DWQ-2024-008463

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
BRIGHAM CITY CORPORATION
RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE & BIOSOLIDS
UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0022365
UPDES BIOSOLIDS PERMIT NUMBER: UTL-022365
MAJOR MUNICIPAL
FACILITY CONTACTSOperator Name:Brigham City CorporationPerson Name:Bryce LofthousePosition:General ManagerPhone Number:[phone]Person Name:Jenifer MichelsonPosition:Pretreatment
Coordinator, Laboratory DirectorPhone Number:[phone]Permittee Name:Brigham City CorporationFacility Name:Brigham City Corporation Wastewater Treatment PlantMailing Address:20
North Main PO BOX 1005Brigham City, Utah 84302 Telephone:[phone]Actual Address:600 North 1200 West Brigham City, Utah
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
Brigham City uses an activated sludge treatment process with ultra violet (UV) disinfection. The physical plant consists of; 2 aerated grit chambers; 2 carousel oxidation ditches; 3
final clarifiers operated in parallel; 1 aerobic digester; 4 UV disinfection units in series; a post aeration chamber; and 18 sludge drying beds. In addition to the drying beds the facility
now has two screw presses. The facility was placed in service in 1987 replacing a 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) trickling filter plant. The existing facility has a design capacity
of 6.0 MGD. The facility is designed for a population equivalent of 29,000 and influent organic loadings of 490 milligrams per liter (mg/l) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and 240 mg/l
total suspended solids (TSS). The area population serviced by the plant is estimated at 17,665 including the town of Brigham City (17,000) and Mantua (665). The facility is located at
600 North 1200 West, Brigham City, Box Elder County. The sludge generated from the ditches is dried and composted onsite, then utilized for landscape and gardening purposes.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT
Storm water requirements have been removed from this permit. 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. See STORM WATER Section
for more information on future coverage.
DISCHARGE
DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE
The Permittee has been reporting self-monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) on a monthly basis. OutfallDescription of Discharge Point
001 Located at latitude 41° 31' 27.81" and longitude 112° 02' 51.49". The discharge is through a pipe to the old Box Elder Creek bed.
RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
The discharge is through a pipe to the abandoned Box Elder Creek bed, which rejoins the realigned Box Elder Creek ½ mile down and continues to Blacks Slough (not classified). Box Elder
Creek is Class 2B, 3C, and 4according 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 3C -- Protected for nongame fish and other 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
UPDATE when get WLA.
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 is based on best professional judgment (BPJ). Attached is a Wasteload Analysis for this discharge into the unnamed irrigation ditch. 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 permit limitations are:
Total dissolved solids (TDS) limitations are based upon Utah Water Quality Standards for concentration values and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (CRBSCF) for mass loading
values when applicable as authorized in UAC R317-2-4. CRBSCF has established a policy for the reasonable increase of salinity for municipal discharges to any portion of the Colorado
River stream system that has an impact on the lower main stem. The CRBSCF Policy entitled “NPDES Permit Program Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards” (Policy),
with the most current version dated October 2020, states that the incremental increase in salinity shall be 400 mg/L or less, which is considered to be a reasonable incremental increase
above the flow weighted average salinity of the intake water supply.
Reasonable Potential Analysis
Since January 1, 2016, DWQ has conducted reasonable potential analysis (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 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
Effluent Limitations *a
Maximum Monthly Avg
Maximum Weekly Avg
Yearly
Average
Daily Minimum

Daily Maximum
Total Flow, MGD
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
(X.X)
BOD5, mg/L
BOD5 Min. % Removal
(X.X)
85
(X.X)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
CBOD5, mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
BOD5 Min. % Removal
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
85
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
TSS, mg/L
TSS Min. % Removal
25
85
35
--
--
--
--
--

--
--
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
--
--
--
(X.X)
--
Total Ammonia (as N), mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
TRC, mg/L
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
(X.X)
E. coli, No./100mL
126
157
--
--
--
Total Phosphorus, mg/L (Final) *k, *l, *i
(X.X)
(X.X)
(1/X.X)
--
(X.X)
WET, Acute Biomonitoring
--
--
--
--
LC50>100% effluent (from WLA)
WET, Chronic Biomonitoring
--
--

