DAR File No. 37361

Environmental Quality, Water Quality

Rule R317-2

Standards of Quality for the Waters of the State

Change in Proposed Rule

DAR File No.: 37361
Filed: 07/01/2013 05:59:24 PM

RULE ANALYSIS

Purpose of the rule or reason for the change:

The proposed changes in the proposed rule were made in response to a comment received during the initial rulemaking.

Summary of the rule or change:

The proposed amendments update the rule to come into conformance with changes to the Utah Water Quality Act initiated by S.B. 21 passed in the 2012 General Legislative Session. The majority of the proposed changes are editorial, largely consisting of replacing the term "Executive Secretary" with "Director". However, the amendments also make additional changes mandated by S.B. 21 (2012) which reflect the transfer of certain powers and duties from the Water Quality Board to the Director of the Division of Quality in the realm of permits, certifications and other administrative authorizations. (DAR NOTE: This change in proposed rule has been filed to make additional changes to a proposed amendment that was published in the March 15, 2013, issue of the Utah State Bulletin, on page 34. 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 change in proposed rule 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:

• Section 19-5-104

Anticipated cost or savings to:

the state budget:

Enactment of these changes likely will not result in direct, measurable costs to the state budget as this amendment only changes who has authority to make regulatory decisions regarding permits, certifications, and other administrative authorizations.

local governments:

Enactment of these changes likely will not result in direct, measurable costs for local governments as this amendment only changes who has authority to make regulatory decisions regarding permits, certifications, and other administrative authorizations.

small businesses:

Enactment of these changes likely will not result in direct, measurable costs to small businesses as this amendment only changes who has authority to make regulatory decisions regarding permits, certifications, and other administrative authorizations.

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

Enactment of these changes likely will not result in direct, measurable costs to other persons as this amendment only changes who has authority to make regulatory decisions regarding permits, certifications, and other administrative authorizations.

Compliance costs for affected persons:

Enactment of these changes likely will not result in direct, measurable compliance costs as this amendment only changes who has authority to make regulatory decisions regarding permits, certifications, and other administrative authorizations.

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

Enactment of these changes likely will not result in direct, measurable costs to businesses as this amendment only changes who has authority to make regulatory decisions regarding permits, certifications, and other administrative authorizations.

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:

• Dave Wham at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4337, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at dwham@utah.gov

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:

This rule may become effective on:

08/14/2013

Authorized by:

Walter Baker, Director

R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality.

R317-2. Standards of Quality for Waters of the State.

 

. . . . . . .

 

R317-2-1C. Triennial Review.

The water quality standards shall be reviewed and updated, if necessary, at least once every three years. The [Executive Secretary]Director will seek input through a cooperative process from stakeholders representing state and federal agencies, various interest groups, and the public to develop a preliminary draft of changes. Proposed changes will be presented to the Water Quality Board for information. Informal public meetings may be held to present preliminary proposed changes to the public for comments and suggestions. Final proposed changes will be presented to the Water Quality Board for approval and authorization to initiate formal rulemaking. Public hearings will be held to solicit formal comments from the public. The [Executive Secretary]Director will incorporate appropriate changes and return to the Water Quality Board to petition for formal adoption of the proposed changes following the [Division of Administrative Rules' rulemaking procedures]requirements of the Utah Rulemaking Act, Title 63G, Chapter 3.

 

R317-2-2. Scope.

These standards shall apply to all waters of the state and shall be assigned to specific waters through the classification procedures prescribed by Sections 19-5-104(5) and 19-5-110 and R317-2-6.

 

R317-2-3. Antidegradation Policy.

3.1 Maintenance of Water Quality

Waters whose existing quality is better than the established standards for the designated uses will be maintained at high quality unless it is determined by the [Board,]Director, after appropriate intergovernmental coordination and public participation in concert with the Utah continuing planning process, allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. However, existing instream water uses shall be maintained and protected. No water quality degradation is allowable which would interfere with or become injurious to existing instream water uses.

