DWQ-2025-003185

FACT SHEET AND STATEMENT OF BASIS CITY OF CORINNE RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE & REUSE UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0020931 MINOR MUNICIPAL FACILITY CONTACTS Person Name: Kelly Nichols Person Name: JL Nichols Position: Public Works Position: Public Works Phone Number: Phone Number: 435.720.7961 Email: Email: [e-mail] Facility Name: City of Corinne Mailing and Facility Address: 2420 North 4000 West PO Box 118 Corinne, Utah 84307 Telephone: [phone] Actual Address: ½ mile south of Corinne in Box Elder County
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY The Corinne Wastewater Lagoon System (Corinne) was constructed in 1971 with seven cells. In 1981 it was expanded to eight cells. The facility serves Corinne City with a current population of 730 people (2020 UPDES permit application). The facility consists of a bar screen, 45o V-notch inlet weir, comminutor, sump and pump station, eight facultative lagoons operating in a series, a Steven discharge flow recorder and a gas chlorine system. The lagoon has a hydraulic detention time of 180 days. The facility has two discharge Outfalls. Outfall 001 is a twelve-inch diameter concrete pipe that runs approximately 200 feet and discharges directly into the Bear River. Outfall 001D discharges into a retention ditch and then into holding ponds on the adjacent farmer’s property which is used for irrigation during the growing season. The land application site is approximately 260 acres, south and southwest west of the
wastewater lagoons. The facility discharges approximately 70,000 gpd. Corinne is working on replacing or coating the wastewater collection system to help prevent infiltration
into the collection system. This will also help with the loading at the lagoons. SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT Corinne has installed a gas chlorine system and finished the land application project since the last permit cycle. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) has been added to the permit to support the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and impairment listing efforts. TBPEL Rule Water Quality adopted UAC R317-1-3.3, Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) Rule in 2014. No TBPEL will be instituted for discharging treatment lagoons. Instead, each discharging lagoon will be evaluated to determine the current annual average total phosphorus load measured in pounds per year
based on monthly average flow rates and concentrations. Absent field data to determine these loads, and in case of intermittent discharging lagoons, the phosphorus load cap will be estimated by the Director. A cap
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 2 of 125% of the current annual total phosphorus load will be established and referred to as phosphorus loading cap. Once the lagoon's phosphorus loading cap has been reached, the owner of the facility will have
five years to construct treatment processes or implement treatment alternatives to prevent the total phosphorus loading cap from being exceeded. The TBPEL discharging treatment works are required to implement, at a minimum, monthly monitoring. R317-1-3.3, E, 1, a. Influent for total phosphorus (as P) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) concentrations; R317-1-3.3, E, 1, b. Effluent for total phosphorus and orthophosphate (as P), ammonia, nitrate-nitrite and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (an N);
In R317-1-3.3, E, 3 the rule states that all monitoring shall be based on 24-hour composite samples by use of an automatic sampler or a minimum of four grab samples collected a minimum of two hours apart. The phosphorus annual loading cap is defined as: "Annual Loading Cap” is the highest allowable phosphorus loading discharged over a calendar year,
calculated as the sum of all the monthly loading discharges measured during a calendar year divided by the number of monthly discharges measured during that year. The reported monthly loading is calculated as shown here; 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ=(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀𝐹𝐹)∗(𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)∗�8.34 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑙𝑙�∗�𝐷𝐷𝑀𝑀𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀 𝐷𝐷𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶ℎ𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ�
The annual total phosphorus loading 𝐴𝐴𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝑀𝑀𝑙𝑙 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀=𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆 �𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑀𝑀𝐿𝐿,𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ�
DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE Corinne has been reporting monthly self-monitoring results on NetDMR. Corinne has notified DWQ regarding Outfall 001D exceedances; six for BOD from December 2017 to September 2018, one TSS in October 2018 and one pH in February 2020. Four of the BOD exceedances resulted in a Notice of Violation and Settlement Agreement. The facility strives to find ways improve the process and eliminate exceedances.

Outfall Description of Discharge Point
001 Located at latitude 41°32'13.8" and longitude 112°06'40". The Corinne Wastewater Lagoon System is located approximately ½ mile south of the City of Corinne on the west side of the Bear River. The discharge is from a twelve-inch corrugated metal pipe discharging directly to the Bear River.
001D Located at latitude 41°32'15" and longitude 112°06'42". The discharge from this location flows into a retention ditch and then into holding pond on the adjacent farmers property for land disposal.
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 3 RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION If a discharge were to occur, it would be pumped into an irrigation ditch, which is a Class 2B, 3B, 3D and
4 according to Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-2-13.3(a): 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 3D Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. Class 4 Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE 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 dissolved oxygen minimum is based on the wasteload analysis (WLA) and indicates these parameters
should be sufficiently protective of water quality, in order to meet State water quality standards in the receiving waters. Ammonia and total residual chlorine (TRC) were evaluated; however, Corinne has no reasonable potential to exceed the maximum levels calculated in the WLA. Attached is a Wasteload Analysis for this discharge into the Bear River. 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 in Table 1 with monitoring and reporting requirements in Table 2 and 3. Parameters of Concern
The potential parameters of concerns identified for the discharge/receiving water were as determined are metals (as a function of hardness) due to a metal finisher in the area. TMDL Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) is a pollutant of concern for the Bear River watershed. Corinne will monitor TDS monthly during the times of discharge to the Outfall 001 and/or Outfall 001D to help support the
TMDL efforts in the Bear River watershed. At any time during this permit cycle, if the analysis results indicate the TDS is over the projected TMDL of 1200 mg/L, DWQ will review the findings and the permit may be reopened to address those concerns. Reasonable Potential Analysis
Since January 1, 2016, DWQ has conducted reasonable potential analysis (RP) on all new and renewal applications received after that date. In order to complete a RP analysis, more than 10 data points per parameter are needed. Corinne did not discharge out of Outfall 001 and therefore metals data was not available. For this permit cycle, Corinne will be required to sample, at a minimum, annual metal sampling from Outfall 001 and 001D. If additional sampling is performed, it shall be reported to DWQ. Less than 10
data points may affect the RP outcomes which may require additional monitoring in the future.
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 4
Surface Water Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
The permit will require reports to be submitted monthly and annually, as applicable, on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and submitted using NetDMR. DMRs are due by the 28th day of the following month. Lab sheets for metals and toxic organics must be attached to the DMRs.
Table 2
Influent
Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements a, b, e
Parameter Frequency Sample Type Units
BOD5 b Monthly Composite mg/L
TSS b Monthly Composite mg/L
TDS Monthly Composite mg/L
Total Phosphorus (as P) h Monthly Composite mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) h Monthly Composite mg/L
Metals i, j, k Quarterly Composite mg/L
Organic Toxics 2nd and 4th year Grab mg/L