--
--
IC25>XX% effluent (from WLA)
Oil & Grease, mg/L
--
--
--
--
10.0
pH, Standard Units
--
--
--
6.5
9
TDS, mg/L *j
SELF-MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTSThe following self-monitoring requirements are the same as in the previous permit. 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 *a
Parameter
Frequency
Sample Type
Units
Total Flow *b, *c
Continuous/What?
Recorder
MGD
BOD5, Influent *d
Effluent
How Often?
How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
CBOD5, Influent *d
Effluent
How Often?
How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
TSS, Influent *d
Effluent
How Often?
How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
E. coli
How Often?
Grab
No./100mL
pH
How Often?
Grab

SU
Total Ammonia (as N)
How Often?
Composite
mg/L
DO
How Often?
Grab
mg/L
WET – Biomonitoring *h
Ceriodaphnia - Acute
Ceriodaphnia - Chronic
Fathead Minnows - Acute
Fathead Minnows - Chronic
How Often?
1st & 3rd Quarter
2nd & 4th Quarter
2nd & 4th Quarter
1st & 3rd Quarter
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
TRC, mg/L, *e, *g
How Often?
Grab
mg/L
Oil & Grease *f
When Sheen Observed
Grab
mg/L
Orthophosphate (as P), *k
Effluent
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Total Phosphorus (as P), *l, *k
Influent
Effluent
Monthly/ How Often?
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TKN (as N), *k, *l
Influent
Effluent
Monthly/ How Often?
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate, NO3 *k, *l

Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Nitrite, NO2 *k, *l
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
TDS, mg/L *j
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Temperature, mg/L *l,
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Metals, Influent *h
Effluent
Quarterly/ How Often?
Quarterly/ How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Organic Toxics
Quarterly/ How Often?
Grab
mg/L*aSee Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.*bFlow measurements of influent/effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate
that representative values are being obtained.*cIf the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be reported.*dIn 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.*eAnalytical 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.*fOil
& Grease sampled when sheen is present or visible. If no sheen is present or visible, report NA.
*gTotal residual chlorine monitoring frequency is (How Often?) times a week. The chlorine disinfection is a backup system to the ultra violet system and therefore should not be needed
unless the ultra violet system has a failure and is by passed. The TRC limits are low enough to require analysis in the onsite lab which is open only 6 days a week. Frequency reduction
will remove a requirement that the lab be opened for a 7th day. In case of a bypass on any day the lab is closed, (Permittee) will bring in lab personnel to open the lab for TRC analysis

*hTheacute Ceriodaphnia will be tested during the 1stand 3rdquarters and the acute fathead minnows will be tested during the 2ndand 4thquarters. The chronic Ceriodaphnia will be tested
during the 2ndand 4thquarters, and the chronic fathead minnows will be tested during the 1stand 3rdquarters.
*iMetals results were reviewed for the last 36 months. Only selenium appeared to be close to the limits suggested in the Wasteload. After further review, and confirmation by a round
of sampling in late November, early December of 2004, it was shown that the reporting limit for selenium for the onsite lab is above the suggested limits, and when samples are analyzed
off site in a lab with lower reporting limits, selenium levels are under the reporting limit for the lab. No limits are required at this time.NOTE: If discharge is in the Colorado River
Basin, put the appropriate total dissolved solids (TDS) language in the SOB, and the permit (see below).
*jThe effluent shall not exceed the culinary source water intake by more than 400 mg/L of TDS (*******or the permittee could request 1 ton/day salt loading, or 366 tons/year*******).*kThese
reflect changes required with the adoption of UAC R317-1-3.3, Technology-based Phosphorus Effluent Limits rule.Total Phosphorus Compliance Schedule:DateMilestoneDecember 31, 2019Complete
monitoring only sampling for Total PhosphorusJanuary 1, 2020Comply with Final Total Phosphorus Effluent Limit
*l(Pollutant or Pollutants) are being sampled in support of the work being done for the TMDL currently underway for the (Water Body). The Pollutants Of Concern (POC) will be monitored
and reported (on a monthly basis by the facility on Discharge Monitoring Report, but will not have a limit associated with them /or at the end of each Calendar year of sampling for these
POC’s), (Permittee) will report the results of all sampling done for the POC. If (Permittee) decides to sample more frequently for these POC’s, the additional data will be welcome.
BIOSOLIDS
For clarification purposes, sewage sludge is considered solids, until treatment or testing shows that the 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.
SUBSTANTIAL BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT CHANGES
In 2012, <Permittee>decided to change the treatment of their biosolids from a lime stabilized product that met Class B standards, to a modern “state of the art” solar drying system that
basically consist of two screw pressesfor de-watering, and a greenhouse for further treatment and drying. The 2012 annual biosolids report states that 282 dry metric tons of biosolids
were stabilized with lime, to meet Class B standards, and land applied at a farm owned by Vic Warr, to cultivate grain for cattle feed, and 27 dry metric tons that met Class A standards,
that were sold or given away to the public. There are currently 328 dry metric tons of stored biosolids.
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
The Permittee submitted their 20XX annual biosolids report on Month Day, Year. The report states the Permittee produced XXXX dry metric tons (DMT) of solids. After the addition of wood
chips and green waste, a total of XXXX DMT of composted biosolids were produced and sold or given away to the public.

