HomeMy WebLinkAboutDWQ-2024-004766Official 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
ENSIGN-BICKFORD COMPANY
RENEWAL PERMIT: DISCHARGE
UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0025283
MINOR INDUSTRIAL
FACILITY CONTACTSOperator Name:The Ensign-Bickford CompanyContact:Mr. Haldon R. JaussiPosition: Director of Environmental RemediationPhone Number:(801) 794 -4538Permittee Name:The Ensign-Bickford
CompanyFacility Name:The Ensign-Bickford Company FacilityMailing and Facility Address:8305 South Highway 6 & 89Spanish Fork, Utah 84660 Telephone:(801) 794 -4538
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
The Facility City Reclamation Facility (FACILITY) is located at 3300 North 1200 West, Facility, Utah and serves the City of Facility with the outfall located at latitude 40o35'40" and
longitude 112o19'40". The design capacity is 3.4 MGD, population equivalent of 26,000, and influent organic loadings of 200 mg/L each for BOD5 and TSS. Present flow is approximately
2.1 MGD on average and up to a peak hourly flow of 5.65 MGD.
The facility consists of headworks, 2 oxidation ditches, 3 final clarifiers, 3 sand filters, 1 chlorine contact basins, 1 Ultra Violet facility, 1 sludge holding tank, 2 holding ponds
with pump stations.1 gravity sludge thickener, and 1 biosolids handling facility and a new solar dryer unit.. Tertiary treatment is required to meet Type 1 Reuse requirements. Biosolids
are hauled to an offsite facility located at the Facility County landfill where 100% of the biosolids are composted.
Due to increased development in the area FACILITY worked on facility expansion during the previous permit cycle. The expansion increased the facility capacity to 3.4 MGD average flow
and 11 MGD peak hourly. The current UPDES permit is limited to 2.25 MGD. This limit applies only to any effluent that might be discharged to the ditch, and not to any Reuse water that
might be used.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS PERMIT
Updates?
DISCHARGE
DESCRIPTION OF DISCHARGE
FACILITY is a total reuse facility. FACILITY maintains a UPDES permit in the event that a discharge from their facility is necessary.
ENTITY has been reporting self-monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Reports on a monthly basis. FACILITY discharged for 3 days in 2005 during a previous permit cycle. There have
been no violations or discharges since 2005.OutfallDescription of Discharge Point
001 Located at latitude 4035'40" and longitude 11219'40". The discharge is by pumping out of the reuse reject pond to an unnamed irrigation ditch that collects storm water runoff
from the road and fields in the area. The ditch runs north along the road until it dissipates. The ditch does not enter any other waterway or the Great Salt Lake.OutfallDescription of
Reuse Water Discharge Point
001R Located at latitude 4035'40" and longitude 11219'40". The discharge is through a pipe to ponds on the Overlake Golf Course. The water is then used to irrigate the golf course.
It is also available at the plant for use in dust control activities in Permittee.
RECEIVING WATERS AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
If a discharge were to occur, it would be pumpedinto an irrigation ditch, which is a Class XX according to UAC R317-2-13:
Class 1 -- Protected for use as a raw water source for domestic water systems.
Class 1A -- Reserved.
Class 1B -- Reserved.
Class 1C -- Protected for domestic purposes with prior treatment by treatment processes as required by the Utah Division of Drinking Water
Class 2 -- Protected for recreational use and aesthetics.
Class 2A -- Protected for frequent primary contact recreation where there is a high likelihood of ingestion of water or a high degree of bodily contact with the water. Examples include,
but are not limited to, swimming, rafting, kayaking, diving, and water skiing.
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 3 -- Protected for use by aquatic wildlife.
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 3B -- Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain.
Class 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.
Class 5 -- The Great Salt Lake.
Class 5A Gilbert Bay
Geographical Boundary -- All open waters at or below approximately 4,208-foot elevation south of the Union Pacific Causeway, excluding all of the Farmington Bay south of the Antelope
Island Causeway and salt evaporation ponds.
