Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Region 8 NPDES Program and Permit Quality
Review
Wyoming
Review Date: April 2021
Report Date: February 2022
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
Final February 2022
Page 1 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Contents
Executive Summary 3
I. PQR BACKGROUND 4
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND 6
A. Program Structure 6
B. Universe and Permit Issuance 8
C. State-Specific Challenges 8
D. Current State Initiatives 8
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS 9
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application 9
1. Facility Information 9
2. Permit Application Requirements 10
B. Developing Effluent Limitations 13
1. Technology-based Effluent Limitations 13
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 16
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation 20
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 23
D. Standard and Special Conditions 26
E. Administrative Process 28
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet 30
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 32
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters 32
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions 36
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements 46
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 47
A. Whole Effluent Toxicity 47
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 54
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 57
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE 61
List of Tables
Table 1. Regulatory Focus for this Section of the PQR 37
Table 2. Wyoming lUs by Pretreatment Program Status 38
Table 3. NPDES Permits Selected for the Pretreatment Topic Area 40
Table 4. POTW NPDES Discharge Permit Conditions 40
Table 5. Essential Action Items Identified During 2013 PQR 54
Table 6. Recommended Action Items Identified During 2013 PQR 57
Table 7. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 61
Table 8. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 65
Final February 2022
Page 2 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 (EPA) performed a remote
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Permit Quality Review
(PQR) of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) NPDES program on April
26-29 and performed a PQR close-out meeting with WDEQ on May 6, 2021. At the time of the
PQR, Wyoming administered 542 individual NPDES permits and, as of April 26, 2021, 99 percent
of WDEQ's permits were current.
The PQR examined 11 permits for discharges in Wyoming issued by the WDEQ and several
WDEQ permitting policies. The PQR also focused on several national and regional priority areas
including:
• Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Waters,
• Effectiveness of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) NPDES Permits with Food
Processor Contributions,
• Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements, and
• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing.
Overall, the PQR revealed that the WDEQ's permits and fact sheets/statements of basis
reviewed by EPA were generally consistent with the federal regulatory requirements. However,
although these permits commonly conformed to most of the national NPDES requirements, EPA
identified several concerns including: some permit applications lacked appropriate analytical
data; certain standard permit conditions were absent from permits reviewed; some permits did
not align with Wyoming Administrative Rules and procedures; and fact sheets/statements of
basis and permit records lacked sufficient documentation for certain permit limitations and
conditions.
As part of its NPDES program implementation, WDEQ has developed internal standard
operating procedures to support development of defensible permits and to provide permit
writers with a core foundation for permitting procedures. Since some of the permit deficiencies
appeared to stem from essential processes used, EPA has recommended that WDEQ update the
permit template to include all federal standard conditions requirements, including the use of
sufficiently sensitive analytical methods. EPA has also recommended that WDEQ continue to
update and develop protocols and standard operating procedures, in particular to address
application requirements, documentation of application completeness, and procedures for
conducting reasonable potential analyses (RPAs). In addition, EPA recommended that WDEQ
further develop justifications for permit conditions and modify all applicable WDEQ template
documents to ensure regulatory requirements are met.
In addition to the items listed in the paragraphs above, the report provides an overview of the
WDEQ program and identifies specific areas where EPA and WDEQ can work together to
continue to strengthen permit language and documentation in Wyoming Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (WYPDES) permits.
Final February 2022
Page 3 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
WDEQ reviewed and provided comments on the draft PQR report on January 21, 2022. WDEQ
agreed with many of the draft PQR's findings and recommendations and committed to take
action to address many of the proposed action items. Several of these actions and
improvements are already underway.
I. PQR BACKGROUND
NPDES PQRs are an evaluation of a select set of NPDES permits to determine whether permits
are developed in a manner consistent with applicable requirements established in the Clean
Water Act (CWA) and NPDES regulations. Through this review mechanism, EPA promotes
national consistency, and identifies successes in implementation of the NPDES program as well
as opportunities for improvement in the development of NPDES permits. Prior to the 2021 PQR,
EPA conducted a PQR of the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES)
Program on April 19-21, 2013. The PQR summary report is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/final -
wy pgr report 2013 7-17-2015-508.pdf. During the 2013 PQR, the evaluation team
proposed various action items to improve the WYPDES permitting program. As part of the
current 2021 PQR, EPA requested updates from Wyoming on the progress on those action
items. Of the 13 action items identified during the last PQR as being Essential1 tasks, 10 have
been resolved and the remainder represent actions that are either longer-term activities or
lower-level actions which the Wyoming is still addressing. In addition, EPA identified
Recommended action items to improve Wyoming's program; Wyoming has chosen to
implement some of them and some of them are still in the process of implementing. Section VI
of this report contains a detailed review of the progress on action items identified during the
last PQR.
During this review, the evaluation team proposed action items to improve the WYPDES permit
program. The proposed action items are identified within sections III, IV, and V of this report
and are divided into two categories to identify the priority that should be placed on each Item
and facilitate discussions between regions and states.
• Essential Actions - Proposed "Essential" action items address noncompliance with
respect to a federal regulation. EPA has provided the citation for each Essential action
item. The permitting authority must address these action items in order to comply with
federal regulations.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items are recommendations
to increase the effectiveness of the state's or Region's NPDES permit program.
The Essential actions are used to augment the existing list of "follow up actions" currently
tracked by EPA Headquarters on an annual basis and are reviewed during subsequent PQRs.
1 During the 2012-2017 PQR cycle, these action items were known as "Category 1" and address deficiencies or
noncompliance with respect to federal regulations. EPA is now referring to these action items going forward, as
Essential. In addition, previous PQR reports identified recommendations as either "Category 2" or "Category 3"
action items. EPA is now consolidating these categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Final February 2022
Page 4 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
EPA's review team, consisting of three regional staff and one Headquarters (HQs) contractor
staff, conducted a review of the WYPDES permitting program. Due to COVID-19 concerns, the
PQR was conducted remotely, meaning a review of materials was conducted off-site using
electronic materials provided to the EPA by WDEQ. Further, the remote PQR included
interviews and discussions conducted via several conference calls. An opening interview was
held on April 26, 2021, a discussion with WDEQ staff regarding specific permit questions on
April 29, 2021, and a PQR close-out meeting on May 6, 2021.
The Wyoming PQR included reviews of core permit components and national and regional topic
areas, as well as discussions between the PQR review team and WDEQ staff addressing their
program status and permit issuance process. The permit reviews focused on core permit quality
and included a review of the permit application, permit, fact sheets/statements of basis, and
any correspondence, reports or documents that provide the basis for the development of the
permit conditions and related administrative process. The PQR also included conversations
between EPA and the state on program status, the permitting process, responsibilities,
organization, staffing, and program challenges the state is experiencing.
A total of 11 permits were reviewed as part of the PQR, all of which were reviewed for the core
review, 8 permits were reviewed for national topic areas, and 9 permits were reviewed for
regional topic areas. The regional topic areas are unique to Wyoming's permit program. Some
permits were reviewed for both the core review and one or more topic areas reviews. Permits
were selected based on issue date and the review categories that they fulfilled.
Core Review
The core permit review involved the evaluation of selected permits and supporting materials
using basic NPDES program criteria. Reviewers completed the core review by examining
selected permits and supporting documentation, assessing these materials using standard PQR
tools, and talking with permit writers regarding the permit development process. The core
review focused on the Central Tenets of the NPDES Permitting Program2 to evaluate the
WYPDES program. Core topic area permit reviews are conducted to evaluate similar issues or
types of permits in all states.
Topic Area Reviews
The national topics reviewed in the WYPDES program were: Permit Controls for Nutrients in
Non-TMDL Waters, Small MS4 Permit Requirements, and Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits
with Food Processor Contributions.
Regional topic area reviews target regionally-specific permit types or particular aspects of
permits. The regional topic area selected by EPA Region 8 was WET testing. These reviews
provided important information to Wyoming, EPA Region 8, EPA HQs and the public on specific
program areas.
: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/central-tenets-npdes-permitting-program
Final February 2022 Page 5 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND
A. Program Structure
The WDEQ, Water Quality Division (WQD or Division) administered the WYPDES Program.
Wyoming received authority to administer the NPDES program on January 30, 1975
(authorization to regulate federal facilities was granted on May 18,1981) and the general
permits program on September 24, 1991. The WQD included the WYPDES, Watershed
Protection, Groundwater, and Water and Wastewater Sections. EPA Region 8 administered the
Biosolids and Pretreatment programs in Wyoming.
The main WDEQ office was in Cheyenne, Wyoming. The main office was responsible for
program oversight for the permitting and compliance and enforcement programs. Staff in the
main office drafted permits, inspected facilities, developed enforcement actions, reviewed
compliance, and maintained files. WDEQ also had field offices in Casper, Lander, Rock Springs,
and Sheridan, where additional inspectors were located. In addition, the WYPDES permit files
were maintained in the Cheyenne office.
The WYPDES program had five full-time permit writer positions. At the time of the PQR, three
of the permit writer positions were vacant (and were expected to be filled by May 30, 2021).
Permit writers received training as well as internal mentoring to support their development. All
new permit writers would complete EPA's 5-day NPDES Permit Writers' Course, WET training,
and Mixing Zone training when possible. The permit writers also received training from other
industrial and collegiate sources. In addition, the Division has developed protocol documents,
addressing both administrative and technical issues, to assist new permit writers with the
permit development process.
The state maintained the WYPDES database for managing NPDES permitting information. Data
from the WYPDES database was extracted and sent through Central Data Exchange (CDX) then
uploaded to EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS).
Upon receipt of an application, the permit supervisor would make permit assignments based on
the facility type (i.e., POTW or non-POTW). WDEQ used a checklist for the permit application
that also helped to track the routing of the application and overall permit development process.
The permit writer ensured the application was complete and then pulled the past 5-10 years of
DMR data (for existing facilities), in addition to any enforcement history. The permit writer
consulted WDEQ listings of impaired waters and checked for any TMDL requirements. For
facilities discharging to perennial waters, the permit writer compiled updated United States
Geological Survey (USGS) flow and chemistry data for the receiving water, if it was available.
Generally, an application completeness review was performed within 30 days of receipt of the
application. Staff would follow up with applicant as soon as possible if more information or
clarification was needed. WDEQ had a goal to complete application review and draft the permit
within 30 days of receipt of all final information, in particular, for most of what they consider
boilerplate permits and straightforward permit renewals (e.g., where there were no changes in
facility operations, production, or treatment). WDEQ provides the first internal draft to the
Final February 2022
Page 6 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
permittees as a courtesy, especially where permits include new limitations or conditions. WDEQ
issued most permits within 180 days of receipt of the application.
As the permit writer reviewed the application and started developing the permit, they
consulted with other NPDES staff as necessary or if certain expertise was needed (e.g., coal-
fired power plants). Coordination with TMDL and water quality modelers happened on an
ongoing basis. The permitting group held monthly meetings with the TMDL group, where staff
shared information on waters that were to be listed as impaired, issues with TMDL
development, and updates on point sources in targeted watersheds. Open communication
existed between the two groups for coordination outside of the monthly meetings as well. In
addition, staff from the records management group supported NPDES permitting by ensuring
information received was compatible with WDEQ's in-house data management system, the
WYPDES Database, and conducting an administrative review of applications. Staff from the
WQD laboratory also supported NPDES permitting staff.
As noted above, WDEQ considered data from the last 5-10 years to include in the permit
development; if older data were relevant (or if the history is notable), the fact
sheets/statements of basis would discuss this determination. Permits usually retained the
effluent limits from the previous permit to be conservative and consistent and data was
occasionally cited to meet the anti-backsliding provision for new information (only if data did
not violate effluent limitations from the past 5-10 years), but this was rare. In certain cases,
where a permittee requested terminating a limit (or if compliance with the limit is costly, such
as radium monitoring), WDEQ would analyze the data for reasonable potential and provide the
basis for any elimination of limits in the fact sheet/statement of basis. WDEQ would also
typically cite data if the permit was adding a new effluent limit. In some cases, a permit may
have included a request for additional data for specific pollutants based on newly observed or
detected data where reasonable potential indicated a new limit was needed, and the permit
would reference DMR data and any new data received with the permit application. Similar
approaches were used to consider changes in monitoring frequencies.
The WYPDES Permitting Program maintained many permit templates for individual permits and
general permit authorizations, categorized by facility type. The templates were modified to
meet the specific requirements for facilities. All draft and final permits were also saved on a
common server for staff to reference. The state had not developed spreadsheets to calculate
reasonable potential, but used a spreadsheet developed by EPA Region 8.
WDEQ permit writers conducted peer reviews of all permits prior to public notice. Peer reviews
were guided by a permit review checklist that included key elements such as accuracy of
effluent limitations, receiving water descriptions, outfall locations, permit and fact
sheet/statement of basis clarity, formatting, and consistency with internal references. Permit
writers received the permit review checklist with notes and markups, following completion of
peer reviews. Compliance staff also reviewed permits prior to and after public notice to ensure
that permit effluent limitations and monitoring requirements were consistent with those
included in the DMR module setup, and to evaluate any effluent limitations or monitoring
requirements that were changed as a result of public comments. Prior to final issuance,
Final February 2022
Page 7 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
management reviewed the permits to ensure that all permit requirements were consistent with
WDEQ's goals and priorities.
The administrative record was kept in the permit file or electronically in the WYPDES database
or SharePoint server. The WYPDES database housed more current and working permit
development files and was constantly being updated. SharePoint was considered more of an
archive system and generally used for historical permit documents. Monitoring and reporting,
compliance, and other permit related files were also maintained in the WYPDES database.
B. Universe and Permit Issuance
The WYPDES Program administered individual permits for 24 major facilities (18 POTWs and 6
non-municipal), 512 minor non-stormwater facilities (76 POTWs and 436 non-municipal), and 6
individual stormwater facilities, based on information obtained from WDEQ on April 20, 2021.
In addition to these individual permits, the Program administered general permits that
provided coverage for 10 MS4s, 771 industrial/mining stormwater facilities, and 350 large
construction storm water sites (excluding temporary construction activities). The Program also
had 62 permits from the non-stormwater NPDES general permits.
WDEQ indicated that significant industries within the state included oil and gas facilities,
mining, and construction activities.
WDEQ reported that one major permit was administratively continued.
C. State-Specific Challenges
WDEQ did not indicate the agency was facing specific challenges affecting the WYPDES
program; however, it had experienced staffing resource issues that were common to many
authorized states. At the time of the PQR, WDEQ reported three permitting vacancies out of a
permitting staff of five.
D. Current State Initiatives
WDEQ had several ongoing goals or initiatives:
• Maintain a zero or very low permit backlog.
• Ensure adequate resources for the permit program.
• Develop an electronic email system to send out reminder letters for permit applications.
• Transition to ICIS and NetDMR from their current eDMR database in 2021.
• Continue to implement and upgrade a website or portal to collect permit fees, receive
electronic permit applications, and house final permits. WDEQ reported they would
continue to use the electronic submittals system because they gained process
efficiencies. Use of the electronic system by applicants increased from 20 percent (pre-
COVID-19 pandemic) to 70 percent and was still climbing at the time of the PQR.
Final February 2022
Page 8 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Related, in WDEQ's efforts to become paperless, WDEQ transmitted final permits via
email, with a link to the final permit housed on WDEQ's website. Historically, WDEQ
sent final permits by mail with a formal cover letter.
• WDEQ is also currently coordinating with EPA Region 8 staff on an initiative in the
Boysen Watershed related to comprehensive NPDES planning for point sources within
the Wind River Reservation and state jurisdictional areas upstream of Wind River
Canyon (Class 1 water).
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
t. Facility Information
Background
Basic facility information is necessary to properly establish permit conditions. For example,
information regarding facility type, location, processes, and other factors is required by NPDES
permit application regulations (40 CFR 122.21). This information is essential for developing
technically sound, complete, clear, and enforceable permits. Similarly, fact sheets/statements
of basis must include a description of the type of facility or activity subject to a draft permit.
Program Strengths
The permits reviewed included permit issuance, effective, and expiration dates, authorized
signatures, and specific authorization-to-discharge information. Fact sheets/statements of basis
contained a sufficient description of the facility operations and the wastewater treatment
processes. In addition, fact sheets/statements of basis provided useful facility and outfall
location information relative to receiving waters, including specific receiving water body names
and waterbody classifications.
Areas for Improvement
The PQR team observed that the same NPDES permit number was listed in the permit for two
non-POTW facilities. In addition, one permit included a permit issuance date that was after the
permit effective date. EPA recommends WDEQ implement thorough quality assurance (QA)
practices to ensure permits reflect accurate information.
Final February 2022
Page 9 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component
•WDEQ should ensure thorough QA practices are implemented so that
permits and related documents contain accurate information (e.g.,
permit numbers).
