliform or salmonella, and
chose fecal coliform. Each monitoring episode consisted of seven samples taken over 14 days, for a total
28 samples a year. The monitoring data is below.

Springville Compost Fecal Coliform Monitoring Data

Compost
Year Maximum Annual Fecal
Coliform, MPN/gram
Geomean Fecal Coliform,
MPN/gram
2023 278 5
2022 684 89
2021 3600 40
2020 1320 14
2019 10 10
2018 2424 18
2017 711 32
2016 6108 45
2015 78 12
2014 750 17
2013 160 16
2013 - 2023 89 6108

During 2013 and 2023 some results from the fecal coliform samples came back above the limit of 1000
MPN/gram. A review of the sample results shows that three samples in 2016, one sample in 2018, one
sample in 2020, and four samples in 2021 came back above the limit. The results were;

2021 2020
Sample Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
1 26 53 463 488 <10 <10 <10 <10
2 <10 <10 2225 519 <10 <10 <10 <10
3 <10 15 <10 2400 <10 <10 <10 <10
4 <10 <10 402 36 <10 <10 <10 <10
5 <10 <10 <10 24 722 <10 <10 <10
6 <10 16 <10 1600 1320 <10 <10 <10
7 <10 45 <10 3600 11 <10 <10 <10
8
9
2018 2016
Sample Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
1 <10 25 <10 <10 58 483 <10 188
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 13

2021 2020
Sample Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4
2 <10 55 <10 <10 250 <10 <10 <10
3 <10 31 <10 <10 L.E. 61 <10 2747
4 <10 489 <10 <10 237 2774 <10 33
5 68 <10 2424 <10 38 68 <10 <10
6 <10 <10 <10 <10 237 <10 <10 <10
7 <10 396 <10 <10 <10 L.E. <10 39
8 <10 5108
9 14

A review of the data and consultation with Springville WWTP indicates that the all the compost for the
quarters that had samples above the 1000 MPN/gram was incorporated into the next composting period as
a base for biosolids, and everything went through the composting cycle. If the compost from the next
quarter passed the pathogen monitoring requirements it was allowed to go to distribution, if the compost
failed, the process was repeated. Thus, all compost distributed met the Class A Pathogen Requirements.

STORM WATER

Permit coverage under the Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Storm Water Discharges from
Industrial Activities is required based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the facility
and the types of industrial activities occurring. If the facility is not already covered, it has 30 days from
when this permit is issued to submit the appropriate Notice of Intent (NOI) for the MSGP or exclusion
documentation. Previously storm water discharge requirements and coverage were combined in this
individual permit. These have been separated to provide consistency among permittees, electronic
reporting for storm water discharge monitoring reports, and increase flexibility to changing site
conditions.

Permit coverage under the Construction General Storm Water Permit (CGP) is required for any
construction at the facility which disturb an acre or more, or is part of a common plan of development or
sale that is an acre or greater. A Notice of Intent (NOI) is required to obtain a construction storm water
permit prior to the period of construction.

Information on storm water permit requirements can be found at http://stormwater.utah.gov

PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

Springville implements an Approved POTW Pretreatment Program (Program). Any changes to the
Program must be submitted to the Division of Water Quality per the requirements of UAC R317-8-8.
Authority to require a Program is provided for in 19-5-108 UCA, 1953 ann. and UAC R317-8-8.

The Pretreatment Requirements in Part II of the UPDES Permit were modified to add additional language
to clarify requirements. The changes are consistent with 40 CFR 122, UAC R317 and 40 CFR 403. Also
changes have occurred requiring notification of the Maximum Allowable Head Works Loading being
exceeded or an exceedance of the value in the table in Part II of the permit.