Beneficial Uses -- Protected for frequent primary and secondary contact recreation, waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife including their necessary food chain.
Class 5B Gunnison Bay
Geographical Boundary -- All open waters at or below approximately 4,208-foot elevation north of the Union Pacific Causeway and west of the Promontory Mountains, excluding salt evaporation
ponds.
Beneficial Uses -- Protected for infrequent primary and secondary contact recreation, waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife including their necessary food chain.
Class 5C Bear River Bay
Geographical Boundary -- All open waters at or below approximately 4,208-foot elevation north of the Union Pacific Causeway and east of the Promontory Mountains, excluding salt evaporation
ponds.
Beneficial Uses -- Protected for infrequent primary and secondary contact recreation, waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife including their necessary food chain.
Class 5D Farmington Bay
Geographical Boundary -- All open waters at or below approximately 4,208-foot elevation east of Antelope Island and south of the Antelope Island Causeway, excluding salt evaporation
ponds.
Beneficial Uses -- Protected for infrequent primary and secondary contact recreation, waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife including their necessary food chain.
Class 5E Transitional Waters along the Shoreline of the Great Salt Lake Geographical Boundary –
Geographical Boundary -- All waters below approximately 4,208-foot elevation to the current lake elevation of the open water of the Great Salt Lake receiving their source water from
naturally occurring springs and streams, impounded wetlands, or facilities requiring a UPDES permit. The geographical areas of these transitional waters change corresponding to the fluctuation
of open water elevation.
Beneficial Uses -- Protected for infrequent primary and secondary contact recreation, waterfowl, shore birds and other water-oriented wildlife including their necessary food chain.
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) REQUIREMENTS
According to the Utah’s 2016 303(d) Water Quality Assessment Report dated December 7, 2016, the receiving water for the discharge, Kanab Creek and tributaries from the confluence with
Fourmile Hollow near the White Cliffs to Reservoir Canyon (UT15010003-003_00) was listed as impaired for Selenium, Boron and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). No TMDL has been completed
for this watershed at this time. As a result, effluent limits will be placed in the permit. These limits will be at the Water Quality Standard for boron and selenium. The TDS limit will
be set by the site-specific standard.
WATER RIGHTS STATE ENGINEER APPROVAL
The State engineer approved the Permittee’s Water Rights on DATE. This approval is attached to the Reuse Project Plan for this facility, which is available upon request.
BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Limitations on total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), E. coli, pH and percent removal for BOD5 and TSS are based on current Utah Secondary Treatment Standards,
UAC R317-1-3.2. The oil and grease is based on best professional judgment (BPJ). Attached is a Wasteload Analysis for this discharge into the unnamed irrigation ditch. It has been
determined that this discharge will not cause a violation of water quality standards. An Antidegradation Level II review is not required since the Level I review shows that water quality
impacts are minimal. The permittee is expected to be able to comply with these limitations. The permit limitations are:
Total dissolved solids (TDS) limitations are based upon Utah Water Quality Standards for concentration values and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (CRBSCF) for mass loading
values when applicable as authorized in UAC R317-2-4. CRBSCF has established a policy for the reasonable increase of salinity for municipal discharges to any portion of the Colorado
River stream system that has an impact on the lower main stem. The CRBSCF Policy entitled “NPDES Permit Program Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards” (Policy),
with the most current version dated October 2020, states that the incremental increase in salinity shall be 400 mg/L or less, which is considered to be a reasonable incremental increase
above the flow weighted average salinity of the intake water supply.
Reuse effluent limitations for BOD5, turbidity, E. coli, total residual chlorine (TRC), and pH are based on the Water Quality Limits set forth in R317-3-11.4-C for Type I reuse and R317-3-11.5-C
for Type II reuse. The permittee is expected to be able to comply with these limitations.