2. Permit Application Requirements
Background and Process
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 and 122.22 specify application requirements for
permittees seeking NPDES permits. Although federal forms are available, authorized states are
also permitted to use their own forms provided they include all information required by the
federal regulations. This portion of the review assesses whether appropriate, complete, and
timely application information was received by the state and used in permit development.
The WYPDES Program provided written notification to the permittee that they need to submit a
renewal application at least 180 days prior to the permit expiration date. At the beginning of
each calendar year, permitting supervisors identified permit expirations that would occur
during the year and sent permittees an advance notice that the permit would expire during the
year. Staff also considered permits that were set to expire early in the next calendar year, to
ensure they had provided sufficient notice for re-application. The electronic letter (usually a
single email to the group of permittees) also directed the permittees to the WDEQ webpage
where they can download a copy of the WYPDES permit application. In June of each year, staff
also sent reminders to facilities whose permits would expire during the second half of the year.
Therefore, renewal reminders were scheduled to be emailed to permittees twice in the 12-
month period prior to expiration. This process was a courtesy, as the burden of submitting a
renewal application was on the permittee, per the "Duty to Re-apply" section included in all
WYPDES permits.
WDEQ used its own WYPDES permit application forms, and there were no significant
differences between the WDEQ and EPA forms. WDEQ had previously worked with EPA to
update the forms in September 2020. Permittees could access the WDEQ website for individual
application forms (http://deq.wvoming.gov/wqd/discharge-permitting/resources/individual-
permit-apps-for-discharges/). complete a fillable PDF, and submit the application electronically.
WDEQ indicated that some applicants continued to submit hard copy applications through U.S.
mail. Electronic files of the applications were posted to the "Smartsheet Incoming Mail" system
for document handling and distribution. WDEQ staff then manually added information to the
WYPDES database. Manual data entry would result in some data entry errors and inefficiency;
however, a new system was in development to have applications completed and submitted
Final February 2022
Page 10 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
online. This would populate the WYPDES database directly and enable applicants and WDEQ
staff to manage their documents directly. The new system, "nVIRO", is anticipated to be
operational by April 2022.
The WYPDES program manager assigned applications to permit writers according to facility
type. At the time of the PQR, there was one full-time senior permit writer and three staff
permit writer vacancies, which were in the process of being filled. As permit writer vacancies
were filled, the workload would be redistributed. Clerical staff simultaneously processed permit
fees and entered basic permit tracking and contact information into the WYPDES database. To
maintain a flow of documents through the process, staff had a goal of assigning applications
within a few hours of receiving them. WDEQ indicated that WYPDES received the highest
volume of files and documents in the Division. At the time of the PQR, the WYPDES program
comprised 20-30 percent of WQD staff but received approximately 70 percent of the
documents and correspondence (e.g., stormwater Notices of Intent (NOIs), Notices of
Termination (NOTs), pretreatment related, applications).
Once a permit was assigned, the permit writer led the application review to determine if the
application was technically complete. The WYPDES permit supervisor also supported this
review by ensuring that the technical aspects of application were complete, worded clearly, and
that screening parameters were complete. Applications were cross-checked with the records
management group, which ensured that the information received was compatible with the
WYPDES website. Also, these staff ensured that applications were formatted correctly, had the
correct fees, and were otherwise consistent with current practices. A third level of review was
conducted during peer review of draft permits.
The permittee was then notified, in writing, if the application was technically inadequate. In the
case of technically inadequate applications, the notification (sent via email) included a list of
information/requirements that must be submitted in order for the application to be considered
technically complete and indicated a date by which the information was to be submitted. The
permittee was typically allowed a few weeks to gather the required information. Permit
application information request letters (and related correspondence with the applicant) were
maintained as part of the administrative record in the WYPDES database. WDEQ did not send
notification or confirmation notices that applications were complete.
Once an application was been deemed to be complete and information entered into the
database, the application was processed based upon date of receipt with the oldest
applications being processed first.
Program Strengths
Permit records reviewed during the PQR included the appropriate application forms and
signatures. In addition, WDEQ had updated their application forms in accordance with recent
federal regulatory updates promulgated in the NPDES Applications and Program Updates Rule.
Final February 2022
Page 11 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Areas for Improvemen t
At the time of the review, certain permit applications reviewed for major POTWs lacked
analytical results for three sampling events for pollutants listed in Part 122, Appendix J, Table 2,
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(j)(4)(iv) and (vi), which requires at least three samples for
pollutants listed in Part 122, Appendix J, Table 2. In addition, applications for major POTWs
lacked appropriate WET testing results consistent with 40 CFR 122.21(j)(5)(ii) and (iv), and
Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 2,
Appendix E. One POTW permit application also did not provide the results of nutrient (i.e.,
phosphorus and nitrogen) monitoring. Since this information is required to be submitted in the
application, per Appendix E of the "Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept.
of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters,"
(effective 3/23/2015), the data or a note to the file waiving any application requirements that
are not required to be submitted should be documented in the permit file as part of the
application completeness review.
WDEQ's records also lacked documentation that WDEQ determined permit applications were
complete. Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality
Chapter 2 required 45 days to complete application reviews and meet Table E2 requirements.
As indicated previously, WDEQ did not send notification or confirmation notices that
applications were complete. However, Section 5(b) of the "Wyoming Administrative Rules
Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to
Wyoming Surface Waters" (effective 3/23/2015) indicates the administrator shall provide a
notice of completeness or deficiency within 45 days of receipt of the application. If a notice of
completeness or deficiency is not issued to the applicant within 45 days of receipt of the
application, the administrator shall issue a letter of explanation to the applicant which specifies
the expected date of the completeness determination.
Action Items
•Ensure that major POTW applications include a complete data set
for priority pollutants (40 CFR 122.21(j)(4) and (5)), and in
accordance with Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental
Quality, Dept of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for
Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters (Effective 3/23/2015).
• Send a notification of completeness or expected date of the
completeness determination to permittees for applications, as per
Section 5(b) of the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental
Quality, Dept of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for
Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters (Effective 3/23/2015).
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component
Final February 2022
Page 12 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
B. Developing Effluent Limitations
t. Technology-based Effluent Limitations
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.3(a) require that permitting authorities develop technology-
based requirements where applicable. Permits, fact sheets/statements of basis and other
supporting documentation for POTWs and non-POTWs were reviewed to assess whether
technology based effluent limitations (TBELs) represent the minimum level of control that must
be imposed in a permit.
TBELs for POTWs
Background and Process
POTWs must meet secondary or equivalent to secondary standards (including limits for BOD,
TSS, pH, and percent pollutant removal), and must contain numeric limits for all of these
parameters (or authorized alternatives) in accordance with the secondary treatment
regulations at 40 CFR Part 133. A total of eight POTW permits were reviewed as part of the
PQR.
WDEQ established effluent limitations for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (or carbonaceous
BOD, or CBOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH for POTWs based on federal secondary
treatment standards, which are also included in Wyoming's Water Quality Rules and
Regulations, Chapter 2. Certain POTW permits for lagoon treatment facilities included alternate
limitations to the BOD and TSS effluent limitations established in the federal secondary
treatment standards.
Program Strengths
POTW permits reviewed included numerical BOD and TSS limits that were consistent with
secondary treatment requirements, including minimum percent removal requirements.
Further, these limits were expressed in appropriate units and forms.
Areas for Improvement
The fact sheets/statements of basis for POTW permits that included alternate effluent
limitations to the BOD and TSS limitations based on secondary treatment standards lacked
sufficient justification for the alternate limitations for BOD and TSS. In one example, the fact
sheet/statement of basis indicated that the lagoon facility could not meet the BOD and TSS
secondary treatment standard; however, there was no discussion of an analysis the permit
writer conducted to support the determination. In addition, certain POTW permits included
daily maximum effluent limitations of 90 mg/L for BOD and TSS; however, accompanying fact
sheets/statements of basis lacked discussion on how the effluent limitations were determined.
Consistent with 40 CFR 124.56, fact sheets/statements of basis must contain necessary
explanation of the derivation of specific effluent limitations, including an explanation of how
alternate effluent limitations were developed.
Final February 2022
Page 13 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Additionally, some permits included daily maximum limits for BOD and TSS; however, there was
no discussion on how these limits were established. Based on discussions with WDEQ during
the PQR review, these were included in Chapter 1: Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards.
Upon review of the Appendix B Water Quality Criteria parameter specific limitations in Chapter
1 and Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, PQR reviewers
could not identify the source of the daily maximum values for BOD or TSS. If the basis for these
limits is included in either of these chapters, WDEQ should include a reference in the fact
sheet/statement of basis to the applicable criteria/section as the source of these numeric
values. If these daily limits are not included in Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards
Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 1 or
Chapter 2, WDEQ should provide additional background in the fact sheet/statement of basis on
how these values were established.
The Town of Hudson permit (WY0020664) contains "alternate" standards ("treatment
equivalent to secondary treatment") because the permittee has waste stabilization ponds (the
NPDES permit uses the term "lagoon systems") and claims that secondary treatment standards
cannot be met.3 The fact sheet, however, does not document why secondary treatment
standards cannot be met. Regarding technology-based limits, the fact sheet states:
"This facility has demonstrated the inability to meet the National Secondary
Treatment Standards of 85% percent removal of BOD. Therefore, it qualifies for
the alternate lagoon limit of 65% for percent BOD reduction." Further the fact
sheet states, "The facility has demonstrated the inability to meet the National
Secondary Treatment Standard of 30 mg/L monthly average for TSS, so this permit
qualifies for the "alternate" limits for lagoon systems for TSS of 100 mg/L, monthly
average."
The federal regulations at 40 CFR 133.103(c) allow for adjustment "of minimum levels of
effluent quality set forth in 40 CFR 133.105(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) for treatment works subject
to this part, to conform to the suspended solids concentrations achievable with waste
stabilization ponds, provided that: (1) Waste stabilization ponds are the principal process used
for secondary treatment; and (2) operation and maintenance data indicate that the suspended
solids values specified in 40 CFR 133.105(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) cannot be achieved."
Permit writers must ensure that the Town of Hudson fact sheet proves and documents that the
POTW cannot meet secondary treatment standards and that it meets all requirements for
allowing for adjustment of secondary standards as required at 40 CFR 133.103(c).
3 The percent removal limit for BOD is only 65% in the permit, while the secondary treatment standards for BOD
and TSS are 85% removal. The permit does not include a removal limit for TSS. Further, the TSS limits exceed
secondary standards at 100 mg/L (MA), 150mg/L (WA), 300 mg/L (DM).
Final February 2022
Page 14 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•WDEQ must ensure that permit fact sheets/statements of basis
include adequate explanation of the derivation of specific effluent
limitations, in particular an explanation of how alternate effluent
limitations and daily maximum BOD and TSS limits were
developed, in accordance with 40 CFR 124.56.
•Permit writers must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis
prove and document that a POTW cannot meet secondaiy
treatment standards and that it meets all requirements for
allowing for adjustment of secondary treatment standards as
required at 40 CFR 133.103(c).
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component.
TBELsfor Non-POTW Dischargers
Background and Process
Permits issued to non-POTWs must require compliance with a level of treatment performance
equivalent to Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) or Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for existing sources, and consistent with New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for new sources. Where federal effluent limitations guidelines
(ELGs) have been developed for a category of dischargers, the TBELs in a permit must be based
on the application of these guidelines. If ELGs are not available, a permit must include
requirements at least as stringent as BAT/BCT developed on a case-by-case using best
professional judgment (BPJ) in accordance with the criteria outlined at 40 CFR 125.3(d).
Three non-POTW permits were reviewed during the core permit review. Fact
sheets/statements of basis for the permits reviewed generally provided useful descriptions of
the facilities; however, lacked discussion of facility categorization for purposes of applying ELGs,
such as discussion of whether the facility was an existing or new source. Fact sheets/statements
of basis clearly identify applicable ELGs. WDEQ indicated there are no facilities for which permit
writers developed effluent limitations based on BPJ.
Program Strengths
WDEQ appropriately established TBELs in non-municipal WYPDES permits in the correct form
and units. In addition, the fact sheets/statements of basis provided an adequate description of
facility operations and treatment processes. Further, fact sheets/statements of basis
Final February 2022
Page 15 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
consistently identified the applicable federal ELGs and state technology standards that were
considered in the development of TBELs for the facility. Fact sheets/statements of basis for
non-POTW permits included appendices that detailed ELG-based TBELs development.
Areas for Improvemen t
Certain fact sheets/statements of basis for non-POTW facilities lacked discussion of facility
categorization in terms of whether the facility is an existing or new source relative to the
applicability of ELGs.
Action Items
•Section F, Administartive Record and Fact Sheet, addresses the
essential action item regarding documentation of existing and new
sources.
Recommended
•WDEQ should ensure fact sheets consistently describe facility
operations, including discussion of facility categorization and
whether the facility is an existing or new source, relative to the
applicability of ELGs.
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Background
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i) and particularly 122.44(d)(l)(vii)(A)(2) require
permits to include any requirements in addition to or more stringent than technology-based
requirements where necessary to achieve state water quality standards, including narrative
criteria for water quality. To establish such "water quality-based effluent limits" (WQBELs), the
permitting authority must evaluate whether any pollutants or pollutant parameters cause, have
the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above any State water quality
standard (WQS).
The PQR for WDEQ assessed the processes employed to implement these requirements.
Specifically, the PQR reviewed permits, fact sheets/statements of basis, and other documents in
the administrative record to evaluate how permit writers and water quality modelers:
• determined the appropriate water quality standards applicable to receiving waters,
• evaluated and characterized the effluent and receiving water including identifying
pollutants of concern,
• determined critical conditions,
• incorporated information on ambient pollutant concentrations,
• assessed any dilution considerations,
• determined whether limits were necessary for pollutants of concern and, where
necessary,
Final February 2022
Page 16 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• calculated such limits or other permit conditions.
For impaired waters, the PQR also assessed whether and how permit writers consulted and
developed limits consistent with the assumptions of applicable EPA-approved TMDLs.
Process for Assessing Reasonable Potential
The permit writer determined the stream classification, water quality criteria associated with
the stream classification, and uses of the receiving stream. They also identified pollutants of
concern based on review of application data, pollutant scans, and overall research of the
facility. Permit writers evaluated data from a variety of sources to evaluate reasonable
potential including NPDES permit application, DMR data, or other intake and effluent
characterization data (e.g., pretreatment sampling data at POTWs). Permit writers considered
effluent monitoring data from the previous 5-10 years. Permit writers also considered ambient
water quality data, when available, from USGS, data collected by permittees in accordance with
permit requirements, and water quality data collected by other WDEQ program areas.
WDEQ permit writers used an RPA spreadsheet tool developed by EPA Region 8, following
EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (TSD), and
implemented the calculations within the spreadsheet. WDEQ indicated they did not maintain
separate procedures regarding evaluating reasonable potential. Permit writers conducted the
RPA for all known pollutants in the discharge. WDEQ indicated preference to have at least five
data points to conduct an RPA; however, permit writers will evaluate reasonable potential if
there are fewer data points. Where there are fewer data points (e.g., 3-5 results), WDEQ will
typically determine that an effluent limitation is required; therefore, they encourage permittees
to provide additional data to ensure a broader set of data is considered in the RPA. However,
WDEQ required monitoring or screening data in applications for new dischargers before a
permit was issued. If the facility was not in operation, WDEQ requested they develop a best
estimate of effluent quality and provide data on their operating and treatment system. The
permit writer then analyzed reasonable potential with that information and established
effluent limits based on those data and known pollutants of concern.
WDEQ permit writers typically considered ambient water quality data in calculating WQBELs
(e.g., upstream concentration and flow of receiving water) based on USGS gaging station data.
Where USGS data were not available (which was common for dischargers located in more
remote areas), other sources were reviewed, including site-specific sampling from the applicant
or WDEQ. As related to the data used, WDEQ did not generally rely on default values; however,
zero could be assumed in some cases as an interim measure, depending on the pollutant.
Permit files included limited documentation of RPAs; the typical documentation observed
during the PQR consisted of spreadsheet files for select parameters.
Process for Developing WQBELs
Following consideration of TBELs, permit writers develop WQBELs for those pollutants that
demonstrated reasonable potential. Typically, if there is a TMDL, the WQBEL is based on a WLA
Final February 2022
Page 17 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
calculation for acute and chronic limits. The requirements (TBEL and WQBEL) are then
compared and typically, the most stringent is then incorporated into the permit.
Mixing zones implementation was based upon the WDEQ Implementation Policy for Mixing
Zones, an addendum to Chapter 1 of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations.
Complete mixing was determined under certain conditions, but was not assumed by default.