Table 1
Outfall 001 Effluent Limitations for Surface Water Discharge a, b, c
Parameter Maximum Monthly Avg Maximum Weekly Avg Daily Minimum Daily Maximum Yearly Maximum
Total Flow, mgd 0.07 -- -- -- --
BOD5, mg/L b 25 35 -- -- --
BOD5 Min. % Removal 85 -- -- -- --
TSS, mg/L 25 35 -- -- --
TSS Min. % Removal 85 -- -- -- --
E. coli, No./100mL 126 158 -- -- --
pH, Standard Units -- -- 6.5 9 --
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L -- -- 4.0 -- --
Total Phosphorus, lbs/year -- -- -- -- 558
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 5
Table 3
Outfall 001
Effluent Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements a, b, 9i
Parameter Frequency Sample Type Units
Total Flow d, e Continuous Recorder MGD
BOD5 Monthly Composite mg/L
TSS Monthly Composite mg/L
TDS Monthly Composite mg/L
E. coli Monthly Grab No./100mL
pH Monthly Grab SU
DO Monthly Grab mg/L
Oil & Grease f, g When Sheen Observed Grab mg/L
Orthophosphate (as P) h Monthly Composite mg/L
Total Phosphorus (as P) h Monthly Composite mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (as N) h Monthly Composite mg/L
Nitrate, NO3 h Monthly Composite mg/L
Nitrite, NO2 h Monthly Composite mg/L
Metals i, j, k Quarterly Composite mg/L
Organic Toxics 2nd and 4th year Grab mg/L
Table 1, 2, 3 References a. See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms. b. All parameters in this table will be reported on the monthly Discharge Monitoring Report. c. Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. d. If the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be reported. e. In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge. f. There shall be no visible sheen or floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts. g. Oil & Grease sampled when sheen is present or visible. If no sheen is present or visible, report 9 under “NODI” in NetDMR. h. Monitoring only for total phosphorus (TP), orthophosphate as P (OP), total ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen as N (TKN) have been included to comply with Utah Secondary Treatment Standards
and the Technology-based Phosphorus Effluent limit rule in UAC R317-1-3.3 i. Metals samples should be analyzed using a method that meets MDL requirements. If a test method is not available the permittee must submit documentation to the Director regarding the method that will be used. The sample type (composite or grab) should be performed according to the methods requirements. j. Metals are being sampled in support of the work being done for the RP Analysis. The Metal parameters will
be monitored and reported on an annual basis by the facility on Discharge Monitoring Report, but will not have a limit associated with them, if Corinne decides to sample more frequently for these parameters, the
additional data will be required as per Part V.E k. Metals Arsenic Cadmium Total
Chromium Copper Cyanide
Lead Mercury Nickel
Selenium Silver Zinc End Table References
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 6 LAND DISPOSAL Basis for Effluent Limitations for Land Disposal
The limitations for BOD, TSS, pH and E.coli are set in accordance with UAC R317-3-11.5.C.5. The permit limitations for Outfall 001D are in Tables 4 with monitoring and reporting requirements in Table 5 and 6.
Table 4
Outfall 001D
Type II Land Disposal Effluent Limitations a, b
Parameter Max Monthly Average Max Weekly Median Daily Minimum Daily Maximum
BOD5 25 35 -- -- TSS 25 35 - --
E. coli, No/100mL -- 158 -- 500
pH, Standard Units -- -- 6.5 9.0
Land Disposal Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements The permit will require reports to be submitted monthly and annually, as applicable, on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and submitted using NetDMR. DMRs are due by the 28th day of the following
month. Lab sheets for metals and toxic organics must be attached to the DMRs.
Table 5
Outfall 001D
Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements a, b, d
Parameter Frequency Sample Type Units
Applied Flow c Continuous Recorder MGD
Irrigated Acreage Monthly Estimated mg/L
BOD5 Monthly Composite mg/L
TSS Monthly Composite mg/L
TDS Monthly Composite mg/L
E. coli Monthly Grab No./100mL
pH Monthly Grab SU
Total Inorganic Nitrogen Monthly Grab mg/L
Cell Depth Monthly Measure Feet
Free Board Monthly Measure Feet

Table 6
Land Application per Crop Type e
Crop Type List of crops grown on each site
Crop Harvest (tons/yr) As measured based on harvest records
Land Application Area (acres) Land treated process water effluent was applied based on application area
Number of Days per Season Estimated (about 180 days/growing season)

Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 7 Table 4, 5, 6 References a. See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms. b. All parameters in this table will be reported on the monthly Discharge Monitoring Report. c. Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. d. Effluent shall only be disposed of by methods allowed by R317-3-11.5.A. e. Land Application Reports shall be summarized per crop type and submitted annually, no later than January 28th of the month following the completed reporting period. End Table References Lagoon Best Management Practices: 1) The permittee shall take such parameters as are necessary to maintain and operate the facility in a manner that will minimize upsets and ensure stable operating conditions.
2) The permittee shall visually inspect, at least weekly, the pond(s) to determine if there is adequate freeboard to minimize the likelihood of an accidental discharge occurring. If it is determined that a discharge is occurring and/or there is not adequate freeboard, the
appropriate corrective measures shall be taken immediately. 3) The permittee shall take precautions and have erosion control measures in place that, in the event of a bypass of treatment, the discharge will not cause erosion into the Waters of the
State. Management Practices for Land Application of Treated Effluent: 1) The application of treated effluent to frozen, ice-covered, or snow-covered land is prohibited. 2) No person shall apply treated effluent where the slope of the site exceeds 6 percent. 3) The use should not result in a surface water runoff. 4) The use must not result in the creation of an unhealthy or nuisance condition, as determined by the local health department. 5) Any irrigation with treated effluent must be at least 300 feet from a potable well.
6) For Type I reuse, any irrigation must be at least 50 feet from any potable water well. 7) For Type II reuse, any irrigation must be at least 300 feet from any potable water well. 8) For Type II reuse, spray irrigation must be at least 100 feet from areas intended for public
access. This distance may be reduced or increased by the Director. 9) Impoundments of treated effluent, if not sealed, must be at least 500 feet from any potable well.
10) Public access to effluent storage and irrigation or disposal sites shall be restricted by a stock-tight fence or other comparable means which shall be posted and controlled to exclude the public.
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 8 BIOSOLIDS
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 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 is required based on the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the facility and the types of industrial activities occurring. If the facility is not already covered, it has 30 days from when this permit is issued to submit the appropriate Notice of Intent (NOI) for the MSGP or exclusion
documentation. Previously storm water discharge requirements and coverage were combined in this individual permit. These have been separated to provide consistency among permittees, electronic reporting for storm water discharge monitoring reports, and increase flexibility to changing site conditions.
Permit coverage under the Construction General Storm Water Permit (CGP) is required for any construction at the facility which disturb an acre or more, or is part of a common plan of development or sale that is an acre or greater. A Notice of Intent (NOI) is required to obtain a construction storm water permit prior to the period of construction. Information on storm water permit requirements can be found at http://stormwater.utah.gov PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The permittee has not been designated to develop an approved pretreatment program. At this time, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is controlling significant industrial uses (SIUs) within the service area. Although the permittee does not have to develop an 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. Although an approved pretreatment program is not required at this time, the permittee should to become
knowledgeable of the pretreatment requirements that are required by the IUs discharging into the POTW. This can be done by attending trainings and webinars regarding pretreatment. Webinars are posted by EPA that can be viewed at any time. Continuing education units (CEUs) can be submitted to DWQ for attending trainings and webinars for certified wastewater and collection system operators. The following link is to the EPA Pretreatment Webinars https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-pretreatment-program-training-and-webinars#pretreat101 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 ninety (90) days after the issuance of the permit. If an Industrial User begins to discharge or an
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 9 existing IU 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.
Discharge from industrial users (IUs) is occurring within the service area. A list of the IUs discharging to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) was submitted with the permit application for the permit renewal. SIUs that discharge to the POTW are currently controlled by DWQ. Based on the list of industrial uses discharging to the POTW metals and oil and grease must be sampled to ensure the narrative and water quality standards are met for the discharge. Also, DWQ will be assisting as the control authority to address issues with IUs within the service area. This assistance will include conducting inspections with the permittee within the first 90 days of the permit issuance. 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 DURATION It is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.
Drafted by Sarah Ward, Discharge & Land Disposal Daniel Griffin, Biosolids Jennifer Robinson, Pretreatment Lonnie Shull, Biomonitoring Carl Adams, Storm Water
Suzan Tahir, Wasteload Analysis Utah Division of Water Quality, [phone]
Facility Name FSSOB
UT0020931
Page 10 PUBLIC NOTICE Began: March 29, 2021 Ended: April 30, 2021 Comments will be received at: 195 North 1950 West PO Box 144870 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 The Public Notice of the draft permit was published on the Division of Water Quality Public Notice website.
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 FSSOB During 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 No comments received.
DWQ-2021-008309

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ATTACHMENT 1

Industrial Waste Survey

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Industrial Pretreatment Wastewater Survey
Do you periodically experience any of the following treatment works problems: foam, floaties or unusual colors plugged collection lines caused by grease, sand, flour, etc. discharging excessive suspended solids, even in the winter
smells unusually bad waste treatment facility doesn’t seem to be treating the waste right
Perhaps the solution to a problem like one of these may lie in investigating the types and amounts of wastewater entering the sewer system from industrial users.
An industrial user (IU) is defined as a non-domestic user discharging to the waste treatment facility which meets any of the following criteria: 1. has a lot of process wastewater (5% of the flow at the waste treatment facility or more than 25,000 gallons per work day.) Examples: Food processor, dairy, slaughterhouse, industrial laundry. 2. is subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards; Examples: metal plating, cleaning or coating of metals, bluing of metals, aluminum extruding,
circuit board manufacturing, tanning animal skins, pesticide formulating or packaging, and pharmaceutical manufacturing or packaging, 3. is a concern to the POTW. Examples: septage hauler, restaurant and food service, car wash, hospital, photo lab, carpet
cleaner, commercial laundry. All users of the water treatment facility are prohibited from making the following types of discharges: 1. A discharge which creates a fire or explosion hazard in the collection system. 2. A discharge which creates toxic gases, vapor or fumes in the collection system. 3. A discharge of solids or thick liquids which creates flow obstructions in the collection system. 4. An acidic discharge (low pH) which causes corrosive damage to the collection system.
5. Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause problems in the collection system or at the waste treatment facility.
6. Waste haulers are prohibited from discharging without permission. (No midnight dumping!)

