DWQ-2024-003890

Official Draft Public Notice Version Month Day, year
The findings, determinations, and assertions contained in this document are not final and subject to change following the public comment period.
FACT SHEET AND STATEMENT OF BASIS
HYRUM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE, BIOSOLIDS & STORM WATER
UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0023205
UPDES BIOSOLIDS PERMIT NUMBER: UTL-023205
MAJOR MUNICIPAL
FACILITY CONTACTSOperator Name:Hyrum CityContact:Angela PritchettPosition:Hyrum City WWTP Superintendent
Facility Name:Hyrum City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Mailing Address:83 West Main
Hyrum, Utah 84319
Telephone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]
Actual Address:1900 West 4400 SouthHyrum, Utah 84319Cache County
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
The Hyrum City Wastewater Treatment Plant (HWTP) is located at 1900 West 4400 South, Hyrum, Cache County, Utah.The Facility serves the City of Hyrum with the outfall located at latitude
41o39'06" and longitude 111o52'50". The design capacity is 2 MGD with a present flow is approximately 1MGDand population of approximately 8,000.
The HWTP consists of screening,two parallel anoxic basins and aerobic activated sludge process prior to the membrane bioreactor treatment (MBR). Alum is used to remove phosphorus. The
facility discharges into an unnamed irrigation ditch to Spring Creek then to the Little Bear River during non-irrigation season of November through March. The facility is in the Bear
River water shed. The Type I Effluent Reuse is land applied during the irrigation months of April through October to the East Bench of Hyrum City, the irrigation system or the to the
irrigation storage reservoir.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT
The following changes have been made to the permit since the last reissuance. The sampling season has been changed from quarterly seasons to the irrigation season and non-irrigation
season. This change effects total ammonia and whole effluent toxicity testing.
The daily and monthly maximum values for ammonia and whole effluent toxicity testing have changed. Effluent limits have been added for dissolved oxygen and total dissolved solids as
Spring Creek has been listed as impaired for both of these parameters. Monthly temperature monitoring has also been added without a limit because of an impairment in Spring Creek for
temperature.
The facility will continue to produce Type I reuse water and the renewal permit will include provision covering the Type I reuse of the effluent.
DISCHARGE
DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE
HWTP has been reporting self-monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Reports on a monthly basis. A summary of the last 3 years of data is attached and there were no significant violations.OutfallDescription
of Discharge Point
001 Located at latitude 41o39'06" and longitude 111o52'50". The discharge goes into an unnamed irrigation ditch to Spring Creek then to the Little Bear River during non-irrigation
season of November through March. The facility is in the Bear River water shed.OutfallDescription of Reuse Water Discharge Point
001R Located at latitude 41o39'06" and longitude 111o52'50". The Type I Effluent Reuse is land applied during the irrigation months of April through October to the East Bench of Hyrum
City, the irrigation system or the to the irrigation storage reservoir
RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
If a discharge were to occur, it would be pumped into an irrigation ditch, which is a Class 2B, 3A, 3dD, 3E, 4according 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 3A -- Protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold 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 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.
water-oriented wildlife including their necessary food chain.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) REQUIREMENTS
According to Utah’s 2022 303(d) assessment unit UT16010203-008_00, Spring Creek and tributaries from confluence with Little Bear River to headwaters are currently listed as impaired
(TMDL required) for Ammonia, Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and E. coli. A TMDL was completed for Spring Creek in 2002 which addressed impairments for dissolved oxygen, ammonia,
E. coli and total phosphorus (TP). The TP target/endpoint was set at 0.05 mg/l at the watershed outlet. Since that time, major upgrades have been made to both Hyrum City’s WWTP and Swift
Beef Company’s treatment plant, resulting in greatly improved effluent quality.
BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Limitations on total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), E. coli, pH and percent removal for BOD5 and TSS are based on current Utah Secondary Treatment Standards,
UAC R317-1-3.2. The oil and grease is based on best professional judgment (BPJ). Limitations onAmmonia are based on the Wasteload Analysis. The phosphorous limits are based on studying
the realized improvements as seen from the phosphorous reductions based on the Spring Creek TMDL and protective of Spring Creek during the critical months of the year. Attached is a
Wasteload Analysis for this discharge into the unnamed irrigation ditch. It has been determined that this discharge will not cause a violation of water quality standards. An Antidegradation
Level II review is not required since the Level I review shows that water quality impacts are minimal. The permittee is expected to be able to comply with these limitations. Total dissolved
solids (TDS) limitations are based upon Utah Water Quality Standards for concentration values
Reasonable Potential Analysis
Since January 1, 2016, DWQ has conducted reasonable potential analysis (RP) on all new and renewal applications received after that date. RP for this permit renewal was conducted following

DWQ’s September 10, 2015 Reasonable Potential Analysis Guidance (RP Guidance).There are four outcomes defined in the RP Guidance: Outcome A, B, C, or D. These Outcomes provide a frame
work for what routine monitoring or effluent limitations are required
A quantitative RP analysis was performed on(metal)to determine if there was reasonable potential for the discharge to exceed the applicable water quality standards. Based on the RP
analysis, the following parameters exceeded the most stringent chronic water quality standard or were determined to have a reasonable potential to exceed the standard:(list metals).In
addition, the RP analysis for (metals) indicates increase monitoring is required. A copy of the RP analysis is included at the end of this Fact Sheet.
The permit limitations are
Parameter
Effluent Limitations *a
Maximum Monthly Avg
Maximum Weekly Avg
Yearly
Maximum
Daily Minimum
Daily Maximum
Total Flow
2.0
--
--
--
--
BOD5, mg/L
BOD5 Min. % Removal
25
85
35
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
TSS, mg/L
TSS Min. % Removal
25
85
35
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
--
--
--
6.5
--
Total Ammonia (as N), mg/L
Irrigation Season (Apr-Oct)
Non-Irr. Season (Nov-Mar)
3.5
2.0
--
--
--
--
--