In those cases where potential water quality impairment associated with a thermal discharge is involved, the antidegradation policy and implementing method shall be consistent with Section 316 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

3.2 Category 1 Waters

Waters which have been determined by the Board to be of exceptional recreational or ecological significance or have been determined to be a State or National resource requiring protection, shall be maintained at existing high quality through designation, by the Board after public hearing, as Category 1 Waters. New point source discharges of wastewater, treated or otherwise, are prohibited in such segments after the effective date of designation. Protection of such segments from pathogens in diffuse, underground sources is covered in R317-5 and R317-7 and the [Regulations]rules for Individual Wastewater Disposal Systems (R317-501 through R317-515). Other diffuse sources (nonpoint sources) of wastes shall be controlled to the extent feasible through implementation of best management practices or regulatory programs.

Discharges may be allowed where pollution will be temporary and limited after consideration of the factors in R317-2-3.5.b.4., and where best management practices will be employed to minimize pollution effects.

Waters of the state designated as Category 1 Waters are listed in R317-2-12.1.

3.3 Category 2 Waters

Category 2 Waters are designated surface water segments which are treated as Category 1 Waters except that a point source discharge may be permitted provided that the discharge does not degrade existing water quality. Discharges may be allowed where pollution will be temporary and limited after consideration of the factors in R317-2-.3.5.b.4., and where best management practices will be employed to minimize pollution effects. Waters of the state designated as Category 2 Waters are listed in R317-2-12.2.

3.4 Category 3 Waters

For all other waters of the state, point source discharges are allowed and degradation may occur, pursuant to the conditions and review procedures outlined in Section 3.5.

3.5 Antidegradation Review (ADR)

An antidegradation review will determine whether the proposed activity complies with the applicable antidegradation requirements for receiving waters that may be affected.

An antidegradation review (ADR) may consist of two parts or levels. A Level I review is conducted to insure that existing uses will be maintained and protected.

Both Level I and Level II reviews will be conducted on a parameter-by-parameter basis. A decision to move to a Level II review for one parameter does not require a Level II review for other parameters. Discussion of parameters of concern is those expected to be affected by the proposed activity.

Antidegradation reviews shall include opportunities for public participation, as described in Section 3.5e.

a. Activities Subject to Antidegradation Review (ADR)

1. For all State waters, antidegradation reviews will be conducted for proposed federally regulated activities, such as those under Clean Water Act Sections 401 (FERC and other Federal actions), 402 (UPDES permits), and 404 (Army Corps of Engineers permits). The [Executive Secretary]Director may conduct an ADR on any projects with the potential for major impact on the quality of waters of the state. The review will determine whether the proposed activity complies with the applicable antidegradation requirements for the particular receiving waters that may be affected.

2. For Category 1 Waters and Category 2 Waters, reviews shall be consistent with the requirement established in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.

3. For Category 3 Waters, reviews shall be consistent with the requirements established in this section

b. An Anti-degradation Level II review is not required where any of the following conditions apply:

1. Water quality will not be lowered by the proposed activity or for existing permitted facilities, water quality will not be further lowered by the proposed activity, examples include situations where:

(a) the proposed concentration-based effluent limit is less than or equal to the ambient concentration in the receiving water during critical conditions; or

(b) a UPDES permit is being renewed and the proposed effluent concentration and loading limits are equal to or less than the concentration and loading limits in the previous permit; or

(c) a UPDES permit is being renewed and new effluent limits are to be added to the permit, but the new effluent limits are based on maintaining or improving upon effluent concentrations and loads that have been observed, including variability; or

2. Assimilative capacity (based upon concentration) is not available or has previously been allocated, as indicated by water quality monitoring or modeling information. This includes situations where:

(a) the water body is included on the current 303(d) list for the parameter of concern; or

(b) existing water quality for the parameter of concern does not satisfy applicable numeric or narrative water quality criteria; or

(c) discharge limits are established in an approved TMDL that is consistent with the current water quality standards for the receiving water (i.e., where TMDLs are established, and changes in effluent limits that are consistent with the existing load allocation would not trigger an antidegradation review).

Under conditions (a) or (b) the effluent limit in an UPDES permit may be equal to the water quality numeric criterion for the parameter of concern.

