The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDWQ-2024-008941Official 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 CENTRAL WEBER SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE ANDBIOSOLIDS UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0021911 UPDES BIOSOLIDS PERMIT NUMBER: UTL-021911 MAJOR MUNICIPAL FACILITY CONTACTSOperator Name:Central Weber Sewer Improvement DistrictContact:Kevin HallPosition: General ManagerPhone Number:(801) 731-3011Person Name:James DixonPosition:Technical DirectorPhone Number:(801) 731-3011Permittee Name:Central Weber Sewer Improvement DistrictFacility Name:Central Weber Sewer Improvement District Wastewater Treatment PlantMailing and Facility Address:2618 West Pioneer RoadOgden, Utah 84404Telephone:(801) 731-3011 Actual Address:2618 West Pioneer Road DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY Originally placed in service in 1959, the Central Weber Sewer Improvement District (CWSID) uses a single-stage trickling filter treatment process with chlorination and dechlorination. In 2011 an upgrade was completed of the treatment plant that added a parallel activated sludge treatment plant. The upgrade included a new headwork’s facility, raw sludge pump station, two primary clarifiers, aeration basins with a blower building, four secondary clarifiers, a chlorine contact basin, a dechlorination building, two anaerobic digesters with a digester control building, a sludge thickening building, and a 9-foot diameter effluent pipeline to the Weber River. The facility has the option of discharging into the Warren Canal, Weber River or a combination of both. The facility serves the area including the towns of Farr West, Hooper, Harrisville, North Ogden, Ogden, Pleasant View, Marriott-Slaterville, Riverdale, South Ogden, West Haven, South Weber, Washington Terrace, Weber County and portions of Plain City, Roy and Uintah. The facility is located at latitude 4116'18'' and longitude 11202'49''. SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT The number and specifics of scenarios has changed compared to previous permit. Scenario three has been removed as it is above the design capacity of the plant as indicated on the permit application. The permittee has completed their compliance schedule and variance for implementing Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-1-3.3, Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) and this permit contains the final effluent limitation of 1.0 mg/L phosphorus limit. Reasonable potential (RP) was run on aluminum, and it was shown not to be a pollutant of concern, and the effluent limitations were removed, however it will continue to be monitored. See ‘Reasonable Potential Analysis’ section below. DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE CWSID currently treats wastewater from towns of Farr West, Hooper, Harrisville, North Ogden, Ogden, Pleasant View, Marriott-Slaterville, Riverdale, South Ogden, West Haven, South Weber, Washington Terrace, Weber County and portions of Plain City, Roy and Uintahhas been reporting self-monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Reports on a monthly basis. OutfallDescription of Discharge Point001Located at latitude4116' 11" and longitude 11203' 42". Discharge flows through 108-inch pipe into the Weber River and flows eventually to the Great Salt Lake.002Located at latitude4116' 18" and longitude 11202' 52". Discharge flows through 72-inch pipe into the Warren Canal, then to the Weber River and flows eventually to the Great Salt Lake RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION Discharge flows either directly to the Weber River or via the Warren Canal to the Weber River which is a Class 2B, 3C, 3D, 3E, and 4 according to Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-2-13 and/or the Warren Canal which is a Class 2B, 3E, and 4 according to 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 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 3E -- Severely habitat-limited waters. Narrative standards will be applied to protect these waters for aquatic wildlife. Class 4 -- Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) REQUIREMENTS According to the Utah’s Final 2024 Integrated Report on Water Quality dated April 30, 2024, the receiving water for the discharge, Weber River and tributaries from Great Salt Lake to Slaterville Diversion (Assessment Unit Weber River-1, AU ID: UT16020102-001_00) is listed as “Not Supporting” for Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments. The Status is listed as “TMDL Needed” with “Low” priority. BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Effluent limitations on total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), E-coli, pH and percent removal are based on current Utah Secondary Treatment Standards, UAC R317-1-3.2. Total residual chlorine (TRC), ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO) are determined by wasteload analysis (WLA), which is attached. Effluent limitation for total phosphorus is based on UAC R317-1-3.3, Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL). The oil and grease limit is based on best professional judgment (BPJ). The facility will be required to test for chronic toxicity. This is because acute toxicity will be detected in the chronic biomonitoring test and the permittee has consistently passed acute testing in the past. If chronic toxicity occurs that might be or is believed to be due to an acute toxicity failure, then the facility may be required to test for acute toxicity as per the Directors requirements. The Chronic WET must pass with an IC25 of > 81.0% at Outfall 001 and 86.5% at Outfall 002 as determined by the WLA. 