Springville recently updated the Local Limits; however an evaluation to determine the need to revise or
develop technically based local limits to implement the general and specific prohibitions of 40 CFR, Part
403.5(a) and Part 403.5(b). This evaluation may indicate that present Local Limits are sufficiently
Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 14

protective, or that they must be revised. As part of this evaluation, the permit requires influent and
effluent monitoring for metals and organic toxics monitoring listed in UAC R317-8-7.5 and sludge
monitoring for potential pollutants listed in 40 CFR 503.

Metals analysis must utilize a minimum detection limit to ensure that the metals are not above the
allowable levels determined by the wasteload analysis for the receiving stream, see Part II of the permit.
If a test is unavailable, then the lowest test available must be used; see Part II of the permit for additional
requirements.

BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS

A nationwide effort to control toxic discharges where effluent toxicity is an existing or potential concern
is regulated in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Enforcement
Guidance Document for Whole Effluent Toxicity Control (biomonitoring), dated February 2018.
Authority to require effluent biomonitoring is provided in Permit Conditions, UAC R317-8-4.2, Permit
Provisions, UAC R317-8-5.3 and Water Quality Standards, UAC R317-2-5 and R317 -2-7.2.

Since the permittee is a major municipal discharger, the permit will require whole effluent toxicity (WET)
testing. Chronic toxicity testing will be conducted using both species, alternating Ceriodaphnia dubia
quarterly and Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) quarterly. The permit will contain the standard
requirements for accelerated testing upon failure of a WET test and a PTI (Preliminary Toxicity
Investigation) and TRE (Toxicity Reduction Evaluation) as necessary. The IC25 will be > 83% total
effluent. The permit will contain the standard requirements for accelerated testing upon failure of a WET
test and a PTI (Preliminary Toxicity Investigation) and TRE (Toxicity Reduction Evaluation) as
necessary.

Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 15

PERMIT DURATION

It is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.

Drafted and Reviewed by
Daniel Griffin, Discharge Permit Writer
Daniel Griffin, Biosolids, Reasonable Potential Analysis
Jennifer Robinson, Pretreatment
Lonnie Shull, Biomonitoring
Scott Daly, TMDL/Watershed
Christopher Schope, Wasteload Analysis
Utah Division of Water Quality, [phone]

PUBLIC NOTICE

Began: Month Day, Year
Ended: Month Day, Year

Comments will be received at: 195 North 1950 West
PO Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870

The Public Noticed of the draft permit was published on the Division of Water Quality Public Notice
Webpage.

During the public comment period provided under R317-8-6.5, any interested person may submit written
comments on the draft permit and may request a public hearing, if no hearing has already been scheduled.
A request for a public hearing shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be
raised in the hearing. All comments will be considered in making the final decision and shall be answered
as provided in R317-8-6.12.

Springville City Wastewater Treatment Plant FSSOB
UT0020834
Page 16

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ATTACHMENT 1

Industrial Waste Survey

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Industrial Pretreatment Wastewater Survey

Do you periodically experience any of the following treatment works problems:
foam, floaties or unusual colors
plugged collection lines caused by grease, sand, flour, etc.
discharging excessive suspended solids, even in the winter
smells unusually bad
waste treatment facility doesn’t seem to be treating the waste right

Perhaps the solution to a problem like one of these may lie in investigating the types and amounts of
wastewater entering the sewer system from industrial users.

An industrial user (IU) is defined as a non-domestic user discharging to the waste treatment facility which
meets any of the following criteria:

1. has a lot of process wastewater (5% of the flow at the waste treatment facility or more than
25,000 gallons per work day.)

Examples: Food processor, dairy, slaughterhouse, industrial laundry.

2. is subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards;

Examples: metal plating, cleaning or coating of metals, blueing of metals, aluminum extruding,
circuit board manufacturing, tanning animal skins, pesticide formulating or
packaging, and pharmaceutical manufacturing or packaging,

3. is a concern to the POTW.

Examples: septage hauler, restaurant and food service, car wash, hospital, photo lab, carpet
cleaner, commercial laundry.