The mixing zone policy also imposed size constraints:
"Except for the zone of initial dilution, which is the initial 10% of the mixing zone,
the mixing zone shall not contain pollutant concentrations that exceed the acute
aquatic life values (see Appendix B). In addition, there shall be a zone of passage
around the mixing zone which shall not contain pollutant concentrations that
exceed the chronic aquatic life values (see Appendix B). Under no circumstance
may a mixing zone be established which would allow human health criteria (see
Appendix B) to be exceeded within 500 yards of a drinking water supply intake or
result in acute lethality to aquatic life".
In addition, the maximum size of a mixing zone is:
• mixing zones for streams and rivers shall not exceed one-half of the cross-sectional area
or a length 10 times the stream width at critical low flow, whichever is more limiting.
• mixing zones in lakes shall not exceed 5 percent of the lake surface area or 200 feet in
radius, whichever is more limiting.
The fact sheets/statements of basis discussed any assumptions or findings relating to mixing
zones if a mixing zone was employed in the permit.
Permit writers used a hardness-dependent metals limit calculator (with formulas derived from
Chapter 1 footnotes on hardness adjustment for each applicable metal) in all permits on an as-
needed basis depending upon stream classification. In addition, permit writers used a USGS
model for determining critical low flow (i.e., 7Q10) values. Further, staff used a wasteload
allocation spreadsheet which includes Tier 2 antidegradation adjustments for final effluent
limits.
WDEQ permit writers documented WQBELs calculations in fact sheets/statements of basis in
narrative and tabular format and original spreadsheet files were maintained in the
administrative record.
Program Strengths
Reasonable Potential
Permit writers consistently identified receiving streams, waterbody classifications, and
designated uses. Fact sheets/statements of basis discuss pollutants of concern on an
individual basis and data considered in the RPA (if performed) including hardness
considerations.
Final February 2022
Page 18 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
WQBEL Development
If a rationale was included in the fact sheets/statements of basis, WYPDES permits included
WQBELs that were consistent with the rationale provided in fact sheets/statements of basis.
If methods were documented, WDEQ permit writers typically utilized appropriate
procedures and methods for developing WQBELs.
Areas for Improvement
Reasonable Potential
Fact sheets/statements of basis did not consistently discuss the receiving stream's
impairment status and TMDL applicability. In addition, the review indicated that permit files
did not clearly demonstrate that permit writers conducted RPAs during every permit
renewal. For example, one facility was required to monitor for a parameter in the previous
permit; however, the fact sheet/statement of basis for the reissued permit lacked
discussion of the determination of the final effluent limitation for that parameter,
consistent with 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i). In another permit, the fact sheet/statement of basis
did not clearly document that the permit writer considered all available data for ammonia
limit removal, as no actual ammonia discharge monitoring data or RPA was included. The
determination appeared to be based on background instream data from USGS stations only,
but no actual facility discharge data was included in the evaluation to determine whether
discharge characteristics for ammonia were at or below those assumed. Furthermore,
another POTW permit review identified that discharge data provided by a facility included a
value for Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate which exceeded the priority pollutant limit indicated in
Appendix B of the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water
Quality Chapter 1: Wyoming Surface Water Quality Standards. However, there was no
documentation of an RPA for this pollutant.
In general, WDEQ records and fact sheets/statements of basis lacked clear documentation
of RPAs and development of WQBELs, which was a finding identified during the 2013 PQR.
(40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(ii)) Further, fact sheets/statements of basis did not consistently
include statements regarding RPA determinations, as required by 40 CFR 124.56.
WQBEL Development
Fact sheets/statements of basis did not consistently describe the determination of dilution
allowances, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR 124.56, and it was
unclear, in at least one permit, whether an identified dilution factor was actually applied to
the final permitting limits.
Final February 2022
Page 19 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•Reasonable Potential
•WDEQ must ensure that permit writers conduct RPAs in accordance with
NPDES regulations and provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate
that reasonable potential was evaluated. (40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(ii))
•WDEQ must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis include clear
statements and findings of the RPA results, consistent with 40 CFR
124.56.
•WOBEL Development
•WDEQ must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis include adequate
documentation of the permit writer's determination of dilution
allowances (40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR 124.56)
Essential
•Reasonable Potential
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this PQR
component
•WOBEL Development
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this PQR
component
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation
Background and Process
Permits must include all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including technology
and water quality standards, and must include effluent limitations that ensure that all
applicable CWA standards are met. The permitting authority must identify the most stringent
effluent limitations and establish them as the final effluent limitations in the permit. In
addition, for reissued permits, if any of the limitations are less stringent than limitations on the
same pollutant in the previous NPDES permit, the permit writer must conduct an anti-
backsliding analysis, and if necessary, revise the limitations accordingly. In addition, for new or
increased discharges, the permitting authority should conduct an antidegradation review, to
ensure the permit is written to maintain existing high quality of surface waters, or if
appropriate, allow for some degradation. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 131.12 outline the
common elements of the antidegradation review process.
In addition, permit records for POTWs and industrial facilities should contain comprehensive
documentation of the development of all effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent limits
should include assessment of applicable standards, data used in developing effluent limitations,
and actual calculations used to develop effluent limitations. The procedures implemented for
determining the need for WQBELs as well as the procedures explaining the basis for
Final February 2022
Page 20 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
establishing, or for not establishing, WQBELs should be clear and straight forward. The permit
writer should adequately document changes from the previous permit, ensure draft and final
limitations match (unless the basis for a change is documented), and include all supporting
documentation in the permit file. The permit writer should sufficiently document
determinations regarding anti-backsliding and antidegradation requirements.
WYPDES fact sheets/statements of basis clearly described the facility type, operations, and
treatment processes. Fact sheets/statements of basis for non-POTWs included an appendix that
detailed the development of TBELs that were based on ELGs. Permits established TBELs based
on facility type; however, sometimes without ample documentation of alternate effluent
limitations for POTWs.
WYPDES fact sheets clearly identified the receiving waterbody, applicable water quality
standards, designated uses, and pollutants of concern. Fact sheets/statements of basis
discussed receiving streams' impairment status; however, did not consistently discuss
applicability of TMDLs. Though certain fact sheets/statements of basis included greater detail
and documentation, discussion of RPAs was inconsistent across the permits and accompanying
fact sheets/statements of basis reviewed.
For waters that are listed as impaired or have a TMDL, permit staff coordinated with staff from
the Watershed Protection group, which maintained an active list of impaired waters or waters
with finalized TMDLs. If there was no TMDL for the 303(d) listed water, then the limit for the
impaired constituent was set equal to the water quality standard and incorporated into the
permit. If the discharge was directly to an impaired receiving water or likely to reach a
downstream impaired water, the effluent limits were adjusted accordingly (i.e. no assimilative
capacity available for dilution). In most cases, the permit would have had an effluent limit and
required monitoring. For waters with a TMDL, effluent limits were incorporated into the permit
directly from the TMDL load allocation. The Watershed Protection Group (which developed
TMDLs) was asked to review the permit for accuracy prior to public notice. They also
maintained a current list of all point source discharges and associated effluent limits and DMR
data for each TMDL in effect; these data were provided to them on a continual basis from the
WYPDES permitting group to assist in tracking TMDL implementation.
WDEQ maintained a formal antidegradation implementation policy, and an antidegradation
review was conducted for every permit. A default value of 20 percent of assimilative capacity
was usually given but other options were available through the implementation policy. The
antidegradation process was documented in the fact sheet/statement of basis and permit
quality spreadsheet.
According to WDEQ, antidegradation was considered for all WQBELs. Permit writers followed
the Implementation Policy for Antidegradation, an addendum to Chapter 1 of the Wyoming
Water Quality Rules and Regulations. In some cases, documentation in the fact
sheet/statement of basis identified which level of antidegradation protection was applied
(based on receiving water classification).
Final February 2022
Page 21 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
WDEQ also indicated that anti-backsliding was considered for all permits but triggered when an
effluent limit was less stringent than what was included in the previous permit. Often, the less
stringent limit was allowed if it was based on new information or new regulations and, on
occasion, if it was beyond the permittee's control. The fact sheet/statement of basis for the
permit cited compliance with anti-backsliding requirements. When a permit renewal or major
modification included an effluent limit which was less stringent than previous permit limit, the
fact sheet/statement of basis would typically cite the provision which allowed it (new
information, correction of error, etc.).
Program Strengths
WYPDES permits included TBELs based on facility type, and accompanying fact
sheets/statements of basis typically provided a general understanding of the basis for TBELs.
TBELs were usually established in the correct units and forms, as appropriate for the facility
type.
Areas for Improvement
WYPDES fact sheets/statements of basis did not describe the basis (TBEL or WQBEL) for each of
the final effluent limits. For example, for one POTW that flowed to both 3B and 2AB classified
waters, the basis was not clearly indicated for using only the 3B (and not 2AB, which was more
protective) receiving water designation requirements for establishing E. coli and total residual
chlorine effluent limitations. Further, the records reviewed did not generally document that a
comparison of technology- and water quality-based limits was performed, and the most
stringent limit selected. In addition, WQBELs were not consistently established as both long-
term (e.g., AMEL) and short-term (e.g., MDEL) effluent limitations, for certain parameters such
as oil and grease, and some metal parameters. For one permit reviewed, the fact
sheet/statement of basis also did not provide clear justification for the decision-making process
for designated uses of the receiving water(s) (e.g., the recreational category selected for E. coli).
During the PQR, WDEQ indicated that a mapping tool was used to establish the recreational
classifications used for E. coli limit determination (e.g. "infrequently used full body contact",
etc.); however, neither the fact sheet/statement of basis or WDEQ could provide additional
detail on this process or documentation for the basis of how designations were established by
the mapping tool (e.g., what and how was mapping performed, how/when these categories
were established and updated, etc.).
Additionally, the limits for ammonia did not appear to be consistent between fact
sheet/statement of basis calculations and implemented permitted limits. In one POTW permit,
ammonia was removed from the renewal permit and the WET dilution effluent limit for another
POTW was implemented as less stringent (i.e., more dilution allowed for passing result);
however, there was no anti-backsliding specific discussion in either fact sheet/statement of
basis. (CWA section 402(o) prohibits backsliding).
One fact sheet/statement of basis reviewed was also unclear as to why a flow limit was applied
as a monthly average instead of as a maximum allowable limitation (the design capacity for the
facility was indicated to be 6 million gallons per day (MGD) and the wasteload allocation (WLA)
Final February 2022
Page 22 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
was calculated using the volume as a maximum), which would allow for periods of flow that
exceeded 6 MGD and not be representative of the WLA calculated.
Action Items
•WDEQ must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis include
complete documentation of the basis for final effluent limitations
(i.e., TBEL or WQBEL), including a demonstration that the permit
writer compared TBELs and WQBELs and the most stringent
limitation was established as the final limitation, appropriate water
class designations were used for limit determinations, justifications
for designated uses, and alignment of WLA calculations with
permitted limits. (40 CFR 124.56)
•WDEQ must ensure that anti-backsliding was evaluated and
documented, when reissued permits established effluent limitations
that were less stringent than those in the previous permit.
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component.
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Background and Process
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j) require permittees to periodically evaluate compliance
with the effluent limitations established in their permits and provide the results to the
permitting authority. Monitoring and reporting conditions require the permittee to conduct
routine or episodic self-monitoring of permitted discharges and where applicable, internal
processes, and report the analytical results to the permitting authority with information
necessary to evaluate discharge characteristics and compliance status.
Specifically, 40 CFR 122.44(i) requires NPDES permits to establish, at minimum, annual
reporting of monitoring for all limited parameters sufficient to assure compliance with permit
limitations, including specific requirements for the types of information to be provided and the
methods for the collection and analysis of such samples. In addition, 40 CFR 122.48 requires
that permits specify the type, intervals, and frequency of monitoring sufficient to yield data
which are representative of the monitored activity. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) also
require reporting of monitoring results with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of
the discharge. 40 CFR Part 127 requires NPDES-regulated entities to submit certain data
electronically, including discharge monitoring reports and various program-specific reports, as
applicable.
NPDES permits should specify appropriate monitoring locations to ensure compliance with the
permit limitations and provide the necessary data to determine the effects of the effluent on
the receiving water. A complete fact sheet will include a description and justification for all
Final February 2022
Page 23 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
monitoring locations required by the permit. States may have policy or guidance documents to
support determination of appropriate monitoring frequencies; documentation should include
an explicit discussion in the fact sheet providing the basis for establishing monitoring
frequencies, including identification of the specific state policy or internal guidance referenced.
Permits must also specify the sample collection method for all parameters required to be
monitored in the permit. The fact sheet should present the rationale for requiring grab or
composite samples and discuss the basis of a permit requirement mandating use of a
sufficiently sensitive Part 136 analytical method.
Monitoring requirements for WYPDES permits were based on effluent limits (all limited
pollutants must be monitored at least annually), compliance history, and any data needs
applicable to the effluent and receiving waters. WDEQ did not have a written policy for
monitoring requirements. Typically, monitoring requirements carried forward from the
previous permit, unless there was a specific reason to change the monitoring requirements.
Typical reporting requirements included monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual sampling
with semi-annual or quarterly reporting based on pollutant and permit type. Facilities with an
adverse compliance history may have seen an increase in sampling or reporting frequency upon
renewal. Pollutants for which insufficient data existed to make a reasonable potential
determination may also have received sampling requirements to obtain additional data (most
often in new permits).
WDEQ considers many factors when determining the monitoring and reporting frequency for a
permit:
• Reporting timeframes were set in accordance with monitoring timeframes. As an
example, if a permittee had to conduct monitoring daily, the submittal would most likely
have been monthly, whereas if monitoring was semi-annual, then reporting would have
been semi-annual.
• If the permittee exhibited a pattern of non-compliance or inconsistency with water
quality from the plant, the permit writer may have increased the frequency of
monitoring.
• Federal or state requirements also dictated the frequency of monitoring.
Permits required the permittee to comply with 40 CFR 136 and WDEQ indicated they required
the use of sufficiently sensitive methods. WDEQ also worked with their lab personnel (who
refer to the CFRs) to define an appropriate detection limit. As an example, when a detection
limit may actually be below the water quality standard, the permit writer worked with the lab
personnel to establish an appropriate detection limit. The permit writer would then ensure the
detection limit was consistently applied.
In cases of insufficient data, staff reevaluated the new data submitted at the next permit
renewal. However, WDEQ reserved the ability to intervene sooner and review new data to
revise the permit if there was significant concern to reopen and revise.
Final February 2022
Page 24 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
WET monitoring adjustments may be handled administratively using an existing permit
provision that allowed for review of WET monitoring data, permit history, and imposition of a
minor permit modification to change alternating WET test species.
WDEQ transmitted raw data from dischargers to ICIS nightly. ICIS subsequently generated
reports that identified issues.
Program Strengths
The reviewed permits consistently identified appropriate monitoring locations, frequencies, and
sample types; based on the facility, discharge type and corresponding limit basis.
Areas for Improvemen t
WDEQ permits did not require the use of sufficiently sensitive EPA approved methods, in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(i)(l)(iv). In addition, at the time of the review, permits did not
require permittees to submit DMRs electronically, consistent with 40 CFR Part 127. Two POTW
permits also lacked specific identification of influent monitoring locations (for BOD and TSS
influent sampling), in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(j), and two POTW permits contained
inconsistent reporting timeframes identified in different parts of the permit (i.e., quarterly in
WET section vs. first half of the calendar year in Reporting section). EPA recommends that
WDEQ develop and document a clearly defined process for determining appropriate monitoring
frequencies. Additionally, it is recommended that the language be adjusted in the "Reporting"
section of the permits to incorporate "influent", "receiving", and any other type of monitoring
specified in the permits to make it clear that all monitoring is to be reported on this schedule
(not just "effluent monitoring obtained during previous month").
Action Items
•WDEQ must ensure permits require the use of sufficiently sensitive
EPA approved analytical methods in accordance with 40 CFR
122.41(i)(l)(iv) and 40 CFR 136.1(c).
•WDEQ must ensure permits require permittees to submit DMRs
electronically consistent with 40 CFR Part 127.
•WDEQ must ensure that POTW permits specifically identify influent
monitoring locations, consistent with 40 CFR 122.41Q).
•WDEQ must ensure consistent reporting intervals are specified in
the permit, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(iii)(4).
•WDEQ should develop and document a clearly defined process Re-
determining appropriate monitoring frequencies.
•WDEQ should adjust permit language in the "Reporting" section of
the permits to incorporate "influent", "receiving", and any other
type of monitoring specified in the permits.
Essential
Final February 2022
Page 25 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
D. Standard and Special Conditions
Background and Process
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 require that all NPDES permits, including NPDES general
permits, contain certain "standard" permit conditions. Further, the regulations at 40 CFR 122.42
require that NPDES permits for certain categories of dischargers must contain additional
standard conditions. Permitting authorities must include these conditions in NPDES permits and
may not alter or omit any standard condition unless such alteration or omission results in a
requirement more stringent than those in the federal regulations.
