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

DAR File No.: 38530
Filed: 09/02/2014 05:00:12 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

This change incorporates modifications to proposed Subsection R317-1-3(3.3) that address public concerns that were submitted during the original comment period relating to the implementability and effectiveness of Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limits, proposed exceptions, and water quality monitoring requirements.

Summary of the rule or change:

This change in proposed rule (CPR) consists of five principal modifications to the original proposed rule: 1) the term "exception" to the rule was changed to "variance" to better reflect the need for division approval of conditions that would allow a permittee to offramp from rule requirements and to clarify that such variances may be revisited periodically to validate continued applicability; 2) the exception in Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(C)(2), which provided a rule offramp for de minimis discharges of phosphorus, was deleted entirely. This exception established 10% impact on receiving stream water quality as de minimis, which was determined to be unworkable and problematic. Another exception (now variance in Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(C)(2)(c)) allows permittees to establish no deleterious effect from their discharge and be offramped; 3) the exception in Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(C)(3) (now a variance in Subsection R317-1-3(3.3)(C)(2)(b)) provides an offramp for economic hardship that could result should a permittee be required to implement the proposed rule. The CPR clarifies that publicly owned treatment works (POTS) must pursue low interest loan and grant opportunities to minimize costs and potential economic hardship before the variance would be applied. The proposed variance change also allows non-POTWs to demonstrate economic hardship, e.g., for industry, to the division on a case-by-case basis to qualify for the variance. In the case of demonstrated hardship, alternative technology-based limits may be applied; 4) a variance was added to allow permittees the opportunity to propose innovative alternative approaches such as nutrient trading with other facilities that meet the spirit of the proposed rule without necessarily meeting the prescribed effluent limits; and 5) water quality monitoring requirements associated with implementing the proposed rule were modified for facilities that discharge less than 5,000,000 gallons per day. For these facilities, monitoring frequencies were increased to one sampling event each month. (DAR NOTE: The original proposed amendment upon which this change in proposed rule (CPR) was based was published in the June 1, 2014, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 141. 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 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 is no anticipated cost or savings to the state budget as a result of these proposed changes. They would remain the same as estimated in the original amendment.

local governments:

The total aggregate anticipated costs for local governments would change $150,000 per year statewide.

small businesses:

There are no anticipated changes to costs for small businesses since most of the changes affect POTWs.

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

It is anticipated that these changes would increase the costs to other persons $275,000 per year statewide.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

No changes to the compliance costs for affected persons due to the proposed changes.

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

The changes in this rule are to incorporate the suggestions received during the comment period. Although there are costs involved with implementing these changes, they allow greater flexibility to obtain the goal of reducing future pollution of the state's waters, while controlling the costs of doing so.

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:

10/15/2014

This rule may become effective on:

10/22/2014

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 [of ]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 [Nutrient]Phosphorus Pollution.

A. [Total Phosphorus Limits]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[phosphorus effluent limit identified in Subsection R317-1-3.3] shall be achieved by January 1, 2020.

B. Discharging Lagoons -Phosphorus Loading Cap

1. No TBPEL[technology-based effluent limit for phosphorus] 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[s have]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. [Exceptions]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[technology-based limit] or phosphorus loading cap, as applicable, [for total phosphorus ]will be applied.

[2. If the owner of a discharging treatment works can demonstrate that the discharge from the treatment works will not increase the total phosphorus concentration in the receiving water beyond 10%, no technology-based limit or loading cap, as applicable, for total phosphorus will be applied.

3]b. If the owner of a discharging treatment works can demonstrate that imposing [a technology-based limit ]the TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap [for phosphorus ]would result in an economic hardship for the users of the treatment works, no [technology-based limit]TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap [for phosphorus ]will be applied. "Economic hardship" for a publicly owned treatment works is defined as sewer service [fees]costs that, as a result of implementing a [technology-based limit]TBPEL or phosphorus loading cap[for phosphorus], [being]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 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.

[4]c. If the owner of a discharging treatment works can demonstrate that the [technology-based limit identified in Subsection R317-1-3.3.A,]TBPEL or [the]phosphorus loading cap [identified in Subsection R317-1-3.3.B, ]are clearly unnecessary to protect waters downstream from the point of discharge, no TBPEL[the technology-based limit] or [the]phosphorus loading cap[, as applicable,] will [not ]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.

[D]3. For treatment works required to implement TBPEL[technology-based limits] or a phosphorus loading cap[for total phosphorus], 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[technology-based limit] or phosphorus loading cap, as applicable, in accordance with, respectively, Subsections R317-1-3.3.A and R317-1-3.3.B.

[E]D. Monitoring

1. All discharging treatment works [with reasonable potential to discharge nitrogen or phosphorus ]are required to implement, at a minimum, monthly[influent] monitoring [for total phosphorus and total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations, and effluent monitoring for total phosphorus, ammonium (as N), ortho phosphorus, nitrate-nitrite (as N) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen, as follows]of:

a. influent for total phosphorus (as P) and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) concentrations[annually for treatment works with flows less than 1 mgd]; and

b. effluent for total phosphorus and orthophosphate (as P), and ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N).[quarterly for treatment works with flows greater than 1 mgd and less than 5 mgd; or

c. monthly for treatment works with flows greater than 5 mgd]

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.

3.  All monitoring under Subsection R317-1-3.3.[E]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.

[3]4. These monitoring requirements shall be self-implementing beginning January 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