3. Water quality impacts will be temporary and related only to sediment or turbidity and fish spawning will not be impaired,

4. The water quality effects of the proposed activity are expected to be temporary and limited. As general guidance, CWA Section 402 general discharge permits, CWA Section 404 general permits, or activities of short duration, will be deemed to have a temporary and limited effect on water quality where there is a reasonable factual basis to support such a conclusion. Factors to be considered in determining whether water quality effects will be temporary and limited may include the following:

(a) Length of time during which water quality will be lowered.

(b) Percent change in ambient concentrations of pollutants of concern

(c) Pollutants affected

(d) Likelihood for long-term water quality benefits to the segment (e.g., dredging of contaminated sediments)

(e) Potential for any residual long-term influences on existing uses.

(f) Impairment of the fish spawning, survival and development of aquatic fauna excluding fish removal efforts.

c. Anti-degradation Review Process

For all activities requiring a Level II review, the Division will notify affected agencies and the public with regards to the requested proposed activity and discussions with stakeholders may be held. In the case of Section 402 discharge permits, if it is determined that a discharge will be allowed, the [Division of Water Quality]Director will develop any needed UPDES permits for public notice following the normal permit issuance process.

The ADR will cover the following requirements or determinations:

1. Will all Statutory and regulatory requirements be met?

The [Executive Secretary]Director will review to determine that there will be achieved all statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources and all required cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control in the area of the discharge. If point sources exist in the area that have not achieved all statutory and regulatory requirements, the [Executive Secretary]Director will consider whether schedules of compliance or other plans have been established when evaluating whether compliance has been assured. Generally, the "area of the discharge" will be determined based on the parameters of concern associated with the proposed activity and the portion of the receiving water that would be affected.

2. Are there any reasonable less-degrading alternatives?

There will be an evaluation of whether there are any reasonable non-degrading or less degrading alternatives for the proposed activity. This question will be addressed by the Division based on information provided by the project proponent. Control alternatives for a proposed activity will be evaluated in an effort to avoid or minimize degradation of the receiving water. Alternatives to be considered, evaluated, and implemented to the extent feasible, could include pollutant trading, water conservation, water recycling and reuse, land application, total containment, etc.

For proposed UPDES permitted discharges, the following list of alternatives should be considered, evaluated and implemented to the extent feasible:

(a) innovative or alternative treatment options

(b) more effective treatment options or higher treatment levels

(c) connection to other wastewater treatment facilities

(d) process changes or product or raw material substitution

(e) seasonal or controlled discharge options to minimize discharging during critical water quality periods

(f) pollutant trading

(g) water conservation

(h) water recycle and reuse

(i) alternative discharge locations or alternative receiving waters

(j) land application

(k) total containment

(l) improved operation and maintenance of existing treatment systems

(m) other appropriate alternatives

An option more costly than the cheapest alternative may have to be implemented if a substantial benefit to the stream can be realized. Alternatives would generally be considered feasible where costs are no more than 20% higher than the cost of the discharging alternative, and (for POTWs) where the projected per connection service fees are not greater than 1.4% of MAGHI (median adjusted gross household income), the current affordability criterion now being used by the Water Quality Board in the wastewater revolving loan program. Alternatives within these cost ranges should be carefully considered by the discharger. Where State financing is appropriate, a financial assistance package may be influenced by this evaluation, i.e., a less polluting alternative may receive a more favorable funding arrangement in order to make it a more financially attractive alternative.

It must also be recognized in relationship to evaluating options that would avoid or reduce discharges to the stream, that in some situations it may be more beneficial to leave the water in the stream for instream flow purposes than to remove the discharge to the stream.

3. Does the proposed activity have economic and social importance?

Although it is recognized that any activity resulting in a discharge to surface waters will have positive and negative aspects, information must be submitted by the applicant that any discharge or increased discharge will be of economic or social importance in the area.

The factors addressed in such a demonstration may include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) employment (i.e., increasing, maintaining, or avoiding a reduction in employment);

(b) increased production;

(c) improved community tax base;

(d) housing;

(e) correction of an environmental or public health problem; and

(f) other information that may be necessary to determine the social and economic importance of the proposed surface water discharge.