Permits may also contain additional requirements that are unique to a particular discharger.
These case-specific requirements are generally referred to as "special conditions." Special
conditions might include requirements such as: additional monitoring or special studies such as
a mercury minimization plan; best management practices [see 40 CFR 122.44(k)], or permit
compliance schedules [see 40 CFR 122.47]. Where a permit contains special conditions, such
conditions must be consistent with applicable regulations.
WDEQ permits included conditions to implement narrative water quality standards (e.g., "There
shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amount, nor shall the
discharge cause formation of a visible sheen or visible hydrocarbon deposits on the bottom or
shoreline of the receiving water.") Other special conditions included aesthetic degradation
restrictions, erosion control, operation and maintenance, signage, or facility access. Permits
may also have required specialized investigations of downstream soils or groundwater in
affected areas.
The WYPDES Program used boilerplate templates to generate the special conditions and
standard conditions for the permits. The source of standard conditions was from the Chapter 2
of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations and the federal requirements (40 CFR
122.41 and 122.42). The template was last updated in December 2020.
Program Strengths
WDEQ permits included standard conditions with consistent organization, which allowed for
easy identification of specific standard permit requirements. The use of boilerplate language for
standard conditions ensured consistency across permits. WDEQ boilerplate language for
standard conditions was updated recently, in December 2020.
Areas for Improvement
The following standard conditions were absent from permits reviewed:
• 122.41(a)(1) reference to sewage sludge standards, (2), and (3).
• 122.41(i) Inspection and Entry.
• 122.41(j)(5) Penalties for subsequent violations.
• 122.41(k)(2) Penalty for signatory requirements.
• 122.41(l)(l)(ii) "This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements under 122.42(a)(1)."
Final February 2022
Page 26 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• 122.41(l)(l)(iii) Planned changes related to sludge use or disposal.
• 122.41(l)(4) Monitoring reports: No language for 40 CFR 127 electronic reporting
requirements.
• 122.41(l)(5) Compliance Schedules.
• 122.41(l)(6) Twenty four hour reporting: Missing language for notification for bypasses
and SSOs.
• 122.41(l)(7) Other non-compliance: Missing language for notification for bypasses and
SSOs.
• 122.41(m)(l)(ii) Definition of severe property damage. Additionally, the language for
electronic submission of information for a bypass was also missing.
• 122.41(n)(2) "No determination made during administrative review of claims that non-
compliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final
administrative action subject to judicial review."
In addition, two permits without compliance schedules contained the following wording in the
"Power Failures" section:
"Power Failures
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this permit, the
permittee shall either:
a. In accordance with a schedule of compliance contained in Part I,..."
It was unclear what "schedule of compliance" is being referred to in this section and whether it
is considered a requirement subject to a "compliance schedule" in the permits. This wording
should be evaluated by WDEQ to ensure it accurately aligns with the requirements (i.e., no
compliance schedule exists) of the permits.
The following recommendations are suggested:
• Signatory requirement: Recommend adding language defining "responsible corporate
officer" and "executive officer" or citing CFR for definition so it is clear to permittee who
may sign.
• Transfers: Recommend adding in specific language, per the CFR, that "This permit is not
transferable to any person except after notice to the Director", so it is very clear to the
permittee that notice is required.
• Bypass: The following language was contained in the permit, but it was unclear how the
language was implemented in line with a bypass situation: "Return of removed
substances to the discharge stream shall not be considered a bypass under the
provisions of this paragraph." WDEQ should include additional clarification and/or
examples in its documented processes for how/when this situation would apply.
• For POTWs: the permit contained the additional standard condition at 40 CFR
122.42(b)(1)—(3) for POTWs regarding notification of new introduction of pollutants and
new industrial users; however, it is recommended that the duration of the discharge
also be added so that the overall effluent quantity can be determined per the CFR
requirement:" the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW".
Final February 2022
Page 27 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Currently, only the nature, concentration, average and max flow are requested in this
portion of the permits.
Action Items
•As per the details provided in the section above, WDEQ must
ensure that permits include all standard conditions consistent with
the federal standard provisions established in 40 C.F.R. 122.41, and
in alignment with permitted requirements (i.e., power failure
language).
•Recommendations are detailed in section above.
E. Administrative Process
Background and Process
The administrative process includes documenting the basis of all permit decisions (40 CFR 124.5
and 40 CFR 124.6); coordinating EPA and state review of the draft (or proposed) permit (40 CFR
123.44); providing public notice (40 CFR 124.10); conducting hearings if appropriate (40 CFR
124.11 and 40 CFR 124.12); responding to public comments (40 CFR 124.17); and modifying a
permit (if necessary) after issuance (40 CFR 124.5). EPA discussed each element of the
administrative process with WDEQ, and reviewed materials from the administrative process as
they related to the core permit review.
The WYPDES Program had a standard operating procedure for the administrative process for
permit publication and responding to public notice comments. The WYPDES Program rarely had
hearings but if a hearing was proposed, Chapter 2 defined the process for the hearing.
The WYPDES Program was responsible for publishing the public notice (PN) of the proposed
permit. WYPDES public notices occur once per month, generally beginning on the third Friday of
each calendar month. Additional or special public notices were run if necessary. Each public
notice contained multiple draft WYPDES permits. State regulations required that the PN be
published in a newspaper that had statewide circulation; only one newspaper satisfied that
requirement. Notifications were also sent out to permittees, affected landowners, and
interested parties that had signed up for a mailing list. The public notice itself with reviewable
application materials and draft permits was located on WDEQ's web site. The public comment
period lasted at least 30 days and comments received during the period were included in the
administrative record.
WDEQ managed PNs on the WDEQ website, with clickable links to draft permits and
applications. Starting in March 2021, the public had the ability to submit electronic comments
Final February 2022
Page 28 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
directly through an online comment portal. Staff still sent a short PN reminder to the
newspaper to meet regulatory requirements; this notice directed readers to the website.
Public comments were submitted in writing or electronically for any WYPDES permit. The
comment period deadline was specified in the public notice announcement. Comments from
EPA were received in any format and were typically provided directly to the WYPDES permit
writer. Comments and response to comments were maintained as part of the administrative
record in WYPDES database.
As required by Chapter 2 of the state permitting regulations, WDEQ responded in writing to
public comments at the time a final action was taken on the permit. Any changes to the permit
that resulted from the comments were noted in the response letter and in the permit fact sheet
or statement of basis. For small typographical edits or minor wording changes that were
intended for clarification and/or noted by the applicant themselves during public comment, a
confirmation email was generally sent to the permittee in lieu of a formal letter. The email
summarized any changes made or rejected. If WDEQ received multiple comments from
different parties (which was rare), staff sent out individual letters to each commenter and
addressed each comment individually. If a large volume of comments was received, WDEQ
developed a formal response document organized by comment category. Three permits that
were reviewed did not contain documentation on if public comments were received and if the
WDEQ provided responses to the public comments.
A public meeting could be requested during the comment period. The WDEQ Administrator and
Director granted or denied these meeting requests. If granted, WDEQ issued a PN for the
meeting, invited the public, and documented the discussion in the record.
Hearings for WYPDES permit final actions (issuance or denial of a permit) could be requested
within 30 days of the signature date of the final action. That request was made by the appellant
to the state Environmental Quality Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Wyoming
Environmental Quality Act, Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act, and Chapter 2 of the
Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations.
WYPDES permits were rarely appealed. The program had not received a permit appeal in over
10 years.
EPA was the only entity who could object to WYPDES permits and any permit objection
received by the WYPDES Program would be reviewed. EPA has not objected to any permits
since the 2013 PQR review. If an objection were sent to WYDEQ, it could be a request for
additional information from the WYPDES Program (interim objection). The WYPDES Program
would seek to work with EPA to come to a resolution, typically accomplished through meetings
or phone calls. The permit could be modified as a result of the objection. A response to the
objection would then be provided to EPA, and if EPA lifted the objection, the permit would be
issued.
Final February 2022
Page 29 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Strengths
Public notice documents were readily available for review. It appeared that WDEQ
implemented consistent public notice procedures.
Areas for Improvemen t
Records reviewed did not consistently include language regarding public notice, any significant
comments received, and WDEQ response to comments; this finding was also made during the
2013 PQR.
Action Items
Essential
•WDEQ's administrative record must consistently contain a record of
all of the comments received during the public notice period as well
as consistently provide responses to the comments received during
the public comment period. (40 CFR 124.17) This is a repeat finding
from the 2013 PQR.
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
section.
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet
Background and Process
The administrative record is the foundation that supports the NPDES permit. If EPA issues the
permit, 40 CFR 124.9 identifies the required content of the administrative record for a draft
permit and 40 CFR 124.18 identifies the requirements for a final permit. Authorized state
programs must have equivalent documentation. The record must contain the necessary
documentation to justify permit conditions. At a minimum, the administrative record for a
permit must contain the permit application and supporting data; draft permit; fact sheet or
statement of basis;4 all items cited in the statement of basis or fact sheet including calculations
used to derive the permit limitations; meeting reports; correspondence between the applicant
and regulatory personnel; all other items supporting the file; final response to comments; and,
for new sources where EPA issues the permit, any environmental assessment, environmental
impact statement, or finding of no significant impact.
Current regulations require that fact sheets include information regarding the type of facility or
activity permitted, the type and quantity of pollutants discharged, the technical, statutory, and
4 Per 40 CFR 124.8(a), every EPA and state-issued permit must be accompanied by a fact sheet if the permit:
Incorporates a variance or requires an explanation under 124.56(b); is an NPDES general permit; is subject to
widespread public interest; is a Class I sludge management facility; or includes a sewage sludge land application
plan.
Final February 2022
Page 30 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
regulatory basis for permit conditions, the basis and calculations for effluent limits and
conditions, the reasons for application of certain specific limits, rationales for variances or
alternatives, contact information, and procedures for issuing the final permit. Generally, the
administrative record included the permit application, the draft permit, any fact sheet or
statement of basis, documents cited in the fact sheet or statement of basis, and other
documents contained in the supporting file for the permit.
The permit writer drafted the fact sheet/statement of basis for all permits.5 Each facility type or
general permit type had its own template.
There were four parts of the administrative record: Draft permits, Applications (including
supplemental materials), Correspondence (including comments and responses), and
Data/DMRs. The administrative record was kept in the permit file or electronically in the
WYPDES Database or SharePoint server.6 The record contained the final permit and fact
sheet/statement of basis, permit review checklist, permit application, public notice and
comments if any, and responses to public notice comments.
Program Strengths
WDEQ fact sheets/statements of basis were consistently organized and contained similar levels
of detail across the permit records reviewed for the PQR.
Areas for Improvement
WDEQ fact sheets/statements of basis lacked contact information for the permit writer, such as
their phone number, which is required by 40 CFR 124.8(b)(7). In addition, permit records did
not clearly document whether permits were revised between the draft and final permits. It is
recommended that a statement regarding the public notice be incorporated into the fact
sheet/statement of basis to document comments received and the responses. It is also
recommended that a statement be included indicating whether or not changes were made to
the draft permit (after public notice) prior to finalizing the permit.
Public notices for many of the permits reviewed contained brief descriptions of the business
conducted at the facility as required by 40 CFR 124.10(d)(iii). In addition, 40 CFR 124.10(d)(vii)
required public notices to include a general description of the location of each existing or
proposed discharge point and the sludge use and disposal practice; this information was lacking
from public notices reviewed.
WDEQ fact sheets/statements of basis lacked complete discussions of the facility categorization
relative to the applicability of ELGs, specifying whether the facility was an existing or new
5 For individual permits, WDEQ uses the term Statement of Basis. For general permits, WDEQ uses the term Fact
Sheet. Each serves the same function.
6 The WYPDES database houses more current and working files and is constantly being updated. SharePoint is
more of an archive system and generally used for much older permit documents.
Final February 2022
Page 31 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
source. Fact sheets/statements of basis also lacked necessary explanations for the derivation of
effluent limitations.
Action Items
•Fact sheets must include calculations or other necessaiy explanation
of the derivation of specific effluent limitations, consistent with 40 CFR
124.56. This includes facility categorization relative to the applicability
of ELGs specifying whether the facility is an existing or new source.
•WDEQ must include permit writer contact information in fact
sheets/statements of basis, consistent with 40 CRR 124.8(b)(7).
•Public notices must include a general description of the location of
each existing or proposed discharge point and the sludge use and
disposal practice, in accordance with 40 CFR 124.10(d)(vii).
•WDEQ must ensure that public notices contain a brief description of
the business conducted at the facility or activity described in the
permit application or the draft permit, in accordance with 40 CFR
124.10(d) (iii).
Essential
Recommended
•Recommended that a statement regarding the comments received and
response be incorporated into the fact sheet/statement of basis to
document public notice comments received and the responses. It is
also recommended that a statement be included indicating whether or
not changes were made to the draft permit (after public notice) prior
to finalizing the permit.
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
National topic areas are aspects of the NPDES permit program that warrant review based on
the specific requirements applicable to the selected topic areas. These topic areas have been
determined to be important on a national scale. National topic areas are reviewed for all state
PQRs. The national topics areas are: Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters,
Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions, and Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements.
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters
Background
Nutrient pollution is an ongoing environmental challenge, however, nationally permits often
lack nutrient limits. It is vital that permitting authorities actively consider nutrient pollution in
their permitting decisions. Of the permits that do have limits, many are derived from wasteload
allocations in TMDLs, since state criteria are often challenging to interpret. For this section,
waters that are not protected by a TMDL are considered. These waters may already be
Final February 2022
Page 32 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
impaired by nutrient pollution or may be vulnerable to nutrient pollution due to their hydrology
and environmental conditions. For the purposes of this program area, ammonia is considered
as a toxic pollutant, not a nutrient.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(vii)(A) require permit limits to be developed for any
pollutant which causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an impairment
of water quality standards, whether those standards are narrative or numeric.
To assess how nutrients are addressed in the Wyoming NPDES program, EPA Region 8 reviewed
7 permits as well as Section 35-ll-110(a) of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, Wyoming
Nutrient Strategy, Appendix E of the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality,
Dept. of Water Quality, and Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface
Waters. The Wyoming Nutrient Strategy identifies priority items and next steps to address
nutrient pollution in Wyoming's surface waters. The following website provides more
information about this strategy: https://deq. Wyoming.qov/water-quality/watershed-protection-
2/surface-water-quality-standards/nutrient-pollution/
EPA Region 8 staff reviewed the nutrient requirements for the following permits:
1. Holly Frontier Cheyenne Refinery, WY0000442 (Non-POTW, Major)
2. Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Plant, WY0021024 (POTW, Major)
3. Hudson Wastewater Lagoon, WY0020664 (POTW, Minor)
4. City of Laramie Wastewater Treatment Plant, WY0022209 (POTW, Major)
5. Jackson Wastewater Lagoon, WY0021458 (POTW, Major)
6. Torrington Wastewater Lagoon, WY0020231 (POTW, Major)
7. Sheridan Wastewater Treatment Plant, WY0020010 (POTW, Major)
Program Strengths
Based on discussions with WDEQ during the PQR, Wyoming indicated that nutrient monitoring
is required for all major POTWs, and in all Boysen Reservoir Basin WYPDES permits upon
renewal (regardless of discharge type or volume). Additional permits around the state could
also receive nutrient monitoring if nutrients are a pollutant of concern or the facility is
discharging to an impaired water or TMDL-affected water. WDEQ was not conducting
reasonable potential analysis for facilities discharging nutrients and no nutrients limits were
included in permits.
All permits with nutrient monitoring could be found by querying the parameters in WDEQ's
WYPDES eDMR system. In addition, any future permits that might need nutrient monitoring
would be tracked according to major POTW status, and facility location (e.g., inside Boysen
Reservoir Basin or not). All impaired and TMDL-affected waters in Wyoming were also tracked
by WYPDES. WDEQ also indicated that there were no TMDL' or impairments for nutrients
directly, except ammonia (which, as stated above, is not considered a nutrient for the purposes
of this review).
Final February 2022
Page 33 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Areas for Improvement
Based on the reviews, EPA identified the following areas for nutrients improvements:
Some permits included nutrient language, while others did not. For example, the Hudson
Wastewater Lagoon permit included the nutrient language: "NUTRIENT MONITORING FOR
BOYSEN RESERVOIR BASIN." Based on sampling in recent years, WDEQ had determined that
Boysen Reservoir is at risk for recurring blue-green algae blooms. The reservoir was used as a
public drinking water supply and was popular for immersion-based and other recreational
activities. Blue-green algae blooms were caused by heavy loads of nutrients into a waterbody,
and could be a public health threat. Therefore, in order to identify potential contributions of
nutrients to the reservoir from point source discharges, WDEQ was including nutrient
monitoring requirements for all WYPDES permitted facilities discharging upstream of Boysen
Reservoir. WDEQ was collecting nutrients data and planned to establish water quality standards
for nutrients in the future. Pursuant to Section 35-ll-110(a) of the Wyoming Environmental
Quality Act, this permit required routine monitoring for Total Nitrogen, Total Ammonia-
Nitrogen, Nitrate +Nitrite Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus and Orthophosphate-Phosphorus."