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 framework for what routine monitoring or effluent limitations are required. A quantitative RP analysis was performed onaluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc to determine if there was reasonable potential for the discharge to exceed the applicable water quality standards. Based on the RP analysis, the following parameter exceeded the most stringent acute and chronic water quality standard or was determined to have a reasonable potential to exceed the standard:cyanide. As a result, this permit will increase the monitoring frequency for cyanide.A copy of the RP analysis is included at the end of this Fact Sheet. Scenarios CWSID’s wastewater treatment facility may discharge from Outfall 001, 002 or a combination not in excess of 49 million gallons per day (MGD). If discharge occurs at both outfalls, then self-monitoring requirements at both outfalls shall be fulfilled.: Scenario Outfall Description Flow, MGD 1 001 Discharge from 108 inch pipe to the Weber River 49 2 002 72 inch pipe to the Weber River via Warren Canal 49 Limits for Scenario 1: Parameter Table 1: Effluent Limitations for Scenario 1 (Outfall 001)(a) Maximum Monthly Avg Maximum Weekly Avg Yearly Average Daily Minimum Daily Maximum Total Flow, MGD 49 -- -- -- -- BOD5, mg/L BOD5 Min. % Removal 25 85 35 -- -- -- -- -- 20 -- TSS, mg/L TSS Min. % Removal 25 85 35 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L -- -- -- 5.0 -- Total Ammonia (as N), mg/L Summer (Jul-Sep) Fall (Oct-Dec) Winter (Jan-Mar) Spring (Apr-Jun) 2.9 4.0 4.5 4.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.8 10.8 13.8 13.2 TRC, mg/L Summer (Jul-Sep) Fall (Oct-Dec) Winter (Jan-Mar) Spring (Apr-Jun) 0.013 0.019 0.017 0.014 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.023 0.034 0.030 0.025 E. coli, No./100mL 126 157 -- -- -- Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/L -- -- 1.0 -- -- Oil & Grease, mg/L -- -- -- -- 10.0 pH, Standard Units -- -- -- 6.5 9 WET, Chronic Biomonitoring -- -- -- -- IC25> 81.0% effluent (from WLA) Limits for Scenario 2: Parameter Table 2: Effluent Limitations for Scenario 2 (Outfall 002)(a) Maximum Monthly Avg Maximum Weekly Avg Yearly Average Daily Minimum Daily Maximum Total Flow, MGD 49 -- -- -- -- BOD5, mg/L BOD5 Min. % Removal 25 85 35 -- -- -- -- -- 23 -- TSS, mg/L TSS Min. % Removal 25 85 35 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L -- -- -- 5.0 -- Total Ammonia (as N), mg/L Summer (Jul-Sep) Fall (Oct-Dec) Winter (Jan-Mar) Spring (Apr-Jun) 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.3 10.1 11.3 10.1 TRC, mg/L 0.013 0.022 E. coli, No./100mL 126 157 -- -- -- Total Phosphorus (as P), mg/L -- -- 1.0 -- -- Oil & Grease, mg/L -- -- -- -- 10.0 pH, Standard Units -- -- -- 6.5 9 WET, Chronic Biomonitoring -- -- -- -- IC25> 86.5% effluent (from WLA) 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.Table 4: Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements(a) Parameter Frequency Sample Type Units Total Flow(b)(c) Continuous Recorder MGD BOD5, Influent(d) Effluent Daily Daily Composite Composite mg/L mg/L BOD5 % Removal Monthly Calculation % TSS, Influent(d) Effluent Daily Daily Composite Composite mg/L mg/L TSS % Removal Monthly Calculation % DO Daily Grab mg/L Total Ammonia (as N) Daily Composite mg/L TRC, mg/L(e) Daily Grab mg/L E. coli Daily Grab No./100mL Total Phosphorus (as P)(f) Influent Effluent Monthly Monthly Composite Composite mg/L mg/L Oil & Grease(g) When Sheen Observed Grab mg/L pH Daily Grab SU WET – Biomonitoring(h) Ceriodaphnia - Chronic Fathead Minnows - Chronic 2nd & 4th Quarter 1st & 3rd Quarter Composite Composite Pass/Fail Pass/Fail Orthophosphate (as P)(f) Effluent Monthly Composite mg/L Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, TKN (as N)(f) Influent Effluent Monthly Monthly Composite Composite mg/L mg/L Nitrate, NO3(f) Monthly Composite mg/L Nitrite, NO2(f) Monthly Composite mg/L Metals(i) Aluminium, Total Arsenic, Total Cadmium, Total Chromium, Totall(j) Copper, Totall(j) Cyanide, Total(j) Lead, Total Mercury, Totall(j) Molybdeunum, Total Nickel, Total Selenium, Total Silver, Total Zinc, Total Influent Effluent 6 X Yearly 6 X Yearly/Monthly Composite Composite mg/L mg/L Organic Toxic Pollutants, Influent Effluent 2 X Yearly 2 X Yearly Grab/Composite Grab/Composite mg/L mg/LNotes Tables 1 and 