All users of the water treatment facility are prohibited from making the following types of discharges:

1. A discharge which creates a fire or explosion hazard in the collection system.

2. A discharge which creates toxic gases, vapor or fumes in the collection system.

3. A discharge of solids or thick liquids which creates flow obstructions in the collection system.

4. An acidic discharge (low pH) which causes corrosive damage to the collection system.

5. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will
cause problems in the collection system or at the waste treatment facility.

6. Waste haulers are prohibited from discharging without permission. (No midnight dumping!)

When the solution to a sewer system problem may be found by investigating the types and amounts of
wastewater entering the sewer system discharged from IUs, it’s appropriate to conduct an Industrial
Waste Survey.

An Industrial Waste Survey consists of:

Step 1: Identify Industrial Users

Make a list of all the commercial and industrial sewer connections.

Sources for the list:
business license, building permits, water and wastewater billing, Chamber of
Commerce, newspaper, telephone book, yellow pages.

Split the list into two groups:
domestic wastewater only--no further information needed
everyone else (IUs)

Step 2: Preliminary Inspection

Go visit each IU identified on the “everybody else” list.

Fill out the Preliminary Inspection Form during the site visit.

Step 3: Informing the State

Please fax or send a copy of the Preliminary inspection form (both sides) to:

Jennifer Robinson

Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

F:\WP\Pretreatment\Forms\IWS.doc

PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FORM
INSPECTION DATE / /

Name of Business Person Contacted
Address Phone Number Description of Business

Principal product or service:

Raw Materials used:

Production process is: [ ] Batch [ ] Continuous [ ] Both

Is production subject to seasonal variation? [ ] yes [ ] no
If yes, briefly describe seasonal production cycle.

This facility generates the following types of wastes (check all that apply):

1. [ ] Domestic wastes (Restrooms, employee showers, etc.)
2. [ ] Cooling water, non-contact 3. [ ] Boiler/Tower blowdown
4. [ ] Cooling water, contact 5. [ ] Process
6. [ ] Equipment/Facility washdown 7. [ ] Air Pollution Control Unit
8. [ ] Storm water runoff to sewer 9. [ ] Other describe

Wastes are discharged to (check all that apply):

[ ] Sanitary sewer [ ] Storm sewer
[ ] Surface water [ ] Ground water
[ ] Waste haulers [ ] Evaporation
[ ] Other (describe)
Name of waste hauler(s), if used

Is a grease trap installed? Yes No
Is it operational? Yes No

Does the business discharge a lot of process wastewater?
 More than 5% of the flow to the waste treatment facility? Yes No
 More than 25,000 gallons per work day? Yes No

Template updated 2/26/2024

Does the business do any of the following:

[ ] Adhesives [ ] Car Wash
[ ] Aluminum Forming [ ] Carpet Cleaner
[ ] Battery Manufacturing [ ] Dairy
[ ] Copper Forming [ ] Food Processor
[ ] Electric & Electronic Components [ ] Hospital
[ ] Explosives Manufacturing [ ] Laundries
[ ] Foundries [ ] Photo Lab
[ ] Inorganic Chemicals Mfg. or Packaging [ ] Restaurant & Food Service
[ ] Industrial Porcelain Ceramic Manufacturing [ ] Septage Hauler
[ ] Iron & Steel [ ] Slaughter House
[ ] Metal Finishing, Coating or Cleaning
[ ] Mining
[ ] Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
[ ] Organic Chemicals Manufacturing or Packaging
[ ] Paint & Ink Manufacturing
[ ] Pesticides Formulating or Packaging
[ ] Petroleum Refining
[ ] Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing or Packaging
[ ] Plastics Manufacturing
[ ] Rubber Manufacturing
[ ] Soaps & Detergents Manufacturing
[ ] Steam Electric Generation
[ ] Tanning Animal Skins
[ ] Textile Mills

Are any process changes or expansions planned during the next three years? Yes No
If yes, attach a separate sheet to this form describing the nature of planned changes or
expansions.
Inspector
Waste Treatment Facility
Please send a copy of the preliminary inspection form (both sides) to:

Jennifer Robinson
Division of Water Quality
P. O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870

Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]

Industrial User Jurisdiction SIC
Codes
Categorical
Standard Number
Total Average
Process Flow (gpd)
Total Average
Facility Flow (gpd) Facility Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Template updated 2/26/2024

ATTACHMENT 2

Effluent Monitoring Data

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Template updated 2/26/2024

Effluent Monitoring Data.