The solids are stabilized in activated sludge basins, with a solids retention time of 14-18 days in the basins. Solids wasted on a daily basis are sent to an aerobic digester with a
solids detention of five (5) to ten (10) days. After stabilization, the solids are dewatered by belt presses to about 15 percent solids. After dewatering the untreated solids are composted
to meet Class A standards and sold or given away.
Biosolids are processed using the Gore Covered Composting System, which is an In-Vessel Aerated Static Pile (IASP) 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 IASP
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.
Biosolids were hauled to the Wasatch Regional Landfill, Inc. by District employees. No contract hauler(s) were used. Approximately 957 DMT were hauled off-site to the landfill for disposal.
See attached application and Letter of Authorization from Republic Services, operators of Wasatch Regional Landfill, Inc
The last inspection conducted at the land application site was Date. The inspection showed that <Permittee>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 Produced, Processed, or Disposed of 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
In 20XX, the <Permittee>disposed of XXX DMT of biosolids, therefore they need to sample at least YYYY times a year.
Landfill MonitoringUnder 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). No biosolids were landfilled in 20XX/Permittee disposed of XXX DMT of biosolids at the NAME Landfill.
BIOSOLIDS LIMITATIONS
Heavy MetalsClass A Biosolids for Home Lawn and Garden UseThe 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 concentration limits listed in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b) Table 1 and the heavy metals loading rates in40 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 concentration limits 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, (kg/ha)
Pollutant Conc. Limits 3 (mg/kg)
APLR 4, (kg/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 reused 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 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(40 CFR Part 503.31(d)). 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.
PathogensThe table below presents Pathogen Control Class limitations that 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) MPN1per 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
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 (40 CFR 503.32(a)(7)(i)).The <Permittee>has chosen to achieve PFRP through a method of <METHOD>. (or) At this time <Permittee>does not intend to distribute
biosolids to the public for use on the lawn and garden and thus is not required meet Class A Biosolids requirements currently.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, 2. Static Aerated Pile Method - composting
using the static aerated pile method, the temperature of the biosolids is maintained at 55°C (131°F) or higher for at least 3 days).
Both of these composting methods are 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 <Permittee>has
chosen to achieve PSRP through <METHOD>: (or)At this time <Permittee>does not intend to distribute bulk biosolids for land application and thus is not required meet Class B Biosolids
requirements currently.
1. Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(2), TSSD 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.
2.Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(3) The PSRP may be accomplished through anaerobic digesters that have a minimum retention time of 15 days at 95° F (35° C) or 60 days at 68° F (20°C).
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)
If the biosolids are land applied <Permittee>will be required to meet VAR through the use of a method of listed under 40 CFR 503.33. The <Permittee>intends to meet the vector attraction
reduction requirements through one of the methods listed below. (or) At this time <Permittee>does not intend to distribute biosolids to the public for beneficial use, and will be disposing
of them in a landfill.Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(11)
Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(1), the solids need to be treated through anaerobic digestion for at least 15 days at a temperature of a least 35° C (95° F) with a 38% reduction of volatile solids.
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).
Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(11) Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge unit shall be covered with soil or other material at the end of each operating day.
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
For calendar years during which biosolids are produced and/or processed the <Permittee>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 <Permittee>was required to sample for metals at least XXXtimes in 20XX. <Permittee>sampled the Class A compost YYtimes, and the Class B biosolids Ytimes. All biosolids land applied
in 20XXmet Table 3 of 40 CFR 503.13, therefore the <Permittee>biosolids qualify as EQ with regards to metals. The monitoring data is below.
<Permittee>Metals Monitoring Data 20XX
<Permittee>Metals Monitoring Data, 20XX (Land Application)
Parameter
Table 3, mg/kg
(Exceptional Quality)