When the solution to a sewer system problem may be found by investigating the types and amounts of wastewater entering the sewer system discharged from IUs, it’s appropriate to conduct an Industrial Waste
Survey.
An Industrial Waste Survey consists of:
Step 1: Identify Industrial Users
Make a list of all the commercial and industrial sewer connections. Sources for the list: business license, building permits, water and wastewater billing, Chamber of
Commerce, newspaper, telephone book, yellow pages. Split the list into two groups:
domestic wastewater only--no further information needed everyone else (IUs) Step 2: Preliminary Inspection
Go visit each IU identified on the “everybody else” list.
Fill out the Preliminary Inspection Form during the site visit. Step 3: Informing the State

Please fax or send a copy of the Preliminary inspection form (both sides) to: Jennifer Robinson
Division of Water Quality 288 North 1460 West PO Box 144870
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone] E-mail: [e-mail]
F:\WP\Pretreatment\Forms\IWS.doc

PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FORM INSPECTION DATE / / Name of Business Person Contacted Address Phone Number Description of Business Principal product or service:
Raw Materials used: Production process is: [ ] Batch [ ] Continuous [ ] Both
Is production subject to seasonal variation? [ ] yes [ ] no If yes, briefly describe seasonal production cycle.
This facility generates the following types of wastes (check all that apply): 1. [ ] Domestic wastes (Restrooms, employee showers, etc.) 2. [ ] Cooling water, non-contact 3. [ ] Boiler/Tower blowdown 4. [ ] Cooling water, contact 5. [ ] Process
6. [ ] Equipment/Facility washdown 7. [ ] Air Pollution Control Unit 8. [ ] Storm water runoff to sewer 9. [ ] Other describe Wastes are discharged to (check all that apply): [ ] Sanitary sewer [ ] Storm sewer [ ] Surface water [ ] Ground water [ ] Waste haulers [ ] Evaporation [ ] Other (describe)
Name of waste hauler(s), if used Is a grease trap installed? Yes No Is it operational? Yes No
Does the business discharge a lot of process wastewater?
• More than 5% of the flow to the waste treatment facility? Yes No
• More than 25,000 gallons per work day? Yes No

Does the business do any of the following: [ ] Adhesives [ ] Car Wash
[ ] Aluminum Forming [ ] Carpet Cleaner [ ] Battery Manufacturing [ ] Dairy [ ] Copper Forming [ ] Food Processor [ ] Electric & Electronic Components [ ] Hospital [ ] Explosives Manufacturing [ ] Laundries
[ ] Foundries [ ] Photo Lab [ ] Inorganic Chemicals Mfg. or Packaging [ ] Restaurant & Food Service [ ] Industrial Porcelain Ceramic Manufacturing [ ] Septage Hauler [ ] Iron & Steel [ ] Slaughter House [ ] Metal Finishing, Coating or Cleaning
[ ] Mining [ ] Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing [ ] Organic Chemicals Manufacturing or Packaging [ ] Paint & Ink Manufacturing [ ] Pesticides Formulating or Packaging
[ ] Petroleum Refining [ ] Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing or Packaging [ ] Plastics Manufacturing [ ] Rubber Manufacturing [ ] Soaps & Detergents Manufacturing
[ ] Steam Electric Generation [ ] Tanning Animal Skins [ ] Textile Mills Are any process changes or expansions planned during the next three years? Yes No
If yes, attach a separate sheet to this form describing the nature of planned changes or expansions. Inspector Waste Treatment Facility Please send a copy of the preliminary inspection form (both sides) to: Jennifer Robinson Division of Water Quality PO 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 Blank

Effluent Monitoring Data.
Corinne’s monitoring data was reviewed from EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online at https://echo.epa.gov/effluent-charts#UT0020931. Outfall 001 did not have a discharge. Outfall 001D discharge was for land disposal.

ATTACHMENT 3

Wasteload Analysis

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Page 1 of 4
Utah Division of Water Quality
Statement of Basis
ADDENDUM
Wasteload Analysis and Antidegradation Level I Review

Date: February 25, 2021

Prepared by: Suzan Tahir
Standards and Technical Services

Facility: Corinne City Corp.
UPDES No. UT- 0020931

Receiving water: Bear River (2B, 3B, 3D, 4)

This addendum summarizes the wasteload analysis that was performed to determine water quality
based effluent limits (WQBEL) for this discharge. Wasteload analyses are performed to determine
point source effluent limitations necessary to maintain designated beneficial uses by evaluating
projected effects of discharge concentrations on in-stream water quality. The wasteload analysis
also takes into account downstream designated uses (UAC R317-2-8). Projected concentrations
are compared to numeric water quality standards to determine acceptability. The numeric criteria
in this wasteload analysis may be modified by narrative criteria and other conditions determined
by staff of the Division of Water Quality.

Discharge

Outfall 001: Bear River

The mean monthly design discharge is 0.07 MGD (0.11 cfs) for the facility.

Receiving Water
The receiving water for Outfall 001 is the Bear River.

Per UAC R317-2-13.3(a), the designated beneficial uses for the Bear River and tributaries, from
Great Salt Lake to Utah-Idaho border are 2B, 3B, 3D and 4.

• 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.

Utah Division of Water Quality
Wasteload Analysis
Corinne City Corp.
UPDES No. UT0020931

Page 2 of 4

• Class 3D- Protected for waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife not
included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food
chain.

• Class 4 - Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering.

Flow
Typically, the critical flow for the wasteload analysis is considered the lowest stream flow for
seven consecutive days with a ten-year return frequency (7Q10). The 7Q10 flow was calculated
using USGS data from station 10126000 (BEAR RIVER NEAR CORINNE, UT) for the period
2010-2020. The calculated critical low flow values for each season are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Seasonal 7Q10 Flow Values
Season 7Q10 Flow (cfs)
Summer 87.91
Fall 202.86
Winter 538.57
Spring 99.46

Overall 1271.01

The receiving water quality in the Bear River was characterized using DWQ monitoring site
4901100 (BEAR RIVER NEAR CORINNE AT U83 XING) for the period 2000-2020.

TMDL
According to the Utah’s 2016 303(d) Water Quality Assessment Report, the receiving water for
the discharge, Bear River from Reeder Overflow diversion to Cutler Reservoir UT16010204-
008_00 (Bear River-2) is impaired for Bioassessment and Temperature.

In 2002, a TMDL was completed for the Lower Bear River. However, there were insufficient data
to accurately allocate nutrient loads. In 2018, an Implementation Plan was developed by the Utah
Division of Water Quality that included loading allocations for the point sources in the basin. The
Implementation Plan allocates 2.5 lb/d of total phosphorus for this facility whereas the Corinne
Lagoons current load is 2.0 lb/d of total phosphorus. The TMDL instream total phosphorus
endpoint remains the same as in 2002.

Moreover, the 2018/2020 Integrated Report, divided the existing assessment unit into two and the
receiving water for the discharge Bear River from Reeder Overflow Diversion to the confluence
with the Malad River (UT16010204-008_02 Bear River-2-2) is impaired for Macroinvertebrates,
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
(https://documents.deq.utah.gov/water-quality/monitoring-reporting/integrated-report/DWQ-
2020-021402.pdf).
Utah Division of Water Quality
Wasteload Analysis
Corinne City Corp.
UPDES No. UT0020931

Page 3 of 4

Mixing Zone
The maximum allowable mixing zone is 15 minutes of travel time for acute conditions, not to
exceed 50% of stream width, and 2,500 feet for chronic conditions, per UAC R317-2-5. Water
quality standards must be met at the end of the mixing zone.

The mixing zone analysis shows the discharge to be fully mixed by the end of the mixing zone.
Acute limits were calculated using 50% of the seasonal critical low flow.

Parameters of Concern
The potential parameters of concerns identified for the discharge/receiving water were as
determined in consultation with the UPDES Permit Writer are metals (as a function of hardness)
due to the metal finisher in the area.

WET Limits
The percent of effluent in the receiving water in a fully mixed condition, and acute and chronic
dilution in a not fully mixed condition are calculated in the WLA in order to generate WET limits.
The LC50 (lethal concentration, 50%) percent effluent for acute toxicity and the IC25 (inhibition
concentration, 25%) percent effluent for chronic toxicity, as determined by the WET test (see Table
2), needs to be below the WET limits, as determined by the WLA. The WET limit for LC50 is
typically 100% effluent and does not need to be determined by the WLA.

