FINAL
Region 8 NPDES Program and Permit Quality
Review
Utah
Review Date: February 2021
Report Date: May 2023
EPA Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, CO 80202-1129
FINAL May 2023
Page 1 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
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 7
C. State-Specific Challenges 8
D. Current State Initiatives 8
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS 8
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application 8
1. Facility Information 8
2. Permit Application Requirements 9
B. Developing Effluent Limitations 11
1. Technology-based Effluent Limitations 11
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 13
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation 17
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 18
D. Standard and Special Conditions 20
E. Administrative Process 22
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet 23
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 25
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters 25
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions 30
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements 37
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 38
A. Previously Abandoned Mines 38
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 41
Table 1. Essential Action Items Identified During the 2014 PQR 41
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 48
Table 2. Recommended Action Items Identified During the 2014 PQR 48
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE 51
Table 3. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 51
Table 4. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 54
FINAL May 2023
Page 2 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
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 Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) NPDES (UPDES) program on February 22-
26, 2021. At the time of the PQR, Utah administered 124 individual NPDES permits and, as
February 22, 2021, 96 percent of Utah's permits were current.
The PQR examined 11 permits for discharges in Utah along with 1 general permit issued by the
UDWQ, several UDWQ permitting policies, and the statewide permit template. 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
• Previously Abandoned Mines.
Overall, the PQR revealed that the UDWQ-issued permits and fact sheets-statements of basis
(FSSOB) reviewed by EPA were consistently well organized and adhered to a majority of the
federal regulatory requirements. However, EPA identified several concerns including: some
permit applications lacked appropriate signatures and analytical data; one permit was
administratively continued after the permit expired; and FSSOB lacked sufficient discussion for
certain permit conditions.
As part of its NPDES program implementation, UDWQ continually develops internal permitting
protocols and standard operating procedures to support development of defensible permits
and to provide permit writers with a solid foundation for permitting procedures. Since some of
these deficiencies appeared to stem from the template language and standard processes used,
EPA has recommended that UDWQ update the permit template to include all federal standard
conditions requirements, including the use of sufficiently sensitive analytical methods. EPA has
also recommended that UDWQ continue to update and develop protocols and standard
operating procedures (e.g., to address application requirements), further develop justifications
for permit conditions, and modify all applicable UDWQ FSSOB template documents to ensure
there is adequate documentation and understanding for permit decisions.
In addition to the items listed in the paragraphs above, the report provides an overview of the
UDWQ program and identifies specific areas where EPA and UDWQ can work together to
continue to strengthen permit language and documentation in UPDES permits.
UDWQ reviewed and provided comments on the draft PQR report on February 28, 2023. UDWQ
and EPA discussed the comments and agreed with the final draft PQR report's findings and
recommendations. Upon receipt of the final PQR report, UDWQ has indicated they will review
and work to address the proposed action items.
FINAL May 2023
Page 3 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
I. PQR BACKGROUND
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Permit Quality
Reviews (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. EPA previously
conducted a PQR of the Utah NPDES permitting program on April 21-25, 2014. The PQR
summary report is available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
11/documents/utah pgr report final.pdf. As a result of that PQR, the evaluation team
proposed various action items to improve the UPDES permitting program. As part of the current
PQR, EPA requested updates from Utah on the progress on those action items. Of the 10 action
items identified during the last PQR as being Essential1 tasks, 4 have been resolved and the
remainder represent actions that are either longer-term activities or lower-level actions which
the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) is still addressing. In addition, EPA identified
Recommended action items to improve Utah's program; UDWQ has chosen to implement some
of them and will not be implementing the remainder of the Recommended actions. Sections VI
and VII of this report contain 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 UPDES permit
program. The 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 EPA and UDWQ.
• Essential Actions - "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 - "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.
EPA's PQR review team, consisting of three regional staff and one Headquarters (HQs)
contractor staff, conducted a review of the UPDES permitting program. The PQR was conducted
remotely, meaning a review of materials was conducted off-site, with materials UDWQ was
able to provide electronically. Further, the remote PQR included interviews and discussions
conducted via several conference calls. An opening interview was held on February 22, 2021, a
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 May 2023
Page 4 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
discussion with UDWQ staff regarding specific permit questions on February 25, 2021, and a
closing meeting on February 26, 2021.
The Utah PQR included reviews of core permit components and national and regional topic
areas, as well as discussions between the PQR review team and UDWQ 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 sheet, 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. Of these, 10 permits were reviewed for
the core review, 7 permits were reviewed for national topic areas, and 1 permit was reviewed
for the regional topic area. 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 Utah
NPDES 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 for the UPDES program were: Permit Controls for Nutrients in
Non-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Waters, Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) Permit Requirements, and Effectiveness of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (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 permitting for abandoned mine
sites. These reviews provide important information to UDWQ, EPA Region 8, EPA HQ, and the
public on specific program areas.
2 https://www.epa.gov/npdes/central-tenets-npdes-permitting-program
FINAL May 2023
Page 5 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND
A. Program Structure
At the time of the PQR in February 2021, UDWQ, within the Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (UDEQ), administered the UUPDES Program. EPA approved the UPDES program for Utah
(including federal facilities, pretreatment, and general permits) on July 7,1987.
The main UDWQ office is located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Staff in the main office implemented all
the program's responsibilities, which included drafting permits, conducting facility inspections,
developing enforcement actions, reviewing facility compliance, managing permit files and
information systems and databases. UDWQ did not have field offices; however, there were four
District Engineers located in various regions of the state co-located with local health
department offices. District Engineers provided general assistance as requested, responded to
complaints, and conducted inspections of permittees covered under general UPDES permits.
UDWQ employed 12 full-time permit writers across both the individual and general permitting
teams; 6 permits writers supported each permitting team. UDWQ permit writers received
training through on-the-job training, internal mentoring by senior team members, and through
attendance at EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Course. Additional UDWQ staff that supported
permit development included program area specialists from the sections for standards and
technical services, engineering, and watershed protection. A wasteload allocation (WLA) writer
is part of the Water Quality Standards Unit and they prepared a wasteload analysis for the
permit writer to consider during permit development. UDWQ assigned permits to staff based
on facility type, size, and date of permit expiration, as well as a consideration of overall
workload balance. In addition, permit assignments were based on geography (i.e., grouped by
receiving waters and watershed) to provide efficiency in permit development. Permits were
assigned to and retained by a specific permit writer across permit cycles unless the supervisor
reassigned the permit.
UDWQ used an electronic document database ("D2" or "eDocs") to receive permit applications
and house permit information and related documents. UDWQ also used an internal water
quality database called the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring System (AWQMS), as a source
for ambient data, and EPA's Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking and
Implementation System (ATTAINS) database for impaired waters and TMDL information.
Additionally, UDWQ uses EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System for NPDES (ICIS-
NPDES) to manage facility discharge monitoring data.
UDWQ employed permit and fact sheet templates to facilitate consistent permit development
and presentation of rationale and documentation for permit conditions; staff updated
templates on a routine basis to ensure current practices were represented. The PQR review
team reviewed UDWQ's permit template and noted that the template included the following
sections: Description of Discharge Points, Narrative Standard, Specific Limitations and Self-
Monitoring Requirements, Reporting of Monitoring Results. Sections included boilerplate text
and prompts for permit writers to update language inserted as document reviewers'
comments. In addition, the permit template included boilerplate text for Whole Effluent
FINAL May 2023
Page 6 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Toxicity (WET) requirements and compliance schedules. The permit template also included
permit sections II, III, and IV that addressed requirements for industrial pretreatment, biosolids,
and storm water, respectively. The permit template also included boilerplate language for
permit standard conditions. UDWQ permit writers used a standard spreadsheet to evaluate
reasonable potential (RP) and develop water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs).
UDWQ also developed the Reasonable Potential Analysis Guidance as an internal resource for
permit writing staff.
UDWQ conducted an internal review of draft permits through multiple levels of review. Draft
permit documents were distributed to the WLA analyst and specialists in biomonitoring,
pretreatment, and stormwater for a first level of review. The draft permit documents were then
sent to the individual permit manager for review and then to the permittee for comments. The
permit writer edited the permit documents as necessary, then routed the revised permit
documents to the Assistant Director and Director for review, just prior to distribution for the
public comment period.
UDWQ permit writers maintained electronic files for permit development documentation,
permit correspondence, certain monitoring and reporting data, and compliance records in
UDEQ's D2/eDocs system. In addition, monitoring and reporting data and compliance records
were housed in NetDMR and ICIS-NPDES.
B. Universe and Permit Issuance
At the time of the PQR in February 2021, UDWQ administered a universe of 126 individual
UPDES permits. Of these permits, 66 were POTWs (32 major and 34 non-major), 58 were non-
municipal facilities (14 major and 44 non-major), and 2 were stormwater permits. UDWQ
reported that one major and four non-major individual permits were administratively
continued, meaning they were 96 percent current for individual permits.
In addition to these individual permits, UDWQ administered general permits covering 7,641
permittees as shown below:
NPDES
Permit No.
Permit Name/Category
Number of
Permittees
UTG040000
General Permit for Coal Mining Operations
12
UTG080000
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
5
UTG130000
General Permit for Concentrated Aquatic Animal Feeding Operations
12
UTR090000
General Permit for Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4s)
94
UTG640000
General Permit for Drinking Water Treatment Plants
45
UTG070000
General Permit for General Construction Dewatering or Flydrostatic
Testing
98
UTG170000
General Permit for the Application of Pesticides
77
FINAL May 2023
Page 7 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
NPDES
Permit No.
Permit Name/Category
Number of
Permittees
UTG790000
General Permit for the Discharge of Treated Ground Water
6
UTRH00000
UPDES Storm Water General Permit for Construction Activities - Common
Plan Permit (an acre or less and on a single lot)
1,884
UTRC00000
UPDES Storm Water General Permit for Construction Activities (an acre or
more, including less than an acre if it is part of a common plan of
development or sale that is over an acre)
4,461
UTR00000
General Multi-Sector Industrial Storm Water Permit: UPDES Permits
947
According to the responses provided by UDWQ during the PQR, two general permits were
administratively continued; therefore, the program is 82 percent current for general permits.
Significant industries within Utah included mineral and oil extraction and refining of extracted
material.
C. State-Specific Challenges
UDWQ did not indicate the agency was facing specific challenges affecting the UPDES program.
D. Current State Initiatives
During the PQR, UDWQ described their initiative to issue UPDES permits for abandoned mine
drainage from legacy mines, which was a challenging and complex process involving various
stakeholders. This is further discussed in the Regional Topic Area in Section V of this PQR.
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 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
(FSSOB) contained a sufficient description of the facility operations and the wastewater
FINAL May 2023
Page 8 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
treatment processes. In addition, FSSOB provided useful facility and outfall location information
relative to receiving waters, including specific receiving water body names, downstream waters,
and waterbody classifications.
Areas for Improvement
In certain FSSOB, outfall locations were described, but were identified using the same latitude
and longitude coordinates as those listed for the facility location; they were not specific in
identifying the outfall location.
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component
Recommended
•UDWQ should ensure that specific outfall locations are clearly identified
in UPDES permits and FSSOB.
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 assessed whether appropriate, complete, and
timely application information was received by the state and used in permit development.
UDWQ used state forms for all individual permit applications which were based on EPA's
application forms. UDWQ last updated the state application forms in 2020. UDWQ's website3
housed application forms.