4. The applicant may submit a proposal to mitigate any adverse environmental effects of the proposed activity (e.g., instream habitat improvement, bank stabilization). Such mitigation plans should describe the proposed mitigation measures and the costs of such mitigation. Mitigation plans will not have any effect on effluent limits or conditions included in a permit (except possibly where a previously completed mitigation project has resulted in an improvement in background water quality that affects a water quality-based limit). Such mitigation plans will be developed and implemented by the applicant as a means to further minimize the environmental effects of the proposed activity and to increase its socio-economic importance. An effective mitigation plan may, in some cases, allow the [Executive Secretary]Director to authorize proposed activities that would otherwise not be authorized.

5. Will water quality standards be violated by the discharge?

Proposed activities that will affect the quality of waters of the state will be allowed only where the proposed activity will not violate water quality standards.

6. Will existing uses be maintained and protected?

Proposed activities can only be allowed if "existing uses" will be maintained and protected. No UPDES permit will be allowed which will permit numeric water quality standards to be exceeded in a receiving water outside the mixing zone. In the case of nonpoint pollution sources, the non-regulatory Section 319 program now in place will address these sources through application of best management practices to ensure that numeric water quality standards are not exceeded.

7. If a situation is found where there is an existing use which is a higher use (i.e., more stringent protection requirements) than that current designated use, the [Division]Director will apply the water quality standards and anti-degradation policy to protect the existing use. Narrative criteria may be used as a basis to protect existing uses for parameters where numeric criteria have not been adopted. Procedures to change the stream use designation to recognize the existing use as the designated use would be initiated.

d. Special Procedures for Drinking Water Sources

An Antidegradation Level II Review will be required by the [Executive Secretary]Director for discharges to waters with a Class 1C drinking water use assigned.

Depending upon the locations of the discharge and its proximity to downstream drinking water diversions, additional treatment or more stringent effluent limits or additional monitoring, beyond that which may otherwise be required to meet minimum technology standards or in stream water quality standards, may be required by the [Executive Secretary]Director in order to adequately protect public health and the environment. Such additional treatment may include additional disinfection, suspended solids removal to make the disinfection process more effective, removal of any specific contaminants for which drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) exists, and/or nutrient removal to reduce the organic content of raw water used as a source for domestic water systems.

Additional monitoring may include analyses for viruses, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, other pathogenic organisms, and/or any contaminant for which drinking water MCLs exist. Depending on the results of such monitoring, more stringent treatment may then be required.

The additional treatment/effluent limits/monitoring which may be required will be determined by the [Executive Secretary]Director after consultation with the Division of Drinking Water and the downstream drinking water users.

e. Public Notice

The public will be provided notice and an opportunity to comment on the conclusions of all completed antidegradation reviews. When possible, public notice on the antidegradation review conclusions will be combined with the public notice on the proposed permitting or certifying action. In the case of UPDES permits, public notice will be provided through the normal permitting process, as all draft permits are public noticed for 30 days, and public comment solicited, before being issued as a final permit. The Statement of Basis for the draft UPDES permit will contain information on how the ADR was addressed including results of the Level I and Level II reviews. In the case of Section 404 permits from the Corps of Engineers, the Division of Water Quality will develop any needed 401 Certifications and the public notice may be published in conjunction with the US Corps of Engineers public notice procedures. Other permits requiring a Level II review will receive a separate public notice according to the normal State public notice procedures.

f. Implementation Procedures

The [Executive Secretary]Director shall establish reasonable protocols and guidelines (1) for completing technical, social, and economic need demonstrations, (2) for review and determination of adequacy of Level II ADRs and (3) for determination of additional treatment requirements. Protocols and guidelines will consider federal guidance and will include input from local governments, the regulated community, and the general public. The [Executive Secretary]Director will inform the Water Quality Board of any protocols or guidelines that are developed.

 

R317-2-4. Colorado River Salinity Standards.