Parameter Flow BOD 5 TSS DO Ammonia O & G E. coli pH
Units MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L #/100mL SU
Ave Ave Max Ave Max Min Ave Max Max Ave Max Min Max
Limit 6.6 25 35 25 35 5 1.8 8 10 126 158 6.5 9
Apr-19 3.536 5 6 5 6 6.6 0.6 2.5 5 5 7 7.6 7.9
May-19 3.71 7 8 6 7 6.2 0.6 2 5 12 39 7.6 7.9
Jun-19 3.6 5 7 6 8 6.4 0.2 0.5 5 35 103 7.7 7.9
Jul-19 3.75 7 10 6 6 6.3 0.2 0.4 6 18 30 7.7 8.1
Aug-19 4.224 7 11 8 13 6.4 0.2 0.2 5 31 56 7.7 8.2
Sep-19 3.78 5 6 5 6 6.4 1.0 6.3 5 23 61 7.6 7.9
Oct-19 3.45 5 6 7 10 6.9 2.2 6.8 5 8 21 7.6 8.1
Nov-19 3.32 7 8 8 9 7.6 7.3 11.1 5 17 25 7.6 7.9
Dec-19 3.38 6 7 6 8 7.9 2.0 6.6 5 5 6 7.6 8.1
Jan-20 3.53 7 10 7 9 8.2 0.1 2 5 4 15 7.7 8.0
Feb-20 3.59 8 11 7 10 8.5 0.9 4 5 4 8 7.7 8.1
Mar-20 3.62 8 11 9 11 7.4 0.9 2.8 5 7 7.6 8.0
Apr-20 3.51 6 9 7 12 6.9 1.3 5.1 5 12 16 7.7 7.9
May-20 3.86 17 43 7 8 6.7 1.2 5.8 5 24 77 7.1 7.8
Jun-20 3.87 8 11 6 8 6.0 0.5 1.1 5 10 18 7.6 8.4
Jul-20 3.967 9 12 6 8 6.2 0.3 0.5 5 20 44 7.6 7.8
Aug-20 4.02 6 7 5 6 6.1 1.3 5.4 5 64 286 7.2 7.7
Sep-20 3.81 7 9 5 5 6.5 0.7 2.2 5 36 98 6.9 7.7
Oct-20 3.49 5 7 5 6 6.9 0.4 1.8 5 12 15 7.7 8.8
Nov-20 3.32 6 8 6 9 7.3 2.5 8.8 5 12 19 7.2 7.7
Dec-20 3.31 7 9 7 8 7.7 3.2 7 5 9 17 7.0 7.8
Jan-21 3.3 7 8 8 12 7.7 1.4 4.3 5 7 11 7.1 7.6
Feb-21 3.57 7 8 5 6 7.1 1.4 5.7 5 5 8 7.2 8.1
Mar-21 3.48 6 7 4 6 6.5 1.4 5.4 5 8 38 6.6 7.9
Apr-21 3.57 7 8 7 8 6.8 0.9 3 5 31 137 7.3 8.1
May-21 3.59 7 9 6 9 6.5 1.0 2.6 5 9 27 7.3 7.7
Jun-21 3.63 10 16 5 6 6.0 1.0 3.1 5 48 83 7.2 7.3
Jul-21 3.66 8 11 6 8 5.7 0.2 0.3 5 65 344 7.2 7.5
Aug-21 3.84 9 12 6 8 5.8 0.6 3.4 5 74 232 7.3 8.0
Sep-21 3.56 7 12 4 5 5.9 0.5 0.8 5 29 45 7.1 8.0
Oct-21 3.79 8 11 6 7 6.3 0.9 2.3 5 27 53 7.8 8.7
Nov-21 3.57 9 12 6 7 8.4 2.2 5.4 5 13 32 8.1 8.9
Dec-21 3.71 9 10 5 7 7.5 5.7 13.9 5 4 12 7.5 8.4
Jan-22 3.77 6 9 4 4 7.6 7.1 13 5 3 3 7.9 8.1
Feb-22 3.62 7 10 4 4 7.6 8.6 12.5 5 3 9 7.7 8.3