UDWQ sent out application reminder letters to permittees one year prior to the permit
expiration date to notify permittees of the application requirements, appropriate forms for the
facility to complete identified via web links to the specific application forms, and identified the
UDWQ contact if assistance is needed to complete the application. The application reminder
letter also indicated the application submission deadline, which was six months prior to permit
expiration.
3 https://deq.utah.gov/water-qualitv/updes-permitting-program#individual
FINAL May 2023
Page 9 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Strengths
Applications for all permits reviewed were readily available. Application forms for industrial
facilities were clearly organized, consistent with federal application requirements, and included
the requirement for applicants to submit data from sampling conducted according to
sufficiently sensitive test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136.
Areas for Improvement
One application for a POTW was signed four days prior to permit expiration, stamped received
by UDWQ two days after permit expiration, and the permit was administratively continued. It
was unclear whether UDWQ granted permission to the permittee to submit the permit renewal
application at a later date. Utah Administrative Code R317-8-3 (Application Requirements),
3.1(4)(a) indicates that "Any POTW with a currently effective permit shall submit a new
application at least 180 days before the expiration date of the existing permit, unless permission
for a later date has been granted by the Director. The Director shall not grant permission for
applications to be submitted later than the expiration date of the existing permit." This
requirement is consistent with 40 CFR 122.21(d)(1). The review of certain applications for
industrial facilities (UT0022896 and UT0000281) indicated that applicants did not meet the
reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(iii), for reporting quantitative data for
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total organic carbon
(TOC), and a waiver for those reporting requirements was not evident in the permit records
reviewed. Certain applications reviewed (UT0025569, UT0000175, and UT0023205) lacked
signatures consistent with the signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22(a). In addition, one
application (UT0026140) appeared to lack information for one of the permitted outfalls.
Action Items
•UDWQ must ensure that permittees submit permit renewal
applications consistent with the timelines established in UPDES
regulations contained in the Utah Administrative Code R317-8-3
(Application Requirements), 3.1(4)(a) and 40 CFR 122.21(d)(1).
•UDWQ must ensure that industrial applicants provide all data
required by 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7).
•UDWQ must ensure that applications are signed consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22(a).
•UDWQ must ensure that applications present information for all
permitted outfalls prior to issuing a permit, consistent with 40 CFR
122.21(e).
•The PQR did not identify any recomended actions for this PQR
component
Essential
FINAL May 2023
Page 10 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
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 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,
total suspended solids (TSS), pH, and percent pollutant removal), and must contain numeric
limits for all these parameters (or authorized alternatives) in accordance with the secondary
treatment regulations at 40 CFR Part 133. A total of six POTW permits were reviewed as part of
the PQR.
UDWQ established effluent limitations for BOD and TSS in municipal permits to facilities subject
to federal secondary treatment standards. Utah Administrative Code R317-1-3, 3.2 established
requirements for compliance with secondary treatment standards. In addition, section 3.3 of
R317-1-3 provides technology-based phosphorus effluent limits (TBPELs) s for controlling
phosphorus discharges from non-lagoon discharges; section 3.3 required attainment of the
TBPEL by January 1, 2020.
Program Strengths
UDWQ's municipal UPDES permits included effluent limitations for BOD and TSS in appropriate
units and forms and based on federal secondary treatment standards. The permit fact sheets
included a sufficient discussion of the wastewater treatment processes that provided an
understanding of the basis for the effluent limitations for BOD and TSS. UDWQ's permits and
fact sheets clearly identified the applicable effluent limitations and regulatory basis for effluent
limitations for BOD and TSS.
Areas for Improvement
One permit reviewed (UT0021911) provided a variance from the minimum percent removal
requirement and the fact sheet cited the basis for relief from the requirement as low influent
concentrations due to excessive inflow and infiltration (l&l). The last PQR identified this same
finding; the report indicated the variance was inconsistent with 40 CFR 133.103(d), which
specifically prohibits "excessive l&l" as a basis for granting relief from the minimum removal
requirement.
FINAL May 2023
Page 11 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
Essential
•UDWQ must ensure permittees that were granted relief from
effluent limitations based on secondary treatment standards (i.e.,
minimum percent removal) satisfied the regulatory requirements in
40 CFR 133.103(d) for less stringent requirements.
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).
UDWQ's FSSOB identified the applicable ELGs and permits appeared to apply the most stringent
applicable TBEL based on ELGs. UPDES FSSOB did not provide details on how TBELs based on
ELGs were calculated, especially where they were production-based TBELs. Certain UDWQ
permits included a BPJ-based TBEL (daily maximum) for oil and grease of 10 mg/L. The FSSOB
stated that the oil and grease limitation is consistent with other industrial facilities statewide;
however, did not provide the basis for the 10 mg/L limitation.
Program Strengths
UDWQ appropriately established TBELs in non-municipal UPDES permits in the correct form and
units. In addition, UPDES FSSOB clearly identified the regulatory basis for TBELs for non-
municipal discharges.
Areas for Improvement
UDWQ's FSSOB lacked consistent discussion of facility categorization (e.g., BAT, BCT, and NSPS)
and calculations for TBELs, especially production-based TBELs, as they apply to implementing
ELGs.
FINAL May 2023
Page 12 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component.
Recommended
•UDWQ should provide greater detail in the FSSOB discussions of
facility categorization and TBEL calculations as they apply to the
implementation of ELGs.
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Background
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i) 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
WQBELs, the permitting authority must evaluate whether any pollutants or pollutant
parameters cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above
any State water quality standard (WQS).
The PQR for UDWQ assessed the processes employed to implement these requirements.
Specifically, the PQR reviewed permits, fact sheets, 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,
• 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
UDWQ permit writers conducted a reasonable potential analysis (RPA) in accordance with
UDWQ's September 2015 RPA guidance document and developed WQBELs for the permitted
FINAL May 2023
Page 13 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
discharge. Permit writers also identified the receiving stream, applicable water quality criteria
and TMDLs, and evaluated facility monitoring data. The FSSOB and the WLA attachment
contained discussions of this information and clearly identified receiving streams, applicable
water quality criteria, and described the time frame of discharge monitoring data considered.
UDWQ permit writers evaluated RP for WET based on UDWQ's UPDES Permit and Enforcement
Guidance Document for WET ("WET Guidance", Draft v. 18, dated May 2017). The WET
Guidance states that POTWs with a pretreatment program or a design flow greater than 1
million gallons per day (MGD) must submit WET testing results as part of the application
process "and are therefore presumed to have reasonable potential to discharge toxics. Other
factors considered are the prevalence of commercial and categorical industrial users that
discharge priority pollutants." UDWQ considers additional factors in the determination of
whether a permitted discharge demonstrates reasonable potential to discharge toxics,
including whether the facility is a categorical industry subject to TBELs for priority pollutants;
variability of the pollutant; receiving water characteristics; overall facility compliance history;
and review of facility inspection reports, data from existing WET testing, discharge monitoring,
and ambient water monitoring. The UDWQ's WET Guidance indicated that when WET testing
has demonstrated either acute or chronic toxicity, permit writers conduct a rigorous
assessment of RP for WET. Permit writers identified pollutants of concern according to the RPA
guidance document (dated September 2015) and considered information provided in the
permit application, effluent monitoring data, special monitoring studies, ELG development
documents, discharge data from similar dischargers, intake or process water data, or
application of the permit writer's judgment. Permit writers considered all data available from
the current permit term.
UDWQ's statistical approach to evaluating RP was based on the procedures contained in EPA's
1991 "Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control" (TSD). UDWQ
permit writers used a standardized spreadsheet for evaluating RP, which was developed by EPA
Region 8. The spreadsheet was UDWQ's primary tool for conducting quantitative RPAs. The
quantitative RPA method identified three steps: identify the maximum effluent value for the
pollutant; calculate an RP multiplying factor, which is based on sample size and coefficient of
variation; then compare the resultant product to the maximum allowable pollutant
concentration, which is based on a WLA and accounts for dilution and background pollutant
concentrations in the receiving water.
Process for Developing WQBELs
Staff in the WLA group were responsible for calculating WQBELs based on RPA results as well as
requirements based on TMDLs and antidegradation analyses. WLA staff implemented the
procedures in the WLA Procedures for UPDES, Version 2.0 (dated January 4, 2021) and use
standardized models to calculate WQBELs.
Permit writers considered the most recent (i.e., the most recent 5 years) ambient water quality
data that was available in AWQMS and EPA's Water Quality Exchange (WQX) in the
development of WQBELs. WLA staff obtain ambient water quality data from the sampling
station immediately upstream of the discharge point.
FINAL May 2023
Page 14 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Utah Administrative Code R317-2-5 contained the state's mixing zone rules, applicable to
discharges to streams and lakes. The rules state, "The size of the chronic mixing zone in rivers
and streams shall not to exceed 2500feet and the size of an acute mixing zone shall not exceed
50% of stream width nor have a residency time of greater than 15 minutes. Streams with a flow
equal to or less than twice the flow of a point source discharge may be considered to be totally
mixed. The size of the chronic mixing zone in lakes and reservoirs shall not exceed 200 feet and
the size of an acute mixing zone shall not exceed 35 feet." The rules also allowed mixing zones
to be limited on a case-by-case basis, following consideration of various factors, described in
R317-2-5, 5.1. WLA staff calculated WQBELs following the methods in the WLA Procedures for
UPDES document. WLA staff used modeling tools to delineate mixing zones for discharges that
were not instantaneously fully mixed. UDWQ documented application of the mixing zone policy
in the WLA attachment to the FSSOB, which was a part of the administrative record.
With respect to WET, WLA staff referred to section 5.4.5 of the WLA Procedures for UPDES
document which states, "The percent of effluent in the receiving water in a fully mixed
condition, and acute and chronic dilution in an incompletely mixed condition are calculated in
the WLA in order to generate WET limits. The LCso (lethal concentration, 50%) percent effluent
for acute toxicity and the IC25 (inhibition concentration, 25%) percent effluent for chronic
toxicity, as determined by the WET test, needs to be below the WET limits, as determined by the
WLA. The WET limit for LC50 is typically 100% effluent and does not need to be determined by
the WLA. The UPDES Permit Writer will also use the IC25 percent effluent in the receiving water
to inform the selection of dilution rations in the required WET testing (i.e., typical dilutions
would be 100, 50, 25,12.5, and 6.5 percent effluent concentrations in the WET test); the
selected dilution ratios should bracket the WET limits to maximize effectiveness of the WET
test."
WLA writers also documented the development of WQBELs and related calculations in the WLA
supplemental attachment to the FSSOB, which was consistently available as part of the
administrative record.
Program Strengths
Reasonable Potential
UDWQ's FSSOB clearly identified the receiving stream, designated uses, and applicable WQS
with appropriate reference to the Utah Administrative Code R317-2. The permit records
reviewed consistently included the WLA and Antidegradation Level 1 Review supplemental
attachment to the FSSOB which included additional receiving stream information as well as
discussion of the RPA and WQBELs. The WLA document was a critical component of the
permit record and provided information necessary to understand the basis for evaluating
the need for WQBELs.
WQBEL Development
UDWQ's FSSOB attachment that contained the WLA supplemental document clearly
discussed the implementation of mixing zone requirements, presented applicable water
FINAL May 2023
Page 15 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
quality criteria (numeric stream standards), model numerical inputs, and proposed WQBELs.