Reasonable Potential Analysis
Since January 1, 2016, DWQ has conducted reasonable potential analysis (RP) on all new and renewal applications received after that date. RP for this permit renewal was conducted following
DWQ’s September 10, 2015 Reasonable Potential Analysis Guidance (RP Guidance).There are four outcomes defined in the RP Guidance: Outcome A, B, C, or D. These Outcomes provide a frame
work for what routine monitoring or effluent limitations are required
A quantitative RP analysis was performed on(metal)to determine if there was reasonable potential for the discharge to exceed the applicable water quality standards. Based on the RP
analysis, the following parameters exceeded the most stringent chronic water quality standard or were determined to have a reasonable potential to exceed the standard:(list metals).In
addition, the RP analysis for (metals) indicates increase monitoring is required. A copy of the RP analysis is included at the end of this Fact Sheet.
The permit limitations are:
Parameter
Effluent Limitations *a
Maximum Monthly Avg
Maximum Weekly Avg
Yearly
Average
Daily Minimum
Daily Maximum
Total Flow
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
(X.X)
BOD5, mg/L
BOD5 Min. % Removal
(X.X)
85
(X.X)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
CBOD5, mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
BOD5 Min. % Removal
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
85
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
TSS, mg/L
TSS Min. % Removal
25
85
35
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
--
--
--
(X.X)
--
Total Ammonia (as N), mg/L
Summer (Jul-Sep)
Fall (Oct-Dec)
Winter (Jan-Mar)
Spring (Apr-Jun)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
(X.X)
TRC, mg/L
(X.X)
(X.X)
--
--
(X.X)
E. coli, No./100mL
126
157
--
--
--
Total Phosphorus, mg/L (Final) *k, *l, *i
(X.X)
(X.X)
(1/X.X)
--
(X.X)
WET, Acute Biomonitoring
--
--
--
--
LC50>100% effluent (from WLA)
WET, Chronic Biomonitoring
--
--
--
--
IC25>XX% effluent (from WLA)
Oil & Grease, mg/L
--
--
--
--
10.0
pH, Standard Units
--
--
--
6.5
9
TDS, mg/L *j
The permit limitations for Outfall (00XR) (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
Parameter
Type II Reuse Outfall 001R Effluent Limitations *a
Max Monthly Average
Max Weekly Median
Max Daily Average
Minimum
Maximum
BOD5
25
--
--
--
--
TSS
25
35
--
-
--
E. coli, No/100mL *o
--
126
--
--
500
pH, Standard Units
--
--
--
6.0
9.0
SELF-MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTSThe following self-monitoring requirements are the same as in the previous permit. The permit will require reports to be submitted monthly and
annually, as applicable, on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) forms due 28 days after the end of the monitoring period. Effective January 1, 2017, monitoring results must be submitted
using NetDMR unless the permittee has successfully petitioned for an exception. Lab sheets for biomonitoring must be attached to the biomonitoring DMR. Lab sheets for metals and toxic
organics must be attached to the DMRs.
Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements *a
Parameter
Frequency
Sample Type
Units
Total Flow *b, *c
Continuous/What?
Recorder
MGD
BOD5, Influent *d
Effluent
How Often?
How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
CBOD5, Influent *d
Effluent
How Often?
How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
TSS, Influent *d
Effluent
How Often?
How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
E. coli
How Often?
Grab
No./100mL
pH
How Often?
Grab
SU
Total Ammonia (as N)
How Often?
Composite
mg/L
DO
How Often?
Grab
mg/L
WET – Biomonitoring *h
Ceriodaphnia - Acute
Ceriodaphnia - Chronic
Fathead Minnows - Acute
Fathead Minnows - Chronic
How Often?
1st & 3rd Quarter
2nd & 4th Quarter
2nd & 4th Quarter
1st & 3rd Quarter
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
Pass/Fail
TRC, mg/L, *e, *g
How Often?
Grab
mg/L
Oil & Grease *f
When Sheen Observed
Grab
mg/L
Orthophosphate (as P), *k
Effluent
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Total Phosphorus (as P), *l, *k
Influent
Effluent
Monthly/ How Often?
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TKN (as N), *k, *l
Influent
Effluent
Monthly/ How Often?
