HomeMy WebLinkAboutTemp - DWQ-2024-008536Official 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
PACIFICORP ENERGY - LAKE SIDE POWER PLANT
RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE
UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0025623
MAJORINDUSTRIAL
FACILITY CONTACTS
Company Name:Lake Side Power Plant PacifiCorp Energy1407 W. North Temple, Suite 330Salt Lake City, UT 84116Person Name:David LucasPosition:Managing Director, Gas & Geothermal GenerationPhone
Number:801-796-1911Person Name:Mathew BriggsPosition:Lake Side Plant ManagerPhone Number:Person Name:Veronica ReyesPosition:Sr. Environmental Analyst, Lake Side PlantPhone Number:801-796-1916Person
Name:Bryan Wheeler,Position:Senior Engineer, PacifiCorp – Thermal Generation Environmental Services Phone Number:801-220-4835Person Name:Joshua Sewell,Position:Engineer, PacifiCorp –
Thermal Generation Environmental Services Phone Number:801-220-4835Facility Name:Lake Side Power Plant
Telephone:24-hour number; 801-796-1835
Actual Address:Lake Side Power Plant1825 North Pioneer LaneVineyard, UT 84042
Mailing Address:Lake Side Power Plant1825 North Pioneer LaneVineyard, UT 84042
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
PacifiCorp owns and operates the Lake Side Power Plant (Lake Side) which is located in Vineyard, Utah at latitude 40°19’46” and longitude111°45’17”. LSPP’s Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) code is 4911-04 for Electrical Services-Power Plants, and the North AmericanIndustry Classification System (NAICS) code is 221112 for Fossil Fuel Electric Generation.
Lake Side was completed in 2007 and began discharging in August 2007. The facility had an electricoutput capacity of 565 MW. The facility has two generating units, each utilizing 2 gas-fired
combustionturbines with 1 heat recovery steam generators and a steam turbine operating in a combined-cycle mode.The total electric output capacity of the Lake Side facility is 1204 MW.
The 2005 permit waste load allocation (WLA) included an IC25 1> 19%, but the value was not included inthe permit. The 2009 permit WLA included an IC25 > 38%, which was included in the
permit inaccordance with current EPA guidance.
In the original permit (2005), Lake Side was required to sample for ammonia, and with a chronic effluentlimit of 12.7 mg/l as a monthly average and an acute limit of 50.5 mg/l as a maximum
value. During therenewal of that permit it was determined that there was no indication of an ammonia issue. The limit andmonitoring for ammonia was then eliminated from the permit.
Lake Side decided to relocate the outfall from the facility during the 2009–2014 permit cycle. Thischange allowed the discharge of effluent to happen on the cold side of the cooling
loop rather than the hotside. They also added some de-chlorination treatment for the discharge to maintain compliance with thelower residual chlorine limit. The facility also planned
to add another generating unit during the 2009 -2014 permit cycle. The second unit consisted of 2 gas-fired combustion turbines with 1 heat recoverysteam generators and a steam turbine
operating in a combined-cycle mode, bringing the total electricoutput capacity of 1204 MW. This expansion increased the flow from the facility which also contributedto the decision to
relocate the outfall location. The relocated outfall was identified as Outfall 002.
As a result of these changes the 2009–2014 permit had three different sequential effluent configurationsduring the permit cycle; 1 the existing outfall (001) and flow of 2.0 MGD, 2 the
intermediate setup of thenew outfall (002) and flow limit of 2.0 MGD, 3 the final configuration of the new outfall and seasonalflow limits listed in the table below. To manage the changes
in flow and outfall locations, as well asstreamline the permitting process, the 2009 permit and FSSOB included limits and provisions for all threeconfigurations.
The increase in flow and relocation of the outfall resulted in effluent loading changes. As a result, LakeSide developed a Level II ADR for the discharge at the final limit and conditions.
The ADR was publicnoticed and no comments were received. The Division of Water Quality concurred with the ADR and itwas included as an addendum to the FSSOB for the 2009 renewal permit.
In May of 2013 PacifiCorp notified the Director that Outfall 002 was completed and that they wished tocommence using it. They also indicate that they wished to switch to the seasonal
flow limits associatedwith the final facility configuration. The change was granted in June 2013 and Lake Side commenceddischarging from Outfall 002. Outfall 001 was deactivated and
is no longer included in the permit andFSSOB.
The WLA’s that were run for the 2009-2014 permit indicated changes in the limits for temperature, total dissolved solids, copper, chromium VI, and total residual chlorine. For some parameters,
the changesresulted in seasonal limits. The copper limit for the facility was set on an annual mass loading with aconcentration. The outfall 002 final mass limits were based upon the
WLA concentration (0.075 mg/L)and seasonal flow limits. This calculated to 167 lbs/Qtr for summer (Jul-Sept), 132 lbs/Qtr for fall (Oct-Dec), 124 lbs/Qtr for winter (Jan-Mar), 154 lbs/Qtr
for spring (Apr-Jun) for copper. According to 40 CFR423.15 there is still a required maximum concentration of 1.0 mg/L for copper. These mass loading andconcentration limits were included
in the 2009 -2014 permit, and carried over to the 2014 – 2019 permits.The Division of Water Quality has worked to improve our reasonable potential analysis (RP) for theinclusion of limits
for parameters in the permit by using an EPA provided model. As a result of the work,Division of Water Quality required Lake Side to utilize a lower analysis detection level for thoseparameters,
or provide justification to the Director’s satisfaction that the analysis is not feasible.