2See Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.Flow measurements of influent/effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the Permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained.If the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be reported.In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this constituent at the same frequency as required for effluent discharge. During months where a discharge will not occur, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed at the frequency stipulated in Table 2.Analytical results less than 0.06 mg/l will not be considered out of compliance with the permit. For purposes of calculating averages and reporting on the Discharge Monitoring Report form, the following will apply: analytical values less than 0.02 mg/L shall be considered zero; andanalytical values less than 0.06 mg/L and equal to or greater than 0.02 mg/L will be recorded as measured. These reflect changes required with the adoption of UCA R317-1-3.3, Technology-based Phosphorus Effluent Limits rule.Oil and grease shall be sampled when sheen is present or visible. If no sheen is present or visible, report NA.Chronic Ceriodaphnia will be tested during the 1st and 3rd quarters and chronic fathead minnows will be tested during the 2nd and 4th quarters. Metals results were reviewed for the last5 years. Cyanide and mercury at both outfalls, chromium and copper at Outfall 002 appeared to have the potential to exceed to the limits suggested in the Wasteload, and as such monitoring shall be increased.Cyanide and mercury at both Outfalls shall be monitored monthly. Chromium and copper at Outfall 002 shall be monitored monthly. 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 There have been no substantial changes in regard to biosolids. DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL The Permittee submitted their 2023 annual biosolids (DWQ-2024-004234) report on February 7, 2024. The report states the Permittee produced 2556 dry metric tons (DMT) of solids. All of the biosolids produced at CWSID are treated either in a compost operation or stored and treated through the two-summer storage method for the pathogen reduction requirements. CWSID sold or gave away 257 dry metric tons of the composted biosolids. CWSID also applies Class A biosolids to agricultural land. This Class A biosolids meets the Pathogen reduction requirements. During the 2023 calendar year 1,754dry metric tons of Class A biosolids was land applied to agricultural lands. In total 2,011 DMT of composted biosolids were produced and sold or given away to the public. At the time the report was submitted CWSID had a total of 545 dry metric tons of biosolids in storage. The solids are stabilized in a primary anaerobic digester and secondary anaerobic digester with a combined mean cell residence time of 82 days at an average temperature of 35 C (95 F). After stabilization, the biosolids are de-watered with a belt press to about seventeen percent solids. The last inspection conducted wasMay 15, 2024. The inspection showed that CWSIDwas in compliance with all aspects of the biosolids management program. SELF-MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Under 40 CFR 503.16(a)(1), the self-monitoring requirements are based upon the amount of biosolids disposed per year and shall be monitored according to the chart below. Minimum Frequency of Monitoring (40 CFR Part 503.16, 503.26. and 503.46) Amount of Biosolids Disposed Per Year Monitoring Frequency Dry US Tons Dry Metric Tons Per Year or Batch > 0 to < 320 > 0 to < 290 Once Per Year or Batch > 320 to < 1650 > 290 to < 1,500 Once a Quarter or Four Times > 1,650 to < 16,500 > 1,500 to < 15,000 Bi-Monthly or Six Times > 16,500 > 15,000 Monthly or Twelve Times In 2023, the CWSIDdisposedof 2556 DMT of biosolids, therefore they need to sample at least bi-monthly or sixtimes 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 2023. 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 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 concentrations in 40 CFR Part 503.13(b) Table 3. Tables 1, 2, and 3 of Heavy Metal Limitations Pollutant Limits, (40 CFR Part 503.13(b)) Dry Mass Basis Heavy Metals Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Ceiling Conc. Limits 1, (mg/kg) CPLR 2, (mg/ha) Pollutant Conc. Limits 3 (mg/kg) APLR 4, (mg/ha-yr) Total Arsenic 75 41 41 2.0 Total Cadmium 85 39 39 1.9 Total Copper 4300 1500 1500 75 Total Lead 840 300 300 15 Total Mercury 57 17 17 0.85 Total Molybdenum 75 N/A N/A N/A Total Nickel 420 420 420 21 Total Selenium 100 100 100 5.0 Total Zinc 7500 2800 2800 140 1, If the concentration of any 1 (one) of these parameters exceeds the Table 1 limit, the biosolids cannot be land applied or beneficially used in any way. 2, CPLR - Cumulative Pollutant Loading Rate - The maximum loading for any 1 (one) of the parameters listed that may be applied to land when biosolids are land applied or beneficially used on agricultural, forestry, or a reclamation site. 3, If the concentration of any 1 (one) of these parameters exceeds the Table 3 limit, the biosolids cannot be land applied or beneficially used in on a lawn, home garden, or other high potential public contact site. If any 1 (one) of these parameters exceeds the Table 3 limit, the biosolids may be land applied or beneficially reused on an agricultural, forestry, reclamation site, or other high potential public contact site, as long as it meets the requirements of Table 1, Table 2, and Table 4. 