Table 2.WET Limits for IC25
Outfall Percent Effluent
Outfall 001 0.1%

Wasteload Allocation Methods
Effluent limits were determined for conservative constituents using a simple mass balance mixing
analysis (UDWQ 2012). The mass balance analysis is summarized in the Wasteload Addendum.

The water quality standard for chronic ammonia toxicity is dependent on temperature and pH, and
the water quality standard for acute ammonia toxicity is dependent on pH. The AMMTOX Model
developed by University of Colorado and adapted by Utah DWQ and EPA Region VIII was used
to determine ammonia effluent limits (Lewis et al. 2002). The analysis is summarized in the
Wasteload Addendum.

Models and supporting documentation are available for review upon request.

Antidegradation Level I Review
The objective of the Level I ADR is to ensure the protection of existing uses, defined as the
beneficial uses attained in the receiving water on or after November 28, 1975. No evidence is
Utah Division of Water Quality
Wasteload Analysis
Corinne City Corp.
UPDES No. UT0020931

Page 4 of 4

known that the existing uses deviate from the designated beneficial uses for the receiving water.
Therefore, the beneficial uses will be protected if the discharge remains below the WQBELs
presented in this wasteload.

A Level II Antidegradation Review (ADR) is not required for this facility.

Documents:
WLA Document: Corinne_WLA_2-25-2021.docx
Wasteload Analysis and Addendum: Corinne_WLA_2-25-2021.xlsm

References:
Utah Division of Water Quality. 2012. Utah Wasteload Analysis Procedures Version 1.0.

Lewis, B., J. Saunders, and M. Murphy. 2002. Ammonia Toxicity Model (AMMTOX, Version2): A Tool for
Determining Effluent Ammonia Limits. University of Colorado, Center for Limnology.

Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
WASTELOAD ANALYSIS [WLA]25-Feb-21
Addendum: Statement of Basis 4:00 PM
Facilities: Corinne Lagoons UPDES No:UT-0020931
Discharging to:Bear River
I. Introduction
Wasteload analyses are performed to determine point source effluent limitations necessary to maintain designated
beneficial uses by evaluating projected effects of discharge concentrations on in-stream water quality. The
wasteload analysis also takes into account downstream designated uses [R317-2-8, UAC]. Projected concen-
trations are compared to numeric water quality standards to determine acceptability. The anti-degradation
policy and procedures are also considered. The primary in-stream parameters of concern may include metals
(as a function of hardness), total dissolved solids (TDS), total residual chlorine (TRC), un-ionized ammonia (as a
function of pH and temperature, measured and evaluated interms of total ammonia), and dissolved oxygen.
Mathematical water quality modeling is employed to determine stream quality response to point source discharges.
Models aid in the effort of anticipating stream quality at future effluent flows at critical environmental conditions
(e.g., low stream flow, high temperature, high pH, etc).
The numeric criteria in this wasteload analysis may always be modified by narrative criteria and other conditions
determined by staff of the Division of Water Quality.
II. Receiving Water and Stream Classification
Bear River:2B, 3B, 3D, 4
Antidegradation Review:Antidegredation Level 2 not required. Simple renewal, no
increase in permitted flow or concentration.
III. Numeric Stream Standards for Protection of Aquatic Wildlife
Total Ammonia (TNH3)Varies as a function of Temperature and
pH Rebound. See Water Quality Standards
Chronic Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)0.011 mg/l (4 Day Average)
0.019 mg/l (1 Hour Average)
Chronic Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 5.50 mg/l (30 Day Average)
4.00 mg/l (7Day Average)
3.00 mg/l (1 Day Average
Maximum Total Dissolved Solids 1200.0 mg/l
Page 1
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Acute and Chronic Heavy Metals (Dissolved)
4 Day Average (Chronic) Standard 1 Hour Average (Acute) Standard
Parameter Concentration Load*Concentration Load*
Aluminum 87.00 ug/l**0.051 lbs/day 750.00 ug/l 0.438 lbs/day
Arsenic 190.00 ug/l 0.111 lbs/day 340.00 ug/l 0.198 lbs/day
Cadmium 0.64 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day 6.96 ug/l 0.004 lbs/day
Chromium III 223.33 ug/l 0.130 lbs/day 4672.43 ug/l 2.727 lbs/day
ChromiumVI 11.00 ug/l 0.006 lbs/day 16.00 ug/l 0.009 lbs/day
Copper 25.19 ug/l 0.015 lbs/day 41.86 ug/l 0.024 lbs/day
Iron 1000.00 ug/l 0.584 lbs/day
Lead 13.98 ug/l 0.008 lbs/day 358.68 ug/l 0.209 lbs/day
Mercury 0.0120 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day 2.40 ug/l 0.001 lbs/day
Nickel 139.49 ug/l 0.081 lbs/day 1254.59 ug/l 0.732 lbs/day
Selenium 4.60 ug/l 0.003 lbs/day 20.00 ug/l 0.012 lbs/day
Silver N/A ug/l N/A lbs/day 27.96 ug/l 0.016 lbs/day
Zinc 320.88 ug/l 0.187 lbs/day 320.88 ug/l 0.187 lbs/day
* Allowed below discharge
**Chronic Aluminum standard applies only to waters with a pH < 7.0 and a Hardness < 50 mg/l as CaCO3
Metals Standards Based upon a Hardness of 319.84 mg/l as CaCO3
Organics [Pesticides]
4 Day Average (Chronic) Standard 1 Hour Average (Acute) Standard
Parameter Concentration Load*Concentration Load*
Aldrin 1.500 ug/l 0.001 lbs/day
Chlordane 0.004 ug/l 2.040 lbs/day 1.200 ug/l 0.001 lbs/day
DDT, DDE 0.001 ug/l 0.474 lbs/day 0.550 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Dieldrin 0.002 ug/l 0.901 lbs/day 1.250 ug/l 0.001 lbs/day
Endosulfan 0.056 ug/l 26.567 lbs/day 0.110 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Endrin 0.002 ug/l 1.091 lbs/day 0.090 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Guthion 0.010 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Heptachlor 0.004 ug/l 1.803 lbs/day 0.260 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Lindane 0.080 ug/l 37.953 lbs/day 1.000 ug/l 0.001 lbs/day
Methoxychlor 0.030 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Mirex 0.010 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Parathion 0.040 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
PCB's 0.014 ug/l 6.642 lbs/day 2.000 ug/l 0.001 lbs/day
Pentachlorophenol 13.00 ug/l 6167.442 lbs/day 20.000 ug/l 0.012 lbs/day
Toxephene 0.0002 ug/l 0.095 lbs/day 0.7300 ug/l 0.000 lbs/day
Page 2
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
IV. Numeric Stream Standards for Protection of Agriculture
4 Day Average (Chronic) Standard 1 Hour Average (Acute) Standard
Concentration Load*Concentration Load*
Arsenic 100.0 ug/l lbs/day
Boron 750.0 ug/l lbs/day
Cadmium 10.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Chromium 100.0 ug/l lbs/day
Copper 200.0 ug/l lbs/day
Lead 100.0 ug/l lbs/day
Selenium 50.0 ug/l lbs/day
TDS, Summer 1200.0 mg/l 0.35 tons/day
V. Numeric Stream Standards for Protection of Human Health (Class 1C Waters)
4 Day Average (Chronic) Standard 1 Hour Average (Acute) Standard
Metals Concentration Load*Concentration Load*
Arsenic ug/l lbs/day
Barium ug/l lbs/day
Cadmium ug/l lbs/day
Chromium ug/l lbs/day
Lead ug/l lbs/day
Mercury ug/l lbs/day
Selenium ug/l lbs/day
Silver ug/l lbs/day
Fluoride (3)ug/l lbs/day
to ug/l lbs/day
Nitrates as N ug/l lbs/day
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides
2,4-D ug/l lbs/day
2,4,5-TP ug/l lbs/day
Endrin ug/l lbs/day
Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane)ug/l lbs/day
Methoxychlor ug/l lbs/day
Toxaphene ug/l lbs/day
VI. Numeric Stream Standards the Protection of Human Health from Water & Fish Consumption [Toxics]
Maximum Conc., ug/l - Acute Standards
Class 1C Class 3A, 3B
Toxic Organics [2 Liters/Day for 70 Kg Person over 70 Yr.] [6.5 g for 70 Kg Person over 70 Yr.]
Acenaphthene ug/l lbs/day 2700.0 ug/l 1280.93 lbs/day
Acrolein ug/l lbs/day 780.0 ug/l 370.05 lbs/day
Acrylonitrile ug/l lbs/day 0.7 ug/l 0.31 lbs/day
Benzene ug/l lbs/day 71.0 ug/l 33.68 lbs/day
Benzidine ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Carbon tetrachloride ug/l lbs/day 4.4 ug/l 2.09 lbs/day
Chlorobenzene ug/l lbs/day 21000.0 ug/l 9962.79 lbs/day
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
1,2-Dichloroethane ug/l lbs/day 99.0 ug/l 46.97 lbs/day
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane ug/l lbs/day 8.9 ug/l 4.22 lbs/day
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane ug/l lbs/day 42.0 ug/l 19.93 lbs/day
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ug/l lbs/day 11.0 ug/l 5.22 lbs/day
Chloroethane 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether ug/l lbs/day 1.4 ug/l 0.66 lbs/day
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
2-Chloronaphthalene ug/l lbs/day 4300.0 ug/l 2040.00 lbs/day
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ug/l lbs/day 6.5 ug/l 3.08 lbs/day
p-Chloro-m-cresol 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Page 3
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Chloroform (HM)ug/l lbs/day 470.0 ug/l 222.98 lbs/day
2-Chlorophenol ug/l lbs/day 400.0 ug/l 189.77 lbs/day
1,2-Dichlorobenzene ug/l lbs/day 17000.0 ug/l 8065.12 lbs/day
1,3-Dichlorobenzene ug/l lbs/day 2600.0 ug/l 1233.49 lbs/day
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ug/l lbs/day 2600.0 ug/l 1233.49 lbs/day
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ug/l lbs/day 0.1 ug/l 0.04 lbs/day
1,1-Dichloroethylene ug/l lbs/day 3.2 ug/l 1.52 lbs/day
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene1 ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
2,4-Dichlorophenol ug/l lbs/day 790.0 ug/l 374.79 lbs/day
1,2-Dichloropropane ug/l lbs/day 39.0 ug/l 18.50 lbs/day
1,3-Dichloropropylene ug/l lbs/day 1700.0 ug/l 806.51 lbs/day
2,4-Dimethylphenol ug/l lbs/day 2300.0 ug/l 1091.16 lbs/day
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ug/l lbs/day 9.1 ug/l 4.32 lbs/day
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine ug/l lbs/day 0.5 ug/l 0.26 lbs/day
Ethylbenzene ug/l lbs/day 29000.0 ug/l 13758.14 lbs/day
Fluoranthene ug/l lbs/day 370.0 ug/l 175.53 lbs/day
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether ug/l lbs/day 170000.0 ug/l 80651.16 lbs/day
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Methylene chloride (HM)ug/l lbs/day 1600.0 ug/l 759.07 lbs/day
Methyl chloride (HM)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Methyl bromide (HM)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Bromoform (HM)ug/l lbs/day 360.0 ug/l 170.79 lbs/day
Dichlorobromomethane(HM)ug/l lbs/day 22.0 ug/l 10.44 lbs/day
Chlorodibromomethane (HM)ug/l lbs/day 34.0 ug/l 16.13 lbs/day
Hexachlorobutadiene(c)ug/l lbs/day 50.0 ug/l 23.72 lbs/day
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ug/l lbs/day 17000.0 ug/l 8065.12 lbs/day
Isophorone ug/l lbs/day 600.0 ug/l 284.65 lbs/day
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene ug/l lbs/day 1900.0 ug/l 901.40 lbs/day
2-Nitrophenol ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
4-Nitrophenol ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
2,4-Dinitrophenol ug/l lbs/day 14000.0 ug/l 6641.86 lbs/day
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ug/l lbs/day 765.0 ug/l 362.93 lbs/day
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ug/l lbs/day 8.1 ug/l 3.84 lbs/day
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ug/l lbs/day 16.0 ug/l 7.59 lbs/day
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine ug/l lbs/day 1.4 ug/l 0.66 lbs/day
Pentachlorophenol ug/l lbs/day 8.2 ug/l 3.89 lbs/day
Phenol ug/l lbs/day 4.6E+06 ug/l 2.18E+06 lbs/day
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ug/l lbs/day 5.9 ug/l 2.80 lbs/day
Butyl benzyl phthalate ug/l lbs/day 5200.0 ug/l 2466.98 lbs/day
Di-n-butyl phthalate ug/l lbs/day 12000.0 ug/l 5693.02 lbs/day
Di-n-octyl phthlate
Diethyl phthalate ug/l lbs/day 120000.0 ug/l 56930.23 lbs/day
Dimethyl phthlate ug/l lbs/day 2.9E+06 ug/l 1.38E+06 lbs/day
Benzo(a)anthracene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Chrysene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Acenaphthylene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Page 4
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.01 lbs/day
Pyrene (PAH)ug/l lbs/day 11000.0 ug/l 5218.60 lbs/day
Tetrachloroethylene ug/l lbs/day 8.9 ug/l 4.22 lbs/day
Toluene ug/l lbs/day 200000 ug/l 94883.72 lbs/day
Trichloroethylene ug/l lbs/day 81.0 ug/l 38.43 lbs/day
Vinyl chloride ug/l lbs/day 525.0 ug/l 249.07 lbs/day
lbs/day
Pesticides lbs/day
Aldrin ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Dieldrin ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Chlordane ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
4,4'-DDT ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
4,4'-DDE ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
4,4'-DDD ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
alpha-Endosulfan ug/l lbs/day 2.0 ug/l 0.95 lbs/day
beta-Endosulfan ug/l lbs/day 2.0 ug/l 0.95 lbs/day
Endosulfan sulfate ug/l lbs/day 2.0 ug/l 0.95 lbs/day
Endrin ug/l lbs/day 0.8 ug/l 0.38 lbs/day
Endrin aldehyde ug/l lbs/day 0.8 ug/l 0.38 lbs/day
Heptachlor ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB's
PCB 1242 (Arochlor 1242)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)ug/l lbs/day 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Pesticide
Toxaphene ug/l 0.0 ug/l 0.00 lbs/day
Dioxin
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)ug/l lbs/day
Metals
Antimony ug/l lbs/day
Arsenic ug/l lbs/day 4300.00 ug/l 2040.00 lbs/day
Asbestos ug/l lbs/day
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
Cyanide ug/l lbs/day 2.2E+05 ug/l 104372.09 lbs/day
Lead ug/l lbs/day
Mercury 0.15 ug/l 0.07 lbs/day
Nickel 4600.00 ug/l 2182.33 lbs/day
Selenium ug/l lbs/day
Silver ug/l lbs/day
Thallium 6.30 ug/l 2.99 lbs/day
Zinc
There are additional standards that apply to this receiving water, but were not
considered in this modeling/waste load allocation analysis.
Page 5
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
VII. Mathematical Modeling of Stream Quality
Model configuration was accomplished utilizing standard modeling procedures. Data points were
plotted and coefficients adjusted as required to match observed data as closely as possible.
The modeling approach used in this analysis included one or a combination of the following
models.
(1) The Utah River Model, Utah Division of Water Quality, 1992. Based upon STREAMDO IV
(Region VIII) and Supplemental Ammonia Toxicity Models; EPA Region VIII, Sept. 1990 and
QUAL2E (EPA, Athens, GA).
(2) Utah Ammonia/Chlorine Model, Utah Division of Water Quality, 1992.
(3) AMMTOX Model, University of Colorado, Center of Limnology, and EPA Region 8
(4) Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Robert V. Thomann, et.al.
Harper Collins Publisher, Inc. 1987, pp. 644.
Coefficients used in the model were based, in part, upon the following references:
(1) Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality Modeling. Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens Georgia. EPA/600/3-85/040 June 1985.
(2) Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Robert V. Thomann, et.al.
Harper Collins Publisher, Inc. 1987, pp. 644.
VIII. Modeling Information
The required information for the model may include the following information for both the
upstream conditions at low flow and the effluent conditions:

Flow, Q, (cfs or MGD)D.O. mg/l
Temperature, Deg. C.Total Residual Chlorine (TRC), mg/l
pH Total NH3-N, mg/l
BOD5, mg/l Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), mg/l
Metals, ug/l Toxic Organics of Concern, ug/l
Page 6
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Other Conditions
In addition to the upstream and effluent conditions, the models require a variety of physical and
biological coefficients and other technical information. In the process of actually establishing the
permit limits for an effluent, values are used based upon the available data, model calibration,
literature values, site visits and best professional judgement.
Model Inputs
The following is upstream and discharge information that was utilized as inputs for the analysis.
Dry washes are considered to have an upstream flow equal to the flow of the discharge.
Current Upstream Information
Stream
Critical
Low Flow Temp.pH T-NH3 BOD5 DO TRC TDS
cfs Deg. C mg/l as N mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l
Summer (Irrig. Season)87.9 23.1 8.4 0.08 0.10 6.57 0.00 2333.7
Fall 202.9 7.6 8.4 0.04 0.10 --- 0.00 840.3
Winter 538.6 3.1 8.2 0.16 0.10 --- 0.00 840.3
Spring 99.5 16.3 8.3 0.07 0.10 --- 0.00 840.3
Dissolved Al As Cd CrIII CrVI Copper Fe Pb
Metals ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l
All Seasons 1.59*0.53*0.053*0.53*2.65*0.53*0.83*0.53*
Dissolved Hg Ni Se Ag Zn Boron
Metals ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l
All Seasons 0.0000 0.53*1.06*0.1*0.053*10.0 * 1/2 MDL
Page 7
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Projected Discharge Information