--
14
9.0
E. coli, No./100mL
126
157
--
--
--
Total Phosphorus, kg/y (Final) *k, *l, *i
--
--
563
--
--
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
*k, *l, *i (Oct-Jun)
1.0
--
--
--
--
Total Phosphorus, mg/L
*k, *l, *i (July-Sept)
--
--
--
--
0.1
WET, Chronic Biomonitoring
Irrigation Season (Apr-Oct)
Non-Irr. Season (Nov-Mar)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
IC25 >
44%
69%
Oil & Grease, mg/L
--
--
--
--
10.0
pH, Standard Units
--
--
--
6.5
9
TDS, mg/L *j
Irrigation Season (Apr-Oct)
Non-Irr Season (Nov-Mar)
--
--

--
--
--
--
--
--
2,268
3,405
The permit limitations for Outfall (001R) (Reuse) are:
ParameterOutfall 001R Effluent Limitations *a, *p, *q
Max Monthly Average
Max Weekly Median
Max Daily Average
Minimum
Maximum
Turbidity, NTU *p
--
--
2
--
5
TRC, mg/L *m, *q
--
--
--
1
--
BOD5, mg/L
10
--
--
--
--
E. coli, No/100mL *o
--
ND*q
--
--
9
pH, Standard Units
--
--
--
6.0
9.0
SELF-MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTSThe following self-monitoring requirements are as follows. The permit will require reports to be submitted monthly and annually, as applicable,
on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms due 28 days after the end of the monitoring period. Effective January 1, 2017, monitoring results must be submitted using NetDMR unless the
permittee has successfully petitioned for an exception. Lab sheets for biomonitoring must be attached to the biomonitoring DMR. Lab sheets for metals and toxic organics must be attached
to the DMRs.
Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements *a
Parameter
Frequency
Sample Type
Units
Total Flow *b, *c
Continuous
Recorder
MGD
BOD5, Influent *d
Effluent

2 x Weekly
2 x Weekly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
TSS, Influent *d
Effluent
2 x Weekly
2 x Weekly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
E. coli
2x Weekly
Grab
No./100mL
pH
2x Weekly
Grab
SU
Total Ammonia (as N)
2x Weekly
Composite
mg/L
DO
2x Week
Grab
mg/L
WET – Biomonitoring *h
Ceriodaphnia - Chronic
Fathead Minnows - Chronic
2nd & 4th Quarter
1st & 3rd Quarter
Composite
Composite
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Oil & Grease *f
When Sheen Observed
Grab
mg/L
Orthophosphate (as P), *k
Effluent
Monthly
Composite
mg/L
Total Phosphorus (as P), *l, *k
Influent
Effluent
Monthly
Monthly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TKN (as N), *k, *l
Influent

Effluent
Monthly
Monthly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate, NO3 *k, *l
Monthly
Composite
mg/L
Nitrite, NO2 *k, *l
Monthly
Composite
mg/L
TDS, mg/L *j
2x Weekly
Composite
mg/L
Temperature, mg/L *l,
Monthly
Composite
mg/L
Metals, Influent *h
Effluent
Quarterly
Quarterly
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Organic Toxics
Quarterly
Grab
mg/L
The following is a summary of the Type I reuse self-monitoring and reporting requirements.
Reuse Outfall 001R Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements *a *n
Parameter
Frequency
Sample Type
Units
Total Flow, *b, *c
Continuous
Recorder
MGD
Turbidity
Continuous
Recorder
mg/L
TRC *m, *q
Daily
Recorder
mg/L
BOD5
Weekly
Composite
mg/L
E. coli
Daily
Grab