In addition to quality protection afforded by these [regulations]rules to waters of the Colorado River and its tributaries, such waters shall be protected also by requirements of "Proposed Water Quality Standards for Salinity including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System, June 1975" and a supplement dated August 26, 1975, entitled "Supplement, including Modifications to Proposed Water Quality Standards for Salinity including Numeric Criteria and Plan of Implementation for Salinity Control, Colorado River System, June 1975", as approved by the seven Colorado River Basin States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as updated by the 1978 Revision and the 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 reviews of the above documents.

 

. . . . . . .

 

R317-2-7. Water Quality Standards.

7.1 Application of Standards

The numeric criteria listed in R317-2-14 shall apply to each of the classes assigned to waters of the State as specified in R317-2-6. It shall be unlawful and a violation of these [regulations]rules for any person to discharge or place any wastes or other substances in such manner as may interfere with designated uses protected by assigned classes or to cause any of the applicable standards to be violated, except as provided in R317-1-3.1. At a minimum, assessment of the beneficial use support for waters of the state will be conducted biennially and available for a 30-day period of public comment and review. Monitoring locations and target indicators of water quality standards shall be prioritized and published yearly. For water quality assessment purposes, up to 10 percent of the representative samples may exceed the minimum or maximum criteria for dissolved oxygen, pH, E. coli, total dissolved solids, and temperature, including situations where such criteria have been adopted on a site-specific basis. Site-specific standards may be adopted by rulemaking where biomonitoring data, bioassays, or other scientific analyses indicate that the statewide criterion is over or under protective of the designated uses or where natural or un-alterable conditions or other factors as defined in 40 CFR 131.10(g) prevent the attainment of the statewide criteria as prescribed in Subsections R317-2-7.2, and R317-2-7.3, and Section R317-2-14.

7.2 Narrative Standards

It shall be unlawful, and a violation of these [regulations]rules, 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; or result in concentrations or combinations of substances which produce undesirable physiological responses in desirable resident fish, or other desirable aquatic life, or undesirable human health effects, as determined by bioassay or other tests performed in accordance with standard procedures; or determined by biological assessments in Subsection R317-2-7.3.

7.3 Biological Water Quality Assessment and Criteria

Waters of the State shall be free from human-induced stressors which will degrade the beneficial uses as prescribed by the biological assessment processes and biological criteria set forth below:

a. Quantitative biological assessments may be used to assess whether the purposes and designated uses identified in R317-2-6 are supported.

b. The results of the quantitative biological assessments may be used for purposes of water quality assessment, including, but not limited to, those assessments required by 303(d) and 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d) and 1315(b)).

c. Quantitative biological assessments shall use documented methods that have been subject to technical review and produce consistent, objective and repeatable results that account for methodological uncertainty and natural environmental variability.

d. If biological assessments reveal a biologically degraded water body, specific pollutants responsible for the degradation will not be formally published (i.e., Biennial Integrated Report, TMDL) until a thorough evaluation of potential causes, including nonchemical stressors (e.g., habitat degradation or hydrological modificationor criteria described in 40 CFR 131.10 (g)(1 - 6) as defined by the Use Attainability Analysis process), has been conducted.

 

R317-2-8. Protection of Downstream Uses.

All actions to control waste discharges under these [regulations]rules shall be modified as necessary to protect downstream designated uses.

 

R317-2-9. Intermittent Waters.

Failure of a stream to meet water quality standards when stream flow is either unusually high or less than the 7-day, 10-year minimum flow shall not be cause for action against persons discharging wastes which meet both the requirements of R317-1 and the requirements of applicable permits.

 

R317-2-10. Laboratory and Field Analyses.

10.1 Laboratory Analyses

All laboratory examinations of samples collected to determine compliance with these regulations shall be performed in accordance with standard procedures as approved by the [Utah Division of Water Quality]Director by the Utah Office of State Health Laboratory or by a laboratory certified by the Utah Department of Health.

10.2 Field Analyses

All field analyses to determine compliance with these [regulations]rules shall be conducted in accordance with standard procedures specified by the Utah Division of Water Quality.

 

. . . . . . .

 

R317-2-14. Numeric Criteria.

 

. . . . . . .