Water Quality adopted UAC R317-1-3.3, Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) Rule in2014. The TBPEL rule as it relates to "non-lagoon" wastewater treatment plants establishes
newregulations for the discharge of phosphorus to surface waters and is self-implementing. The TBPEL ruleincludes the following requirements for non-lagoon wastewater treatment plants:
Water Quality has granted a variance to this rule after determining the facility does not meet the definitionof treatment works as defined in UAC R317-1-1.29.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT
In August 2020, the Utah Division of Water Quality amended the secondary treatment requirements found in UAC R317-1-3. That rule change made the secondary treatment standards applicable
only to Publicly Owned Treatment Works. As a result of that change Utah secondary treatment standards for Biological Oxygen Demand, and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) do not automatically
apply to industrial facilities, unless otherwise required by their effluent limitation guidelines (ELG).
Since Lake Side is not classified as a POTW, the Utah secondary treatment standards limit for TSS do not apply at this time. Therefore, the current TSS limits have been modified to reflect
the changes in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-1-3.
The Lake Side is an electric generating facility output of 1204 MW, and utilizes a gas-fired Combustion Turbines with a Heat Recovery Steam Generators and a steam turbine operating in
a combined-cycle mode, it has been identified with a SIC code of 4911 for Electrical Services-Power Plants, and NAICS code is 221112 for Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation, and the
Lake Side is subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) of the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category ELG for a new source as found in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 40 CFR 423.15.
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category ELG (40 CFR 423.15.) prescribe the following pollutants of concern (POC) for a discharge.
NSPS
Chemical Cleaning Waste
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum concentration (mg/l)
Average concentration (mg/l)
TSS
100.0
30.0
Oil and grease
20.0
15.0
Copper, total
1.0
1.0
Iron, total
1.0
1.0
Cooling Tower Blowdown
Pollutant or pollutant property
Maximum concentration (mg/l)
Average concentration (mg/l)
Free available chlorine
0.5
0.2
Chromium, total
0.2
0.2
zinc, total
1.0
1.0
The 126 priority pollutants (appendix A) contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance
No Detectable Amount
As a result, the TSS Limit has been relaxed to match the ELG’s. The new TSS Limit will be an average 30 mg/L and a maximum of 100 mg/L.
Due to changes in the receiving stream flows, some effluent limits have changed. Those are listed below
Limits Compariosn
Previous Permit Limits
Renewal Permit Limits
Parameter
Daily Maximum
Yearly
Average
Daily Maximum
Yearly
Average
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
2371
2371
2363
2371
-
-
-
-
2059.9
2481.5
2317.2
2712.6
-
-
-
-
Copper, lbs/qtr
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
-
-
-
-
167
132
124
154
-
-
-
-
73
58
54
68
Temperature, °F
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
81.8
82.9
84.4
93.1
-
-
-
-
81.8
68.3
64.7
76.8
-
-
-
-
Total Zinc, mg/L
-
-
-
0.63
Limit in WLA for the summer (July - September)season was83.2 Deg. F., but due to anti-backsliding, the limit will remain the same as it was in the previous permit.
In August 2024 the DWQ updated their “Monitoring and Sampling Frequency Guidance Document, August 2024”, (Monitoring Guidance, 2024) to make monitoring requirements more consistent among
dischargers. The monitoring frequencies required in the permit have been updated to reflect the new Monitoring Guidance 2024.
Cooling Water Intake Structure
Plant water is obtained from groundwater wells. Therefore, there are no cooling water intake structure requirements in the permit.
DISCHARGE
DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE
The Lake Side Power Plant has been discharging since 2005. There have been no violations resulting in enforcement action by DWQ. A summary of 3 years (July 2016 to June 2019) of monitoring
data is included.
Plant water is obtained from groundwater wells. The water is used in the evaporative cooler, the demineralizer, the combustion turbine, the heat recovery steam generator, and the cooling
tower. Waste streams from the evaporative cooler, the demineralizer, the combustion turbine, and the heat recovery steam generator are collected and reused in the cooling towers. Blow
down from the cooling towers is discharged to Lindon Hollow Creek. Sanitary flows are discharged to Lindon City sewer system. OutfallDescription of Discharge Point
002Located at latitude 4019'54.55" and longitude 11145'47.65". The discharge through a pipe to Lindon Hollow Creek which flows to Utah Lake.
RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
The final discharge flows into Lindon Hollow Creek then flows to Utah Lake. The receiving stream the
effluent discharges to has been classified as 2B, 3B &4 (Lindon Hollow Creek) according to Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) R317-2-13.
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.
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 4 -- Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) REQUIREMENTS According to the Utah’s Final 2024 Integrated Report on Water Quality dated April 30, 2024, the receiving water for the discharge, “Lindon
Hollow and tributaries from Utah Lake to Interstate 15 (Assessment unit # UT16020201-011_00)” was listed as “Insufficient Data”. The downstream waterbody, “Utah Lake other than Provo
Bay (AU UT-L-16020201-004_01)”, was listed as “Not Supporting” for E. coli, Eutrophication, Harmful Algal Blooms, PCB in fish tissue, Total Phosphorus, and Total Dissolved Solids. The
ongoing Utah Lake Water Quality Study (ULWQS) is intended to address the Eutrophication, Harmful Algal Blooms, and Total Phosphorus impairments.
BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONSIn accordance with regulations promulgated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 122.44 and in UAC R317-8-4.2, effluent limitations are derived from
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines, Utah Secondary Treatment Standards (UAC R317-1-3.2) or Utah Water Quality Standards (UAC R317-2). In cases where multiple limits have
been developed, those that are more stringent apply. In cases where no limits have been developed, Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) may be used where applicable.“Best Professional Judgment”
refers to a discretionary, best professional decision made by the permit writer based upon precedent, prevailing regulatory standards or other relevant information.
Effluent limitations are also derived using a waste load analysis (WLA). The WLA incorporates Secondary Treatment Standards, Water Quality Standards, and designated uses into a water
quality model that projects the effects of discharge concentrations on receiving water quality. Effluent limitations are those that the model demonstrates are sufficient to meet applicable
State water quality standards in the receiving waters. Where applicable, effluent limitations from the WLA were incorporated into the renewal permit (see the attached WLA).
The basis for effluent limitations is as follows:
Considering the processes employed at Lake Side, the following parameters are regulated under the effluent limitations guidelines for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, 40 CFR Part 423; total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, free available chlorine, pH, polychlorinated biphenyls, total chromium, total zinc and the 126 priority pollutants.
However, free available chlorine will be monitored at Outfall 004 instead of from cooling tower blowdown. This is consistent with the previous permit and is more in line with the operational
aspects of the power plant. Holding the discharge water in the ponds will allow the chlorine to dissipate and monitoring at 004 will directly show the chlorine concentration going to
the receiving waters (Abatement Canal).
The parameters regulated under Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-1-3.2, are secondary treatment standards for pH which are more stringent than the categorical requirements (40 CFR
Part 423) for this parameter.
Oil and grease will not be changed from what is in the previous permit. This limit is based on best professional judgment (BPJ) and is more stringent than the categorical requirements
(40 CFR 423) for this parameter and will be applicable at Outfall 002.
Attached is a Wasteload Analysis (WLA) for this discharge into Lindon Hollow 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.
The evaporative cooling process that is used by Lake Side does not reduce the effluent temperature completely down to background temperatures of the receiving stream, making temperature
a pollutant of concern for the discharge. The WLA generated seasonal temperature WQBEL that will be included in the permit.
The evaporative cooling process that is used by Lake Side concentrates the total dissolved solids (TDS) in the effluent, making TDS a pollutant of concern for the discharge. The WLA
generated seasonal TDS WQBEL that will be included in the permit.
Reasonable Potential Analysis
DWQ conducts a reasonable potential analysis (RP) on all new and renewal applications. 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 screening was conducted on total chrome and total zinc. Monitoring results for both metals did not indicate a full RP was required.
A quantitative RP analysis was performed on(metal)to determine if there was reasonable potential for the discharge to exceed the applicable water quality standards. Based on the RP
analysis, the following parameters exceeded the most stringent chronic water quality standard or were determined to have a reasonable potential to exceed the standard: (list metals).
In addition, the RP analysis for (metals) indicates increase monitoring is required. A copy of the RP analysis is included at the end of this Fact Sheet.
The permit limitations are
Parameter
Proposed Effluent Limitations 1
Maximum Monthly Avg
Maximum Weekly Avg
Yearly
Average
Daily Minimum
Daily Maximum
Total Flow, MGD
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.9
2.3
2.2
2.7
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
-
-
-
5.0
-
TSS, mg/L
30
-
-
-
100
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2059.9
2481.5
2317.2
2712.6
Iron, mg/L
-
-
-
-
1
Total Chromium, mg/L
-
-
-
-
0.2
Chromium VI, mg/L
-
-
-
-
0.022
Total Zinc, mg/L
-
-
-
-
0.67
Copper, mg/L
-
-
-
-
1
Copper, lbs/qtr
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73
58
54
68
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TRC3, mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.06
Oil & Grease, mg/L
-
-
-
-
10.0
WET, Chronic Biomonitoring
-
-
-
-
IC25 > 20% effluent
pH, Standard Units
-
-
-
6.5
9
Temperature, °F
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-`
-
-
-
-
81.82
68.3
64.1
76.8
See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.
Limit in WLA for this season was83.2 °F., but due to anti-backsliding will remain as in previous permit.
The TRC limit developed in the WLA is a more stringent limit than that found in 40 CFR 423.15 and is considered more protective than limiting the times allowed for utilizing and discharging
chlorine.
SELF-MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTSThe following self-monitoring requirements are updated from the previous permit to more closely match what is required in the DWQ Monitoring
Guidance, 2024. 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 4, 5
Continuous
Recorder
MGD
TSS,Effluent
Twice Weekly
Grab
mg/L
TDS, Effluent
Twice Weekly
Composite
mg/L
DO, Effluent
Twice Weekly
Grab
mg/L
TRC 6, Effluent
Twice Weekly
Grab
mg/L
Oil & Grease 7
Monthly
Grab
mg/L
Total Phosphorus (as P),8
Monthly
Grab
mg/L
Temperature,
Twice Weekly
Composite
°F
WET – Biomonitoring
Ceriodaphnia - Chronic
Fathead Minnows - Chronic
2nd & 4th Quarter
1st & 3rd Quarter
Composite
Composite
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
pH
Twice Weekly
Grab
SU
Organic Toxics9, 10
Annually
Grab
mg/L
See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.
Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained.
If the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be recorded.