No./100mL
pH
Daily
Grab
SU*aSee Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.*bFlow measurements of influent/effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can affirmatively demonstrate
that representative values are being obtained.*cIf the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be reported.*dIn addition to monitoring the final discharge,
influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge.*fOil & Grease sampled when sheen is present
or visible. If no sheen is present or visible, report NA.
*hTheacute Ceriodaphnia will be tested during the 1stand 3rdquarters and the acute fathead minnows will be tested during the 2ndand 4thquarters. The chronic Ceriodaphnia will be tested
during the 2ndand 4thquarters, and the chronic fathead minnows will be tested during the 1stand 3rdquarters.
*iMetals results were reviewed for the last 36 months. Only selenium appeared to be close to the limits suggested in the Wasteload. After further review, and confirmation by a round
of sampling in late November, early December of 2004, it was shown that the reporting limit for selenium for the onsite lab is above the suggested limits, and when samples are analyzed
off site in a lab with lower reporting limits, selenium levels are under the reporting limit for the lab. No limits are required at this time.*kThese reflect limits required with the
adoption of UCA R317-1-3.3, Technology-based Phosphorus Effluent Limits rule.
*m The facility is required to disinfect to destroy, inactivate or remove pathogenic microorganisms by chemical, physical or biological means. Disinfection may be accomplished by chlorination,
ozonation, or other chemical disinfectants, UV radiation. Or other approved processes. Chlorine residual is recommended but no longer required. Sampling not required if chlorination
is not being used. The total residual chlorine shall be measured continuously and shall at no time be less than 1.0 mg/l after 30 minutes contact time at peak flow. If an alternative
disinfection process is used, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the alternative process is comparable to that achieved by chlorination with a 1 mg/l residual
after 30 minutes contact time. If the effectiveness cannot be related to chlorination, then the effectiveness of the alternative disinfection process must be demonstrated by testing
for pathogen destruction as determined by the Director. A 1 mg/l total chlorine residual is recommended after disinfection and before the treated effluent goes into the distribution
system. *n Reuse monitoring results obtained during the previous month for reuse discharges shall be summarized for each month and reported on a Monthly Operational Report, post-marked
no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting period. *oThe weekly median E. coli concentration shall be non-detect*pAn alternative disposal option or diversion
to storage must be automatically activated if turbidity exceeds the maximum instantaneous limit for more than 5 minutes, or chlorine residual drops below the instantaneous required value
for more than 5 minutes, where chlorine disinfection is used. *q(For Type I reuse only.) The total residual chlorine shall be measured continuously and shall at no time be less than
1.0 mg/l after 30 minutes contact time at peak flow. If an alternative disinfection process is used, it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the alternative
process is comparable to that achieved by chlorination with a 1 mg/l residual after 30 minutes contact time. If the effectiveness cannot be related to chlorination, then the effectiveness
of the alternative disinfection process must be demonstrated by testing for pathogen destruction as determined by the Director. A 1 mg/l total chlorine residual is recommended after
disinfection and before the treated effluent goes into the distribution system.
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 (Compliance Schedule for a Particular Parameter if necessary)
BIOSOLIDS
For clarification purposes, sewage sludge is considered solids, until treatment or testing shows that the solids are safe, and meet beneficial use standards. After the solids are tested
or treated, the solids are then known as biosolids. Class A biosolids, may be used for high public contact sites, such as home lawns and gardens, parks, or playing fields, etc. Class
B biosolids may be used for low public contact sites, such as farms, rangeland, or reclamation sites, etc.
SUBSTANTIAL BIOSOLIDS TREATMENT CHANGES
In 2012, <Permittee>decided to change the treatment of their biosolids from a lime stabilized product that met Class B standards, to a modern “state of the art” solar drying system that
basically consist of two screw pressesfor de-watering, and a greenhouse for further treatment and drying. The 2012 annual biosolids report states that 282 dry metric tons of biosolids
were stabilized with lime, to meet Class B standards, and land applied at a farm owned by Vic Warr, to cultivate grain for cattle feed, and 27 dry metric tons that met Class A standards,
that were sold or given away to the public. There are currently 328 dry metric tons of stored biosolids.
DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
The Permittee submitted their 20XX annual biosolids report on Month Day, Year. The report states the Permittee produced XXXX dry metric tons (DMT) of solids. After the addition of wood
chips and green waste, a total of XXXX DMT of composted biosolids were produced and sold or given away to the public.
The solids are stabilized in activated sludge basins, with a solids retention time of 14-18 days in the basins. Solids wasted on a daily basis are sent to an aerobic digester with a
solids detention of five (5) to ten (10) days. After stabilization, the solids are dewatered by belt presses to about 15 percent solids. After dewatering the untreated solids are composted
to meet Class A standards and sold or given away.
Biosolids are processed using the Gore Covered Composting System, which is an In-Vessel Aerated Static Pile (IASP) windrow method to meet Class A biosolids requirements. The piles are
maintained at minimum operating temperatures of 55° C (131° F) for at least three (3) days. Piles typically exceed the three (3) day temperature requirements. After leaving the IASP
process, which is typically six (6) to eight (8) weeks, the composted solids are moved to curing piles for an additional eight (8) to twenty-four (24) weeks until no odor is present
and final screening occurs. All composted material is tested for Salmonella in accordance to 503 Regulations.
Biosolids were hauled to the Wasatch Regional Landfill, Inc. by District employees. No contract hauler(s) were used. Approximately 957 DMT were hauled off-site to the landfill for disposal.

See attached application and Letter of Authorization from Republic Services, operators of Wasatch Regional Landfill, Inc
The last inspection conducted at the land application site was Date. The inspection showed that <Permittee>was in compliance with all aspects of the biosolids management program.

SELF-MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Under 40 CFR 503.16(a)(1), the self-monitoring requirements are based upon the amount of biosolids disposed per year and shall be monitored according to the chart below.
Minimum Frequency of Monitoring (40 CFR Part 503.16, 503.26. and 503.46)
Amount of Biosolids 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 20XX, the <Permittee>disposed of XXX DMT of biosolids, therefore they need to sample at least YYYY times a year.
Landfill MonitoringUnder 40 CFR 258, the landfill monitoring requirements include a paint filter test. If the biosolids do not pass a paint filter test, the biosolids cannot be disposed
in the sanitary landfill (40 CFR 258.28(c)(1). No biosolids were landfilled in 20XX/Permittee disposed of XXX DMT of biosolids at the NAME Landfill.
BIOSOLIDS LIMITATIONS
Heavy MetalsClass A Biosolids for Home Lawn and Garden UseThe intent of the heavy metals regulations of Table 3,40 CFR 503.13 is to ensure the heavy metals do not build up in the soil
in home lawn and gardens to the point where the heavy metals become phytotoxic to plants. The permittee will be required to produce an information sheet (see Part III. C. of the permit)
to made available to all people who are receiving and land applying Class A biosolids to their lawns and gardens. If the instructions of the information sheet are followed to any reasonable
degree, the Class A biosolids will be able to be land applied year after year, to the same lawns and garden plots without any deleterious effects to the environment. The information
sheet must be provided to the public, because the permittee is not required, nor able to track the quantity of Class A biosolids that are land applied to home lawns and gardens.Class
A Requirements With Regards to Heavy Metals If the biosolids are to be applied to a lawn or home garden, the biosolids shall not exceed the maximum heavy metals in Table 3 below. If
the biosolids do not meet these requirements, the biosolids cannot be sold or given away for applications to home lawns and gardens.Class B Requirements for Agriculture and Reclamation
Sites The intent of the heavy metals regulations of Tables 1, 2 and 3, of 40 CFR 503.13 is to ensure that heavy metals do not build up in the soil at farms, forest land, and land reclamation
sites to the point where the heavy metals become phytotoxic to plants. The permittee will be required to produce an information sheet (see Part III. C. of the permit) to be handed out
to all people who are receiving and land applying Class B biosolids to farms, ranches, and land reclamation sites (if biosolids are only applied to land owned by the permittee, the information
sheet requirements are waived). If the biosolids are land applied according to the regulations of 40 CFR 503.13, to any reasonable degree, the Class B biosolids will be able to be land
applied year after year, to the same farms, ranches, and land reclamation sites without any deleterious effects to the environment. Class B Requirements With Regards to Heavy Metals