Additionally, the Torrington Wastewater Lagoon and Sheridan Wastewater Treatment Plant
permits included the following nutrient language: "WY requires routine monitoring for Total
Nitrogen, Total Ammonia-Nitrogen, Nitrate +Nitrite Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus and
Orthophosphate-Phosphorus for Major POTWs Permits. As part of an effort to address negative
impacts of nutrient pollution (i.e., excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus) to
Wyoming's surface waters, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality
Division (WDEQ/WQD) and the Wyoming Nutrient Work Group developed the Wyoming
Nutrient Strategy (strategy). The following website provides more details about the strategy."
https://deq.wvoming.gov/water-qualitv/watershed-protection/surface-water-qualitv-
standards/nutrient-pollution/
However, EPA did not find any similar nutrient language in the Buffalo Wastewater Treatment
Plant, City of Laramie Wastewater Treatment Plant or Jackson Wastewater Lagoon permits.
Additionally, these permit applications did not provide the results of nutrient (e.g., phosphorus
and nitrogen) monitoring. All of these facilities were POTWs with flow of 0.1 MGD or more and
Appendix E of the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water
Quality, Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective
3/23/2015, includes application requirements for POTW applications and states, "Unless
otherwise indicated, all applicants with a design flow greater than or equal to 0.1 MGD must
sample and analyze for the pollutants listed in Table E2."
Final February 2022
Page 34 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Table 1:2 Diluent Parameter* for Selected 1
PO'IWS t
Ammonia (as \!
(Itlorine (total residual. I R(')
Dissolved oxygen
Nitrate Nitrite
Kjeklahl nitrogen
Oil and yrease
Phosphorus 1
_1 otal dissolved solids I
Since this information was required to be submitted in POTW applications, the data or a note to
file waiving any application requirements that are not required to be submitted needed to be
documented in the permit files as part of the application completeness review.
Upon review, the City of Laramie Wastewater Treatment Plant (WY0022209) and Jackson
Wastewater Lagoon (WY0021458) permits did not contain consistent nutrient monitoring
requirements, despite being similar major POTW facility types (e.g., Jackson does not have
orthophosphate phosphate monitoring but Laramie does; Laramie does not have TKN
monitoring but Jackson does). The statements of basis did not contain any justification or
rationale for the selection of the differing nutrient monitoring requirements. In order to ensure
consistent implementation in WYPDES permits, EPA recommended that a standard list of
nutrient monitoring requirements be developed for similar facility categories (e.g., POTWs,
Boysen Reservoir Basin permits, etc.) that supported the goals/initiatives of the Wyoming
nutrient strategy.
The Holly Frontier Cheyenne Refinery (WY0000442) permit indicated that the Holly Frontier
Refinery used phosphate-based chemicals for their operation (permit application indicated
phosphorus concentration as high as 5.3 mg/L) that may have resulted in a significant nutrient
contribution in the discharge. However, the permit did not include nutrient monitoring
requirements. Therefore, EPA recommended that nutrient monitoring be included for non-
POTW facilities with the potential to be significant nutrient contributors. The monitoring data
could then be used to determine reasonable potential to develop limitations in future permits,
to support the goals/initiatives of the Wyoming nutrient strategy.
Action Items
Final February 2022
Page 35 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Essential
•WDEQ must ensure that the permit applications provide the results of
nutrient (e.g., phosphorus and nitrogen) monitoring, or a note to the
file waiving the requirement, as per the application requirements in
Appendix E of the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental
Quality, Dept of Water Quality, Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for
Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015.
•EPA recommended that a standard list of nutrient monitoring
requirements be developed for similar facility categories (e.g.,
POTWs, Boysen Reservoir Basin permits, etc.), that supported the
goals/initiatives of the Wyoming nutrient strategy.
•EPA recommended that nutrient monitoring be included for non-
POTW facilities with the potential to be significant nutrient
contributors, such as facilities that use or produce nutrients in
facility processes. The monitoring data could then be used to
determine reasonable potential to develop limitations in future
permits, to support the goals/initiatives of the Wyoming nutrient
strategy.
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor
Contributions
The general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403) established responsibilities of federal, state,
and local government, industry, and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control
pollutants from industrial users which may cause pass through or interfere with POTW
treatment processes or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
Background
The PQR national topic area Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Programs with Food Processor
Contributions evaluated successful and unique practices with respect to food processor
industrial users (lUs) by evaluating whether appropriate controls are included in the receiving
POTW's NPDES permit and documented in the NPDES permit fact sheet or statement of basis.
This topic area aligned with the EPA Office of Enforcement Compliance and Assurance National
Compliance Initiative, Reducing Significant Noncompliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permits by gathering information that can be used to provide permit writers
with tools to maintain or improve POTW and IU compliance with respect to conventional
pollutants and nutrients.
The food processing sector manufactured edible foodstuffs such as dairy, meat, vegetables,
baked goods, and grains from raw animal, vegetable, and marine material. The main
constituents of food processing wastewaters were conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen
demand [BOD], total suspended solids [TSS], oil and grease [O&G], pH, and bacteria) and non-
conventional pollutants (such as phosphorus and ammonia). These pollutants were compatible
Final February 2022
Page 36 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
with POTW treatment systems. However, POTWs may not be designed or equipped to treat the
intermittent or high pollutant loadings that can result from food processing indirect discharges.
The General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1) required POTWs with approved
pretreatment programs to continue to develop and apply local limits (LLs) as necessary to
control any pollutant that can reasonably be discharged into the POTW by an IU in sufficient
amounts to pass through or interfere with the treatment works, contaminate its sludge, cause
problems in the collection system, or jeopardize workers. POTWs that do not have approved
pretreatment programs may also have been required to develop specific LLs as circumstances
warrant (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)(2)). LLs and other site-specific requirements were enforced by the
POTW through IU control mechanisms.
The General Pretreatment Regulations required an Approval Authority to ensure that all
substantive parts of the POTW's pretreatment program are fully established and implemented,
including control mechanisms a POTW issued to its lUs to reduce pollutants in the indirect
discharge (see 40 CFR 403.11). WDEQ had the authority to issue NPDES permits to POTWs;
however, Wyoming was not delegated to implement the pretreatment program. Therefore,
EPA Region 8 was the Approval Authority for Wyoming POTWs.
Table 1 identifies the pretreatment and NPDES requirements considered during this PQR. In this
table, the terms Director and Permitting Authority referred to EPA Region 8. The term Control
Authority referred to the two POTWs with approved pretreatment programs (City of Laramie
and Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities) or to EPA Region 8 for the two POTWs without
approved pretreatment programs (City of Buffalo and Town of Hudson).
Table 1. Regulatory Focus for this Section of the PQR
Citation
Description
40 CFR 122.42(b)
POTW requirements to provide adequate notice of new pollutants to the Director
40 CFR 122.44(j)
Pretreatment Programs for POTW
40 CFR 124.3(a)
and (c)
The POTW must submit a timely and completed application for an NPDES permit or
NPDES permit renewal
40 CFR 124.8(a)
and (b)
The permitting authority must prepare a fact sheet for every draft permit for a major
NPDES facility. Fact sheets must briefly set forth the principal facts and the
significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in
preparing the draft permit including references.
40 CFR 403.5(a),
(b) and (c)
National pretreatment standards: Prohibited discharges
40 CFR 403.3
Definitions
40 CFR 403.8
Pretreatment program requirements: Development and implementation by POTW
40 CFR 403.10
Development and submission of NPDES state pretreatment programs
40CFR403.il
Approval procedures for POTW pretreatment programs and POTW granting of
removal credits
Final February 2022
Page 37 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
40 CFR 403.12
Annual POTW reports
Program Strengths
As shown in Table 2, Wyoming had six approved pretreatment programs overseen by EPA
Region 8. There were 22 significant industrial users (SlUs) in approved programs in Wyoming, 3
of which are categorical industrial users (ClUs). EPA Region 8 permitted one indirect discharger,
a nonsignificant categorical industrial user (NSCIU), in a non-approved POTW. The NSCIU
permitted by EPA Region 8 was a metal finisher that discharged less than 100 gallons per day of
process wastewater (permit No. WYPF00101). "Non-approved POTWs" or "non-approved
program" in this section referred to POTWs that did not have approved pretreatment
programs. Because Wyoming did not have pretreatment program authority, Region 8 was the
control authority of the lUs in these non-approved POTWs.
Also shown in Table 2, six of the seven POTWs in Wyoming, or approximately 86 percent of all
NPDES-permitted POTWs receiving indirect discharges from one or more SlUs, had approved
programs.
Table 2. Wyoming I Us by Pretreatment Program Status
IU Description
Number of SIU(s) Controlled by
an Approved Pretreatment
Program (6 POTWs)1
Number of SIU(s) Controlled by
the Approval Authority in Non-
approved Programs1
Total
CIU
3
V
4
Non-CIU
19
0
19
Total SIU
22
1
23
1 Data source: EPA Region 8 email communication on September 27, 2021 and subsequent phone conversations.
2 NSCIU permitted by EPA Region 8.
Wyoming DEQ Permitting Process - Pretreatment
Wyoming DEQ had been delegated authority to issue NPDES permits directly to POTWs in
Wyoming. EPA Region 8 was the Approval Authority for Wyoming POTWs with respect to the
pretreatment program. EPA Region 8 provided general program oversight and implemented the
pretreatment program to ensure that program elements such as annual pretreatment program
reports and program modifications, such as local limits and updates to municipal ordinances,
were submitted as required by the NPDES permit. According to the Region 8 Pretreatment
Coordinator, the permitting group and Pretreatment Coordinator did not coordinate during the
initial development of the NPDES permit. The Pretreatment Coordinator reviewed the draft
NPDES permit and determined whether a POTW needed to develop a pretreatment program. If
so, the POTW permit was modified to include appropriate pretreatment permit requirements.
It was recommended that the permit writer and Pretreatment Coordinator coordinate during
Final February 2022
Page 38 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
the entire permitting process to ensure appropriate pretreatment language is captured in the
NPDES permit.
According to the Pretreatment Coordinator, he did not review NPDES permit applications but
did review the permit fact sheets to determine whether the permit writer appropriately
evaluated industrial contributions for the reasonable potential analysis. The EPA Region 8
Pretreatment Coordinator identified SlUs in POTWs without approved ("non-approved")
pretreatment programs on an ongoing basis. EPA reviewed service areas of non-approved
programs. If a CIU was found, EPA would notify the IU of its requirements and would oversee
the IU accordingly through administrative orders or through notices of discharge requirements.
If a non-categorical SIU was identified, EPA would have required the POTW to develop an
approved pretreatment program. The Pretreatment Coordinator also evaluated whether the
justification for requiring or not requiring a pretreatment program was appropriate.
IU Permits Reviewed
As part of the PQR, EPA reviewed two permits for POTWs with approved pretreatment
programs and two permits for non-approved POTWs. Permits for POTWs with approved
programs were reviewed to determine whether they met all requirements in Table 1. The
permits for non-approved programs were reviewed to determine whether they comply with
POTW requirements to notify the Director of changes in influent and effluent and requirements
to identify any SlUs at 40 CFR 122.42(b) and 40 CFR 122.44(j)(l).
EPA Region 8 selected the four POTWs to be reviewed based on the potential for food
processing facility dischargers; however, no food processing SlUs were found and there was no
information available on non-SIU food processing facilities. Because the overall focus of recent
PQRs had been on the impacts of food processing facilities on POTWs, this PQR highlighted the
POTWs' NPDES permit conditions and whether they were protective of the POTW if food
processing wastes would be received.
Table 3 identifies the four NPDES permits selected for review, as well as the types of controls
for lUs established in the respective municipal sewer use ordinances (SUOs). The table identifies
LLs if established for conventional pollutants, nutrients, and other pollutants of concern. An
SUO for one of the non-approved POTWs (Town of Hudson) was not available online. SUOs
reviewed for the two POTWs with approved pretreatment programs contained controls on
some conventional pollutants. The SUO for Laramie contained LLs for pH, and surcharges for
BOD and TSS. The Cheyenne - Crow Creek SUO included LLs for, BOD, TSS and oil and grease
(vegetable). The design flow among these four POTWs ranged from 1.8 MGD to 6.5 MGD. There
was no design flow available for the Town of Hudson (the population is 458).
Final February 2022
Page 39 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Table 3. NPDES Permits Selected for the Pretreatment Topic Area
Permittee
Permit No.
Approved
Pretreatment
Program?
Design
Flow
(MGD)
No. of
SlUs1
No.of Food
Processors1
Example of SUO
Controls
Citv of Laramie
WY0022209
Yes
6
5
0
LLs for pH, As, Cd,
Cr(T), Cr(lll), Cr(VI),
Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se,
Ag, Zn, BTEX, TPH.
Surcharge for BOD
and TSS.
Chevenne Board
of Public Utilities
- Crow Creek2
WY0022381
Yes
6.5
7
0
LLs (lbs/day) for As,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo,
Ni, Se, Ag, Zn, BOD,
TSS, LL (mg/L) for
Benzene, BTEX, TPH,
Total Fats, Oils,
Grease (vegetable)
Citv of Buffalo
WY0021024
No
1.8
0
0
No local limits in SUO
Town of Hudson
WY0020664
No
N/A3
0
0
SUO not available
1 Based on the information provided in the annual report or permit application.
2 Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities local limits resolution
https://www. chevennebopu.org/files/assets/bopu/user-resources-division-documents/water-
reclamation/industrial-pretreatment-program-ipp/loca l-limits-resolution-2014-12.pdf
3 Not available in the NPDES permit, fact sheet, or application
Table 4 presents discharge permit conditions in the NPDES permits for the POTWs reviewed.
The table presents limits and monitoring frequencies for total phosphorus, ammonia, BOD, TSS,
and oil and grease. These parameters were the main constituents of food processing
wastewater and were the focus of recent PQRs (although, as stated above, food processor IU
information is not available for this PQR).
Table 4. POTW NPDES Discharge Permit Conditions
POTW
Pollutant Monitoring Frequency and Limit1
Total P
Ammonia
BOD
TSS
O&G
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
City of
Quarterly
N/A
Weekly
1.05-
Weekly
30 mg/L
Weekly
30 mg/L
Weekly
10
Laramie
3.76 mg/L
MA
MA
mg/L
MA2
DM
45 mg/L
45 mg/L
2.72-
WA
WA
7.14 mg/L
DM2
90 mg/L
90 mg/L
DM
DM
Final February 2022
Page 40 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Pollutant Monitoring Frequency and Limit1
POTW
Total P
Ammonia
BOD
TSS
O&G
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
frequency
limit
>85%
>85%
removal
removal
Cheyenne
N/A
N/A
2/week
May -
CBOD3
CBOD3
2/week
30 mg/L,
Annually
10
Board of
Sept: 2.7
25mg/L,
MA
mg/L
Public
mg/L MA,
MA
DM
Utilities -
21.14
45 mg/L,
Crow Creek
mg/L DM
40mg/L
WA
WA,
Nov-
80 mg/L,
Apr: 4.59
80mg/L,D
DM
mg/L MA,
M
26.88
mg/L DM
City of
N/A
N/A
2/month
Apr -Sept
2/month
30 mg/L
2/month
30 mg/L
N/A
N/A
Buffalo
1.79 mg/L
MA
MA
MA,
3.83 mg/L
45 mg/L
45 mg/L
DM
WA
WA
Oct - Mar
90 mg/L
90 mg/L
1.26 mg/l
DM
DM
MA,
3.83 mg/L
>85%
>85%
DM
removal
removal
Town of
Quarterly
N/A
Quarterly
N/A
Monthly
30 mg/L
Monthly
100 mg/L
N/A
N/A
Hudson
MA
MA
45 mg/L
150 mg/L
WA
WA
90 mg/L
300 mg/L
DM
DM
>65%
removal
1 Not applicable is abbreviated N/A, daily maximum is abbreviated DM, weekly average is abbreviated WA, monthly average is
abbreviated MA.
2The permit for Laramie has different limits for each month. This is the range.
3 CBOD can be substituted for BOD. See 40 CFR 133.102(a)(4).
IU Permits Reviewed for PQR
No IU permits were reviewed for this PQR. EPA determined that there were no SIU food
processors discharging to the POTWs studied for this PQR and that there was no
documentation (e.g., control mechanism, fact sheet) available for any food processing lUs.