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Nitrate, NO3 *k, *l
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Nitrite, NO2 *k, *l
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
TDS, mg/L *j
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Temperature, mg/L *l,
Monthly/ How Often?
Composite
mg/L
Metals, Influent *h
Effluent
Quarterly/ How Often?
Quarterly/ How Often?
Composite
Composite
mg/L
mg/L
Organic Toxics
Quarterly/ How Often?
Grab
mg/L
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
**Cell Depth**
Monthly
Measure
Feet
**Free Board **
Monthly
Measure
Feet
**Remove if lagoon discharges routinely**
Type II Reuse Outfall 001R Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements *a *n
Parameter
Frequency
Sample Type
Units
Total Flow, *b, *c
Continuous
Recorder
MGD
BOD5
Weekly
Composite
mg/L
TSS
Daily
Composite
mg/L
E. coli
Daily
Grab
No./100mL
pH
Daily/ Continuous
Grab/Recorder
SU
**Cell Depth**
Monthly
Measure
Feet
**Free Board **
Monthly
Measure
Feet
**Remove if lagoon discharges routinely***aSee Definitions, Part VIII, for definition of terms.*bFlow measurements of influent/effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the
permittee can affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained.*cIf the rate of discharge is controlled, the rate and duration of discharge shall be reported.*dIn
addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge.*eAnalytical
results less than 0.06 mg/l will not be considered out of compliance with the permit. For purposes of calculating averages and reporting on the Discharge Monitoring Report form, the
following will apply:
1) analytical values less than 0.02 mg/L shall be considered zero; and 2) analytical values less than 0.06 mg/L and equal to or greater than 0.02 mg/L will be recorded as measured.*fOil
& Grease sampled when sheen is present or visible. If no sheen is present or visible, report NA.
*gTotal residual chlorine monitoring frequency is (How Often?) times a week. The chlorine disinfection is a backup system to the ultra violet system and therefore should not be needed
unless the ultra violet system has a failure and is by passed. The TRC limits are low enough to require analysis in the onsite lab which is open only 6 days a week. Frequency reduction
will remove a requirement that the lab be opened for a 7th day. In case of a bypass on any day the lab is closed, (Permittee) will bring in lab personnel to open the lab for TRC analysis
*hTheacute Ceriodaphnia will be tested during the 1stand 3rdquarters and the acute fathead minnows will be tested during the 2ndand 4thquarters. The chronic Ceriodaphnia will be tested
during the 2ndand 4thquarters, and the chronic fathead minnows will be tested during the 1stand 3rdquarters.
*iMetals results were reviewed for the last 36 months. Only selenium appeared to be close to the limits suggested in the Wasteload. After further review, and confirmation by a round
of sampling in late November, early December of 2004, it was shown that the reporting limit for selenium for the onsite lab is above the suggested limits, and when samples are analyzed
off site in a lab with lower reporting limits, selenium levels are under the reporting limit for the lab. No limits are required at this time.
*jThe effluent shall not exceed the culinary source water intake by more than 400 mg/L of TDS (*******or the permittee could request 1 ton/day salt loading, or 366 tons/year*******).*kThese
reflect changes required with the adoption of UAC R317-1-3.3, Technology-based Phosphorus Effluent Limits rule.Total Phosphorus Compliance Schedule:DateMilestoneDecember 31, 2019Complete
monitoring only sampling for Total PhosphorusJanuary 1, 2020Comply with Final Total Phosphorus Effluent Limit
*l(Pollutant or Pollutants) are being sampled in support of the work being done for the TMDL currently underway for the (Water Body). The Pollutants Of Concern (POC) will be monitored
and reported (on a monthly basis by the facility on Discharge Monitoring Report, but will not have a limit associated with them /or at the end of each Calendar year of sampling for these
POC’s), (Permittee) will report the results of all sampling done for the POC. If (Permittee) decides to sample more frequently for these POC’s, the additional data will be welcome.
