Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0002984 - Washington

Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0002984 Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery

March 11, 2014 Purpose of this Fact Sheet This fact sheet explains and documents the decisions Ecology made in drafting the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the NPDES permitting program as a tool to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” EPA delegated to Ecology the power and duty to write, issue, and enforce NPDES permits within Washington State. Both state and federal laws require any industrial facility to obtain a permit before discharging treated process water to a water body. An NPDES permit limits the types and amounts of pollutants the facility may discharge. Those limits are based either on (1) the pollution control or wastewater treatment technology available to the industry, or on (2) the receiving water’s customary beneficial uses. This fact sheet complies with Section 173-220-060 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which requires Ecology to prepare a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet for public evaluation before issuing an NPDES permit. Public Role in the Permit Ecology makes the draft permit and fact sheet available for public review and comment at least thirty (30) days before issuing the final permit to the facility operator (WAC 173-220-050). Copies of the fact sheet and draft permit for Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery; NPDES permit WA0002984, were available for public review and comment from April 25, 2012 until the close of business June 25, 2012 and again for the revised draft permit December 4, 2013 until the close of business January 13, 2014. For more details on preparing and filing comments about these documents, please see Appendix A - Public Involvement. Before publishing the draft NPDES permit, Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery, reviewed it for factual accuracy. Ecology corrected any errors or omissions about the facility’s location, product type or production rate, discharges or receiving water, or its history. After the public comment period closes, Ecology will summarize substantive comments and our responses to them. Ecology will include our summary and responses to comments to this Fact Sheet as Appendix P - Response to Comments, and publish it when issuing the final NPDES permit. Ecology will not revise the rest of the fact sheet, but the full document will become part of the legal history contained in the facility’s permit file. Liem Nguyen prepared the permit and this fact sheet.

SUMMARY

The Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery operates a wastewater treatment plant that discharges to the Strait of Georgia. Ecology issued the previous permit for this facility on January 23, 2002. The proposed permit increases the effluent limits for the conventional pollutants Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Oil and Grease (O&G), phenols, and ammonia from the previous permit issued in 2002 due to increases in refinery production but retains the old sulfide limit. New limits are proposed for hexavalent chromium. Ecology added new limits at the primary and biological treatment systems to ensure that flow and COD loading do not exceed approved facility design criteria. The proposed permit retains the monitoring frequencies from the previous permit for BOD, TSS, O&G, phenol, COD, and ammonia and reduces the monitoring frequency for sulfide. The proposed permit adds annual monitoring for priority pollutants and a herring toxicity study and adds quarterly groundwater monitoring.

of 147

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................5

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...........................................................................................6 A. Facility Description ......................................................................................................7

Site Description and History ....................................................................................8 Industrial Process .....................................................................................................8 Wastewater Treatment .............................................................................................8 Solid Wastes...........................................................................................................10 Discharge Outfalls .................................................................................................10

B. Permit Status ..............................................................................................................11 C. Summary of Compliance with Previous Permit Issued ..........................................12 D. Review of Previous Permit Requirements ...............................................................13 E. Wastewater Characterization ...................................................................................14 F. Description of the Receiving Water ..........................................................................15 G. Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve ..................................................................................16 H. SEPA Compliance ......................................................................................................16

III. PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................16 A. Design Criteria ...........................................................................................................17 B. Technology-Based Effluent Limits ...........................................................................17

Process Wastewater ...............................................................................................17 Ballast and Stormwater Allocations.......................................................................23 Stormwater Discharge Monitoring (Outfall 002, 003, 004, and 005) ....................24 Final Effluent Discharge for Firewater Testing .....................................................24 Construction Project Stormwater Discharge Requirements ..................................25

C. Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits ........................................................25 Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and Recreation ..................25 Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ........................................25 Narrative Criteria ...................................................................................................26 Antidegradation......................................................................................................26 Mixing Zones .........................................................................................................27

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria ............................................33 E. Evaluation of Surface Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits for Numeric

Criteria ..................................................................................................................34 Chronic Mixing Zone .............................................................................................34 Acute Mixing Zone ................................................................................................34 Stormwater Outfalls (002, 003, 004, and 005).......................................................39

F. Whole Effluent Toxicity .............................................................................................39 Cherry Point Herring..............................................................................................41

G. Human Health ............................................................................................................43 H. Sediment Quality........................................................................................................45 I. Ground Water Quality Monitoring ...........................................................................45

IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................46

of 147

A. Lab Accreditation ......................................................................................................46 B. Performance-Based Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies ...................................47

V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS ...........................................................................................47 A. Priority Pollutant Testing ..........................................................................................47 B. Reporting and Recordkeeping ..................................................................................47 C. Operation and Maintenance Plan .............................................................................47 D. Non Routine and Unanticipated Discharges ............................................................48 E. Wastewater Treatment Efficiency Study and Engineering Report .......................48 F. Pollution Prevention Plan ..........................................................................................49 G. Dangerous Wastes – Permit by Rule Requirements ...............................................50 H. Outfall Evaluation......................................................................................................50 I. Certified Operator .......................................................................................................50 J. General Conditions .....................................................................................................51

VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES ...................................................................................51 A. Permit Modifications .................................................................................................51 B. Proposed Permit Issuance .........................................................................................51

APPENDIX A – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION ..................................................53 APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................54APPENDIX C – WASTEWATER TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM ......................................58 APPENDIX D – MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS ..................................60 APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF NON-COMPLIANCES...........................................................67 APPENDIX F – CALCULATION OF LIMITATIONS ...............................................................69 APPENDIX G – DRY WEATHER FLOW CALCULATION .....................................................71APPENDIX H – STORMWATER ALLOCATION EVENTS .................................................... 72APPENDIX I – STORMWATER MONITORING DATA ...........................................................73APPENDIX J – MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS ..............................................................................74 APPENDIX K – TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS ..........................................................................77APPENDIX L – REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS ...............................81 APPENDIX M – WET AND HERRING TESTING RESULTS ..................................................88 APPENDIX N – GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA ......................................................91 APPENDIX O – PERFORMANCE-BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING........................... FREQUENCIES..............................................................................................................................97 APPENDIX P – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...........................................................................98

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

I. INTRODUCTION

The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications in 1977, 1981, and 1987) established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United States. One mechanism for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), administered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA authorized the state of Washington to manage the NPDES permit program in our state. Our state legislature accepted the delegation and assigned the power and duty for conducting NPDES permitting and enforcement to Ecology. The legislature defined Ecology's authority and obligations for the wastewater discharge permit program in 90.48 RCW (Revised Code of Washington). Ecology adopted rules describing how it exercises its authority:

• Procedures Ecology follows for issuing NPDES permits (Chapter 173-220 WAC)

• Water quality criteria for surface waters (Chapter 173-201A WAC) and for ground waters (Chapter 173-200 WAC)

• Sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC), and

• Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater Facilities (Chapter 173-240 WAC)

These rules require any industrial facility operator to obtain an NPDES permit before discharging wastewater to state waters. They also help define the basis for limits on each discharge and for performance requirements imposed by the permit. Under the NPDES permit program and in response to a complete and accepted permit application Ecology must prepare a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet, and make them available for public review before final issuance. Ecology must also publish an announcement (public notice) telling people where they can read the draft permit, and where to send their comments, during a period of thirty days (WAC 173-220-050). (See Appendix A--Public Involvement for more detail about the Public Notice and Comment procedures). After the public comment period ends, Ecology may make changes to the draft NPDES permit in response to comments. Ecology will summarize the responses to comments and any changes to the permit in Appendix P.

of 147

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Table 1. General Facility Information

Applicant: Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery

Facility Name and Address:

Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery

PO Box 8, Ferndale, Washington 98248

Type of Facility: Petroleum Refinery

SIC Code: 2911

Discharge Location: Water Body Name: Strait of Georgia

Latitude Longitude

Outfall 001 48.826667 122.715833

Discharge Location: Water Body Name: Unnamed Tributary to Lummi Bay

Outfall 002 48.819722 122.684167

Discharge Location: Water Body Name: Unnamed Tributary to Strait of Georgia

Outfall 003 48.822222 122.704167

Outfall 004 48.8275 122.709444

Outfall 005 48.829722 122.710278

of 147

A. Facility Description

Figure 1. Facility Location Map

of 147

SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery is located in a rural area of Whatcom County, approximately five miles west southwest of the city of Ferndale, Washington, along the Strait of Georgia between Cherry Point and Sandy Point. The refinery encompasses an area of about 900 acres, bordered by Unick Road to the north, Slater Road to the south, and Lake Terrell Road to the east. General Petroleum originally constructed the refinery in 1954. The refinery was later owned and operated by British Petroleum. On December 28, 1993, BP Oil Company notified Ecology that Tosco Corporation had purchased the refinery and planned to continue operating the refinery to process crude oil as Tosco Northwest Company (Tosco). On September 17, 2001, Ecology received notification that Phillips Petroleum completed its purchase of Tosco Corporation. Tosco Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company. The Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco in 2002 to form ConocoPhillips. In late 2011, ConocoPhillips announced its intent to form a new company to be named the Phillips 66 Company and to transfer the ownership of the Ferndale refinery to the new company. The transition became official on May 1, 2012. The refinery currently employs about 283 people with an additional 200 contract employees. The indirect employment associated with the refinery is about 900 people. The refinery operates 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, except during turnaround periods which occur about once every four to five years. The refinery runs two 12 hours shifts per day.

INDUSTRIAL PROCESS

From January 2002 through December of 2011, Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery processed an average of 94,500 bbls per day of crude oil. The refinery processed an average of 98,100 bbls per day of crude oil during the last two years. The main source of crude oil has historically been from tankers delivering oil from Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil field and Canadian Crude oil via pipeline. The refinery is planning to bring in additional sources of crude by railcar from North America at the end of 2014. The refinery separates crude oil into its various components for further processing and blending into a variety of petroleum products. These products include gasoline, jet fuel, diesel oil, liquid petroleum gas, residual fuel oil, and marine bunker fuel oil. The refinery processes use an average of 2.8 million gallons of water per day (MGD). As part of the flow, another 15,000 gallons per day are used for potable water purposes. The Public Utility District #1 of Whatcom County supplies raw water. The refinery makes potable drinking water from treated PUD water. Major process water uses include cooling tower water make-up (1.5 MGD), boiler feed water (0.72 MGD), and utility services (0.57 MGD). WASTEWATER TREATMENT

The refinery treats process wastewater using primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment in a wastewater treatment system consisting of:

• Three surge tanks (a chemical water surge tank, a chemical water retention tank, and a oily water surge tank)

of 147

• Two parallel API oil/water separators with skimmers

• Two parallel Induced gas flotation unit

• Two parallel moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)

• Two parallel aeration basins

• Two parallel clarifiers

• An aerobic digester

• A sludge stabilization pond (formerly the clarification pond)

• A catchment basin

• A dewatering basin

• A stormwater basin

• A final holding pond

In June 2007, the refinery completed the construction of a conventional Activated Sludge System including two parallel clarifiers and two parallel aeration basins to replace the existing aero-accelators. Each year the refinery removes and disposes of the solids that settled out in the sludge stabilization pond and catchment basin. The solids are placed in the dewatering basin, tilled into the soil where aerobic bacteria can continue reducing the oily hydrocarbons and organic biomass to non-hazardous forms. The refinery sends the collected solids to a permitted landfill offsite for disposal. The water from the dewatering basin is routed to the sludge stabilization pond and then to the activated sludge basin. A flow diagram of the wastewater treatment system is shown in Appendix C.

The refinery’s oily water sewer system collects stormwater falling within the process unit boundaries for treatment, along with process wastewater, at the refinery’s wastewater treatment plant. The refinery’s stormwater sewer system collects stormwater falling on industrial areas of the refinery, other than the areas within the curbed process unit boundaries. This stormwater is routed through the Stormwater Observation Channel. Any oil present on the water surface as it enters the observation channel of the stormwater pond is skimmed off by a rotating surface skimmer at the head of the channel. The operator observes the stormwater flow for contaminants. If the stormwater is considered “clean”, it is routed to either the final holding pond or catchment basin where it commingles with the treated process wastewater before discharge. The operator samples the stormwater from the final holding pond for effluent parameters before discharge. If the stormwater is considered “contaminated”, it is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The refinery routes stormwater runoff from the non-industrial areas, not collected in the sewer collection network, through onsite ditches to Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005. Each outfall

of 147

includes underflow weirs and wood fiber filter cages. The refinery monitors the stormwater at the outfalls to prevent any possible spilled materials from exiting the refinery. The refinery is planning to build a new crude unloading facility located on the west side of the refinery. The stormwater runoff outside the unloading facility will be collected in detention ponds prior to being discharged through Outfalls 002 and 003. The contaminated stormwater associated with the unloading facility will be routed to the refinery’s wastewater treatment plant. SOLID WASTES

Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery manages various solid wastes onsite including: garbage, recyclables (paper, plastic, glass, metal, and wood), biosolids, clay tower media, non-hazardous vessel sludge, non-hazardous excavated soil, non-hazardous catalyst fines, asphalt, removed clay tower media, concrete, and refractory.

DISCHARGE OUTFALLS Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery operates one process wastewater outfall (001) and four industrial stormwater outfalls (002, 003, 004, and 005). The discharge from each outfall is described below: Process Wastewater Outfall 001 The refinery discharges treated sanitary wastewater, process water, ballast water, and stormwater via an 8.5-inch diameter multi-port submerged diffuser at Outfall 001. The diffuser has 4 ports which are oriented east, west, north, and south respectively. The diffuser is 1.4 feet from the bottom of the seabed and 31 feet below the mean lower low water (MLLW). Outfall 001 extends 1000 ft west from the shoreline into the Strait of Georgia. The refinery discharges treated effluent to the Strait of Georgia on a continual basis. Since January 2002, the monthly average of effluent discharged ranged between 0.94 to 3.52 MGD. During heavy rainfall events the flow can reach levels as high as 5.24 MGD, as occurred in February of 2011. The refinery’s outfall line also conveys treated wastewater from the Puget Sound Energy Ferndale Generating Station (PSE), a cogeneration facility for steam and electricity, with an average flow rate of 177,000 gallons per day. PSE’s operations are intermittent. Stormwater Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005 Outfall 002 drains approximately 12,830,000 square feet of refinery property occupied by material storage areas, access roads, and retained second growth forest. The refinery collects and discharges the stormwater from this area to a series of roadside ditches, through hay filter and baffled retention dams, and ultimately to Lummi Bay. Outfall 003 drains approximately 730,000 square feet area. The area is located in the southwest portion of the refinery and stores spill response equipment trailers and excavated soil from on-

of 147

site construction. Stormwater discharged from this outfall drains to the bluff prior to flowing offsite to Neptune Beach. Outfall 004 drains approximately 238,000 square feet area. The area is located near the southwest corner of the final holding pond in the wastewater treatment plant. There have been no significant materials stored in this area in the past three years. Stormwater discharged from this outfall drains to the bluff prior to flowing offsite. Outfall 005 drains approximately 2,032,000 square feet area. The area is located near the northwest corner of the dewatering basin in the wastewater treatment plant. The drainage area consists of roadways and undeveloped wooded areas. Stormwater discharged from this outfall drains to the bluff prior to flowing offsite.

B. Permit Status

Phillips 66 submitted an application for permit renewal to Ecology on August 4, 2006 and a revised application on September 18, 2006. Ecology determined that the application for permit renewal was complete and accepted it on October 4, 2006. Phillips 66 updated the dry weather flow on May 17, 2010 and the priority pollutant scan results on August 10, 2010. Ecology issued the previous permit for the refinery on January 23, 2002. The previous permit placed effluent limits on BOD, COD, TSS, oil and grease, phenols, ammonia, sulfide, chromium, fecal coliform, and pH. The following table summarizes the Monthly Average and Daily Maximum limits in the previous permit. Table 2. Previous Permit Limits

OUTFALL-001 Effluent Limitations: Outfall #001 at 89,500 bbls/day

PARAMETERS Units Monthly Average Daily Maximum

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) lbs/day 370 665

Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day 2550 4930

Total Suspended Solids lbs/day 295 460

Oil and Grease lbs/day 110 200

Oil and Grease mg/l

The concentration shall at no time exceed 15 mg/l, and shall not exceed

10 mg/l more than three days per month.

Phenolic Compounds lbs/day 2.2 4.94

Ammonia as N lbs/day 225 494

Sulfide lbs/day 2 4.3

Total Chromium lbs/day 5.9 10

of 147

OUTFALL-001 Effluent Limitations: Outfall #001 at 89,500 bbls/day

PARAMETERS Units Monthly Average Daily Maximum

Hexavalent Chromium lbs/day 0.37 0.81

Fecal Coliform Colonies/100mls 200 400

pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0

C. Summary of Compliance with Previous Permit Issued

Ecology conducts two Class 1 and one Class 2 compliance inspections annually at Phillips 66. Since the permit was issued in 2002, Ecology has conducted a total of twenty Class 1 and ten Class 2 inspections at the refinery. A Class 1 is a walk-through inspection to visually check the wastewater treatment system and stormwater outfalls, including stormwater BMPs. A Class 2 is a combination of a Class 1, reviewing laboratory records, and taking samples at Outfall 001 and at the industrial stormwater outfalls. Ecology conducted the last Class 2 inspection on May 18-19, 2011 and found the facility in compliance with the permit at the time of inspection.

During the previous permit term, the Permittee reported several non-compliance incidents in the monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to Ecology (see Appendix D). Appendix E summarizes the non-compliance incidents and Ecology’s responses to these incidents during the previous permit term. In 2004, the Permittee encountered a number of problems complying with the permit limits for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Oil and Grease (O&G). Ecology issued several penalties and an enforcement order to Phillips 66 requiring them to upgrade their wastewater treatment facility. In addition, Ecology met with the Permittee several times to resolve these issues. The Permittee undertook the following actions:

1. Hired Brown and Caldwell consultants to perform a complete analysis of the wastewater treatment system in the summer of 2004.

2. Replaced the composite sampling piping and increased cleaning frequency of the sampling system in the fall of 2004.

3. Replaced the Trickling Filter with two parallel Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBRs) in the fall of 2005.

4. Installed algae growth control devices (Sonic Solutions) in the summer of 2006.

5. Installed a temporary filtration system in June 2006 and removed it in the summer of 2007.

6. Constructed a new secondary treatment system including two parallel clarifiers and two aeration basins to replace the existing Aero-accelators. Phillips 66 started up the new system in June 2007.

The Permittee has been in compliance with their permit since upgrading the secondary wastewater treatment system in 2007 with the exception of TSS exceedances on January 31 and

of 147

February 1, 2008. Ecology issued a penalty for the violations. The refinery has since switched to batch processing of stormwater effluent to Outfall 001 to prevent TSS exceedances and installed an analyzer at the secondary effluent sump to monitor upstream for TSS.

D. Review of Previous Permit Requirements

The previous permit required Phillips 66 to conduct the following studies and submit reports during the permit cycle. Ecology used the data from these reports to prepare this proposed permit.

1. Stormwater Monitoring Results:

See the results discussed later in this document.

2. Treatment System Operating Plan (TSOP):

Phillips 66 submitted updated TSOPs on September 23, 2002 and June 7, 2007. The TSOPs met the requirements in the previous permit.

3. Pollution Prevention Plans:

Phillips 66 submitted Phase I of the Pollution Prevention Plan on April 12, 2004 and Phase II on March 3, 2005. Ecology reviewed the two plans and determined that the plans met the requirements in the previous permit.

4. WET Testing Reports:

See the results discussed later in this document.

5. Sediment Study:

Phillips 66 conducted a sediment study on June 9, 2004 and submitted the results of the study on February 6, 2005. The results are discussed later in this document.

6. Treatment Efficiency Study and Engineering Report:

Phillips 66 submitted the Treatment System Efficiency Study results and Engineering Report on March 4, 2005 and a Treatment Efficiency Study Engineering Analysis on August 4, 2006. See the results discussed later in this document.

7. Characterization Study for Human Health Criteria:

See the Reasonable Potential to Exceed discussion later in this document.

8. Ground Water Impact Study:

Phillips 66 conducted a groundwater impact study on July 29, 2005 and submitted the report on September 11, 2006. The results of the study are discussed later in this document.

of 147

E. Wastewater Characterization

Phillips 66 characterized the proposed wastewater discharges in the permit application process for: conventional pollutants, metals, cyanide, volatile organic compounds, acid compounds, base neutral compounds, and pesticides. The long term average values reported below for Outfalls 001 are based on extensive (daily to weekly) monitoring completed during the term of the previous permit.

The values in Table 3 are for pollutants with significant concentrations and/or of interest and metals that were quantified at greater than detection limits. No priority pollutant organics were quantified at greater than detection limits. The values for conventional parameters were obtained from updated information submitted on April 11, 2012 and represent the quality of effluent discharged from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011. The values for priority pollutant metals were obtained from the updated permit renewal application dated August 10, 2010.

Table 3. Wastewater Characterization for Outfall 001 (Long Term Averages except where noted)

Parameter Concentration (mg/l) Mass (lb/day)

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 2.6 49.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 34.8 664.9 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 5.8 109.8 Oil and grease (O&G) 1.9 35.7 Ammonia (as nitrogen) 0.4 7.3 Temperature (winter) 19.9 ºC Temperature (summer) 26.3 ºC Fecal coliform (maximum) 11.3 colonies/100 mls pH 7.9

Parameter Concentration (µg/l)

Antimony 0.8 Arsenic 16 Cadmium ND Total Chromium 0.51 Copper 1.26 Lead 0.66 Mercury 0.076 Nickel 7.57 Selenium 27.4 Silver 3.86 Zinc 33.2 Cyanide 12 Phenols ND Sulfide ND

of 147

Note: ND – Not Detected

F. Description of the Receiving Water

Phillips 66 discharges to the Strait of Georgia, which is designated as extraordinary marine receiving water in the vicinity of Outfall 001. Characteristic uses include the following: fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing, spawning, and harvesting; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.) rearing, spawning, and harvesting; wildlife habitat; primary contact recreation; sport fishing; commerce and navigation; boating; and aesthetic enjoyment. Water quality of this class shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements for all or substantially all uses.

Other nearby point-source outfalls include BP Refinery, Intalco Aluminum Smelter, and Birch Bay POTW. Significant nearby non-point sources of pollutants include stormwater runoff and groundwater seeps/discharges from contaminated sites, in particular the abandoned Treoil Industries site.

The closest Ecology long-term core monitoring station, GRG002, is located in the Strait of Georgia near Patos Island. It is far enough away from the Cherry Point industries to prevent their discharges from influencing readings taken there. There is also substantial data for this station. The station at Bellingham Bay, BLL009, is also very close but is influenced by activity in Bellingham and is not suitable for a background data station. The closest long-term rotating station is LOP001 in Lopez Sound. The table below includes the ambient background for 90th percentile temperature calculated from January 1999 through June 2005 at Station GRG002 and the metal concentrations taken from the “Background Metals Concentrations in Selected Puget Sound Marine Receiving Waters” prepared by Eric Crecelius, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, February 1998.

Table 4. Ambient Background Data

Parameter Value Used Temperature (90th percentile) 11.8 ⁰C Ammonia 16 µg/L Aluminum 45.2 µg/L Cadmium 0.059 µg/L Copper 0.673 µg/L Lead 0.146 µg/L Mercury 0.001 µg/L Zinc 3.9 µg/L

of 147

G. Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Phillips 66 discharges to the Strait of Georgia which is part of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. In 2000, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) designated the Cherry Point area as an environmental aquatic reserve. DNR developed the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan to guide future management decisions for the reserve. The plan includes actions related to: protection, enhancement and restoration, outreach and education, monitoring, data collection and research, and allowed and prohibited uses within the reserve. A number of the management actions in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan are addressed in the proposed permit, including conditions to ensure ongoing compliance with water quality standards, sediment monitoring, and herring toxicity testing.

H. SEPA Compliance Regulation exempts reissuance or modification of any wastewater discharge permit from the SEPA process as long as the permit contains conditions that are no less stringent than state rules and regulations. The exemption applies only to existing discharges, not to new discharges.

III. PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS

Federal and State regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES permit must be either technology or water quality-based.

• Technology-based limits are based upon the treatment methods available to treat specific pollutants. Technology-based limits are set by the EPA and published as a regulation, or Ecology develops the limit on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 125.3, and chapter 173-220 WAC).

• Water quality-based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the Surface Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36).

• Ecology must apply the most stringent of these limits to each parameter of concern. These limits are described below.

The limits in this permit reflect information received in the application and from supporting reports (engineering, hydrogeology, etc.). Ecology evaluated the permit application and determined the limits needed to comply with the rules adopted by the State of Washington. Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all reported pollutants. Some pollutants are not treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation.

Ecology does not usually develop permit limits for pollutants that were not reported in the permit application but that may be present in the discharge. The permit does not authorize discharge of the non-reported pollutants. During the five-year permit term, the facility’s effluent discharge

of 147

conditions may change from those conditions reported in the permit application. The facility must notify Ecology, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), if significant changes occur in any constituent. Industries may be in violation of their permit until Ecology modifies the permit to reflect additional discharge of pollutants.

A. Design Criteria Under WAC 173-220-150 (1)(g), neither flows nor waste loadings may exceed approved design criteria. Ecology approved the following design criteria for the refinery’s wastewater treatment plant. These criteria were obtained from Phillips 66’s engineering report dated August 4, 2006.

Table 5. Design Criteria for Phillips 66’s Wastewater Treatment System

Parameter Design Quantity Maximum Influent Flow to IGF Unit 1850 gpm Maximum COD Loading to MBBR Unit 1700 mg/L

B. Technology-Based Effluent Limits

PROCESS WASTEWATER Ecology calculated effluent limits for the Phillips 66 refinery based on Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidelines were published August 12, 1985 under 40 CFR Part 419 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the cracking subcategory of petroleum refining. The refinery effluent limitations are based on terms of a settlement agreement dated April 17, 1984, between EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council resolving litigation about the EPA guidelines. The August 12, 1985 guidelines establish Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) as equal to Best Practicable Technology (BPT) for all parameters except phenols and chromium. Phenols and chromium are regulated by whichever guideline is more stringent. In 1996, EPA completed a study of the petroleum refining industry (EPA-821-R-96-015) including treatment technologies, pollutants discharged, pollutant loadings, and potential water quality impacts. Based upon this review, EPA decided not to revise the refinery effluent guidelines. EPA determined that the best treatment technology currently available was essentially the same as that applied at the time the effluent guidelines were originally promulgated. EPA also determined that if the wastewater treatment systems at the refineries are properly operated and maintained, priority pollutants will be removed or treated to negligible or below detectable levels. In addition, Ecology requires facilities to use all known, available, and reasonable methods to control toxicants (AKART) in its wastewater as required under Washington State regulations.

of 147

Because Ecology applies new source performance standards (NSPS) on the basis of the AKART requirements, the refinery’s NPDES permit limits are more stringent than those in other states. Ecology has applied the more stringent NSPS limits to all crude throughput increases since 1984. On December 31, 2003, EPA published its intention to review the petroleum refining industry again to decide the necessity for revising their effluent guidelines. EPA evaluated pollution prevention opportunities, emerging treatment technologies, revising the effluent guidelines, and expanding the list of regulated pollutants. EPA reviewed information and comments on several issues including: control technologies for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxin sources and reduction/control technologies, sources of toxic metals, process modifications to reduce metals, and what toxics are being released and remain unreported. On September 2, 2004 (Federal Register Volume 69 No. 170), EPA published its decision regarding revising the refinery effluent guidelines. EPA concluded that there is little evidence that PAHs are present in refinery wastewater discharges in concentrations above the detection limit. They also concluded that the concentration of metals being discharged by refineries is at or very near treatable levels, leaving little to no opportunity to reduce metals discharges through conventional end-of-pipe treatment. EPA reviewed the available dioxin information collected by refineries nationwide much of which was collected at the Washington State refineries. The overall data indicated that dioxins are only occasionally discharged in relatively low concentrations in treated refinery effluent. In its opinion, this data did not warrant the development of national categorical limitations on dioxin in refinery wastewater discharges. EPA did note that on a case-by-case, best professional judgment basis, permit writers may decide to include effluent limitations for dioxin. EPA also encouraged permit writers and refineries to consider pollution prevention opportunities. As a result of their evaluation, EPA concluded that there was no need to revise the federal effluent guidelines at this time. Ecology must decide whether the effluent guidelines also constitute all known, available and reasonable methods of treatment (AKART). As a general rule, if the effluent guidelines for a particular category are 5 years old or less, they are considered to be AKART. This will be immediately apparent in reviewing the development document. The development document describes production processes, pollutants generated, treatment efficiencies, and unit process designs present nationwide in the specific industry at the time of effluent guideline development. Generally, when effluent guidelines are over 10 years old, Ecology will analyze unit process designs and efficiencies to determine that the effluent guidelines constitute AKART and meet the intent of RCW 90.48.520. The previous NPDES permit required Phillips 66 to prepare a treatment efficiency study and an engineering report describing the treatment capacity of the wastewater facility. Phillips 66 also submitted an engineering report for the upgrades to the secondary wastewater treatment system. Ecology compared Phillips 66’s production processes, pollutants generated, and treatment technology to EPA’s original development document and the results of EPA’s 1996 and 2004

of 147

evaluations of the petroleum refining industry. Ecology also examined the treatability data base and Phillips 66’s wastewater treatment design and efficiencies. Ecology determined that Phillips 66 is providing AKART for its wastewater.