If the biosolids are to be land applied to agricultural land, forest land, a public contact site or a reclamation site it must meet at all times:
The maximum heavy metals 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. The <Permittee>has chosen to achieve PFRP through a method of <METHOD>. (or) At this time <Permittee>does not intend to distribute biosolids to the
public for use on the lawn and garden and thus is not required meet Class A Biosolids requirements currently.1. Windrow Method-Using the windrow method of composting, the temperature
needs to be maintained at 55 oC (131 oF) or higher for fifteen days, with a minimum of five turnings during those fifteen days, 2. Static Aerated Pile Method - composting using the static
aerated pile method, the temperature of the biosolids is maintained at 55°C (131°F) or higher for at least 3 days).
Both of these composting methods are found under (40 CFR 503.32(a)(8)(ii)).
The practice of sale or giveaway to the public is an acceptable use of biosolids of this quality as long as the biosolids continue to meet Class A standards with respect to pathogens.
If the biosolids do not meet Class A pathogen standards the biosolids cannot be sold or given away to the public, and the permittee will need find another method of beneficial use or
disposal.
Pathogens Class B
If biosolids are to be land applied for agriculture or land reclamation the solids need to be treated by a specific process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP). The <Permittee>has
chosen to achieve PSRP through <METHOD>: (or)At this time <Permittee>does not intend to distribute bulk biosolids for land application and thus is not required meet Class B Biosolids
requirements currently.
1. Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(2), TSSD may test the biosolids and must meet a microbiological limit of less than 2,000,000 MPN of fecal coliform per gram for the biosolids to be considered
Class B biosolids with respect to pathogens.
2.Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(3) The PSRP may be accomplished through anaerobic digesters that have a minimum retention time of 15 days at 95° F (35° C) or 60 days at 68° F (20°C).
3.Under 40 CFR 503.32 (b)(3) the PSRP may be accomplished through composting. To achieve this, the temperature must be above 40o C (104o F) or higher, and remain at 40o C or higher
for a minimum of five days. For four hours, during the five days, the temperature needs to exceed 55o C (113o F).
Vector Attraction Reduction (VAR)
If the biosolids are land applied <Permittee>will be required to meet VAR through the use of a method of listed under 40 CFR 503.33. The <Permittee>intends to meet the vector attraction
reduction requirements through one of the methods listed below. (or) At this time <Permittee>does not intend to distribute biosolids to the public for beneficial use, and will be disposing
of them in a landfill.Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(11)
Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(1), the solids need to be treated through anaerobic digestion for at least 15 days at a temperature of a least 35° C (95° F) with a 38% reduction of volatile solids.
Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(5) the solids need treated through composting with a temperature of 40° C (104° F) or higher for at least 14 days with an average temperature of over 45° C (113°
F).
Under 40 CFR 503.33(b)(11) Sewage sludge placed on an active sewage sludge unit shall be covered with soil or other material at the end of each operating day.
If the biosolids do not meet a method of VAR, the biosolids cannot be land applied.
If the permittee intends to use another one of the listed alternatives in 40 CFR 503.33, the Director and the EPA must be informed at least thirty (30) days prior to its use. This change
may be made without additional public notice
Landfill Monitoring Under 40 CFR 258, the landfill monitoring requirements include a paint filter test to determine if the biosolids exhibit free liquid. If the biosolids do not pass
a paint filter test, the biosolids cannot be disposed in the sanitary landfill (40 CFR 258.28(c)(1).
Record Keeping
The record keeping requirements from 40 CFR 503.17 are included under Part III.G. of the permit. The amount of time the records must be maintained are dependent on the quality of the
biosolids in regards to the metals concentrations. If the biosolids continue to meet the metals limits of Table 3 of 40 CFR 503.13, and are sold or given away the records must be retained
for a minimum of five years. If the biosolids are disposed in a landfill the records must retained for a minimum of five years.
Reporting
<Permittee>must report annually as required in 40 CFR 503.18. This report is to include the results of all monitoring performed in accordance with Part III.B of the permit, information
on management practices, biosolids treatment, and certifications. This report is due no later than February 19 of each year. Each report is for the previous calendar year.
MONITORING DATA
METALS MONITORING DATA
The <Permittee>was required to sample for metals at least XXXtimes in 20XX. <Permittee>sampled the Class A compost YYtimes, and the Class B biosolids Ytimes. All biosolids land applied
in 20XXmet Table 3 of 40 CFR 503.13, therefore the <Permittee>biosolids qualify as EQ with regards to metals. The monitoring data is below.
<Permittee>Metals Monitoring Data 20XX
<Permittee>Metals Monitoring Data, 20XX (Land Application)
Parameter
Table 3, mg/kg
(Exceptional Quality)
Average, mg/kg
Maximum, mg/kg
Arsenic
41.0
Cadmium
39.0
Copper
1,500.0
Lead