Analytical results less than 0.06 mg/l will not be considered out of compliance with the permit. For purposes of calculating averages and reporting on the Discharge Monitoring Report
form, the following will apply:
1) analytical values less than 0.02 mg/L shall be considered zero; and
2) analytical values less than 0.06 mg/L and equal to or greater than 0.02 mg/L will be recorded as measured.
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)
Total phosphorus is being sampled in support of the work being done for the TMDL currently underway for theUtah Lake. Sampling will be conducted and reported on a monthly basis by the
facility on Discharge MonitoringReport, but will not have a limit associated with them If Lake Side Power decides to sample more frequently for thisPOC, the additional data will be welcome.
The 126 priority pollutants contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance arelisted in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423.
As per 40 CFR 423.15 (b)(10)(iii); At the permitting authority's discretion, instead of the monitoring in 40 CFR122.11(b), compliance with the standards for the 126 priority pollutants
in paragraph 40 CFR 423.15 (b)(10)(i) ofthis section may be determined by engineering calculations demonstrating that the regulated pollutants are notdetectable in the final discharge
by the analytical methods in 40 CFR part 136
Effluent Metals Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 1
Parameter
Frequency
Sample Type11
Units
MDL12, mg/L
Total Chromium
Weekly
Grab
mg/L
0.64
Chromium VI
Weekly
Grab
mg/L
0.0212
Copper
Weekly
Grab
mg/L
0.033
Iron
Weekly
Grab
mg/L
1.0
Zinc
Weekly
Grab
mg/L
0.625
Aluminum
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
1.0
Arsenic
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.245
Cadmium
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.005
Cyanide
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.0127
Lead
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.0255
Mercury
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.000029
Nickel
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.4
Selenium
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.008
Silver
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
0.0675
See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.
The sample type(composite or grab) should be performed according to the methods requirements.
Metals samples should be analyzed using an approved method with a detection level below the minimum detection level (MDL) requirements. If a test method is not available the permittee
must submit documentation to the Director regarding the method that will be used and why.
BIOSOLIDS
The State of Utah has adopted the 40 CFR 503 federal regulations for the disposal of sewage sludge (biosolids) by reference.However, this facility does not receive, generate, treat or
dispose of biosolids. Therefore 40 CFR 503 does not apply.
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.
Information onstorm water permit requirements can be found at http://stormwater.utah.gov
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The permittee has not been designated for pretreatment program development because it does not meet conditions which necessitate a full program. The flow through the plant is less than
five (5) MGD, there are no categorical industries discharging to the treatment facility, industrial discharges comprise less than 1 percent of the flow through the treatment facility,
and there is no indication of pass through or interference with the operation of the treatment facility such as upsets or violations of the POTW's UPDES permit limits.
Although the permittee does not have to develop a State-approved pretreatment program, any wastewater discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to Federal, State and local regulations.
Pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, the permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal General Pretreatment Regulations promulgated, found in 40 CFR 403 and the State
Pretreatment Requirements found in UAC R317-8-8.
An industrial waste survey (IWS) is required of the permittee as stated in Part II of the permit. The IWS is to assess the needs of the permittee regarding pretreatment assistance.
The IWS is required to be submitted within sixty (60) days after the issuance of the permit. If an Industrial User begins to discharge or an existing Industrial User changes their
discharge the permittee must resubmit an IWS no later than sixty days following the introduction or change as stated in Part II of the permit.
It is required that the permittee submit for review any local limits that are developed to the Division of Water Quality for review. If local limits are developed it is required that
the permittee perform an annual evaluation of the need to revise or develop technically based local limits for pollutants of concern, to implement the general and specific prohibitions
40 CFR, Part 403.5(a) and Part 403.5(b). This evaluation may indicate that present local limits are sufficiently protective, need to be revised or should be developed.
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 discharger, the renewal permit will again require whole effluent toxicity(WET) testing. Chronic quarterly biomonitoring will be again be required as described
in the permit withno significant changes from the existing permit provisions. The only change to the biomonitoringprovisions is the inclusion of WET limits as required to reflect the
Waste Load Analysis (WLA).
PERMIT DURATIONIt is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.Drafted and Reviewed byDaniel Griffin, Discharge Permit Writer, Reasonable Potential AnalysisJennifer
Robinson, PretreatmentLonnie Shull, BiomonitoringScott Daly, TMDL/Watershed Chris Schoope, Wasteload AnalysisUtah Division of Water Quality, (801) 536-4300PUBLIC NOTICEBegan: Month Day,
YearEnded: Month Day, YearComments will be received at: 195 North 1950 West PO Box 144870 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870The Public Noticed of the draft permit was published in the (NEWSPAPER
OF RECORD FOR AREA).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.ADDENDUM TO FSSOBDuring finalization of the Permit certain dates, spelling edits and
minor language corrections were completed. Due to the nature of these changes they were not considered Major and the permit is not required to be re Public Noticed.Responsiveness Summary(Explain
any comments received and response sent. Actual letters can be referenced, but not required to be included).
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 1
Effluent Monitoring Data
This Page Intentionally Left BlankEffluent Monitoring Data.