The WLA document also included a general discussion of antidegradation considerations.
Areas for Improvement
Reasonable Potential
UDWQ appeared to use a statistical outlier test to identify data to remove from the RPA.
EPA cautions that in most cases outlier tests should be avoided when analyzing
environmental data, as such tests typically assume a normal distribution of data which may
not be applicable to environmental data sets. While a data point may be identified as a
statistical outlier, it may still be representative of the discharge. EPA advises UDWQ to only
remove data points that are known errors.
WQBEL Development
The PQR review team did not identify any specific essential or recommended actions for this
PQR component.
Action Items
'Reasonable Potential
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this PQR component
»WOBEL Development
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this PQR component
•Reasonable Potential
•UDWQ should consider revising the FSSOB template document to include
more detailed discussions related to:
•RP evaluations for specific pollutants of concern and details on the
data used in the evaluation, to better understand the quality of the
data;
•Receiving stream's impairment status and TMDL applicability;
• Qualitative RPAs; and
•WET requirements as they are tied to UDWQ's WET guidance.
•UDWQ should ensure that permit writers apply outlier analyses
appropriate to the type of data being evaluated, to confirm whether data
should be removed from consideration.
•WQBEL Development
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this PQR
component.
FINAL May 2023
Page 16 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
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 including the permit's fact sheet (40 CFR 124.56) for POTWs and
industrial facilities should contain comprehensive documentation of the development of all
effluent limitations. TBELs should include an 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 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.
UDWQ's FSSOB included facility and treatment processes descriptions and statements
regarding expected pollutants of concern. Further, the FSSOB included a section, "Basis for
Effluent Limitations" that identifies the regulatory basis (i.e., TBEL or WQBEL) for all parameters
limited in the permit. The FSSOB clearly identifies the receiving stream, designated uses,
applicable water quality standards, and appropriate references to the Utah Administrative Code
for the receiving stream information (i.e., designated uses and WQS). The FSSOB itself includes
a brief discussion of the RPA; however, the WLA and Antidegradation Review supplemental
document included in the permit administrative record contained a useful summary of the RPA,
including considerations, model inputs, RPA results, and subsequent WQBELs development. In
addition, the WLA and Antidegradation Review supplemental document was where UDWQ
discussed antidegradation considerations. UDWQ indicated during the PQR that anti-backsliding
is evaluated when an effluent limitation could potentially be relaxed from the previous effluent
limitation, and that when a permit writer has conducted an evaluation, the FSSOB included a
discussion of the considerations.
FINAL May 2023
Page 17 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Strengths
Effluent limitations were developed appropriately and presented clearly in UPDES permits.
UDWQ's FSSOB indicated the basis for effluent limitation, whether it was a TBEL or WQBEL.
UDWQ's permit records consistently included a WLA document that provided a thorough
discussion of the RPA considerations and results, as well as WQBELs development. The WLA
document consistently included a general discussion of the antidegradation review.
Areas for Improvement
UDWQ's FSSOB lacked discussion of anti-backsliding considerations in certain scenarios
(UT0021911, UT0020907, and UT0023205) when effluent limitations were adjusted in the WLA.
Further, the FSSOB discussions of TBELs for non-municipal permits (UT0000175 and
UT0000281) lacked detail with respect to the specific applicability of ELGs and subsequent
calculations of ELG-based TBELs. In addition, the FSSOB consistently lacked clear demonstration
that the permit writer compared TBELs and WQBELs and applied the most stringent as final
effluent limitations.
Action Items
•UDWQ must ensure that the FSSOB addresses anti-backsliding
considerations specific to the permit and discharge, especially
where effluent limitations may have been adjusted during the WLA,
according to fact sheet requirements for documenting the rationale
for permit conditions (40 CFR 124.56), including references to
applicable regulatory and statutory provisions (40 CFR 124.8).
•UDWQ should consider adding greater detail to the FSSOB
regarding applicability of ELGs and calculations of ELG-based
TBELs.
•UDWQ should consider updating the FSSOB template to include
clear statements that illustrate that permit writers evaluated and
applied the most stringent of TBELs and WQBELs as the final
effluent limitations.
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Background and Process
NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j) require that samples and measurements taken for the
purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. Therefore, permittees
monitoring to evaluate compliance with the effluent limitations established in their permits
should do so at a frequency and type that is representative of the permitted discharge 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
Essential
Recommended
FINAL May 2023
Page 18 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
applicable, internal processes, and report the analytical results to the permitting authority with
information necessary to evaluate permitted 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 (40 CFR 124.56) will include a description and
justification for all 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 40 CFR Part 136 analytical test method.
UDWQ indicated during the PQR that typically, monitoring requirements are carried forward
from the previous permit, unless there is justification to change monitoring requirements.
UPDES permits reference Utah Administrative Code R317-2-10 for monitoring requirements.
Reporting requirements are generally standardized for discharge monitoring reports (DMR) and
WET data submittals. UPDES permits specify self-monitoring and reporting requirements
(parameter, sampling frequency, sample type, and reporting units) in tables following those
that present effluent limitations, in Part I of permits. WET testing requirements are outlined in
Part I of UPDES permits. UDWQ's WET Guidance document (on page 8) states that test
frequency is primarily based on discharge volume—for larger facilities (i.e., POTWs discharging
greater than 20 MGD or industrial facilities discharging greater than 10 MGD), monthly WET
testing is recommended. UDWQ recommends quarterly WET testing "for minor facilities where
it has been determined that there is reasonable potential to discharge toxicsFurther, the WET
guidance states, "Under no circumstances shall monitoring for WET at any major facility be
reduced to less than quarterly. Minor facilities may be less than quarterly if approved by the
DirectorFurther, UPDES permits clearly require electronic submittal of DMRs.
FINAL May 2023
Page 19 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Program Strengths
The reviewed permits consistently identified appropriate monitoring locations, frequencies, and
sample types based on the facility, discharge type and corresponding limit bases. In addition,
permits reviewed appropriately required the electronic submittal of DMRs and permits clearly
indicated reporting requirements, including reporting deadlines.
Areas for Improvement
UDWQ's permits did not specify sampling and analytical test methods consistent with 40 CFR
Part 136; permits require "Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures
approved under Utah Administrative Code ("UAC") R317-2-10." Further, R317-8-4, 4.1(10)(d) is
a permit condition applicable to all UPDES permits that requires monitoring to be conducted
according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136. However, the permits did not
appear to include reference to R317-8-4, either expressly or by reference. In addition, UDWQ's
permits did not require the use of sufficiently sensitive EPA approved test methods as required
by 40 CFR 136.1(c) and 122.44(i)(l)(iv).
Action Items
•UDWQ must include requirements for permittees to conduct
monitoring according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR
Part 136, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(i)(l)(iv). This can be
accomplished by referencing either Utah Administrative Code
R317-8-4, 4.1(10)(d) or 40 CFR Part 136.
•UDWQ must include requirements for permittees to use sufficiently
sensitive EPA approved analytical methods in all UPDES permits, in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(i)(l)(iv).
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component
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.
FINAL May 2023
Page 20 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
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.
UDWQ developed the UPDES permit standard conditions language based on boilerplate
language. UDWQ updated the boilerplate language most recently in February 2021. UPDES
standard conditions were included in distinct sections of the permit and were organized
consistently; however, the numbering of the permit sections changed based on the permit.
UPDES permits contained special conditions related to the pretreatment program and biosolids
management; these sections were also based on boilerplate language.
Program Strengths
The standard conditions were clearly organized and written. Special conditions were included
as appropriate to the facility and discharge type. Special conditions were presented clearly.
Areas for Improvement
Similar to the finding from the last PQR, the standard condition for reporting of planned
changes lacked the requirement at 40 CFR 122.41(l)(l)(i) for notification when "the alteration
or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether a facility
is a new source in 122.29(b)." In addition, the signatory requirement standard condition lacked
the language from 40 CFR 122.22(a)(1) and (2). The monitoring reports standard condition
related to reporting results of monitoring conducted more frequently than required lacked the
language from 40 CFR 122.41(l)(4)(ii) that references 40 CFR Part 136. Similarly, the reference
to 40 CFR Part 136 in the language from 40 CFR 122.41(j)(4) was absent from the standard
condition for monitoring procedures; UPDES permits referenced Utah Administrative Code
R317-2-10 (instead of 40 CFR Part 136).
Action Items
•UDWQ must ensure that standard conditions are at least equivalent
to 40 CFR 122.41.
•UDWQ must ensure that signatory requirements contain the
langauge from 40 CFR 122.22(a)(1) and (2).
Recommended
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component
FINAL May 2023
Page 21 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
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 Utah, and reviewed materials from the administrative process as
they related to the core permit review.
UDWQ posted public notices for UPDES permits on their website for 30 days; UDWQ ceased
publishing public notices in newspapers April 1, 2020, but the FSSOB for certain permits
reviewed indicated that the public notice had been published in a newspaper (e.g., The Herald
Journal, The Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, and Emery County Progress). UDWQ held public
hearings as a part of the comment period if a request was made within 15 days of the comment
start date and there was sufficient public interest. UDWQ's public comment period was 30 days
as a standard but would grant additional time upon request. UDWQ reviewed and considered
all comments received, during the permit finalization process. UDWQ would provide an
additional public comment period if substantive changes were made to the draft permit based
on comments received. UDWQ prepared a comment response summary document and
included it in the permit's administrative record. UDWQ indicated that if a formal request for
agency action was made, the permit would have proceeded through the administrative legal
process in accordance with Utah Code 19-1-3, section 301.5. UDWQ indicated during the PQR
that permits were appealed infrequently; staff approximated one permit every five years, or
less. An Administrative Law Judge would hear appeals.
Program Strengths
Public notice documents were readily available for review. It appeared that UDWQ
implemented appropriate public notice procedures, and maintained adequate documentation
of public comments received and responses generated. UDWQ's permit records included clear
statements in the final permit transmittal cover letters documenting whether comments were
received during the public comment period.
Areas for Improvement
The PQR review team observed that the public notice documents lacked statements regarding
procedures for requesting a public hearing as required by 40 CFR 124.10(d)(v). In addition,
public notices appeared to lack statements regarding the permitted outfall locations or
discharge points as required by 40 CFR 124.10(d)(vii); public notices only included identification
and description of the receiving water.
FINAL May 2023
Page 22 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•UDWQ must ensure that public notice documents include a
statement of procedures to request a public hearing consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(d)(v).
•UDWQ must ensure that public notice documents include a general
description of the location of discharge points, consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(d)(vii).
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component
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 should have equivalent documentation. The record should contain the necessary
documentation to justify permit conditions. At a minimum, the administrative record for a
permit should 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
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 includes 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.
UDWQ permit writers developed the FSSOB concurrent with permit development, and for all
individual and general permits. UDWQ permit writers used an FSSOB template that was
periodically updated. The PQR review team reviewed UDWQ's FSSOB template and noted that
4 Per 40 C.F.R. 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.
Essential
Recommended
FINAL May 2023
Page 23 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
the template included the following sections: Description of Facility, Summary of Changes from
Previous Permit, Description of Discharge, Receiving Waters and Stream Classification, Basis for
Effluent Limitations, RPA, Self-Monitoring and Reporting Requirements, Permit Duration, Public
Notice, and Addendum to FSSOB, and Responsiveness Summary. In addition, the FSSOB
template included sections addressing requirements for biosolids, pretreatment, and
biomonitoring. The template includes placeholder pages for specific attachments: Industrial
Waste Survey, Effluent Monitoring Data, Wasteload Analysis, and Reasonable Potential
Analysis. Throughout the FSSOB template was placeholder text with prompts for permit writers
to update language included as document reviewers' comments. In addition, the template
included summary tables with parameter lists, sample type, and units pre-populated, with
prompts for sampling frequency.