300.0
Mercury
17.0
Molybdenum
75.0
Nickel
400.0
Selenium
36.0
Zinc
2,800.0
PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA (Anaerobic Cake)
The <Permittee>was not required to monitor the anaerobic biosolids (sludge cake) for pathogens. Therefore, there is not any monitoring data for the Class B biosolids. All biosolids land
applied in 20XXmet the Class B pathogen standards through anaerobic digestion.
PATHOGEN MONITORING DATA (Aerobic Compost)
The TSSD was required to monitor the composted biosolids for pathogens at least six times in 2013 The TSSD had the choice to sample for fecal coliform or salmonella, and the TSSD chose
salmonella. Each monitoring episode needs to consist of seven samples, for a total 42 samples. All compost sold or given away in 2013 met the Class A pathogen standards for compost.
The monitoring data is below.
<Permittee>Salmonella Monitoring Data 20XXCompost)
Geometric Mean of 42 Samples, Most Probable Number Per Gram (2013)
Maximum of 42 Samples, Most Probable Number Per Gram (2013)
1.1
1.76
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 onstorm water permit requirements can be found at http://stormwater.utah.gov
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The permittee has not been designated for pretreatment program development because it does not meet conditions which necessitate a full program. The flow through the plant is less than
five (5) MGD, there are no categorical industries discharging to the treatment facility, industrial discharges comprise less than 1 percent of the flow through the treatment facility,
and there is no indication of pass through or interference with the operation of the treatment facility such as upsets or violations of the POTW's UPDES permit limits.
Although the permittee does not have to develop a State-approved pretreatment program, any wastewater discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to Federal, State and local regulations.
Pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, the permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal General Pretreatment Regulations promulgated, found in 40 CFR 403 and the State
Pretreatment Requirements found in UAC R317-8-8.
An industrial waste survey (IWS) is required of the permittee as stated in Part II of the permit. The IWS is to assess the needs of the permittee regarding pretreatment assistance.
The IWS is required to be submitted within sixty (60) days after the issuance of the permit. If an Industrial User begins to discharge or an existing Industrial User changes their
discharge the permittee must resubmit an IWS no later than sixty days following the introduction or change as stated in Part II of the permit.
It is required that the permittee submit for review any local limits that are developed to the Division of Water Quality for review. If local limits are developed it is required that
the permittee perform an annual evaluation of the need to revise or develop technically based local limits for pollutants of concern, to implement the general and specific prohibitions
40 CFR, Part 403.5(a) and Part 403.5(b). This evaluation may indicate that present local limits are sufficiently protective, need to be revised or should be developed.
BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A nationwide effort to control toxic discharges where effluent toxicity is an existing or potential concern is regulated in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit and Enforcement Guidance Document for Whole Effluent Toxicity Control (biomonitoring), dated February 2018. Authority to require effluent biomonitoring is provided in Permit
Conditions, UAC R317-8-4.2, Permit Provisions, UAC R317-8-5.3 and Water Quality Standards, UAC R317-2-5 and R317 -2-7.2.Since the permittee is a major municipal discharger, the renewal
permit will again require whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. As a result the facility Chronic quarterly biomonitoring will be required as described in the permit. New concentrations
are listed in the table below and were discussed in the changes section above. The IC25 is the inhibition concentration of toxicant (given in % effluent) that would cause a 25% reduction
in mean young per female, or a 25% reduction in overall growth for the test population.
The permit contains the standard requirements for accelerated testing upon failure of a WET test and a PTI (Preliminary Toxicity Investigation) and TRE (Toxicity Reduction Evaluation)
as necessary. The permit also contains a toxicity limitation re-opener provision. This provision allows for modification of the permit at any time to include WET limitations and/or
increased WET monitoring, should additional information indicate the presence of toxicity in the discharge.
PERMIT DURATIONIt is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.Drafted and Reviewed byLonnie Shull, Discharge Permit Writer, Biomonitoring, Reasonable
Potential AnalysisDaniel Griffin, BiosolidsJennifer RobinsonPretreatmentStorm WaterMike Allred, TMDL/Watershed Ken Hoffman, Suzan Tahir, Wasteload AnalysisUtah Division of Water Quality,
[phone]PUBLIC NOTICEBegan: Month Day, YearEnded: Month Day, YearComments will be received at: 195 North 1950 West PO Box 144870 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870The Public Noticed
of the draft permit was published in the (NEWSPAPER OF RECORD FOR AREA).During the public comment period provided under R317-8-6.5, any interested person may submit written comments
on the draft permit and may request a public hearing, if no hearing has already been scheduled. A request for a public hearing shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the issues