Parameter Flow BOD 5 TSS DO Ammonia O & G E. coli pH
Units MGD mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L #/100mL SU
Ave Ave Max Ave Max Min Ave Max Max Ave Max Min Max
Limit 6.6 25 35 25 35 5 1.8 8 10 126 158 6.5 9
Mar-22 3.74 15 25 6 11 7.3 5.9 11.9 5 7 112 7.8 8.2
Apr-22 3.64 9 10 5 6 5.6 4.8 9.5 5 18 57 7.4 8.3
May-22 3.89 9 11 6 5 6.3 4.4 9.7 5 35 75 6.8 8.0
Jun-22 3.86 7 8 5 14 6.1 1.8 5.1 5 6 7 7.2 8.7
Jul-22 3.72 10 13 4 5 5.8 0.9 2.4 5 17 35 7.1 7.3
Aug-22 3.92 9 11 7 12 5.8 1.0 2.6 7 65 77 7.2 7.5
Sep-22 3.62 7 9 5 6 5.9 1.8 7.7 5 20 239 7.2 7.8
Oct-22 3.44 8 14 4 5 6.6 1.7 5.92 5 7 13 7.8 8.5
Nov-22 3.39 10 16 6 8 7.3 2.0 7 5 5 21 7.5 8.2
Dec-22 3.53 8 15 7 9 7.9 2.0 5.72 5 5 10 7.2 7.6
Jan-23 4.92 9 12 7 13 8.0 0.6 1.65 5 6 11 7.3 7.5
Feb-23 3.8 10 16 7 10 7.9 0.5 1.51 5 7 12 7.1 7.4
Mar-23 4.5 7 13 5 8 7.2 0.6 1.23 5 4 16 7.1 7.3
Apr-23 4.21 7 10 7 10 6.7 0.3 0.43 5 2 2 7.2 7.4
May-23 4.27 13 19 6 11 6.2 0.4 1.47 5 2 4 7.3 7.7
Jun-23 4.16 7 10 6 7 6.3 0.2 0.27 5 2 5 7.3 7.8
Jul-23 3.91 7 12 5 5 6.0 0.2 0.27 5 4 8 7.1 7.3
Aug-23 4.114 14 19 7 9 5.4 0.5 0.7 5 9 14 6.9 7.5
Sep-23 3.86 8 13 6 9 6.4 0.2 0.47 5 21 980 7.0 7.3
Oct-23 3.735 7 8 5 6 6.5 0.5 2.24 5 6 156 7.1 7.7
Nov-23 3.5 6 6 5 5 6.9 5.6 20.3 5 3 3 7.1 7.9
Dec-23 3.54 8 13 4 5 7.2 1.9 8.62 5 1 1 7.4 7.9
Jan-24 3.965 6 7 4 5 7.6 0.8 1.61 5 1 1 7.6 7.9
Feb-24 4.3 6 7 5 7 7.5 0.4 0.89 5 3 31 7.5 8.0

