Document 2DBMVMXYr4v7er4Ya12YwZj6
U.S. EPA Region 8 NPDES Inspection Report
National Database Information
Inspection Date: September 18-19, 2024
Entry / Exit Time: September 18, 2024: 13:30-16:15 MT September 19, 2024: 09:45-10:45 MT
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation Inspection
NPDES ID: UTG589401
Major / Non-Major Facility: Non-Major
NPDES Program Sector(s): POTW
NAICS Code: 2213 (Water, Sewage, and Other Systems)
Inspection ID: 202409_UTG589401
Lead inspector and affiliation: Akash Johnson / U.S. EPA Region 8 (opening conference/on-site lead)
Inspector and affiliation: Althea Wilson / U.S. EPA Region 8
Inspector and affiliation: Jennifer Ferrando / U.S. EPA Region 8
Site/Facility Location Information
Site/Facility Name & Location: Fort Duchesne WWTF 40.26246, -109.850701 Uintah County, Utah Uintah and Ouray Reservation
Send Report to: Felecia Pike-Cuch, Acting Director Ute Tribe Water Systems feleciac@utetribe.com
Inspection/Site Contacts
Name(s)/Title
Felecia Pike-Cuch / Acting Director / UTWS (present)
Site/Facility Contacts Tracy Warrick / Environmental Health Foreman, Wastewater Operator / UTWS (present)
Eli Chapoose / Water and Wastewater Operator / UTWS (present)
Indian Health Service Contacts
Other Tribal Government Contacts
Mike O'Shea / Tribal Utility Consultant / IHS, Phoenix Area, Reno District OEHE SFC (present) Alrita Murray / Environmental GAP Coordinator / Ute Tribe (present for opening conference only) CeeJay Rebsom / Solid and Hazardous Waste Labor / Ute Tribe Environmental GAP Program (present) Darrel Ningealook / Solid and Hazardous Waste Labor / Ute Tribe Environmental GAP Program (present) Devonte Smith / Solid and Hazardous Waste Labor / Ute Tribe Environmental GAP Program (present)
Bart Powaukee / Water Quality Coordinator / Ute Tribe (not present)
Page 1 of 13
Other Contacts
Matthew Peacock / Senior Engineer / Natural Resource Consulting Engineers, Inc. (consultant to UTWS engaged by Ute Tribe Business Committee)
Permit/Site Information
Permit on site and available: Yes - EPA emailed before inspection and left hard-copy onsite
Permit Application Date: Did not evaluate
Effective Date: November 1, 2022
Expiration Date: March 31, 2027
Latitude: 40.26246
Longitude: -109.850701
Receiving Water(s): Non-discharging lagoon. The Uinta River was approximately 350 feet west of the facility at the closest approach. Lagoon did not appear to be discharging at the time of the inspection; Cell 2 was not in use.