UDWQ's administrative record contained the permit application, draft permit, the FSSOB,
documents referenced in the FSSOB, and other supporting documentation. UDWQ maintained
the administrative record in electronic format and was able to readily provide the PQR team
with various components during the PQR.
Program Strengths
UDWQ's FSSOB included the required elements of a fact sheet. The FSSOB presented a facility
and treatment process description, description of the discharge, identification of outfalls and
receiving water(s), summary of and general basis for effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements, discussion of pretreatment and biosolids where applicable, relevant UDWQ
contacts, public notice information, and a responsiveness summary. The FSSOB was
consistently organized across the permit records reviewed for the PQR. The FSSOB template
appeared to be organized well and included boilerplate text and writing prompts for permit
writers.
UDWQ's FSSOB supplemental document, the WLA and Antidegradation Review addendum,
provided useful discussions of the WLA conducted during the permit development.
Components of the supplemental document included essential receiving water information
(waterbody name, designated uses, impairment and TMDL status), mixing zone considerations,
WET limits, WLA summary, and antidegradation review. The WLA and Antidegradation Review
attachment was consistently organized across the permit records reviewed for the PQR.
The administrative record was generally complete and contained documentation that was
necessary to review the permit and understand the basis for permit conditions.
Areas for Improvement
As discussed in section III.B.2 and 3, UDWQ's FSSOB would be strengthened with consistently
greater detailed discussions of the following:
• ELG applicability and subsequent calculations;
• Receiving stream's impairment status and TMDL applicability;
• RP evaluations for specific pollutants of concern and details on the data used in the
evaluation, to better understand the quality of the data;
FINAL May 2023
Page 24 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• Qualitative RPAs;
• WET requirements as they are linked to UDWQ's WET guidance; and
• The process that permit writers conducted to ensure they evaluated and applied the
most stringent of TBELs and WQBELs as the final effluent limitations.
Action Items
•The PQR did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component.
•UDWQ should consider updating the FSSOB template to include
consistently greater detailed discussions of the following:
•ELG applicability and subsequent calculations;
•Receiving stream's impairment status and TMDL
applicability;
•RP evaluations for specific pollutants of concern and details
on the data used in the evaluation, to better understand the
quality of the data;
•Qualitative RPAs;
•WET requirements as they are linked to UDWQ's WET
guidance; and
•The process that permit writers conducted to ensure they
evaluated and applied the most stringent of TBELs and
WQBELs as the final effluent limitations.
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 MS4
Permit Requirements.
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters
Background
Nutrient pollution is one of America's most widespread, costly, and challenging environmental
problems. In April 2022, EPA issued a memo reiterating EPA's commitment to nutrient pollution
Essential
Recommended
FINAL May 2023
Page 25 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
reductions throughout the country5. Some of the topics discussed in the memo include
"strongly encouraging states to rely on numeric targets for...NPDES permitting" and an
expectation that states will "commit to use numeric targets to implement applicable narrative
criteria statements." However, nationally permits often lack nutrient limits and/or monitoring.
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 WLAs in TMDLs, since state
criteria are often challenging to interpret. For this section of the report, waters that are not
protected by a TMDL are considered. These waters may already be 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 review, ammonia is considered as a toxic
pollutant, not a nutrient.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i) require permit limitations to control all pollutants
which are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to
cause, or contribute to an excursion of any state WQS, whether those standards are narrative
or numeric. To assess how nutrients are addressed in the Utah NPDES program, EPA Region 8
reviewed Utah's Water Quality Standards and Regulations concerning nutrients, as well as three
UPDES permits.
In Utah Administrative Code R317-2-7.2, Utah has adopted a narrative criterion applicable to
nutrients. This narrative criteriion prohibits discharges which cause conditions which produce
undesirable aquatic life. Additionally, UDWQ has adopted several criteria for both causal
variables, response variables, and combined criterion that generally apply to headwaters
streams. These include numeric nitrogen and phosphorus criteria adopted in Table 2.14.8 of
UAC R317-2-14. These criteria are 400 |ag/L total nitrogen (TN) and 35 |ag/L total phosphorus
(TP) and are for the protection of aquatic life and associated water-oriented wildlife. In the
same table, Utah has also adopted a combined criterion which includes both causal and
response variables. In the combined criterion, the protective levels of causal variables (i.e.,
nitrogen and phosphorus) are 800 |ag/LTN and 80 |ag/LTP, AND one of the following response
variables: filamentous algae cover 33%, gross primary production 6 g 02/m2-day, or ecosystem
respiration 5 g 02/m2-day. Finally, Utah has adopted a chlorophyll-a criterion of 125 mg/m2 or
49 g/m2 ash free dry mass in Table 2.14.7 of UAC317-2-14. All of these adopted criteria are
generally state-wide criteria that apply to Category 1 and 2 streams. Since these Category 1 and
2 streams are all headwaters streams, these criteria do not apply to any current point source
discharges in Utah. Category 1 and 2 streams are generally protected from point source
expansion, so it is unlikely that these criteria will apply to any point source discharges in the
future. However, the prohibition against conditions which produce undesirable aquatic life
applies to all state waters.
UDWQ has also adopted several nutrient-related regulations that aim to control or reduce
nutrient loadings to state waters. In UAC R317-1-3.3, they have adopted technology-based
5 EPA, Assistant Administrator Radhika Fox to States and Tribes, April 5, 2022. Accelerating Nutrient Pollution
Reductions in the Nation's Waters, EPA Office of Water, https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/2022-epa-
nutrient-reduction-memorandum
FINAL May 2023
Page 26 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
limits for controlling phosphorus pollution and optimizing removal of total inorganic nitrogen.
The phosphorus approach assigns a technology-based limit of 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus to
non-lagoon treatment works, and phosphorus caps at 125% of current loading to lagoons. If a
lagoon exceeds the 125% threshold, then they must upgrade their treatment system. Both
types of facilities are eligible for variances from this requirement through January 1, 2025.
According to UDWQ, some facilities have used the variance, while others have already complied
with the 1.0 mg/L total phosphorus requirement. The state is on track to have all facilities
compliant with these requirements by no later than January 1, 2025. The adopted approach for
total inorganic nitrogen is a voluntary optimization that allows the facility to receive a waiver
from any nitrogen TBEL or WQBEL for 10 years. The due date for this optimization was 2020.
According to UDWQ, no facilities adopted this approach because UDWQ did not pursue any
type of nitrogen TBELs or WQBELs. Finally, the rules at UAC R317-1-3.3(E) require all discharging
treatment works to implement a monthly monitoring program for nitrogen and phosphorus in
both influent and effluent, with limited exceptions.
Utah is hoping to adopt water quality criteria for both TN and TP in Utah Lake by 2030.
Additionally, TN and TP standards (below the state-wide TBPBEL) are being developed as
watershed-based water quality criteria.
EPA also reviewed three facility's UPDES permits to determine how the nutrient conditions
above were being implemented in permits. A general summary of each review is included
below:
• Central Weber Sewer Improvement District, UT0021911 (POTW, major)
o Receiving stream is the Weber River, which is not listed as impaired for nutrients,
o Facility's permit application indicated that nitrogen and phosphorus were
pollutants of concern; however, no further analysis of RP for either nutrient (no
analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges vs. the general narrative criteria
was performed).
o Permit did contain the phosphorus TBEL - at 1.5 mg/L (through 2024) rather
than 1.0 mg/L due to a TBEL variance granted,
o Fact sheet did not discuss reason for the TBEL variance or the demonstration
that was used,
o No nitrogen limits in permit.
o Permit contains general narrative prohibition against undesirable aquatic life,
o Permit requires monthly influent and effluent monitoring for both nitrogen and
phosphorus.
o No other novel/innovative approaches to controlling nutrients were included in
the permit (e.g., trading, plant optimization, adaptive management, etc.)
• Snyderville (East Canyon) Water Reclamation Facility, UT0020001 (POTW, major)
o Receiving stream is East Canyon Creek and is listed as impaired for total
phosphorus.
o There is an EPA-approved TMDL for phosphorus for East Canyon Creek,
o Facility's permit application indicated that nitrogen and phosphorus were
pollutants of concern.
FINAL May 2023
Page 27 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
o Fact sheet determined that there was RP based on the total phosphorusTMDL
(no analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges vs. the general narrative
criteria was performed),
o Permit included an effluent limitation of 1,973 pounds per year of total
phosphorus directly from the TMDL WLA.
o No nitrogen limits in permit.
o Permit contains general narrative prohibition against undesirable aquatic life,
o Permit requires monthly influent and effluent monitoring for both nitrogen and
phosphorus.
o No other novel/innovative approaches to controlling nutrients were included in
the permit (e.g., trading, plant optimization, adaptive management, etc.)
• Chevron Products Company Wastewater Treatment Plant, UT0000175 (industrial,
major)
o Receiving stream is the Northwest Oil Drain/Salt Lake Sewage Canals and is not
listed as impaired for any nutrients,
o Facility's permit application indicated that phosphorus was a pollutant of
concern; however, fact sheet noted there was no applicable WQS for
phosphorus, and so no further analysis of RP for phosphorus,
o No nutrient limits included in permit.
o Permit contains general narrative prohibition against undesirable aquatic life,
o No nutrient monitoring included in permit.
o No other novel/innovative approaches to controlling nutrients were included in
the permit (e.g., trading, plant optimization, adaptive management, etc.)
Program Strengths
Based on discussions with UDWQ during the PQR, nutrient monitoring is required for almost all
POTWs and some industrial facilities 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.
A strong nutrient monitoring program sets UDWQ up well to develop a baseline set of data that
will inform future nutrient related water quality projects.
Additionally, UDWQ has adopted a technology-based phosphorus requirement for POTWs that
many facilities are already meeting, and most others will be required to meet by January 1,
2025. This requirement has resulted in measurable reductions in phosphorus loading
throughout the state.
Finally, UDWQ is in the process of developing in-stream WQS for lakes and watersheds
throughout the state. This effort will provide additional protections for many of the State's
waters.
Areas for Improvement
As mentioned above, the Utah WQS contain a general narrative water quality standard related
to nutrients. This standard prohibits discharges which cause conditions which produce
FINAL May 2023
Page 28 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
undesirable aquatic life (UAC R317-2.2). While this narrative water quality standard was
included in each permit that was reviewed, there was no discussion in the fact sheets regarding
the link between nutrients and the narrative criteria. All three permits reviewed had at least
one form of nutrient identified as present in the facility's discharge. The defensibility of the fact
sheet should be strengthened by including a discussion of reasonable potential, discussing
whether an existing limit (e.g., a TBPBEL, a WLA from a TMDL, etc.) adequately protects the
general narrative criteria, and a discussion of how inclusion of the narrative water quality
standard in the permit as a statement will equate to practices that ensure its protection. These
discussions in the permit record would strengthen the nutrient protections afforded by Utah's
general narrative water quality standard.