Final February 2022
Page 41 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Strengths
All Programs
All POTW permits reviewed required notification and impact assessment of significant changes
in industrial flow or character in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42(b). This helped to ensure that
the POTWs were able to adjust as needed to potential changes in discharges from food
processors, and other Ills, to prevent disruption to the POTW operations.
Approved Programs
The Laramie and Cheyenne - Crow Creek NPDES permits incorporated all pretreatment
requirements by stating that the permittees must operate a POTW pretreatment program in
accordance with the federal General Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 and the
approved pretreatment program and any approved modifications.
Both permits contained requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(j)(2)(ii) that required a written technical
evaluation of the need to revise local limits following permit issuance or reissuance and
included due dates for submissions.
Both permits reviewed with approved programs contain appropriate limits consistent with
secondary treatment standards in 40 CFR 133.102 for BOD, TSS, and pH and required not less
than 85% removal of BOD and TSS. In fact, they exceeded secondary treatment standards in
that they also included a daily maximum of 90 mg/L for BOD and TSS.
The Laramie NPDES permit contained limits for the following pollutants of concern for food
processors: pH, ammonia, BOD, TSS, O&G; and contained monitoring only requirements for
phosphorus. Furthermore, the Laramie SUO included a LL for pH and surcharge levels for BOD
and TSS.
The Cheyenne - Crow Creek permit contained limits for pH, CBOD, TSS, ammonia, and O&G.
The permit contains monitoring-only requirements for total nitrogen, nitrites/nitrates, Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The POTW's SUO included limits for, BOD, TSS, and
Total Fats, Oils, and Grease (vegetable).
Non-Approved Programs
The Buffalo permit contained appropriate limits consistent with secondary treatment standards
in 40 CFR 133.102 for BOD, TSS, and pH and required not less than 85% removal of BOD and
TSS. The Buffalo permit also contained a daily maximum limit of 90 mg/L for BOD and TSS,
which exceeded secondary standards. The City of Buffalo's permit also contained seasonal
limits for ammonia.
The Town of Hudson permit contain quarterly monitoring-only requirements for ammonia, total
nitrogen, nitrites/nitrates, and phosphorus. The Buffalo permit requires annual monitoring-only
for nitrites/nitrates, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, oil and grease, and total phosphorus.
Final February 2022
Page 42 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
The Hudson and Buffalo permits state that the permits could be amended to require a
pretreatment program and discussed what would be required for development of a
pretreatment program.
Areas for Improvemen t
All Programs
None of the fact sheets stated whether a pretreatment program was required. It was noted
that the permits for the POTWs with approved programs stated that a program was required
and the permits for non-approved programs stated that a program could be required, if
determined to be necessary. However, the fact sheets should have explicitly stated whether a
pretreatment program was required, or not.
The fact sheets did not mention whether hauled waste was accepted at the POTWs. Permit fact
sheets should specify whether the POTW accepted hauled waste and provided more
information on hauled waste types, volumes, discharge locations, and whether hauled waste
contributions were included in the reasonable potential analysis. Permit writers should have
considered including POTW organic capacity and identified and characterized contributing
hauled waste in the NPDES permit fact sheet.
Although all of the POTW NPDES permits reviewed required dischargers to meet the
notification requirements of 40 CFR 122.42(b), none of the permits identified the timeframe for
"adequate" notice under 40 CFR 122.42(b). It was recommended that permit writers included a
timeframe for notification of any new introduction of pollutants and substantial changes in the
volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW.
Approved Pretreatment Programs
The Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Application for Permit to Discharge From
Sewage Treatment Facilities was not consistent with EPA Form 2A and did not request specific
information on lUs. The application form simply asked "Does the treatment works have, or is it
subject to, an approved pretreatment program? Yes/No" and "Provide the number of SlUs and
ClUs that discharge to the treatment works." This did not meet the requirements at 40 CFR
122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii) which specify the following information that applicants must provide
about industrial discharges:
(i) Number of significant industrial users (SlUs) and non-significant categorical industrial
users (NSCIUs), as defined at 40 CFR 403.3(v), including SlUs and NSCIUs that truck or haul
waste, discharging to the POTW; and
(ii) POTWs with one or more SlUs shall provide the following information for each SIU, as
defined at 40 CFR 403.3(v), that discharges to the POTW:
(A) Name and mailing address;
Final February 2022
Page 43 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
(B) Description of all industrial processes that affect or contribute to the SlU's discharge;
(C) Principal products and raw materials of the SIU that affect or contribute to the SlU's
discharge;
(D) Average daily volume of wastewater discharged, indicating the amount attributable
to process flow and non-process flow;
(E) Whether the SIU is subject to local limits;
(F) Whether the SIU is subject to categorical standards, and if so, under which
category(ies) and subcategory(ies); and
(G) Whether any problems at the POTW (e.g., upsets, pass through, interference) have
been attributed to the SIU in the past four and one-half years.
Permit writers must ensure that the NPDES permit application included a description of all lUs,
identifies any applicable categorical classification, and included all IU information required at 40
CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii). Industrial user impacts should be reviewed with respect to POTW
organic capacity to ensure that POTWs did not accept excess loading.
The fact sheets did not provide sufficient detail about IU discharge characteristics or discuss
how specific industrial contributions were considered in the reasonable potential analysis. Both
fact sheets stated that industrial contributions were considered in the reasonable potential
analysis. Cheyenne fact sheet stated, "based on pretreatment sample results and reasonable
potential analyses, the following are also constituents of concern for which there are effluent
limits and monitoring requirements: selenium, copper, and cadmium." Under Industrial
Pretreatment Provisions, the fact sheet for Laramie stated that "Water quality analyses
performed at the facility during the previous permit term have been reviewed and reasonable
potential analyses calculated for effluent constituents having concentrations greater than non-
detect. Reasonable potential to exceed Wyoming's Water Quality Standards in the receiving
stream does not exist for any of these constituents." Permit writers should have ensured that
fact sheets for POTWs with pretreatment programs described industrial users in more detail
and specified whether the reasonable potential analysis included analysis of pollutants common
for the types of industries discharging to the POTW.
The fact sheets for Laramie and Cheyenne - Crow Creek did not specify the basis for requiring
the POTW to implement a pretreatment program. It was noted that the permits stated that the
industrial pretreatment requirements "are intended to ensure that industrial discharges to the
plant do not cause an upset of the system or violation of the effluent limits that are established
in the permit." This language in the permits was a general statement applicable to any POTW,
and the permits did not state why each particular POTW was required to have a program (e.g.,
presence of CIU discharges, exceedances of NPDES limits attributed to industrial discharges).
Inclusion of this information in the POTW NPDES permit fact sheets was important for
documenting the rationale for POTW's monitoring and sampling requirements. Fact sheets
should have specified the basis and rationale for requiring a pretreatment program. See 40 CFR
403.8(a) for the criteria. The fact sheets did not identify and characterize the contributing
Final February 2022
Page 44 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
industrial dischargers. Permit writers should have considered including POTW organic capacity
and identified and characterized contributing industrial discharges in the NPDES permit fact
sheet.
The fact sheets did not have program approval dates or modification dates. The permits
reviewed identified the pretreatment program approval dates; however, they did not include
any program modification dates. It was recommended that the permit writer specify the
modification dates, if applicable, in permits and fact sheets, as a means of determining whether
the program included current federal regulations.
Action Items
Essential
•Permit writers must ensure that the NPDES permit application included
all IU information required at 40 CFR 122.21(j)(6)(i) and (ii).
•Permit writers and pretreatment staff should coordinate during the
entire permitting process to ensure appropriate pretreatment
language was captured in the NPDES permit
•Permits writers should ensure that fact sheets stated whether a
pretreatment program was required to be developed and/or
approved program to be implemented, or not, and the basis for the
requirements of the permit
•Permit fact sheets should specify whether the POTW accepted hauled
waste and whether hauled waste contributions were included in the
reasonable potential analysis.
•Permit writers should include a timeframe (define "adequate") for
notification of any new introduction of pollutants and substantial
changes in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced
into that POTW.
• Permit writers should ensure that fact sheets for POTWs with
pretreatment programs described industrial users in more detail and
specified whether the reasonable potential analysis included analysis
of pollutants common for the types of industries discharging to the
POTW.
•Permit writers should specify the modification dates of pretreatment
programs, when applicable, in fact sheets and permits.
Final February 2022
Page 45 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
Requirements
Background
EPA updated the small MS4 permitting regulations in 2016 to clarify: (1) the procedures to be
used when coverage is by general permits (see 40 CFR 122.28(d)); (2) the requirement that the
permit establish the terms and conditions necessary to meet the MS4 permit standard (i.e., "to
reduce the discharge of pollutants from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to
protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean
Water Act"), including conditions to address the minimum control measures, reporting, and, as
appropriate, water quality requirements (see 40 CFR 122.34(a) and (b)); and (3) the
requirement that permit terms must be established in a "clear, specific, and measurable"
manner (see 40 CFR 122.34(a)). EPA did not evaluate the Small MS4 Permit Requirements
during the PQR as WDEQ had not updated its Phase II MS4 general permit since the MS4
Remand Rule was finalized. The Phase II MS4 general permit had been administratively
extended since it expired on September 30, 2013. Therefore, no review could be conducted on
WDEQ's Phase II MS4 general permit.
Program Strengths
Not evaluated. EPA did not evaluate the Small MS4 Permit Requirements during the PQR as
WDEQ had not updated its Phase II MS4 general permit since the MS4 Remand Rule was
finalized. The Phase II MS4 general permit had been administratively extended since it expired
on September 30, 2013. Therefore, no review could be conducted on WDEQ's Phase II MS4
general permit.
Areas for Improvement
WDEQ needed to update the Phase II MS4 general permit to meet the requirements of the MS4
Remand Rule.
Action Items
Essential
•WDEQ needed to update the Phase II MS4 general permit, which had
been administratively extended since 2013, to meet the
requirements of the EPA's 2016 MS4 Remand Rule (see 40 CFR
122.28(d)), 40 CFR 122.34(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 122.34(a)). This
is a repeat Essential Action Item from the 2013 PQR review.
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended items for this PQR
component
Final February 2022
Page 46 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
A. Whole Effluent Toxicity
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) was a term used to describe the aggregate toxic effect of an
aqueous sample (e.g., effluent wastewater discharge) as measured by an organism's response,
upon exposure, to the sample (e.g., lethality, impaired growth or reproduction). WET tests
replicated the total effect and environmental exposure of aquatic life to toxic pollutants in an
effluent without requiring the identification of the specific pollutants. WET testing was a vital
component of water quality standards implementation through the NPDES permitting process
and supported meeting the goal of the CWA (Section 402) to "...maintain the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the nation's waters."
WET tests were designed to predict the impact and toxicity of effluent discharges from point
sources into waters of the U.S. WET limits developed by permitting authorities were included in
NPDES permits to ensure that the state or tribal water quality criteria for aquatic life protection
(e.g., WET) were met. WET monitoring requirements that were representative of the discharge
effluent (40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(ii)) were included in NPDES permits to generate WET data used to
determine whether RP for WET had been demonstrated. If RP had been demonstrated, then a
WET limit must be included in the permit (40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(iv) and (v)). WET test results are
also used in determining compliance with NPDES WET permit limits.
Background
WDEQ implemented the WET program through its WYPDES permits. At the time of the previous
2013 PQR, it appeared that a "WYPDES Process for Conducting a Reasonable Potential Analysis"
document was used to determine the need for WET limits and provided guidance to permit
writers to evaluate effluent toxicity, major/minor status, existence of a pretreatment program,
WET data, and RPA for WET on a case-by-case basis. However, during the 2021 PQR, there was
no indication that the document was still being utilized or that WDEQ had a written procedure
for conducting RPA for WET. There was also no documented procedure to determine WET
requirements (e.g., chronic vs. acute testing needed) and the standard practice was to generally
assume that continuous dischargers had a chronic effect (i.e., received chronic testing permit
requirements) and periodic dischargers had an acute affect (i.e., received acute testing
requirements). Additionally, discharges to Class 3 waters were typically only considered as
candidates for chronic permit requirements, regardless of discharge frequency.
At the time of the 2021 PQR, less than one full-time employee (FTE) was dedicated to fulfilling
the WET Coordinator role and permit writers typically referenced available EPA WET training
and EPA Freshwater WET Methods to implement WET in WYPDES permits. When asked during
the 2021 PQR, WDEQ did not identify any specific difficulties or concerns encountered with
WET implementation or any additional assistance/support from EPA that was needed for
WYPDES WET program implementation.
During the 2021 PQR, permit and fact sheet/statement of basis reviews were performed for the
following "major" facilities to evaluate WET implementation, monitoring and limitations based
on the WYPDES general procedures and 40 CFR 122.44(d) regulations, and boilerplate language:
Final February 2022
Page 47 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
1. Holly Frontier Cheyenne Refining LLC (WY0000442)
2. Crow Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WY0022381)
3. Dry Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WY0022934)
4. Big Eagle Mine (WY0025950)
5. Buffalo Wastewater Treatment (WY0021024)
6. Sheridan Wastewater Treatment (WY0020010)
7. Torrington Wastewater Lagoon (WY0020231)
8. Jackson Wastewater Lagoon (WY0021458)
9. Laramie Wastewater Treatment (WY0022209)
Of the nine permits, two required acute WET testing only, five required chronic WET testing
only and one required both chronic and acute WET testing. One (Buffalo Wastewater
Treatment) had no requirement for WET testing and four permit files (Crow Creek Water
Reclamation Facility, Dry Creek Reclamation Facility, Jackson Wastewater Lagoon and Laramie
Wastewater Treatment) contained permits with minor modifications to utilize a permit
provision allowing for testing of alternating species, contingent on passing five WET tests during
the permit term. This provision was implemented to allow for sample reduction for permittees
upon successful completion of passing samples; however, it was unclear what justification and
basis was used to allow for the use and approval of alternating species.
When implementing WET in discharge permits, WDEQ indicated that two categories of
permittees automatically received WET limits: major municipals (i.e., POTWs over 1 MGD) and
coal bed methane facilities. Coal bed methane facilities (e.g., dischargers of produced water
from the Big George coal formation as defined by geographic boundary within the Powder River
Basin) were generally determined to have reasonable potential for WET permit limits based on
a WDEQ-initiated study of produced waters in the early 2000s. Permits that did not fall into
these main two categories (i.e., major POTWs and coal bed methane facilities) could be
evaluated for potential toxic effects on a case-by-case basis using available information (e.g.,
WET screening). However, WDEQ indicated that renewal permits outside of the two main
categories were generally assumed not to have a WET effect if they did not have previous WET
requirements or limitations, and a demonstration of WET RPA for renewal permits without
preexisting permit requirements was not generally performed.
WDEQ indicated that RPA documentation was typically not provided to demonstrate
consideration of a potential pollutant that ultimately did not receive a limit (i.e., to justify
exclusion from the permit). Permit fact sheets/statements of basis only discussed WET
reasonable potential if the result of an RPA provided a baring on the permit (e.g., to add or
drop an existing effluent limit). Therefore, in cases where RPA documentation was available, it
was only for parameters with "cause" that had already been established; not necessarily for
determining the "potential" of parameters to cause or contribute to excursions of WDEQ
standards. In general, however, EPA found that documentation of WET RPAs was limited and
not always available in the permit file or fact sheet/statement of basis statement of basis even
for those pollutants with a permitted effluent limit.
When information was needed to determine reasonable potential, a common practice for
industrial permits (e.g., minor oil treater facilities using treatment chemicals) was to implement
Final February 2022
Page 48 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
a one-time WET screening test requirement through the WYPDES permits. The WET screening
was required within 6 months of the renewal being active and inclusion of permitted WET
requirements and limits was contingent on the WET screening results. If the facility did not pass
the WET screening test(s), the facility's permit would be modified within the current permitting
cycle to include WET limitations and requirements.
Program Strengths
Based on the previous 2013 PQR, the WYPDES program has had a noted increase of WET
implementation in its permits over the years. Additionally, WDEQ implements standard
boilerplate language across WYPDES permits which helps to ensure consist implementation of
WET requirements and includes special condition language for Toxicity Identification
Evaluation/Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TIE/TRE) requirements and reopener provisions.
Areas for Improvement
During the PQR, WDEQ indicated that all "major" POTW permits were assumed to have
reasonable potential for WET and included WET limits and monitoring requirements. However,
the permit for the Buffalo Wastewater Treatment Facility (WY0021024) did not contain WET
requirements or limitations. Based on the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental
Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming
Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015, "a Major facility means: (A) For municipal wastewater
treatment facilities, 1) those facilities with design flows greater than one million gallons per day
or with an approved industrial pretreatment program and 2) which have been designated by
the director and Regional Administrator of the EPA as a major facility." The Buffalo Wastewater
Treatment Facility had a design flow of 1.8 MGD based on its permit application and met the
definition of a "major" facility as defined above.