Season Flow, MGD Temp.TDS
mg/l
TDS
tons/day
Summer 0.07000 21.4 1204.00 0.35138
Fall 0.07000 7.5
Winter 0.07000 2.5
Spring 0.07000 16.3
All model numerical inputs, intermediate calculations, outputs and graphs are available for
discussion, inspection and copy at the Division of Water Quality.
IX. Effluent Limitations
Current State water quality standards are required to be met under a variety of conditions including
in-stream flows targeted to the 7-day, 10-year low flow (R317-2-9).
Other conditions used in the modeling effort coincide with the environmental conditions expected
at low stream flows.
Effluent Limitation for Flow based upon Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments will be met with an effluent flow maximum value as follows:
Season Daily Average
Summer 0.070 MGD 0.108 cfs
Fall 0.070 MGD 0.108 cfs
Winter 0.070 MGD 0.108 cfs
Spring 0.070 MGD 0.108 cfs
Flow Requirement or Loading Requirement
The calculations in this wasteload analysis utilize the maximum effluent discharge flow of 0.07 MGD. If the
discharger is allowed to have a flow greater than 0.07 MGD during 7Q10 conditions, and effluent limit
concentrations as indicated, then water quality standards will be violated. In order to prevent this from occuring,
the permit writers must include the discharge flow limititation as indicated above; or, include loading effluent
limits in the permit.
Effluent Limitation for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) based upon WET Policy
Effluent Toxicity will not occur in downstream segements if the values below are met.
WET Requirements LC50 >0.8%Effluent [Acute]
IC25 >0.1%Effluent [Chronic]
Page 8
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Effluent Limitation for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) based upon Water Quality
Standards or Regulations
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Dissolved Oxygen will be met with an effluent BOD
limitation as follows:
Season Concentration
Summer 25.0 mg/l as BOD5 14.6 lbs/day
Fall 25.0 mg/l as BOD5 14.6 lbs/day
Winter 25.0 mg/l as BOD5 14.6 lbs/day
Spring 25.0 mg/l as BOD5 14.6 lbs/day
Effluent Limitation for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) based upon Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Dissolved Oxygen will be met with an effluent
D.O. limitation as follows:
Season Concentration
Summer 4.00
Fall 4.00
Winter 4.00
Spring 4.00
Effluent Limitation for Total Ammonia based upon Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Total Ammonia will be met with an effluent
limitation (expressed as Total Ammonia as N) as follows:
Season
Concentration Load
Summer 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 559.7 mg/l as N 326.7 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 1120.0 mg/l as N 653.7 lbs/day
Fall 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 986.6 mg/l as N 575.9 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 1162.0 mg/l as N 678.3 lbs/day
Winter 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 7129.2 mg/l as N 4,161.2 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 9434.2 mg/l as N 5,506.6 lbs/day
Spring 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 2005.0 mg/l as N 0.0 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 2364.8 mg/l as N 0.0 lbs/day
Acute limit calculated with an Acute Zone of Initial Dilution (ZID) to be equal to 50.%.
Page 9
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Effluent Limitation for Total Residual Chlorine based upon Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Total Residual Chlorine will be met with an effluent
limitation as follows:
Season Concentration Load
Summer 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 8.860 mg/l 5.17 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 7.691 mg/l 4.49 lbs/day
Fall 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 20.430 mg/l 11.92 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 17.722 mg/l 10.34 lbs/day
Winter 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 54.221 mg/l 31.65 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 47.018 mg/l 27.44 lbs/day
Spring 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 10.022 mg/l 0.00 lbs/day
1 Hour Avg. - Acute 8.698 mg/l 0.00 lbs/day
Effluent Limitations for Total Dissolved Solids based upon Water Quality Standards
Season Concentration Load
Summer Maximum, Acute 1200.0 mg/l 0.35 tons/day
Fall Maximum, Acute 1200.0 mg/l 0.35 tons/day
Winter Maximum, Acute 1200.0 mg/l 0.35 tons/day
Spring 4 Day Avg. - Chronic 1200.0 mg/l 0.35 tons/day
Colorado Salinity Forum Limits Determined by Permitting Section
Effluent Limitations for Total Recoverable Metals based upon
Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Dissolved Metals will be met with an effluent
limitation as follows (based upon a hardness of 319.84 mg/l):
4 Day Average 1 Hour Average
Concentration Load Concentration Load
Aluminum N/A N/A 304,207.5 ug/l 177.6 lbs/day
Arsenic 1.54E+05 ug/l 58.0 lbs/day 138,023.6 ug/l 80.6 lbs/day
Cadmium 456.00 ug/l 0.2 lbs/day 2,798.0 ug/l 1.6 lbs/day
Chromium III 1.81E+05 ug/l 68.2 lbs/day 1.90E+06 ug/l 1109.5 lbs/day
Chromium VI 5,713.91 ug/l 2.2 lbs/day 4,897.0 ug/l 2.9 lbs/day
Copper 1.98E+04 ug/l 7.5 lbs/day 16,711.9 ug/l 9.8 lbs/day
Iron N/A N/A 406,393.4 ug/l 237.2 lbs/day
Lead 1.07E+04 ug/l 4.0 lbs/day 145,623.4 ug/l 85.0 lbs/day
Mercury 9.75 ug/l 0.0 lbs/day 976.6 ug/l 0.6 lbs/day
Nickel 1.13E+05 ug/l 42.5 lbs/day 510,171.9 ug/l 297.8 lbs/day
Selenium 2,448.12 ug/l 0.9 lbs/day 7,492.6 ug/l 4.4 lbs/day
Silver N/A ug/l N/A lbs/day 11,375.4 ug/l 6.6 lbs/day
Zinc 2.61E+05 ug/l 98.4 lbs/day 130,533.8 ug/l 76.2 lbs/day
Cyanide 4,226.57 ug/l 1.6 lbs/day 8,951.8 ug/l 5.2 lbs/day
Effluent Limitations for Heat/Temperature based upon
Water Quality Standards
Summer 100.0 Deg. C.212.0 Deg. F
Fall 100.0 Deg. C.212.0 Deg. F
Winter 100.0 Deg. C.212.0 Deg. F
Page 10
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Spring 100.0 Deg. C.212.0 Deg. F
Effluent Limitations for Organics [Pesticides]
Based upon Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Organics [Pesticides]
will be met with an effluent limit as follows:
4 Day Average 1 Hour Average
Concentration Load Concentration Load
Aldrin 1.5E+00 ug/l 1.35E-03 lbs/day
Chlordane 4.30E-03 ug/l 2.51E-03 lbs/day 1.2E+00 ug/l 1.08E-03 lbs/day
DDT, DDE 1.00E-03 ug/l 5.84E-04 lbs/day 5.5E-01 ug/l 4.97E-04 lbs/day
Dieldrin 1.90E-03 ug/l 1.11E-03 lbs/day 1.3E+00 ug/l 1.13E-03 lbs/day
Endosulfan 5.60E-02 ug/l 3.27E-02 lbs/day 1.1E-01 ug/l 9.93E-05 lbs/day
Endrin 2.30E-03 ug/l 1.34E-03 lbs/day 9.0E-02 ug/l 8.13E-05 lbs/day
Guthion 0.00E+00 ug/l 0.00E+00 lbs/day 1.0E-02 ug/l 9.03E-06 lbs/day
Heptachlor 3.80E-03 ug/l 2.22E-03 lbs/day 2.6E-01 ug/l 2.35E-04 lbs/day
Lindane 8.00E-02 ug/l 4.67E-02 lbs/day 1.0E+00 ug/l 9.03E-04 lbs/day
Methoxychlor 0.00E+00 ug/l 0.00E+00 lbs/day 3.0E-02 ug/l 2.71E-05 lbs/day
Mirex 0.00E+00 ug/l 0.00E+00 lbs/day 1.0E-02 ug/l 9.03E-06 lbs/day
Parathion 0.00E+00 ug/l 0.00E+00 lbs/day 4.0E-02 ug/l 3.61E-05 lbs/day
PCB's 1.40E-02 ug/l 8.17E-03 lbs/day 2.0E+00 ug/l 1.81E-03 lbs/day
Pentachlorophenol 1.30E+01 ug/l 7.59E+00 lbs/day 2.0E+01 ug/l 1.81E-02 lbs/day
Toxephene 2.00E-04 ug/l 1.17E-04 lbs/day 7.3E-01 ug/l 6.59E-04 lbs/day
Page 11
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Effluent Targets for Pollution Indicators
Based upon Water Quality Standards
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Pollution Indicators
will be met with an effluent limit as follows:
1 Hour Average
Concentration Loading
Gross Beta (pCi/l)50.0 pCi/L
BOD (mg/l)5.0 mg/l 2.9 lbs/day
Nitrates as N 4.0 mg/l 2.3 lbs/day
Total Phosphorus as P 0.05 mg/l 0.0 lbs/day
Total Suspended Solids 90.0 mg/l 52.5 lbs/day
Note: Pollution indicator targets are for information purposes only.
Effluent Limitations for Protection of Human Health [Toxics Rule]
Based upon Water Quality Standards (Most stringent of 1C or 3A & 3B as appropriate.)
In-stream criteria of downstream segments for Protection of Human Health [Toxics]
will be met with an effluent limit as follows:
Maximum Concentration
Concentration Load
Toxic Organics
Acenaphthene 2.19E+06 ug/l 1.28E+03 lbs/day
Acrolein 6.34E+05 ug/l 3.70E+02 lbs/day
Acrylonitrile 5.36E+02 ug/l 3.13E-01 lbs/day
Benzene 5.77E+04 ug/l 3.37E+01 lbs/day
Benzidine ug/l lbs/day
Carbon tetrachloride 3.58E+03 ug/l 2.09E+00 lbs/day
Chlorobenzene 1.71E+07 ug/l 9.96E+03 lbs/day
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene 6.26E-01 ug/l 3.65E-04 lbs/day
1,2-Dichloroethane 8.05E+04 ug/l 4.70E+01 lbs/day
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane 7.23E+03 ug/l 4.22E+00 lbs/day
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 3.41E+04 ug/l 1.99E+01 lbs/day
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 8.94E+03 ug/l 5.22E+00 lbs/day
Chloroethane
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 1.14E+03 ug/l 6.64E-01 lbs/day
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene 3.50E+06 ug/l 2.04E+03 lbs/day
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 5.28E+03 ug/l 3.08E+00 lbs/day
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chloroform (HM)3.82E+05 ug/l 2.23E+02 lbs/day
2-Chlorophenol 3.25E+05 ug/l 1.90E+02 lbs/day
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1.38E+07 ug/l 8.07E+03 lbs/day
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2.11E+06 ug/l 1.23E+03 lbs/day
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2.11E+06 ug/l 1.23E+03 lbs/day
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 6.26E+01 ug/l 3.65E-02 lbs/day
1,1-Dichloroethylene 2.60E+03 ug/l 1.52E+00 lbs/day
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene1
2,4-Dichlorophenol 6.42E+05 ug/l 3.75E+02 lbs/day
1,2-Dichloropropane 3.17E+04 ug/l 1.85E+01 lbs/day
1,3-Dichloropropylene 1.38E+06 ug/l 8.07E+02 lbs/day
2,4-Dimethylphenol 1.87E+06 ug/l 1.09E+03 lbs/day
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 7.40E+03 ug/l 4.32E+00 lbs/day
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 4.39E+02 ug/l 2.56E-01 lbs/day
Page 12
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Ethylbenzene 2.36E+07 ug/l 1.38E+04 lbs/day
Fluoranthene 3.01E+05 ug/l 1.76E+02 lbs/day
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 1.38E+08 ug/l 8.07E+04 lbs/day
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Methylene chloride (HM)1.30E+06 ug/l 7.59E+02 lbs/day
Methyl chloride (HM)
Methyl bromide (HM)
Bromoform (HM)2.93E+05 ug/l 1.71E+02 lbs/day
Dichlorobromomethane(HM)1.79E+04 ug/l 1.04E+01 lbs/day
Chlorodibromomethane (HM)2.76E+04 ug/l 1.61E+01 lbs/day
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1.38E+07 ug/l 8.07E+03 lbs/day
Isophorone 4.88E+05 ug/l 2.85E+02 lbs/day
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene 1.54E+06 ug/l 9.01E+02 lbs/day
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol 1.14E+07 ug/l 6.64E+03 lbs/day
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 6.22E+05 ug/l 3.63E+02 lbs/day
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 6.58E+03 ug/l 3.84E+00 lbs/day
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 1.30E+04 ug/l 7.59E+00 lbs/day
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 1.14E+03 ug/l 6.64E-01 lbs/day