 

TABLE 2.14.2
NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR AQUATIC WILDLIFE(8)

     Parameter              Aquatic Wildlife
                            3A       3B       3C       3D        5
     PHYSICAL

     Total Dissolved
       Gases                (1)      (1)

     Minimum Dissolved Oxygen
       (MG/L) (2)(2a)
       30 Day Average       6.5      5.5      5.0      5.0
       7 Day Average        9.5/5.0  6.0/4.0

       Minimum              8.0/4.0  5.0/3.0  3.0      3.0

     Max. Temperature(C)(3) 20       27       27

     Max. Temperature
       Change (C)(3)        2        4        4

     pH (Range)(2a)      6.5-9.0  6.5-9.0  6.5-9.0  6.5-9.0

     Turbidity Increase
       (NTU)                10       10       15       15
     METALS (4)
     (DISSOLVED,
     UG/L)(5)
     Aluminum
     4 Day Average (6)      87       87       87       87
     1 Hour Average         750      750      750      750

     Arsenic (Trivalent)
     4 Day Average          150      150      150      150
     1 Hour Average         340      340      340      340

     Cadmium (7)
     4 Day Average          0.25    0.25      0.25     0.25
     1 Hour Average         2.0     2.0       2.0      2.0
     Chromium
       (Hexavalent)
     4 Day Average          11       11       11       11
     1 Hour Average         16       16       16       16
     Chromium
       (Trivalent) (7)
     4 Day Average          74       74       74       74
     1 Hour Average         570      570      570      570

     Copper (7)
     4 Day Average          9        9        9        9
     1 Hour Average         13       13       13       13

     Cyanide (Free)
     4 Day Average          5.2      5.2      5.2
     1 Hour Average         22       22       22       22
     Iron (Maximum)         1000     1000     1000     1000

     Lead (7)
     4 Day Average          2.5      2.5      2.5      2.5
     1 Hour Average         65       65       65       65

     Mercury
     4 Day Average          0.012    0.012    0.012    0.012

     Nickel (7)
     4 Day Average          52       52       52       52
     1 Hour Average         468      468      468      468

     Selenium
     4 Day Average          4.6      4.6      4.6      4.6
     1 Hour Average         18.4     18.4     18.4     18.4

     Selenium (14)
     Gilbert Bay (Class 5A)
     Great Salt Lake
     Geometric Mean over
     Nesting Season (mg/kg dry wt)                            12.5

     Silver
     1 Hour Average (7)     1.6      1.6      1.6      1.6

     Tributyltin
     4 Day Average          0.072    0.072    0.072    0.072
     1 Hour Average         0.46     0.46     0.46     0.46

     Zinc (7)
     4 Day Average          120      120      120      120
     1 Hour Average         120      120      120      120

     INORGANICS
     (MG/L) (4)
     Total Ammonia as N (9)
     30 Day Average         (9a)     (9a)     (9a)     (9a)
     1 Hour Average         (9b)     (9b)     (9b)     (9b)

     Chlorine (Total
       Residual)
     4 Day Average          0.011    0.011    0.011    0.011
     1 Hour Average         0.019    0.019    0.019    0.019

     Hydrogen Sulfide (13)
     (Undissociated,
       Max. UG/L)           2.0      2.0      2.0      2.0
     Phenol(Maximum)       0.01      0.01     0.01    0.01
     RADIOLOGICAL     (MAXIMUM pCi/L)

     Gross Alpha (10)       15       15       15       15

     ORGANICS (UG/L) (4)
     Acrolein
     4 Day Average          3.0      3.0      3.0      3.0
     1 Hour Average         3.0      3.0      3.0      3.0

     Aldrin
     1 Hour Average         1.5      1.5      1.5      1.5
     Chlordane
     4 Day Average          0.0043   0.0043   0.0043   0.0043
     1 Hour Average         1.2      1.2      1.2      1.2

     Chlorpyrifos
     4 Day Average          0.041    0.041    0.041    0.041
     1 Hour Average         0.083    0.083    0.083    0.083

     4,4' -DDT
     4 Day Average          0.0010   0.0010   0.0010   0.0010
     1 Hour Average         0.55     0.55     0.55     0.55