For the "major" permits reviewed during the 2021 PQR, application documents did not provide
the results of WET tests (i.e., for at least 4 quarters or 4 years of annual data). WDEQ indicated
that they do not require WET data submission with permit applications since data was typically
accessed from the WDEQ DMR database. However, since the information was required to be
submitted in the application by 40 CFR 122.21 (j)(5) and Appendix E(a)(iii) and (a)(vii)(C) of the
Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit
Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015, the data, a note to
file waiving any application requirements, or an indication by the applicant in the application
itself that such data has already been previously submitted to WDEQ (i.e., DMR data), must be
documented in the permit file as part of the application completeness review.
During the 2021 PQR, WDEQ indicated that each permit writer determined the need for WET
requirements and limitations in assigned permits. However, similar to observations in the
previous 2013 PQR, the permits containing WET limitations and requirements did not provide
clear information or RPA in the fact sheet/statement of basis for the assessments used to
determine selection of WET requirements or the type of testing (i.e., chronic vs. acute) required
in the permits. Additionally, WET implementation of chronic vs. acute testing requirements did
not appear to be consistent throughout the permits, based on the types of facilities and
justifications (when available), as provided below:
Final February 2022
Page 49 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• Two permits (Holly Frontier Cheyenne Refining LLC and Big Eagle Mine) provided the
same justification for the decision to select chronic vs. acute requirement(s) (i.e., the
facilities were "considered by the U.S. EPA as a "major" discharger"). However, each
permit implemented the requirements differently. One permit applied both chronic and
acute requirements and the other applied acute only requirements. Additionally, it was
unclear how and when this justification was applied since all nine of the aforementioned
permits reviewed for WET implementation during the 2021 PQR were considered
"major" facilities, but not all contained that justification, and many had different WET
testing requirements.
• For permits that applied chronic testing requirements, some permits (Crow Creek Water
Reclamation Facility and Dry Creek Reclamation Facility) required "no chronic toxicity"
because the calculated dilution factor for the facility was less than 100:1. However,
other permits utilized WLA calculations to determine specific concentrations at which
chronic testing would need to pass. There was no clear overall justification as to when
the WLA calculations were or were not considered when developing chronic testing
limits and whether all facilities with a calculated dilution of less than 100:1 were
required to be permitted with "no chronic toxicity" limits.
• Two permits (Torrington Wastewater Lagoon and Laramie Wastewater Treatment) had
previously required acute WET testing. However, they were subsequently switched back
to chronic WET testing in the renewal permits. There was no justification in the fact
sheets/statements of basis for the decision to remove acute testing or add chronic
testing.
• Two permits (Jackson Wastewater Lagoon and Big Eagle Mine) contained acute WET
testing requirements. However, one was justified based on "high dilution", but the
other was based on the facility being considered a "major" facility. Neither provided a
clear rationale for why the "high dilution" or "major" classification justified the acute
WET testing requirement. Additionally, another permit (Torrington Wastewater Lagoon)
implemented chronic WET testing requirements despite the facility having a very low
effluent dilution requirement for testing (e.g., 6% effluent), which would indicate a low
Instream Waste Concentration (IWC) and high level of dilution. It was unclear as to what
is considered "high dilution" for implementing acute vs. chronic WET testing
requirements.
As previously discussed, WDEQ indicated that there was no written procedure or policy for the
overall implementation of the WET program, to provide justifications or processes for how and
when WET was implemented in permits. To ensure that WET requirements are implemented
consistently, it was highly recommended that a general procedure or policy be developed and
utilized to provide guidance for the incorporation of WET into WYPDES permits. Additionally,
WET RPAs and decision-making used to determine WET limitations and acute and chronic
testing requirements, must be documented in the fact sheets/statement of basis as required by
40 CFR 122.44 (d) and 40 CFR 124.56.
Final February 2022
Page 50 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
At the time of the 2021 PQR, WDEQ included language in its permits which provided permittees
with the ability to request alternating species for sampling reduction. However, the alternating
species requirements specified in the permit would not require testing of both species (e.g.,
Ceriodaphnia dubia and fathead minnows) simultaneously to evaluate potential toxicity impacts
on either species during a given timeframe. EPA recommended that WDEQ utilize testing on
two species concurrently for all permitted facilities to help ensure that protections remain in
place for all sampled discharges, since the species utilized in WET testing are sensitive to
different parameters and the alternating species regimen did not provide complete information
on the WET impacts from the facilities functioning discharges. Barring the two species
recommendation, if WDEQ did opt to utilize only one species to reduce testing burden for
facilities, the most sensitive species must be chosen, justified, and utilized for facility-specific
WET testing to ensure alignment with the CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C) mandate for protecting
state WQS and NPDES reasonable potential regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.44(d)(l)(ii). This
included clear documentation that alternating the test species was not avoiding possible
toxicity by using a test species that was more tolerant of the discharged effluent being tested at
the time. Additionally, it was recommended that supplemental caveats to the species reduction
be included, such as requirements for the requesting facility to have no other compliance
issues, no uncontrolled industrial users, and consistent effluent quality.
During the evaluation of the procedure used for implementing alternating WET species, EPA
identified one permit file (Torrington Wastewater Lagoon) that contained a request (dated
2/16/2017) to use the alternating species provision but did not have documentation of
approval/denial or a minor modification to allow WET alternating species. Therefore, it was
unclear what the decision was for this request. Additionally, two permit files (Crow Creek Water
Reclamation Facility and Dry Creek Water Reclamation Facility) had minor modifications for this
provision but did not have documentation of a request made by the facility to use the
provision. When implementing the alternating WET species provision set forth in the permit,
WDEQ must ensure that documentation of the requests was maintained and that any decision-
making and justification regarding approvals/denials of the requests was provided in the fact
sheets/statement of basis as required by 40 CFR 124.56 with respect to effluent permit
conditions.
During the PQR permit reviews, some permits contained unclear or contradictory WET
conditions (i.e., did not provide clear requirements to achieve water quality standards as per 40
CFR 122.33(d) or discharge monitoring report requirements as per 40 CFR 122.41(l)(iii)(4)), as
follows:
• As mentioned previously, WYPDES permits (e.g. Crow Creek Water Reclamation Facility,
Dry Creek Water Reclamation Facility, Big Eagle Mine, Sheridan Wastewater Treatment,
Torrington Wastewater Lagoon, Jackson Wastewater Lagoon, and Laramie Wastewater
Treatment) contained boilerplate WET language regarding TIE/TRE conditions; however,
the language was unclear as to how "confirmation of continuance" of effluent toxicity
would be evaluated (e.g., are a specific number of follow-up tests required to determine
"continuation") and at what point would the requirement for a TIE/TRE be triggered.
Additionally, since the "confirmation of continuance" of effluent toxicity would be used
Final February 2022
Page 51 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
to determine the subsequent due date for the 45-day TIE/TRE plan, it was not clear how
the 45-day TIE/TRE plan due date would be determined since "confirmation of
continuance" was not well defined.
• Two permits were identified with inconsistent implementation of WET limitations
throughout the permits.
1) In the Laramie Wastewater Treatment (WY0022209) permit, WET limitations in
Table A for WET indicated a requirement of "Pass" for:
• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET), Chronic, May through September, IC25 at 81%
effluent
• Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET), Chronic, October through April, IC25 at 67%
effluent.
However, in Section D.l. of the permit, it was stated that "Chronic toxicity occurs
if, during a chronic toxicity test, the 25% inhibition concentration (IC25)
calculated on the basis of test organism survival, growth or reproduction, is
equal to 98% effluent for the summer recreation season or is equal to 94%
effluent for the winter recreation season." There was no justification or
calculations in the fact sheet/statement of basis for the determination of the
94% or 98% effluent values and they did not align with the limits set forth in
Table A.
2) In the Big Eagle Mine (WY0025950) permit, language for WET limitations and
requirements was included; however, actual requirements were not listed in the
permit's effluent limitation or monitoring tables. Additionally, there was a
provision that stated "no acute or chronic toxicity" but the permit only contained
language related to acute testing and limit requirements.
• The standard WET language in some of the permits (i.e., Crow Creek Water Reclamation
Facility, Dry Creek Water Reclamation Facility, Big Eagle Mine, Sheridan Wastewater
Treatment, Torrington Wastewater Lagoon, Jackson Wastewater Lagoon, and Laramie
Wastewater Treatment) had inconsistent reporting timeframes identified in different
sections of the permit (i.e., quarterly in the WET section vs. first half of the calendar
year or monthly in the Monitoring and Reporting section).
Similar to a previous 2013 PQR finding, where chronic WET testing was required in permits,
sampling requirements did not indicate the number of samples to be collected. Section
8.3.2. of the EPA's manual for Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms, Fourth Edition, October 2002
(EPA's WET methods manual) recommended, "When tests are conducted off-site, a
minimum of three samples are collected." It was recommended that, as applicable for
chronic WET testing, the number of samples be clearly incorporated into the monitoring
requirements to align with the number recommended by the EPA's WET methods manual.
Final February 2022
Page 52 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•WET requirements and limitations must be incorporated into the permit for
the Buffalo Wastewater Treatment "major" facility, to align with WDEQ
WYPDES permitting procedures (i.e., WDEQ had determined that all "major"
POTWs had been determined to have RP for WET).
•For "major" facility applications requiring WET data submission; data, a note to
the file waiving any application requirements, or an indication by the applicant
in the application itself that WET data had already been previously submitted
to WDEQ (i.e., DMR data), must be documented in the permit file as part of the
application completeness review (as required by 40 CFR 122.21 (j)(5) and
Appendix E(a)(iii) and (a)(vii)(C) of the Wyoming Administrative Rules
Environmental Quality, Dept of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations
for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015).
•WET RPAs and decision-making used to determine WET limitations,
alternating species approvals, and acute and chronic testing requirements
must be documented in the fact sheets/statement of basis, as required by 40
CFR 122.44 (d) and 40 CFR 124.56.
•WDEQ must correct the unclear/contradictory WET requirements and
language as was outlined in the section above (i.e., TIE/TRE unclear as to how
"confirmation of continuance" of effluent toxicity was determined; ensure
limitations and requirements for WET in the Laramie (WY0022209) and Big
Eagle Mine (WY0025950) permits were consistently implemented; and align
the standard WET language in the permits to ensure consistent reporting
timeframes). The permits must provide clear requirements for achieving water
quality standards, as per 40 CFR 122.33(d) and discharge monitoring
reporting, as per 40 CFR 122.41(l)(iii)(4).
•WDEQ should utilize testing on two species concurrently for all permitted
facilities to help ensure that protections remain in place for all sampled
discharges or, barring the two species recommendation if WDEQ did opt to
utilize only one species to reduce testing burden for facilities, the most
sensitive species must be chosen, justified, and utilized for facility-specific WET
testing to ensure alignment with the CWA Section 301(b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR
Part 122.44(d)(l)(ii). Additionally, it should be clearly documented that
alternating the test species was not avoiding possible toxicity by using a test
species that was more tolerant of the discharged effluent being tested at the
time.
•To ensure that WET requirements are implemented consistently, it was highly
recommended that a WPDES general procedure or policy be developed and
utilized to provide guidance for the incorporation of WET into WYPDES permits.
•If continuing to implement the species reduction WET provision, it was
recommended that supplemental caveats to the WET test species reduction (i.e.,
alternating WET test species) WET provision be included in permits, such as
requirements for the requesting facility to have no other compliance issues, no
uncontrolled industrial users, and consistent effluent quality.
•It was recommended that, as applicable for chronic WET testing the number of
samples be clearly incorporated into the monitoring requirements to align with
the number recommended by the EPA's WET methods manual.
Essential
Final February 2022
Page 53 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the main findings from the last PQR and provides a review of the status of the state's efforts in
addressing the action items identified during the last PQR, conducted August 19-21, 2013. As discussed previously, during the 2012-
2017 PQR cycle, EPA referred to action items that address deficiencies or noncompliance with respect to federal regulations as
"Category 1". EPA is now referring to these action items going forward, as Essential. In addition, previous PQR reports identified
recommendations to strengthen the state's program as either "Category 2" or "Category 3" action items. EPA consolidated these
two categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Table 5. Essential Action Items Identified During 2013 PQR
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status Update
Basic Facility
Information and
Permit Application
Wyoming must revise their permit applications where appropriate
to be consistent with the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.21. The
Sewage Treatment Facilities application shall be consistent with
the EPA Form 2A requirements. The Form G shall be consistent
with EPA Form 1 and 2C. (Category 1)
( Resolved ) WDEQ updated permit
applications.
Technology-based
Effluent Limitations
For facilities accepts off-site oilfield wastewater (produced water,
fracking flowback, etc.) for treatment and discharge, the State
shall apply the appropriate category for oil and gas extraction
wastewater. For example, The Red Desert Reclamation LLC. meets
the definition of a Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facility (40
CFR Part 437) which is any facility that treats (for disposal,
recycling or recovery of material) any hazardous or non-hazardous
industrial wastes, However, there are currently no effluent
guidelines available for this facility subcategory (oil and gas
extraction wastewater) in the existing CWT effluent guideline.
Therefore, EPA recommends that the State conduct a BPJ analysis
using the factors in 40 CFR 125.3 to determine the appropriate
technology-based effluent limitations. EPA no longer recommends
using the equivalent or comparable effluent guideline (e.g. in this
( Resolved ) WDEQ has made
requested changes.
Final February 2022
Page 54 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status Update
case 40 CFR Part 435) for facilities that do not have an applicable
effluent guideline. (Category 1)
Water Quality-
Based Effluent
Limitations
WY permits need to meet Section 402(o)(l) of the Clean Water Act
requirements that in the case of effluent limitations established
based on state water quality standards, a permit may not be
modified to contain effluent limitations which are less stringent
than the limitations in the previous permit. Also, Section 402(o)(3)
states that in no event shall a permit modification contain a less
stringent effluent limitation if the implementation of such
limitation will result in a violation of a water quality standard.
Wyoming did not address EPA's concern and finalized the major
modification with the removal of chloride limit to this permit (City
of Rock Springs, WY0022357). (Category 1)
( Resolved ) WDEQ added the
chloride limits for the renewal
permit and allowed a compliance
schedule.
Administrative
Process (including
public notice)
Wyoming's administrative record must consistently contain a
record of the all the comments received during the public notice
period. Wyoming must consistently provide a response to the
comments received during the public comment period in the final
permit. (Category 1)
(In progress ) This is a repeat
Essential Action Item in the 2021
PQR review.
Pretreatment
Region 8 needs to ensure that all of the state of Wyoming's
POTWs NPDES permits are current (Casper is expired) (Category 1).
( Resolved ) EPA Region 8 discusses
and tracks NPDES permit backlog
with the WDEQ to ensure POTW
NPDES permits are current.
Region 8 needs to ensure that permits for POTWs that are
required to have pretreatment programs (e.g.., Cheyenne) contain
all pretreatment program requirements (Category 1).
( Resolved ) EPA Region 8 reviews
public notice permits for EPA-
approved Pretreatment program to
ensure the Approved Pretreatment
Program requirements are
included.
Final February 2022
Page 55 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status Update
Region 8 needs to ensure that its permits for all POTWs include
standard condition requirements of 40 CFR 122.42(b) (Category 1).
( Resolved ) EPA Region 8 reviews a
representative number of permits
for non-approved Pretreatment
program to ensure the
requirements in 40 CFR 122.44(b).
Region 8 needs to ensure that all of its non-program POTW
permits include requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(j)(l) (Category 1).
( Resolved ) EPA Region 8 reviews a
representative number of permits
for non-approved Pretreatment
program to ensure the
requirements in 40 CFR
122.44(j)(l).
Region 8 needs to ensure that permits for all POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs contain requirements for
conducting local limits reevaluations as required at 40 CFR
122.44(j)(2)(ii) (Category 1).
( Resolved ) EPA Region 8 reviews
permits in Public Notice for EPA-
approved Pretreatment programs
to ensure the required local limit re-
evaluations are required, pursuant
to 40 CFR 122.44(j)(2)(iii).
Region 8 needs to ensure the POTWs with approved programs
have existing ERPs. The permits require the POTWs to develop,
implement and maintain ERPs. If the programs do not have
existing ERPs this is an enforcement action. If they do, the wording
in the permits should be changed to focus on implementing and
maintaining the ERP (Category 1).
( Resolved ) The WY Pretreatment
programs currently have ERPs and
this is evaluated during
Pretreatment Audits and PCIs
conducted by EPA.
Stormwater
The State of Wyoming's Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) general permit has not been reissued
since 2008. Wyoming is currently drafting this permit and
must prioritize the reissuance of the State's Small Phase II
MS4 General Permit. The reissued Small Phase II MS4
General Permit must include a numeric post-construction
standard."
(In progress ) State needs to
update the Phase IIMS4 general
permit to meet the requirements of
the MS4 Remand Rule.