Effluent Metals Monitoring Results
Ag As Cd CN Cr Cu Hg Mo Ni Pb Se Zn
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
MDL 0.0005 0.0005 0.0002 0.002 0.0005 0.001 0.0000001 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.01
Jun-19 ND 0.0014 ND ND 0.0009 0.0037 0.0000045 0.0029 ND ND 0.0016
Sep-19 ND 0.0018 ND ND 0.0007 0.005 0.0000028 0.0027 ND ND 0.0016 0.04
Mar-20
Jun-20 ND 0.001 ND ND 0.0048 0.0071 0.0000163 0.0024 0.001 0.001 0.0006 ND
Sep-20 ND 0.0013 ND ND 0.0017 0.0056 0.0000015 0.0057 ND ND 0.0008 0.03
Dec-20 ND 0.001 ND 0.003 0.0012 0.0044 0.0000038 0.0023 ND ND ND 0.05
Mar-21 ND 0.0009 ND ND 0.0026 0.0063 0.0000019 0.0023 ND ND 0.0006 0.06
Jun-21 ND 0.0013 ND ND 0.001 0.0058 0.0000017 0.003 ND ND ND 0.04
Sep-21 ND 0.001 ND 0.005 0.0012 0.0039 0.0000015 0.0019 ND ND 0.0008 0.04
Dec-21 ND 0.0008 ND 0.006 0.0013 0.0044 0.0000025 0.0036 ND ND 0.0009 0.02
Mar-22 ND 0.001 ND ND 0.0014 0.0026 0.0000019 0.0028 ND ND 0.0006 0.02
Jun-22 ND 0.0006 ND ND 0.0023 0.0054 0.0000098 0.0033 ND ND 0.0009 0.04
Sep-22 ND 0.0007 ND ND ND 0.0014 0.0000019 0.0023 ND ND ND 0.02
Dec-22 ND 0.001 ND 0.005 0.001 0.0025 ND 0.0026 ND ND 0.0011 0.02
Mar-23 ND 0.0027 ND ND 0.0006 0.0025 0.0000031 0.0032 ND ND 0.0019 0.03
Jun-23 ND 0.0012 ND 0.003 0.0006 0.0015 0.000003 0.0031 ND ND 0.0012 0.02
Sep-23 ND 0.001 ND 0.003 0.0006 0.0017 0.0000042 0.0026 ND ND 0.001 0.02
Dec-23 ND 0.0011 ND ND 0.0006 0.0032 0.000005 0.0024 ND ND 0.0011 0.02

WET Results
7 Day Chronic WET Test
Period Species Result
Qtr 2 2019 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 4 2019 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 1 2020 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 2 2020 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 3 2020 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 4 2020 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 1 2021 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 2 2021 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 3 2021 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 4 2021 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 1 2022 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 2 2022 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 3 2022 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 4 2022 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 1 2023 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 2 2023 Ceriodaphnia dubia Pass
Qtr 3 2023 Pimephales promelas Pass
Qtr 4 2023 Ceriodaphnia dubia Fail
Started accelerated testing and TIE/TRE. Resulted in
no establishment of a Pattern of Toxicity. Re-tested 7
Day Chronic Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales
promelas and both passed

Template updated 2/26/2024

ATTACHMENT 3

Wasteload Analysis

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Commented [d14]: Insert Printed WLA after this page. WLA s included in Workflow and is document DWQ-2024-003222
Commented [DG15R14]:

Template updated 2/26/2024

ATTACHMENT 4

Reasonable Potential Analysis

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Template updated 2/26/2024

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS
Water Quality has worked to improve our reasonable potential analysis (RP) for the inclusion of limits for
parameters in the permit by using an EPA provided model. As a result of the model, more parameters may be
included in the renewal permit. A Copy of the Reasonable Potential Analysis Guidance (RP Guide) is
available at water Quality. There are four outcomes for the RP Analysis1. They are;

Outcome A: A new effluent limitation will be placed in the permit.
Outcome B: No new effluent limitation. Routine monitoring requirements will be placed or
increased from what they are in the permit,
Outcome C: No new effluent limitation. Routine monitoring requirements maintained as they are
in the permit,
Outcome D: No limitation or routine monitoring requirements are in the permit.