Average, mg/kg
Maximum, mg/kg
Arsenic
41.0
Cadmium
39.0
Copper
1,500.0
Lead
300.0
Mercury
17.0
Molybdenum
75.0
Nickel
400.0
Selenium
36.0
Zinc
2,800.0
PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA (Anaerobic Cake)
The <Permittee>was not required to monitor the anaerobic biosolids (sludge cake) for pathogens. Therefore, there is not any monitoring data for the Class B biosolids. All biosolids land
applied in 20XXmet the Class B pathogen standards through anaerobic digestion.
PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA (Aerobic Compost)
The TSSD was required to monitor the composted biosolids for pathogens at least six times in 2013 The TSSD had the choice to sample for fecal coliform or salmonella, and the TSSD chose
salmonella. Each monitoring episode needs to consist of seven samples, for a total 42 samples. All compost sold or given away in 2013 met the Class A pathogen standards for compost.
The monitoring data is below.
<Permittee>Salmonella Monitoring Data 20XXCompost)
Geometric Mean of 42 Samples, Most Probable Number Per Gram (2013)
Maximum of 42 Samples, Most Probable Number Per Gram (2013)
1.1
1.76
The State of Utah has adopted the 40 CFR 503 federal regulations for the disposal of sewage sludge (biosolids) by reference. However, since this facility is a lagoon, there is not any
regular sludge production. Therefore 40 CFR 503 does not apply at this time. In the future, if the sludge needs to be removed from the lagoons and is disposed in some way, the Division
of Water Quality must be contacted prior to the removal of the sludge to ensure that all applicable state and federal regulations are met
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
Separate storm water permits may be required based on the types of activities occurring on site.
Permit coverage under the Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Storm Water Discharges from Industrial Activities may be required based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code for the facility and the types of industrial activities occurring. MSGP coverage is required for Treatment Works treating domestic sewage or any other sewage sludge or wastewater
treatment device or system, used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal or domestic sewage, including lands dedicated to the disposal of sewage sludge that
are located within the confines of the facility, with a design flow of 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) or more, or required to have an approved pretreatment program under 40 CFR Part
403. 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 disturban acre or more, or is part of a common plan of
development or sale thatis 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 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.
The permittee is a minor municipal facility that will be discharging an infrequent amount of effluent, in which toxicity is neither an existing concern, nor likely to be present. Also,
the receiving irrigation ditch is regularly dry; therefore there is not any available data to conclude that the irrigation ditch is impaired. Based on these considerations, and the
absence of receiving stream water quality monitoring data, there is no reasonable potential for toxicity in the permittee’s discharge (per State of Utah Permitting and Enforcement Guidance
Document for WET Control). As such, there will be no numerical WET limitations or WET monitoring requirements in this permit. However, the permit will contain a toxicity limitation
re-opener provision that allows for modification of the permit should additional information indicate the presence of toxicity in the discharge.
PERMIT DURATIONIt is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.Drafted and Reviewed byLonnie Shull, Discharge Permit Writer, Reasonable Potential Analysis,
BiomonitoringDaniel Griffin, BiosolidsJennifer Robinson, PretreatmentNAME, Storm WaterNAME, TMDL/Watershed Christopher Shope, 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
Industrial Waste Survey
This Page Intentionally Left BlankIndustrial Pretreatment Wastewater SurveyDo you periodically experience any of the following treatment works problems:foam, floaties or unusual colorsplugged
collection lines caused by grease, sand, flour, etc.discharging excessive suspended solids, even in the wintersmells unusually badwaste treatment facility doesn’t seem to be treating
the waste rightPerhaps 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 UsersMake 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
neededeveryone else (IUs)Step 2: Preliminary InspectionGo visit each IU identified on the “everybody else” list. Fill out the Preliminary Inspection Form during the site visit.Step
3: Informing the StatePlease fax or send a copy of the Preliminary inspection form (both sides) to:Jennifer RobinsonDivision of Water Quality288 North 1460 WestP.O. Box 144870Salt Lake
City, UT 84114-4870Phone: [phone]Fax:[phone]E-mail:[e-mail]:\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-contact3. [ ] Boiler/Tower blowdown
4. [ ] Cooling water, contact5. [ ] Process
6. [ ] Equipment/Facility washdown7. [ ] Air Pollution Control Unit
8. [ ] Storm water runoff to sewer9. [ ] 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?YesNo
Is it operational?YesNo
Does the business discharge a lot of process wastewater?More than 5% of the flow to the waste treatment facility?YesNoMore than 25,000 gallons per work day?YesNo
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? YesNo
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
ATTACHMENT 2
Effluent Monitoring Data
This Page Intentionally Left BlankEffluent Monitoring Data.