Final February 2022
Page 56 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status Update
WET
Clearly describe and document permitting decisions in fact sheets
and administrative records of permits. Provide more information
in fact sheets on how; WET RP is determined, acute or chronic
requirements are selected, species modifications are approved,
and how testing reductions are calculated and approved.
(Category 1)
(In progress)
A similar action item was identified
in the 2021 PQR and has been
outlined in the "Action Items from
FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle" Tables, so
it will be carried forward.
WYPDES needs to clarify WET endpoint verbiage in chronic permits
correctly reflects that the test endpoints are independent
measures of "survival, growth or reproduction". (Category 1)
( Resolved )This action item has
been labeled as a "resolved"
essential action item even though
WDEQ has not adjusted the
language. Upon further review, this
item has been reconsidered as a
recommendation. WDEQ is still
encouraged to make this change
and it has been moved to the
Recommended Action Items from
Last PQR, Table 4 (below).
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the recommendations from the last PQR, conducted August 19-21, 2013, and notes any state
efforts to act on those recommendations. As discussed previously, during the 2012-2017 PQR cycle, EPA referred to action items
that are recommendations to strengthen the state's program as either "Category 2" or "Category 3" action items. EPA consolidated
these two categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Table 6. Recommended Action Items Identified During 2013 PQR
Final February 2022
Page 57 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status
Water Quality-
Based Effluent
Limitations
For all the permit files reviewed, the reasonable potential analysis
was not documented in the permit file. However, the permits
were issue prior to finalization of Wyoming RP policy. A record of
the reasonable potential analysis must be kept as part of the
permit file and a summary of the reasonable potential analysis
should be included in the Statement of Basis. (Category 2)
(In progress ) A similar item was
identified in the 2021 PQR and has
been outlined in the "Action Items
from FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle"
Tables, so it will be carried forward.
Wyoming has several TMDLs approved by EPA. Wyoming will
incorporate limits where appropriate as defined in the TMDL.
Since Wyoming has some finalized TMDLs, they need to develop a
process to utilize the TMDLs. Perhaps they could add a tab to the
Permit Quality Review Spreadsheet (Category 3).
( Resolved )
WYPDES Program should ensure permit files include complete
documentation of RP analyses. (Category 2).
(In progress ) A similar item was
identified in the 2021 PQR and has
been outlined in the "Action Items
from FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle"
Tables, so it will be carried forward.
Documentation
(including fact
sheet)
WYPDES Program could improve the quality of the SOB through a
clearer discussion of the application of BPJ on a case-by-case basis
to municipal facilities, where the permit lacks effluent limitations
for minimum percent removal based on secondary treatment
standards. A discussion of BPJ could also improve the quality of
fact sheets in cases where secondary treatment standards are
applied to discharges from non-municipal facilities. (Category 3).
( Resolved )
Region 8 should ensure that all required information be input into
ICIS on a regular basis (Category 2).
( Not pursuing)
Pretreatment
Region 8 should revise the permit reopener clause for non-
program permits to specifically mention that they could be
reopened to require a pretreatment program if deemed necessary
(Category 2).
(In progress)
Final February 2022
Page 58 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status
Region 8 should eliminate the term significantly violated in its
permits for POTWs with approved pretreatment programs. Rather,
the permits should consistently refer to significant noncompliance
(Category 2).
(In progress)
Region 8 should coordinate the sampling requirements for
Industrial Waste Management and for the Initial Monitoring
Report for POTWs without pretreatment programs. The submittal
time frames should be coordinated (if appropriate) and the permit
should clarify whether one set of sampling results can satisfy both
sampling requirements (Category 3).
( Not pursuing)
Region 8 should ensure that permits for POTWs without
pretreatment programs are clear on the purpose for the sampling
required under Industrial Waste. If it is to assess industrial user
contributions, the permits should make this clear (Category 3).
( In progress ) Region 8 evaluates a
limited number of Permits with
non-approved programs in public
notice to ensure the appropriate
Pretreatment language is
incorporated.
Region 8 should ensure that the fact sheet for Rock Springs
mentions that a pretreatment program is required and its basis [40
CFR 403.8(a)] (Category 3).
( In progress ) Region 8 evaluates
all Permits with Approved
programs in public notice to ensure
the appropriate Pretreatment
language is incorporated.
Region 8 should discuss in the fact sheets for POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs whether the reasonable
potential analysis conducted to develop water quality-based limits
included analysis of pollutants common for the types of industries
discharging to the POTW (Category 3).
( In progress ) Region 8 evaluates
all Permits with Approved
programs in public notice to ensure
the appropriate Pretreatment
language is incorporated.
Region 8 should revise the fact sheet for Thermopolis to
specifically state that a pretreatment program is not required at
this time and state the reason why. (Category 3)
( In progress ) Region 8 evaluates a
limited number of Permits with
non-approved programs in public
notice to ensure the appropriate
Final February 2022
Page 59 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Area
Action Item Title
Status
Pretreatment language is
incorporated.
Ensure proper WET implementation where dilution factors
indicate chronic conditions. (Category 2)
(In progress ) A similar item was
identified in the 2021 PQR and has
been outlined in the "Action Items
from FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle"
Tables, so it will be carried forward.
Strongly recommend the state to include specifics on WET test
acceptability criteria (TAC) selections to ensure consistent and
accurate testing procedures are provided in the permit for
permittee and laboratory use. (Category 3)
(In progress ) A similar item was
identified in the 2021 PQR and has
been outlined in the "Action Items
from FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle"
Tables, so it will be carried forward.
WET
Recommend WYPDES to standardize WET permit language and
WET policy decisions so that WYPDES permits are consistently
implemented. (Category 3)
(In progress ) A similar item was
identified in the 2021 PQR and has
been outlined in the "Action Items
from FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle"
Tables, so it will be carried forward.
Recommend that when permittees are placed on reduced
monitoring, permit writers include reference to lab report and
summary of WET analysis data, not DMR data alone, in permit
records. (Category 3)
(In progress ) A similar item was
identified in the 2021 PQR and has
been outlined in the "Action Items
from FY2018-2022 PQR Cycle"
Tables, so it will be carried forward.
WYPDES needs to clarify WET endpoint verbiage in chronic permits
correctly reflects that the test endpoints are independent
measures of "survival, growth or reproduction". (Was identified as
a Category 1 in previous PQR but has been reevaluated to be a
recommended action item).
(Not started )
Final February 2022
Page 60 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE
This section provides a summary of the main findings of the PQR and provides proposed action items to improve Wyoming's NPDES
permit programs, as discussed throughout sections III, IV, and V of this report.
The proposed action items were divided into two categories to identify the priority that should be placed on each Item and facilitate
discussions between Regions and states.
• Essential Actions - Proposed "Essential" action items addressed noncompliance with respect to a federal regulation. EPA has
provided the citation for each Essential action item. The permitting authority was expected to address these action items in
order to comply with federal regulations. As discussed earlier in the report, prior PQR reports identified these action items as
Category 1. Essential actions are listed in Table 5 below.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items were recommendations to increase the effectiveness of
the state's or Region's NPDES permit program. Prior reports identified these action items as Category 2 and 3. Recommended
actions are listed in Table 6 below.
The following tables summarize only those action items that were identified in Sections III, IV, and V of the report.
Permit Application Requirements • Ensure that major POTW applications include a complete data set for priority
pollutants (40 CFR 122.21(j)(4) and (5)), and in accordance with Wyoming
Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit
Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015.
• WDEQ shall send notification of completeness or expected date of the completeness
determination to permittees for applications, as per Section 5(b) of the Wyoming
Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality Chapter 2 Permit
Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015.
TBELs for POTWs • WDEQ must ensure that permit fact sheets/statements of basis include adequate
explanation of the derivation of specific effluent limitations, in particular an
Final February 2022
Page 61 of 66
-------
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
explanation of how alternate effluent limitations and daily maximum BOD and TSS
limits were developed, in accordance with 40 CFR 124.56.
• Permit writers must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis prove and document
that a POTW cannot meet secondary treatment standards and that it meets all
requirements for allowing for adjustment of secondary treatment standards as
required at 40 CFR 133.103(c).
• WDEQ must ensure that permit writers conduct RPAs in accordance with NPDES
regulations and provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that reasonable
potential was evaluated. (40 CFR 122.44 (d)(l)(ii))
• WDEQ must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis include clear statements and
findings of the RPA results, consistent with 40 CFR 124.56.
WDEQ must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis include adequate
documentation of the permit writer's determination of dilution allowances. (40 CFR
122.44 (d)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR 124.56)
Final Effluent Limitations and • WDEQ must ensure that fact sheets/statements of basis include complete
Documentation documentation of the basis for final effluent limitations (i.e., TBEL or WQBEL),
including a demonstration that the permit writer compared TBELs and WQBELs and
the most stringent limitation was established as the final limitation, appropriate water
class designations were used for limit determinations, justifications for designated
uses, and alignment of WLA calculations with permitted limits. (40 CFR 124.56)
• WDEQ must ensure that anti-backsliding was evaluated, and documented, when
reissued permits established effluent limitations that were less stringent than those in
the previous permit.
Monitoring and Reporting • WDEQ must ensure permits require the use of sufficiently sensitive EPA approved
Requirements analytical methods in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(i)(l)(iv) and 40 CFR 136.1 (c).
• WDEQ must ensure permits require permittees to submit DMRs electronically,
consistent with 40 CFR Part 127.
• WDEQ must ensure that POTW permits specifically identify influent monitoring
locations, consistent with 40 CFR 122.41(j).
• WDEQ must ensure consistent reporting intervals are specified in the permit, in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.414(l)(iii)(4).
Standard and Special Conditions WDEQ must ensure that permits include all standard conditions consistent with the
federal standard provisions established in 40 CFR 122.41, and in alignment with
permitted requirements (i.e., power failure language).
Region 8 - Wyoming
Reasonable Potential
WQBELs Development
Final February 2022
Page 62 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Administrative Process
Administrative Record and Fact
Sheet
Nutrients
Pretreatment: Food Processing
Sector
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems (MS4s)
Whole Effluent Toxicity
WDEQ's administrative record must consistently contain a record of all of the comments
received during the public notice period as well as consistently provide responses to the
comments received during the public comment period. (40 CFR 124.17)
• Fact sheets must include calculations or other necessary explanation of the derivation
of specific effluent limitations, consistent with 40 CFR 124.56.
• WDEQ must include permit writer contact information in fact sheets/statements of
basis, consistent with 40 CFR 124.8(b)(7).
• Public notices must include a general description of the location of each existing or
proposed discharge point and the sludge use and disposal practice, in accordance with
40 CFR 124.10(d)(vii).
• WDEQ must ensure that public notices contain a brief description of the business
conducted at the facility or activity described in the permit application or the draft
permit, in accordance with 40 CFR 124.10(d)(iii).
WDEQ must ensure that the permit applications provide the results of nutrient (e.g.,
phosphorus and nitrogen) monitoring, or a note to the file waiving the requirement, as
per the application requirements in Appendix E of the Wyoming Administrative Rules
Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water Quality, Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for
Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters, Effective 3/23/2015.
Permit writers must ensure that the NPDES permit application included all IU
information required at 40 CFR 122.2l(j)(6)(i) and (ii).
WDEQ needed to update the Phase II MS4 general permit, which had been
administratively extended since 2013, to meet the requirements of the MS4 Remand
Rule (see 40 CFR 122.28(d)), 40 CFR 122.34(a) and (b), and 40 CFR 122.34(a)).
• WET requirements and limitations must be incorporated into the permit for the
Buffalo Wastewater Treatment "major" facility, to align with WDEQ WYPDES
permitting procedures (i.e., WDEQ had determined that all "major" POTWs had been
determined to have RP for WET).
• For "major" facility applications requiring WET data submission; data, a note to the
file waiving any application requirements, or an indication by the applicant in the
application itself that WET data had already been previously submitted to WDEQ (i.e.,
DMR data), must be documented in the permit file as part of the application
completeness review (as required by 40 CFR 122.21 (j)(5) and Appendix E(a)(iii) and
(a)(vii)(C) of the Wyoming Administrative Rules Environmental Quality, Dept. of Water
Final February 2022
Page 63 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Quality Chapter 2 Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters,
Effective 3/23/2015).
• WET RPAs and decision-making used to determine WET limitations, alternating
species approvals, and acute and chronic testing requirements must be documented
in the fact sheets/statement of basis, as required by 40 CFR 122.44 (d) and 40 CFR
124.56.
• WDEQ must correct the unclear/contradictory WET requirements and language as
was outlined in the section above (i.e., TIE/TRE unclear as to how "confirmation of
continuance" of effluent toxicity was determined; ensure limitations and
requirements for WET in the Laramie (WY0022209) and Big Eagle Mine (WY0025950)
permits were consistently implemented; and align the standard WET language in the
permits to ensure consistent reporting timeframes). The permits must provide clear
requirements for achieving water quality standards, as per 40 CFR 122.33(d) and
discharge monitoring reporting, as per 40 CFR 122.41(l)(iii)(4).
• WDEQ should utilize testing on two species concurrently for all permitted facilities to
help ensure that protections remain in place for all sampled discharges or, barring the
two species recommendation if WDEQ did opt to utilize only one species to reduce
testing burden for facilities, the most sensitive species must be chosen, justified, and
utilized for facility-specific WET testing to ensure alignment with CWA Section
301(b)(1)(C) and 40 CFR Part 122.44(d)(l)(ii). Additionally, it should be clearly
documented that alternating the test species was not avoiding possible toxicity by
using a tests species that was more tolerant of the discharged effluent being tested at
the time.
Final February 2022
Page 64 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Table 8. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
Topic Action(s)
Facility Information
WDEQ should ensure thorough QA practices are implemented so that permits and
related documents contain accurate information.
Permit Application Requirements
WDEQ should ensure permit records include accurate documentation of permit
completeness determinations.
TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers
WDEQ should ensure fact sheets consistently describe facility operations, including
discussion of facility categorization and whether the facility is an existing or new source,
relative to the applicability of ELGs.
Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
• WDEQ should develop and document a clearly defined process for determining
appropriate monitoring frequencies.
• WDEQ should adjust permit language in the "Reporting" section of the permit to
incorporate "influent", "receiving", and any other type of monitoring specified in the
permits.
Standard and Special Conditions
• Recommendations as detailed in the Standard and Special Conditions section of the
report.
Administrative Record and Fact
Sheet
• Recommended that a statement regarding the comments received and response be
incorporated into the fact sheet/statement of basis to document public comments
received and the responses. It is also recommended that a statement be included
indicating whether or not changes were made to the draft permit (after public notice)
prior to finalizing the permit.
Nutrients
• EPA recommended that a standard list of nutrient monitoring requirements be
developed for similar facility categories (e.g., POTWs, Boysen Reservoir Basin permits,
etc.), that supported the goals/initiatives of the Wyoming nutrient strategy.
• EPA recommended that nutrient monitoring to be included for non-POTW facilities with
the potential to be significant nutrient contributors. The monitoring data could then be
used to determine reasonable potential to develop limitations in future permits, to
support the goals/initiatives of the Wyoming nutrient strategy.
Pretreatment: Food Processing
Sector
• Permit writers and pretreatment staff should coordinate during the entire permitting
process to ensure appropriate pretreatment language was captured in the NPDES
permit.
Final February 2022
Page 65 of 66
-------
Region 8 - Wyoming
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• Permits writers should ensure that fact sheets stated whether a pretreatment program
was required to be developed and/or approved program to be implemented, or not,
and the basis for the requirements of the permit.
• Permit fact sheets should specify whether the POTW accepted hauled waste and
whether hauled waste contributions were included in the reasonable potential analysis.
• Permit writers should include a timeframe (define "adequate") for notification of any
new introduction of pollutants and substantial changes in the volume or character of
pollutants being introduced into that POTW.
• Permit writers should ensure that fact sheets for POTWs with pretreatment programs
described industrial users in more detail and specified whether the reasonable potential
analysis included analysis of pollutants common for the types of industries discharging
to the POTW.
• Permit writers should specify the modification dates of pretreatment programs, when
applicable, in fact sheets and permits.
Whole Effluent Toxicity • To ensure that WET requirements are implemented consistently, it was highly
recommended that a WYPDES general procedure (e.g., SOP) or policy be developed and
utilized to provide guidance for the incorporation of WET into WYPDES permits.
• If continuing to implement the species reduction WET provision, it was recommended
that supplemental caveats to the WET test species reduction (i.e., alternating WET test
species) WET provision be included in permits, such as requirements for the requesting
facility to have no other compliance issues, no uncontrolled industrial users, and
consistent effluent quality.
• It was recommended that, as applicable for chronic WET testing, the number of samples
be clearly incorporated into the monitoring requirements to align with the number
recommended by the EPA's WET methods manual.
Final February 2022
Page 66 of 66
------- |