4, APLR - Annual Pollutant Loading Rate - The maximum annual loading for any 1 (one) of the parameters listed that may be applied to land when biosolids are land applied or beneficially reused on agricultural, forestry, or a reclamation site, when they do not meet Table 3, but do meet Table 1. Any violation of these limitations shall be reported in accordance with the requirements of Part III.F.1. of the permit. If the biosolids do not meet these requirements they cannot be land applied. PathogensThe Pathogen Control class listed in the table below must be met; Pathogen Control Class 503.32 (a)(1) - (5), (7), (8), Class A 503.32 (b)(1) - (5), Class B B Salmonella species –less than three (3) 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. CWSID has chosen to achieve PFRP through the WindrowMethod.1. Windrow Method-Using the windrow method of composting, the temperature needs to be maintained at 55 oC (131 oF) or higher for fifteen days, with a minimum of five turnings during those fifteen days, This composting methods are found under (40 CFR 503.32(a)(8)(ii)).2. Two Summers Method - Biosolids are stored in batch over at least two summers. The biosolids have a total solids content of at least 14%, but no more than 40%, when the piles are formed. The piles are formed in windrows 3.5 to 6.0 feet in height. During the first summer the total solids of the pile does not exceed 60%. The average temperature of the pile exceeds 20 C for 12 months of the storage period. (These 12 months are not necessarily consecutive months.) the pile is turned at lease three times (at evenly spaced intervals during each summer period. The finished biosolids do not contain more than one viable helminth ova per four grams of total solids (dry weight basis). The Two Summer Method is as approved by the EPA Pathogen Equivalency Committee (PEC). 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). At this time CWSIDdoes not intend to distribute bulk biosolids for land application and thus is not required meet Class B Biosolids requirements currently. Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR) If the biosolids are land applied CWSID will be required to meet VAR through the use of a method of listed under 40 CFR 503.33. CWSIDintends to meet the vector attraction reduction requirements through one of the methods listed below. 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. At CWSID the solids are stabilized in a primary anaerobic digester and secondary digester with a combine mean cell residence time of 82 days at an average temperature of 35° C (95° F). If the biosolids do not meet a method of VAR, the biosolids cannot be land applied. If the permittee intends to use another one of the listed alternatives in 40 CFR 503.33, the Director and the EPA must be informed at least thirty (30) days prior to its use. This change may be made without additional public notice Landfill Monitoring Under 40 CFR 258, the landfill monitoring requirements include a paint filter test to determine if the biosolids exhibit free liquid. If the biosolids do not pass a paint filter test, the biosolids cannot be disposed in the sanitary landfill (40 CFR 258.28(c)(1). Record Keeping The record keeping requirements from 40 CFR 503.17 are included under Part III.G. of the permit. The amount of time the records must be maintained are dependent on the quality of the biosolids in regards to the metals concentrations. If the biosolids continue to meet the metals limits of Table 3 of 40 CFR 503.13, and are sold or given away the records must be retained for a minimum of five years. If the biosolids are disposed in a landfill the records must retained for a minimum of five years. Reporting CWSIDmust 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 CWSIDwas required to sample for metals at least sixtimes in 2023. CWSIDsampled the Class A compost sixtimes, and the Class B biosolids zerotimes. All biosolids land applied in 2023met Table 3 of 40 CFR 503.13, therefore the CWSIDbiosolids qualify as EQ with regards to metals. The monitoring data is below. CWSIDMetals Monitoring Data 2023 CWSIDMetals Monitoring Data, 2023 (Land Application) Parameter Table 3, mg/kg (Exceptional Quality) Average, mg/kg Maximum, mg/kg Arsenic 41.0 26.88 95.7 Cadmium 39.0 2.85 9.75 Copper 1,500.0 634.5 710 Lead 300.0 29.0 40.4 Mercury 17.0 0.677 0.809 Molybdenum 75.0 13.83 18.3 Nickel 400.0 42.25 44.2 Selenium 36.0 13.24 38.8 Zinc 2,800.0 1125 1310 PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA (Anaerobic Cake) CWSIDwas 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 