Weather Conditions: During inspection: Sunny/partly cloudy, no precipitation
Inspector's source of information: Facility personnel, IHS personnel, IHS records, EPA records and databases, Google Earth Pro, inspection observations
Areas Evaluated During Inspection
Permit
Self-Monitoring Program
Records
Compliance Schedule
Facility/Site Review
Laboratory
Effluent/Receiving Waters
Operations and Maintenance
Flow Measurement
Sludge Handling/Disposal
Pretreatment Pollution Prevention Stormwater Combined Sewer Overflow Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Page 2 of 13
Report Review and Signature
Report Writer Name/Signature/Final Date
Contact Information
Digitally signed by ALTHEA
ALTHEA WILSON WILSON Date: 2024.12.09 15:35:21 -07'00'
U.S. EPA Region 8 Denver, Colorado wilson.althea@epa.gov (303) 312-6026
Reviewer Name
Review Date
Contact Information
U.S. EPA Region 8
Akash Johnson
November 26, 2024
Denver, Colorado johnson.akash@epa.gov
(303) 312-6067
Reviewer Name
Review Date
Contact Information
U.S. EPA Region 8
Jennifer Ferrando
November 26, 2024
Denver, Colorado ferrando.jennifer@epa.gov
(303) 312-6601
Management Reviewer Name/Signature/Date
Contact Information
EMILIO LLAMOZAS
Digitally signed by EMILIO LLAMOZAS Date: 2024.12.09 13:39:46 -07'00'
U.S. EPA Region 8 Denver, Colorado llamozas.emilio@epa.gov (303) 312-6407
Emilio Llamozas, NPDES and Wetlands Enforcement Section Supervisor
Page 3 of 13
Inspection Narrative and Site Description 1.0 Introduction
On Wednesday September 18, 2024, and Thursday September 19, 2024, I, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspector Althea Wilson, along with EPA inspectors Akash Johnson and Jennifer Ferrando (collectively, "we"), conducted a compliance evaluation inspection of the Fort Duchesne Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF; facility), located in Uintah County, Utah, within the exterior boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray (Reservation). The facility was operated by the Ute Tribe Water Systems (UTWS), a department of the Ute Tribe (Tribe) government. Ownership of the facility or underlying lands was not evaluated during the inspection.
The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate compliance with applicable Clean Water Act (CWA) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. A letter notifying the Tribe of the EPA's inspection presence on the Reservation was sent on August 19, 2024. We were joined by the individuals identified as present on pages 1-2 of this report for respective portions of the inspection. Throughout the inspection, we took notes on our discussions and observations in bound checklists. Photographs taken during the inspection are included in the enclosed photo log.
2.0 UTWS Wastewater Operations
Some of the information in this section was provided by UTWS representatives during and after the inspection and has not been independently verified by the EPA.
The UTWS operated six WWTFs, including the subject facility. The UTWS also operated several public water systems (PWSs). PWSs were not evaluated during the inspection and are not discussed atlength in this report. UTWS staffing comprised five operators, three of whom worked primarily in PWS operations, one of whom, Tracy Warrick, worked primarily in wastewater operations, and one of whom, Eli Chapoose, worked in both wastewater and PWS operations. No UTWS staff held wastewater operator licenses. During the inspection, UTWS representatives indicated they were trying to recruit additional wastewater operators, either by providing wastewater training to existing UTWS PWS operators or hiring and training new staff. The UTWS coordinated regularly with IHS, consultants, and technical assistance providers on matters of infrastructure funding, technical assistance, and training related to wastewater operations.
The UTWS was managed by a Director position which jointly-managed the Ute Tribe Environmental Health Program (UTEHP). At the time of the inspection, the UTWS/UTEHP Director position had been filled in an acting capacity for several months by Felecia Pike-Cuch, who was also the Ute Tribe Emergency Management Director. The UTWS, along with approximately fifty-one other Tribal departments, was overseen by the Tribe's Executive Director position, which coordinated between Tribal departments and the Tribal Council.
The majority of UTWS funding was provided by the Tribal government. The UTWS Director was responsible for coordinating the UTWS budget and special purchase requests with the Executive Director, who was in-turn responsible for coordinating any such requests with the Tribal Council. The UTWS also periodically applied for grants to support equipment purchases.
Potable water from UTWS PWSs was sold commercially to some nearby non-Tribal water systems, with associated revenue directed into the Tribe's General Fund. The UTWS provided septic pumping services across the Reservation at no-cost for Tribal members. UTWS representatives indicated they
Page 4 of 13
Inspection Narrative and Site Description were in the process of clarifying septic pumping charges for non-Tribal members and had temporarily ceased offering septic services to non-Tribal members until the matter was determined. UTWS representatives indicated all septage they collected was hauled to the Fort Duchesne WWTF (NPDES ID UTG589401).