Since Ecology issued the previous NPDES permit on January 23, 2002, Phillips 66's crude oil throughput rate has increased. The daily average throughput rate ranged from 10,060 (2009 turnaround) to106,990 bbls/day. The rate changes in refinery processes are shown in the table below, along with the applicable size and process factors from the EPA guidelines. The size and process factor determination is documented in Appendix F. Ecology multiplied these factors by the actual feed stock to obtain an adjusted feed stock that is used in determining effluent limits, except for determining BAT limitations for phenols and chromium. This permit proposes effluent limits calculated at a feedstock rate of 103,000 bbls/day (highest consecutive 12-month average from November 2007 to October 2008). Table 6: Refinery Process Throughput

Production Rates and Factors Units 1990

Permit 2002

Permit

Proposed 2011

Permit Actual Feed Stock bbl/day 74,600 89,500* 103,000 Desalting bbl/day 74,600 89,500 110,000 Atmospheric Distillation bbl/day 74,600 89,500 110,000 Vacuum Distillation bbl/day 29,400 42,600 52,100 Cracking bbl/day 23,300 27,500 36,700 Catalytic Reforming ** bbl/day 12,700 15,400 17,400 Hydrotreating DHT+HDF** bbl/day 5,100 26,700 44,000

Alkylation, bbl/day bbl/day 0 4,200 10,000 Process Factor 0.74 0.74 0.88 Size Factor 1.04 1.13 1.23

Adjusted Feed Stock bbl/day 57,400 74,840 111,487 New Source Performance Standards Increment

bbl/day 18,659 55,306

* All feedstock rates specified in this permit represent actual crude throughput less recycled oil and other recycled material.

** Baseline values for these processes are used to calculate BAT limitations for phenols and chromium.

Increases in the feedstock rate are subject to limitations that Ecology determined to be the treatment level obtained from using all known available and reasonable treatment methods. The

of 147

increases are subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on the basis of AKART. Ecology multiplied the increase in adjusted feedstock (111,487 bbls/day – baseline of 56,181 bbls/day = 55,306 bbls/day) by the NSPS. The resulting NSPS increment (based upon 55,306 bbls/day) was added to the BAT and BPT limitations (based upon the adjusted baseline feedstock rate of 56,181 bbls/day). Ecology did not include BCT limitations because they are equivalent to BPT limitations. Table 7 below compares the calculated effluent limits with the limits from the previous permit issued on January 23, 2002. Table 7. Comparison of Effluent Limits

Units Basis of

Limit

Previous 2002 Effluent Limits:

Outfall 001 at 89,500 bbls/day

Calculated Effluent Limits: Outfall 001 at

103,000 bbls/day

Parameter

Average Monthly

Maximum Daily

Average Monthly

Maximum Daily

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) lbs/day BPT 370 665 480 880 Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day BPT 2550 4930 3320 6450 Total Suspended Solids lbs/day BPT 295 460 385 610

Oil and Grease lbs/day BPT 110 200 140 260

Oil and Grease mg/l

The concentration of oil and grease in the discharge shall at no time exceed 15 mg/l and shall not exceed 10 mg/l more than three days

per month.

Phenolic Compounds lbs/day BPT & BAT 2.2 4.94 2.9 6.5

Ammonia as N lbs/day BPT 225 494 330 740 Sulfide lbs/day BPT 2.0 4.3 2.6 5.7

Hexavalent Chromium lbs/day BAT 0.37 0.81 -- 0.050 mg/l and 0.85 lbs/day

Fecal Coliform Colonies/100 mls 200 400 200 400

pH In the range of 6.0 to 9.0 The Environmental Protection Agency established federal effluent guidelines for total and hexavalent chromium back when chromium was commonly used in cooling water systems and discharged at much higher levels in the effluent. Chromium was banned for use in cooling systems by EPA in the early 1990s and the only remaining source of chromium is in the crude oil. Because federal effluent guidelines still include limits for chromium, Ecology must include

of 147

an effluent limit for chromium in the proposed permit to ensure that refineries in Washington are subject to the same requirements as refineries located in other states. Ecology believes the guideline-derived effluent limit is artificially high now that chromium in the effluent has decreased to levels bordering on non-detectable. All detectable samples of chromium in the Phillips 66’s effluent have been within the range of 5 to 11 µg/l which is less than 1/10th of the marine chronic water quality standard of 50 µg/l for hexavalent chromium (acute standard = 1100 µg/l). Based on this information, Ecology’s Best Professional Judgment is that a 50 µg/l hexavalent chromium concentration limit is technologically achievable, reasonable, and protective of the receiving water quality. The proposed permit condition imposes the 50 ug/l as a technology-based limit and not as a water quality-based limit. At a 1.71 MGD effluent flow (dry weather), the 50 µg/l limit converts to 0.71 lbs/day. This limit is more stringent than the federal effluent guideline BAT limit of 0.85 lbs/day. At lower effluent flows, this limit will continue to be more stringent than the federal effluent guideline limit. However, at higher effluent flows, the federal effluent guideline limit will be more stringent. Therefore, the proposed permit includes both a concentration limit of 50 µg/l and a mass-based limit of 0.85 lbs/day to cover all flow situations that might occur. The technology-based hexavalent chromium limit replaces the total chromium limits and the hexavalent chromium limits in previous permits. If chromium levels change in the crude oil refined at Phillips 66 and result in concentration increases, Ecology will modify the permit to increase the limit as needed to allow continued facility compliance. Ecology will evaluate any revised limit to ensure that the effluent continues to meet water quality standards within the authorized mixing zone and the anti backsliding requirements are met and to ensure that chromium concentrations do not exceed limits allowed under the federal effluent guidelines. In the event that the federal effluent guidelines are promulgated without chromium limits, Ecology will drop the limit from the permit unless the situation changes and a water quality limit is necessary. Phillips 66 will continue to perform semi-annual hexavalent chromium monitoring. The effluent limit calculations are tabulated in Appendix F. The calculated limits are based on the NSPS increment and the more stringent of the BAT and BPT determinations. BAT limitations are more stringent than BPT for phenol and chromium. The state’s antidegradation program is discussed later in this document. The federally mandated program has three tiers of protection. The Tier II antidegradation provisions limit the conditions under which waters of higher quality than standards can be degraded. A Tier II analysis is required for new or expanded sources of pollution from specific activities regulated by Ecology. A greater than 10% increase to an existing effluent concentration or mass limit in an NPDES permit is considered an expanded action. The effective date of new or expanded actions is defined in WAC 173-201A-020 as those actions that result in an increase in pollution after July 1, 2003.

of 147

For purposes of evaluating a greater than 10% increase, Ecology set the baseline as those effluent limits that applied in July 2003. In this case, the baseline is the Level 2 effluent limits in the NPDES permit issued to Phillips 66 on January 23, 2002. The calculated effluent limits based on production are greater than 10% of the limits in Phillips 66’s 2002 permit. For Ecology to consider applying the higher limits to Phillips 66’s discharge, Phillips 66 must conduct a Tier II analysis. The Tier II analysis is used to ensure that waters of higher quality than standards are not degraded unless Ecology determines that lowering the water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. Based on the outcome of the Tier II analysis, Ecology may reopen the permit or revisit the effluent limits during the next permit renewal. Public involvement with the Tier II review will be conducted in accordance with the public involvement processes associated with the NPDES permit. The final permit includes effluent limits that are 10% higher than the effective limits in Phillips 66’s 2002 permit except for sulfide. The new permit retains the sulfide limits from the previous permit. The increase in limits does not require a Tier II analysis. The proposed limits are shown in Table 8 below. Table 8. Proposed Effluent Limits

PARAMETER Units Monthly Average

Daily Maximum

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) lbs/day 407 732

Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day 2805 5423

Total Suspended Solids lbs/day 325 506

Oil and Grease lbs/day 121 220

Oil and Grease mg/l The concentration of oil and grease in the discharge shall at no time exceed 15 mg/l and shall not exceed 10 mg/l more than three days per month.

Phenolic Compounds lbs/day 2.4 5.4

Ammonia as N lbs/day 248 543

Sulfide lbs/day 2.0 4.3

Hexavalent Chromium lbs/day -- 0.050 mg/l and 0.85 lbs/day

Fecal Coliform Colonies/100 mls 200 400

pH In the range of 6.0 – 9.0

of 147

BALLAST AND STORMWATER ALLOCATIONS Contaminated stormwater from the process area and the wastewater treatment facility is collected by the oily water sewer system and conveyed to the wastewater treatment facility for treatment. Stormwater from the tank farms and the rest of the industrial site is diverted into the stormwater system. The effluent from the stormwater system is discharged into the stormwater observation channel adjacent to the stormwater pond at the wastewater treatment plant. Any oil or grease on the surface is removed by a skimmer that discharges to the oily water sewer. The water then cascades into the stormwater pond, where settling occurs. The stormwater pond discharges from an outlet box located near the floor of the pond into the final holding pond along with treated process wastewater effluent. Vessel personnel measure ballast water volumes. The refinery pumps ballast water from the dock facilities to a tank in the wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The volume of ballast water is very small compared to process water and stormwater. The facility collected a total of 38,247 bbls of ballast water since 2002. Stormwater volume is not directly measured at the facility. Direct measurement of total stormwater is not possible since a portion of the stormwater is diverted into the oily water sewer and mixed with process wastewater at many collection points throughout the process area. A portion of the stormwater is collected in the stormwater system. The refinery calculates stormwater flow during storm events by subtracting an estimated dry weather flow from the total flow discharged each day. Ecology performed the dry weather flow rate calculation in Appendix G by completing a linear regression on the average monthly flow versus the total monthly rainfall using data collected during years 2005 to 2010. It determined the new dry weather flow rate of 1.71 MGD by averaging the y-intercepts of linear regression for years 2009 and 2010 because those years had the strongest correlation between average monthly flow and rainfall. The ballast and stormwater allocations in the permit are based on guidelines in 40 CFR 419.12(c) and 419.22(e). The proposed permit does not include a stormwater allocation for chromium as provided for in the federal effluent guidelines. The allocations for stormwater were developed to apply to runoff from areas associated with industrial activity. During the months of June through October, Phillips 66 may only claim the stormwater allocation when it can demonstrate that measurable rainfall has occurred at the refinery site during the previous 10 calendar days. Ecology chose ten days because when big storms hit it takes approximately that amount of time to discharge accumulated stormwater. Phillips 66 retains stormwater within the tank dikes during rain events to the extent possible and slowly discharges stormwater into the stormwater system following rain events to maximize the settling that occurs through the stormwater system. Should the on-site means of measuring rainfall be unavailable due to equipment malfunction, Phillips 66 may use rainfall data from other nearby industries or the National Weather Service station at Blaine.

of 147

Table 9: Ballast and Stormwater Allocations Parameter Stormwater Allocation

(lbs/million gallons) Ballast Water Allocation

(lbs/million gallons)

Monthly Average

Daily Maximum

Monthly Average

Daily Maximum

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)

220 400 210 400

Chemical Oxygen Demand

1500 3000 2000 3900

Total Suspended Solids

180 280 170 260

Oil and Grease 67 130 67 126 Phillips 66 claimed the stormwater allocation for 22 times during the last permit cycle. Appendix H shows the monitoring periods when Phillips 66 claimed the stormwater allocation for TSS, BOD5, and oil and grease.

STORMWATER DISCHARGE MONITORING (OUTFALL 002, 003, 004, AND 005) Appendix I tabulates stormwater monitoring data for Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005. From 2003 to 2010, the results for Outfall 002 were lower than benchmark values all but one time. Phillips 66 indentified new stormwater Outfalls 003, 004, and 005 in the NPDES permit renewal application and started monitoring these outfalls in 2008. From 2008 to 2010, there were several instances when the stormwater discharges at Outfalls 003, 004, and 005 exceeded benchmarks. Ecology conducted a stormwater inspection on February 23, 2012 and observed that Phillips 66 had installed additional BMPs at all of the stormwater outfalls. The proposed permit requires the refinery to monitor Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005 quarterly for turbidity, TSS, oil and grease, pH, total copper, total zinc, and hardness. Phillips 66 may petition Ecology to reduce the sampling frequency for one or more parameters based upon a consistent attainment of benchmark values. Consistent attainment is defined as eight consecutive quarters of monitoring. Benchmark values are not water quality standards or permit limits. They are indicator values. Ecology considers values at or below benchmark unlikely to cause a water quality violation. The proposed permit includes standard language regarding general prohibitions and requiring actions to respond to monitoring results above benchmark values for these outfalls. There are no limits established for discharges from these outfalls in the proposed permit.

FINAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FOR FIREWATER TESTING

of 147

The proposed permit authorizes Phillips 66 to use treated final effluent for monthly firewater testing supply and during Emergency Response Team (ERT) training. It does not authorize the use of foam during the firewater testing or ERT training.

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT STORMWATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Table 10 below lists the Construction Stormwater General permits issued to Phillips 66 by Ecology. Phillips 66 must submit a notice of termination for its coverage under the Industrial Stormwater General Permit as per Condition S13. of that permit when a project is complete.

Phillips 66 will need to apply for coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit for future construction projects that disturb one or more acres and discharge to surface waters of the state. Discharges from construction activities will not be covered by the proposed NPDES permit.

Table 10. Construction Stormwater Permits

Permit Type Permit No. Issued Date

Terminated Date

Construction Stormwater General Permit for PEB Fill Area WAR-010660 12/1/2010 Still in effect

C. Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

The Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) were designed to protect existing water quality and preserve the beneficial uses of Washington's surface waters. Waste discharge permits must include conditions that ensure the discharge will meet established surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A-510). Water quality-based effluent limits may be based on an individual waste load allocation or on a waste load allocation developed during a basin wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL).

NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE AND RECREATION

Numerical water quality criteria are published in the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters (chapter 173-201A WAC). They specify the levels of pollutants allowed in receiving water to protect aquatic life and recreation in and on the water. Ecology uses numerical criteria along with chemical and physical data for the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent limits in the discharge permit. When surface water quality-based limits are more stringent or potentially more stringent than technology-based limits, the discharge must meet the water quality-based limits.

NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH

The U.S. EPA has published 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human health that are applicable to dischargers in Washington State (40 CFR 131.36). These criteria are designed to protect humans from exposure to pollutants linked to cancer and other diseases, based on consuming fish and shellfish and drinking contaminated surface waters. The Water Quality Standards also include radionuclide criteria to protect humans from the effects of radioactive substances.

of 147

NARRATIVE CRITERIA

Narrative water quality criteria (e.g., WAC 173-201A-240(1); 2006) limit the toxic, radioactive, or other deleterious material concentrations that the facility may discharge to levels below those which have the potential to:

• Adversely affect designated water uses.

• Cause acute or chronic toxicity to biota.

• Impair aesthetic values.

• Adversely affect human health.

Narrative criteria protect the specific designated uses of all fresh waters (WAC 173-201A-200, 2006) and of all marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210, 2006) in the State of Washington.

ANTIDEGRADATION

The purpose of Washington's Antidegradation Policy (WAC 173-201A-300-330; 2006) is to:

• Restore and maintain the highest possible quality of the surface waters of Washington.

• Describe situations under which water quality may be lowered from its current condition.

• Apply to human activities that are likely to have an impact on the water quality of surface water.

• Ensure that all human activities that are likely to contribute to a lowering of water quality, at a minimum, apply all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART).

• Apply three Tiers of protection (described below) for surface waters of the state.

Tier I ensures existing and designated uses are maintained and protected and applies to all waters and all sources of pollutions. Tier II ensures that waters of a higher quality than the criteria assigned are not degraded unless such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. Tier II applies only to a specific list of polluting activities. Tier III prevents the degradation of waters formally listed as "outstanding resource waters," and applies to all sources of pollution. A facility must prepare a Tier II analysis when all three of the following conditions are met:

• The facility is planning a new or expanded action.

• Ecology regulates or authorizes the action.

• The action has the potential to cause measurable degradation to existing water quality at the edge of a chronic mixing zone.

of 147

The final permit increases the limits by 10% but not greater than 10%, therefore this facility must meet Tier I requirements.

• Dischargers must maintain and protect existing and designated uses. Ecology may not allow any degradation that will interfere with, or become injurious to, existing or designated uses, except as provided for in Chapter 173-201A WAC.

• For waters that do not meet assigned criteria, or protect existing or designated uses,

Ecology will take appropriate and definitive steps to bring the water quality back into compliance with the water quality standards.

• Whenever the natural conditions of a water body are of a lower quality than the assigned criteria, the natural conditions constitute the water quality criteria. Where water quality criteria are not met because of natural conditions, human actions are not allowed to further lower the water quality, except where explicitly allowed in this Chapter.

This section of the fact sheet describes Ecology’s Tier I analysis. The analysis demonstrates that the existing and designated uses of the receiving water will be protected under the conditions of the proposed permit. Ecology has reviewed existing water quality data from Ecology’s long-term monitoring station GRG002 and from Eric Crecelius (1998). The data show that the ambient water meets the temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, ammonia, cyanide, and metals standards for marine waters extraordinary quality category given in Chapter 173-201A WAC. Therefore, Ecology uses the designated classification criteria for this water body in the proposed permit. The discharges authorized by this proposed permit should not cause a loss of beneficial uses. Earlier in this fact sheet, Ecology determined that the technology-based effluent limits calculated for Phillips 66’s discharge meet the definition of an expanded action and trigger a Tier II analysis. Should Phillips 66 choose to conduct a Tier II analysis, the analysis must determine if the expanded action has the potential to cause a measurable change in the physical, chemical, or biological quality of the receiving water. Any expanding discharger that would cause a measurable degradation must go through a technology review to identify and apply any feasible alternatives to that degradation and show that overriding public benefits would occur from allowing the lowering of water quality.

MIXING ZONES A mixing zone is the defined area in the receiving water surrounding the discharge port(s), where wastewater mixes with receiving water. Within mixing zones the pollutant concentrations may exceed water quality numeric standards, so long as the diluting wastewater doesn’t interfere with designated uses of the receiving water body (e.g., recreation, water supply, and aquatic life and wildlife habitat, etc.) The pollutant concentrations outside of the mixing zones must meet water quality numeric criteria.

of 147

State and federal rules allow mixing zones because the concentrations and effects of most pollutants diminish rapidly after discharge, due to dilution. Ecology defines mixing zone sizes to limit the amount of time any exposure to the end-of-pipe discharge could harm water quality, plants, or fish. The State’s Water Quality Standards allow Ecology to authorize mixing zones for the facility’s permitted wastewater discharges only if those discharges already receive all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART). Mixing zones typically require compliance with water quality criteria within a specified distance from the point of discharge; and use no more than 25% of the available width of the water body for dilution. Ecology uses modeling to estimate the amount of mixing within the mixing zone and determine the potential for violating the water quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone and derive any necessary effluent limits. Steady-state models are the most frequently used tools for conducting mixing zone analyses. Ecology chooses values for each effluent and for receiving water variables that correspond to the time period when the most critical condition is likely to occur (see Ecology’s Permit Writer’s Manual). Each critical condition parameter (by itself) has a low probability of occurrence and the resulting dilution factor is conservative. The term “reasonable worst-case” applies to these values. The mixing zone analysis produces a numerical value called a dilution factor (DF). A dilution factor represents the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. For example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving water comprises 90% of the total volume at the boundary of the mixing zone. Ecology uses dilution factors with the water quality criteria to calculate reasonable potentials and effluent limits. Water quality standards include both aquatic life-based criteria and human health-based criteria. The former are applied at both the acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries; the latter are applied only at the chronic boundary. The concentration of pollutants at the boundaries of any of these mixing zones may not exceed the numerical criteria for that zone. Each aquatic life acute criterion is based on the assumption that organisms are not exposed to that concentration for more than one-hour and more often than one exposure in three years. Each aquatic life chronic criterion is based on the assumption that organisms are not exposed to that concentration for more than four consecutive days and more often than once in three years. The two types of human health-based water quality criteria distinguish between those pollutants linked to non-cancer effects (non-carcinogenic) and those linked to cancer effects (carcinogenic). The human health-based water quality criteria incorporate several exposure and risk assumptions. These assumptions include:

• A 70-year lifetime of daily exposures. • An ingestion rate for fish or shellfish measured in kg/day. • An ingestion rate of two liters/day for drinking water • A one-in-one-million cancer risk for carcinogenic chemicals.

of 147

This permit authorizes a small acute mixing zone, surrounded by a chronic mixing zone around the point of discharge (WAC 173-201A-400; 2006). The water quality standards impose certain conditions before allowing the discharger a mixing zone: 1. Ecology must specify both the allowed size and location in a permit. This permit specifies the size and location of the allowed mixing zone. 2. The facility must fully apply AKART to its discharge. Ecology has determined that the treatment provided for the discharge at Outfall 001 and the pollution prevention activities practiced at Phillips 66 meet the requirements of AKART (see “Technology based Limits”). 3. Ecology must consider critical discharge conditions. Surface water quality-based limits are derived for the water body’s critical condition, (the receiving water and waste discharge condition with the highest potential for adverse impact on the aquatic biota, human health, and existing or designated water body uses). The critical discharge condition is often pollutant-specific or water body-specific. Critical discharge conditions are those conditions that result in reduced dilution or increased effect of the pollutant. Factors affecting dilution include the depth of water, the density stratification in the water column, the currents, and the rate of discharge. Density stratification is determined by the salinity and temperature of the receiving water. Temperatures are warmer in the surface waters in summer. Therefore, density stratification is generally greatest during the summer months. Density stratification affects how far up in the water column a freshwater plume may rise. The rate of mixing is greatest when an effluent is rising. The effluent stops rising when the mixed effluent is the same density as the surrounding water. After the effluent stops rising, the rate of mixing is much more gradual. Water depth can affect dilution when a plume might rise to the surface when there is little or no stratification. Ecology uses the water depth at mean lower low water (MLLW) for marine waters. Ecology’s Permit Writer’s Manual describes additional guidance on criteria/design conditions for determining dilution factors. The Manual can be obtained from Ecology’s website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/92109.html. Ecology used the following critical conditions to model the discharge:

• Water depth at MLLW of 31 feet. • Density profile with a difference of 9 sigma-t units between 31 feet and the surface. • 50th percentile current speeds of 7.0 cm/s for chronic and human health mixing zones. • 10th (or 90th) percentile current speeds of 2.4 cm/s for acute mixing zone. • Maximum average monthly effluent flow of 3.5 MGD for chronic and human health non-

carcinogen. • Annual average flow of 2.4 MGD for human health carcinogen.

of 147

• Maximum daily flow of 5.2 MGD for acute mixing zone. • 90th percentile daily maximum effluent temperature of 32.8 degrees C.

Ecology calculated the flows and effluent temperature based on the data during the past three years (2009 to 2011) from the DMRs. Ambient data at critical conditions in the vicinity of the outfall was taken from the “Phillips 66’s Mixing Zone Analysis” prepared by ANVIL Corporation in August 2006.

4. Supporting information must clearly indicate the mixing zone would not: • Have a reasonable potential to cause the loss of sensitive or important habitat, • Substantially interfere with the existing or characteristic uses, • Result in damage to the ecosystem, or • Adversely affect public health.

Ecology established Washington State water quality criteria for toxic chemicals using EPA criteria. EPA developed the criteria using toxicity tests with numerous organisms, and set the criteria to protect all aquatic species. EPA sets acute criteria for toxic chemicals assuming organisms are exposed to the pollutant at the criteria concentration for 1-hour. They set chronic criteria assuming organisms are exposed to the pollutant at the criteria concentration for 4 days. Dilution modeling under critical conditions generally shows that both acute and chronic criteria concentrations are reached within minutes of being discharged. The dilution modeling under critical conditions shows that the acute dilution at Outfall 001 is attained in less than 3 minutes and the chronic dilution in less than 6 minutes. The discharge plume does not impact drifting and non-strong swimming organisms because they cannot stay in the plume close to the outfall long enough to be affected. Strong swimming fish could maintain a position within the plume, but they can also avoid the discharge by swimming away. Mixing zones generally do not affect benthic organisms (bottom dwellers) because the buoyant plume rises in the water column. Ecology has determined that the discharge at Outfall 001 will not exceed 33 degrees C for more than 2 seconds after discharge and that the temperature of the receiving water after mixing with the discharge will not create lethal conditions or blockages to fish migration. Ecology evaluates the cumulative toxicity of an effluent by testing the discharge with whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. WET testing performed by Phillips 66 for Outfall 001 indicates that there is no reasonable potential for acute or chronic receiving water toxicity. The mixing zone for Outfall 001 is small and is centered at a distance of 1000 feet from shore. The mixing zone does not lie near the herring spawning areas, which are closer to shore. There is no documented linkage between Phillips 66’s discharge at Outfall 001 and the reduction in the local herring population. Phillips 66 will use the recently developed herring bioassay tests

of 147

to evaluate the possible effects of their effluent on herring and to compare the herring bioassay results with other EPA approved bioassay tests. Ecology reviewed the above information, the specific information on the characteristics of the discharge, the receiving water characteristics, and the discharge location. Based on this review Ecology concluded that the discharge at Outfall 001 does not have a reasonable potential to cause the loss of sensitive or important habitat, substantially interfere with existing or characteristics uses, result in damage to the ecosystem or adversely affect public health. 5. The discharge/receiving water mixture must not exceed water quality criteria outside the boundary of a mixing zone. Ecology conducted a reasonable potential analysis, using procedures established by the EPA and by Ecology, for each pollutant (see Appendix L). Ecology concluded the discharge/receiving water mixture will not violate water quality criteria outside the boundary of the mixing zone if permit limits are met. 6. The size of the mixing zone and the concentrations of the pollutants must be minimized. At any given time, the effluent plume uses only a portion of the acute and chronic mixing zone, which minimizes the volume of water involved in mixing. Because tidal currents change direction, the plume orientation within the mixing zone changes. The plume rises through the water column as it mixes therefore much of the receiving water volume at lower depths in the mixing zone is not mixed with discharge. Similarly, because the discharge may stop rising at some depth due to density stratification, waters above that depth will not mix with the discharge. Ecology determined it is impractical to specify in the permit the actual, much more limited volume in which the dilution occurs as the plume rises and moves with the current. Ecology minimizes the size of mixing zones by requiring dischargers to install diffusers when they are appropriate to the discharge and the specific receiving waterbody. When a diffuser is installed the discharge and the receiving water is more completely mixed in a shorter time period. Ecology also minimizes the size of the mixing zone (in the form of the dilution factor) using design criteria with a low probability of occurrence. For example, Ecology uses the expected 95th percentile pollutant concentration, the 90th percentile background concentration, the centerline dilution factor and the lowest flow occurring once in every 10 years to perform the reasonable potential analysis. The facility continues to conduct pollution prevention activities and has completed pollution prevention projects. These activities also minimize the concentrations of pollutants in the discharge. Because of the above reasons, Ecology has effectively minimized the size of the mixing zone authorized in the proposed permit. 7. Maximum size of Mixing Zone.

of 147

The authorized mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 001 does not exceed the maximum size restriction. 8. Acute Mixing Zone

• The discharge/receiving water mixture must comply with acute criteria as near to

the point of discharge as practicably attainable Ecology determined that the acute criteria will be met at 10% of the distance (231 feet) of the chronic mixing zone.

• The pollutant concentration, duration and frequency of exposure to the discharge, will not create a barrier to migration or translocation of indigenous organisms to a degree that has the potential to cause damage to the ecosystem. As described above, the toxicity of any pollutant depends upon the exposure, the pollutant concentration, and the time the organism is exposed to that concentration. Authorizing a limited acute mixing zone for this discharge assures that it will not create a barrier to migration. The effluent from this discharge will rise as it enters the receiving water, assuring that the rising effluent will not cause translocation of indigenous organisms near the point of discharge (below the rising effluent). Dilution modeling has demonstrated that mixing in the acute zone occurs very rapidly as the less dense effluent rises through the water column due to both the diffuser design and the buoyance of the effluent. Acute mixing occurs in less than 3 minutes for Outfall 001. The duration and frequency of exposure to elevated concentrations by any drifting or non-strong swimming organisms is minimized because the organisms simply cannot stay in one place while the plume moves past them. Because the mixing zone poses no barrier to organisms, strong swimming species are able to avoid the plume. Exposure to elevated concentrations in the effluent by benthic organisms is avoided because the plum rises in the water column. The acute mixing zone is sized at 10% of the distance of the chronic mixing zone.

• Comply with size restrictions. The mixing zone authorized for the discharge at Outfall 001complies with the size restrictions published in Chapter 173-201A WAC.

9. Overlap of Mixing Zones. The mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 001 does not overlap another mixing zone.

of 147

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria

Applicable designated uses and surface water quality criteria are defined in Chapter 173-201A WAC. In addition, the U.S. EPA set human health criteria for toxic pollutants (EPA 1992). Criteria applicable to this facility’s discharges are summarized below. Aquatic life uses are designated using the following general categories. It is required that all indigenous fish and nonfish aquatic species be protected in waters of the state.

(a) Extraordinary quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.

(b) Excellent quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.

(c) Good quality salmonid migration and rearing; other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.

(d) Fair quality salmonid and other fish migration.

The Aquatic Life Uses for this receiving water are identified below.

Table 11. Aquatic Life Uses & Associated Criteria Extraordinary quality Temperature Criteria – Highest 1D MAX 13°C (55.4°F)

Dissolved Oxygen Criteria – Lowest 1 Day Minimum

7.0 mg/L

Turbidity Criteria • 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or • A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.

pH Criteria pH must be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.2 units.

To protect shellfish harvesting, fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 colonies/100 mL, and not have more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 43 colonies/100 mL. The miscellaneous marine water uses are wildlife habitat, harvesting, commerce and navigation, boating, and aesthetics.

of 147

E. Evaluation of Surface Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits for Numeric Criteria Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environment near the point of discharge (near field) or at a considerable distance from the point of discharge (far field). Toxic pollutants, for example, are near-field pollutants--their adverse effects diminish rapidly with mixing in the receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) is a far-field pollutant whose adverse effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilution has occurred. Thus, the method of calculating surface water quality-based effluent limits varies with the point at which the pollutant has its maximum effect. Pollutant concentrations in the proposed discharge exceed water quality criteria despite using technology-based controls which Ecology determined fulfills AKART. Ecology therefore authorizes a mixing zone in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow restriction, and other restrictions imposed on mixing zones described in chapter 173-201A WAC.