proposed to be raised in the hearing. All comments will be considered in making the final decision and shall be answered as provided in R317-8-6.12.ADDENDUM TO FSSOBDuring finalization
of the Permit certain dates, spelling edits and minor language corrections were completed. Due to the nature of these changes they were not considered Major and the permit is not required
to be re Public Noticed.Responsiveness Summary(Explain any comments received and response sent. Actual letters can be referenced, but not required to be included).
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 1
Industrial Waste Survey
This Page Intentionally Left BlankIndustrial Pretreatment Wastewater SurveyDo you periodically experience any of the following treatment works problems:foam, floaties or unusual colorsplugged
collection lines caused by grease, sand, flour, etc.discharging excessive suspended solids, even in the wintersmells unusually badwaste treatment facility doesn’t seem to be treating
the waste rightPerhaps the solution to a problem like one of these may lie in investigating the types and amounts of wastewater entering the sewer system from industrial users.An industrial
user (IU) is defined as a non-domestic user discharging to the waste treatment facility which meets any of the following criteria: 1.has a lot of process wastewater (5% of the flow
at the waste treatment facility or more than 25,000 gallons per work day.)Examples:Food processor, dairy, slaughterhouse, industrial laundry.2.is subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment
Standards;Examples:metal plating, cleaning or coating of metals, blueing of metals, aluminum extruding, circuit board manufacturing, tanning animal skins, pesticide formulating or packaging,
and pharmaceutical manufacturing or packaging,3.is a concern to the POTW.Examples:septage hauler, restaurant and food service, car wash, hospital, photo lab, carpet cleaner, commercial
laundry.All users of the water treatment facility are prohibited from making the following types of discharges:1.A discharge which creates a fire or explosion hazard in the collection
system.2.A discharge which creates toxic gases, vapor or fumes in the collection system.3.A discharge of solids or thick liquids which creates flow obstructions in the collection system.4.An
acidic discharge (low pH) which causes corrosive damage to the collection system.5.Petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts that will
cause problems in the collection system or at the waste treatment facility.6.Waste haulers are prohibited from discharging without permission. (No midnight dumping!)When the solution
to a sewer system problem may be found by investigating the types and amounts of wastewater entering the sewer system discharged from IUs, it’s appropriate to conduct an Industrial Waste
Survey.An Industrial Waste Survey consists of:Step 1: Identify Industrial UsersMake a list of all the commercial and industrial sewer connections.Sources for the list:business license,
building permits, water and wastewater billing, Chamber of Commerce, newspaper, telephone book, yellow pages.Split the list into two groups:domestic wastewater only--no further information
neededeveryone else (IUs)Step 2: Preliminary InspectionGo visit each IU identified on the “everybody else” list. Fill out the Preliminary Inspection Form during the site visit.Step
3: Informing the StatePlease fax or send a copy of the Preliminary inspection form (both sides) to:Jennifer RobinsonDivision of Water Quality288 North 1460 WestP.O. Box 144870Salt Lake
City, UT 84114-4870Phone: [phone]Fax:[phone]E-mail:[e-mail]:\WP\Pretreatment\Forms\IWS.doc
PRELIMINARY INSPECTION FORM
INSPECTION DATE / /
Name of Business Person Contacted
Address Phone Number
Description of Business
Principal product or service:
Raw Materials used:
Production process is: [ ] Batch [ ] Continuous[ ] Both
Is production subject to seasonal variation? [ ] yes[ ] no
If yes, briefly describe seasonal production cycle.
This facility generates the following types of wastes (check all that apply):
1. [ ] Domestic wastes(Restrooms, employee showers, etc.)
2. [ ] Cooling water, non-contact3. [ ] Boiler/Tower blowdown
4. [ ] Cooling water, contact5. [ ] Process
6. [ ] Equipment/Facility washdown7. [ ] Air Pollution Control Unit
8. [ ] Storm water runoff to sewer9. [ ] Other describe
Wastes are discharged to (check all that apply):
[ ] Sanitary sewer[ ] Storm sewer
[ ] Surface water[ ] Ground water
[ ] Waste haulers[ ] Evaporation
[ ] Other (describe)
Name of waste hauler(s), if used
Is a grease trap installed?YesNo
Is it operational?YesNo
Does the business discharge a lot of process wastewater?More than 5% of the flow to the waste treatment facility?YesNoMore than 25,000 gallons per work day?YesNo
Does the business do any of the following:[ ] Adhesives[ ] Car Wash[ ] Aluminum Forming[ ] Carpet Cleaner[ ] Battery Manufacturing[ ] Dairy[ ] Copper Forming[ ] Food
Processor[ ] Electric & Electronic Components[ ] Hospital[ ] Explosives Manufacturing[ ] Laundries[ ]Foundries[ ] Photo Lab[ ]Inorganic Chemicals Mfg. or Packaging[ ]
Restaurant & Food Service[ ] Industrial Porcelain Ceramic Manufacturing[ ] Septage Hauler[ ] Iron & Steel[ ] Slaughter House
[ ] Metal Finishing, Coating or Cleaning
[ ] Mining
[ ] Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
[ ] Organic Chemicals Manufacturing or Packaging
[ ] Paint & Ink Manufacturing
[ ] Pesticides Formulating or Packaging
[ ] Petroleum Refining
[ ] Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing or Packaging
[ ] Plastics Manufacturing

[ ] Rubber Manufacturing
[ ] Soaps & Detergents Manufacturing
[ ] Steam Electric Generation
[ ] Tanning Animal Skins
[ ] Textile Mills
Are any process changes or expansions planned during the next three years? YesNo
If yes, attach a separate sheet to this form describing the nature of planned changes or expansions.
Inspector
Waste Treatment Facility
Please send a copy of the preliminary inspection form (both sides) to:
Jennifer Robinson
Division of Water Quality
P. O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870
Phone:[phone]
Fax:[phone]E-Mail:[e-mail]
Industrial User
Jurisdiction
SIC Codes
Categorical Standard Number
Total Average Process Flow (gpd)
Total Average Facility Flow (gpd)
Facility Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 2
Effluent Monitoring Data
This Page Intentionally Left BlankEffluent Monitoring Data.

Flow
pH
O & G
TRC
E. coli
BOD5
TSS
Month
Ave
Max
Min
Max
Max
Max
Acute
Chronic
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Jan-13

18.8
20.2
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.2
10
6
5
6
7
8
Feb-13
21.3
22.9
7.6
7.7
1.7
1.1
13
8
7
9
7
7
Mar-13
24.3
28.6
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.1
11
9
17
21
7
9
Apr-13
20.2
21.2
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.2
20
12
19
21
7
8
May-13
21.4
25.5
7.4
7.6
1.7
1.3
9
7

18
21
10
11
Jun-13
20.5
22.1
7.5
7.7
1.4
1
12
7
18
21
11
14
Jul-13
20.2
22.3
7.4
7.7
1.4
1.3
10
8
10
11
14
16
Aug-13
19.6
20.8
7.5
7.6
1.4
1.2
13
7
8
10
8
9
Sep-13
20
21.8
7.6
7.8
1.4
1.1
78
15
11
12
8
9
Oct-13
17.9
19
7.5

7.7
1.7
0.9
11
8
9
11
8
8
Nov-13
17.2
18.1
7.5
7.7
1.7
0.9
10
8
9
10
8
10
Dec-13
17.2
20.4
7.2
7.6
1.4
1.2
10
12
9
10
10
18
Jan-14
17.5
19.9
7.3
7.5
1.4
0.8
29
6
7
8
8
9
Feb-14
20.3
22.6
7.4
7.6
1.4
1
43
19
8
10
8