*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 NetDMR.*o(For Type I only.) The weekly
median E. coli concentration shall be non-detect*p(For Type I resue only.) An 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
The State of Utah has adopted the 40 CFR 503 federal regulations for the disposal of sewage sludge (biosolids) by reference.However, this facility does not receive, generate, treat or
dispose of biosolids. Therefore 40 CFR 503 does not apply.
STORM WATER
Separate storm water permits may be required based on the types of activities occurring on site.
Permit coverage under the Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Storm Water Discharges from Industrial Activities 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.
Permit coverage under the Construction General Storm Water Permit (CGP) is required for any construction at the facility which disturban acre or more, or is part of a common plan of
development or sale thatis an acre or greater. A Notice of Intent (NOI) is required to obtain a construction storm water permit prior to the period of construction.
Information onstorm water permit requirements can be found at http://stormwater.utah.gov
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
The permittee has not been designated for pretreatment program development because it does not meet conditions which necessitate a full program. The flow through the plant is less than
five (5) MGD, there are no categorical industries discharging to the treatment facility, industrial discharges comprise less than 1 percent of the flow through the treatment facility,
and there is no indication of pass through or interference with the operation of the treatment facility such as upsets or violations of the POTW's UPDES permit limits.
Although the permittee does not have to develop a State-approved pretreatment program, any wastewater discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to Federal, State and local regulations.
Pursuant to Section 307 of the Clean Water Act, the permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal General Pretreatment Regulations promulgated, found in 40 CFR 403 and the State
Pretreatment Requirements found in UAC R317-8-8.
An industrial waste survey (IWS) is required of the permittee as stated in Part II of the permit. The IWS is to assess the needs of the permittee regarding pretreatment assistance.
The IWS is required to be submitted within sixty (60) days after the issuance of the permit. If an Industrial User begins to discharge or an existing Industrial User changes their
discharge the permittee must resubmit an IWS no later than sixty days following the introduction or change as stated in Part II of the permit.
It is required that the permittee submit for review any local limits that are developed to the Division of Water Quality for review. If local limits are developed it is required that
the permittee perform an annual evaluation of the need to revise or develop technically based local limits for pollutants of concern, to implement the general and specific prohibitions
40 CFR, Part 403.5(a) and Part 403.5(b). This evaluation may indicate that present local limits are sufficiently protective, need to be revised or should be developed.
BIOMONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A nationwide effort to control toxic discharges where effluent toxicity is an existing or potential concern is regulated in accordance with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit and Enforcement Guidance Document for Whole Effluent Toxicity Control (biomonitoring), dated February 2018. Authority to require effluent biomonitoring is provided in Permit
Conditions, UAC R317-8-4.2, Permit Provisions, UAC R317-8-5.3 and Water Quality Standards, UAC R317-2-5 and R317 -2-7.2.
The permittee is a minor municipal facility that will be discharging an infrequent amount of effluent, in which toxicity is neither an existing concern, nor likely to be present. Based
on these considerations, and the absence of receiving stream water quality monitoring data, there is no reasonable potential for toxicity in the permittee’s discharge (per State of Utah
Permitting and Enforcement Guidance Document for WET Control). As such, there will be no numerical WET limitations or WET monitoring requirements in this permit. However, the permit
will contain a toxicity limitation re-opener provision that allows for modification of the permit should additional information indicate the presence of toxicity in the discharge.
PERMIT DURATIONIt is recommended that this permit be effective for a duration of five (5) years.Drafted and Reviewed byLonnie Shull, Discharge Permit Writer, Biomonitoring, Reasonable
Potential AnalysisDaniel Griffin, BiosolidsJennifer Robinson, PretreatmentLonnie Shull, BiomonitoringCarl Adams, Storm WaterAmy Dickey, TMDL/Watershed XXX, 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 Notice 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
Effluent Monitoring Data
This Page Intentionally Left BlankEffluent Monitoring Data.