CHRONIC MIXING ZONE

WAC 173-201A-400(7)(b) specifies that mixing zones must not extend in any horizontal direction from the discharge ports for a distance greater than 300 feet plus the depth of water over the discharge ports as measured during MLLW.

The horizontal distance of the chronic mixing zone is 231 feet (70.4 meters). The mixing zone extends from the seabed to the top of the water surface.

ACUTE MIXING ZONE

WAC 173-201A-400(8)(b) specifies that in estuarine waters a zone where acute criteria may be exceeded must not extend beyond 10% of the distance established for the chronic zone. The acute mixing zone for Outfall 001 extends 23 feet in any spatial direction from any discharge port.

Phillips 66 determined the dilution factors of effluent to receiving water that occur within these zones by the use of a dye study and modeling. Phillips 66’s consultant documented the results of the dye study and initial modeling of the mixing zones at Phillips 66 in the 1990 Dilution Ratio Study Report. Additional modeling is presented in the report entitled “Effluent Plumes Modeling Study” prepared by ENSR Consulting and Engineering in August 2001 and “Mixing Zone Analysis” prepared by Anvil Corporation in August 2006.

Appendix J shows the derivation of the acute and chronic dilution factors.

Table 12. Dilution Factors (DF) Acute Chronic

Aquatic Life 27 94 Human Health, Carcinogen N/A 103 Human Health, Non-carcinogen N/A 103

Ecology determined the impacts of immediate oxygen deficiency, temperature, pH, fecal coliform, chlorine, ammonia, metals, nutrients, and other toxics as described below, using the

of 147

dilution factors in the above table. The derivation of surface water quality-based limits also takes into account the variability of pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the receiving water.

BOD5

Ecology predicted no violation of the surface water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) under critical conditions. Therefore, Ecology placed the technology-based effluent limit for BOD5 in the permit.

Temperature The state temperature standards (WAC 173-201A-200-210 and -600-612) include multiple elements:

• Annual summer maximum threshold criteria (June 15 to September 15) • Supplemental spawning and rearing season criteria (September 15 to June15) • Incremental warming restrictions • Protections against acute effects

Ecology evaluates each criterion independently to determine reasonable potential and derive permit limits.

• Annual summer maximum and supplementary spawning/rearing criteria

Each water body has an annual maximum temperature criterion [WAC 173-201A-200(1) (c), 210(1)(c), and Table 602]. These threshold criteria (e.g., 12, 16, 17.5, 20°C) protect specific categories of aquatic life by controlling the effect of human actions on summer temperatures.

Some waters have an additional threshold criterion to protect the spawning and incubation of salmonids (9°C for char and 13°C for salmon and trout) [WAC 173-201A-602, Table 602]. These criteria apply during specific date-windows.

The threshold criteria apply at the edge of the chronic mixing zone. Criteria for most fresh waters are expressed as the highest 7-Day average of daily maximum temperature (7-DADMax). The 7-DADMax temperature is the arithmetic average of seven consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures. Criteria for marine waters and some fresh waters are expressed as the highest 1-Day annual maximum temperature (1-DMax).

• Incremental warming criteria

The water quality standards limit the amount of warming human sources can cause under specific situations [WAC 173-201A-200(1)(c)(i)-(ii), 210(1)(c)(i)-(ii)]. The incremental warming criteria apply at the edge of the chronic mixing zone.

At locations and times when background temperatures are cooler than the assigned threshold criterion, point sources are permitted to warm the water by only a defined

of 147

increment. These increments are permitted only to the extent doing so does not cause temperatures to exceed either the annual maximum or supplemental spawning criteria.

At locations and times when a threshold criterion is being exceeded due to natural conditions, all human sources, considered cumulatively, must not warm the water more than 0.3°C above the naturally warm condition.

When Ecology has not yet completed a TMDL, our policy allows each point source to warm water at the edge of the chronic mixing zone by 0.3°C. This is true regardless of the background temperature and even if doing so would cause the temperature at the edge of a standard mixing zone to exceed the numeric threshold criteria. Allowing a 0.3°C warming for each point source is reasonable and protective where the dilution factor is based on 25% or less of the critical flow. This is because the fully mixed effect on temperature will only be a fraction of the 0.3°C cumulative allowance (0.075°C or less) for all human sources combined.

• Temperature Acute Effects

Instantaneous lethality to passing fish: The upper 99th percentile daily maximum effluent temperature must not exceed 33°C; unless a dilution analysis indicates ambient temperatures will not exceed 33°C 2-seconds after discharge.

General lethality and migration blockage: Measurable (0.3°C) increases in temperature at the edge of a chronic mixing zone are not allowed when the receiving water temperature exceeds either a 1DMax of 23°C or a 7DADMax of 22°C. Lethality to incubating fish: Human actions must not cause a measurable (0.3°C) warming above 17.5°C at locations where eggs are incubating.

Annual summer maximum, supplementary spawning criterion, and incremental warming criteria: Ecology calculated the reasonable potential for the discharge to exceed the annual summer maximum, the supplementary spawning criterion, and the incremental warming criteria (see temperature analysis in Appendix K).

The discharge is only allowed to warm the water by a defined increment when the background (ambient) temperature is cooler or warmer than the assigned threshold criterion. Ecology allows warming increments only when they do not cause temperatures to exceed either the annual maximum or supplemental spawning criteria.

The incremental increase for this discharge is within the allowable amount. Therefore, the proposed permit does not include a temperature limit.

The permit requires additional monitoring of effluent temperatures. Ecology will reevaluate the reasonable potential during the next permit renewal. General lethality and migration blockage: The receiving water conditions are listed in Table 11 of the fact sheet. The Strait of Georgia does not exceed a 1DMax of 23°C.

of 147

pH

Compliance with the technology-based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance with the water quality standards of surface waters because of the high buffering capacity of marine water. Fecal Coliform

The refinery must meet domestic technology-based effluent limits for fecal coliform in the effluent since it treats domestic wastewater at the wastewater facility. Ecology established domestic wastewater standards in Chapter 173-221 WAC, entitled “Discharge Standards and Effluent Limitations for Domestic Wastewater Facilities”. Domestic effluent limits for fecal coliform are 200 colonies/100ml for monthly average and 400 colonies/100 ml for daily maximum. The water quality standard for extraordinary marine receiving waters is 14 colonies/100 ml.

Phillips 66 must meet this water quality standard at the edge of the chronic mixing zone. With a dilution of 94:1, the predicted fecal coliform concentration at the boundary of the chronic mixing zone is 4.3 colonies/100 ml, if the maximum technological concentration standard of 400 is met and there are no fecal coliforms present in the background receiving water. Ecology calculated this concentration using a simple mass balance equation as follows: [0(94) + 400(1)]/94 = 4.3. Ecology determined that the technological standard therefore protects the water quality standard.

The highest fecal coliform result during the previous permit term was 548 colonies/100 ml occurred in June 2005. Although the refinery exceeded the fecal coliform limit of 400 colonies/100ml but met the water quality standard for fecal coliform of 14 colonies/100ml based on the mass balance equation: [0(94) + 548(1)]/94 = 5.8.

Toxic Pollutants Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.44) require Ecology to place limits in NPDES permits on toxic chemicals in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable potential for those chemicals to exceed the surface water quality criteria. Ecology does not exempt facilities with technology-based effluent limits from meeting the surface water quality standards. Ecology determined through review of available data and knowledge of the refinery process that the following toxic pollutants are present in the discharge: ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, mercury, nickel, selenium, sulfide, and zinc. Ecology conducted a reasonable potential to exceed analysis (see Appendix L) on these parameters to determine whether it would require effluent limits in this permit. Ecology conducted the reasonable potential to exceed analysis using receiving water and waste discharge conditions that represent the critical condition.. Ecology obtained the receiving water background data for the metallic parameters from a study undertaken by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) in 1997. The study included 10 samples taken at three different locations within Puget Sound, in an effort to provide representative information about the receiving water outside the influence of the refineries. The sampling period chosen represents the critical period in the receiving water. The results of this study are documented in the February 1998 report entitled “Background Metals Concentrations in Selected Puget Sound

of 147

Marine Receiving Waters”. There are limited effluent data available for metals. Ecology obtained effluent values from the permit application and its inspection data. Valid ambient background data were available for ammonia, total cyanide, fluoride, aluminum, dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, dissolved lead, mercury, and dissolved zinc. Calculations using all applicable data resulted in a determination that there is no reasonable potential for this discharge to cause a violation of water quality standards (see Appendix L). This determination assumes that the refinery meets the other effluent limits of this permit.

Water quality criteria for most metals published in chapter 173-201A WAC are based on the dissolved fraction of the metal (see footnotes to table WAC 173-201A-240(3); 2006). Phillips 66 may provide data clearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning of the dissolved metal in the ambient water in relation to an effluent discharge. Ecology may adjust metals criteria on a site-specific basis when data is available clearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning in the ambient water in relation to an effluent discharge.

Water quality criteria for most metals published in chapter 173-201A WAC are based on the dissolved fraction of the metal (see footnotes to table WAC 173-201A-240(3); 2006). Phillips 66 may provide data clearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning of the dissolved metal in the ambient water in relation to an effluent discharge. Ecology may adjust metals criteria on a site-specific basis when data is available clearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning in the ambient water in relation to an effluent discharge. Ammonia Ammonia is considered a toxic pollutant and Ecology evaluated it for reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards. Ammonia's toxicity depends on what portion is available in the unionized form. The amount of unionized ammonia depends on the pH, salinity, and temperature of the receiving marine water. Ecology must use receiving water information to evaluate ammonia toxicity. Ecology evaluated one ambient receiving water station, GRG002, to determine the site specific acute and chronic criteria and to obtain background ammonia data. Located in the Straits of Georgia near Patos Island, GRG002 is a long term core station for which substantial data exists, and which adequately represents the receiving water environment near Phillips 66’s outfall. Using Hampson's model in a spreadsheet form, Ecology calculated the acute and chronic ammonia criteria. From those criteria, Ecology used the 90th percentile value to represent the critical condition as recommended by the Ecology Permit Writer's Manual. It used the values for the ambient station and the 90th percentile values for background total ammonia concentration in the reasonable potential calculation shown in Appendix L. With the available dilution, Ecology determined no reasonable potential for Phillips 66 to exceed water quality standards for ammonia at the edge of the acute and chronic dilution zones.

of 147

Cyanide The previous permit required Phillips 66 to conduct weekly monitoring of cyanide in the final effluent for one year (6/2003 to 6/2004) after the start-up of the new Fluidized Catalytic Cracking Unit (FCCU). Ecology evaluated Phillips 66’s cyanide data to determine if there was a reasonable potential to exceed marine cyanide criteria. With the available dilution, Ecology determined that Phillips 66’s effluent did not have reasonable potential to exceed the acute or chronic cyanide criteria in Washington’s Water Quality Standards (see Appendix L). As a result, the proposed permit does not include limit for cyanide.

STORMWATER OUTFALLS (002, 003, 004, AND 005) Stormwater discharges from Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005 are managed by the use of BMPs and monitoring for comparison to benchmark pollutant concentrations. The benchmarks are set at levels deemed protective of water quality standards in the receiving waters. Much of the stormwater from Phillips 66 runs off from lands not significantly exposed to industrial activities or materials and with little impermeable surfaces. At times of the year, most of the stormwater percolates into the ground and does not discharge offsite at the outfalls.

Continued monitoring of toxics will provide a database to set limits when stormwater mixing zone guidance or a regulation is available. If future data collected indicate a problem, Ecology may require a mixing study to determine the actual mixing available or may require an evaluation of additional best management practices.

F. Whole Effluent Toxicity The water quality standards for surface waters forbid discharge of effluent that causes toxic effects in the receiving waters. Many toxic pollutants cannot be measured by commonly available detection methods. However, laboratory tests can measure toxicity directly, by exposing living organisms to the wastewater and measuring their responses. These tests measure the aggregate toxicity of the whole effluent, so this approach is called whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. Some WET tests measure acute toxicity and other WET tests measure chronic toxicity.

• Acute toxicity tests measure mortality as the significant response to the toxicity of the effluent. Dischargers who monitor their wastewater with acute toxicity tests find early indications of a potential lethal effect of the effluent on organisms in the receiving water.

• Chronic toxicity tests measure various sublethal toxic responses such as reduced growth or reproduction. Chronic toxicity tests involve either a complete life cycle test on an organism with an extremely short life cycle, or a partial life cycle test during a critical stage of a test organism's life. Some chronic toxicity tests also measure organism survival.

Ecology-accredited WET testing laboratories use the proper WET testing protocols, fulfill the data quality requirements, and submit results in the correct reporting format. Accredited laboratory staff know about WET testing and how to calculate an NOEC, LC50, EC50, IC25, etc.

of 147

Ecology gives all accredited labs the most recent version of Ecology Publication # WQ-R-95-80, Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Review Criteria (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9580.html), which is referenced in the permit. Ecology recommends that the Permittee send a copy of the acute or chronic toxicity section(s) of its NPDES permit to the laboratory.

Acute Toxicity:

The previous permit required Phillips 66 to conduct acute toxicity testing once in the last summer and once in the last winter using fathead minnow and Daphnia magna. In accordance with an agreed order related to the protection of a dwindling herring stock, the Permittee also conducted acute toxicity testing with topsmelt and Pacific herring. The testing results shown in Appendix M document that tests on multiple samples demonstrated less than 65% survival in 100% effluent. One Daphnia magna test, four topsmelt tests, and two Pacific herring tests had less than 65% survival in 100% effluent. In accordance with WAC 173-205-060(3), the proposed permit requires the Permittee to conduct acute toxicity testing quarterly for a period of one year to characterize the acute toxicity of the effluent and decide if an acute whole effluent toxicity limit is needed.

Because topsmelt proved to be reliably sensitive to effluent toxicity and because the receiving water is marine water of special value, the permit switches the acute WET test organisms to marine organisms. The permit also requires testing at least two samples with both Pacific herring and topsmelt in order to further establish the adequacy of topsmelt as a surrogate test organism for herring. The Pacific herring results will not be used to determine reasonable potential and the need for an acute WET limit, but Ecology may issue an order requiring extra herring testing if herring are found to respond to effluent toxicity to a greater degree than topsmelt.

If the year of acute toxicity testing shows acute toxicity levels that have a reasonable potential to cause receiving water toxicity, then the proposed permit will:

• Set a limit on acute whole effluent toxicity.

• Require the Permittee to conduct acute toxicity testing to monitor compliance with an acute toxicity limit.

• Specify the procedures the Permittee must use to come back into compliance if toxicity exceeds the limit.

If the acute tests conducted during effluent characterization indicate no reasonable potential for effluent discharges to cause receiving water toxicity, Phillips 66’s NPDES permit will not include monitoring for compliance with an acute limit, but instead will require the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery to retest the effluent once in the last summer and once in the last winter prior to submitting an application for permit renewal to demonstrate that effluent toxicity has not increased. In addition:

• If this facility makes process or material changes which, in Ecology's opinion, increase the potential for effluent toxicity, then Ecology will (in a regulatory order, by permit modification, or in the permit renewal) require the facility to conduct additional effluent

of 147

characterization. The Permittee may demonstrate to Ecology that effluent toxicity has not increased by performing additional WET testing after the process or material changes have been made.

• If WET testing conducted for submittal with a permit application fails to meet the performance standards in WAC 173-205-020, Ecology will assume that toxicity in the effluent has increased.

Chronic Toxicity:

The previous permit required the Permittee to conduct an effluent characterization for chronic toxicity during the permit term. The Permittee conducted chronic testing every other month for one year (six times). The two organisms tested were topsmelt and blue mussel. The testing results in Appendix M indicate that on two occasions the chronic toxicity was found to be at a level that, in accordance with WAC 173-205-050(2)(a)(ii), has a reasonable potential to cause receiving water toxicity.

The proposed permit includes a chronic toxicity limit. The Permittee is required to conduct a chronic test quarterly for the remainder of the permit term. The effluent limit for chronic toxicity is: No toxicity detected in a test concentration representing the chronic critical effluent concentration (CCEC), 1.1% of the effluent.

The chronic toxicity limit is set relative to the mixing zone established in accordance with WAC 173-201A-100. The chronic critical effluent concentration is the concentration of effluent existing at the boundary of the chronic mixing zone during critical conditions. Monitoring for compliance with a chronic toxicity limit is accomplished by conducting a chronic toxicity test using a sample of effluent diluted to equal the CCEC and comparing test organism response in the CCEC to organism survival in nontoxic control water. The Permittee is in compliance with the chronic toxicity limit if there is no statistically significant difference in test organism response between the CCEC and the control. In order to further establish the adequacy of topsmelt for protecting herring, the permit requires the Permittee to conduct a Pacific herring larval 7-day survival and growth test at least once per year on a portion of a sample tested with the topsmelt larval survival and growth test. The Pacific herring chronic test results will not be used to determine reasonable potential or compliance with the chronic WET limit. Ecology may issue an order requiring extra herring testing if herring are found to respond to effluent toxicity to a greater degree than topsmelt. The Permittee may test with Pacific herring more than once per year in order to support this effort.

CHERRY POINT HERRING The Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi, stock which spawns in the Cherry Point vicinity, near Bellingham, was once the largest in Washington. The stock has dramatically declined in abundance in the last 10-15 years and remains at record low levels. Cherry Point herring once had a spawning biomass equal to that of all of the other herring stocks in the state combined. The Cherry Point stock size has declined from nearly 15,000 tons in 1973 to only 774 tons in 2010.

of 147

Although much of the decline may be due to natural factors (e.g., temperature increases, predation, lack of food source), point and non-point sources of pollution may be potential stressors acting in concert with the natural stressors. Because of the large amount of industrial activity at Cherry Point associated with refineries and other heavy industry, it has been suggested that contamination of the spawning grounds may be causing or contributing to the decline. In response to this concern, Ecology and Western Washington University developed and validated herring toxicity tests to use for routine effluent testing. In November 2005, Ecology approved the regulatory use of a 96-hour herring prolarval acute survival test and a 10-day herring embryo survival and normal development test. A 7-day larval survival and growth test was validated and approved for regulatory use in December 2011. In April 2006, Ecology issued an agreed order to the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery, BP Cherry Point Refinery, Shell Puget Sound Refinery, Phillips 66 Anacortes Refinery, and the Alcoa-Intalco Works Aluminum Smelter requiring them to conduct larval acute survival tests twice annually at each of their process wastewater outfalls. The order included a requirement to follow up on any adverse effects found during the course of these studies with additional testing and/or investigation. Ecology defined adverse effects as the Lowest Observable Effects Concentration (LOEC) being equal to or lower than the Acute Critical Effluent Concentration (ACEC). The agreed order stated that if the LOEC was equal to or lower than the ACEC, Phillips 66 must develop and implement a Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation (TI/RE) Plan. The order also stated that with prior approval from Ecology, Phillips 66 could use the topsmelt Atherinops affinis, 96-hour acute survival test as an alternate test if herring larvae are unavailable during the test window. In 2007 to 2011, the herring tests run on Phillips 66’s effluent showed some toxicity on six occasions, but the results did not trigger additional testing or investigation. In several cases, Phillips 66 was unable to obtain herring larvae during the test window and Ecology approved the use of the topsmelt test as a substitute. The results of the herring larval acute testing and topsmelt testing for Phillips 66 are summarized in Appendix M. Herring toxicity testing is included in the proposed permit. Phillips 66 is required to conduct acute testing using the prolarval acute survival test and chronic testing using the embryo survival and normal development test and the larval survival and growth test. The permit requires that effluent monitoring be done with both and standard EPA toxicity tests.

The permit requires a toxicity investigation if testing shows any adverse effects. The EPA tests can be used to investigate the cause of any significant toxicity and the findings of the investigation can be confirmed with the herring tests.

Another goal in pairing the herring tests with EPA tests is to discover the extent to which EPA tests can be used to long term to protect herring. Herring are completely unavailable for testing outside of the six-month West Coast spawning season. Effectively monitoring effluents and

of 147

controlling toxicity requires more frequent testing than is possible using test organisms from the spawning of wild herring. The standard EPA toxicity tests are readily available all year and can be set up quickly if needed. The permit requrirements seek to establish the relative sensitivity of herring tests and analogous EPA tests and to examine the responses of both tests to effluent constituents known to be toxic. The herring toxicity testing in the proposed permit does not have to meet EPA standards. This testing is not for compliance monitoring or effluent characterization so the requirements of WAC 173-205-050(1)(d) do not apply

G. Human Health

Washington’s water quality standards include 91 numeric human health-based criteria that Ecology must consider when writing NPDES permits. These criteria were established in 1992 by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). The National Toxics Rule allows states to use mixing zones to evaluate whether discharges comply with human health criteria.

Ecology determined that Phillips 66’s effluent may contain chemicals of concern posing a risk to human health. Ecology determined this because data or process information indicates regulated chemicals occur in the discharge.

Ecology conducted a determination of the discharge's potential to violate the water quality standards as required by 40 CFR 122.44(d) by following the procedures published in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) and Ecology's Permit Writer's Manual (Ecology Publication 92-109, July, 2006) to make this reasonable potential determination.

Phillips 66 submitted effluent characterization data for evaluating human health criteria as part of their permit renewal application dated January 17, 2006 and in an updated application dated August 10, 2010. Reasonable potential to exceed human health criteria is evaluated for each parameter in Appendix L. Ecology’s evaluation showed that the discharge has no reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality standards, thus an effluent limit is not warranted. Arsenic In 1992, the USEPA adopted risk-based arsenic criteria for the protection of human health for the State of Washington. The criterion for marine waters is 0.14 µg/L inorganic arsenic and is based on exposure from fish and shellfish tissue ingestion. The freshwater criterion is 0.018 µg/L and is based on exposure from fish and shellfish tissue and water ingestion. These criteria have caused confusion in implementation because they differ from the drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 µg/L, which is not risk-based, and because the human health criteria are sometimes exceeded by natural background concentrations of arsenic in surface water and ground water. In Washington, when a natural background concentration exceeds the criterion, the natural background concentration becomes the criterion, and no dilution zone is allowed. This could result in a situation where natural groundwater or surface water used as a municipal or industrial source-water would need additional treatment to meet numeric effluent limits even though no

of 147

arsenic was added as waste. Although this is not the case for all dischargers, Ecology does not have data at this time to quantify the extent of the problem. A regulatory mechanism to deal with the issues associated with natural background concentrations of arsenic in groundwater-derived drinking waters is currently lacking. Consequently, the Water Quality Program, at this time, has decided to use a three-pronged strategy to address the issues associated with the arsenic criteria. The three strategy elements are: 1. Pursue, at the national level, a solution to the regulatory issue of groundwater sources with high arsenic concentrations causing municipal treatment plant effluent to exceed criteria. The revision of the drinking water MCL for arsenic offered a national opportunity to discuss how drinking water sources can affect NPDES wastewater dischargers, however Ecology was unsuccessful in focusing the discussion on developing a national policy for arsenic regulation that acknowledges the risks and costs associated with management of the public exposure to natural background concentrations of arsenic through water sources. The current arsenic MCL of 10 µg/L could also result in municipal treatment plants being unable to meet criteria-based effluent limits. Ecology will continue to pursue this issue as opportunities arise. 2. Additional and more focused data collection. The Water Quality Program will in some cases require additional and more focused arsenic data collection, will encourage or require dischargers to test for source water arsenic concentrations, and will pursue development of a proposal to have Ecology's Environmental Assessment Program conduct drinking water source monitoring as well as some additional ambient monitoring data. At this time, Washington NPDES permits will contain numeric effluent limits for arsenic based only on treatment technology and aquatic life protection as appropriate. 3. Data sharing. Ecology will share data with USEPA as they work to develop new risk-based criteria for arsenic and as they develop a strategy to regulate arsenic. Dioxin Dioxins have been found in some Canadian and California refinery effluents. The dioxins were traced to an internal waste stream from the regeneration of catalytic reformer units. Periodic regeneration of the catalyst in these units is required to burn off coke and restore catalyst activity. The design of the Ferndale Refinery catalytic reformer unit is generically referred to as a “cyclic reformer”. It is an Exxon licensed unit that has five reactors which contain the catalyst used in the reforming process. Four of the reactors are in oil operation at any given time with the fifth reactor off line for regeneration. Unlike other catalytic reformer designs, the Ferndale Refinery’s unit does not incorporate any kind of water and/or caustic wash as part of the regeneration. In other units, the water/caustic wash is used to cool and neutralize the circulating regeneration gas. The Ferndale Refinery’s regeneration circuit was designed and built to withstand the high temperatures and corrosive nature of the regeneration process. There is no liquid waste stream

of 147

leaving the regeneration circuit. The only discharge from the regeneration process is venting of excess regeneration gases to the atmosphere.

Dioxin has not been detected in Phillips 66’s final effluent.

H. Sediment Quality

The aquatic sediment standards (WAC 173-204) protect aquatic biota and human health. Under these standards Ecology may require a facility to evaluate the potential for its discharge to cause a violation of sediment standards (WAC 173-204-400). You can obtain additional information about sediments at the Aquatic Lands Cleanup Unit website. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sediment.html

Ecology listed the Strait of Georgia on the 2004 Clean Water Act 303(d) list. It was listed for a variety of pollutants found in the sediments near Outfall 001. The Permittee conducted the Sediment Sampling on June 9, 2004 and submitted the Sediment Sampling Data report to Ecology for review on February 6, 2005. The sampling data shows that phenanthrene and fluoranthene at Station 1 and phenanthrene and dibenzofuran at Station 2 exceeded the Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) chemical criteria. Based on these identified semi-volatile organic compound concentrations, the Permittee followed up with a bioassay testing at the affected Stations 1 and 2. The results of the bioassay testing passed comparison with the Sediment Management Standards (SMS). Per the Sediment Management Standards, sediment bioassay results override chemical results [WAC 173-204-310(2). During the 2004 sediment sampling event, stations that had chemical exceedances passed the confirmatory bioassay. Therefore, no further action was required.

Ecology determined that the Permittee’s sediment quality is in compliance with the SMS rule. Since Stations 1 and 2 showed PAH/organic chemical contamination, Ecology is requiring the Permittee to perform sediment sampling at all 6 stations in accordance with the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan criteria in proposed Permit Condition S11. This sediment monitoring is required to be conducted at the end of the proposed permit cycle.

Phillips 66 must collect enough sediment so that it can analyze conventional sediment parameters, conduct bioassays, and if necessary, analyze chemistry. Samples showing biological exceedances will be required to undergo chemical analysis.

I. Ground Water Quality Monitoring

The Ground Water Quality Standards, (Chapter 173-200 WAC), protect beneficial uses of ground water. Permits issued by Ecology must not allow violations of those standards (WAC 173-200-100).

All of the ponds in Phillips 66’s wastewater treatment system have native clay bottoms and could potentially discharge to ground water. Based on an analysis of the water in these ponds, it has been determined that there is a potential for an impact to ground water beneath the ponds.

The previous permit required Phillips 66 to conduct a Ground Water Impact Study (GWIS). The refinery conducted the GWIS to: 1) determine the water quality of treated wastewater stored in the basins and 2) to investigate subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the basins to determine the groundwater effects of any discharges through the bottoms of the basins. The GWIS included

of 147

installation of nine groundwater monitoring wells surrounding the basins, sampling of the basin waters during one wet and one dry season, and quarterly sampling of the groundwater for one year. Appendix N shows the sampling results from the basins and wells.

The groundwater monitoring data was compared to risked-based MTCA groundwater criteria (WAC 173-340) and the Groundwater Quality Standards (WAC 173-200-040). Constituents detected above these standards included Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), arsenic, iron, manganese, and several semi-volatile organics. The arsenic and semi-volatile results are questionable because the detected concentrations were not confirmed in re-sampling the wells. Manganese and iron are common constituents in groundwater. TDS, manganese, and iron are not considered to be toxic but are listed by EPA as the secondary (aesthetic) parameters, affecting the appearance and taste of the groundwater.

The groundwater monitoring data showed that some concentrations are above the Groundwater Quality Standards and/or the MTCA groundwater criteria. The proposed permit requires the Permittee to assess the attenuation of contaminants within the refinery property boundary by continuing to monitor groundwater wells downgradient of the basins quarterly during the permit term. The Permittee must submit the monitoring results to Ecology within 60 days of receiving data validation reports. Ecology will evaluate the results and determine if there is a potential to cause a violation of the Ground Water Quality Standards.

IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Ecology requires monitoring, recording, and reporting (WAC 173-220-210 and 40 CFR 122.41) to verify that the treatment process is functioning correctly and that the discharge complies with the permit’s effluent limits. The monitoring schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under Condition S.2. Specified monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and variability of the discharge, the treatment method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring.

A. Lab Accreditation

With the exception of certain parameters the permit requires all monitoring data to be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. Ecology accredited Phillips 66’s laboratory for the following parameters:

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

• Oil and Grease (O&G)

• Ammonia (N)

• Phenols, Total

• Sulfide (S)

of 147

• Hexane Extractable Material

• pH

Phillips 66 contracts with Avocet Laboratory in Bellingham to perform their BOD, fecal coliform, and stormwater analyses.

B. Performance-Based Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies EPA published guidance in April of 1996 entitled, “Interim Guidance For Performance-Based Reduction of NPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies”. EPA’s goal is to reduce the regulatory burden associated with reporting and monitoring on the basis of excellent performance. The guidance provides a tool to evaluate the facility’s performance. Ecology used this guidance to evaluate several parameters in CononoPhillips’ treated effluent. In addition to the approach recommended in the guidance, Ecology compared maximum values with permit limits. See Appendix O for the summary and evaluation of monitoring data. In evaluating the history of non-compliance during the previous permit term, Ecology decided to retain the current monitoring frequencies for all parameters except sulfide. Ecology reduced the frequency of monitoring for sulfide but did not reduce it to the frequency allowed by the policy. Ecology used best professional judgment to reduce monitoring frequency to reward Phillips 66’s good performance but to also provide enough data to monitor the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment process. Phillips 66 must maintain current performance levels to continue to receive the reduced monitoring frequency for sulfide. If facility performance levels deteriorate, the monitoring requirement may be changed back to the previous level.