For example, in one permit reviewed (Chevron - UT0000175), data from the facility indicated
that phosphorus was found in the discharge screening. The state concluded that since there
was no applicable phosphorus water quality standard, no further reasonable potential
discussions or considerations were necessary. However, Utah's "free from" narrative water
quality criterion for undesirable aquatic life (which the state included in the permit) does apply
to the receiving water, and eutrophication and growth of algae is directly tied to excess nutrient
concentrations (such as phosphorus). A discussion of the relationship between phosphorus and
this narrative standard in the fact sheet would strengthen the defensibility of the permit.
The state should also clearly document their reasoning when a TBEL variance is granted for the
TBPEL compliance date. In one permit reviewed (Central Weber - UT0021911), the facility was
granted a TBEL variance to the compliance date to achieve the TBPBEL of 1.0 mg/L. They were
granted an interim effluent limitation of 1.5 mg/L through December 31, 2024. However, the
reasoning behind this TBEL variance was not documented in the permit record. Per UAC R317-
1-3.3(C)(1), a TBEL variance may be authorized for several conditions laid out in the regulations.
It is unclear why this facility was granted the variance or which one of the eligible conditions
they met to be authorized for a variance. To strengthen the defensibility of the permit, the
permit record should present the basis for the TBEL variance and tie it into Utah regulations.
Additionally, UDWQ has some ambitious goals for continuing to develop water quality numeric
criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. While the permitting record and the available
documentation show that UDWQ is developing an excellent collection of nutrient data from
treatment works, from the permits reviewed during the PQR it appears that there may be a lack
of nutrient monitoring data required by non-POTW (i.e., industrial facilities). These types of
facilities can often be significant contributors of nutrients, depending on their processes and
volume of discharge. The inclusion of more robust nutrient monitoring requirements in these
permits would help UDWQ better characterize nutrient loadings in watersheds throughout the
state and support the goals and initiatives of UDWQ's nutrient strategy.
FINAL May 2023
Page 29 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•Per 40 CFR 122.44(d) and UAC R317-2.2, UDWQ fact sheets must
address whether a discharge causes or has reasonable potential to
cause or contribute to an excursion of the narrative "free from
undesirable aquatic life" standard, and how any narrative
conditions included in the permit will ensure protection of the
water quality standard.
•Document the basis for a TBEL variance authorization in the fact
sheet, based on the allowable conditions for a TBEL variance set out
in UAC R317-1-3.3(C)(1).
•Include nutrient monitoring in permits at non-POTW facilities with
the potential to be significant nutrient loading contributors.
Recommended
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor
Contributions
The general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403) establish responsibilities of federal, state,
and local government, industry and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control
pollutants from industrial users (lUs) which may cause pass through or interfere with POTW
treatment processes or which may contaminate sewage sludge.
Background
Indirect discharges of food processors can be a significant contributor to noncompliance at
recipient POTWs. Food processing discharges frequently contribute excess nutrients and toxics
pollution (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia) to the nation's waterways. Focusing specifically
on the Food Processing Industrial Sector will synchronize PQRs with the Office of Enforcement
Compliance and Assurance (OECA)'s Significant Non-compliance (SNC)/National Compliance
Initiative (NCI).
The goal of the PQR was to identify successful and unique practices with respect to the control
of food processor discharges by evaluating whether appropriate controls are included in the
receiving POTW NPDES Permit and documented in the associated FSSOB; as well as by
compiling information to develop or improve permit writers' tools to be used to improve both
POTW and industrial user compliance.
The PQR also assessed the status of the pretreatment program in Utah as well as specific
language in POTW UPDES permits. With respect to UPDES permits, EPA focused on the
following regulatory requirements for pretreatment activities and pretreatment programs:
• 40 CFR 122.42(b) (POTW requirements to notify Director of new pollutants or change in
discharge);
FINAL May 2023
Page 30 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• 40 CFR 122.44(j) (Pretreatment Programs for POTWs);
• 40 CFR 403.8 (Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation
by POTW), including the requirement to permit all significant industrial users (SlUs);
• 40 CFR 403.9 (POTW Pretreatment Program and/or Authorization to revise
Pretreatment Standards: Submission for Approval);
• 40 CFR 403.12(i) (Annual POTW Reports); and
• 40 CFR 403.18 (Modification of POTW Pretreatment Program).
EPA evaluated information in the ICIS database during the PQR to summarize the data elements
related to the UDWQ's authorization to implement the Pretreatment program as an Approval
Authority and a Control Authority.
Appit>\ill Authority Implementation
Number of Approved Pretreatment Programs
19
Number of significant industrial users (SIUs) in Approved Pretreatment
Programs
304
Control Authority Implementation
Number of categorical industrial users (CIUs) discharging to
municipalities that do not have approved pretreatment programs
4
State Pretreatment Authorization and MOA
UDEQ was authorized by EPA to administer the NPDES program, including the Pretreatment
Program, in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed in 1987. Section VI of the MOA
memorializes the Pretreatment authorization to the state of Utah, pursuant to Sections 307,
402, and 403 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., and 40 CFR 123.24.
Permit Quality Review of UPDES Permits
EPA evaluated four UPDES permits and associated fact sheets issued by UDWQ to POTWs with
and without approved Pretreatment programs:
• POTWs with an approved Pretreatment program:
o Central Weber
o Springville
• POTWs without an approved Pretreatment program:
o Hyrum
o Richmond City
FINAL May 2023
Page 31 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
The Central Weber and Springville permits were evaluated to ensure that the approved
Pretreatment program requirements in 40 CFR Part 403 were required as a condition of the
permit. The Hyrum and Richmond City permits were evaluated to ensure that at a minimum,
the permit contained NPDES Pretreatment requirements in 40 CFR 122.42(b) (POTW
requirement to notify Director of new pollutants or change in discharge) and 40 CFR 122.44(j)
which require all POTWs to:
(1) Identify, in terms of character and volume of pollutants, any SlUs discharging into
the POTW subject to Pretreatment Standards under section 307(b) of CWA and 40 CFR
Part 403.
(2)(i) Submit a local program when required by and in accordance with 40 CFR part 403
to assure compliance with pretreatment standards to the extent applicable under
section 307(b). The local program shall be incorporated into the permit as described in
40 CFR Part 403. The program must require all indirect dischargers to the POTW to
comply with the reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 403.
(ii) Provide a written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits under 40 CFR
403.5(c)(1), following permit issuance or reissuance.
(3) For POTWs which are "sludge-only facilities," a requirement to develop a
pretreatment program under 40 CFR Part 403 when the Director determines that a
pretreatment program is necessary to assure compliance with Section 405(d) of the
CWA.
In addition, the UPDES permits, fact sheets and applicable associated records were evaluated to
determine their effectiveness to identify non-domestic contributions from food processors and
provide applicable control, if necessary. Food processing discharges, and other wastewaters
with high strength conventional pollutant concentrations, frequently contribute excess
nutrients and toxics pollution (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, ammonia) to the nation's waterways.
Indirect discharges of food processors or other lUs can be a significant contributor to
noncompliance at POTWs that receive the waste. If these food processors or other significant
lUs have the potential to impact POTWs, whether discharging to state waters or not, UDWQ
needs to ensure these lUs are in compliance with Pretreatment Standards. This includes but is
not limited to, IU surveys, facility inspections/investigations, application of Pretreatment
Standards in control mechanisms and ensuring appropriate conditions are included in IU
permits or UPDES permits.
According to information gathered during the March 10, 2021 Pretreatment PQR interview, the
Utah Pretreatment Coordinator evaluated available records such as the UPDES permit
application, Pretreatment annual reports, IU inventories specific to the POTW's service area,
and Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) and EnviroFacts databases to
determine if there were any potential impacts from non-domestic sources in the service area,
including food processors for each UPDES reissued permit.
FINAL May 2023
Page 32 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
For POTWs with approved Pretreatment programs, the Pretreatment Coordinator reviewed
past audits and annual reports for the permittee to determine potential impacts from lUs in the
service area, including food processing facilities. The Pretreatment Coordinator either
developed the Pretreatment section of the UPDES permit or discussed the needs with the
UPDES permit writer to ensure the permit addresses conditions within the permittee's service
area.
For POTWs without an approved Pretreatment program, the Pretreatment Coordinator
reviewed the UPDES permit application, IU inventories, ECHO and Envirofacts databases to
determine potential impacts from food processors and other lUs. The Pretreatment
Coordinator either developed the Pretreatment section of the UPDES permit or had discussions
with the UPDES permit writer to ensure the permit addresses conditions within the permittee's
service area. For example, if the permittee did not provide detailed information regarding the
lUs in the service area in its permit application, the reissued permit required the permittee to
complete the IU inventory. The Pretreatment Coordinator reviewed all UPDES permits
developed by UDWQ to ensure applicable Pretreatment requirements and conditions were
applied.
Based on the permit quality review of these permit, EPA has the following findings/comments:
Springville, UT0020834:
• Food processing lUs: Nestle Frozen Foods/Stouffers (frozen meals), SupraNaturals
(nutritional powders and drinks)
• UPDES Permit Application submitted by the POTW was thorough and complete
• FSSOB:
o Provided a description that adequately characterizes Nestle, which is a SIU in the
POTWs service area. The characterization included who/what they are, how the
contribute, and what kind of pretreatment they provided and how the surcharge
fees have improved water quality in the system.
o The "Pretreatment" section of the FSSOB did not adequately address the approved
Pretreatment program; it contained three short paragraphs stating that they have
an approved pretreatment program and under which authority it existed (UAC
reference), that they must do an annual evaluation to revise or develop local limits,
and that they must sample for metals and total toxic organics (TTOs) annually.
However, the FSSOB did not discuss any specifics of this pretreatment program
(approval date, etc.), nor did it characterize or identify the contributing lUs (i.e., how
many SlUs/CIUs, what they were, how much flow they provided, etc). In addition,
the FSSOB did not describe if hauled waste was received by the POTW.
o The FSSOB did not contain information on development of local limits.
• Permit:
o Did not contain Pretreatment requirements found in 40 CFR 122.42(b).
FINAL May 2023
Page 33 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
o Did not identify when the approved program was implemented.
o Did not have any special conditions to control or monitor the food processing
waste streams.
Central Weber, UT0021911:
• Food processing lUs: Treehouse Brands (cookie processor), CSM Bakeries (wholesale
bakery), Gordito's Meats (slaughterhouse), Admiral Beverage (soft drink manufacturer)
• UPDES Permit Application:
o Applicant did not completely fill out section F of form 2A, but instead attached a
table. This table did not provide all the information required in section F. Missing
information included a description of all industrial processes, principal products
and raw materials, and average daily volume of wastewater discharged broken
up by process and non-process flow.
o The application also had a discrepancy between the table and the section F of
form 2A on the number of ClUs and SlUs. Section F stated 6 SlUs and 24 ClUs; the
attached table listed 11 SlUs and 20 ClUs.
• FSSOB
o The "Pretreatment" section mentioned that the facility will no longer be
required to implement a mercury control program due to categorical standards
being developed and because the permittee has not violated mercury since
2016.
o The "Pretreatment" section of the FSSOB did not adequately address the
approved Pretreatment program; it contained three short paragraphs stating
that they had an approved pretreatment program and under which authority it
existed (UAC reference), that they must do an annual evaluation to revise or
develop local limits, and that they must sample for metals and TTOs annually.
