DAR File No. 37361
This rule was published in the July 15, 2013, issue (Vol. 2013, No. 14) of the Utah State Bulletin.
Environmental Quality, Water Quality
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
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.
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.
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 email@example.com
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:
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] 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] 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].
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,] 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
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
Regulations] 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
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] 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] 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?
Executive Secretary] 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] 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;
(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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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
Executive Secretary] 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] 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] 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
. . . . . . .
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
regulations] 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
regulations], 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
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] shall be modified as necessary to protect downstream
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] 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] shall be conducted in accordance with standard
procedures specified by the Utah Division of Water Quality.
. . . . . . .
R317-2-14. Numeric Criteria.
. . . . . . .
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] 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] 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], 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] 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
The Portable Document Format (PDF) version of the Bulletin is the official version. The PDF version of this issue is available at https://rules.utah.gov/publicat/bull-pdf/2013/b20130715.pdf. The HTML edition of the Bulletin is a convenience copy. Any discrepancy between the PDF version and HTML version is resolved in favor of the PDF version.
Text to be deleted is struck through and surrounded by brackets (e.g., [
example]). Text to be added is underlined (e.g., ). Older browsers may not depict some or any of these attributes on the screen or when the document is printed.
For questions regarding the content or application of this rule, please contact Dave Wham at the above address, by phone at 801-536-4337, by FAX at 801-536-4301, or by Internet E-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.