Monthly Metals
Parameter
Cr
Cr VI
Cu
Fe
Zn
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Limit
0.2
0.022
1
1
0.67
Jul-21
0
<
0
<
0
<
0.4
=
0
<
Aug-21
0
<
0.01
=
0
<
0.3
=
0.05
<
Sep-21
0
<
0.01
<
0
<
0.4
=
0.05
<
Oct-21
0
<
0.01
=
0
<
0.6
=
0
<
Nov-21
0
<
0.01
<
0
<
0
=
0
<
Dec-21
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.05
<
Jan-22
0
<
0
<
0
<
0.2
=
0.05
<
Feb-22
0
<
0.01
<
0
<
0.2
=
0.05
<
Mar-22
0.2
<
0.01
=
0
<
0.2
=
0.05
<
Apr-22
0
<
0.02
=
0
<
0
=
0.05
<
May-22
0
<
0.01
<
0
<
0.3
=
0.05
<
Jun-22
0
<
0
<
0
<
0.3
=
0
<
Jul-22
0
<
0.01
<
0
<
0.3
=
0.05
<
Aug-22
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0.4
=
0.02
=
Sep-22
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0.7
=
0.01
=
Oct-22
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0.4
=
0.03
=
Nov-22
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0.3
=
0.02
=
Dec-22
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0.1
=
0.01
=
Jan-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.01
=
Feb-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0.1
=
0.03
=
Mar-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.01
=
Apr-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.03
=
May-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
Jun-23
0
=
0.01
=
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
Jul-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.01
=
Aug-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
Sep-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.01
=
Oct-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
1
=
0.01
=
Nov-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
2.16
=
0.05
=
Dec-23
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.03
=
Jan-24
0.006
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
Feb-24
0
=
0.01
=
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
Mar-24
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.03
=
Apr-24
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
May-24
0
=
0.01
<
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
Jun-24
0
=
0.02
<
0
=
0
=
0.02
=
TSS
TSS
DO
Tot P
O & G
pH
pH
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
SU
SU
Acute
Chronic
Min
Chronic
Max
Min
Max
Month
35
25
5
10
6.5
9
Jul-21
17
12
7
0.7
0
8
8
Aug-21
11
10
6.6
0.5
0
8.1
9
Sep-21
23
16
6.6
0.6
0
7.9
9
Oct-21
23
14
7.1
0.5
0
8
8
Nov-21
12
10
7.4
0.6
5
7.9
8
Dec-21
9
8
7.2
1.1
0
7.7
8
Jan-22
8
6
7.2
0.6
0
7.7
8
Feb-22
12
9
7.3
0.6
0
8
8
Mar-22
10
7
5.8
0.6
0
7.7
8
Apr-22
25
16
6.9
0.8
0
8
9
May-22
20
11
7.1
0.6
0
7.6
8
Jun-22
14
10
7
0.5
0
7.8
8
Jul-22
13
11
7.3
0.4
0
8.2
8
Aug-22
25
16
6.9
0.4
0
7.9
9
Sep-22
25
17
6.8
0.4
0
7.4
8
Oct-22
19
15
6.4
0.4
0
7.5
8
Nov-22
28
20
6
0.5
0
6.9
8
Dec-22
14
12
6.1
0.5
0
7.5
8
Jan-23
12
11
6.7
0.6
0
7.6
8
Feb-23
11
8
6.4
0.5
0
7
8
Mar-23
11
9
7.1
0.4
0
7.4
8
Apr-23
11
10
7.4
0.5
0
7.3
8
May-23
16
13
7.2
0.5
0
7.2
8
Jun-23
26
19
7
0.5
0
7.6
8
Jul-23
21
14
6.9
0.5
0
7.7
9
Aug-23
24
22
7
0.5
0
8
9
Sep-23
28
20
6
0.6
0
7.4
8
Oct-23
18
14
5.9
0.4
0
7
8
Nov-23
42
21
6.5
0.5
0
7
8
Dec-23
16
10
7.2
0.5
0
8
8
Jan-24
12
11
7.3
0.5
0
7.9
8
Feb-24
12
10
7.4
0.5
0
8
8
Mar-24
10
9
7.2
0.5
0
7.6
8
Apr-24
12
9
6.9
0.6
0
7.7
8
May-24
10
8
6.4
0.4
0
7.8
8
Jun-24
18
13
7
0.5
0
7.3
9
Jul-24
26
16
7
0.5
0
7.9
8
Parameter
Max Flow
Max TDS
Unit
MGD
mg/L
Quarter
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Limit
2.2
2.7
2.9
2.3
2363
2371
2371
2371
Month
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Jul-21
1.1
2060
Aug-21
1.4
1920
Sep-21
1.1
1940
Oct-21
0.7
2000
Nov-21
0.9
1900
Dec-21
0.9
1990
Jan-22
0.9
2070
Feb-22
0.8
2070
Mar-22
0.8
1980
Apr-22
0.9
2170
May-22
1.4
1990
Jun-22
1.1
1950
Jul-22
1.1
2300
Aug-22
1.3
2200
Sep-22
1.2
2040
Oct-22
1
2180
Nov-22
0.8
2120
Dec-22
0.9
1980
Jan-23
0.9
2140
Feb-23
0.9
2010
Mar-23
1
1890
Apr-23
1.1
1830
May-23
1.2
1940
Jun-23
1.1
1760
Jul-23
1.1
2220
Aug-23
1.2
1900
Sep-23
1.4
2060
Oct-23
0.7
1880
Nov-23
0.8
1760
Dec-23
0.8
1760
Jan-24
1
1730
Feb-24
0.9
1870
Mar-24
0.8
1890
Apr-24
1.4
1960
May-24
0.8
1850
Jun-24
1.4
2210
Jul-24
1.5
1930
Max TRC
Max Temperature
mg/L
deg F
Quarter
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Limit
0.06
0.03
0.05
84.4
93.1
81.8
82.9
Month
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Jul-21
0.02
73.6
Aug-21
0.01
71.9
Sep-21
0.02
70.9