However, the FSSOB did not discuss any specifics of this pretreatment program
(approval date, etc.), nor did it characterize or identify the contributing lUs (i.e.,
how many SlUs/CIUs, what they were, how much flow they provide, etc). In
addition, the FSSOB did not describe if hauled waste was received by the POTW.
o The FSSOB did not contain information on development of local limits.
o The FSSOB did not contain a flow diagram indicating where the food processing
waste was introduced to the POTW.
• Permit:
o Did not contain Pretreatment requirements contained in 40 CFR 122.42(b).
o Did not identify when the approved program was implemented.
o Did not identify if/whether the POTW has adopted any local limits.
FINAL May 2023
Page 34 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
o Did not have any special conditions to control or monitor the food processing
waste streams.
Hyrum, UT0023205:
• Food processing lUs: West Point Dairy (dairy manufacturer - butter mostly)
• UPDES Permit Application:
o Application in section F of form 2A listed a zero for number of SlUs, but then
listed West Point Dairy under SlUs. In addition, the FSSOB was not clear
regarding the type of dairy manufacturing.
• FSSOB
o The "Pretreatment" section of the FSSOB provided a requirement for an
industrial waste survey and local limits but it did not include justification for why
Hyrum does not need an approved pretreatment program. The FSSOB stated
that the industrial users were less than 1% of total inflow to POTW but it
appeared that the West Point Dairy contributes about 10%, according to the
application and permit.
o The FSSOB did not discuss any specifics of this pretreatment program (approval
date, etc.), nor did it characterize or identify the contributing lUs (i.e., how many
SlUs/CIUs, what they were, how much flow they provide, etc). In addition, the
FSSOB did not describe if hauled waste was received by the POTW.
o An incomplete industrial waste survey was included in the FSSOB.
o The FSSOB did not contain information on development of local limits.
o The FSSOB did not contain a flow diagram indicating where the SIU waste was
introduced to the POTW.
• Permit:
o Required an industrial waste survey (IWS) and influent/effluent monitoring for
metals and TTOs.
o Did not identify if/whether the POTW had adopted local limits and did not
require revision of local limits, as necessary.
Richmond, UT0020907:
• UPDES Permit Application:
o The POTW did not indicate lUs on their permit application.
• FSSOB:
o Lacked documentation in the FSSOB regarding the number, type, size, and
operations of lUs in the POTW's service area.
FINAL May 2023
Page 35 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
o The FSSOB did not acknowledge the existence of lUs.
o The number of lUs was also not well tracked and, per conversations with the
state, may have changed since the last permitting cycle - this was not
conclusively addressed in the record.
o The FSSOB did not address the transition from an approved PT program to an
unapproved program.
• The record did not indicate the full extent of oversight activities being performed by the
state or the full extent of compliance activities required for the POTW to remain in
compliance as an unapproved program.
Program Strengths
The Pretreatment Coordinator was directly involved with the evaluation of industrial
contributions from the POTW's service area, this may include an evaluation of the UPDES permit
application, coordinating with the UPDES permit writer or developing the Pretreatment section
of the FSSOB and permit. However, the universe of UPDES permits may be a resource concern
for the Pretreatment Coordinator.
Additionally, it appeared that UDWQ provided good coverage of the state of Utah for the
ClUs/SIUs in POTWs without approved Pretreatment programs by requiring the submittal of IWSs
in the UPDES permit application.
Areas for Improvement
The review found that permit application form 2A, Section F, which requires an adequate
description of non-domestic wastewater contributions, was not consistently completed by the
permittee.
Permits did not consistently implement requirements regarding notification of new pollutants or
change in discharge, as required in 40 CFR 122.42(b). Permits also did not consistently identify
whether the POTW had adopted local limits and require revision of existing local limits, as
necessary. For permittees with significant contributions from food processing lUs, permits did
not include any special conditions to control or monitor the food processing waste streams.
The review also found that FSSOB lacked adequate description of the Pretreatment requirements
forthe permittee such as justification on whetheran approved program is required, if local limits
development is required, characterization or identification of the contributing lUs, flow diagram
with locations of SlUs in the service area, and receipt of hauled waste. FSSOBs also did not
consistently provide the approval date for POTWs with approved Pretreatment programs.
FINAL May 2023
Page 36 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Action Items
•UPDES permits need to consistently implement Pretreatment
requirements found in 40 CFR 122.42(b).
•UDWQ needs to ensure the UPDES permit application form 2 A, Section F
is consistently completed by the permittee during the permit renewal
process to provide an adequate description of non-domestic wastewater
contribution from the permittee's service area.
•FSSOB should provide adequate description of the Pretreatment
requirements for the permittee such as justification on whether an
approved program is required, if local limits development are
required, characterization or identification of the contributing IUs
(i.e., how many SIUs/CIUs, whatthey are, how much flow they
provide, etc), flow diagram with locations of SIUs in the service area,
and receipt of hauled waste.
•FSSOB should provide the approval date for POTWs with approved
Pretreatment programs.
•UPDES permits should identify whether the POTW has adopted local
limits and require revision of existing local limits, as necessary.
•Per 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1), POTWs are required to continue to develop
limits as necessary and effectively enforce such limits. For permittees
with significant contributions from food processing IUs, UPDES
permits should include special conditions to control or monitor the
food processing waste streams.
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
Requirements
Background
As part of this PQR, EPA reviewed Jordan Valley Municipalities General Permit UTS000001, one
of the state's small MS4 general permits for consistency with the Phase II stormwater permit
regulations. This permit was signed on February 26, 2020, effective February 26, 2020 and
expires on February 25, 2025.
In 2017, EPA finalized updates to the small MS4 permitting regulations 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
FINAL May 2023
Page 37 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
(b)); and (3) the requirement that permit terms must be established in a "clear, specific, and
measurable" manner (see 40 CFR 122.34(a)).
Areas for Improvement
The permit and/or FSSOB did not clearly specify the approach (Comprehensive General Permit
or a Two-Step General Permit) as required by 40 CFR 122.28(d). The construction minimum
control measure did not have procedures for receipt and consideration of information
submitted by the public as required by 40 CFR 122.34(b)(4)(i). The public involvement minimum
control measure lacks clear, specific and measurable requirements as required by 122.34(a).
Action Items
•The permit and/or Fact Sheet must specify the approach
(Comprehensive General Permit or a Two-Step General Permit) as
required by 40 CFR 122.28(d).
•The construction minimum control measure must have procedures
for receipt and consideration of information submitted by the public
as required by 40 CFR 122.34(b)(4)(i).
•The public involvement minimum control measure must include
clear, specific, and measurable requirements as required by 40 CFR
122.34(a).
•The PQR did not identify any recommended action items for this
PQR component.
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
A. Previously Abandoned Mines
EPA Region 8 reviewed abandoned mine drainage from legacy mines as the Regional Topic
Area. UDWQ has been faced with the challenge of permitting historically abandoned mine
discharges when ski resort companies purchase land (and the associated mine discharges) for
resort expansion. After the land has been purchased, UDWQ issues UPDES permits to the ski
report companies. The challenges with permitting these types of discharges are that the
locations are very remote, densely forested areas with heavy snow fall in the winter months.
This creates logistical issues with designing, constructing, and implementing a treatment system
for the discharge. There is no existing electricity in these areas which is needed to power more
advanced treatment systems like reverse osmosis or pressure filtration. Accessibility to operate
the treatment system and sampling the discharge during winter months is also challenging due
FINAL May 2023
Page 38 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
to snow, ice, and steep grades in the densely forested terrain. Permitting legacy mines is a fairly
recent challenge with limited or no history in Utah or other states for reference.
For this topic, EPA reviewed BLX Mayflower, LLC (UT0026140) which became effective on
December 1, 2020. UDWQ is in the process of issuing two to three similar type permits to other
ski resort companies who recently purchased land with historically abandoned mine discharges.
Program Strengths
EPA commended the state for tackling legacy mines when a new owner is identified through a
land purchase. EPA recognized that permitting abandoned mine drainage from legacy mines
was unique and could be quite challenging, complex, and politically charged to permit these
discharges. Many times, the mine discharge was discharging to an impaired waterbody and
there may or may not have been an EPA-approved TMDL on the waterbody. The state
addressing these discharges through permitting actions is setting the tone regionally and
nationally for previously abandoned mines.
Areas for Improvement
The following aspects of the permit application were deficient:
• No facility location or operator information was listed on permit application; however,
the application was still deemed complete (40 CFR Part 122.21(f)(2) and (4)(2)). The
FSSOB stated "TBD" for actual address. UDWQ should work we the permittee to identify
a temporary address until a permanent address can be located.
• Only outfall 001 was identified in the permit application, but 001 and 002 were listed as
permitted outfalls in the permit and FSSOB. The FSSOB should explain why outfall 002
was added and require an application be submitted for this outfall.
• The permit application described a treatment system of coagulation using chlorine and
pressure filtration using silica type media. Yet, there was no mention of a specific
treatment in the permit or FSSOB and there was no chlorine monitoring or limit. It was
unclear what treatment would be used to comply with the permit limits and the permit
only stated that the site was under construction and that the compliance schedule
would allow time to develop plans for flow and treatment.
• The FSSOB and Aqua Engineering report mentioned that data were available for several
pollutants of concern for outfalls #001 (inactive Mayflower mine effluent) and #002
(inactive Star mine effluent), but the permit application in Tables B (p. 46 of 67) and C
(p. 50 of 67) did not have them marked as believed to be present.
¦ The model used suggested that routine monitoring requirements would be placed or
increased from what they are in the permit.
There was no mention of whether the facility discharged to impaired waterbody or whether
there were TMDLs in effect. According to the 303(d) list in Utah's 2016 Integrated Report,
McHenry Creek and tributaries (Glencoe is listed as a tributary of McHenry Creek) were listed as
impaired for cadmium and zinc. However, no TMDL has been approved for McHenry Creek. The
FINAL May 2023
Page 39 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
permit compliance schedule did not have interim milestones to demonstrate the permittee
would achieve compliance with the final limits. Further, there was no schedule for determining
what treatment (if any) would be required to comply with final limits.
Action Items
•UDWQ must ensure that the facility provide a complete permit
application, including facility location and operator information
requirements at 40 CFR 122.21(f)(2) and (3).
• UDWQ must ensure that the facility provide a complete permit
application, including information for all outfalls (40 CRR
122.21(g)).
•UDWQ must ensure that compliance schedules include appropriate
activities and that interim milestones are included in permits with
compliances schedules exceeding one year (122.47(a)(3)(i)).
•FSSOB should describe basis for including an additional outfall not
identified in the application.
•FSSOB should address any waterbody impairments and applicable
TMDLS identified on the most recent 303(d) list for Utah.
Essential
Recommended
FINAL May 2023
Page 40 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
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 April 21-25, 2014. 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 is consolidating these
two categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Table 1. Essential Action Items Identified During the 2014 PQR
Technology-Based
Effluent Limits
Technology-Based
Effluent Limits
The Program needs to indicate how
permittees with limitations that are less
than the National Secondary Treatment
Standards met the regulatory
requirements for less stringent
limitations (Central Davis).
Permits need to provide an explanation
or justification for the use of BPJ and
include information to determine how an
ELG limit was derived, as required in 40
CFR 125.3(d). (Miller-EA).
(In progress) Central Davis Sewer District's permit (UT0020974) will be
modified to require the permittee to meet secondary treatment standards
for BOD5 and TSS percent removal.