The UTWS did not assess or collect any residential or commercial water or wastewater fees. UTWS representatives indicated Tribal members did not currently pay for residential water or sewer services provided by the UTWS. UTWS representatives were not sure whether any other customers (e.g. nonTribal residential users, commercial users) were being assessed water or sewer fees and, if so, which other Tribal department(s) may have been collecting such fees and where associated revenue may have been directed. UTWS representatives indicated, in recent memory, they had not received instruction from any other Tribal departments to conduct water shut offs in response to any delinquent water or sewer payments. IHS records contain some additional information on water and wastewater fees supplementing the information provided by UTWS representatives during the inspection.
Each of the WWTFs operated by the UTWS comprised a collection system and lagoon. The UTWS provided collection system services into homes for Tribal members and up to property lines for nonTribal members. The UTWS maintained and operated a sewer jetter and pump truck to support collection system and septic pumping operations. UTWS representatives indicated they did not implement any routine preventative maintenance procedures for any collection systems or lagoons; rather, they generally performed wastewater maintenance and repairs on an as-needed basis. UTWS representatives indicated, at the time of the inspection, work orders were tracked in hard-copy form, but they had historically been tracked through various mechanisms.
UTWS representatives indicated they spent considerable time over several months preceding the inspection clearing overgrown vegetation from around the lagoons associated with the WWTFs under their purview. UTWS representatives indicated they had made significant progress clearing vegetation from around the lagoons but still intended to complete additional vegetation removal at several lagoons.
3.0 Facility Information
At the time of the inspection, NPDES permit coverage for the facility was effective under the EPA Region 8 General Permit for Wastewater Lagoons in Indian Country (Permit) (general NPDES ID UTG589###; facility specific NPDES ID UTG589401), under the "Potential to Discharge but No Discharge (NODIS) Authorized" requirements of the Permit.
The facility comprised a gravity collection system and two-cell facultative lagoon serving the community of Fort Duchesne. Collection systems serving two satellite communities, the Sunshine Subdivision (NPDES ID UTG589403) and the Yellowstone Subdivision (NPDES ID UTG589402), could be configured to pump wastewater into the Fort Duchesne WWTF, but no wastewater from either community was being directed to the Fort Duchesne WWTF at the time of the inspection. The collection system and facility users were not evaluated during the inspection. UTWS representatives indicated they disposed of hauled septage in the facility collection system in a manhole near the Fort Duchesne rifle range.
Page 5 of 13
Inspection Narrative and Site Description
4.0 Inspection Narrative
On the afternoon of Wednesday, September 18, 2024, we conducted an opening conference in a conference room of the Ute Tribe Emergency Management Department office. During the opening conference, we asked questions pertaining to wastewater operations and implementation of Permit requirements at the WWTFs operated by the UTWS, including the subject facility. On Thursday, September 19, 2024, we conducted onsite inspections of each of the WWTFs operated by the UTWS, including the subject facility.
Site observations began at approximately 09:45. We first visited an area north of the lagoon to observe a sagging sewer main, conveying sewage over a drainage to the lagoon (Photographs 46 and 47). UTWS and IHS representatives stated the sagging main conveyed sewage over a drainage between an irrigation canal and the Uinta River and was slated to be replaced as part of an upcoming IHS project. We opened a manhole upstream of the sewer main and confirmed wastewater was flowing through it.
We then drove to the lagoon. UTWS representatives indicated they had repaired the lagoon access road crossing over the aforementioned nearby irrigation canal (east of the lagoon) several months earlier to allow vehicle access to the lagoon and, prior to these repairs, they had not been able to access the lagoon for several years. The lagoon enclosure was fenced and locked upon our arrival and the gate was opened by UTWS representatives. A section of fencing on the east side of the lagoon was damaged and it appeared animals had been in and out of the enclosure, as evidenced by animal droppings inside the fence line. UTWS representatives indicated horses had entered the lagoon enclosure after recent vegetation removal. UTWS representatives indicated the area around Cell 1 had been overgrown with trees and other dense vegetation prior to the aforementioned vegetation removal activities conducted several months earlier. Dense vegetation and trees remained in and around Cell 2 (Photograph 50).