2023 met the Class B pathogen standards through anaerobic digestion. PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA (Aerobic Compost) CWSID was required to monitor the composted biosolids for pathogens at least six times in 2023. CWSID had the choice to sample for fecal coliform or salmonella, and the CWSIDchose fecal coliform. All compost sold or given away in 2023 met the Class A pathogen standards for compost. The monitoring data is below. CWSIDfecal coliform Monitoring Data 2023 (Aerobic Compost) Geometric Mean of 42 Samples, Most Probable Number Per Gram (2023) Maximum Most Probable Number Per Gram (2023) 82.9 558 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 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 onstorm water permit requirements can be found at http://stormwater.utah.gov PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS The pretreatment requirements,regarding administering an approved pretreatment program, remain the same as in the current permit. Any substantial and/or non-substantial changes to the program as defined in 40 CFR 403.18, must be submitted for approval to the Division of Water Quality. Authority to require a pretreatment program is provided for in 19-5-108 UCA, 1953 ann. and UAC R317-8-8. The sampling of metals will be conducted six times a year and the sampling of organic toxics will be conducted twice a year, see Part II of the UPDES Permit. This is consistent with the guidance developed by the Division of Water Quality. Additional requirements have been added to the permit to ensure that if the allowable headwork’s loading is above the value calculated for the local limit development that additional monitoring and notification must occur. The permittee will be required to perform an annual evaluation of the need to revise or develop technically based local limits to implement the general and specific prohibitions of 40 CFR, Part 403.5(a) and Part 403.5(b). This evaluation may indicate that present local limits are sufficiently protective, or that they must be revised. The initial evaluation is due twelve months after the effective date of the permit. As part of this evaluation, the permit requires influent and effluent monitoring for metals and organic toxics. The permittee should utilize EPA’s Local Limits Development Guidance to justify the re-evaluation of the local limits. BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS A nationwide effort to control toxic discharges where effluent toxicity is an existing or potential concern is regulated in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Enforcement Guidance Document for Whole Effluent Toxicity Control (biomonitoring), dated February 2018. Authority to require effluent biomonitoring is provided in Permit Conditions, UAC R317-8-4.2, Permit Provisions, UAC R317-8-5.3 and Water Quality Standards, UAC R317-2-5 and R317 -2-7.2. Since the permittee is a major municipal discharger, this renewal permit will again require WET testing. The requirements for WET testing are similar from the last permit cycle. Only the percent effluent for Outfall 001 and 002 has changed. WET testing will require quarterly chronic testing as an indicator. The permit will also contain the standard requirements for accelerated testing upon failure of a WET test and a Preliminary Toxicity Investigation and Toxicity Reduction Evaluation as necessary. PERMIT DURATIONIt is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.Drafted and Reviewed byLindsay Cowles, Discharge Permit WriterDaniel Griffin, BiosolidsJennifer Robinson, PretreatmentLonnie Shull, BiomonitoringCarl Adams, Storm WaterChristine Osborne, TMDL/Watershed Lindsay Cowles, Reasonable Potential AnalysisChristopher Shope, PhD., 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 on the DWQ webpage.During the public comment period provided under R317-8-6.5, any interested person may submit written comments on the draft permit and may request a public hearing, if no hearing has already been scheduled. A request for a public hearing shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. All comments will be considered in making the final decision and shall be answered as provided in R317-8-6.12.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: (801) 536-4383Fax:(801) 536-4301E-mail:jenrobinson@utah.govF:\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:(801) 536-4383 Fax:(801) 536-4301E-Mail:jenrobinson@utah.gov 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.WET Results Month Outfall WET Test Pass / Fail Dec-19 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Dec-19 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Mar-20 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Mar-20 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Jun-20 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Jun-20 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Sept-20 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Sept-20 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Dec-20 