(In progress ) UDWQ will begin including information in the FSSOB on how
BPJ was derived. This is primarily associated with Oil and Grease. The
UDWQ has historically utilized 10 mg/L daily max as a limit for Oil and
Grease. The historical implementation of the 10 mg/L daily max Oil and
Grease limit has demonstrated that it is protective of the DWQ's narrative
standard in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-2-7.2 which states "It
shall be unlawful, and a violation of this rule, for any person to discharge or
place any waste or other substance in such a way as will be or may become
offensive such as unnatural deposits, floating debris, oil, scum or other
nuisances such as color, odor or taste; or cause conditions which produce
undesirable aquatic life or which produce objectionable tastes in edible
aquatic organisms..." As permits are renewed and modified that have an
effluent limit derived through BPJ, a justification will be added.
FINAL May 2023
Page 41 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Water Quality- Permits must include if the receiving
Based Effluent water was impaired, and if so, if there was
Limits an approved TMDL and how the discharge
will comply with the TMDL.
Reasonable
Potential
Permits must contain effluent limitations
for pollutants that cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to an excursion of state WQS
including narrative standards per 40 CFR
Part 122.44(d)(1) (Central Davis Sewer
District).
Reasonable
Potential
Anti-backsliding
Utah's RP Policy should be completed
and submitted to EPA Region 8 for
review. Region 8 has noted this as a
critical finding in previous PQR reviews.
Permits that have an increased loading
from previous permits shall include
documentation for how it will comply
with the anti-backsliding requirements
40 CFR 122.44(1) (St. George).
FINAL May 2023
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
(Resolved) UDWQ has made efforts to include information in each Permit
FSSOB that discusses whether the receiving water is impaired, has an
approved TMDL, and how the Permit will comply with the TMDL. UDWQ
had primarily been documenting this in the wasteload analyses (attached to
FSSOB), but has recently (post-FY21 PQR) updated the boilerplate language
in the FSSOB to include a specific section to address this item and ensure
consistency moving forward. As permits are renewed, it will be ensured that
this requirement is addressed (when applicable).
(Resolved) UDWQ changed the way it evaluates discharges into the Great
Salt Lake (GSL). Previously a wasteload analysis (WLA) was not generated
for discharges to the GSL. Permit renewals prior had a document declaring
that there was a finding of no significant impact for the discharge. UDWQ
permit writers evaluate RP for WET based on UDWQ's UPDES Permit and
Enforcement Guidance Document for WET ("Wet Guidance ") (dated
February 2018). Additionally, DWQ developed Reasonable Potential
Guidance ("RP Guidance") (dated September 10, 2015), which is utilized
during Permit renewals to identify pollutants that cause, have the
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion of state water
quality standards, including narrative standards. Between the change to the
use of WLAs for the GSL and the UDWQ developing and following both Wet
Guidance and RP Guidance this item has been resolved.
(Resolved) UDWQ submitted their RPA Guidance ("RP Guidance") (dated
September 10, 2015) to EPA on June 19, 2015. DWQ continues to utilize the
RP Guidance.
(In progress ) UDWQ is working to identify an appropriate prompt in the
Boilerplate FSSOB that will address this issue. Once an appropriate prompt
is identified, it will be added into the FSSOB boilerplate language.
Additionally, as permits are reviewed, UDWQ management will verify that
changes in limitations that result in less stringent requirements are
appropriately justified.
Page 42 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Standard and The State's standard and special
Special Conditions conditions need to be at least equivalent
to 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42.
Specifically, not included in the State's
condition is the requirement that the
alternation or addition to a permitted
facility may meet one of the criteria for
determination whether a facility is a new
source 40 CFR 122.29(b).
Standard and The State's special permit conditions for
Special Conditions manufacturing, commercial, and mining
dischargers did not include a notification
level for discharges, on a non-routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant
FINAL May 2023
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
(Resolved) UDWQ updated boilerplate permit standard condition language
in "planned changes" to state:
A. "Planned Changes. The permittee shall give notice to the
Director as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations
or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only
when:
1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet
one of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a
new source in Section R317-8-8; or
2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the
nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.
This notification applies to pollutants which are subject
neither to effluent limitations in the permit nor to
notification requirements under Subsection R317-8-4.1(15).
3. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in
the permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and such
alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of
permit conditions that are different from or absent in the
existing permit, including notification of additional use or
disposal sites not reported during the permit application
process or not reported pursuant to an approved land
application plan. The permittee shall give notice to the
Director of any planned changes at least 30 days prior to
their implementation."
( Resolved ) Special permit conditions for manufacturing, commercial, and
mining dischargers include notification levels for discharges, on a non-
routine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the
permit and that will exceed the highest of the notification levels, as
required in 40 CFR 122.42(a)(2). The applicable permit types include
Page 43 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
which is not limited in the permit and
that will exceed the highest of the
notification levels, as required in 40 CFR
122.42(a)(2).
Administrative Utah's administrative record must
Process contain the documentation to verify
public notices have been published in
the local newspaper. Public notices need
to have the verification (such as affidavit
from the newspaper agency) in the file.
FINAL May 2023
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
specific language to address this. As an example, below is language
included in Emery County Coal Resources, Inc. - Lila Canyon Mine
(UT0026018).
"Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances. Notification shall be provided to
the Director as soon as the permittee knows of, or has reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the
discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not
limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the
following "notification levels":
a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/L);
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and
acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L) for 2,4-
dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6- dinitrophenol; and one milligram per
liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with UAC R317-8-3.4(7) or
(10); or
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with UAC R317-8-
4.2(6)."
The requirements outlined in the permit and State rules is equivalent to the
requirements in 40 CFR 122.42(a)(2).
( Resolved ) At the March 25, 2020 Utah Water Quality Board Meeting the
Board voted to adopt revisions to Utah Administrative Code R317-8-
6.5(3)(b). The revisions allow UDWQto provide public notice of permitting
actions for UPDES individual and general permits on the UDWQ's website in
lieu of the newspaper publication requirement in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(i).
This is consistent with 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2)(iv) and the revisions became
Page 44 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Documentation UPDES Program must ensure permit files
include complete documentation of RP
analyses.
Whole Effluent FSSOBs must provide adequate
Toxicity descriptions about the permit writer's
decision making process for WET
determinations. Specifically, the
following should be documented in
permits/FSSOBs:
• EPA Test acceptability criteria
(TAC) for sampling requirements
or analysis
• Dilution factors/series to include
five effluent test concentrations
plus a control as required under
EPA WET test methods (40 CFR
Part 136)
Whole Effluent Utah should develop a policy for how
Toxicity WET RP will be determined.
Stormwater The post-construction stormwater
management requirements (Part 4.2.5.}
are insufficient to meet current
FINAL May 2023
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
effective on April 1, 2020. All UDWQ permit renewal public notices are now
posted on UDWQ's website. Prior to the rule change, UDWQ strived to
include newspaper affidavits in the permit file.
( Resolved ) RPAs are included as attachments to permit FSSOBs and are
additionally included in UDWQ's electronic filing system with the permit
record. UDWQfollows the 2015 Reasonable Potential Guidance. If a facility
does not have enough information for an accurate RPA, monitoring
requirements are added to the permit to ensure that enough information is
obtained to conduct a reasonable potential analysis during the next
renewal.
(Resolved) UDWQ permit writers evaluate WET based on UDWQ's UPDES
Permit and Enforcement Guidance Document for WET (dated February
2018). The UDWQ Boilerplate FSSOB includes a section for specific details
wet determinations and the wasteload analyses (attached to the FSSOB)
include further information regarding wet determinations. The Boilerplate
Permit language also identifies wet requirements in detail. Between
information the Permit, FSSOB, and WLA these items have been resolved.
( Resolved ) UDWQ permit writers evaluate RP for WET based on UDWQ's
UPDES Permit and Enforcement Guidance Document for WET (dated
February 2018).
( Resolved ) All MS4 Permits now have post-construction retention
standards. The MS4 permits require "all new development projects meeting
the applicable threshold, to manage rainfall on-site, and prevent the off-site
Page 45 of 55
-------
expectations of the Maximum Extent
Practicable (MEP) standard for MS4s.
The post-construction standard requires
that MS4s develop and adopt a
postconstruction ordinance.
Development of ordinances should have
been completed in previous permit
terms, such that this permit could
include a standard (UTSOOOOOI).
The SNC definition in Program's
Pretreatment Rules is not equivalent to
40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii)(c). The SNC
criterion limits any other violation to a
Pretreatment effluent limit for a
permitted facility instead of a
Pretreatment Standard or Requirement
that applies to all lUs. The Program is
required to update its Pretreatment
Rules to align with the SNC definition
found in the Federal Pretreatment
Regulations.
The Program is required, as the control
authority, to meet the inspection and
sampling frequency of 1/year, as
required in 403.8(f)(2)(v) of the
Pretreatment regulations.
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
discharge of runoff associated with precipitation less than or equal to the
80th percentile rainfall event" and "redevelopment projects meeting the
applicable threshold that increase the impervious surface by greater than
10%, shall manage rainfall on-site, and prevent the off-site discharge of the
net increase in the volume associated with the precipitation from all rainfall
events less than or equal to the 80th percentile rainfall event." UDWQ has
determined that the retention standards meet the intent of the MEP
standard to prevent or minimize water quality impacts from new and
redevelopment post-construction storm water management through clear,
specific, and measurable requirements.
(In progress) UDWQ has been evaluating the potential for a significant
revision and reorganization of Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-8 for a
few years. If the UDWQ moves forward with the revision to UAC R317-8,
the SNC criterion will be updated to align with the SNC definition found in
the Federal Pretreatment Regulations. If the significant revision to UAC
R317-8 does not occur, then UDWQ will pursue a smaller revision
addressing this requirement.
(In progress) SlUs in areas with an approved pretreatment program are
inspected and sampled by the POTW. SlUs outside of approved
pretreatment programs are inspected and sampled by the UDWQ. UDWQ
was completing 100% of the inspection and sampling of SlUs outside of
approved pretreatment programs; however, the number of SlUs outside of
approved programs increased from 6 to 10 between Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2022 and FFY 2023. In the Final Annual State/EPA Compliance
Inspection Plan for FFY 2023, UDWQ committed to inspecting all 10 SlUs
and sampling 6 of the SlUs. Due to resource limitations, the UDWQ does
Page 46 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Great Salt Lake Utah shall ensure that when it has shown
there is reasonable potential to cause,
or contribute to an exceedance of the
numeric and/or narrative standards for
chronic toxicity (through chronic WET
testing), that it complies with the
requirements in 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(iv)
and/or 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l){v) by
including WET limitations in the permit
or chemical-specific limitations that
attain and maintain the numeric or
narrative standards.
FINAL May 2023
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
not have the capacity to conduct sampling inspections at all 10 SlUs in
FFY23 and will instead focus its resources on permitting the 4 unpermitted
SlUs. UDWQ will continue working on addressing resource constraints
impacting their ability to meet this requirement.
(Resolved ) UDWQ changed the way it evaluates discharges into the GSL;
previously a wasteload analysis (WLA) was not generated for discharges to
the GSL. Permit renewals prior had a document declaring that there was a
finding of no significant impact for the discharge. UDWQ permit writers
evaluate RP for WET based on UDWQ's UPDES Permit and Enforcement
Guidance Document for WET ("Wet Guidance") (dated February 2018).