Throughout the course of the inspection, we walked around the entire perimeter of Cell 1, including the berm between Cell 1 and Cell 2; however, due to dense vegetation in and around Cell 2, we did not walk around the northern, southern, or eastern sides of Cell 2. We began the facility walk-through on the eastern side of the Cell 1. The interior of the final influent manhole had a split configuration; all influent was directed into Cell 1 and the gate to Cell 2 was closed (Photograph 48). UTWS representatives confirmed all flow was directed to Cell 1 and Cell 2 was not being used. Cattails were growing around the inside the berm of Cell 1 (Photographs 49, 51, and 53). A septic splash pad was present on the east edge of Cell 1 (Photograph 51). UTWS representatives indicated the septic splash pad had not been recently used because, as discussed earlier in this section, until several months prior to the inspection, vehicles had not been able to access the lagoon for several years.
On the southeast side of the lagoon, we walked the berm that separated Cell 1 and Cell 2 and observed overgrown vegetation in Cell 2 (Photograph 50). Further down on the berm we observed a potential valve structure between Cell 1 and Cell 2 on the southeast side of Cell 1 (Photograph 52). UTWS representatives stated they were unsure if the valve between the two cells was open or closed and we were not able to verify its configuration during the inspection.
On the west side of Cell 1, we observed a broken PVC pipe around four inches in diameter that appeared to have previously entered Cell 1 (Photograph 53). UTWS representatives stated the pipe was marking the location where piping for the Sunshine Subdivision lift station conveyance was buried. As discussed previously, no wastewater from the Sunshine Subdivision was directed to the Fort Duchesne WWTF at the time of the inspection.
Page 6 of 13
Inspection Narrative and Site Description
We then left the lagoon and drove to a manhole where the UTWS introduced hauled septic waste into the Fort Duchesne collection system, located near the Fort Duchesne rifle range northwest of Cell 1 (Photograph 62).
The inspection concluded when we left the area at approximately 10:45.
Later in the day, we reconvened in the conference room of the Ute Tribe Emergency Management Department office and discussed preliminary findings for each of the WWTFs inspected that day, including the subject facility.
5.0 Post-Inspection Activities and Conclusion
On October 11, 2024, EPA inspector Akash Johnson emailed Felecia Pike-Cuch preliminary findings from the inspection.
Findings, requested corrective actions, and recommendations identified pursuant to the inspection are identified in the section below.
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations Finding 1:
Weekly facility inspections were not being conducted or documented.
Permit Requirements:
Section 6.5 of the Permit (Inspection Requirements) states:
On at least a weekly basis, unless otherwise modified by written approval from EPA, the Permittee shall inspect its wastewater treatment facility. Permission for less frequent inspections must be requested in writing by the Permittee and may be granted on a case-by-case basis where appropriate (e.g. a lagoon located in a remote area where access is a problem during the winter and compliance issues are not present), at the discretion of EPA. The Permittee shall maintain a notebook/logbook recording all information obtained during the inspection using indelible ink pens (or inspection logs may be kept in electronic format in accordance with proper record-keeping procedures) and in sufficient detail so that decision logic may be traced back, once reviewed. At a minimum, the notebook/logbook shall include the following (see Appendix D of this Permit for an Example Lagoon Inspection Form):
6.5.1.1. Name of facility and permit number. 6.5.1.2. Date and time of the inspection. 6.5.1.3. Name of the inspector(s). 6.5.1.4. The facility's discharge status. 6.5.1.5. The flow rate of the discharge, if occurring. 6.5.1.6. Determine if a discharge is occurring, has occurred since the previous inspection, and/or if a discharge is likely to occur before the next inspection. (Note: If a discharge has occurred or is likely to
Page 7 of 13
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations
occur before the next inspection, perform the appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements in Sections 3 and 5.4 of this Permit if not already done.). 6.5.1.7. If there is any leakage through the dikes. 6.5.1.8. If there are any animal burrows in the dike. 6.5.1.9. If there is any erosion of the dikes (e.g., rills, cracks or other structural indications of erosion). 6.5.1.10. If there are any rooted plants, including weeds or trees growing in the water. 6.5.1.11. If the vegetative growth on the dikes needs mowing (i.e. no greater than 6" tall or any height that may interfere with monitoring, operation and maintenance of the system). 6.5.1.12. Visual observation for visible sheen, floating oil, floating solids and foam. 6.5.1.13. Visual observation to check for evidence of illicit septic dumping. 6.5.1.14. List the date scheduled for operation and maintenance procedures to be undertaken at the wastewater treatment facility. 6.5.1.15. Identification of operational and/or maintenance problems, and a determination of whether proper operation and maintenance procedures are being undertaken at the frequency necessary to maintain working operations and the overall treatment and collection systems of the wastewater treatment lagoon system. 6.5.1.16. Recommendations, as appropriate, to remedy identified problems. 6.5.1.17. A brief description of any actions taken with regard to problems identified. 6.5.1.18. Overall visual observations to identify potential concerns with the "health" of the lagoon system (e.g., water is cloudy, water coloration concerns (e.g. red, black, grey, dark blue-green and cloudy), etc.); and 6.5.1.19. Other information, problems identified, or observations, as appropriate.
The Permittee shall maintain the notebook/logbook in accordance with required record-keeping items listed above and shall make the log available for inspection, upon request, by authorized representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the applicable Tribe(s) (see Appendix A for list of Tribes).
Problems identified during the inspection (including, but not limited to, those associated with this section of the Permit) shall be corrected at the time of inspection, if possible. If they cannot be corrected at the time of the inspection, the inspector must identify a corrective action to remedy the problem(s), as well as a timeline for completion of the remedy. Corrective actions to remedy problem(s) shall be in line with (and addressed through) proper operation and maintenance (Section 6.6 of this Permit.). All problems identified during inspections, as well as associated corrective actions and timelines, shall be documented in the inspection log.
Section 5.9 of the Permit (Retention of Records) states:
The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this Permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for the Permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. Records of monitoring required by the Permit related to sludge use and disposal activities must be kept at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR Part 503). This period may be extended by request of the EPA at any time. Data collected on site, data used to prepare the DMR, copies of DMRs, and a copy of this NPDES Permit must be maintained on site.
Page 8 of 13
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations Corrective Action:
Conduct, document, and retain records of weekly facility inspections in accordance with the Permit. In a response, provide a record of at least one weekly facility inspection conducted since receipt of this report.
Finding 2:
An Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual(s) had not been developed or implemented for the facility.
Permit Requirements:
Section 6.6.1 of the Permit (under "Proper Operation and Maintenance") states:
For Permittees not previously covered under the Region 8 General Permit for Wastewater Lagoon Systems in Indian Country, the Permittee shall, as soon as reasonable and practicable, but no later than six (6) months after the effective date of this Permit, do the following as part of the operation and maintenance program for the wastewater treatment facility:
6.6.1.1. Have a current O & M Manual(s) that describes the proper operational procedures and maintenance requirements of the wastewater treatment facility. 6.6.1.2. Have the O & M Manual(s) readily available to the operator of the wastewater treatment facility and require that the operator become familiar with the manual(s) and any updates. 6.6.1.3. Have a schedule(s) for routine operation and maintenance activities at the wastewater treatment facility; and, 6.6.1.4. Require the operator to perform the routine operation and maintenance requirements in accordance with the schedule(s).