     Diazinon
     4 Day Average          0.17     0.17     0.17     0.17
     1 Hour Average         0.17     0.17     0.17     0.17

     Dieldrin
     4 Day Average          0.056    0.056    0.056    0.056
     1 Hour Average         0.24     0.24     0.24     0.24

     Alpha-Endosulfan
     4 Day Average          0.056    0.056    0.056    0.056
     1 Hour Average         0.11     0.11     0.11     0.11

     beta-Endosulfan
     4 Day Average          0.056    0.056    0.056    0.056
     1 Day Average          0.11     0.11     0.11     0.11

     Endrin
     4 Day Average          0.036    0.036    0.036    0.036
     1 Hour Average         0.086    0.086    0.086    0.086

     Heptachlor
     4 Day Average          0.0038   0.0038   0.0038   0.0038
     1 Hour Average         0.26     0.26     0.26     0.26

     Heptachlor epoxide
     4 Day Average          0.0038   0.0038   0.0038   0.0038
     1 Hour Average         0.26     0.26     0.26     0.26

     Hexachlorocyclohexane
       (Lindane)
     4 Day Average          0.08     0.08     0.08     0.08
     1 Hour Average         1.0      1.0      1.0      1.0

     Methoxychlor
       (Maximum)            0.03     0.03     0.03     0.03
     Mirex (Maximum)        0.001    0.001    0.001    0.001

     Nonylphenol
     4 Day Average          6.6      6.6      6.6      6.6
     1 Hour Average         28.0     28.0     28.0     28.0

     Parathion
     4 Day Average          0.013    0.013    0.013    0.013
     1 Hour Average         0.066    0.066    0.066    0.066

     PCB's
     4 Day Average          0.014    0.014    0.014    0.014

     Pentachlorophenol (11)
     4 Day Average          15       15       15       15
     1 Hour Average         19       19       19       19

     Toxaphene
     4 Day Average          0.0002   0.0002   0.0002   0.0002
     1 Hour Average         0.73     0.73     0.73     0.73

     POLLUTION
     INDICATORS (11)
     Gross Beta (pCi/L)     50       50       50       50
     BOD (MG/L)             5        5        5        5
     Nitrate as N (MG/L)    4        4        4
     Total Phosphorus as P(MG/L) (12)
                            0.05     0.05