V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. Priority Pollutant Testing The Permittee is required to sample the effluent from Outfall 001 annually and analyze the sample for priority pollutants. The Permittee must submit the results of the analysis to Ecology within 90 days of each sampling event. B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Ecology based permit condition S3 on our authority to specify any appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-220-210). C. Operation and Maintenance Plan Ecology requires industries to take all reasonable steps to properly operate and maintain their wastewater treatment system in accordance with state and federal regulations (40 CFR 122.41(e) and WAC 173-220-150 (1)(g)). The facility has prepared and submitted an operation and maintenance manual as required by state regulation for the construction of wastewater treatment

of 147

facilities (WAC 173-240-150). Implementation of the procedures in the Treatment System Operating Plan ensures the facility’s compliance with the terms and limits in the permit. D. Non Routine and Unanticipated Discharges

Phillips 66 occasionally generates wastewater which was not characterized in the permit application because it is not a routine discharge and was not anticipated at the time of application. These wastes typically consist of waters used to pressure-test storage tanks or fire water systems. When Phillips 66 reconditions petroleum storage tanks, it thoroughly cleans and inspects them. The final step in the inspection is the hydrotest, which consists of filling the tank with clean water and monitoring the water level in the tank over time to see if any leakage has occurred. Discharging the hydrotest water to the wastewater treatment system reduces the efficiency of the treatment since the clean water dilutes the process water. Phillips 66 also tests its fire water system. Phillips 66 may request to discharge this wastewater through stormwater outfalls, such as when its wastewater system is experiencing heavy hydraulic loadings or when local wildlife managers request water to keep local streams or ponds viable for habitat during very dry summer conditions.

The permit authorizes non-routine and unanticipated discharges under certain conditions. The refinery must characterize these wastewaters and examine any opportunities for reuse. The wastewater must meet the applicable water quality standards for the receiving water.

E. Wastewater Treatment Efficiency Study and Engineering Report The previous permit required Phillips 66 to conduct a treatment efficiency study and prepare an engineering report evaluating the capacity of their wastewater treatment system. Phillips 66 submitted the results of the treatment efficiency study and engineering report on March 4, 2005. The study results and engineering report showed that oil and grease and TSS removal efficiencies at the secondary treatment system were below optimal treatment ranges. Phillips 66 conducted the treatment efficiency study right after the commissioning of the S-Zorb unit. The study was conducted from November 2003 through August 2004 during a period when oil and grease and TSS levels increased due to the additional loadings from the new Fluid Catalytic Cracker, the S-Zorb unit, and increases in the crude throughput rate. Ecology required Phillips 66 to upgrade the refinery’s secondary wastewater treatment system. Phillips 66 submitted the “Wastewater Treatment Plant Long Term Upgrade Project Engineering Report” to Ecology in January 2006. The 2006 engineering report updates the capacity of Phillips 66 wastewater treatment plant. The refinery’s biological system is operating at approximately 52% of its organic (as COD) treatment capacity and 64% of its hydraulic loading capacity.

of 147

Ecology will require a new wastewater treatment efficiency study if Phillips 66 proposes substantial alterations to the refinery that could cause a material change in the quantity or composition of the influent processed at the wastewater treatment system. In the event Ecology requires the study, Phillips 66 must submit a treatment efficiency study plan for Ecology approval. Phillips 66 must also update its engineering report to compare the new conditions with the predicted design capacities. F. Pollution Prevention Plan The previous NPDES permit required Phillips 66 to submit a Pollution Prevention Plan to identify opportunities to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or control releases of pollutants to influent wastewater streams, stormwater, and other waters of the state. The permit required Phillips 66 to implement opportunities that were technically and economically feasible. The NPDES Pollution Prevention Plan incorporated previous NPDES permit requirements for a spill plan, solid waste handling and disposal plan, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan. The following are projects completed by Phillips 66 during the last permit cycle that had a positive impact on wastewater treatment plant operations and provide protection to the receiving waters: • Rerouted blowndown overflow from Outfall 002 to oily water sewer; • Relocated wastewater treatment plant stormwater outfall to inlet cell of catchment basin; • Rerouted Phenolic Sewer Lift Station Bypass to API inlet; • Added closed-loop sampling where beneficial; • Constructed the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor unit to replace the former Trickling Filter

unit; and • Constructed the new Activated Sludge System.

In addition to the operational changes helped reduce pollutants from entering the waste water stream, Phillips 66 also includes pollution prevention elements in its ongoing employee awareness and training at the facility. The proposed permit includes a pollution prevention requirement to follow-up on the work done by the refinery in the previous permit cycle. It includes a requirement to:

• Continue to follow and update BMPs, SOPs, and other work practices to prevent or minimize the release of pollutants to the wastewater treatment system, stormwater, and waters of the state.

• Submit an update to the current NPDES Pollution Prevention Plan. • Submit a biennial evaluation of the Pollution Prevention Plan. • Conduct stormwater inspections to ensure the adequacy of BMPs and to identify any

unknown improper discharges to stormwater.

Continue to identify and evaluate pollution prevention opportunities in all decisions having environmental consequences.

of 147

G. Dangerous Wastes – Permit by Rule Requirements The proposed permit authorizes Phillips 66 to treat dangerous wastes generated on or off-site at the wastewater treatment facility, under the permit-by-rule provisions of WAC 173-303-802(5). This authorization is limited to the on-site and off-site waste streams identified and characterized in the NPDES permit application and in application amendments approved by Ecology. Wastes received from off-site include ballast water and terminal and pipeline pump station water. Ecology determined that the waste streams from off-site are similar in nature to those generated on-site and concluded that Phillips 66’s wastewater treatment facility should effectively treat them. Effluent sampling and monitoring requirements established in the permit should adequately address the pollutants in these wastestreams. Permit-by-rule provisions cover the identified waste streams as long as the refinery complies with the conditions of the NPDES permit and with the dangerous waste requirements in WAC 173-303 pertaining to:

• Notification and identification numbers • Designation of dangerous wastes • Performance standards • General waste analysis • Security • Contingency plans and emergency procedures • Emergencies • Manifest system • Operating record • Facility reporting

H. Outfall Evaluation Phillips 66 submitted an Outfall Evaluation on September 23, 2003. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the condition of the discharge pipe and diffusers and to determine the extent of sediment accumulations in the outfall’s vicinity. Phillips 66 found no problems with Outfall 001. Condition S.15 in the proposed permit requires Phillips 66 to conduct another outfall inspection during the next permit term and submit a report detailing the findings of that inspection.

I. Certified Operator The refinery generates approximately 30,000 gallons of domestic wastewater per day. The domestic wastewater is commingled with process wastewater and treated in the refinery’s wastewater treatment system. Per WAC 173-230-140, Ecology requires the refinery’s operator in responsible charge of the day-to-day operation of the wastewater treatment plant to be certified for at least a Class II plant by the State of Washington.

of 147

J. General Conditions Ecology bases the standardized General Conditions on state and federal law and regulations. They are included in all individual industrial NPDES permits issued by Ecology.

VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

A. Permit Modifications

Ecology may modify this permit to impose numerical limits, if necessary to comply with water quality standards for surface waters, with sediment quality standards, or with water quality standards for ground waters, after obtaining new information from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, outfall studies, and effluent mixing studies.

Ecology may also modify this permit to comply with new or amended state or federal regulations.

B. Proposed Permit Issuance

This proposed permit includes all statutory requirements for Ecology to authorize a wastewater discharge. The permit includes limits and conditions to protect human health and aquatic life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the State of Washington. Ecology proposes to issue this permit for a term of 5 years.

VII. REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001.

1988. Technical Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady State Modeling. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water. EPA/600/6-85/002a.

1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Tsivoglou, E.C., and J.R. Wallace.

1972. Characterization of Stream Reaeration Capacity. EPA-R3-72-012. (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.)

Washington State Department of Ecology.

1994. Permit Writer’s Manual. Publication Number 92-109


of 147

2007. Focus Sheet on Solid Waste Control Plan, Developing a Solid Waste Control Plan for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permittees. Publication Number 07-10-024


Laws and Regulations( http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html )

Permit and Wastewater Related Information (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/index.html

Wright, R.M., and A.J. McDonnell.

1979. In-stream Deoxygenation Rate Prediction. Journal Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE. 105(EE2). (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.)

of 147

APPENDIX A – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

Ecology proposes to reissue a permit to the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery. The permit prescribes operating conditions and wastewater discharge limits. This fact sheet describes the facility and Ecology’s reasons for requiring permit conditions.

Ecology placed a Public Notice on April 25, 2012 in the Ferndale Record and Bellingham Herald, and on December 4, 2013 in the Ferndale Record, to inform the public and to invite comment on the proposed reissuance of this National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit as drafted.

The Notice –

• Tells where copies of the draft Permit and Fact Sheet are available for public evaluation

(a local public library, the closest Regional or Field Office, posted on our website.).

• Offers to provide the documents in an alternate format to accommodate special needs.

• Asks people to tell us how well the proposed permit would protect the receiving water.

• Invites people to suggest fairer conditions, limits, and requirements for the permit.

• Invites comments on Ecology’s determination of compliance with antidegradation rules.

• Urges people to submit their comments, in writing, before the end of the comment period

• Tells how to request a public hearing about the proposed NPDES Permit.

• Explains the next step(s) in the permitting process.

Ecology has published a document entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Effective Public Commenting which is available on our website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0307023.html.

You may obtain further information from Ecology by telephone, (360) 407-6955, or by writing to the permit writer at the address listed below.

Liem Nguyen Department of Ecology Industrial Section PO Box 47706 Olympia, WA 98504-7600

The primary author of this permit and fact sheet is Liem Nguyen.

of 147

APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY

1-DMax or 1-Day Maximum Temperature - The highest water temperature reached on any given day. This measure can be obtained using calibrated maximum/minimum thermometers or continuous monitoring probes having sampling intervals of thirty minutes or less.

7-DADMax or 7-Day Average of the Daily Maximum Temperatures - The arithmetic average of seven consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures. The 7-DADMax for any individual day is calculated by averaging that day's daily maximum temperature with the daily maximum temperatures of the three days prior and the three days after that date.

Acute Toxicity - The lethal effect of a compound on an organism that occurs in a short period of time, usually 48 to 96 hours.

AKART - The acronym for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment.” AKART is a technology-based approach to limiting pollutants from wastewater discharges which requires an engineering judgment and an economic judgment. AKART must be applied to all wastes and contaminants prior to entry into waters of the state in accordance with RCW 90.48.010 and 520, WAC 173-200-030(2)(c)(ii), and WAC 173-216-110(1)(a).

Ambient Water Quality - The existing environmental condition of the water in a receiving water body.

Ammoni - Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in wastewater. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect wastewater.

Annual Average Design Flow (AADF) - The average of the daily flow volumes anticipated to occur over a calendar year.

Average Monthly Discharge Limit - The average of the measured values obtained over a calendar month's time.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) - Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs include treatment systems, operating procedures, and practices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs.

BOD5 - Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria. The BOD5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in receiving waters after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act.

Bypass - The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.

of 147

Chlorine - Chlorine is used to disinfect wastewaters of pathogens harmful to human health. It is also extremely toxic to aquatic life.

Chronic Toxicity - The effect of a compound on an organism over a relatively long time, often 1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or combination of compounds.

Clean Water Act (CWA) - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq.

Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling - A site visit for the purpose of determining the compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes and regulations.

Compliance Inspection - With Sampling - A site visit for the purpose of determining the compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes and regulations. In addition it includes as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all parameters with limits in the permit to ascertain compliance with those limits; and, for municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the 85 percent removal requirement. Ecology may conduct additional sampling.

Composite Sample - A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May be "time-composite"(collected at constant time intervals) or "flow-proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots.

Construction Activity - Clearing, grading, excavation and any other activity which disturbs the surface of the land. Such activities may include road building, construction of residential houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity.

Continuous Monitoring - Uninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the permit.

Critical Condition - The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus, its ability to dilute effluent is reduced.

Detection Limit - See Method Detection Level.

Dilution Factor (DF) - A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the percent effluent fraction e.g., a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving water 90%.

Engineering Report - A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report must contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130.

of 147

Fecal Coliform Bacteria - Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater discharges are controlled by disinfecting the wastewater. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the presence of animal feces.

Grab Sample - A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short a period of time as is feasible.

Industrial Wastewater - Water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development of any natural resource, or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities.

Major Facility - A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of > 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.

Maximum Daily Discharge Limit - The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.

Maximum Day Design Flow (MDDF) - The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a one-day period, expressed as a daily average.

Maximum Month Design Flow (MMDF) - The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a continuous 30-day period, expressed as a daily average.

Maximum Week Design Flow (MWDF) - The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a continuous 7-day period, expressed as a daily average.

Method Detection Level (MDL) - The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the pollutant concentration is above zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the pollutant.

Minor Facility - A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of < 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.

Mixing Zone - An area that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality criteria may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's permit and follows procedures outlined in state regulations (chapter 173-201A WAC).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - The NPDES (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act) is the Federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable waters of the United States. Many states, including the State of Washington, have been delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both State and Federal laws.

pH - The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. It is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic life.

of 147

Peak Hour Design Flow (PHDF) - The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a one-hour period, expressed as a daily or hourly average.

Peak Instantaneous Design Flow (PIDF) - The maximum anticipated instantaneous flow.

Quantitation Level (QL) - The smallest detectable concentration of analyte greater than the Detection Limit (DL) where the accuracy (precision &bias) achieves the objectives of the intended purpose. This may also be called Minimum Level or Reporting Level.

Reasonable Potential - A reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation, or loss of sensitive and/or important habitat.

Responsible Corporate Officer - A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation, or the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22).

Technology-Based Effluent Limit - A permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment method to reduce the pollutant.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - Total suspended solids is the particulate material in an effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to receiving waters may result in solids accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.

Solid Waste - All putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials.

State Waters - Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.

Stormwater - That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water drainage system into a defined surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility.

Upset - An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limits because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the facility. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.

Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit - A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter that is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water quality criterion after it is discharged into receiving waters.

of 147

APPENDIX C – WASTEWATER TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM

of 147

pH Adjustment and Nutrient Additionphenolic Phenolic Lift Station sewer 900X1 Phenolic Tank

oily sewer

Oily Lift Station S Oily API Forebay S Oily API Afterbay

900X2 Offspec/Swing Tanksanitarysewer N Oily API Forebay N Oily API Afterbay

effluentrecycle 900X3 Oily tank Oily Slop Skimmings

300X40 Overflow 100X95 SlopTank Recovery Tank

Neutralization SumpLift Station withPolymer Addition

100X98 SlopTransfer Tank

Recycled Slop to Crude Charge 100X99 Slop S WEMCO Induced Gas

Emulsion Breaker Primary Floatation UnitTank Effluent

PumpLoading Bypass Sump N WEMCO Induced Gas

Floatation UnitClarifier (W) Activated Sludge Basin (W)

Mix Bed Biofilm Reactor (South)

Clarifier (E) Activated Sludge Basin (E) Mix Bed Biofilm Reactor (North)

Waste sludge (WAS) + scum Recycled Sludge (RAS)

Aerobic Digester Effluent from AD Overflow return

Effluent Recycle to OLS Spill Basin (Lift Station Overflows and Emergency Storage Wasting of Sludge Capacity for Tank Dikewalls)

To Storm Water Obs. Channelor Lift Stations

Stablization Basin Catchment Basin Refinery Effluent - MonitoringParshall Flume Discharge to Georgia Strait

at Bent 77 under Wharf

Collected RefineryStorm Water

Dewatering Basin - Soil Biodegradation Field

Spring Application of Clarification/CatchmentFinal Holding Basin Storm Basin and Final Holding Basin Bottom Sludges

Storm Water Observation Channel

Storm Basin to LiftStations

Decant line

of 147

APPENDIX D - MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 80730 76600 82120 91090 87480 88460 90320 90740 89840 89660 88510 76750BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 94 78 51 74 76 69 71 101 91 64 82 75BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 264 172 65 92 202 101 114 128 133 108 114 133COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 506 490 375 469 472 503 468 620 727 531 442 486COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 952 950 525 789 972 796 710 830 1119 858 790 896TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 118 109 55 99 81 113 118 167 206 153 92 72TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 385 348 105 389 230 221 236 237 317 249 241 284Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 37 39 22 35 31 24 23 34 40 32 32 30Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 127 113 39 71 69 36 42 53 86 50 76 58Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 6 6 3 6 5 3 4 4 7 5 9 6Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 11 13 6 5 5 2 2 5 7 4 11 8Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 17 23 9 7 14 4 4 9 11 7 19 12Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.4 6.4 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.8 7.0pH, Max. 9 SU 8.0 7.8 7.8 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.0 7.8 7.6Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 5 2 1 3 3 4 12 5 2 2 16 29Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 24 5 1 8 12 10 68 20 4 4 90 144Flow, Ave. MGD 1.903 1.703 1.181 1.24 1.124 1.14 1.203 1.298 1.390 1.154 1.342 1.510Flow, Max. MGD 3.369 3.292 1.751 1.60 1.895 1.871 1.739 1.777 2.445 1.659 2.059 2.752Temperature, Max ºF 66 66 70 81 79 85 85 85 80 74 68 66Rainfall, Total Inches 2.30 1.87 1.80 0.92 0.29Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NTHex. Chromium 0.37 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NT NTBallast Water Bbls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 61910 25210 81410 90960 95770 93850 96500 95840 94270 94485 96623 88581BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 202 126 112 120 80 208 149 155 244 292 225 213BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 629 224 155 161 113 284 239 248 404 804 393 349COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 645 494 671 741 686 821 656 589 868 828 1178 854COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 1723 847 1120 1124 1475 1188 857 1164 1307 1874 2112 1697TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 95 72 133 202 177 257 215 173 169 226 186 135TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 337 266 305 303 404 396 315 334 294 1384 581 566Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 32 21 42 47 34 40 38 32 50 35 65 56Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 80 42 97 91 86 77 66 67 91 90 145 126Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 4 4 6 8 4 6 9 8 10 4 7 13.1Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3

YEAR 2002 - DISCHARGE MONTHLY REPORT


anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 22 21 14 8 5 28 17 42 105 77 82 28Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 57 33 28 17 8 40 54 76 124 92 101 39Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0pH, Min. 6 SU 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.2pH, Max. 9 SU 7.5 7.7 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.1 7.8 7.8Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 3 6 1 6 4 3 4 6 8 17 7 5Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 8 18 4 16 18 6 16 28 24 56 16 15Flow, Ave. MGD 1.484 1.267 1.765 1.275 1.288 1.179 1.034 0.954 1.136 1.779 1.933 1.42Flow, Max. MGD 2.658 2.306 2.086 2.646 2.85 1.547 1.254 1.481 1.384 4.318 3.479 3.228Temperature, Max ºF 67 64 77 70 82 84 86 82 81 76 67 66Rainfall, Total InchesTotal Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT <0.005 NT NT NT NT NT 0.005 NT NT NTHex. Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT 0 NT NT NT NT NT 0.001 NT NT NTBallast Water Bbls

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 95705 97130 99617 99223 99127 93511 97306 96851 97451 94896 98641 97615BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 252 159 162 285 186 230 136 161 193 332 416 219BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 401 251 233 705 348 646 190 208 318 447 812 353COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 996 883 822 1145 1208 1273 831 766 1117 1134 1701 916COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 2803 1246 1754 2896 3031 3408 1173 994 1787 2112 3533 1485TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 178 127 103 177 206 262 223 210 266 166 331 164TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 784 202 217 522 414 532 543 378 675 458 1358 383Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 17 58 70 70 89 83 30 38 65 67 97 52Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 186 94 267 183 220 453 53 115 172 126 223 94Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 12.7 7.3 17.1 8.3 11 21.8 3.5 8.6 13.5 0.5 7.2 4.3Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.3Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 1 0.4Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 57 21 31 48 34 26 13 20 40 55 102 21Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 116 31 67 64 43 61 36 41 54 61 161 27Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.2 7.8 7.3 6.9 7.2 7.1 7.1pH, Max. 9 SU 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.7 7.5 9 8.9 8.6 8.2 7.8 7.9 7.6Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 3.3 1.3 1.4 8 11 2.6 34.5 65 2.3 13 3.6 3.6Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 12 2 4 60 60 8 140 280 8 88 18 7Flow, Ave. MGD 1.587 1.68 1.21 1.585 1.452 1.363 1.626 1.503 1.634 1.528 2.583 2.186Flow, Max. MGD 3.388 2.201 2.476 2.892 2.642 2.811 2.044 1.911 2.615 2.673 4.047 3.955Temperature, Max ºF 68 69.8 71 73 79 82.9 86 84.9 82 78.1 66 68Rainfall, Total InchesTotal Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT <0.005 NT NT NT NT NT <0.005 NT NT NTHex. Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT ND NT NT NT NT NT ND NT NT NTBallast Water Bbls 10250


anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 96945 89324 99003 98498 97804 99423 98592 101348 100959 100433 100930 94981BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 322 179 145 171 170 142 171 210 170 180 169 146BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 759 243 196 192 285 341 249 357 275 214 219 287COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 1112 858 764 1034 869 794 771 965 1117 1039 632 624COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 2302 1326 1049 1471 1404 1395 1223 1335 1337 1453 1166 972TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 238 115 170 264 237 175 202 246 266 226 140 84TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 1098 244 300 387 598 696 348 355 347 369 350 222Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 78 58 40 57 43 32 39 56 65 55 39 36Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 187 134 81 206 108 51 75 105 147 76 87 67Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 7.2 8.8 5.9 11.3 7.4 4.2 5.9 7.9 12.9 4.2 5.5 4.3Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 66 45 35 20 6 56 53 54 23 62 20 26Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 120 61 66 36 19 135 143 94 46 92 37 55Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.1 7.2 6.5 7 7.8 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.1 7pH, Max. 9 SU 7.6 7.6 7.9 8.4 8.9 8.6 8.2 7.9 8.2 7.8 7.6 7.8Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 1.8 1.8 1.8 6 12 68 10 9 5.5 6 7 2Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 6 4 4 20 60 548 24 40 16 20 40 6Flow, Ave. MGD 2.236 2.014 1.65 1.764 1.237 1.433 1.49 1.583 1.634 2.12 1.594 1.538Flow, Max. MGD 4.839 3.57 2.245 2.448 2.12 1.83 1.904 1.988 2.667 3.011 2.91 2.709Temperature, Max ºF 70 71 73 80 84 86 87 87 84 72 66 63Rainfall, Total Inches 2.9Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT 0.005 NT NT NT NT NT <0.005 NT NT NTHex. Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT 0 NT NT NT NT NT ND NT NT NTBallast Water Bbls 12000

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 95550 70586 78408 99486 100315 100073 100293 98920 95111 94931 88644 90203BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 142 111 183 176 243 197 129 193 172 105 194 195BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 204 180 309 310 325 237 246 310 281 155 291 295COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 756 719 866 890 918 981 746 746 856 846 1113 714COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 1099 1290 1541 1321 1298 1183 1099 1115 1215 1531 1902 1086TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 198 96 98 246 235 264 206 208 147 109 248 101TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 777 315 219 451 388 376 363 345 315 317 916 448Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 41 47 30 30 43 36 33 27 53 48 63 43Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 88 100 85 73 75 49 88 54 106 98 147 94Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 4.7 7.4 5.8 5.2 6.2 4 7.4 4 9.3 7.4 6.8 5Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.3



anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 36 18 53 21 17 19 13 18 54 56 75 35Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 52 30 71 34 30 28 28 42 69 76 99 50Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7 7 7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.2pH, Max. 9 SU 7.7 7.6 7.8 8.9 10.1 8.4 8.7 8.4 8.2 7.7 7.8 7.6Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 2.6 1.1 1 1 2.9 3.6 3.8 20.7 4.5 1 5 3.3Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 6 2 1 1 12 12 12 130 24 2 20 4Flow, Ave. MGD 2.614 1.523 1.378 1.51 0.935 1.462 1.127 1.171 1.634 1.323 2.399 1.963Flow, Max. MGD 4.795 3.49 2.029 2.376 1.863 1.756 1.735 1.65 2.142 2.21 3.821 2.889Temperature, Max ºF 62 62 72 78 81 85 88 84 81 76 64 62Rainfall, Total Inches 10.08 3.21 3.17 9.77 4.9Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT 0.006 NT NT NT NT NT <0.005 NT NT NTHex. Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT ND NT NT NT NT NT ND NT NT NTBallast Water Bbls

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 96,980 24,565 10,060 95,064 105,506 106,045 101,709 104,206 98,828 98,823 105,193 101,031BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 186 154 249 216 205 96 82 49 69 99 122 195BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 297 273 429 330 421 192 131 62 170 186 161 326COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 647 619 832 885 1038 594 591 635 842 763 497 823COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 1009 1261 2062 1463 1653 1003 930 1152 1306 1479 736 1486TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 145 55 220 158 258 103 118 119 147 142 115 252TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 451 168 742 303 436 242 230 239 246 312 240 1207Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 42 31 52 57 72 44 39 46 53 45 33 62Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 84 54 99 101 136 92 57 70 100 76 56 127Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 4.9 3.3 5.9 6.1 8.5 6.4 4.6 5.6 7.4 4.5 4.2 4.6Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 24 20 19 38 7 2 1 1 2 1 1 3Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 48 33 43 63 14 4 2 2 6 2 2 8Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.2 6.8 6.6 6.7 7.7 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.3pH, Max. 9 SU 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.8 8.2 9 8.4 8.4 8.4 8 8 8Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 3.4 9.3 24 6.9 3 4.5 3.4 28 5.9 2.4 2 13Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 9 48 72 20 4 10 6 178 27 8 2 69Flow, Ave. MGD 2.095 1.421 1.773 1.781 1.743 1.649 1.77 1.325 1.552 1.726 1.764 2.558Flow, Max. MGD 3.333 2.255 3.48 2.289 2.807 2.216 2.21 2.06 1.82 2.092 2.428 3.71Temperature, Max ºF 65 64 59 67 79 86 86 86 83 77 72 66Rainfall, Total Inches 6.18 3.76 1.87 1.36 0.69 1.51 3.73 3.54 7.07Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT NT NT <0.005 NT NT NT NT 0.6 NT NTHex. Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT NT NT ND NT NT NT NT 0 NT NT


anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

Ballast Water Bbls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15997 0 0 0 0