8
Mar-14
20.8
27.4
7.4
7.7
1.7
1
30
10
7
8
9
10
Apr-14
19.1
21.2
7.4
7.6
1.4
1.5
8
6
8
9
9
10
May-14
20.2
22.7
7.4
7.5
1.4
1.3
9
6
7
9
8
10
Jun-14
20.6
23
7.5
7.6
1.4
1
16
8
8
10
8
9
Jul-14
20.5
22.3
7.5
7.8
1.4
1.5

10
7
9
10
12
13
Aug-14
21
21.9
7.6
7.7
1.2
1.3
17
14
8
9
9
10
Sep-14
20.2
23.2
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.1
12
8
7
8
8
13
Oct-14
18.2
20.9
7.5
7.6
1.4
1.1
7
5
6
8
9
10
Nov-14
16.6
17.7
7.4
7.6
1.4
1.7
8
6
7
9
14
23
Dec-14
16.9

19.3
7.4
8.9
1.4
1.2
34
8
6
10
11
23
Jan-15
18.1
19.8
7.5
7.6
1.4
0.9
10
6
7
8
10
11
Feb-15
17.8
18.7
7.3
7.5
1.4
1
7
6
5
6
9
10
Mar-15
17.6
18.6
7.3
7.5
1.4
1.3
5
5
5
6
7
8
Apr-15
18.1
22.3
7.2
7.6
1.4
1
7
6
7

8
11
11
May-15
22.5
31.9
7.5
7.6
2
1.1
10
6
7
9
13
16
Jun-15
20.2
22.5
7.5
7.6
1.6
1.3
8
6
6
6
9
10
Jul-15
19.7
21.8
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.5
12
9
5
6
11
11
Aug-15
20.7
22.6
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.1
9
5
5
6
7
13
Sep-15
20.1
23.5
7.6
7.7

1.4
1.1
7
5
5
6
8
10
Oct-15
18.1
20.3
7.5
7.6
1.4
1
12
8
5
6
11
13
Nov-15
16.9
18.3
7.1
7.6
1.4
1.3
11
8
4
6
6
7
Dec-15
18.1
21.6
7.4
7.6
2.63
0.9
8
5
7
8
8
8WET Results
Month
WET Test
Pass / Fail
Mar-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-13
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Jun-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Jun-13

96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
Pass
Sep-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-13
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Dec-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-13
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
Pass
Mar-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-14
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Jun-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Jun-14
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Sep-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-14
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Dec-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-14
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
Pass
Mar-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-15
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Jun-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Jun-15
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
Pass
Sep-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-15
96Hr Acute Pimephales Promelas
NA
Dec-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-15

96Hr Acute 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.
(REASONABLE POTENTIAL LANGUAGE )Initial screening for metals values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed that a closer look at some of the metals is needed.
A copy of the initial screening is included in the “Effluent Metals and RP Screening Results” table in this attachment. The initial screening check for metals showed that the full model
needed to be run on (List Metals).(Outcome A Use as a guide for as many metals as required)
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XXdata points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YYdata points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is (acute and/or chronic)RP at
95% confidence, and there is (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for (metal) is required at this time.(Outcome
A from Reasonable Potential Guide)
(Outcome BUse as a guide for as many metals as required
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XX data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YY data points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not(acute and/or chronic)RP
at 95% confidence, and there is (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for (metal) is not required at this time, but
routine monitoring requirements will be added or increased in the permit.(Outcome B from Reasonable Potential Guide)
(Outcome C Use as a guide for as many metals as required)
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XX data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YY data points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not(acute and/or chronic)RP
at 95% confidence, and there is not (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that the inclusion of an effluent limit for (metal) is not required at this time,
and that routine monitoring requirements can be added or increased in the permit.(Outcome C from Reasonable Potential Guide)
(Outcome D Use as a guide for as many metals as required)
The RP model was run on (metal) using the most recent data back through (Year). This resulted in XX data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for (metal).
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided; back through (YEAR) for a total of YY data points (delete is no more data provided).The
EPA ProUCL model was used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both XXand YYdata points. This/Theseoutlier(‘s) was(were)from the Date(value). (Include Table if needed)(If
not Outliers found use (This identified no outliers in the data set.))
The value(‘s) was (were)excluded from the data set and RP was rerun at both the 95% and 99% confidence levels. The results of the model are that there is not(acute and/or chronic)RP
at 95% confidence, and there is not (acute and/or chronic)RP at 99% Confidence. This result indicates that there is no requirement to include an effluent limit for (metal) or routine
monitoring in the permit.(Outcome D from Reasonable Potential Guide)
The RP model was run on Selenium using the most recent data back through 2009. This resulted in 19 data points and that there is a Reasonable Potential for an acute limit for Selenium.
Reviewing the data showed that there could be at least one outlier in the data, more data was provided, back through 2006 for a total of 40 data points, and the EPA ProUCL model was
used to evaluate the data. This produced the same outlier for both 19 and 40 data points. This outlier was from the summer of 2011 (0.007 mg/L).
The value was excluded from the data set and RP was rerun. As a result, no effluent limit for Selenium will be included. (Outcome C from RP Guide)
A Summary of the RP Model inputs and outputs are included in the tables below. Initial screening for metals values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed
that a closer look at some of the metals is not needed.
(NO REASONABLE POTENTIAL LANGUAGE)Initial screening for metals values that were submitted through the discharge monitoring reports showed that a closer look at some of the metals is
not needed.
(Include as needed)
A Summary of the RP Model inputs and outputs are included in the table below.