For Permittees renewing coverage under this Permit, the Permittee is expected to have the above listed items (Sections 6.6.1.1. thru 6.6.1.4., which were part of the requirements under the previous Region 8 General Permit for Wastewater Lagoon Systems in Indian Country) completed prior to the coverage date under this Permit. These Permittees shall ensure that each of the items listed above are updated and maintained as part of the operation and maintenance program for the wastewater treatment facility.
Corrective Action:
Develop and implement an O&M Manual(s) for the facility in accordance with the Permit. In a response, provide a copy of the O&M Manual(s) developed for the facility.
Finding 3:
A daily O&M log was not maintained for the facility.
Permit Requirements:
Section 6.6.1 of the Permit (under "Proper Operation and Maintenance") states:
Page 9 of 13
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations ...In addition to the operation and maintenance items in the manual for the lagoon system, ALL Permittees shall do the following maintenance, at a minimum:
The Permittee shall maintain a log in either paper (e.g. bound notebook) or electronic format containing a summary record of any daily operation and maintenance activities at the wastewater treatment lagoon facility and collection system, that is to be updated on each day operation and maintenance activities are performed. At a minimum, the log shall include the following information:
6.6.1.5. Date and time. 6.6.1.6. Name and title of person(s) making the log entry. 6.6.1.7. Name of the persons(s) performing the activity. 6.6.1.8. A brief description of any operations and maintenance activity performed on the wastewater treatment lagoon system. 6.6.1.9. The Permittee shall ensure that necessary action to promptly correct the problem of leakage through the dikes is taken and documented in the maintenance log. 6.6.1.10. The Permittee shall ensure that necessary action to promptly remove burrowing animals from the dikes is taken and documented in the maintenance log. 6.6.1.11. The Permittee shall ensure prompt repair of damage to dikes caused by burrowing animals and/or erosion and documentation of all actions in the maintenance log. 6.6.1.12. The Permittee shall ensure removal of rooted plants, including weeds and trees, from the water on a regular basis or as needed and documentation of all actions in the maintenance log; and 6.6.1.13. The Permittee shall ensure that the dikes are kept mowed on a regular basis during the growing season or as needed (i.e., vegetation not greater than 6" tall or any height that may interfere with monitoring, operation and maintenance of the system) and that documentation of all actions taken are recorded in the maintenance log. 6.6.1.14. Other information, as appropriate.
The Permittee shall maintain the daily log in accordance with proper record-keeping procedures and shall make the log available for inspection, upon request, by authorized representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the applicable Tribe(s) (see Appendix A for list of Tribes).
Corrective Action:
Maintain a daily O&M log for the facility in accordance with the Permit. In a response, provide a copy of at least one daily O&M log completed since receipt of this report.
Finding 4:
Operators were not familiar with all components of the facility, notably, whether the valve was open between Cell 1 and Cell 2 (Photograph 52).
Permit Requirements:
Section 6.6 of the Permit (Proper Operation and Maintenance) states:
The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory
Page 10 of 13
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit.
Corrective Action:
Evaluate the configuration of the valve between Cell 1 and Cell 2 and ensure it is opened or closed as intended by UTWS operators. In a response, provide a narrative explaining the process and outcome of this evaluation.
Note: Appropriate caution should be taken when turning valves which have not been regularly exercised, as they may be prone to sticking or breaking.
Finding 5:
Vegetation greater than 6 inches in height (primarily cattails) was present along the inside of the berm of Cell 1 (Photograph 49). Vegetation greater than 6 inches in height (including trees over 10 feet in height) were present in and around the entirety of Cell 2 (Photograph 50).
UTWS representatives indicated they spent considerable time over several months preceding the inspection clearing overgrown vegetation from around the lagoons under their purview, including the subject facility, but also indicated they still intended to complete additional vegetation removal at several lagoons.
Permit Requirements:
Section 6.6.1.12 of the Permit (under "Proper Operation and Maintenance") states:
The Permittee shall ensure removal of rooted plants, including weeds and trees, from the water on a regular basis or as needed and documentation of all actions in the maintenance log.