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Dec-20 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Mar-21 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Mar-21 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Jun-21 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Jun-21 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Sept-21 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Sept-21 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Dec-21 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Dec-21 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Mar-22 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Mar-22 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Jun-22 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Jun-22 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Sept-22 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Sept-22 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Dec-22 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Dec-22 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Mar-23 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Mar-23 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Jun-23 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Jun-23 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Sept-23 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia NA Sept-23 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Dec-23 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas NA Dec-23 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Mar-24 001 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Mar-24 002 96Hr Chronic Ceriodaphnia Pass Jun-24 001 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas Pass Jun-24 002 96Hr Chronic Pimephales Promelas 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.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 cyanide for Outfall 001 and chromium, copper, cyanide and mercury at Outfall 002. The RP model was run on cyanide at Outfall 002 using the most recent data back through 2019. This resulted in 27 data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for cyanide. Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data. RP was run at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is acute and chronic RP at 95% confidence, and there is acute and chronic RP at 99% Confidence. However, due to the potential outliers and possibility of cyanide being generated in the wastewater treatment process, this result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for cyanide is not required at this time, but routine monitoring requirements will be added or increased in the permit. The RP model was run on cyanide and mercury at Outfall 001 and chromium, copper and mercury at Outfall 002 using the most recent data back through 2019. This resulted in 5 data points for cyanide and mercury at Outfall 001, 26 data points for mercury at Outfall 002, and 27 data points for chromium and copper at Outfall 002. RP was run at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not chronic RP at 95% confidence, and there is chronic RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for the metals mentioned above is not required at this time, and that routine monitoring requirements can be added or increased in the permit.Initial screening for aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed that a closer look at some of the metals is not 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: 001 Data Units mg/L Parameter CN NA Distribution Lognormal NA Reporting Limit (0.0010) NA Significant Figures 2 NA Maximum Reported Effluent Conc. .01 NA Coefficient of Variation (CV) 0.6 NA Acute Criterion 0.025 NA Chronic Criterion 0.006 NA Confidence Interval 95 99 NA Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC) 0.0530 0.1400 NA RP Multiplier 5.3 14 NA RP for Acute? YES YES NA RP for Chronic? YES YES NA Outcome C NA RP Procedure Output Outfall Number: 002 Data Units mg/L Parameter Cr Cu Distribution Lognormal Lognormal Reporting Limit (0.0005) (0.0010) Significant Figures 2 2 Maximum Reported Effluent Conc. 0.0066 0.0174 Coefficient of Variation (CV) 0.68 0.33 Acute Criterion 0.017 0.041 Chronic Criterion 0.012 0.027 Confidence Interval 95 99 95 99 Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC) 0.0084 0.0150 0.0200 0.0270 RP Multiplier 1.3 2.3 1.1 1.5 RP for Acute? NO NO NO NO RP for Chronic? NO YES NO YES Outcome C C RP Procedure Output Outfall Number: 002 Data Units mg/L Parameter CN Hg Distribution Lognormal Lognormal Reporting Limit (0.001) (0.0xx) Significant Figures 2 2 Maximum Reported Effluent Conc. 0.08 0.000010 Coefficient of Variation (CV) 1.3 0.55 Acute Criterion 0.021 0.000173 Chronic Criterion 0.006 0.000014 Confidence Interval 95 99 95 99 Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC) 0.1200 0.3000 0.000012 0.00002 RP Multiplier 1.5 3.8 1.2 2.0 RP for Acute? YES YES NO NO RP for Chronic? YES YES NO YES Outcome B C Metals Monitoring and RP Check This Page Intentionally Left Blank