Oct-21
0.01
69.5
Nov-21
0.01
67.8
Dec-21
0.01
71.9
Jan-22
0.01
72.6
Feb-22
0.01
69.8
Mar-22
0.03
71.1
Apr-22
0.01
69.2
May-22
0.01
75
Jun-22
0.01
70.5
Jul-22
0.01
74
Aug-22
0.01
72.2
Sep-22
0.01
71
Oct-22
0.01
68
Nov-22
0.02
70.2
Dec-22
0.01
70.8
Jan-23
0
70.1
Feb-23
0.01
70.4
Mar-23
0.01
66.9
Apr-23
0.01
67.3
May-23
0.01
69
Jun-23
0.01
69.2
Jul-23
0.01
74
Aug-23
0.02
73.2
Sep-23
0.01
73
Oct-23
0.01
69
Nov-23
0.02
67
Dec-23
0.01
69.1
Jan-24
0.01
67.1
Feb-24
0.01
68.5
Mar-24
0.01
67.4
Apr-24
0.01
70
May-24
0.02
69
Jun-24
0.02
71.5
Jul-24
0.01
76
Quarterly Metals
Parameter
Ag
Al
As
Cd
CN
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
Max
MDL
0.0005
0.0002
0.002
0.000001
0.0005
0.009
Sep-21
<MDL
0.4
0.0139
<MDL
0.014
0.0000852
0.003
<MDL
<MDL
Dec-21
<MDL
0.3
0.0131
<MDL
0.003
0.0000202
0.004
<MDL
<MDL
Mar-22
<MDL
0.3
0.017
<MDL
<MDL
0.0000017
0.0021
<MDL
<MDL
Jun-22
<MDL
0.3
0.0136
<MDL
0.002
0.0000048
0.004
<MDL
<MDL
Sep-22
<MDL
0.3
0.0133
<MDL
<MDL
0.0000088
0.003
<MDL
<MDL
Dec-22
<MDL
0.3
0.0126
<MDL
0.005
0.0000102
0.003
0.0005
0.004
Mar-23
<MDL
0.3
0.015
<MDL
<MDL
0.0000282
0.0055
0.0005
0.0047
Jun-23
<MDL
0.2
0.0105
<MDL
0.005
0.0000323
0.002
<MDL
0.0041
Sep-23
<MDL
0
0.009
<MDL
<MDL
0.000006
0.0035
<MDL
0.0025
Dec-23
<MDL
0.2
0.0172
<MDL
<MDL
0.000001
0.003
<MDL
0.004
Mar-24
<MDL
0.3
0.0123
<MDL
0.003
0.0000052
0.0034
0.0008
0.0037
Jun-24
<MDL
0.1
0.1
<MDL
<MDL
<MDL
0.0021
<MDL
0.0037
7 Day Chronic WET Testing
Month
Species
Result
Apr-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
May-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Jun-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Jun-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Jul-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Aug-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Sep-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Sep-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Oct-23
Ceriodaphniadubia
Pass
Jun-24
Pimephalespromelas
Pass
Jun-24
Pimephalespromelas
Pass
Jul-24
Pimephalespromelas
Pass
Copper Loading
lb/qtr
Load
Limit
124
154
167
132
Quarter
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Sep-20
8
Dec-20
4.42
Mar-21
2.89
Jun-21
4.55
Sep-21
5.66
Dec-21
3.87
Mar-22
3.68
Jun-22
1.58
Sep-22
6
Dec-22
4.61
Mar-23
4.99
Jun-23
5.21
Sep-23
5.86
Dec-23
3.48
Mar-24
4
Jun-24
4.61
ATTACHMENT 3
Wasteload Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 4
Reasonable Potential Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
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 Analysis. 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 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 a deeper review and the full model might need to be run on cyanide, hexavalent
chrome, iron, lead, mercury, iron, and selenium.
Metals With Effluent Limits, Monitored Monthly
Reviewing the iron data shows that the reported value for November, 2023 was 2.16 mg/L, which is three times the next highest iron value. This sample was identified as an outlier for
the RP Model and a reviewof the records shows that during this period, only one generating unit was in operation (Block 1) and they needed to increase the discharge rate from 162 gpm
to 328 gpm in order to meet downstream needs. This rapid increase in flows resulted in the resuspension and discharge of sediment from the basin of the cooling towers.
As a result ofthe situation, a refresher training was given to the operators on how to properly increase flow rates to avoid this in the future, and the results were reported to DWQ.
This a periodic cleaning of the basins is conducted. This was all reported on November 21, 2023 when it wasfirst discovered (DWQ-2024-002513).This will not change the permit since the
iron limit of 1 mg/L is required as a limit as part of the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category ELG (40 CFR 423.15.).
Reviewing the hexavalent chrome data shows that almost all of the results reported as below the method detection level (MDL) from the lab. The reported MDL was 0.01 mg/L or 0.02 mg/L.
The current limit is 0.022 mg/L as a maximum value. At this time, there is no outcome of running the full RP Analysis model that will result in a change of the effluent limit or monitoring
requirements. So the full RP Analysis will not be run.