The Metals Initial Screening Table and RP Outputs Table are included in this attachment.RP input/output summary
RP Procedure Output
Outfall Number:
XXX
Data Units
mg/L
Parameter
metal
metal
Distribution
(Distribution)
(Distribution)
Reporting Limit
(0.0xx)
(0.0xx)
Significant Figures
x
x
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc.
x.xxx
x.xxx
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
x.xxx
x.xxx
Acute Criterion
x.xxx
x.xxx
Chronic Criterion
x.xxx
x.xxx
Confidence Interval
95
99
95
99

Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC)
x.xxx
x.xxx
x.xxx
x.xxx

RP Multiplier
X.XX
X.XX
X.XX
X.XX

RP for Acute?
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO

RP for Chronic?
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO

Outcome
(A,B,C,D)
(A,B,C,D)
  Metals Monitoring and RP Check
Effluent
Metal
Cyanide
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Molybdenum
Selenium
Mercury
ARP Val
0.0052
0.34
0.0054
0.016
0.0332
0.262
1.019
0.0183
0.26
1
0.0184
0.0024
CRP Val
0.022
0.15
0.00053
0.011
0.0204
0.0102
0.113
1
0.26
1
0.0046
0.000012
Metals, mg/L
0.0097
0.0096
NR
NR
0.011
0.00025
0.00822
0.00004
0.021
0.00395
0.00083
2.4E-06
0.0092
0.0096
0.000035

0
0.0105
0.000179
0.00822
0.000026
0.0203
0.00395
0.000426
2.4E-06
0.0092
0.0096
0.000035
ND
0.0105
0.000192
0.00822
0.00003
0.0203
0.00395
0.000754
1.3E-06
0.0103
0.0096
0.000041
ND
0.0105
0.000192
0.0159
0.000062
0.0341
ND
0.00106
0.000003
0.0103
0.00803
0.000041
ND
0.0106
0.000244
0.0159
0.000062
0.0341
ND
0.000754
0.000003
0.0119
0.00875
0.000041
ND
0.0121
0.000326
0.0159
0.000062
0.0341
ND
0.000754
4.2E-06
0.0093
0.0095
0

0.000226
0.00569
0
0.00737
0
0.0113
0.00355
0.000356
0
0.0086
0.00972
ND
0.0011
0.0127
0.000374
0.00227
ND
0.0166
0.00468
0.000627
ND
0.0055
0.0126
0.000127
0.00108
0.00823
0.000262
0.00203
0.000203
0.0199
0.00453
0.00084
0.000158
0.0093
0.0126
0.000127
0.0011
0.0127
0.000374
0.00737
0.000203
0.0199
0.00468
0.00084
5.3E-06
0.0086
0.0126
0.000127
0.0011
0.0127
0.000374
0.00626
0.000203
0.0199
0.00468
0.00084
ND
0.0084
0.0085
ND

ND
0.00818
ND
0.0067
ND
0.0137
0.0037
ND
0.000002
0.0085
0.00567
ND
0.001
0.00805
ND
0.00189
ND
0.0287
0.00313
ND
2.3E-06
0.0101
0.00714
ND
0.000921
0.00818
ND
0.00654
ND
0.0213
0.00301
ND
ND
ND
0.0089
ND
0.0007
0.0045
ND
0.0054
ND
0.01
0.003
0.0014
ND
ND
0.0081
ND
ND
0.00395
ND
0.00146
2.62E-05
0.0155
0.00315
0.000364
1.9E-06
0.00426
0.00537
ND

ND
0.00578
ND
0.00246
2.93E-05
0.0421
0.00935
0.00036
ND
ND
0.489
0.000444
0.00431
0.00206
0.000941
0.000941
6.97E-05
0.0163
0.00272
0.000441
1.41E-05
0.0138
0.00911
ND
ND
0.00477
ND
0.00204
3.91E-05
0.0298
0.00339
0.000411
ND
0.00557
0.00704
ND
ND
0.00596
ND
0.00166
ND
0.0137
0.00328
0.000301
1.5E-06
ND Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
0.0138

0.489
0.000444
0.00431
0.0127
0.000941
0.0159
0.000203
0.0421
0.00935
0.0014
0.000158
A RP?
YES
YES
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
C RP?
YES
YES
YES
No
YES
No
No
No
No
No
No
YES
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
(Metal)RP Results
RP Procedure Output

Effluent Data
Facility Name:
(Facility Name)

#

#

#

Permit Number:
(permit number)

1
41
81
Outfall Number:
001

2
42
82
Parameter
(metal)

3
43
83
Distribution
(distribution)
4
44
84
Data Units
mg/L

5
45
85
Reporting Limit
(x.xxx)

6
46
86
Significant Figures
X

7
47
87
Confidence Interval
95

8
48
88

9
49
89
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc.
(X.XXX)
mg/L
10
50
90
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
(X.XXX)

11
51
91
RP Multiplier
(X.XXX)

12

52
92
Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC)
(X.XXX)
mg/L
13
53
93

14
54
94
Acute Criterion
(X.XXX)
0
15
55
95
Chronic Criterion
(X.XXX)
0
16
56
96
Human Health Criterion
NA
0
17
57
97

18
58
98
RP for Acute?
(NO/YES)

19
59
99
RP for Chronic?
(NO/YES)

20
60
100
RP for Human Health?
N/A

21
61
101
22
62
102
Confidence Interval
99
23

63
103

24
64
104
Maximum Reported Effluent Conc.
(X.XXX)
25
65
105
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
(X.XXX)
26
66
106
RP Multiplier
(X.XXX)
27
67
107
Projected Maximum Effluent Conc. (MEC)
(X.XXX)

28
68
108

29
69
109
Acute Criterion
(X.XXX)

30
70
110
Chronic Criterion
(X.XXX)

31
71
111
Human Health Criterion
NA

32
72
112

33
73
113
RP for Acute?
(NO/YES)

34
74

114
RP for Chronic?
(NO/YES)

35
75
115
RP for Human Health?
N/A

36
76
116

37
77
117

38
78
118

39
79
119

40
80
120