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 94,920 98,800 106,522 105,245 106,035 105,256 104,448 99,854 104,308 104,817 93,492 85,042BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 139 121 98 66 89 107 134 152 157 156 157 48BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 204 194 127 94 137 163 230 184 218 280 336 72COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 529 768 557 664 571 628 692 639 662 757 856 864COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 1026 1477 860 1075 1042 914 1090 983 919 1086 1460 2068TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 119 126 88 88 102 79 96 77 82 120 143 119TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 769 1168 156 215 230 144 133 147 132 353 322 204Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 35 58 40 32 36 40 41 39 46 49 56 55Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 83 119 71 84 63 68 62 66 68 77 106 120Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 4.3 4.8 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 3.7 3.5 4.2 4.8 3.6 5.1Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 1 1 4 1 4 4 14 4 2 2 9 2Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 2 2 5 3 8 5 48 6 2 3 23 4Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.3 7 7.2 7.1 7.1 7 6.9 7 7.1 7.2 6.8 6.8pH, Max. 9 SU 7.8 7.4 7.6 7.7 8.3 7.5 7.9 8.2 7.8 7.8 7.6 8Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 2.3 2 2 2 3.5 17.5 8.2 21 2 20 2 14Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 4 2 2 2 10 124 32 142 2 150 3 115Flow, Ave. MGD 2.094 2.341 2.34 2.087 1.86 2.07 2.013 2.137 1.878 2.225 2.922 2.426Flow, Max. MGD 3.579 2.968 3.068 2.846 2.698 2.677 2.593 2.944 2.098 3.067 4.37 4.225Temperature, Max ºF 66 72 73 76 82 86 87 86 84 82 73 70Rainfall, Total Inches 3.79 2.12 4.71 1.79 2.29 1.65 0.34 4.11 0.66 3.08 7.88 4.45Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT NT 0.1 NT NT NT NT NT 0.1 NT NTHexavalent Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT NT 0 NT NT NT NT NT 0 NT NTBallast Water Bbls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 99,571 102,409 102,325 103,780 102,154 106,990 104,302 101,110 104,095 99,881 95,850 102,793BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 58 63 75 40 52 35 35 33 34 68 61 51BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 120 224 158 52 90 53 40 47 40 184 84 96COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 823 514 648 627 757 558 506 483 425 556 727 916COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 2177 726 981 1109 1096 718 742 905 555 1438 1271 1407TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 156 83 141 141 175 112 105 100 77 91 144 99TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 403 274 301 315 309 177 134 159 141 201 453 173Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 55 26 34 31 30 30 26 22 18 29 49 61Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 127 67 61 62 51 48 62 45 30 64 141 107Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 3.7 3.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 4.4 2.7 1.6 2.3 4.6 5.5



anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 17 4 15 1 0.1 0.3 3 3 28 1 3 46Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 44 8 67 2 0.2 0.4 12 15 111 2 7 61Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.5 7.3 6.9 7 7.1 7.1 7.2pH, Max. 9 SU 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.6 8 8.3 8 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.8Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 4 2 1.8 1.3 95 14 21 14 21 16 6 2Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 15 2 2 3 360 29 97 30 97 55 15 6Flow, Ave. MGD 3.137 1.83 2.277 2.168 1.994 1.757 1.704 1.686 1.826 2.333 3.036 2.295Flow, Max. MGD 5.062 2.313 4.2 3.159 3.208 2.039 2.144 2.008 2.216 4.786 4.257 3.711Temperature, Max ºF 74 78 78 81 84 92 96 92 88 80 72 72Rainfall, Total Inches 4.82 3.23 4.23 2.1 4.21 0.38 0.82 2.02 2.3 8.16 9.21 2.02Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT NT 0.1 NT NT NT NT NT NT 0.2 NTHexavalent Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT NT 0 NT NT NT NT NT NT 0 NTBallast Water Bbls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 93,907 89,566 78,280 102,604 102,495 96,638 104,294 100,997 101,342 104,173 93,129 93,748BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 50 75 141 75 43 42 31 35 45 35 42 56BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 70 130 730 268 78 74 38 67 65 82 55 85COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 676 534 601 617 481 613 432 466 770 576 815 871COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 890 840 2282 1489 979 888 699 614 1467 868 1484 1432TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 123 86 58 84 87 105 90 117 95 61 86 189TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 292 154 94 192 248 201 166 169 245 173 168 506Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 43 30 21 23 23 28 24 22 45 32 47 44Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 82 50 40 37 47 52 46 48 74 53 77 67Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 2.9 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.6 2.4 3.4 2.7 4 3 3.3 2.3Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 74 53 2 8 2 0.4 0 0 4 1 2 4Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 111 79 7 18 4 1.2 1 0 17 1 3 6Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.3 7.2 6.7 6.9 7 7.4 7.2 7 6.7 7.2 7.1 7.1pH, Max. 9 SU 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.1 8.4 8.2 7.8 7.6 8 8.4Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 6.8 1 1.3 1 87 17 15 4 6 1.1 4 10Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 40 1 4 1 430 42 62 10 20 2 19 38Flow, Ave. MGD 2.56 2.19 1.77 2.14 1.61 2.15 1.63 1.62 2.24 1.88 2.40 3.39Flow, Max. MGD 3.97 3.59 3.18 3.71 2.55 2.96 1.93 2.15 3.26 2.80 2.90 5.08Temperature, Max ºF 78 79 79 85 87 86 90 95 84 78 74 70Rainfall, Total Inches 4.11 2.49 4.02 2.13 5.03 2.81 0.07 1.65 6.64 2.04 3.91 4.93Total Chromium 5.9 lbs/day NT NT NT 0.1 NT NT NT NT 0.1 NT NT NT


anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

Hexavalent Chromium 0.37 lbs/day NT NT 0 NT NT NT NT NT 0 NT NT NTBallast Water Bbls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PARAMETERS LIMIT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DECCrude Throughput bbls/day 81,385 103,400 105,408 105,239 104,642 104,743 102,593 96,265 98,273 101,423 98,860 90,995BOD, Ave. 370 lbs/day 66 52 41 52 43 44 39 45 50 41 55 40BOD, Max. 665 lbs/day 92 81 51 79 52 67 54 56 133 53 94 66COD, Ave. 2550 lbs/day 745 654 633 634 729 717 590 782 664 489 1112 916COD, Max. 4930 lbs/day 1179 962 1083 1114 1368 968 905 1174 1599 640 1697 1277TSS, Ave. 295 lbs/day 146 113 81 101 110 122 120 156 112 67 160 86TSS, Max. 460 lbs/day 412 324 292 268 193 514 220 256 559 138 456 230Oil & Grease, Ave. 110 lbs/day 50 43 34 36 41 38 33 41 33 50 61 63Oil & Grease, Max. 200 lbs/day 126 69 59 73 68 75 45 75 57 97 117 111Oil & Grease, Conc. 15 mg/L 4.9 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.8 3.9 2.6 3.8 2.9 5.2 4.2 4.1Phenol, Ave. 2.2 lbs/day 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2Phenol, Max. 4.94 lbs/day 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4Ammonia as N, Ave. 225 lbs/day 1 3 1 1 1 0.5 3 1 0 2 2 1Ammonia as N, Max. 494 lbs/day 2 7 2 3 3 0.7 7 1 1 3 3 2Sulfide, Ave. 2 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulfide, Max. 4.3 lbs/day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0pH, Min. 6 SU 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.2 7.1 7 7.4pH, Max. 9 SU 8 8.3 7.6 7.9 8 8 8.2 8.5 8 7.6 8 7.7Fecal Coliform, Ave. 200 lbs/day 1.6 1 2 2 24 6 5 2 4 2 2 2Fecal Coliform, Max. 400 lbs/day 4 1 4 3 95 21 16 6 19 10 6 3Flow, Ave. MGD 3.52 2.83 2.59 2.78 2.73 2.20 2.12 2.30 2.55 2.46 3.05 2.60Flow, Max. MGD 5.04 5.24 4.64 4.73 3.83 2.56 2.71 2.60 2.84 2.86 4.33 4.14Temperature, Max ºF 70 72 79 78 80 84 88 90 84 78 76 72Rainfall, Total Inches 8.81 1.94 3.89 4.45 4.44 1.01 2.05 0.54 1.71 2.69 5.32 1.71Total Chromium, Max 10 lbs/day nt nt 0 nt nt nt nt nt 0.1 nt nt ntHex Chromium, Max 0.81 lbs/day nt nt 0.1 nt nt nt nt nt 0 nt nt ntBallast Water Bbls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note:NT means no test


anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF NONCOMPLIANCES

Date Parameter Unit Result Limit Explanation of Non-compliance Compliance Schedules/Corrective Actions

10/16/2003 TSS lb/day 1384 1320sw TSS exceeded daily maximum allowable due to heavy rainfall

No enforcement

1/2/2004 TSS lb/day 784 532sw TSS exceeded daily maximum allowable due to strong wind disturbance

No enforcement

3/16/2004 Oil & grease mg/l 17.1 15O&G exceeded 15 mg/l daily maximum concentration

3/27/2004 Oil & grease mg/l 10O&G exceeded 10 mg/l for four times during month of March

6/1/2004 Oil & grease lb/day 453 200O&G exceeded daily maximum limit due to overloading

6/2/2004 Oil & grease mg/l 21.5 15O&G exceeded 15 mg/l daily maximum concentration due to overloading

6/1/2004 TSS lb/day 532 460TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to overloading



7/12/2004 TSS lb/day 543 460TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to operator error in sampling

9/18/2004 TSS lb/day 675 460TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to the age/metallurgy of the sampling system loop

11/9/2004 TSS lb/day 1358 1150sw TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to a severely plugged compositor loop.

6/19/2005 TSS lb/day 593 460TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to algae bloom

No enforcement

6/1/2005 Fecal Coliform

Colonies/100 mls 548 400 Fecal Coliform exceeded daily maximum limit due

to increased wild life activities in the tertiary ponds

No enforcement

5/8/2006 pH lb/day 10.1 9pH exceeded daily maximum limit due to algae bloom

Phillips 66 installed two Ultra-sonic Solution devices for controling algae growth.

31/1/2008 TSS lb/day 769 624sw

2/1/2008 TSS lb/day 1168 839sw

Ecology issued Notice of Violation (NOV) #1608 and Compliance Order #3369 which required building a new activated sludge system and installing a temporary filtration system.

Ecology issued penalty No.1227-WQ04

Phillips 66 implemented corrective actions to clean the compositor loop on a daily basis and replace the existing carbon steel piping with plastic at the end of November 2004.

SUMMARY OF NONCOMPLIANCES FROM 2003 TO 2011

Ecology issued penalty No.5520 TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to communication failure.

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

5/27/2010 Fecal Coliform

Colonies/100 mls 430 400

Fecal Coliform exceeded daily maximum limit due to increased wild life activities in the tertiary ponds

The refinery planned to buy two plastic coyotes to place them at the tertiary ponds to deter the waterfowl because the refinery believes that waterfowl could contribute to fecal coliform. No enforcement

6/26/2011 TSS lb/day 514 460TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to compositor pump failure

Phillips 66 fixed compositor pump. No enforcement

9/7/2011 TSS lb/day 559 460TSS exceeded daily maximum limit due to compositor pump failure

Phillips 66 installed a new compositor pump. No enforcement

Note:sw - Including stormwater allocation

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX F: CALCULATION OF LIMITATIONS

Process

Process Rate (1000 bbls per day)

Capacity Relative to

Throughput

Weighting Factor

Process Configuration

BASELINE:Crude:Desalting 73 1.00Atmospheric Distillation 73 1.00Vacuum Distillation 20 0.27Crude Total 166 2.27 1 2.27

Cracking:Fluid Catalytic Cracking 22 0.30 6 1.81

Lubes:Butane Deasphalting 0 0.00 13 0.00

Total Baseline Process Configuration 4.08

NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS:CURRENT PRODUCTIONCrude:Desalting 103 1.00Atmospheric Distillation 103 1.00Vacuum Distillation 52.1 0.51Crude Total 258.1 2.51 1 2.51

Cracking: Fluid Catalytic Cracking 36.7 0.36Delayed Coker 0 0.00Cracking Total 36.7 0.36 6 2.14

Lubes:Butane Deasphalting 0 0.00 13 0.00

Total Current Process Configuration 4.64

The process rate information can be found tabulated in the fact sheet in the technology based limits section. A comprehensive example of the above calculation can be found in 40 CFR Chapter 419.42(b)(3). A process configuration of 4.5 to 5.49 results in a process factor of 0.88 per the cracking subcategory in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(2).A process configuration of 3.5 to 4.49 results in a process factor of 0.74 per the cracking subcategory in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(2).Size factors are determined from the amount of feedstock per day. 50,000 to 74,900 bbls/day results in a size factor of 1.04.100,000 to 124,900 bbls/day results in a size factor of 1.23 as found in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(1).

Baseline Process Factor = 0.74Current Process Factors = 0.88

Baseline Size Factor = 1.04 Baseline condition = 73,000 bbls/day [as per 419.22 (b)(1)]Current Size Factor = 1.23 Current production = 103,000 bbls/day [as per 419.22 (b)(1)]

Adjusted Production = Production (process factor) (size factor)Adjusted Baseline Production = 73,000 bbls/day * 0.74 * 1.04 = 56,181 bbls/dayAdjusted Current Production = 103,000 bbls/day * 0.88 * 1.23 = 111,487 bbls/day

NSPS Increment = Adjusted Current Production - Adjusted Baseline = 55,306 bbls/day

Technology-based limits are based on the adjusted production levels, with the exception of BAT limits for phenols and chromium.

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

BASELINE BASELINE BAT LIMITS PERMIT BPT LIMITS PERMIT NSPS LIMITS NSPS TOTAL LIMIT TOTAL LIMIT

lbs/1000 bbls BAT LIMITS lbs/1000 bbls BPT LIMITS lbs/1000 bbls INCREMENT BAT BASIS BPT BASIS lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day lbs/day

MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY MAX 30 DAY DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE

BOD 9.9 5.5 556 309 5.8 3.1 321 171 877 480TSS 6.9 4.4 388 247 4 2.5 221 138 609 385COD 74 38.4 4157 2157 74 38.4 4157 2157 41.5 21 2295 1161 6453 3319 6453 3319OIL & GREASE 0 0 3 1.6 169 90 1.7 0.93 94 51 263 141AMMONIA as N 6.6 3 371 169 6.6 3 371 169 6.6 3 365 166 736 334 736 334SULFIDE 0.065 0.029 3.65 1.63 0.065 0.029 3.65 1.63 0.037 0.017 2.05 0.94 5.70 2.57 5.70 2.57

PHENOLIC CMPNDS 0.074 0.036 4.16 2.02 0.042 0.02 2.32 1.11 9.90 2.93 6.48 3.13 Crude 0.013 0.003 2.16 0.50 Cracking 0.147 0.036 3.97 0.97 Asphalt 0.079 0.019 0.00 0.00 Lube 0.369 0.09 0.00 0.00 Reforming & 0.132 0.032 1.45 0.35 Alkylation

TOTAL CHROMIUM 0.15 0.088 8.43 4.94 0.084 0.049 4.65 2.71 10.86 4.89 13.07 7.65 Crude 0.011 0.004 1.83 0.66 Cracking 0.119 0.041 3.21 1.11 Asphalt 0.064 0.022 0.00 0.00 Lube 0.299 0.104 0.00 0.00 Reforming & 0.107 0.037 1.18 0.41 Alkylation

HEX CHROMIUM 0.012 0.0056 0.67 0.31 0.0072 0.0032 0.40 0.18 0.80 0.35 1.07 0.49 Crude 0.0007 0.0003 0.12 0.05 Cracking 0.0076 0.0034 0.21 0.09 Asphalt 0.0041 0.0019 0.00 0.00 Lube 0.0192 0.0087 0.00 0.00 Reforming & 0.0069 0.0031 0.08 0.03 AlkylationNOTES:Adjusted Baseline Production in bbls/day 56,181 (See Process Factor Determination)NSPS Increment in bbls/day 55,306 (See Process Factor Determination)For BAT Limitations: For BAT limitations Calculations:Baseline Crude in 1000 bbls/day 166 Crude processes include desalting, atmospheric distillation, and vacuum distillation.Baseline Cracking in 1000 bbls/day 27 Crude in 1000 bbls/day = 73 + 73 + 20 = 166Baseline Asphalt in 1000 bbls/day 0 Cracking processes include fluid catalytic cracking and hydrotreating.Baseline Lube in 1000 bbls/day 0 Cracking in 1000 bbls/day = 22 + 5 = 27Baseline Reforming & Alkylation in 1000 bbls/day 11 Asphalt and lube in 1000 bbls /day = 0

Reforming and alkylation processes include catalytic reforming and sulfuric acid alkylation.Reforming and alkylation in 1000 bbls/day = 11 + 0 = 11

of 147

APPENDIX G: DRY WEATHER FLOW CALCULATIONS

Ave Flow Rainfall Ave Flow Rainfall Ave Flow Rainfall Ave Flow Rainfall Ave Flow RainfallMonth MGD Inch MGD Inch MGD Inch MGD Inch MGD Inch

January 2.614 10.08 2.095 6.18 2.094 3.79 3.137 4.82 2.56 4.11February 1.523 2.11 1.421 3.76 2.341 2.12 1.83 3.23 2.19 2.49March 1.378 1.48 1.773 0.42 2.341 4.71 2.277 4.23 1.77 4.02April 1.51 3.21 2.289 2.33 2.087 1.79 2.168 2.1 2.14 2.13May 0.935 1.55 1.743 1.87 1.86 2.29 1.994 4.21 1.61 5.03June 1.462 1.29 1.649 1.89 2.07 1.65 1.757 0.38 2.15 2.81July 1.127 0.18 1.77 1.36 2.013 0.34 1.704 0.82 1.63 0.07August 1.171 1.3 1.325 0.69 2.137 4.11 1.686 2.02 1.62 1.65September 1.634 2.33 1.52 1.51 1.878 0.66 1.826 2.3 2.24 6.64October 1.323 3.17 1.726 3.73 2.225 3.08 2.333 8.16 1.88 2.04November 2.399 9.77 1.764 3.54 2.922 7.88 3.036 9.21 2.40 3.91December 1.963 4.9 2.558 7.07 2.426 4.45 2.295 2.02 3.39 4.93

Average 1.59 3.45 1.80 2.86 2.20 3.07 2.17 3.63 2.13 3.32

R2Y-intercept (linear regression)

Average Y-intercept

The dry weather flow rate was determined by taking an average of the Y-intercept (linear regression) for years 2009 and 2010as those years had the strongest correlation between average monthly flow and rainfall.

1.771.29

Year 2006

Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery's Dry Weather Flow Calculation

0.41 0.73 0.52

Year 2010

0.2

1.71

Year 2007 Year 2008 Year 2009

1.67

1.08 1.49 1.84 1.7

0.81

1.71

y = 0.14x + 1.0837 R² = 0.8058

y = 0.1091x + 1.4905 R² = 0.4105

y = 0.1177x + 1.8378 R² = 0.7256

y = 0.1287x + 1.7038 R² = 0.515

y = 0.1265x + 1.7133 R² = 0.1989

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Mon

thly

Ave

rage

Flo

w (M

GD

)

Monthly Rainfall Average (inches)

Monthly Average Flow vs. Monthly Rainfall

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Linear (2006) Linear (2007) Linear (2008) Linear (2009) Linear (2010)

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX H: STORMWATER ALLOCATION EVENTS FROM 2004 - 2010

Date Parameter Unit Daily Max Limit allowed w/ stomwater allocation4/22/2004 Biochemical Oxygen Demand lb/day 705 13224/24/2004 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 522 69711/9/2004 Oil and Grease lb/day 223 52011/9/2004 Biochemical Oxygen Demand lb/day 812 1650Nov-04 Biochemical Oxygen Demand lb/day 416* 663*1/18/2005 Biochemical Oxygen Demand lb/day 759 21011/18/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1098 14654/8/2005 Oil and Grease lb/day 206 3225/15/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 598 6111/10/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 777 14271/11/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 632 14531/12/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 530 139811/6/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 916 117311/7/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 555 118011/8/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 499 116911/15/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 476 82311/16/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 548 8343/12/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 742 93912/4/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1207 1149**3/17/2010 Biochemical Oxygen Demand lb/day 730 116412/12/2010 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 505 135512/14/2010 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 506 1478

Notes:*Monthly Average

**TSS Limit was exceeded by 58 lb/day. Ecology determined that the elevated TSS was due heavy rainfall, a total of 3.61" in previous three days. Both the stormwater and final holding ponds were full, so the stormwater in the ponds was not allowed an adequate time for settling. The high TSS result on December 4th was not considered of the TSS of the final effluent.

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX I: STORMWATER MONITORING DATA

Date BOD5 (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) COD (mg/l) O&G (mg/l) pH1st sample 2/16/2003 <3 34 27 10 72nd sample 11/15/2003 <4 2.4 27 <5 71st sample 2/25/2004 <3 <3 40 <5 6.12nd sample 8/24/2004 <4 2.5 26 <5 6.21st sample 3/16/2005 <3 5.2 32 <5 6.72nd sample 10/12/2005 <4 7.9 32 <5 6.71st sample 3/28/2006 <2 3.5 41 <5 6.32nd sample 10/18/2006 <3 27 6.2 <5 7.11st sample 6/15/2007 <3 4 <20 7.3 7.12nd sample 2/4/2008 <2.1 7.8 30 <5 6.41st sample 11/20/08 <2.6 2.2 32 <1.4 6.42nd sample 2/6/2009* <2.4 3.3 26 3.2 6.51st sample 4/17/2009 <2.6 6.8 39 <3.8 6.42nd sample 12/30/2009 <2.3 3 26 <3.2 6.31st sample 2/23/2010 <2.0 2.4 33.7 <2.5 6.22nd sample 5/18/2010 <1.8 4.5 28.9 <3.4 6.1Benchmark Values 5 25 60 15 6 to 9

Note: Earlier sampling attempt for 2nd sample of 2005 was cancelled due to inflow of rainwater from collection ditch outsiderefinery fence onto refinery property.*Represents 2nd sample for 2008 due to non-representative results from previous sample.

Parameter Unit3/2008

Characteristics 4/2009 12/2009 2/2010 5/2010Benchmark

ValuesOutfall 003 pH 6.8 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.0 to 9.0

BOD mg/l <2.1 <2.6 <2.3 2.6 6.2 5TSS mg/l 4.0 5.6 2 46 32 25Oil & Grease mg/l <5.0 <2.5 <3.2 <3.7 <4.3 15COD mg/l 36.0 30 35 32.1 55.8 60

Outfall 004 pH 7.2 6.6 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.0 to 9.0BOD mg/l 4.4 <2.6 <2.3 <2.0 <1.8 5TSS mg/l 44.0 <4.0 3.2 2.3 5 25Oil & Grease mg/l <5.0 <2.5 <2.3 <1.5 <3.2 15COD mg/l 47.0 41 35 28.9 41.4 60

Outfall 005 pH 7.0 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.0 to 9.0BOD mg/l 2.9 <2.6 <2.3 <2.0 14 5TSS mg/l 50.0 8.4 5.8 <2.1 76 25Oil & Grease mg/l 9.2 <2.4 <2.8 <3.8 <4.4 15COD mg/l 35.0 33 38 28.9 92.1 60

Storm Water Monitoring Results - Outfall 002

Storm Water Monitoring Results - Outfalls 003, 004, and 005

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX J - MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS

Model Input Parameter Units Outfall 001

Number of Ports 4 From Table 5-1 in Effluent Plumes Modeling Study in August 2001, ENSR Consulting.Port Diameter m 0.2 Same as abovePort Spacing (each leg is 1.66') m 0.716 Same as aboveDepth of Diffuser (MLLW) m 9.4 Same as abovePort Height m 0.43 Same as aboveVertical Angle Degree 0 Same as aboveAcute Zone m 7Chronic Zone m 70.4Horizontal Angle Degree 270 Same as aboveEffluent Temperature (90th percentile for the past 3 yrs from 2009-2011 ) ºC 32.8Acute Flow (Highest Daily Max. Values for the past 3-yrs from 2009-2011 ) MGD 5.24Chronic Flow (Highest Monthly Average Values for the past 3-yrs from 2009-2011 ) MGD 3.52Humman Health flow (Annual Average Values for the past 3-yrs from 2009-2011 ) MGD 2.31Ambient Temperature @ 95th percentile ºC 11.27 Long-term marine water quality data from GRG002. See calculation attached.

Ambient Current Velocity From Appendix A, Effluent Plumes Modeling Study, August 2001, ENSR Consulting.Acute (10th percentile) m/s 0.0238 Acute Chronic (50th percentile) m/s 0.0704 Chronic Model UM3 To maintain consistency with previous years modeling.

Dilution Factors

Acute 27Chronic 94Human Health Carcinogen 103Human Health Non-Carcinogen 103ACEC 3.7%CCEC 1.1%

(Result * Additional dilution due to farfield diffusion from Fig. 1 ENSR 1996)(Result * Additional dilution due to farfield diffusion from Fig. 1 ENSR 1996)(Result * Additional dilution due to farfield diffusion from Fig. 1 ENSR 1996)

Dilution Model Input ParameterReferences

From Discharge Monitoring Reports (Ecology's Guidance for Conducting Mixing Zone Analysis Section 1.3) From Discharge Monitoring Reports (Ecology's Guidance for Conducting Mixing Zone Analysis Section 1.3) From Discharge Monitoring Reports (Ecology's Guidance for Conducting Mixing Zone Analysis Section 1.3) From Discharge Monitoring Reports (Ecology's Guidance for Conducting Mixing Zone Analysis Section 1.3)

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

Using the 1995-plot

1. For chronic dilution factor, PLUMES model was run and the nearfield (not acute zone) dilution was estimated. End of nearfield = 5.2 meters Dilution factor at end of nearfield = 61.872. The farfield distance through which the plume grows to the edge of mixing zone (based on Brooks equation): 70.4 - 5.2 = 65.2 meters,, where 70.4 is the distance to the edge of the mixing zone.3. Based on Figure below for a distance of 65.2 meters, the farfield dilution factor is 2.184. Therefore the dilution factor at the edge of the chronic zone is 61.87 x 2.18 = 135

Table 1: Ambient

current anglePort Flow,

MGDHorizontal Port angle

Distance to end of nearfield, m

Additional distance to acute zone zone (7 m)…for cases where acute zone not

within nearfield

Dilution factor at acute zone or end of nearfield

Additional dilution due to farfield diffusion from

Figure 1 above

Total dilution factor

1.3 270 7 0 27 1 27

Table 2: Ambient current angle

Horizontal Port angle

Distance to end of nearfield, m

Additional distance to chronic zone (70.4 m)

Dilution factor at end of nearfield Additional dilution due to farfield diffusion from Figure 1

Total dilution factor

90 180 4.7* 65.7 43 2.18 94

90 180 3.8* 66.6 47 2.2 103*** distance along plume centerline ** For Human Health Carcinogen

Two plots were developed in 1995 (page 3-14, Figure 3-6 of the Final Report on Dilution and Reasonable Potential Analysis for Tosco Refining and Marketing Company, ENSR, November 1995). ENSR used the prediction plot from Figure 3-6 of the report (which is included here) in estimating the farfield dilution factor. The process will be illustrated using Nancy Kmet’s example for the original Tosco dilution study (Nancy Kmet, memorandum dated February 27, 1996, TOSCO Refining Company Dilution Ratio Study). Please note that Nancy used a dispersion coefficient of 0.0003 in her model, but this was never used to predict dilution factor at the edge of the chronic mixing zone.

Phillips 66 diffuser has four ports oriented east (0°), west (180°), north (90°) and south (270°). An initial modeling effort suggested that the plumes do not merge within the mixing zone and a single port was therefore modeled. This was confirmed with Walter Frick. The ambient current direction is either north (90°) or south (270°). The ports are 0.2 m in diameter with a vertical angle of 0.

For Acute Dilution Factor: A flow of 1.3 MGD per port (total flow 5.24 MGD) was used. Only the most restrictive horizontal angle of 270-degrees was used. Table 1 shows the results of the models runs for acute mixing zone. An acute dilution factor of 27 is the most restrictive.

For Chronic Dilution Factor: A flow of 0.88 MGD per port (total flow 3.52 MGD) was used. Table 2 shows the results of the model runs for chronic mixing zone. Only the most restrictive horizontal angle of 180-degrees was used. A dilution factor of 94 at the edge of chronic zone is the most restrictive.

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

5 .. 0 ,_ 4. 5 0

-T-" (.) 4.0 0 ~ 3 .5 c 0 3 .0 -......... :;:::::::. 2. 5

0 2 .0 --o

Q) 1 .5 ~ I 1 .o !I-0

0.5 1.L...

0 .0

Pre>dic ted For-fie I d D i lut io n. F' <01ctor for- C dtico~ C h ron ic Con d i"tions

0

I ' I I 11 " L "' I I I I I II i 4 I i i I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I~ I 4 L I I I I I I Jii i I I I I i I 11 1 I ' I I I IIII I I 1 I J I I I I I I I f I I I I I II I I ., r'i 1 • ·n I !I _

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

D i sta nee f r-om the Outfa II , rn

Consui'Ung • Eng]neerfncJ • IRemnialtco

AGURE 1

MODEL CALIIBRAT.~ON AND FAR-FJ EL D DILUTION

PRED~CTED FACTORS

Tosco Refining orrc Morketing Comp a ny F"erndo~e,. Wash inoton

IJRAWN~ T K/IKCM' PR<Q.JECT NO: 5752- 01 Q--«110

1 00

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX K - TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS

The Water Quality temperature guidance document may be found at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0610100.html

INPUT May-Sep Oct-Apr

1. Chronic Dilution Factor at Mixing Zone Boundary 94 94

2. Annual max 1DADMax Ambient Temperature (Background 90th percentile) 11.8 °C 11.8 °C

3. 1DADMax Effluent Temperature (95th percentile) 33.3 °C 27.0 °C

4. Aquatic Life Temperature WQ Criterion 13.0 °C 13.0 °C

OUTPUT

5. Temperature at Chronic Mixing Zone Boundary: 12.03 °C 11.96 °C

6. Incremental Temperature Increase or decrease: 0.23 °C 0.16 °C

7. Incremental Temperature Increase 12/(T-2) if T< crit: 1.22 °C 1.22 °C

8. Maximum Allowable Temperature at Mixing Zone Boundary: 13.00 °C 13.00 °C

A. If ambient temp is warmer than WQ criterion

9. Does temp fall within this warmer temp range? NO NO

10. Temp increase allowed at mixing zone boundary, if required: --- ---

B. If ambient temp is cooler than WQ criterion but within 12/(Tamb-2) and within 0.3 °C

of the criterion

11. Does temp fall within this incremental temp. range? NO NO


C. If ambient temp is cooler than (WQ criterion-0.3) but within 12/(Tamb-2) of the criterion

13. Does temp fall within this Incremental temp. range? YES YES

14. Temp increase allowed at mixing zone boundary, if required: NO LIMIT NO LIMIT

D. If ambient temp is cooler than (WQ criterion - 12/(Tamb-2))

15. Does temp fall within this Incremental temp. range? NO NO


17. Do any of the above cells show a temp increase? NO NO

18. Temperature Limit if Required? NO LIMIT NO LIMIT

This discharge is hot (warmer than 33ºC). You must evaluate the discharge

with a different dilution model to determine if the discharge can cool to

below 33ºC in 2 seconds of travel time.

Since Visual Plumes does not include cooling factor in the model run, the below evaluation is used:

From the Acute output data of the most restrictive horizonal 270 degree is used, the effluent velocity is 2.743 m/s and the current velocity is 0.0238 m/s.

For current and effluent are in the same direction, the velocity is 2.7668 m/s (2.743 m/s + 0.0238 m/s)

For current and effluent are in the opposite direction, the velocity is 2.7192 m/s (2.743 m/s - 0.0238 m/s)

For conservative analysis, velocity of 2.7192 m/s is used

After 2 second, the plume travels to 5.44 m (2.7192 m/s * 2 s = 5.44 m)

At 5.44 m the acute dilution factor is approximately 19 (from output data for acute analysis).

From the Marine T-mix analysis for Temperature Analysis, the discharge can cool to below 33 degrees C at the dilution factor of 1.015.

The dilution factor of 19 after 2 seconds is significantly greater than the dilution factor of 1.015.

Therefore, the evaluation concludes that Phillips 66's discharge will not exceed 33 degrees C for more than 2 seconds after discharge.

Determination whether Phillips 66's discharge can cool to below 33⁰C in 2 seconds of travel time.

Marine T-mixT-Mix is based on WAC 173-201A-200(1)(c)(i)--(ii) and Water Quality Program Guidance.

Notes:

All Data inputs must meet WQ guidelines.

of 147

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0610100.html

Wet Season Dry Season

Month Max. Temperature Oct-April May-Sept.