Metals Without Effluent Limits, Monitored Quarterly
Reviewing the iron data shows that the reported value for November, 2023 was 2.16 mg/L, which is three times the next highest iron value. This sample was identified as an outlier for
the RP Model and a review of the records shows that during this period, only one generating unit was in operation (Block 1) and they needed to increase the discharge rate from 162 gpm
to 328 gpm in order to meet downstream needs. This rapid increase in flows resulted in the resuspension and discharge of sediment from the basin of the cooling towers.
When this data point is removed from the data set, screening indicates that no further RP Analysis isrequired. As a result, the full RP Analysis will not be run, and no changes will
be made to the monitoring requirements.
Reviewing the lead data shows that all but one value was reported as below the MDL value, this was for the Second Quarter of 2024, and was reported as 0.0008 mg/L. The MDL ranged from
0.04 mg/L to 0.005 mg/L. It is this MDL (0.04 mg/L) value that triggered RP for lead. These values were all from 2021 and 2022. The reported MDL after these values is 0.0005 mg/L. If
this value is used, then there is no need to run a full RP. As a result, RP will not be run, and there will be no changes to the lead monitoring requirements.
Reviewing the selenium data shows that all but one value was reported as below the MDL value, this was for the Second Quarter of 2024, and was reported as 0.0008 mg/L. The MDL ranged
from 0.04 mg/L to 0.005 mg/L. It is this MDL (0.04 mg/L) value that triggered RP for lead. These values were all from 2021 and 2022. The reported MDL after these values is 0.0005 mg/L.
If this value is used, then there is no need to run a full RP. As a result, RP will not be run, and there will be no changes to the lead monitoring requirements.
The only reportedreportedthe reported value for November, 2023 was 2.16 mg/L, which is three times the next highest iron value. This sample was identified as an outlier for the RP Model
and a review of the records shows that during this period, only one generating unit was in operation (Block 1) and they needed to increase the discharge rate from 162 gpm to 328 gpm
in order to meet downstream needs. This rapid increase in flows resulted in the resuspension and discharge of sediment from the basin of the cooling towers.
When this data point is removed from the data set, screening indicates that no further RP Analysis isrequired. So the full RP Analysis will not be run, and no changes will be made to
the monitoring requirements.(Outcome A Use as a guide for as many metals as required)
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XXdata points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YYdata points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is (acute and/or chronic)RP at
95% confidence, and there is (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for (metal) is required at this time.(Outcome
A from Reasonable Potential Guide)
(Outcome BUse as a guide for as many metals as required
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XX data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YY data points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not(acute and/or chronic)RP
at 95% confidence, and there is (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for (metal) is not required at this time, but
routine monitoring requirements will be added or increased in the permit.(Outcome B from Reasonable Potential Guide)
(Outcome C Use as a guide for as many metals as required)
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XX data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YY data points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not(acute and/or chronic)RP
at 95% confidence, and there is not (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for (metal) is not required at this time,
and that routine monitoring requirements can be added or increased in the permit.(Outcome C from Reasonable Potential Guide)
(Outcome D Use as a guide for as many metals as required)
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XX data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YY data points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not(acute and/or chronic)RP
at 95% confidence, and there is not (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that there is no requirement to include an effluent limit for (metal) or routine
monitoring in the permit.(Outcome D from Reasonable Potential Guide)
The RP model was run on Selenium using the most recent data back through 2009. This resulted in 19 data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for Selenium.
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided, back through 2006 for a total of 40 data points, and the EPA ProUCL model was
used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both 19 and 40 data points. This outlier was from the summer of 2011 (0.007 mg/L).
The value was excluded from the data set and RP was rerun. As a result, no effluent limit for Selenium will be included. (Outcome C from RP Guide)
A Summary of the RP Model inputs and outputs are included in the tables below. Initial screening for metals values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed
that a closer look at some of the metals is not needed.
(NO REASONABLE POTENTIAL LANGUAGE)Initial screening for metals values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed that a closer look at some of the metals is
not needed.
(Include as needed)
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.Initial RP Screening
RP Screening - Quarterly Metals
Parameter
Ag
Al
As
Cd
CN
Hg
Ni
Pb
Se
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
WQBEL
Acute
0.0675
1
0.2449
0.0123
0.0379
0.000367
2.5577
0.2264
0.0328
Chronic
0.0675
0.3631
0.0054
0.0127
0.000029
0.4
0.0255
0.008
Reported Max Value
0.002
0.4
0.1
0.0018
0.014
0.0000852
0.0055
0.04
0.009
Full RP Should be done?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
RP Screening - Monthly Metals (ELG)
Parameter
Cr
Cr VI
Cu
Fe
Zn
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
WQBEL
Acute
9.479
0.0247
0.067
0.6246
Chronic
0.64
0.0212
0.033
0.8694
Reported Max Value
0.2
0.02
0.01
2.16
0.05
Full RP Should be done?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
CFR ELG
0.2
0.22
1
1
0.062RP input/output summary
RP Procedure Output
Outfall Number:
XXX
Data Units
mg/L
Parameter
metal
metal
Distribution
(Distribution)
(Distribution)
Reporting Limit
(0.0xx)
(0.0xx)
Significant Figures
x
x
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc.
x.xxx
x.xxx
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
x.xxx
x.xxx
Acute Criterion
x.xxx
x.xxx
Chronic Criterion
x.xxx
x.xxx
Confidence Interval
95
99
95
99
Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC)
x.xxx
x.xxx
x.xxx
x.xxx
RP Multiplier
X.XX
X.XX
X.XX
X.XX
RP for Acute?