Initial screening for metals values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed that
a closer look at some of the metals is needed. A copy of the initial screening is included in the “Effluent
Metals and RP Screening Results” table in this attachment. The initial screening check for metals showed
that the full model needed to be run on mercury.

The RP model was run on mercury using the most recent data back through 2019. This resulted in 17 data
points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for chronic limit for mercury. Reviewing the data showed that
there could be at least one outlier in the data. The EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This
produced the one outlier. This outlier was from the April 2, 2020 sample (0.000162 mg/L). Upon reviewing
the lab results for this sample, the field blank for mercury came back at three times the results for the
analysis. This would indicate something could have interfered with the overall mercury results.

The value was excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The
results of the model are the same.

Typically, this result would indicate that an effluent limit for mercury is required and monitoring would be
increased. Due to the very low WQBEL for mercury indicated in the WLA, and the sensitivity of the analysis
method to interference, it has been decided that the monitoring will be increased, and a limit will not yet be
added. This will allow Springville WWTP to properly investigate if they have a possible source of mercury
contributing to the system, or if the WQBEL is just so low. (Outcome A from Reasonable Potential Guide,
modified to Outcome B)

A Summary of the RP Model inputs and outputs are included in the table below.

The Metals Initial Screening Table and RP Outputs Table are included in this attachment.

Metals RP Screening Check
Metal As Cd CN Cr Cr Cu Mo
Max 0.0027 0.0002 0.006 0.0048 0.0048 0.0071 0.0057
Acute WQBEL 0.372 0.0054 23.7 0.0173 1.319 0.0347 1
Chronic WQBEL 0.179 0.0005 5.5 0.0128 0.187 0.023 1
Acute RP No No No No No No No

1 See Reasonable Potential Analysis Guidance for definitions of terms

Chronic RP No No No No No No No

Metal Ni Pb Se Ag Zn Hg
Max 0.001 0.001 0.0019 0.0005 0.06 0.0000163
Acute WQBEL 1.111 0.188 0.02 0.017 0.278 0.0026
Chronic WQBEL 0.134 0.0079 0.0053 1 0.305 0.000013
Acute RP No No No No No No
Chronic RP No No No No No Yes

RP Procedure Output
Facility Name: Springville WWTP Run # 1 and # 2 Run # 3 and # 4
Permit Number: UT0020384
All Data Outlier Removed
Outfall Number: _001
Parameter Mercury
Distribution Default
Data Units mg/L
Reporting Limit 0.0000001
Significant Figures 2
Confidence Interval 95 99 95 99
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc. 0.0000163 0.0000163 0.0000098 0.0000098
Coefficient of Variation (CV) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
RP Multiplier 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.6
Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC) 0.000024 0.000041 0.000015 0.000025
Acute Criterion 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026
Chronic Criterion 0.000013 0.000013 0.000013 0.000013
RP for Acute? NO NO NO NO
RP for Chronic? YES YES YES YES

Effluent Data, Run # 1 and #2 Effluent Data, Run # 3 and #4
1 0.0000045 10 0.0000025 1 0.0000045 10 0.0000025
2 0.0000028 11 0.0000019 2 0.0000028 11 0.0000019
3 0.000005 12 0.0000098 3 0.000005 12 0.0000098
4 0.0000163 13 0.0000019 4 0.0000042 13 0.0000019
5 0.0000015 14 ND 5 0.0000015 14 ND
6 0.0000038 15 0.0000031 6 0.0000038 15 0.0000031
7 0.0000019 16 0.000003 7 0.0000019 16 0.000003
8 0.0000017 17 0.0000042 8 0.0000017 17
9 0.0000015 18 9 0.0000015 18