Section 6.6.1.13 of the Permit (under "Proper Operation and Maintenance") states:
The Permittee shall ensure that the dikes are kept mowed on a regular basis during the growing season or as needed (i.e., vegetation not greater than 6" tall or any height that may interfere with monitoring, operation and maintenance of the system) and that documentation of all actions taken are recorded in the maintenance log.
Corrective Action:
Remove rooted vegetation (cattails) and reduce vegetation around and inside the lagoon cells to 6 inches in height or less. Remove trees from Cell 2 and repair any associated damage to the lagoon liner. In a response, provide photographs of both cells indicating this corrective action has been completed and provide the date of completion.
Page 11 of 13
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations Recommendation:
During the inspection, UTWS representatives inquired about potentially applying herbicide to control vegetation on the interior of the lagoon berms. CWA, NPDES, and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements may apply to the application of pesticides, including herbicides, which may enter waters of the United States. Application of herbicide at the lagoon may also constitute a substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in facility wastewater, requiring notification to the EPA under Section 7.1 of the Permit (Planned Changes). If the UTWS intends to apply herbicide at the lagoon, prior to selecting or applying an herbicide, it is recommended the UTWS contact the Region 8 Wastewater (NPDES Permitting) Section to inquire about potentially applicable Permit or other federal requirements relating to this activity. A relevant EPA contact would be Kenley Stone, reachable stone.kenley@epa.gov or (406) 457-5035. Finding 6:
A section of fencing on the east side of the lagoon was damaged and it appeared animals had been in and out of the enclosure, as evidenced by animal droppings inside the fence line. UTWS representatives indicated horses had entered the lagoon enclosure after recent vegetation removal.
Uncontrolled access to wastewater treatment facilities could result in sabotage to the facility, illicit dumping, injury, or death. Additionally, humans and animals are subject to drowning in lagoon cells and are subject to illness as a result of exposure to sewage. Raw and partially treated sewage contains bacteria, viruses, protozoa (parasitic organisms), helminths (intestinal worms), and inhaled molds and fungi. Exposure to sewage may cause diseases ranging in severity from mild gastroenteritis (causing stomach cramps and diarrhea) to life-threatening ailments such as cholera, dysentery, infections, hepatitis, and severe gastroenteritis.
Recommendation:
To minimize potential safety hazards, the EPA recommends the UTWS repair any downed fence around the lagoon and ensure access to the lagoon remains controlled by the UTWS.
Finding 7:
The UTWS introduced hauled septage into a manhole located in the facility collection system. UTWS representatives indicated the septic splash pad at Cell 1 of the lagoon had not been recently used because, until several months prior to the inspection, vehicles had not been able to access the lagoon for several years.
Disposing of septage into a collection system could result in collection system backups and sanitary sewer overflows due to solid from septage potentially clogging or damaging collection system pipes, valves, and pumps.
Recommendation:
The EPA recommends the UTWS evaluate the feasibility and pros and cons of utilizing the septic splash pad at Cell 1 for disposal of septage instead of introducing septage into the collection system.
Page 12 of 13
Findings, Corrective Actions, and Recommendations Finding 8: A portion of the sewer main several hundred yards north of the lagoon appeared to be sagging and was exposed to the environment with little protection as it passed over a drainage (Photographs 46 and 47). UTWS and IHS representatives stated the sagging main conveyed sewage to the lagoon and was slated to be replaced as part of an upcoming IHS project. Permit Requirements: Section 6.6 of the Permit (Proper Operation and Maintenance) states: The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit. Corrective Action 1 - Provide a plan and schedule for upcoming sewer main project: Provide EPA a plan and schedule for the sewer main improvements at this location. Corrective Action 2 - Proof of project completion When the project is complete, provide a notification to the EPA explaining the scope of the improvements and completion date. Include photographs of the completed project in a response to the EPA.
Page 13 of 13