Pentachlorophenol 6.66E+03 ug/l 3.89E+00 lbs/day
Phenol 3.74E+09 ug/l 2.18E+06 lbs/day
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4.80E+03 ug/l 2.80E+00 lbs/day
Butyl benzyl phthalate 4.23E+06 ug/l 2.47E+03 lbs/day
Di-n-butyl phthalate 9.75E+06 ug/l 5.69E+03 lbs/day
Di-n-octyl phthlate
Diethyl phthalate 9.75E+07 ug/l 5.69E+04 lbs/day
Dimethyl phthlate 2.36E+09 ug/l 1.38E+06 lbs/day
Benzo(a)anthracene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Chrysene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Acenaphthylene (PAH)
Anthracene (PAH)
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (PAH)2.52E+01 ug/l 1.47E-02 lbs/day
Pyrene (PAH)8.94E+06 ug/l 5.22E+03 lbs/day
Tetrachloroethylene 7.23E+03 ug/l 4.22E+00 lbs/day
Toluene 1.63E+08 ug/l 9.49E+04 lbs/day
Trichloroethylene 6.58E+04 ug/l 3.84E+01 lbs/day
Vinyl chloride 4.27E+05 ug/l 2.49E+02 lbs/day
Page 13
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Pesticides
Aldrin 1.14E-01 ug/l 6.64E-05 lbs/day
Dieldrin 1.14E-01 ug/l 6.64E-05 lbs/day
Chlordane 4.80E-01 ug/l 2.80E-04 lbs/day
4,4'-DDT 4.80E-01 ug/l 2.80E-04 lbs/day
4,4'-DDE 4.80E-01 ug/l 2.80E-04 lbs/day
4,4'-DDD 6.83E-01 ug/l 3.99E-04 lbs/day
alpha-Endosulfan 1.63E+03 ug/l 9.49E-01 lbs/day
beta-Endosulfan 1.63E+03 ug/l 9.49E-01 lbs/day
Endosulfan sulfate 1.63E+03 ug/l 9.49E-01 lbs/day
Endrin 6.58E+02 ug/l 3.84E-01 lbs/day
Endrin aldehyde 6.58E+02 ug/l 3.84E-01 lbs/day
Heptachlor 1.71E-01 ug/l 9.96E-05 lbs/day
Heptachlor epoxide
PCB's
PCB 1242 (Arochlor 1242)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)3.66E-02 ug/l 2.13E-05 lbs/day
Pesticide
Toxaphene 6.10E-01 ug/l 3.56E-04 lbs/day
Metals
Antimony ug/l lbs/day
Arsenic ug/l lbs/day
Asbestos ug/l lbs/day
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper ug/l lbs/day
Cyanide ug/l lbs/day
Lead
Mercury ug/l lbs/day
Nickel ug/l lbs/day
Selenium
Silver
Thallium ug/l lbs/day
Zinc
Dioxin
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)1.14E-05 ug/l 6.64E-09 lbs/day
Page 14
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Metals Effluent Limitations for Protection of All Beneficial Uses
Based upon Water Quality Standards and Toxics Rule
Class 4
Acute
Agricultur
al
Class 3
Acute
Aquatic
Wildlife
Acute
Toxics
Drinking
Water
Source
Acute
Toxics
Wildlife
1C Acute
Health
Criteria
Acute Most
Stringent
Class 3
Chronic
Aquatic
Wildlife
ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l ug/l
Aluminum 304207.5 304207.5 N/A
Antimony 3495047.1 3495047.1
Arsenic 81280.2 138023.6 0.0 81280.2 153786.9
Barium 0.0
Beryllium 0.0
Cadmium 8063.5 2798.0 0.0 2798.0 456.0
Chromium (III)1900891.8 0.0 1900891.8 180875.0
Chromium (VI)80634.8 4897.0 0.0 4896.96 5713.91
Copper 161914.9 16711.9 16711.9 19832.1
Cyanide 8951.8 1.8E+08 8951.8 4226.6
Iron 406393.4 406393.4
Lead 80634.8 145623.4 0.0 80634.8 10715.3
Mercury 976.56 121.92 0.0 121.92 9.749
Nickel 510171.9 3738887.6 510171.9 112729.4
Selenium 39349.3 7492.6 0.0 7492.6 2448.1
Silver 11375.4 0.0 11375.4
Thallium 5120.7 5120.7
Zinc 130533.8 130533.8 260746.6
Boron 609601.2 609601.2
Summary Effluent Limitations for Metals [Wasteload Allocation, TMDL]
[If Acute is more stringent than Chronic, then the Chronic takes on the Acute value.]
WLA Acute WLA Chronic
ug/l ug/l
Aluminum 304207.5 N/A
Antimony 3.50E+06
Arsenic 81280.2 153786.9 Acute Controls
Asbestos 0.00E+00
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium 2798.0 456.0
Chromium (III)1900891.8 180875
Chromium (VI)4897.0 5713.9 Acute Controls
Copper 16711.9 19832.1 Acute Controls
Cyanide 8951.8 4226.6
Iron 406393.4
Lead 80634.8 10715.3
Mercury 121.920 9.749
Nickel 510171.9 112729
Selenium 7492.6 2448.1
Silver 11375.4 N/A
Thallium 5120.7
Zinc 130533.8 260746.6 Acute Controls
Boron 609601.23
Page 15
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
Other Effluent Limitations are based upon R317-1.
E. coli 126.0 organisms per 100 ml
X. Antidegradation Considerations
The Utah Antidegradation Policy allows for degradation of existing quality where it is determined
that such lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social
development in the area in which the waters are protected [R317-2-3]. It has been determined that
certain chemical parameters introduced by this discharge will cause an increase of the concentration of
said parameters in the receiving waters. Under no conditions will the increase in concentration be
allowed to interfere with existing instream water uses.
The antidegradation rules and procedures allow for modification of effluent limits less than those based
strictly upon mass balance equations utilizing 100% of the assimilative capacity of the receiving water.
Additional factors include considerations for "Blue-ribbon" fisheries, special recreational areas,
threatened and endangered species, and drinking water sources.
An Antidegradation Level I Review was conducted on this discharge and its effect on the
receiving water. Based upon that review, it has been determined that an
increase in permitted flow or concentration.
XI. Colorado River Salinity Forum Considerations
Discharges in the Colorado River Basin are required to have their discharge at a TDS loading
of less than 1.00 tons/day unless certain exemptions apply. Refer to the Forum's Guidelines
for additional information allowing for an exceedence of this value.
This doesn’t apply to facilities that do not discharge to the Colorado River Basin.
XII. Summary Comments
The mathematical modeling and best professional judgement indicate that violations of receiving
water beneficial uses with their associated water quality standards, including important down-
stream segments, will not occur for the evaluated parameters of concern as discussed above if the
effluent limitations indicated above are met.
Page 16
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
XIII. Notice of UPDES Requirement
This Addendum to the Statement of Basis does not authorize any entity or party to discharge to the
waters of the State of Utah. That authority is granted through a UPDES permit issued by the Utah
Division of Water Quality. The numbers presented here may be changed as a function of other
factors. Dischargers are strongly urged to contact the Permits Section for further information.
Permit writers may utilize other information to adjust these limits and/or to determine other limits
based upon best available technology and other considerations provided that the values in this
wasteload analysis [TMDL] are not compromised. See special provisions in Utah Water Quality
Standards for adjustments in the Total Dissolved Solids values based upon background concentration.
XIV. Special Considerations - TMDL
The Corinne Lagoons discharge to a segment of the Bear River that is 303(d) listed for total phosphorous (TP).
A TP TMDL was completed for the Bear River on September 9th, 2002.
The TMDL indicated that the three point sources in this segment, Corinne, Bear River and Tremonton cities,
accounted for approximately 3% of the total phosphorous load to the Lower Bear River. The remaining 97%
is attributed to nonpoint sources. Given that the non-point source TP loads overshadow the point source
contributions, the time-frame for including TP effluent limits for the small towns of Bear River City, Tremonton
and Corinne is not urgent. The Division of Water Quality recently completed a TMDL for Cutler Reservoir
(immediately upstream of the lower Bear River segment). Following completion of the Cutler Reservoir TMDL,
the Lower Bear River TMDL will be redone.
In 2018, an Implementation Plan developed by the Utah Division of Water Quality allocated 2.5 lb/d
of total phosphors (previously the Corinne Lagoons were allocated 2.0 lb/d of total phosphorus).
The Lower Bear River Implementation Plan is based on records from May 2011 through June 2016
where average monthly flows range from 0.06 to 0.22 mgd. Insufficient data are available to evaluate trends.
Discharge TP concentrations range from 0.69 mg/l to 4.05 mg/l.
There do not appear to be any discernible seasonal or long-term trends in discharge TP concentration.
TP discharge loads range from 0.20 lb/d to 18.14 lb/d. As with concentration, insufficient data are available to
evaluate trends. Additional TP data continues to be collected.
A WLA of 2.5 lb/d was calculated by multiplying the average annual load (2.0 lb/d) by 125 percent.
A daily average load for each calendar month was calculated by averaging paired TP and flow from
June 2011 through May 2016. The daily average load for each month was then multiplied by the number of
days per month and summed; the summation was divided by 365 days per year to yield the average annual load in lb/d.
The current average annual load is 2.0 lb/d, which was calculated using monthly averages of paired TP
and effluent flow data from June 2011 through May 2016. Implementing the phosphorus loading cap
(would result in an increase (on average) of 0.5 lb/d.
No assimilative capacity exists for this pollutant. Effluent limit equals the water quality standard.
Prepared by:
Suzan Tahir
Utah Division of Water Quality
801-536-4341
File Name: Corrine_WLA_1-26-2021.xls
Page 17
Utah Division of Water Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah
APPENDIX - Coefficients and Other Model Information
CBOD CBOD CBOD REAER.REAER.REAER.NBOD NBOD
Coeff.Coeff.Coeff.Coeff.Coeff.Coeff.Coeff.Coeff.
(Kd)20 FORCED (Ka)T (Ka)20 FORCED (Ka)T (Kn)20 (Kn)T
1/day (Kd)/day 1/day (Ka)/day 1/day 1/day 1/day 1/day
1.000 0.000 1.155 8.299 0.000 8.939 0.400 0.509
Open Open NH3 NH3 NO2+NO3 NO2+NO3 TRC TRC
Coeff.Coeff.LOSS LOSS Decay
(K4)20 (K4)T (K5)20 (K5)T (K6)20 (K6)T K(Cl)20 K(Cl)(T)
1/day 1/day 1/day 1/day 1/day 1/day 1/day 1/day
0.000 0.000 4.000 4.618 0.000 0.000 32.000 38.402
BENTHIC BENTHIC
DEMAND DEMAND
(SOD)20 (SOD)T
gm/m2/day gm/m2/day
1.000 1.218
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K(Cl)S
CBOD Reaer. NH3 Open NH3 Loss NO2+3 TRC Benthic
{theta} {theta} {theta} {theta} {theta} {theta}{theta} {theta}
1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
Page 18
DWQ-2021-004148

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 Analysis1. They are; Outcome A: A new effluent limitation will be placed in the permit. Outcome B: No new effluent limitation. Routine monitoring requirements will be placed or increased from what they are in the permit, Outcome C: No new effluent limitation. Routine monitoring requirements maintained as they are in the permit,
Outcome D: No limitation or routine monitoring requirements are in the permit. Since January 1, 2016, DWQ has conducted reasonable potential analysis (RP) on all new and renewal
applications received after that date. In order to complete a RP analysis, more than 10 data points per parameter are needed. Corinne was not required to sample for metal parameters in their previous permit, therefore, analysis data is not available to perform a RP analysis. For this permit cycle, Corinne will be required to permit,
at a minimum, annual metal sampling. If additional sampling is performed, it shall be reported to DWQ. Less than 10 data points may affect the RP outcomes which may require additional monitoring in the future.

1 See Reasonable Potential Analysis Guidance for definitions of terms