Between the change to the use of WLAs for the GSL and the UDWQ
developing and following the Wet Guidance this item has been resolved.
Page 47 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the recommendations from the last PQR, conducted April 21-25, 2014, 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 is
consolidating these two categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment
Permits (or FSSOBs) need to include an explanation on what the
authorized wastestream is and if that wastestream was subject to an ELG
(Nucor steel-Plymouth Division).
Technology-Based
Effluent Limitations
EPA recommends the Program evaluate collaboration with the local
POTWs to share the inspection and sampling duties of ClUs/SIUs and
meet the required inspection and monitoring frequencies of 1/year, as
required in the Pretreatment regulations.
The PCI and audit reports are not complete, and do not provide clarity
on the evaluation of the POTW's Pretreatment program. In addition,
there are numerous typos in the reports; the audit/PCI reports should be
peer reviewed to ensure adequate QA/QC of typos, grammar, and
content.
The Moab NPDES permit did not contain a re-opener provision for
development of a Pretreatment Program. The Program should ensure
the NPDES permits for POTWs without approved program to contain a
reopener clause that the permit can be reopened to require
development of a local Pretreatment program, if determined necessary.
( Not pursuing ) UDWQ agrees with the
finding that permits/FSSOBs should include
an explanation on what the authorized
waste stream is and if that waste stream was
subject to ELG (i.e., Nucor Steel-Plymouth
Division). However, we believe that this was
adequately addressed in the permit/FSSOB
for Nucor Steel.
( Resolved ) UDWQ agrees to collaborate
with local POTWs to share inspection and
sampling duties of ClUs/SIUs and to meet
the required inspection and monitoring
frequencies for non-approved areas.
( Resolved ) UDWQ believes that PCI and
audit reports are complete with the addition
of the checklist.
( Resolved ) Moab Wastewater Treatment
Facility's most up to date permit was issued
on January 1, 2022 and includes a reopener
provision in Section II. F. Change of
Conditions which states "At such time as a
specific pretreatment limitation becomes
FINAL May 2023
Page 48 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Pretreatment
The FSSOBs for St. George and Cedar City do not provide a date when
the Pretreatment program was approved and if there have been any
program modifications since the approval date. Program should provide
this information in the FSSOBs.
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
applicable to an industrial user of the
permittee, the Director may, as appropriate,
do the following:
1. Amend the UPDES discharge permit to
specify the additional pollutant(s) and
corresponding effluent limitation(s)
consistent with the applicable national
pretreatment limitation;
2. Require the permittee to specify, by
ordinance, contract, or other enforceable
means, the type of pollutant(s) and the
maximum amount which may be discharged
to the POTW Treatment Plant for treatment.
Such requirement shall be imposed in a
manner consistent with the POTW program
development requirements of the General
Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR 403;
3. Require the permittee to monitor its
discharge for any pollutant, which may likely
be discharged from the POTW Treatment
Plant, should the industrial user fail to
properly pretreat its waste; and/or
4. Require the permittee to develop an
Approved Pretreatment Program."
( In progress ) As permits are renewed
information will be added to the FSSOBs for
facilities with approved pretreatment
programs indicating the date the
pretreatment program was approved and
any program modification since the last
renewal.
FINAL May 2023
Page 49 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Whole Effluent
Toxicity
Whole Effluent
Toxicity
Documentation
FSSOBs must provide adequate descriptions about the permit writer's
decision making process for WET determinations. Specifically, the
following should be documented in permits/FSSOBs:
• IWC or end-of-pipe limitations should be documented in permits
• Sampling requirements on grab and composite sampling
• Reductions in sampling frequency regimen
The Program should review laboratory bench data, not DMR pass/fail
data alone, to look for anomalies in sampling prior to reduction to less
frequent monitoring or alternating species.
EPA recommends that the Program maintain draft permits as part of the
administrative record.
( Resolved ) UDWQ agrees with the findings
and will include all items listed in the
updated WET policy. As mentioned
previously, the draft WET policy was sent to
EPA for review by December 31, 2015.
( Resolved ) This is typically competed
during Compliance Evaluation Inspections
(CEI) during lab data review activities.
( Resolved ) The Draft UPDES Permits that
are put on Public Notice are primarily saved
as a different document in the UDWQ's
electronic filing system Documentum
(D2). This allows the Draft Permit to have its
own D2 Number. There may be a few cases
where the Draft Permit was updated and
finalized, but all versions are available in D2.
FINAL May 2023
Page 50 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
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 Utah's NPDES
permit programs, as discussed throughout sections III, IV, and V of this report.
The proposed action items 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 is 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 3 below.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items are 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 4 below.
The following tables summarize only those action items that were identified in Sections III, IV, and V of the report.
Table 3. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
• UDWQ must ensure that permittees submit permit renewal applications consistent
with the timelines established in UPDES regulations contained in the Utah
Administrative Code R317-8-3 (Application Requirements), 3.1(4)(a) and 40 CFR
122.21(d)(1).
• UDWQ must ensure that industrial applicants provide all data required by 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7).
• UDWQ must ensure that applications are signed consistent with the requirements
of 40 CFR 122.22(a).
• UDWQ must ensure that applications present information for all permitted outfalls
prior to issuing a permit, consistent with 40 CFR 122.21(e).
UDWQ must ensure that permittees that were granted relief from effluent limitations
based on secondary treatment standards (i.e., minimum percent removal) satisfied
the regulatory requirements in 40 CFR 133.103(d) for less stringent requirements.
Permit Application Requirements
TBELs for POTWs
FINAL May 2023
Page 51 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Standard and Special Conditions
Administrative Process
Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters
Pretreatment: Food Processing Sector
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
UDWQ must ensure that the FSSOB addresses anti-backsliding considerations specific
to the permit and discharge, especially where effluent limitations may have been
adjusted during the WLA, according to fact sheet requirements for documenting the
rationale for permit conditions (40 CFR 124.56), including references to applicable
regulatory and statutory provisions (40 CFR 124.8).
• UDWQ must include requirements for permittees to conduct monitoring according
to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136 in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(i)(l)(iv). This can be accomplished by referencing either Utah
Administrative Code R317-8-4, 4.1(10)(d) or 40 CFR Part 136.
• UDWQ must include requirements for permittees to use sufficiently sensitive EPA
approved analytical methods in all UPDES permits, in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(i)(l)(iv).
• UDWQ must ensure that standard conditions are at least equivalent to 40 CFR
122.41.
• UDWQ must ensure that signatory requirements contain the language from 40 CFR
122.22(a)(1) and (2).
• UDWQ must ensure that public notice documents include a statement of
procedures to request a public hearing consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
124.10(d)(v).
• UDWQ must ensure that public notice documents include a general description of
the location of NPDES permitted discharge points, consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 124.10(d)(vii).
• Per 40 CFR 122.44(d) and UAC R317-2.2, UDWQ fact sheets must address whether
a discharge has reasonable potential to cause, potential to cause or contribute to
an excursion of the narrative "free from undesirable aquatic life" standard, and
how any narrative conditions included in the permit will ensure protection of the
water quality standard.
• UPDES permits need to consistently implement Pretreatment requirements found
in 40 CFR 122.42(b).
• UPDES needs to ensure the UPDES permit application form 2A, Section F is
consistently completed by the permittee during the permit renewal process to
provide an adequate description of non-domestic wastewater contribution from
the permittee's service area.
FINAL May 2023
Page 52 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
Previously Abandoned Mines
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
• The permit and/or Fact Sheet must specify the approach (Comprehensive General
Permit or a Two-Step General Permit) as required by 40 CFR 122.28(d).
• The construction minimum control measure must have procedures for receipt and
consideration of information submitted by the public as required by 40 CFR
122.34(b)(4)(i).
• The public involvement minimum control measure must include clear, specific, and
measurable requirements as required by 40 CFR 122.34(a).
• UDWQ must ensure that the facility provide a complete permit application,
including facility location and operator information requirements at 40 CFR
122.21(f)(2) and (3).
• UDWQ must ensure that the facility provide a complete permit application,
including information for all outfalls (40 CRR 122.21(g)).
• UDWQ must ensure that compliance schedules include appropriate activities and
that interim milestones are included in permits with compliances schedules
exceeding one year (122.47(a)(3)(i)).
FINAL May 2023
Page 53 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Table 4. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
Facility Information
TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers
Reasonable Potential
Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation
Administrative Record and Fact Sheet
Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters
UDWQ should ensure that specific outfall locations are clearly identified in UPDES
permits and the FSSOB.
UDWQ should provide greater detail in FSSOB discussions of facility categorization and
TBELs calculations as it applies to the implementation of ELGs.
• UDWQ should consider revising the FSSOB template document to include more
detailed discussions related to:
o RP evaluations for specific pollutants of concern and details on the data used in
the evaluation, to better understand the quality of the data;
o Receiving stream's impairment status and TMDL applicability;
o Qualitative RPAs; and
o WET requirements as they are tied to UDWQ's WET guidance.
• UDWQ should ensure that permit writers apply outlier analyses appropriate to the
type of data being evaluated, to confirm whether data should be removed from
consideration.
• UDWQ should consider adding greater detail to the FSSOB regarding applicability of
ELGs and calculations of ELG-based TBELs.
• UDWQ should consider updating the FSSOB template to include clear statements that
illustrate that permit writers evaluated and applied the most stringent of TBELs and
WQBELs as the final effluent limitations.
• UDWQ should consider updating the FSSOB template to include consistently greater
detailed discussions of the following:
o ELG applicability and subsequent calculations;
o Receiving stream's impairment status and TMDL applicability;
o RP evaluations for specific pollutants of concern and details on the data used in
the evaluation, to better understand the quality of the data;
o Qualitative RPAs;
o WET requirements as they are tied to UDWQ's WET guidance; and
o The process that permit writers conducted to ensure they evaluated and applied
the most stringent of TBELs and WQBELs as the final effluent limitations.
• Document the basis for a TBEL variance authorization in the fact sheet, based on the
allowable conditions for a TBEL variance set out in UAC R317-1-3.3(C)(1).
FINAL May 2023
Page 54 of 55
-------
Region 8 - Utah
Pretreatment: Food Processing Sector
Previously Abandoned Mines
NPDES Program and Permit Quality Review
Include nutrient monitoring in permits at non-POTW facilities with the potential to be
significant nutrient loading contributors.
FSSOB should provide adequate description of the Pretreatment requirements for the
permittee such as justification on whether an approved program is required, if local
limits development are required, characterization or identification of the contributing
lUs (i.e., how many SlUs/CIUs, what they are, how much flow they provide, etc), flow
diagram with locations of SlUs in the service area, and receipt of hauled waste.
The FSSOB should provide the approval date for POTWs with approved Pretreatment
programs.
UPDES permits should identify whether the POTW has adopted local limits and require
revision of existing local limits, as necessary.
Per 40 CFR 403.5(c)(1), POTWs are required to continue to develop limits as necessary
and effectively enforce such limits. For permittees with significant contributions from
food processing lUs, UPDES permits should include special conditions to control or
monitor the food processing waste streams.
FSSOB should describe basis for including additional outfall not identified in the
application.
FSSOB should address any waterbody impairments and applicable TMDLS identified on
the most recent 303(d) list for Utah.
FINAL May 2023
Page 55 of 55
------- |