Flow
pH
O & G
TRC
E. coli

BOD5
TSS
Month
Ave
Max
Min
Max
Max
Max
Acute
Chronic
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Jan-13
18.8
20.2
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.2
10
6
5
6
7
8
Feb-13
21.3
22.9
7.6
7.7
1.7
1.1
13
8
7
9
7
7
Mar-13
24.3
28.6
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.1
11
9
17
21
7
9
Apr-13
20.2
21.2
7.5
7.7
1.7

1.2
20
12
19
21
7
8
May-13
21.4
25.5
7.4
7.6
1.7
1.3
9
7
18
21
10
11
Jun-13
20.5
22.1
7.5
7.7
1.4
1
12
7
18
21
11
14
Jul-13
20.2
22.3
7.4
7.7
1.4
1.3
10
8
10
11
14
16
Aug-13
19.6
20.8
7.5
7.6
1.4
1.2
13
7
8
10
8
9
Sep-13

20
21.8
7.6
7.8
1.4
1.1
78
15
11
12
8
9
Oct-13
17.9
19
7.5
7.7
1.7
0.9
11
8
9
11
8
8
Nov-13
17.2
18.1
7.5
7.7
1.7
0.9
10
8
9
10
8
10
Dec-13
17.2
20.4
7.2
7.6
1.4
1.2
10
12
9
10
10
18
Jan-14
17.5
19.9
7.3
7.5
1.4
0.8
29
6

7
8
8
9
Feb-14
20.3
22.6
7.4
7.6
1.4
1
43
19
8
10
8
8
Mar-14
20.8
27.4
7.4
7.7
1.7
1
30
10
7
8
9
10
Apr-14
19.1
21.2
7.4
7.6
1.4
1.5
8
6
8
9
9
10
May-14
20.2
22.7
7.4
7.5
1.4
1.3
9
6
7
9
8
10
Jun-14
20.6
23
7.5

7.6
1.4
1
16
8
8
10
8
9
Jul-14
20.5
22.3
7.5
7.8
1.4
1.5
10
7
9
10
12
13
Aug-14
21
21.9
7.6
7.7
1.2
1.3
17
14
8
9
9
10
Sep-14
20.2
23.2
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.1
12
8
7
8
8
13
Oct-14
18.2
20.9
7.5
7.6
1.4
1.1
7
5
6
8
9

10
Nov-14
16.6
17.7
7.4
7.6
1.4
1.7
8
6
7
9
14
23
Dec-14
16.9
19.3
7.4
8.9
1.4
1.2
34
8
6
10
11
23
Jan-15
18.1
19.8
7.5
7.6
1.4
0.9
10
6
7
8
10
11
Feb-15
17.8
18.7
7.3
7.5
1.4
1
7
6
5
6
9
10
Mar-15
17.6
18.6
7.3
7.5
1.4
1.3

5
5
5
6
7
8
Apr-15
18.1
22.3
7.2
7.6
1.4
1
7
6
7
8
11
11
May-15
22.5
31.9
7.5
7.6
2
1.1
10
6
7
9
13
16
Jun-15
20.2
22.5
7.5
7.6
1.6
1.3
8
6
6
6
9
10
Jul-15
19.7
21.8
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.5
12
9
5
6
11
11
Aug-15
20.7

22.6
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.1
9
5
5
6
7
13
Sep-15
20.1
23.5
7.6
7.7
1.4
1.1
7
5
5
6
8
10
Oct-15
18.1
20.3
7.5
7.6
1.4
1
12
8
5
6
11
13
Nov-15
16.9
18.3
7.1
7.6
1.4
1.3
11
8
4
6
6
7
Dec-15
18.1
21.6
7.4
7.6
2.63
0.9
8
5
7

8
8
8WET Results
Month
WET Test
Pass / Fail
Mar-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Jun-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Jun-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Sep-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Dec-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Mar-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Jun-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Jun-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Sep-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Dec-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Mar-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA

Jun-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Jun-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Sep-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Dec-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
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.
(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 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 (List Metals).(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.RP 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