FOOTNOTES:
    (1)  Not to exceed 110% of saturation.
    (2)  These limits are not applicable to lower water levels
in deep impoundments.  First number in column is for when
early life stages are present, second number is for when all
other life stages present.
    (2a) These criteria are not applicable to Great Salt Lake
impounded wetlands.  Surface water in these wetlands shall be
protected from changes in pH and dissolved oxygen that create
significant adverse impacts to the existing beneficial uses.
To ensure protection of uses, the [Executive Secretary]Director shall
develop reasonable protocols and guidelines that quantify the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of these waters.
These protocols and guidelines will include input from
local governments, the regulated community, and the general
public.  The [Executive Secretary]Director will inform the Water
Quality Board of any protocols or guidelines that are developed.
    (3) Site Specific Standards for Temperature
Ken's Lake: From June 1st - September 20th, 27 degrees C.
    (4)  Where criteria are listed as 4-day average and
1-hour average concentrations, these concentrations should not
be exceeded more often than once every three years on the
average.
    (5)  The dissolved metals method involves filtration of
the sample in the field, acidification of the sample in the
field, no digestion process in the laboratory, and analysis by
EPA approved laboratory methods for the required
detection levels.
    (6)  The criterion for aluminum will be implemented as
follows:
    Where the pH is equal to or greater than 7.0 and the
hardness is equal to or greater than 50 ppm as CaC03 in the
receiving water after mixing, the 87 ug/1 chronic criterion
(expressed as total recoverable) will not apply, and aluminum
will be regulated based on compliance with the 750 ug/1 acute
aluminum criterion (expressed as total recoverable).
    (7)  Hardness dependent criteria.  100 mg/l used.
Conversion factors for ratio of total recoverable metals to
dissolved metals must also be applied.   In waters with a
hardness greater than 400 mg/l as CaC03, calculations will
assume a hardness of 400 mg/l as CaC03.  See Table 2.14.3 for
complete equations for hardness and conversion factors.
    (8)  Reserved
    (9)  The following equations are used to calculate Ammonia
criteria concentrations:
    (9a)  The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia
nitrogen (in mg/l as N) does not exceed, more than once every
three years on the average, the chronic criterion calculated
using the following equations.
    Fish Early Life Stages are Present:
    mg/l as N (Chronic) = ((0.0577/(1+107.688-pH)) + (2.487/(1+
10pH-7.688)))  * MIN (2.85, 1.45*100.028*(25-T) )
    Fish Early Life Stages are Absent:
    mg/1 as N (Chronic) = ((0.0577/(1+107.688-pH)) + (2.487/
(1+10pH-7.688)))
  * 1.45*10
0.028* (25-MAX(T,7)))
    (9b) The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia
nitrogen (in mg/l as N) does not exceed, more than once every
three years on the average the acute criterion calculated
using the following equations.
    Class 3A:
    mg/l as N (Acute) = (0.275/(1+107.204-pH)) + (39.0/1+10pH-7.204))
    Class 3B, 3C, 3D:
    mg/l as N (Acute) = 0.411/(1+107.204-pH)) + (58.4/(1+10pH-7.204))
    In addition, the highest four-day average within the 30-day
period should not exceed 2.5 times the chronic criterion.
The "Fish Early Life Stages are Present" 30-day average total
ammonia criterion will be applied by default unless it is
determined by the [Division]Director, on a site-specific basis, that it
is appropriate to apply the "Fish Early Life Stages are
Absent" 30-day average criterion for all or some portion of
the year.  At a minimum, the "Fish Early Life Stages are
Present" criterion will apply from the beginning of spawning
through the end of the early life stages.  Early life stages
include the pre-hatch embryonic stage, the post-hatch free
embryo or yolk-sac fry stage, and the larval stage for the
species of fish expected to occur at the site.  The [division]Director
will consult with the Division of Wildlife Resources in making
such determinations.  The Division will maintain information
regarding the waterbodies and time periods where application
of the "Early Life Stages are Absent" criterion is determined
to be appropriate.
    (10)  Investigation should be conducted to develop more
information where these levels are exceeded.
    (11)  pH dependent criteria.  pH 7.8 used in table.  See
Table 2.14.4 for equation.
    (12)  Total Phosphorus as P (mg/l) as a pollution indicator
for lakes and reservoirs shall be 0.025.
    (13)  Formula to convert dissolved sulfide to un-disassociated
hydrogen sulfide is:  H2S = Dissolved Sulfide * e((-1.92 + pH) + 12.05)
    (14)  The selenium water quality standard of 12.5 (mg/kg dry
weight) for Gilbert Bay is a tissue based standard using the
complete egg/embryo of aquatic dependent birds using Gilbert Bay
based upon a minimum of five samples over the nesting season.
Assessment procedures are incorporated as a part of this
standard as follows:

Egg Concentration Triggers: DWQ Responses

Below 5.0 mg/kg: Routine monitoring with sufficient intensity
to determine if selenium concentrations within the Great Salt
Lake ecosystem are increasing.

5.0 mg/kg: Increased monitoring to address data gaps,
loadings, and areas of uncertainty identified from initial Great
Salt Lake selenium studies.

6.4 mg/kg: Initiation of a Level II Antidegradation review by the
State for all discharge permit renewals or new discharge permits
to Great Salt Lake. The Level II Antidegradation review may
include an analysis of loading reductions.

9.8 mg/kg: Initiation of preliminary TMDL studies to evaluate
selenium loading sources.

12.5 mg/kg and above: Declare impairment. Formalize and
implement TMDL.

Antidegradation
Level II Review procedures associated with this standard are
referenced at R317-2-3.5.C.

 

. . . . . . .

 

KEY: water pollution, water quality standards

Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: 2013

Notice of Continuation: October 2, 2012

Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 19-5