No. 38530 (Change in Proposed Rule): Section R317-1-3. Requirements for Waste Discharges

DAR File No.: 38530
Filed: 09/30/2014 04:32:18 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

This change incorporates three modifications to proposed Subsection R317-1-3(3.3) that clarify the intent of the rule and address concerns relating to the potential impacts of the rule on industries that do not have reasonable potential to discharge phosphorus.

Summary of the rule or change:

This change in proposed rule (CPR) consists of three principal modifications to the proposed rule: 1) variance in Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(C)(1)(b) was changed to clarify that in cases of economic hardship, an alternative TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap that would not cause economic hardship, may be applied; 2) Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(D)(2) previously provided a variance from rule monitoring requirements when dischargers demonstrate no reasonable potential to discharge phosphorus or nitrogen. The proposed change allows the Division of Water Quality director to make this determination; and 3) Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(D)(4) establishes the starting date for self-implementation of nitrogen and phosphorus monitoring. The proposed change extends the starting date six months from 01/01/2015 to 07/01/2015. (DAR NOTE: This is the second change in proposed rule (CPR) for Rule R590-226. The original proposed amendment upon which the first CPR was based was published in the June 1, 2014, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 141. The first CPR upon which this second CPR is based was published in the September 15, 2014, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 80. Underlining in the rule below indicates text that has been added since the publication of the proposed rule mentioned above; strike out indicates text that has been deleted. You must view the first CPR, the second CPR, and the proposed amendment together to understand all of the changes that will be enforceable should the agency make this rule effective.)

State statutory or constitutional authorization for this rule:

• Title 19, Chapter 5

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

There are no additional costs or savings to the state budget anticipated as a result of the proposed changes. Costs will remain the same as estimated in the original proposed amendment.

local governments:

There are no additional costs or savings to local government budgets anticipated as a result of the proposed changes. Costs will remain the same as estimated in the original proposed amendment.

small businesses:

There are no additional costs or savings to small businesses anticipated as a result of the proposed changes. Costs will remain the same as estimated in the original proposed amendment.

persons other than small businesses, businesses, or local governmental entities:

There are no additional costs or savings to these persons anticipated as a result of the proposed changes. Costs will remain the same as estimated in the original proposed amendment.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

A savings of $100,000 statewide for reduced monitoring requirements for affected industries.

Comments by the department head on the fiscal impact the rule may have on businesses:

The changes in this rule recognize that many of Utah's industries may not have reasonable potential to discharge phosphorus into waters of the state because of the nature of their business and related chemical activities. The changes enable the Division of Water Quality time to identify these industries and allow sufficient regulatory flexibility to reduce or remove monitoring requirements for pollutants that are expected to be absent in these industrial wastewater discharges. The result of the changes will be continued reduction of phosphorus loads into Utah's waters while reducing the potential costs to industry.

Amanda Smith, Executive Director

The full text of this rule may be inspected, during regular business hours, at the Division of Administrative Rules, or at:

Environmental Quality
Water QualityRoom DEQ, Third Floor
195 N 1950 W
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116

Direct questions regarding this rule to:

• Judy Etherington at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4344, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at [e-mail]

Interested persons may present their views on this rule by submitting written comments to the address above no later than 5:00 p.m. on:

11/14/2014

This rule may become effective on:

11/21/2014

Authorized by:

Walter Baker, Director

RULE TEXT

R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality.

R317-1. Definitions and General Requirements.

R317-1-3. Requirements for Waste Discharges.

3.1 Compliance With Water Quality Standards.

All persons discharging wastes into any of the waters of the State shall provide the degree of wastewater treatment determined necessary to insure compliance with the requirements of Rule R317-2 Water Quality Standards, except that the Director may waive compliance with these requirements for specific criteria listed in Rule R317-2 where it is determined that the designated use is not being impaired or significant use improvement would not occur or where there is a reasonable question as to the validity of a specific criterion or for other valid reasons as determined by the Director.

3.2 Compliance With Secondary Treatment Requirements.

All persons discharging wastes from point sources into any of the waters of the State shall provide treatment processes which will produce secondary effluent meeting or exceeding the following effluent quality standards.

A. The arithmetic mean of BOD values determined on effluent samples collected during any 30-day period shall not exceed 25 mg/l, nor shall the arithmetic mean exceed 35 mg/l during any 7-day period. In addition, if the treatment plant influent is of domestic or municipal sewage origin, the BOD values of effluent samples shall not be greater than 15% of the BOD values of influent samples collected in the same time period. As an alternative, if agreed to by the person discharging wastes, the following effluent quality standard may be established as a requirement of the discharge permit and must be met: The arithmetic mean of CBOD values determined on effluent samples collected during any 30-day period shall not exceed 20 mg/l nor shall the arithmetic mean exceed 30 mg/l during any 7-day period. In addition, if the treatment plant influent is of domestic or municipal sewage origin, the CBOD values of effluent samples shall not be greater than 15% of the CBOD values of influent samples collected in the same time period.

B. The arithmetic mean of SS values determined on effluent samples collected during any 30-day period shall not exceed 25 mg/l, nor shall the arithmetic mean exceed 35 mg/l during any 7-day period. In addition, if the treatment plant influent is of domestic or municipal sewage origin, the SS values of effluent samples shall not be greater than 15% of the SS values of influent samples collected in the same time period.

C. The geometric mean of total coliform and fecal coliform bacteria in effluent samples collected during any 30-day period shall not exceed either 2000 per 100 ml or 200 per 100 ml respectively, nor shall the geometric mean exceed 2500 per 100 ml or 250 per 100 ml respectively, during any 7-day period; or, the geometric mean of E. coli bacteria in effluent samples collected during any 30-day period shall not exceed 126 per 100 ml nor shall the geometric mean exceed 158 per 100 ml respectively during any 7-day period. Exceptions to this requirement may be allowed by the Director where domestic wastewater is not a part of the effluent and where water quality standards are not violated.