Jan-02 66 66 79

Feb-02 66 66 85

Mar-02 70 70 85

Apr-02 81 81 85

May-02 79 74 80

Jun-02 85 68 82

Jul-02 85 66 84

Aug-02 85 67 86

Sep-02 80 64 82

Oct-02 74 77 81

Nov-02 68 70 79

Dec-02 66 76 83

Jan-03 67 67 86

Feb-03 64 66 85

Mar-03 77 68 82

Apr-03 70 70 84

May-03 82 71 86

Jun-03 84 73 87

Jul-03 86 78 87

Aug-03 82 66 84

Sep-03 81 68 81

Oct-03 76 70 85

Nov-03 67 71 88

Dec-03 66 73 84

Jan-04 68 80 81

Feb-04 70 72 79

Mar-04 71 66 86

Apr-04 73 63 86

May-04 79 62 86

Jun-04 83 62 83

Jul-04 86 72 82

Aug-04 85 78 86

Sep-04 82 76 87

Oct-04 78 64 86

Nov-04 66 62 84

Dec-04 68 65 84

Jan-05 70 64 92

Feb-05 71 59 96

Mar-05 73 67 92

Apr-05 80 77 88

May-05 84 72 87

Jun-05 86 66 86

Jul-05 87 66 90

Aug-05 87 72 95

Sep-05 84 73 84

Oct-05 72 76 80

Nov-05 66 82 84

Dec-05 63 73 88

Jan-06 62 70 90

Feb-06 62 74 84

Mar-06 72 78

Apr-06 78 78

of 147

Month Max. Temperature Oct-April May-Sept.

May-06 81 81

Jun-06 85 80

Jul-06 88 72

Aug-06 84 72

Sep-06 81 78

Oct-06 76 79

Nov-06 64 79

Dec-06 62 85

Jan-07 65 78

Feb-07 64 74

Mar-07 59 70

Apr-07 67 70

May-07 79 72

Jun-07 86 79

Jul-07 86 78

Aug-07 86 78

Sep-07 83 76

Oct-07 77 72

Nov-07 72

Dec-07 66

Jan-08 66

Feb-08 72 95th Percentile 80.6 27.0 C 92 33.3 C

Mar-08 73

Apr-08 76

May-08 82

Jun-08 86

Jul-08 87

Aug-08 86

Sep-08 84

Oct-08 82

Nov-08 73

Dec-08 70

Jan-09 74

Feb-09 78

Mar-09 78

Apr-09 81

May-09 84

Jun-09 92

Jul-09 96

Aug-09 92

Sep-09 88

Oct-09 80

Nov-09 72

Dec-09 72

Jan-10 78

Feb-10 79

Mar-10 79

Apr-10 85

May-10 87

Jun-10 86

Jul-10 90

Aug-10 95

Sep-10 84

Oct-10 78

of 147

Month Max. Temperature

Nov-10 74

Dec-10 70

Jan-11 70

Feb-11 72

Mar-11 79

Apr-11 78

May-11 80

Jun-11 84

Jul-11 88

Aug-11 90

Sep-11 84

Oct-11 78

Nov-11 76

Dec-11 72

of 147

APPENDIX L - REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS FOR AQUATIC

LIFE

Metal Criteria

Translator as decimal

Metal Criteria


Ambient Concentration (metals as

dissolved) Acute Chronic

Acute Mixing Zone

Chronic Mixing Zone LIMIT REQ'D?

Effluent percentile value

Max effluent conc.

measured (metals as total

recoverable)Coeff

Variation# of

samples Multiplier

Acute Dil'n

Factor

Chronic Dil'n

Factor

Parameter Acute Chronic ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L CV s nACENAPTHENE 83329 1B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ACROLEIN 107028 1V 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ACRYLONITRILE 107131 2V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ALKALINITY 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ALDRIN 309002 1P 0.71 0.0019 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ALUMINUM, total recoverable, pH 6.5-9.0 7429905 45.2 43.53 44.72 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94AMMONIA unionized -see seperate spreadsheets for FW criteria 16.0 7310 1100 332.86 107.01 NO 0.95 0.972 9900.00 0.60 0.55 104 0.87 27 94ANTHRACENE 120127 3B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ANTIMONY (INORGANIC) 7440360 1M 0.29 0.08 0.95 0.473 3.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ARSENIC (dissolved) 7440382 2M 1.00 69 36 18.39 5.28 NO 0.95 0.473 192.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ARSENIC (inorganic) 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ASBESTOS 1332214 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ATRAZINE 760.00 26.00 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94BACTERIA 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94BENZENE 71432 3V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BENZIDINE 92875 4B 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 56553 5B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BENZO(a)PYRENE 50328 6B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 205992 7B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BENZO(k) FLUORANTHENE 207089 9B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BERYLLIUM 7440417 3M 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BHC - ALPHA 319846 2P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94BHC - BETA 319857 3P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94BHC - GAMMA 58899 4P (Lindane) 0.16 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94BHC - DELTA 319868 5P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111444 11B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER 39638329 12B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117817 13B 3.97 1.14 0.95 0.473 41.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BROMOFORM 75252 5V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE 85687 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94CADMIUM - 7440439 4M Hardness dependent 0.994 0.994 0.0590 42.00 9.3 0.07 0.06 NO 0.95 0.473 < 0.10 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94Based on hardness in next column 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56235 6V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94CHLOROBENZENE 108907 7V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94CHLORDANE 57749 6P 0.09 0.004 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124481 8V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94CHLORIDE (dissolved) in mg/L 16887006 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 942-CHLORONAPTHALENE 91587 16B 0.95 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 27 94CHLORINE (Total Residual) 7782505 13 7.50 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHLOROETHYL ETHER (BIS - 2) 111444 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHLOROFORM 67663 11V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER (BIS-2) 108601 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 942-CHLOROPHENOL 95578 1A 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 944-CHLOROPHENOL 106489 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDES(2,4-D) 94757 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHLORPYRIFOS 2921882 0.011 0.0056 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHROMIUM(HEX) 18540299 0.993 0.993 1100 50 0.29 0.08 NO 0.95 0.473 3.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94CHROMIUM(TRI) -16065831 5M Hardness dependent 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94Based on hardness in next column 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CHRYSENE 218019 18B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94COLOR 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94COPPER - 744058 6M Hardness dependent 0.83 0.83 0.6730 4.80 3.10 0.89 0.73 NO 0.95 0.473 3.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94Based on hardness in next column 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94CYANIDE 57125 14M 9.10 2.80 1.92 0.55 NO 0.95 0.473 20.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DDT 50293 7P 0.13 0.001 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94DDT METABOLITE (DDE) 72559 8P 0.13 0.001 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94DDT METABOLITE (DDD) 72548 9P 0.13 0.001 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 53703 19B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147



LIFE

Metal Criteria


Metal Criteria




Acute Mixing Zone



Max effluent conc.


recoverable)Coeff

Variation# of

samples Multiplier

Acute Dil'n

Factor

Chronic Dil'n

Factor

Parameter Acute Chronic ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L CV s n

DIBUTYLPHTHALATE 84742 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 941,2 DICHLOROBENZENE 95501 20B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 941,3 DICHLOROBENZENE 541731 21B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 941,4 DICHLOROBENZENE 106467 22B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 943,3 DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91941 23B 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE 75274 12V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 941,2 DICHLOROETHANE 107062 15V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 941,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE 75354 16V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 942,3 DICHLOROPHENOL 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 942,4 DICHLOROPHENOL 120832 2A 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 942,5 DICHLOROPHENOL 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 942,6 DICHLOROPHENOL 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 941,2 DICHLOROPROPANE 78875 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 941,3 -DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542756 18V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DIELDRIN 60571 10P 0.71 0.0019 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94DIETHYLPHTHALATE 84662 24B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 942,4 DIMETHYLPHENOL 105679 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DIMETHYLPHTHALATE 131113 25B 0.95 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 27 94DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84742 26B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 942-METHYL-4,6 -DINITROPHENOL 534521 4A 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 942,4-DINITROPHENOL 51285 5A 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DINITROTOLUENE 2,4 121142 27B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DINITROTOLUENE 2,6 606202 28B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DIOXIN (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 1746016 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 941,2 DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 122667 30B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94DI-2-ETHYLHEXYLPHTHALATE 117817 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ENDOSULFAN a 959988 11P, b 33213659 12P 0.034 0.0087 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 1031078 13P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ENDRIN 72208 14P 0.037 0.0023 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7421934 15P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ETHYLBENZENE 100414 19V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94FLUORANTHENE 206440 31B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94FLUORENE 86737 32B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94GASSES, TOTAL DISSOLVED 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94HEPTACHLOR 76448 16P 0.0530 0.0036 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1024573 17P 0.0530 0.0036 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118741 33B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 87683 34B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE-ALPHA 319846 2P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE-BETA 319857 3P 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE-GAMMA (lindane) 58899 4P 0.16 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77474 35B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94HEXACHLOROETHANE 67721 36B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 193395 37B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94IRON 7439896 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94ISOPHORONE 78591 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94LEAD - 7439921 7M Dependent on hardness 0.951 0.95 0.1460 210.00 8.10 0.32 0.20 NO 0.95 0.473 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94

Based on hardness in next column c 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94MANGANESE 7439965 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 942-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 943-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 59507 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 943-METHYL-6-CHLOROPHENOL 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94METHYL BROMIDE 74839 20V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75092 22V 0.24 0.07 0.95 0.473 < 2.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94MERCURY 7439976 8M 0.85 0.0010 1.80 0.0250 0.01 0.00 NO 0.95 0.473 < 0.10 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94MONOCHLOROBENZENE 108907 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94NAPHTHALENE 91203 39B 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94NICKEL - 7440020 9M - Dependent on hardness 0.99 0.99 74.00 8.20 2.46 0.71 NO 0.95 0.473 26.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147



LIFE

Metal Criteria


Metal Criteria




Acute Mixing Zone



Max effluent conc.


recoverable)Coeff

Variation# of

samples Multiplier

Acute Dil'n

Factor

Chronic Dil'n

Factor

Parameter Acute Chronic ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L CV s n

Based on hardness in next column 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94NITROBENZENE 98953 40B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 942-NITROPHENOL 88755 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94NITRATE/NITRITE (N) 449.76 129.19 0.95 0.224 3200.00 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 27 94NITROSAMINES 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94NITROSODIBUTYLAMINE N 924163 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94NITROSODIETHYLAMINE, N 55185 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N 62759 41B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94N- NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621647 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N 86306 43B 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94NITROSOPYRROLIDINE, N 930552 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94OIL AND GREASE 462.79 132.93 0.95 0.996 21800.00 0.60 0.55 740 0.57 27 94OXYGEN DISSOLVED 7782447 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94PARATHION 56382 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94PENTACHLOROBENZENE 608935 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87865 8A (pH dependent in 13.00 7.90 0.19 0.06 NO 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94fresh water) Enter pH in next cell>>>>>>>> 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94pH 7.0 - 8.5 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94PHENOL 108952 10A 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94PHOSPHORUS-ELEMENTAL 7723140 0.10 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) 53469219, 11097691, 1104282, 11141165, 12672296, 11096825, 12674112 18P- 10 0.03 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94PYRENE 129000 45B 0.03 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.30 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94SELENIUM 7782492 10M 290 71 3.54 1.02 NO 0.95 0.473 37.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94SILVER - 7740224 11M dependent on hardness. 0.85 1.90 0.02 0.01 NO 0.95 0.473 < 0.20 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94Based on hardness in next column 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94SOLIDS,DISSOLVED AND SALINITY 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94SOLIDS,SUSPENDED AND TURBIDITY 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94SULFIDE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783064 2.0 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94TETRACHLOROETHANE 1,1,2,2 79345 23V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 127184 24V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TETRACHLOROPHENOL 2,3,4,6 95954 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94THALLIUM 7440280 12M 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TOLUENE 108883 25V 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.473 0.70 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TOXAPHENE 8001352 25P 0.21 0.0002 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 941,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 156605 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TRIBUTYLTIN (TBT) 0.37 0.010 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94TRICHLOROBENZENE 1,2,4 120821 0.10 0.03 0.95 0.473 < 1.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,1 71556 27V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 79005 28V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TRICHLOROETHYLENE 79016 29V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,5 95954 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 88062 11A 0.19 0.06 0.95 0.473 < 2.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94VINYL CHLORIDE 75014 31V 0.05 0.01 0.95 0.473 < 0.50 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94ZINC- 7440666 13M hardness dependent 0.946 0.946 3.9000 90.00 81.00 12.81 6.46 NO 0.95 0.473 100.00 0.60 0.55 4 2.59 27 94Based on hardness in next column 0.95 0.60 0.55 27 94

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS FOR HUMAN HEALTH

Ambient Concentrati

on (Geometric LIMIT REQ'D?

AVERAGE MONTHLY EFFLUENT

LIMIT

MAXIMUM DAILY

EFFLUENT LIMIT

Max effluent conc.

measuredCoeff

Variation MultiplierDilution Factor

Parameter ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L CV S nACENAPTHENE 83329 1B 990.00 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103ACROLEIN 107028 1V 780 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103ACRYLONITRILE 107131 2V 0.66 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103ALKALINITY 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ALDRIN 309002 1P 0.00014 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ALUMINUM, total recoverable, pH 6.5-9.0 7429905 45.2 44.76 0.50 0.60 0.6 103AMMONIA unionized -see seperate spreadsheets for FW criteria 16.0 15.84 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ANTHRACENE 120127 3B 110000 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103ANTIMONY (INORGANIC) 7440360 1M 4300 0.03 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 3.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103ARSENIC (dissolved) 7440382 2M 1.94 0.50 0.47 192.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103ARSENIC (inorganic) 0.14 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ASBESTOS 1332214 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ATRAZINE 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103BACTERIA 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103BENZENE 71432 3V 71 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BENZIDINE 92875 4B 0.00054 0.02 Undetermined 0.1 0.1 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 56553 5B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BENZO(a)PYRENE 50328 6B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 205992 7B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BENZO(k) FLUORANTHENE 207089 9B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BERYLLIUM 7440417 3M 0.01 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BHC - ALPHA 319846 2P 0.013 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103BHC - BETA 319857 3P 0.046 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103BHC - GAMMA 58899 4P (Lindane) 0.063 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103BHC - DELTA 319868 5P 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111444 11B 1.4 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER 39638329 12B 170000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117817 13B 5.9 0.42 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 41.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BROMOFORM 75252 5V 360 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE 85687 1900 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CADMIUM - 7440439 4M Hardness dependent 0.0590 0.06 0.50 0.47 0.10 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103Based on hardness in next column 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56235 6V 4.40 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CHLOROBENZENE 108907 7V 21000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CHLORDANE 57749 6P 0.00059 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124481 8V 34 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CHLORIDE (dissolved) in mg/L 16887006 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1032-CHLORONAPTHALENE 91587 16B 1600.00 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CHLORINE (Total Residual) 7782505 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHLOROETHYL ETHER (BIS - 2) 111444 1.40 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHLOROFORM 67663 11V 470 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER (BIS-2) 108601 170000 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1032-CHLOROPHENOL 95578 1A 150.00 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1034-CHLOROPHENOL 106489 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDES(2,4-D) 94757 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHLORPYRIFOS 2921882 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHROMIUM(HEX) 18540299 0.03 0.50 0.47 3.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103CHROMIUM(TRI) -16065831 5M Hardness dependent 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103Based on hardness in next column 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103CHRYSENE 218019 18B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103COLOR 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103COPPER - 744058 6M Hardness dependent 0.6730 0.70 0.50 0.47 3.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103Based on hardness in next column 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103

Calculated 50th

percentile

Water Quality

Criteria for Protection of

Human Health

Max concentration

at edge of chronic mixing

zone.

# of samples

from which # in col. K

was taken

Expected

Number of

Compliance Samples per

Estimated Percentile at 95% Confidence

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147


Ambient Concentrati



LIMIT

MAXIMUM DAILY

EFFLUENT LIMIT

Max effluent conc.

measuredCoeff


Parameter ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L CV S n

Calculated 50th

percentile

Water Quality


Human Health

Max concentration


zone.

# of samples


was taken

Expected

Number of



CYANIDE 57125 14M 220000 0.20 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 20.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DDT 50293 7P 0.00059 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103DDT METABOLITE (DDE) 72559 8P 0.00059 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103DDT METABOLITE (DDD) 72548 9P 0.00084 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 53703 19B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DIBUTYLPHTHALATE 84742 12000 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1031,2 DICHLOROBENZENE 95501 20B 17000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1031,3 DICHLOROBENZENE 541731 21B 2600 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1031,4 DICHLOROBENZENE 106467 22B 2600 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1033,3 DICHLOROBENZIDINE 91941 23B 0.077 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE 75274 12V 22 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1031,2 DICHLOROETHANE 107062 15V 99 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1031,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE 75354 16V 3.20 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1032,3 DICHLOROPHENOL 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1032,4 DICHLOROPHENOL 120832 2A 790.00 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1032,5 DICHLOROPHENOL 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1032,6 DICHLOROPHENOL 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1031,2 DICHLOROPROPANE 78875 39.00 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1031,3 -DICHLOROPROPYLENE 542756 18V 1700 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DIELDRIN 60571 10P 0.00014 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103DIETHYLPHTHALATE 84662 24B 120000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1032,4 DIMETHYLPHENOL 105679 850.00 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DIMETHYLPHTHALATE 131113 25B 2900000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DI-n-BUTYL PHTHALATE 84742 26B 12000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1032-METHYL-4,6 -DINITROPHENOL 534521 4A 765 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1032,4-DINITROPHENOL 51285 5A 14000 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DINITROTOLUENE 2,4 121142 27B 9.10 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DINITROTOLUENE 2,6 606202 28B 0.01 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DIOXIN (2,3,7,8-TCDD) 1746016 0.000000014 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1031,2 DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 122667 30B 0.54 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103DI-2-ETHYLHEXYLPHTHALATE 117817 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ENDOSULFAN a 959988 11P, b 33213659 12P 2.0 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 1031078 13P 2.0 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ENDRIN 72208 14P 0.81 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ENDRIN ALDEHYDE 7421934 15P 0.81 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ETHYLBENZENE 100414 19V 29000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103FLUORANTHENE 206440 31B 370 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103FLUORENE 86737 32B 14000 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103GASSES, TOTAL DISSOLVED 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103HEPTACHLOR 76448 16P 0.00021 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 1024573 17P 0.00011 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103HEXACHLOROBENZENE 118741 33B 0.00077 0.01 Undetermined 0.1 0.2 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 87683 34B 50 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE-ALPHA 319846 2P 0.013 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE-BETA 319857 3P 0.046 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE-GAMMA (lindane) 58899 4P 0.063 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE 77474 35B 17000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103HEXACHLOROETHANE 67721 36B 8.90 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 193395 37B 0.031 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103IRON 7439896 0.50 0.60 0.6 103ISOPHORONE 78591 600 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103LEAD - 7439921 7M Dependent on hardness 0.1460 0.16 0.50 0.47 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103

Based on hardness in next column c 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

anlo461

Typewritten Text


Ambient Concentrati



LIMIT

MAXIMUM DAILY

EFFLUENT LIMIT

Max effluent conc.

measuredCoeff



Calculated 50th

percentile

Water Quality


Human Health

Max concentration


zone.

# of samples


was taken

Expected

Number of



MANGANESE 7439965 100.00 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1032-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1033-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 59507 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1033-METHYL-6-CHLOROPHENOL 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103METHYL BROMIDE 74839 20V 4000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75092 22V 1600 0.03 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103MERCURY 7439976 8M 0.0010 0.15 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.10 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103MONOCHLOROBENZENE 108907 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103NAPHTHALENE 91203 39B 0.01 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103NICKEL - 7440020 9M - Dependent on hardness 4600 0.26 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 26.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103Based on hardness in next column 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103NITROBENZENE 98953 40B 1900 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 1032-NITROPHENOL 88755 0.02 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103NITRATE/NITRITE (N) 47.35 0.50 0.22 3200.00 0.60 0.6 2 1.52 103NITROSAMINES 1.24 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103NITROSODIBUTYLAMINE N 924163 0.220 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103NITROSODIETHYLAMINE, N 55185 1.24 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N 62759 41B 8.10 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103N- NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621647 0.51 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N 86306 43B 16 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103NITROSOPYRROLIDINE, N 930552 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103OIL AND GREASE 48.73 0.50 1.00 21800.00 0.60 0.6 740 0.23 103OXYGEN DISSOLVED 7782447 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103PARATHION 56382 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103PENTACHLOROBENZENE 608935 1.50 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87865 8A (pH dependent in 8.20 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103fresh water) Enter pH in next cell>>>>>>>> 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103pH 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103PHENOL 108952 10A 4600000 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103PHOSPHORUS-ELEMENTAL 7723140 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) 53469219, 11097691, 1104282, 1114116 0.000170 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103PYRENE 129000 45B 11000 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.30 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103SELENIUM 7782492 10M 4200.00 0.37 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 37.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103SILVER - 7740224 11M dependent on hardness. 0.00 0.50 0.47 < 0.20 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103Based on hardness in next column 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103SOLIDS,DISSOLVED AND SALINITY 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103SOLIDS,SUSPENDED AND TURBIDITY 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103SULFIDE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783064 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103TETRACHLOROETHANE 1,1,2,2 79345 23V 11.00 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 127184 24V 8.85 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TETRACHLOROPHENOL 2,3,4,6 95954 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103THALLIUM 7440280 12M 6.30 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TOLUENE 108883 25V 200000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 0.70 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TOXAPHENE 8001352 25P 0.00075 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 1031,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 156605 140000 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TRIBUTYLTIN (TBT) 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103TRICHLOROBENZENE 1,2,4 120821 940 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 1.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,1 71556 27V 0.01 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 79005 28V 42.00 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TRICHLOROETHYLENE 79016 29V 81.00 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,5 95954 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 88062 11A 6.50 0.02 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 2.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103VINYL CHLORIDE 75014 31V 525 0.01 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147


Ambient Concentrati



LIMIT

MAXIMUM DAILY

EFFLUENT LIMIT

Max effluent conc.

measuredCoeff



Calculated 50th

percentile

Water Quality


Human Health

Max concentration


zone.

# of samples


was taken

Expected

Number of



ZINC- 7440666 13M hardness dependent 3.9000 4.87 0.50 0.47 100.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 103Based on hardness in next column 0.00 0.50 0.60 0.6 103

Note: "NO" indicates maximum detected concentration is lower than the Water Quality Standards"Undetermined" indicates that these compounds were not measured at detectable levels. In those cases the detection limit was used as the maximum effluent concentration measured. The method detection limit exceeds the water quality standards. Or there are no Water Criteria for Protection of Human Health for those parameters.

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX M - WET AND HERRING TESTING RESULTS

Sample Date Start Date Lab Organism Endpoint %Survival01/23/02 01/23/02 EVS fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 82.50%

01/10/06 01/10/06 EVS fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 97.50%

01/10/06 01/10/06 CANTEST daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.00%

06/14/06 06/14/06 EVS fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100.00%

06/14/06 06/14/06 EVS daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 0.00%

Sample Date Start Date Lab Organism Endpoint NOEC LOEC PMSD01/23/02 01/23/02 EVS fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 10.96%

01/10/06 01/10/06 EVS fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 >100 10.86%

01/10/06 01/10/06 CANTEST Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 >100 5.00%


06/14/06 06/14/06 EVS Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 25 50 13.88%

Sample Date Start Date Lab Organism Endpoint NOEC LOEC PMSD7-day Survival 70 >70 9.5%

Biomass 35 70 15.0%

Weight 70 >70 14.9%

7-day Survival 69 >69 8.7%

Development 69 >69 9.2%

7-day Survival 71.5 >71.5 10.0%

Biomass 35.8 71.5 21.2%

Weight 35.8 71.5 19.1%

Survival 17.6 35.2 6.9%

Development 8.8 17.6 1.5%

7-day Survival 70.6 >70.6 10.4%

Development 70.6 >70.6 10.4%

7-day Survival 36.2 72.4 10.1%

Biomass 36.2 72.4 21.3%

Weight 36.2 >36.2 20.2%

Survival <3.2 3.2 2.9%

Development <3.2 3.2 1.0%

7-day Survival 36 72.1 14.1%

Biomass 36 72.1 22.8%

Weight 36 >36 25.4%

Survival 3.2 9.1 5.1%


7-day Survival 35 70 16.1%

Biomass 35 70 22.6%

Weight 35 >35 34.5%

Survival 9.3 18.5 4.8%

Development <3.2 3.2 0.9%

Phillips 66 Acute WET Test Results as % Survival in 100% Effluent

Phillips 66 Acute WET Test Results as NOEC/LOEC in % Effluent

Phillips 66 Chronic WET Test Results as NOEC/LOEC in % Effluent

One test result exhibits less than 65% survival in 100% effluent, therefore acute limit is required.

12/9/2003 12/9/2003 EVS topsmelt

12/9/2003 12/9/2003 EVS sheepshead minnow

2/18/2004

2/18/2004 2/18/2004 EVS sheepshead minnow

4/28/2004 4/28/2004 EVS topsmelt

2/18/2004 EVS topsmelt

2/18/2004 2/18/2004 EVS mussel

6/16/2004 6/17/2004 EVS mussel

8/25/2004 8/25/2004 EVS topsmelt

4/28/2004 4/28/2004 EVS mussel

6/16/2004 6/16/2004 EVS topsmelt

8/25/2004 8/25/2004 EVS mussel

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

7-day Survival 17.5 35 17.4%

Biomass 3.2 9 17.6%

Weight 9 17.5 15.3%

7-day Survival 100 >100 1.6%Development 50 100 22.8%

Survival 3.2 9.1 4.3%



Biomass 17 34 18.5%

Weight 68 >68 18.0%

Survival 71.8 >71.8 9.0%

Development

7-day Survival 100 >100 6.3%

Development 50 100 7.2%

7-day Survival 17.5 35 10.6%

Biomass 17.5 35 16.1%

Weight 17.5 >17.5 15.9%


Biomass 68 >68 26.1%

Weight 68 >68 17.4%

7-day Survival 100 >100 4.5%

Development 50 100 15.3%

7-day Survival 69.3 >69.3 16.7%

Biomass 34.7 69.3 22.7%

Weight 69.3 >69.3 22.3%

Survival 70.6 >70.6 7.6%


7-day Survival 35 70 13.5%

Biomass 35 70 26.4%

Weight 35 70 26.1%

Survival 36.6 73.3 10.1%


Sample Date Start Date Lab Organism Endpoint %Survival01/30/07 01/30/07 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 95.00%

01/30/07 01/30/07 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 92.50%

09/19/07 09/20/07 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 0.00%








Phillips 66 Acute Herring Test Results as % Survival in 100% Effluent

There were four test results exhibited the LOEC ≤ ACEC (3.2%), therefore chronic limit is required.