Flow
pH
O & G
TRC
E. coli
BOD5
TSS
Month
Ave
Max
Min
Max
Max
Max
Acute
Chronic
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Jan-13
18.8
20.2
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.2
10
6
5
6
7
8
Feb-13
21.3
22.9
7.6
7.7
1.7
1.1
13
8
7
9
7
7
Mar-13
24.3
28.6
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.1
11
9
17
21
7
9
Apr-13
20.2
21.2
7.5
7.7
1.7
1.2
20
12
19
21
7
8
May-13
21.4
25.5
7.4
7.6
1.7
1.3
9
7
18
21
10
11
Jun-13
20.5
22.1
7.5
7.7
1.4
1
12
7
18
21
11
14
Jul-13
20.2
22.3
7.4
7.7
1.4
1.3
10
8
10
11
14
16
Aug-13
19.6
20.8
7.5
7.6
1.4
1.2
13
7
8
10
8
9
Sep-13
20
21.8
7.6
7.8
1.4
1.1
78
15
11
12
8
9
Oct-13
17.9
19
7.5
7.7
1.7
0.9
11
8
9
11
8
8
Nov-13
17.2
18.1
7.5
7.7
1.7
0.9
10
8
9
10
8
10
Dec-13
17.2
20.4
7.2
7.6
1.4
1.2
10
12
9
10
10
18
Jan-14
17.5
19.9
7.3
7.5
1.4
0.8
29
6
7
8
8
9
Feb-14
20.3
22.6
7.4
7.6
1.4
1
43
19
8
10
8
8
Mar-14
20.8
27.4
7.4
7.7
1.7
1
30
10
7
8
9
10
Apr-14
19.1
21.2
7.4
7.6
1.4
1.5
8
6
8
9
9
10
May-14
20.2
22.7
7.4
7.5
1.4
1.3
9
6
7
9
8
10
Jun-14
20.6
23
7.5
7.6
1.4
1
16
8
8
10
8
9
Jul-14
20.5
22.3
7.5
7.8
1.4
1.5
10
7
9
10
12
13
Aug-14
21
21.9
7.6
7.7
1.2
1.3
17
14
8
9
9
10
Sep-14
20.2
23.2
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.1
12
8
7
8
8
13
Oct-14
18.2
20.9
7.5
7.6
1.4
1.1
7
5
6
8
9
10
Nov-14
16.6
17.7
7.4
7.6
1.4
1.7
8
6
7
9
14
23
Dec-14
16.9
19.3
7.4
8.9
1.4
1.2
34
8
6
10
11
23
Jan-15
18.1
19.8
7.5
7.6
1.4
0.9
10
6
7
8
10
11
Feb-15
17.8
18.7
7.3
7.5
1.4
1
7
6
5
6
9
10
Mar-15
17.6
18.6
7.3
7.5
1.4
1.3
5
5
5
6
7
8
Apr-15
18.1
22.3
7.2
7.6
1.4
1
7
6
7
8
11
11
May-15
22.5
31.9
7.5
7.6
2
1.1
10
6
7
9
13
16
Jun-15
20.2
22.5
7.5
7.6
1.6
1.3
8
6
6
6
9
10
Jul-15
19.7
21.8
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.5
12
9
5
6
11
11
Aug-15
20.7
22.6
7.5
7.7
1.4
1.1
9
5
5
6
7
13
Sep-15
20.1
23.5
7.6
7.7
1.4
1.1
7
5
5
6
8
10
Oct-15
18.1
20.3
7.5
7.6
1.4
1
12
8
5
6
11
13
Nov-15
16.9
18.3
7.1
7.6
1.4
1.3
11
8
4
6
6
7
Dec-15
18.1
21.6
7.4
7.6
2.63
0.9
8
5
7
8
8
8WET Results
Month
WET Test
Pass / Fail
Mar-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Jun-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Jun-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Sep-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Dec-13
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-13
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Mar-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Jun-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Jun-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Sep-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Dec-14
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-14
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Mar-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Mar-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Jun-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Jun-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
Sep-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
Pass
Sep-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
NA
Dec-15
48Hr Acute Ceriodaphnia
NA
Dec-15
96Hr Acute PimephalesPromelas
Pass
ATTACHMENT 2
Wasteload Analysis
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 3
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