D. The effluent values for pH shall be maintained within the limits of 6.5 and 9.0.

E. Exceptions to the 85% removal requirements may be allowed where infiltration makes such removal requirements infeasible and where water quality standards are not violated.

F. The Director may allow exceptions to the requirements of Subsections R317-1-3.2.A, R317-1-3.2.B, and R317-1-3.2.D where the discharge will be of short duration and where there will be no significant detrimental effect on receiving water quality or downstream beneficial uses.

G. The Director may allow that the BOD5 and TSS effluent concentrations for discharging domestic wastewater lagoons shall not exceed 45 mg/l for a monthly average nor 65 mg/l for a weekly average provided the following criteria are met:

1. the lagoon system is operating within the organic and hydraulic design capacity established by Rule R317-3;

2. the lagoon system is being properly operated and maintained;

3. the treatment system is meeting all other permit limits;

4. there are no significant or categorical industrial users (IU) defined by 40 CFR Part 403, unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the IU is not contributing constituents in concentrations or quantities likely to significantly affect the treatment works; and

5. a Waste Load Allocation (WLA) indicates that the increased permit limits would not impair beneficial uses of the receiving stream.

3.3 Technology-based Limits for Controlling Phosphorus Pollution.

A. Technology-based Phosphorus Effluent Limits (TBPEL)

1. All non-lagoon treatment works discharging wastewater to surface waters of the state shall provide treatment processes which will produce effluent less than or equal to an annual mean of 1.0 mg/L for total phosphorus.

2. The TBPEL shall be achieved by January 1, 2020.

B. Discharging Lagoons -Phosphorus Loading Cap

1. No TBPEL will be instituted for discharging treatment lagoons. Instead, each discharging lagoon will be evaluated to determine the current annual average total phosphorus load based on average flows and concentrations. Absent field data to determine these loads, they will be estimated by the Division.

2. A cap of 125% times the current average annual total phosphorus load will be established and referred to as phosphorus loading cap. Once the lagoon's phosphorus loading cap has been reached, the owner of the facility will have five years to construct treatment processes or implement treatment alternatives to prevent the total phosphorus loading cap from being exceeded.

C. Variances for TBPEL and Phosphorus Loading Caps

1. The Director may authorize a variance to the TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap under any of the following conditions:

a. Where an existing TMDL has allocated a total phosphorus wasteload to a treatment works, no TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap, as applicable, will be applied.

b. If the owner of a discharging treatment works can demonstrate that imposing the TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap would result in an economic hardship, an alternative[for the users of the treatment works, no] TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap that would not cause economic hardship may[will] be applied. "Economic hardship" for a publicly owned treatment works is defined as sewer service costs that, as a result of implementing a TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap, would be greater than 1.4% of the median adjusted gross household income of the service area based on the latest information compiled by the Utah State Tax Commission, after inclusion of grants, loans, or other funding made available by the Utah Water Quality Board or other sources.[  If this variance is granted, the discharging treatment works may receive an alternative TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap that would fail to cause economic hardship.] The Director will consider other demonstrations of economic hardship on a case-by-case basis.

c. If the owner of a discharging treatment works can demonstrate that the TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap are clearly unnecessary to protect waters downstream from the point of discharge, no TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap will be applied.

d. If the owner of the discharging treatment works can demonstrate that a commensurate phosphorus reduction can be achieved in receiving waters using innovative alternative approaches such as water quality trading, seasonal offsets, effluent reuse, or land application.

2. All variances to TBPEL and phosphorus loading caps shall be revisited periodically to determine if the rationale used to justify the conditions in Subsection R317-1-3.3.C remains applicable.

3. For treatment works required to implement TBPEL or a phosphorus loading cap, the demonstration under Subsection R317-1-3.3.C must be made by January 1, 2018. Unless this demonstration is made, the owner of the discharging treatment works must proceed to implement the TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap, as applicable, in accordance with, respectively, Subsections R317-1-3.3.A and R317-1-3.3.B.

D. Monitoring

1. All discharging treatment works are required to implement, at a minimum, monthly monitoring of:

a. influent for total phosphorus (as P) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) concentrations; and

b. effluent for total phosphorus and orthophosphate (as P), and ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N).

2. [If a discharging treatment works demonstrates to the Director that there is no reasonable potential to discharge nitrogen or phosphorus, the monitoring requirement identified in Subsection R317-1-3.3.D.1 will be waived.]The Director may authorize a variance to the monitoring requirements identified in Subsection R317-1-3.3.D.1.

3. All monitoring under Subsection R317-1-3.3.D shall be based on 24-hour composite samples by use of an automatic sampler or minimum of four grab samples collected a minimum of two hours apart.

4. These monitoring requirements shall be self-implementing beginning [January]July 1, 2015.

3.4 Pollutants In Diverted Water Returned To Stream.

A user of surface water diverted from waters of the State will not be required to remove any pollutants which such user has not added before returning the diverted flow to the original watercourse, provided there is no increase in concentration of pollutants in the diverted water. Should the pollutant constituent concentration of the intake surface waters to a facility exceed the effluent limitations for such facility under a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit or a permit issued pursuant to State authority, then the effluent limitations shall become equal to the constituent concentrations in the intake surface waters of such facility. This section does not apply to irrigation return flow.

 

KEY: water pollution, waste disposal, nutrient limits, effluent standards

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2014

Notice of Continuation: October 2, 2012

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-5