10/20/2004 11/28/2006 EVS rainbow trout

10/20/2004 11/28/2006 EVS mussel

10/20/2004 11/17/2006 EVS topsmelt

anomalous


12/8/2004 12/8/2004 EVS topsmelt

12/8/2004 12/8/2004 EVS mussel


3/29/2006 11/7/2006 EVS topsmelt

7/6/2005 7/6/2005 EVS topsmelt

12/14/2005 12/14/2005 EVS topsmelt

6/14/2006 6/14/2006 EVS sand dollar

3/29/2006 3/29/2006 EVS purple sea urchin

6/14/2006 6/14/2006 EVS topsmelt

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147







Sample Date Start Date Lab Organism Endpoint NOEC LOEC PMSD01/23/02 01/23/02 EVS fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 10.96%


01/10/06 01/10/06 CANTEST Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 >100 5.00%


06/14/06 06/14/06 EVS Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 25 50 13.88%

01/30/07 01/30/07 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 100 >100 14.52%

01/30/07 01/30/07 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 100 >100 6.45%

09/19/07 09/20/07 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 50 100 26.44%

05/21/08 05/22/08 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 25 100 20.96%





03/26/09 03/27/09 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 50 100 12.60%








Phillips 66 Acute Herring Test Results as NOEC/LOEC in % Effluent

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX N - GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA

Wells identification No. MWGWIS-1 MWGWIS-2 MWGWIS-3 MWGWIS-4 MWGWIS-5 MWGWIS-6 MWGWIS-7 MWGWIS-8 MWGWIS-9 MWCIII-91-9Metal Units GWQS MTCA GW Criteria 11/9/2005 11/8/2005 11/8/2005 11/9/2005 11/8/2005 11/8/2005 11/8/2005 11/8/2005 11/9/2005 11/9/2005Arsenic mg/l 0.00005 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBarium mg/l 1 0.56 0.112 0.172 0.103 0.0964 0.0965 0.372 0.101 0.164 0.193 0.0853Cadmium mg/l 0.01 0.008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChromium mg/l 0.05 2400 ND ND ND ND ND 0.0664 ND 0.0201 0.0105 0.0171Lead mg/l 0.05 NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIron mg/l 0.3 NV 0.294 2.4 2.06 1.1 4.54 43.7 3.04 12.1 7.97 12.5Manganese mg/l 0.05 2.24 0.381 5.51 0.191 0.26 0.171 1.91 0.171 2.89 0.616 0.372Mercury mg/l 0.002 0.0048 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

InorganicsChloride mg/l 250 NV 7.58 134 37.7 16.7 2.44 27.4 9.31 24.2 44.1 22Fluoride mg/l 4 NV ND ND 0.297 ND 0.378 ND 0.225 0.612 ND 0.23Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/l 10 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.258 ND ND 0.233Nitrite-Nitrogen mg/l NV 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAmmonia-Nitrogen mg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.135 ND ND NDSulfate mg/l 250 NV 32.2 5.83 21.5 38.6 16.9 189 60.1 190 38.2 52.7Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 500 NV 460 1400 440 640 240 910 470 880 620 290Total Alkalinity mg/l NV NV 348 986 288 471 174 582 273 441 388 150

Volatile OrganicsBenzene µg/l 1 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDToluene µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEthylbenzene µg/l NV 700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDTotal Xylenes µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Semivolatile OrganicsAcenaphthene µg/l NV 960 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthalene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAnthracene µg/l NV 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) anthracene µg/l NV 1 0.0329 0.0314 ND 0.0276 ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) pyrene µg/l 0.008 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (b) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (k) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (ghi) perylene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChrysene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibenzo (a,h) anthracene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluoranthene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluorene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNaphthalene µg/l NV 160 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenanthrene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPyrene µg/l NV 480 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

GROUNDWATER DATA FOR 2ND QUARTERWells identification No. MWGWIS-1 MWGWIS-2 MWGWIS-3 MWGWIS-4 MWGWIS-5 MWGWIS-6 MWGWIS-7 MWGWIS-8 MWGWIS-9 MWCIII-91-9Metal Units GWQS MTCA GW Criteria 1/26/2006 1/26/2006 1/26/2006 1/26/2006 1/25/2006 1/25/2006 1/25/2006 1/25/2006 1/25/2006 1/25/2006Arsenic mg/l 0.00005 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBarium mg/l 1 0.56 0.0688 0.119 0.0792 0.081 0.0504 0.0572 0.0723 0.0785 0.109 NDCadmium mg/l 0.01 0.008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChromium mg/l 0.05 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

GROUNDWATER DATA FOR 1ST QUARTER

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

Lead mg/l 0.05 NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIron mg/l 0.3 NV ND 1.27 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDManganese mg/l 0.05 2.24 0.265 6.16 0.0962 0.124 0.0986 0.926 ND 4.13 0.419 NDMercury mg/l 0.002 0.0048 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

InorganicsChloride mg/l 250 NV 8.99 133 30.6 19.6 3.14 27.8 14.5 21.3 44.2 22.7Fluoride mg/l 4 NV ND ND 0.268 ND 0.349 ND 0.22 0.649 ND 0.274Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/l 10 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.224Nitrite-Nitrogen mg/l NV 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAmmonia-Nitrogen mg/l NV NV ND 0.165 ND ND ND ND 0.135 ND ND NDSulfate mg/l 250 NV 33.6 7.29 21.3 43.4 19.9 196 73.4 157 37.9 58.5Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 500 NV 340 940 350 350 230 890 500 730 200 280Total Alkalinity mg/l NV NV 348 919 308 476 175 578 346 436 406 199

Volatile OrganicsBenzene µg/l 1 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.504 ND NDToluene µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEthylbenzene µg/l NV 700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.03 ND NDTotal Xylenes µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.48 ND ND

Semivolatile OrganicsAcenaphthene µg/l NV 960 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthalene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAnthracene µg/l NV 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) anthracene µg/l NV 1 0.0478 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) pyrene µg/l 0.008 0.012 0.0312 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (b) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0275 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (k) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0429 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (ghi) perylene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChrysene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0472 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibenzo (a,h) anthracene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0325 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluoranthene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluorene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0338 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNaphthalene µg/l NV 160 ND ND 0.416 ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenanthrene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPyrene µg/l NV 480 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

GROUNDWATER DATA FOR 3RD QUARTERWells identification No. MWGWIS-1 MWGWIS-2 MWGWIS-3 MWGWIS-4 MWGWIS-5 MWGWIS-6 MWGWIS-7 MWGWIS-8 MWGWIS-9 MWCIII-91-9Metal Units GWQS MTCA GW Criteria 4/19/2006 4/19/2006 4/19/2006 4/19/2006 4/19/2006 4/19/2006 4/20/2006 4/20/2006 4/20/2006 4/20/2006Arsenic mg/l 0.00005 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBarium mg/l 1 0.56 0.0518 0.117 0.0702 0.0676 ND 0.0528 0.0638 0.0623 0.0809 NDCadmium mg/l 0.01 0.008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChromium mg/l 0.05 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDLead mg/l 0.05 NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIron mg/l 0.3 NV ND 1.27 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDManganese mg/l 0.05 2.24 0.111 6.56 0.0197 0.0782 ND 0.798 ND 4.09 0.302 NDMercury mg/l 0.002 0.0048 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

InorganicsChloride mg/l 250 NV 9.68 121 24 18.9 3.27 26.1 16.2 17.2 43.8 23Fluoride mg/l 4 NV ND ND 0.287 ND 0.35 ND 0.225 0.927 ND 0.23

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/l 10 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.313Nitrite-Nitrogen mg/l NV 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAmmonia-Nitrogen mg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.108 ND NDSulfate mg/l 250 NV 36.2 8.07 23.8 47.3 17.2 240 95.7 196 24.6 82.9Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 500 NV 410 1200 380 470 220 980 600 630 540 360Total Alkalinity mg/l NV NV 280 853 288 445 160 622 306 379 362 159

Volatile OrganicsBenzene µg/l 1 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDToluene µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEthylbenzene µg/l NV 700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.884 ND NDTotal Xylenes µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 2.2 ND ND

Semivolatile OrganicsAcenaphthene µg/l NV 960 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthalene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAnthracene µg/l NV 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) anthracene µg/l NV 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) pyrene µg/l 0.008 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (b) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (k) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (ghi) perylene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChrysene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibenzo (a,h) anthracene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluoranthene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluorene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNaphthalene µg/l NV 160 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenanthrene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPyrene µg/l NV 480 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

GROUNDWATER DATA FOR 4TH QUARTERWells identification No. MWGWIS-1 MWGWIS-2 MWGWIS-3 MWGWIS-4 MWGWIS-5 MWGWIS-6 MWGWIS-7 MWGWIS-8 MWGWIS-9 MWCIII-91-9Metal Units GWQS MTCA GW Criteria 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006 7/6/2006Arsenic mg/l 0.00005 0.005 ND 0.198 ND ND ND 0.186 ND ND ND NDBarium mg/l 1 0.56 0.0534 0.111 ND 0.0611 ND 0.0517 0.0579 0.0617 0.0685 NDCadmium mg/l 0.01 0.008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChromium mg/l 0.05 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDLead mg/l 0.05 NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIron mg/l 0.3 NV ND ND 0.291 ND ND ND ND 0.227 ND NDManganese mg/l 0.05 2.24 0.0637 7.7 0.0159 0.0728 ND 0.518 ND 3.3 0.188 NDMercury mg/l 0.002 0.0048 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

InorganicsChloride mg/l 250 NV 7.34 137 23.8 19.4 3.54 25.3 18.4 21.5 43.3 23.9Fluoride mg/l 4 NV ND ND 0.227 ND 0.306 ND ND 0.668 ND NDNitrate-Nitrogen mg/l 10 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.244Nitrite-Nitrogen mg/l NV 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAmmonia-Nitrogen mg/l NV NV 0.11 0.18 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDSulfate mg/l 250 NV 35.2 5.83 25.4 45.4 18.4 197 90.4 176 41.5 78.2Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 500 NV 1300 1300 400 590 230 1000 590 810 580 330Total Alkalinity mg/l NV NV 272 904 289 445 157 545 341 395 410 151

Volatile Organics

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

Benzene µg/l 1 5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDToluene µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEthylbenzene µg/l NV 700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDTotal Xylenes µg/l NV 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Semivolatile OrganicsAcenaphthene µg/l NV 960 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthalene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAnthracene µg/l NV 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) anthracene µg/l NV 1 0.0201 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0741Benzo (a) pyrene µg/l 0.008 0.012 0.0228 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (b) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0232 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0389Benzo (k) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0231 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0715Benzo (ghi) perylene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChrysene µg/l NV 0.012 0.03 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0737Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0283 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluoranthene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.144Fluorene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene µg/l NV 0.012 0.0256 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNaphthalene µg/l NV 160 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenanthrene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPyrene µg/l NV 480 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.137

Note: "Blue" means greater than GWQS"Red" means greater than MTCA GW CriteriaNV - No valueND - Not detected

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

Metal Units GWQS MTCA GW Criteria Storm Spill Clarification Final Catchment Storm Spill Clarification Final Catchment DewateringArsenic mg/l 0.00005 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBarium mg/l 1 0.56 ND ND 0.108 ND 0.102 ND ND 0.108 ND 0.0779 NDCadmium mg/l 0.01 0.008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChromium mg/l 0.05 2400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0676Lead mg/l 0.05 NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIron mg/l 0.3 NV 0.264 0.719 ND 1.63 0.24 ND ND ND ND ND 2.07Manganese mg/l 0.05 2.24 0.0703 0.194 0.04 0.357 0.043 0.0103 0.0231 0.0474 0.056 0.0451 0.374Mercury mg/l 0.002 0.0048 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.000439

InorganicsChloride mg/l 250 NV 6.6 17.2 399 35.6 358 4.52 4.81 264 8.21 261 21.1Fluoride mg/l 4 NV 3.99 23 142 10.7 190 1.82 7.96 125 4.56 112 56.1Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/l 10 1.6 ND ND 0.709 2.33 0.637 0.402 ND ND 0.693 ND 0.79Nitrite-Nitrogen mg/l NV 1.6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen mg/l NV NV 0.291 0.0644 ND 0.483 0.0181 0.576Ammonia-Nitrogen mg/l NV NV ND ND 3.96 1.98 4.15 0.17 ND 2.95 0.49 2.21 8.46Sulfate mg/l 250 NV 30.9 61.2 61.2 450 2330 18 39.2 1940 30.5 1890 173Total Dissolved Solids mg/l 500 NV 130 420 4000 580 4200 100 160 3800 140 3400 640Total Alkalinity mg/l NV NV 46.3 138 188 46.5 197 42.2 53.9 116 43 229 81.1

Volatile OrganicsBenzene µg/l 1 5 ND ND ND 0.994 ND ND ND ND ND ND NDToluene µg/l NV 1000 ND 1.17 ND 1.37 ND ND ND ND ND ND NDEthylbenzene µg/l NV 700 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDTotal Xylenes µg/l NV 1000 ND 2.13 ND ND ND ND ND 1.26 ND ND ND

Semivolatile OrganicsAcenaphthene µg/l NV 960 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAcenaphthalene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDAnthracene µg/l NV 2400 0.862 ND 0.246 ND 0.247 ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) anthracene µg/l NV 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (a) pyrene µg/l 0.008 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.119 ND ND NDBenzo (b) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (ghi) perylene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDBenzo (k) fluoranthrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDChrysene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDDibenz (a,h) anthracene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluoranthene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDFluorene µg/l NV 640 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDIndeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene µg/l NV 0.012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDNaphthalene µg/l NV 160 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPhenanthrene µg/l NV NV ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NDPyrene µg/l NV 480 2.08 0.21 0.125 0.151 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

BASIN WATER QUALITY DATAFebruary 2006October 2005

of 147

Note:"Blue" means greater than GWQS"Red" means greater than MTCA GW CriteriaNV - No valueND - Not detected

of 147

i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I

APPENDIX O - PERFORMANCE-BASED MONITORING REDUCTION FREQUENCIES

OUTFALL 001 BOD COD TSS Oil & Grease Phenolics Ammonia as N Sulfide Fecal Coliform

Units lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day Colonies/100mlsMonthly Average permit limit in current permit 370 2550 295 110 2.2 225 2 200Daily maximum permit limit in current permit 665 4930 460 200 4.94 494 4.3 400Long-term average (geometric mean for fecal coliform) 165 852 191 44 0.3 34 0 11Long-term average / monthly average permit limit (% basis) 45% 33% 65% 40% 14% 15% 0% 6%Maximum of the monthly averages 416 1701 331 97 102 0 68

Maximum Value 812 3533 1358 453 2 161 0 280Current permit monitoring frequency 2/7 7/7 7/7 7/7 1/7 1/7 1/7 2/7Policy monitoring recommendations 2/mo 3/7 4/7 3/7 1/2mos 1/2mos 1/2mos 1/moProposed permit monitoring frequency 2/7 7/7 7/7 7/7 1/7 1/7 monthly 2/7

Note:The long-term average data is from the daily discharge monitoring results for the 12-months period, April 1, 2005 through April 1, 2006.

anlo461

Typewritten Text

anlo461

Typewritten Text

of 147

APPENDIX P – RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

of 147

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS


3901 Unick Road Ferndale, Washington 98248

NPDES Permit No. WA000298-4

October 25, 2013

Ecology published notice of an opportunity to comment on the renewal of NPDES Permit No. WA000298-4 in the Ferndale Record and the Bellingham Herald on April 25, 2012. The proposed permit will allow the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery to discharge treated process wastewater and stormwater to the Strait of Georgia and unnamed tributary to Lummi Bay. In the notice, Ecology invited public review of the proposed permit and provided a 60-day public comment period. The deadline for submittal of written comments was June 25, 2012. Ecology received written comments from three entities. Comments were received from:

1. Mount Baker Sierra Club, Llyn Doremus/Friends of the Earth, Marcie Keever/ RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, Wendy Steffensen/ People for Puget Sound, Heather Trim

2. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Richard Smith 3. Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery, Marjorie Hatter

Internal comments were also received from Ecology’s Water Quality Program. We included all of the comments received in this document. We summarized the comments, where appropriate, to save time and space. The original comments comprise part of the legal record for this permit. The record is available for public review at Ecology’s Industrial Section office in Lacey, WA. Anyone interested in reading the full text of the comments or in obtaining a copy of a particular comment should call or e-mail Liem Nguyen in Lacey at (360) 407-6955 or [email protected]. Comments appear in regular text, followed by Ecology’s response in italicized text. Ecology will send a copy of this response to comments to each individual who provided comments.

of 147

Comments from Sierra Club/Friends of the Earth/RE Sources/People for Puget Sound (1.-20.)

1. The inclusion of herring toxicity tests and annual monitoring for priority pollutants are very much appreciated as we try to limit pollution and protect our water and biological resources.

Comment noted.

2. We are concerned that the 2012 Draft Permit has limitations that are drastically higher than performance from the last five years. For example, the last permit allowed an average monthly value of 225 lbs/day of ammonia; however the highest amount of ammonia detected was 74.0 lbs/day, only 32.9% of the allowed limit. The draft permit increases this amount from 225 lbs/day to 330 lbs/day, under the assumption that the facility needs increased limits based on increased throughput. Clearly, based on past performance, the limits do not have to be increased to this extent as the facility can meet more stringent standards.

The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to limit water pollution. In fact, the stated goal of the Clean Water Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants by 1985. To eliminate discharges we must first reduce them. ConocoPhillips has done a very good job of keeping their discharges below the limits in the 2002 permit from Ecology, which leads us to think that the limits are set too high and have become meaningless. For example, the average monthly limits for biological oxygen demand, oil & grease, ammonia, sulfide, and phenolics have been met easily by ConocoPhillips. Their averages are approximately 26% of the limit or lower. We ask that Ecology impose limits on

Parameter

Average Monthly Values (lbs/day)

Limit Average Discharge Highest Amount

Discharged

Ammonia 225 7.4 (3.3% of 225) 74.0 (32.9% of 225)

BOD 370 82.1 (22.2% of 370) 249.0 (67.3% of 370)

COD 2550 681.6 (26.7% of 2550) 1112.0 (43.6% of 2550)

Phenolics 2.2 0.2 (8.25% of 2.2) 2.2 (100% of 2.2)

Sulfide 2 0.0 (0% of 2) 0.0 (0% of 2)

of 147

ConocoPhillips that reflect the reality of their performance. These limits should not impose a punishment; rather they should reflect reality and be placed at what is currently achievable. Strictly applying statistically-derived, performance-based limits punishes good performers and rewards bad performers. The permit includes conditions that require ConocoPhillips (now Phillips 66) to properly operate and maintain its wastewater treatment system and to evaluate and implement measures to reduce pollution. These conditions require Phillips 66 to maintain or improve upon its superior wastewater treatment system performance as recorded during the last permit cycle.

3. We understand that Ecology has determined that the permit meets AKART guidelines. Actual performance, however, reveals that all of the refineries can outperform “AKART” standards by a large degree. We believe that a survey of all refinery discharges is necessary prior to the re-issuance of the ConocoPhillips permit. Ecology should compare refinery discharges and treatment methods among all refineries and use this information to better the effluent quality at all Washington State refineries. The overall goal should be to lower limits across the board for refineries because these lower limits are technologically achievable and lowered limits will ensure that refineries continue to innovate and tighten up their process control. EPA conducted extensive studies of the U.S. refineries in developing the federal effluent guidelines. EPA studied the refinery industry again in 1996 and 2004, reviewing treatment technologies, pollutants discharged, pollutant loadings, and water quality impacts. In preparing this permit, Ecology compared current information for the ConocoPhillips refinery with the data that formed the basis for the effluent guidelines and the data from the 1996 and 2004 studies. Please see the response to Comment #2 regarding changes to limits.

4. The Cherry Point herring are in decline and reached an all-time low of 774 tons in 2010. Cherry Point herring are an integral part of the local food chain and are important food for migrating waterfowl and salmon. On page 39 of the fact sheet, Ecology admits that ConocoPhillips’ discharges have the reasonable potential to impair the Cherry Point herring’s beneficial use of the receiving waters. Toxicity tests for acute and chronic effects on herring are necessary. We are very glad that these tests appear in the permit to gather information about the potential effect of ConocoPhillips discharge on herring. We would like to see Ecology fast-track the validation of these tests so that they can be used in compliance monitoring as soon as possible.

of 147

The last of the three herring protocols, the larval survival and growth test, has been validated and approved for regulatory use. The final report on Pacific herring test development and validation can be found at the following link: www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/1110086.html.

5. The permit should include an actual enforceable herring toxicity testing effluent limitation instead of just the monitoring and response requirement found in Condition S9. If ConocoPhillips’ discharge is found toxic to herring, this should be considered a permit violation.” Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing, including herring toxicity testing, is used to determine if toxicity exists. If toxicity is found, Ecology is interested in what might be causing the toxicity and eliminating it. Phillips 66 will be considered to be out of compliance with their permit if toxicity persists and they do not complete the follow up requirements – including additional testing and submittal of a toxicity investigation plan. WET limits are assigned to permittees required to conduct compliance monitoring under Chapter 173-205. The herring tests are for screening purposes only and not for compliance monitoring. In accordance with WAC 173-205-050(1)(d), test methods used for effluent characterization or compliance monitoring must be published by EPA or approved by Ecology in accordance with a list of specific criteria. Herring tests do not meet either of these conditions, and whole effluent toxicity limits are only enforceable based upon EPA toxicity test results at this time.

6. We request that the herring bioassays be done under UV light, in order to account for UV enhanced toxicity of PAHs to herring. UV exposure was not included in herring test method development and validation. Until UV exposure has been incorporated into herring toxicity test methods and validated for regulatory use, it is not available, even for effluent screening.

7. During the last five years of DMRs reported to Ecology there was no sulfide detected. Why is Ecology raising the limit on sulfide when sulfide has not been detected in over five years? We ask that Ecology retain the original limit on sulfide, and not increase it. Condition S1.A. was revised to retain the sulfide limits from the 2002 permit.

8. The Fact Sheet states that stormwater discharges from Outfalls 002-005 must meet the water quality criteria, however only benchmarks are given to assess the stormwater

of 147

discharges. Benchmarks are convenient for general permits but are not effective or appropriate for individual permits; there should be limits on the stormwater parameters. We ask that Ecology perform a potential analysis to ensure that discharges do not contribute to violations of water quality standards and set actual discharge limits for stormwater. Benchmarks are intended to be indicators. They are used to determine if a stormwater discharge merits further monitoring and corrective action. Discharges that do not exceed benchmark values are not likely to violate water quality standards. Ecology did not perform a reasonable potential analysis of the stormwater discharges at Outfalls 002-005 in the specific manner described in the Water Quality Program Permit Writer’s Manual, Publication No. 92-109 (December 2011). However, Ecology reviewed the historical discharge data for these outfalls. Based upon Ecology’s experience and the analysis that led to the benchmarks developed for the Industrial Section Stormwater General Permit, Ecology determined that values at or below the benchmark values in the proposed permit are unlikely to cause a water quality violation.

9. We also ask that Ecology characterize the tributaries which receive waters from Outfall 002 (Unnamed Tributary to Lummi Bay) and Outfalls 003-005 (Unnamed Tributary to Strait of Georgia). These streams may support sensitive species such as salmon and need to be better protected from pollutants. WAC 173-201A-600(1)(a)(iv) requires that all fresh surface waters that are tributaries to extraordinary quality marine waters are to be protected for core summer salmonid habitat. Lummi Bay and the Strait of Georgia are designated as extraordinary quality marine waters. Water quality criteria for fresh water are developed to provide protection for designated uses. Fresh water designated uses and criteria are defined in WAC 173-201A-200.

10. Our reading of the results of the testing shows that acute toxicity has already been demonstrated. It is, thus, unclear why immediate retesting has not occurred, per WAC regulations, and is being put off until the second year. In accordance with WAC 173-205-070(1) and WAC 173-205-090, please require the retesting of the acute herring tests immediately. Condition S7.A. was revised to change the timing of acute toxicity testing. Phillips 66 will be required to begin acute toxicity testing within 90 days of the effective date of the permit.

of 147

11. Section S7E “Response to Noncompliance with the Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity” refers to submittal of a Toxicity Identification/ Reduction Evaluation plan if additional testing shows failure of acute tests. It does not specify a timeline for implementing such a test nor how the results will be used. The permit needs to spell these unknowns out in detail such that there is a mechanism to reduce toxicity in the near-term. Condition S7.E. specifies a schedule for additional testing and submittal of a TI/RE plan if an acute toxicity test shows a statistically significant difference in response between the ACEC and the control. It is difficult to predict what actions might need to be taken beyond these requirements until we can review and evaluate the results of the acute toxicity testing and what is proposed in the TI/RE plan. Identifying an unknown toxicant or toxic interaction between multiple chemicals is a major challenge. The scope of this challenge cannot be known until the Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation has made at least some progress toward the goal. Progress depends on having an effluent sample with the same degree and type of toxicity. Effluent toxicity is usually highly variable and many attempts may be needed to even begin the toxicity identification process. RCW 90.48.520 requires the Department of Ecology to incorporate all known, available, and reasonable methods to control toxicants when issuing or renewing wastewater discharge permits. Methods of control cannot be known or available until after unknown toxicants or toxic interactions between chemicals have been identified. Arbitrarily setting a timeline for control of effluent toxicity is not reasonable until the causes and methods of control are known.

12. Our reading of the results of the testing shows that chronic toxicity has already been demonstrated. It is, thus, unclear why immediate retesting has not occurred, per WAC regulations, and is being put off until the second year. In accordance with WAC 173-205-070(2) and WAC 173-205-090, please require the retesting of the chronic herring tests immediately. Condition S8.C. requires Phillips 66 to begin chronic toxicity testing within 90 days of the effective date of the permit. Compliance testing will be conducted quarterly for the remainder of the permit term.

13. Section S8D “Response to Noncompliance with the Effluent Limit for Chronic Toxicity” refers to submittal of a Toxicity Identification/ Reduction Evaluation plan if additional testing shows failure of acute tests. It does not specify a timeline for implementing such a test nor how the results will be used. The permit needs to spell these unknowns out in detail such that there is a mechanism to reduce toxicity in the near-term.

of 147

Condition S8.D. specifies a schedule for additional testing and submittal of a TI/RE plan if a chronic toxicity test shows a statistically significant difference in response between the CCEC and the control. It is difficult to predict what actions might need to be taken beyond these requirements until we can review and evaluate the results of the chronic toxicity testing and what is proposed in the TI/RE plan. Identifying an unknown toxicant or toxic interaction between multiple chemicals is a major challenge. The scope of this challenge cannot be known until the Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation has made at least some progress toward the goal. Progress depends on having an effluent sample with the same degree and type of toxicity. Effluent toxicity is usually highly variable and many attempts may be needed to even begin the toxicity identification process.

RCW 90.48.520 requires the Department of Ecology to incorporate all known, available, and reasonable methods to control toxicants when issuing or renewing wastewater discharge permits. Methods of control cannot be known or available until after unknown toxicants or toxic interactions between chemicals have been identified. Arbitrarily setting a timeline for control of effluent toxicity is not reasonable until the causes and methods of control are known.

14. According to the fact sheet, water quality-based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the Surface Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). We cannot find any evidence that the limits were calculated to ensure that sediment quality standards were not exceeded. We do find, however, that phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and dibenzofuran, exceed the sediment management standards in 2 sediment samples on the acute mixing zone boundary. It is likely that exceedances would be higher than this closer to the outfall. Phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and dibenzofuran have not been detected in Phillips 66’s effluent. These constituents are typically found in materials treated with creosote. The sediment contamination in the vicinity of the outfall is believed to be due to the deteriorating pilings and structural members that make up the dock structures at the site. Phillips 66 is currently engaged in a pile replacement project that replaces creosote piles and support members with steel piles at a rate of 20 piles per year.

15. Sediment sampling concentrated along the acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries does not appear appropriate (2005 Sediment Sampling and Analysis Report). According to the Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, Permit Writers Manual, “The

of 147

Water Quality Standards allow the use of mixing zones for discharges that would otherwise exceed the water quality criteria for aquatic life. Mixing zones are areas where the water quality standards may be exceeded but the exceedances are small enough and short enough so as not to interfere with beneficial uses. Mixing zones are a regulatory recognition that the concentrations and effects of most pollutants diminishes rapidly after discharge due to dilution. (Publication no. 92-109, Revised December 2011, page VI-6). Mixing zones are, thus, meant to address water quality issues, not sediment issues.

As a solution to the sediment exceedances, Ecology has asked that sediment be recharacterized. In addition, we ask the following:

o A calculation of potential to exceed sediment management standards based on the effluent discharges

o Recharacterization of sediments in and around the discharge pipe, including sediments that are within the footprint the acute mixing zone.

A solution to remediate sediments and limit the source of contaminants to sediments, should they be found to still be above SMS criteria. Condition S11. requires Phillips 66 to recharacterize the sediment toxicity in the vicinity of Outfall 001. Phillips 66 must prepare a Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan for Ecology’s review and approval following guidance provided in the Sediment Source Control Standards User Manual: Appendix B and current Puget Sound Estuary Program Protocols. These documents provide guidance for locating sediment sampling stations within mixing zones. The Sediment Management Standards set forth a process for managing sources of sediment contamination (WAC 173-204-400 through 173-204-420). Specific aspects of this process include:

• A requirement that discharges with the potential to impact sediments have received all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART) prior to discharge

• Monitoring procedures for evaluating the potential for a discharge to impact the receiving sediments

• Procedures for determining whether a discharge is eligible for a sediment impact zone (SIZ)

• Methods for determining appropriate restrictions on the SIZ (allowable areal

extent or level of contamination and biological effects)

of 147

• SIZ renewal, maintenance, and closure requirements

16. According to WAC 173-201A-300-330, the main task of tier 1 anti-degradation is to

maintain the current surface water quality. Is Ecology assuming that there will be no water quality degradation if the permittee is in compliance with the discharge limits? We believe that the need for mixing zones, the failures of WET tests, and the exceedance of sediment standards near the discharge pipe show degradation of water quality and sediments. Please address these in the context of antidegradation requirements. Tier 1 is used to ensure that existing and designated uses are maintained and protected. Ecology does this by focusing on fully applying the water quality criteria and correcting problems using our existing regulatory and TMDL processes.

17. Please explain how water quality degradation caused by the following conditions will be addressed:

• Non-compliance with discharge limits, including WET limits • An increase in throughput at the facility, leading to increased discharges • Natural changes, such as ocean acidification • Man-made accidents, such as oil spills

Please see the response to Comment #16. Regulatory processes that could address water quality antidegradation caused by the conditions mentioned include requiring AKART and TI/REs, carrying out water pollution control programs, and conducting compliance and enforcement activities.

18. We understand that the ponds currently have native clay bottoms and we ask that ConocoPhillips put in a capital improvement plan for improving the lining under the ponds. Lining the wastewater ponds has been included in the permit as a pollution prevention opportunity to consider during the next permit term.

19. We also reviewed the 2006 Groundwater Impact Study Wastewater Treatment Plan Basins ConocoPhillips Company Ferndale Refinery completed by Whatcom Environmental Services. It presents data collected during four quarters of sampling ten ground water monitoring wells that surround the detention ponds and receive discharge from the refinery production processes.

of 147

o The hydrogeology of the refinery vicinity is dominated by the presence of the Deming Glaciomarine Drift, a very low permeability glacial deposit, upon which groundwater accumulates as a perched, shallow aquifer. The groundwater gradient trends downward to the southwest, transporting groundwater to discharge at the Puget Sound shoreline about one-quarter mile downgradient (and down slope) from the ponds. Groundwater data collected for this report was recovered from samples taken from this shallow groundwater unit.

o The water quality analyses data from the four sampling events shows that there are

elevated levels of total suspended solids (TDS) and high levels of some of the other secondary regulated constituents. In addition, levels exceeding the MTCA criteria of chromium and some semi-volatile constituents (Chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)flouranthrene) were encountered. BTEX constituents were encountered at levels that did not exceed the MTCA standards.

o The high TDS values encountered, and the high variability in the TDS values measured in groundwater suggest that contaminants are infiltrating in “slugs” through the unlined detention ponds into the groundwater in the vicinity. The groundwater data presented in the report suggest that there is a high likelihood that contaminants infiltrating through the detention ponds are discharging at the Puget Sound shoreline. The relative proximity of the shoreline to which groundwater discharges, and the sensitive nature of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve that makes up the receiving waters along the shoreline, suggest that the most protective standards possible should govern groundwater discharging from the Conoco Phillips site.

The water in the perched shallow aquifer travels downward through Vashon till into the Cherry Point silt. The regional aquifer is in the Cherry Point silt at a depth of approximately 160 feet. The regional aquifer flows westward and discharges to the Strait of Georgia. Very little of the groundwater in the Bellingham Drift will reach the Cherry Point silt. The water will become attenuated in the lower portions of the Bellingham Drift because of the low hydraulic conductivity of the unit. The arsenic and semi-volatile results detected in the previous groundwater monitoring are questionable because the detected concentrations were not confirmed in re-sampling the wells. TDS concentrations are typically variable in groundwater at depths of 20-30 feet. With the variability of TDS in the upgradient, mid-gradient, and downgradient samples from the previous groundwater monitoring, it was difficult from to draw any conclusions. The groundwater monitoring required in the final permit will provide additional information to better evaluate any impacts from the wastewater ponds.

of 147

20. Additional groundwater sampling should be conducted from existing groundwater monitoring wells during the wet season (when the most of the detections were recorded in the report) to further examine the likelihood that contaminants are discharging to the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. Sampling frequency should be increased to bi-weekly or monthly to better characterize the variability in groundwater quality due to infiltration from the facility detention basins. For subsequent studies, groundwater quality data should also be collected from the four wells that were not characterized for this report (MW-CIII09108, MW-CIII-91-8, MW-C111-90-3 and MW-CIII-90-2). Condition S13. was revised to specify the groundwater monitoring well network to be sampled to determine the effects of any discharge from the wastewater ponds. Two upgradient wells (MW-GWIS-1 and MW-GWIS-4) were removed from the network. Downgradient well MW-CIII -91-8 was added to the network to check groundwater quality near the bluff. The other downgradient wells mentioned by the commenters (MW-CIII-90-3, MW-CIII-91-7, and MW-CIII-90-2) are going to be abandoned when the new railcar unloading facility is constructed. The frequency of groundwater monitoring was changed to quarterly in the final permit. A provision was added that allows Phillips 66 to petition Ecology to reduce monitoring frequency and/or the list of constituents after two years.