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
RP for Chronic?
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
Outcome
(A,B,C,D)
(A,B,C,D)
Metals Monitoring and RP Check
Effluent
Metal
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Molybdenum
Selenium
Mercury
ARP Val
0.0052
0.34
0.0054
0.016
0.0332
0.262
1.019
0.0183
0.26
1
0.0184
0.0024
CRP Val
0.022
0.15
0.00053
0.011
0.0204
0.0102
0.113
1
0.26
1
0.0046
0.000012
Metals, mg/L
0.0097
0.0096
NR
NR
0.011
0.00025
0.00822
0.00004
0.021
0.00395
0.00083
2.4E-06
0.0092
0.0096
0.000035
0
0.0105
0.000179
0.00822
0.000026
0.0203
0.00395
0.000426
2.4E-06
0.0092
0.0096
0.000035
ND
0.0105
0.000192
0.00822
0.00003
0.0203
0.00395
0.000754
1.3E-06
0.0103
0.0096
0.000041
ND
0.0105
0.000192
0.0159
0.000062
0.0341
ND
0.00106
0.000003
0.0103
0.00803
0.000041
ND
0.0106
0.000244
0.0159
0.000062
0.0341
ND
0.000754
0.000003
0.0119
0.00875
0.000041
ND
0.0121
0.000326
0.0159
0.000062
0.0341
ND
0.000754
4.2E-06
0.0093
0.0095
0
0.000226
0.00569
0
0.00737
0
0.0113
0.00355
0.000356
0
0.0086
0.00972
ND
0.0011
0.0127
0.000374
0.00227
ND
0.0166
0.00468
0.000627
ND
0.0055
0.0126
0.000127
0.00108
0.00823
0.000262
0.00203
0.000203
0.0199
0.00453
0.00084
0.000158
0.0093
0.0126
0.000127
0.0011
0.0127
0.000374
0.00737
0.000203
0.0199
0.00468
0.00084
5.3E-06
0.0086
0.0126
0.000127
0.0011
0.0127
0.000374
0.00626
0.000203
0.0199
0.00468
0.00084
ND
0.0084
0.0085
ND
ND
0.00818
ND
0.0067
ND
0.0137
0.0037
ND
0.000002
0.0085
0.00567
ND
0.001
0.00805
ND
0.00189
ND
0.0287
0.00313
ND
2.3E-06
0.0101
0.00714
ND
0.000921
0.00818
ND
0.00654
ND
0.0213
0.00301
ND
ND
ND
0.0089
ND
0.0007
0.0045
ND
0.0054
ND
0.01
0.003
0.0014
ND
ND
0.0081
ND
ND
0.00395
ND
0.00146
2.62E-05
0.0155
0.00315
0.000364
1.9E-06
0.00426
0.00537
ND
ND
0.00578
ND
0.00246
2.93E-05
0.0421
0.00935
0.00036
ND
ND
0.489
0.000444
0.00431
0.00206
0.000941
0.000941
6.97E-05
0.0163
0.00272
0.000441
1.41E-05
0.0138
0.00911
ND
ND
0.00477
ND
0.00204
3.91E-05
0.0298
0.00339
0.000411
ND
0.00557
0.00704
ND
ND
0.00596
ND
0.00166
ND
0.0137
0.00328
0.000301
1.5E-06
ND Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
0.0138
0.489
0.000444
0.00431
0.0127
0.000941
0.0159
0.000203
0.0421
0.00935
0.0014
0.000158
A RP?
YES
YES
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C RP?
YES
YES
YES
No
YES
No
No
No
No
No
No
YES
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
(Metal)RP Results
RP Procedure Output
Effluent Data
Facility Name:
(Facility Name)
#
#
#
Permit Number:
(permit number)
1
41
81
Outfall Number:
001
2
42
82
Parameter
(metal)
3
43
83
Distribution
(distribution)
4
44
84
Data Units
mg/L
5
45
85
Reporting Limit
(x.xxx)
6
46
86
Significant Figures
X
7
47
87
Confidence Interval
95
8
48
88
9
49
89
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc.
(X.XXX)
mg/L
10
50
90
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
(X.XXX)
11
51
91
RP Multiplier
(X.XXX)
12
52
92
Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC)
(X.XXX)
mg/L
13
53
93
14
54
94
Acute Criterion
(X.XXX)
0
15
55
95
Chronic Criterion
(X.XXX)
0
16
56
96
Human Health Criterion
NA
0
17
57
97
18
58
98
RP for Acute?
(NO/YES)
19
59
99
RP for Chronic?
(NO/YES)
20
60
100
RP for Human Health?
N/A
21
61
101
22
62
102
Confidence Interval
99
23
63
103
24
64
104
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc.
(X.XXX)
25
65
105
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
(X.XXX)
26
66
106
RP Multiplier
(X.XXX)
27
67
107
Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC)
(X.XXX)
28
68
108
29
69
109
Acute Criterion
(X.XXX)
30
70
110
Chronic Criterion
(X.XXX)
31
71
111
Human Health Criterion
NA
32
72
112
33
73
113
RP for Acute?
(NO/YES)
34
74
114
RP for Chronic?
(NO/YES)
35
75
115
RP for Human Health?
N/A
36
76
116
37
77
117
38
78
118
39
79
119
40
80
120