Comments from Puget Soundkeeper Alliance (21.-54.)

21. It appears that Ecology has not performed tier II anti-degradation analysis under WAC 173-201A-320, and that this analysis is required. Tier II analysis may apply where, as here, receiving waters meet water quality standards (i.e., are not 303(d)-listed). The fact sheet’s statement (p. 22) that tier I requirements apply is incorrect. WAC 173-201A-320(2) requires a tier II analysis for “new or expanded actions” authorized by an NPDES permit. Ecology’s tier II implementation guidance (Ecology publication no. 11-10-073) explains that the test for an “expanded action” is satisfied when there is an “increase (either monthly average or annual average) to an existing permitted concentration or permitted effluent mass limit (loading) to a water body greater than 10%.” Fact sheet table 7 (p. 16) shows that the proposed effluent limitations, in comparison to effluent limitations in the previous permit, represent an increase in allowed loading from Outfall 001 of more than 10% for biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease, phenolic compounds, and ammonia as N. Thus, the proposed NPDES permit is for an “expanded action” triggering tier II analysis. Why has Ecology not performed tier II analysis for this permit?

of 147

The effluent limits in the final permit were revised to reflect a 10% increase from 2002 permit levels. The 2002 effluent limits were in effect on July 1, 2003, the effective date for new or expanded actions as defined in WAC 173-201A-020. These limits were determined to be the initial baseline effluent mass loading rates. Should Phillips 66 want to increase effluent limits in the future, they will need to perform a Tier II analysis to demonstrate that additional increases do not cause a measurable degradation of water quality or that such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. The fact sheet was also revised to explain these changes.

22. WAC 173-201A-400(4) prohibits a mixing zone “unless the supporting information clearly indicates the mixing zone would not have a reasonable potential to cause a loss of sensitive or important habitat, substantially interfere with existing or characteristic uses of the water body, result in damage to the ecosystem, or adversely affect public health.” The fact sheet (p. 25) explains that these criteria are met for Outfall 001 because, in part, the permittee’s WET testing “indicates that there is no reasonable potential for acute or chronic receiving water toxicity.” How is this so if the WET testing is done with a concentration of effluent diluted to account for the dilution factor corresponding to the mixing zone? Isn’t the focus of WAC 173-201A-400(4) the effects of the discharge within the mixing zone, while the dilution factor is based on modeling of dilution at the edge of the mixing zone? Even so, as the fact sheet (p. 35) explains, the permittee has failed acute WET tests: “… tests on multiple samples demonstrated less than 65% survival in 100% effluent. One Daphnia magna test, four topsmelt tests, and two Pacific herring tests had less than 65% survival in 100% effluent.” How does this information “clearly indicate” that the mixing zone has no reasonable potential to interfere with important habitat or characteristic uses, or result in damage to the ecosystem, particularly given the degraded state of the Cherry Point herring stock? WAC 173-201A-400(5) says that water quality criteria shall not be violated outside of the boundary of a mixing zone as a result of the discharge for which the mixing zone was authorized. The ConocoPhillips permit is consistent with this standard and does not allow violations of water quality criteria outside the mixing zone. RCW 90.48.520 requires all known, available, and reasonable methods to control toxicity in wastewater discharges. This is a technology-based, not a water quality-based

of 147

provision. During the rulemaking for Chapter 173-205 WAC, a statistical analysis showed that most effluent samples produce 65% survival or better in a 100% concentration at the end of an acute toxicity test. Based upon this analysis and pursuant to instructions in RCW 90.48.520, WAC 173-205-050(2)(a)(i) applies an acute toxicity limit if any discharge sample produces less than 65% survival in 100% effluent at the end of any acute toxicity test done as a part of effluent characterization. Given that the determination of the need for an acute toxicity limit is made based upon undiluted (100%) sample, it is more stringent than would be a water quality-based determination which would consider dilution in the receiving water.

An acute toxicity limit applies the toxicity criteria in WAC 173-201A-240(1) in accordance with WAC 173-201A-400(8). WAC 173-201A-400(8) establishes the point of compliance for acute water quality criteria very near the end of pipe. The concentration of effluent at the acute point of compliance is called the acute critical effluent concentration or ACEC. The ACEC for Outfall 001 is 3.2% effluent. Phillips 66 has never had significant acute toxicity below 25% effluent in the 59 acute toxicity tests conducted since 1991. Test results do not show acute toxicity anywhere close to the point of compliance determined in accordance with WAC 173-201A-400(8).

23. With regard to the effects on herring, the fact sheet (p. 25) justification for satisfaction of the WAC 173-201A-400(4) prerequisite for a mixing zone asserts that “[t]here is no documented linkage between ConocoPhillips’ discharge at Outfall 001 and the reduction in the local herring population.” Here, Ecology has impermissibly shifted the burden of proof: WAC 173-201A-400(4) prohibits a mixing zone “unless the supporting information clearly indicates” that the specified reasonable potentials are not present. The burden is on the permittee and Ecology to demonstrate that the establishment of mixing zones will not harm the herring. The supporting information, particularly the failure of the herring toxicity testing, “clearly indicates” no such thing. The Outfall 001 mixing zones are not justified and should not be included in the permit. The Outfall 001 reasonable potential analysis should be redone without consideration of dilution and appropriate water quality-based numeric effluent limitations established for this discharge. There have been no acute toxicity tests (herring or otherwise) showing significant toxicity at the ACEC and no chronic toxicity tests showing significant toxicity at the chronic critical effluent concentration (CCEC = 0.8% effluent). There has been no significant acute or chronic toxicity since 1991 at the points of compliance established in accordance with WAC 173-201A-400. Even though water quality standards for toxicity have been consistently met, the toxicity “test failures” referred to in the comment have resulted in another effluent characterization for acute WET and a chronic WET limit in

of 147

the new permit. The assignment of a mixing zone for Phillips 66 has not resulted in water quality impairment. In accordance with Chapter 173-205 WAC, the new permit includes requirements to evaluate and limit effluent toxicity to make sure that water quality standards continue to be met.

24. The table in S1.A. of the draft permit specifies monitoring frequency for COD, TSS, and oil and grease as “7/wk.” Is Ecology’s intent that this monitoring be performed daily? If so, Soundkeeper suggests that this specification be changed to “daily,” as it is for feedstock rate, ballast water flow, and rainfall. It may be possible to interpret “7/wk” as satisfied when monitoring is performed more than once on a single day, particularly given the contrasting “daily” requirement for these other monitored parameters. For instance, “7/wk” can be satisfied by collecting 7 samples every Monday. Condition S1.A. has been revised to change the monitoring frequencies for COD, TSS, and oil and grease to “daily”.

25. Ship-borne invasive species pose a major threat to Puget Sound, both ecologically and economically. This permit must include conditions that eliminate the threat of invasive species as living and reproducing pollutants. Appended to this letter and incorporated by reference are recent comments submitted to EPA by the Alliance for the Great Lakes and other environmental organizations concerning a draft NPDES permit for ballast water (“Ballast Water Comments”). The Ballast Water Comments discuss the threat from ballast water discharges and the effectiveness of available treatment technologies.

In addition to notorious invasive species, such as the turnicate Didemnum vexillum, ballast water is known to contain human pathogens including E. coli, Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and epidemic strains of cholera.1 Has the authorized discharge been characterized for these pollutants or other invasive species? What provisions of the permit ensure that ballast water-borne invasive species will not be discharged to Puget Sound? At what point does the permittee’s ballast water enter the wastewater treatment system, and does this provide AKART for ballast water discharged through Outfall 001 as authorized by S1.B? Does this treatment ensure that discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards? The Ballast Water Comments identify particular on-board treatment technologies and note certain types of onshore treatment can be effective. Did Ecology consider on-board ballast water controls in conjunction with onshore treatment? If on-board treatment is expected, will any biocides from that treatment be present in the discharge from Outfall 001?

of 147

Ballast water discharges are considered to be one of the discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel for which only EPA has NPDES permitting authority. EPA’s Vessel General Permit (VGP) prohibits vessels from discharging ballast water to onshore treatment that does not meet the discharge standards in the VGP. The VGP becomes effective December 19, 2013. The ballast water discharge standards in the VGP were written for direct discharge from a vessel to receiving water after treatment in an onboard ballast water treatment system approved by the Coast Guard. EPA does not provide guidance on how to apply onboard treatment standards to onshore treatment technology. Onshore treatment technology is very different from onboard systems. Phillips 66 ballast water treatment likely removes living organisms but it is designed and operated to remove oil contamination. Phillips 66 has not treated ballast water in their wastewater treatment system since 2007. Should they plan to accept and treat ballast water in the future, EPA and the Coast Guard will need to evaluate the adequacy of Phillips 66’s wastewater treatment system to meet the VGP requirements.

26. EPA regulations require NPDES permits include monitoring requirements to assure compliance with permit limitations, 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1), which in this case includes AKART and compliance with water quality standards. What monitoring required by the permit will verify compliance with these limitations? Will monitoring for BOD and fecal coliform assure that the permittee is not discharging excessive amounts of pathogens such as cholera and Cryptosporidium spp. into Puget Sound? The Phillips 66 permit includes routine monitoring for indicator parameters such as oil and grease, COD, and TSS; priority pollutant monitoring; stormwater monitoring; monitoring for compliance with wastewater treatment system design criteria; monitoring of non-routine and unanticipated discharges; whole effluent toxicity testing; sediment monitoring; and groundwater monitoring. The fecal coliform test may indicate the presence of disease-carrying organisms which live in the same environment as fecal coliform bacteria, such as cholera and Cryptosporidium. It is very expensive and time consuming to test for specific pathogens in wastewater. Fecal coliform is typically used as an indicator of pathogen contamination. The BOD test is used to indicate the organic content or oxygen consuming capacity of the wastewater. It is not an indicator of microbial quality.

of 147

27. Condition S1.B. authorizes augmentation of the numerical effluent limitations on the Outfall 001 discharge through a stormwater allocation. Soundkeeper is concerned about the potential for misuse of this provision to allow discharges of process wastewater that exceed the effluent limitations. In particular, the permittee would be allowed to use the stormwater allocation to increase numeric effluent limitations whenever the flow from Outfall 001 exceeds the sum of the ballast water and the average dry weather flow of 1.71 mgd. However, according to S5.A., the maximum influent flow to the “IGF unit” is 1850 gpm, which amounts to 2.664 gpd (at 24 hours/day operation) and the refinery uses 2.8 mgd of water per day (fact sheet p. 4). These figures imply that actual process wastewater discharges are often substantially higher than the 1.71 mgd average dry weather flow. Tying the stormwater allocation provision to the actual discharge volume versus the average dry weather flow will allow the permittee to claim the stormwater allocation increase in effluent limitations even when there is little or no actual stormwater in the system but it is running above the average dry weather flow. Soundkeeper suggests that the stormwater allocation be based on actual precipitation as measured at the facility, with the degree of increase in the numeric effluent limitations calculated on the basis of measured precipitation. What provisions in the permit ensure that the permittee does not wrongly and selectively invoke the stormwater allocation to cover wastewater process discharges that would otherwise violate the numeric effluent limitations? What provision of the permit ensures that the stormwater allocation increase in the numeric effluent limitations is in proportion to actual precipitation? Why is the stormwater allocation provision not tied to precipitation measured at the facility? Although the refinery uses approximately 2.8 million gallons of water per day, as much as 50% is lost in the refining process as steam, evaporation, and drift, and smaller amounts can leave with the products. EPA considers the difference in wet and dry weather flows an appropriate method for determining contaminated stormwater volumes in the Guide for the Application of Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, June 1985. Contaminated stormwater is stormwater that has direct contact with any raw material, intermediate produce, finished product, by-product, or waste. At Phillips 66, contaminated stormwater is discharged to the oily water sewer, commingled with process wastewater, and treated in the wastewater treatment system. Condition S1.B. includes several provisions to ensure that stormwater allocations are used appropriately and only when needed. The stormwater measured through Outfall 001 is the difference between the measured effluent and the sum of ballast water plus the

of 147

average dry weather flow rate. This measurement represents the volume of stormwater that falls on contaminated areas in the refinery such as processing areas, product storage areas, raw material storage areas, tank farms, material loading/transfer areas, waste product storage areas, and wastewater treatment areas. During the summer months of June through October, Phillips 66 can only claim the stormwater allocation when it can be demonstrated that measurable rainfall has occurred at the refinery site during the previous 10 calendar days. Phillips 66 is required to measure precipitation daily. Ecology checks the use of the stormwater allocation when reviewing monthly discharge monitoring reports. Phillips 66 claimed the stormwater allocation 22 times during the last permit cycle, on the average 2 times per year for 2 parameters, and only for significant rainfall events. Appendix H of the fact sheet shows the dates when Phillips 66 claimed the stormwater allocation for TSS, BOD, and oil and grease.

28. The fact sheet (p. 4) notes an increase in the average processing per day of the refinery over the past couple of years. Has the nature or source of the feedstock changed in a way that may affect wastewater treatment or quality? Does the feedstock now comprise something different than only Prudhoe Bay and Canadian crude oil? Does this refinery process feedstock from Alberta tar sands or bitumen for any source? Due to the difference in the potential wastewater pollution concerns between crude oil and tar sands feedstock, the permit should require an engineering report and an application for modification of coverage before the refinery is permitted to use tar sands feedstock. The existing and projected crude sources for the Phillips 66 refinery consist primarily of mid-continental crudes from Canada and the United States. These crude sources include:

• ACCESS WESTERN BLEND • Albian Heavy • Cold Lake • Koch Alberta • Koch Alberta Sour • MSW Sweet Blend • Peace Sour • Rainbow • WAYBASCA

of 147

• SYNCRUDE IMPERIAL • Bakken • Pembina Condensate • Pembina Light Sour • Mixed Sweet Blend (MSW) • Long Lake Light Synthetic • Midale • Bow River South

Condition G4. requires Phillips 66 to notify Ecology of any planned changes at the refinery, including new crude sources, that will result in a significant change in the nature or quantity of pollutants discharged. Condition S10. requires a wastewater treatment efficiency study if Phillips 66 proposes material and substantial alterations to the refinery that could cause a material change in the quantity or composition of the influent processed by the wastewater treatment system.

29. The fact sheet (p. 9) notes that the permittee completed and submitted a two-phase pollution prevention plan in 2005, which Ecology reviewed. How did Ecology’s review of these plans inform its AKART determination for this permit? Are any of the options set forth in the 2005 plan known, available, and reasonable methods for treatment and control of pollutant discharges? If so, these pollution prevention measures should be mandated by this permit. The objective of the pollution prevention plan is to identify pollution prevention opportunities and implement those opportunities that are technically and economically achievable. Opportunities determined to be technically and economically feasible are considered to be known, available, and reasonable (AKART) and are required to be selected and scheduled for implementation. Ecology reviewed the 2005 pollution prevention plan and agreed with the opportunities selected for implementation. The 2011 pollution prevention plan progress report update showed that Phillips 66 implemented all 10 of the pollution prevention opportunities identified as technically and economically feasible in the 2005 pollution prevention plan.

30. The fact sheet indicates that the permittee’s previous acute WET testing on multiple samples demonstrated less than 65% survival in 100% effluent. Pursuant to WAC 173-205-050(2)(a), this means that there is a reasonable potential for acute toxicity and that an acute WET limit must be established as described in WAC 173-205-070. Instead of establishing an acute WET limit, draft permit condition S7. requires only additional effluent characterization. Why is there no acute WET limit in the permit and how it this omission consistent with WAC 173-205-050(2)?

of 147

The acute toxicity testing in the proposed permit was required pursuant to WAC 173-205-030(8). Acute toxicity testing was also performed in accordance with an agreed order requiring herring testing. None of this acute testing was conducted for the purpose of effluent characterization. Determinations under WAC 173-205-050(2) involve the results of effluent characterization. The draft permit requires another effluent characterization in response to recent acute toxicity, pursuant to WAC 173-205-060(3)(a). If any acute test result fails to meet the performance standard during the new effluent characterization, an acute WET limit and quarterly compliance testing will be triggered.

31. If the omission of an acute WET limit is somehow consistent with the applicable regulations, then the effluent characterization for acute WET should be conducted in the first year of the permit term under WAC 173-205-050(1). Why is acute WET testing not required until the second year of the permit term? Please see the response to Comment #10.

32. Under draft permit condition S7., if an acute WET limit is established on the basis of the second year effluent characterization, the provisions of S7.B. through E. are unclear about what constitutes a violation of this limit. S7.B. seems to clearly state that test results showing a statistically significant difference between the control and ACEC would be a permit violation. This is consistent with WAC 173-205-070(1). However, the last sentence of the second paragraph of S7.C. appears to relieve the permittee of any violation if the permittee “meet[s] the requirements of subsection E.” S7.E. is the required response to “noncompliance,” which requires retesting, reporting, and, potentially, the submission of a Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation plan. These measures cannot magically make the discharge non-toxic and compliant with the maximum daily discharge limitation. Instead, pursuant to WAC 173-205-090, these are the measures required of the permittee to restore it to compliance. (See WAC 173-205-090(2): “Any permittee failing the compliance test for a whole effluent toxicity limit shall take all reasonable actions to achieve compliance including conducting a toxicity identification/reduction evaluation….”) Under the draft permit’s provisions, is the permittee in violation of the permit if it fails to meet the “effluent limit for acute toxicity”? If not, and the permittee remains in compliance with the permit so long as it complies with the provisions of S7.E., how is this consistent with WAC 173-205-070(1)? In response to several environmental groups’ appeal of the BP permit, the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) ruled that Ecology needed to clarify when ongoing exceedances of a WET limit are violations of a permit. The PCHB’s decision states that when there is a statistically significant difference in survival between the control and the

of 147

ACEC, the Permittee is allowed to conduct additional testing to make sure that failure is not due to transient toxicity. If any of the 4 tests conducted in the additional testing fails, then that subsequent test result is a violation of the acute limit. Condition S7.E. was revised to be consistent with the PCHB ruling. It now reads “If any toxicity test conducted under subsection E.1. shows a statistically significant difference in response between the ACEC and the control, using the statistical test described in subsection C., then the test result is a violation of the permit. The Permittee must submit a Toxicity Investigation/Identification Evaluation (TI/RE) plan to Ecology within 60 days after the sample date [WAC 173-205-100(2)].” The provisions of the permit requiring subsequent testing and investigation after a WET limit exceedance are the enforcement consequence of the WET test failure. The steps in S7.E., which are consistent with the requirements of the WET rule, are designed to identify the toxicant causing the failure of the WET test and to investigate methods to prevent its toxic effects in the discharge. Compliance with these steps after a single WET test failure complies with the permit. WAC 173-205-070(1) describes the beginning of the process to detect and respond to effluent toxicity in violation of water quality standards. WAC 173-205-090 and 173-205-100 specify the steps to be taken to confirm the ongoing presence of effluent toxicity and then determine its cause and corrective measures. The permit requires these steps. Not performing the steps to detect, confirm, and fix effluent toxicity in a timely manner would clearly be a permit violation. The last sentence of the second paragraph of S7.C. merely reminds the permittee of this fact.

33. Under draft permit condition S8., it is unclear about what constitutes a permit violation. S8.A. seems to clearly state that test results showing a statistically significant difference between the control and CCEC would be a permit violation. This is consistent with WAC 173-205-070(2). However, the last sentence of the second paragraph of S8.B. appears to relieve the permittee of any violation if the permittee “meet[s] the requirements of subsection D.” S8.D. is the required response to “noncompliance,” which requires retesting, reporting, and, potentially, the submission of a Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation plan. These measures cannot magically make the discharge non-toxic and compliant with the maximum daily discharge limitation. Instead, pursuant to WAC 173-205-090, these are the measures required of the permittee to restore it to compliance. (See WAC 173-205-090(2): “Any permittee failing the compliance test for a whole effluent toxicity limit shall take all reasonable actions to achieve compliance including conducting a toxicity identification/reduction evaluation….”) Under the draft permit’s provisions, is the permittee in violation of the

of 147

permit if it fails to meet the “effluent limit for chronic toxicity”? If not, and the permittee remains in compliance with the permit so long as it complies with the provisions of S8.D., how is this consistent with WAC 173-205-070(2)? Condition S8.D. was revised to state “If any toxicity test conducted under subsection D.1. shows a statistically significant difference in response between the CCEC and the control, using the statistical test described in subsection B., then the test result is a violation of the permit. The Permittee must submit a Toxicity Investigation/Identification Evaluation (TI/RE) plan to Ecology within 60 days after the sample date [WAC 173-205-100(2)].” Please see the response to Comment #32. WAC 173-205-070(2) describes the beginning of the process to detect and respond to effluent toxicity in violation of water quality standards. WAC 173-205-090 and 173-205-100 specify the steps to be taken to confirm the ongoing presence of effluent toxicity and then determine its cause and corrective measures. The permit requires these steps. Not performing the steps to detect, confirm, and fix effluent toxicity in a timely manner would clearly be a permit violation. The last sentence of the second paragraph of S8.B. merely reminds the permittee of this fact.

34. Given the depletion of the Cherry Point herring stock, Soundkeeper supports the inclusion of herring toxicity testing in the permit. This testing should be coupled with an effluent limitation for herring whole effluent toxicity testing. We agree that the long decline of the Cherry Point herring population combined with a substantial drop in recruitment in 1996 make testing of effluents for toxicity to herring necessary. Even though circumstantial evidence indicates that the decline of the Cherry Point herring population is driven by mortalities of older fish while they are away from the spawning ground, it is important to screen effluents for toxicity to herring early life stages. Recovery of the population in the future will depend on successful reproduction and good recruitment. WET limits are assigned to permittees required to conduct compliance monitoring under Chapter 173-205. The herring toxicity testing proposed in the permit is not for compliance monitoring. It is to screen effluent samples for toxicity to Pacific herring and for investigating toxicity if it is found.

In accordance with WAC 173-205-050(1)(d), tests used for effluent characterization or compliance monitoring must be published by EPA or approved by Ecology in accordance with a list of specific criteria. Herring tests do not meet these requirements and whole effluent toxicity limits are only enforceable using EPA toxicity test results at this time.

of 147

The herring toxicity study, Condition S9. was removed from the permit. Ecology signed an agreed order with Phillips 66 on October 21, 2013 requiring Phillips 66 to conduct a herring chronic toxicity study. A number of changes from the permit language were agreed to in the herring order: no acute testing, no submittal of a Toxicity Implementation Plan, number of tests reduced to six, a study completion date of March 17, 2017, no comparisons to ACEC or CCEC, and comparisons to two additional EPA tests for the larval survival and growth test. The herring chronic toxicity study will run side-by-side comparisons of the toxicity of Phillips 66’s effluent to herring vs. other species used in EPA standard tests. Conducting toxicity testing with herring can be difficult because an adequate supply of the species is not always available and there are few labs approved for the work. The focus of the study is to determine if another, more readily available species can adequately predict impacts to herring.

35. It appears that Ecology has performed no reasonable potential analysis for the discharge of stormwater from Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005. Reasonable potential analysis is required under 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) as part of the permitting process to verify that the effluent limitations are adequate to ensure compliance with water quality standards. There is no exception for stormwater. Why has Ecology not performed this reasonable potential analysis? Please see the response to Comment #8.

36. The fact sheet (p. 19) notes that stormwater discharges at Outfalls 003, 004, and 005 exceeded benchmarks in “several instances” from 2008 to 2010. These exceedances of the BOD, COD, and TSS benchmarks, identified in fact sheet appendix I, tend to indicate that there is a reasonable potential for these discharges to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards. Besides this, the only information in the fact sheet concerning the particulars of these discharges is the brief descriptions of the basins for the four stormwater-only discharges with imprecise identification of discharge locations (pp. 6 – 7). This is not an adequate characterization of these discharges or of the potential effects of these discharges on receiving waters. The new permit requires quarterly monitoring of all four stormwater discharges with comparison of monitoring results to a comprehensive list of indicator benchmarks. The more frequent monitoring will help to characterize the discharges during wet and dry seasons and provide more information on the potential effects on receiving waters.

of 147

37. If the reasonable potential analyses show reasonable potential to cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards for a particular pollutant parameter, the permit must include an effluent limitation for that parameter at a level adequate to ensure that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d). In this circumstance, narrative effluent limitations in the form of best management practices may be substituted for numeric effluent limitations only when numeric effluent limitations are infeasible. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k). If Ecology considers numeric effluent limitations to be infeasible for these stormwater discharges, please explain why. Ecology has not made a determination that it is infeasible to include numeric effluent limitations for the stormwater discharges from Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005. However, the variability of discharges at these outfalls makes setting uniform effluent limits difficult. Ecology has determined that the combination of pollution prevention approaches and structural management practices are the most practical and environmentally sound way to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff.

38. Instead of numeric effluent limitations for these stormwater discharges, the permit proposes to import the numeric benchmarks for turbidity, TSS, oil and grease, copper, zinc, and pH from the Industrial Stormwater General Permit (“ISGP”). This is entirely inappropriate and inconsistent with applicable regulations, including 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d). These benchmarks were derived for the ISGP using presumptions about receiving water hardness and a dilution factor of five that are not necessary and not appropriate for these individually-regulated discharges. Receiving water hardness can be actually measured for these discharges. Use of a dilution factor is only permissible in the context of this permit if mixing zones for Outfalls 002 through 005 are established. There are no mixing zones for these outfalls. What are the practical and legal bases for the use of these benchmarks? What is the site-specific basis for the fact sheet statement (p. 34) that “[t]he benchmarks are set at levels deemed protective of water quality standards in the receiving waters”? Ecology believes that the use of benchmarks for stormwater discharges is appropriate under this permit. This approach is consistent with the way similar industrial stormwater discharges are addressed across the State.

39. Soundkeeper objects vehemently to the statement in S1.C.3. that “[v]alues at or below the benchmark are considered unlikely to cause a water quality violation.” First, there is no site specific analysis whatsoever to support this assertion. Second, this appears to be an explanatory, non-regulatory statement that does not belong in an NPDES permit. What is the regulatory effect of this statement? Does it limit the effect of the S12. requirement

of 147

that BMPs must “[e]nsure the discharge does not cause or contribute to a violation of the Water Quality Standards”? Ecology has determined that benchmarks are appropriate to use in individual permits in the absence of site specific data or when conditions are highly variable and concentrations and volumes are less predictable, as in the case of the stormwater discharges at Phillips 66. The statement in S1.C.3. supports the understanding that benchmarks indicate a level of concern and trigger investigation and corrective action. It does not affect the S12. requirement to implement BMPs to ensure that the discharge does not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.

40. Even if the use of benchmarks was appropriate and the derivation of the benchmarks were consistent with the water quality standards (which they are not), the permit falls short of the mandate that it ensure that discharges do not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards because nothing in the permit requires the permittee to attain the benchmarks. S1.C.4., prescribing the response to a benchmark exceedance, is not nearly as stringent as the comparable ISGP provisions, never mind adequate to ensure that contribution to water quality standards violations are prohibited. When a benchmark is exceeded, the permittee first need only identify “possible sources of stormwater contamination from industrial activity,” and benchmark exceedances attributable to vegetative or naturally-occurring conditions do not require additional BMPs. “Industrial activity” is not defined, and this duty to identify should encompass all causes of the benchmark exceedance, no matter the source. The permittee should not be allowed to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards purportedly caused by “naturally-occurring” conditions – these are stormwater discharges from a refinery facility and the Clean Water Act requires that all discharges meet water quality standards, regardless of pollutant source. Benchmarks are not effluent limits that are required to be met. They are used as indicators to gauge a level of concern and associated response. The ISGP has three levels of triggers and associated responses based upon the number of times a benchmark is exceeded. Condition S1.C.4. requires that each time a sample result is above a benchmark value or outside a benchmark range, Phillips 66 must work through a list of actions that includes all three levels of the ISGP responses. A sample result above a benchmark value or outside the benchmark range for pH triggers further action by Phillips 66. These actions include conducting an inspection to determine possible sources of the elevated test result, evaluating whether any

of 147

improvements or changes to the existing BMPs are necessary, determining whether additional BMPs or source controls are necessary, and implementing the necessary changes to keep the facility’s stormwater discharges below benchmark values and within the benchmark pH range. Storm water discharges associated with industrial activity includes storm water discharges from areas where material handling equipment or activities, raw materials, intermediate products, final products, waste materials, by-products, or industrial machinery are exposed to storm water. Because a large portion of the drainage basins for the stormwater outfalls at the refinery are forested areas, Ecology allows Phillips 66 to demonstrate that an exceedance of a benchmark was caused by vegetative or naturally-occurring conditions. Phillips 66 is still required to investigate the possible source of the elevated result.

41. Additional BMPs are to be implemented if “warranted” on a schedule approved by Ecology. Who determines whether additional BMPs are “warranted,” and what are the criteria for this determination? In what form will Ecology approve the schedule? Will it be in a form appealable to the PCHB? Can the schedule be verbally provided by Ecology’s permit manager to the permittee? The permit should specify a timeline, such as 45 days after the benchmark exceedance, for implementation of BMPs designed to correct the problem, which should be extendable only by permit modification or administrative order. S1.C.4.c. further provides the Ecology can waive the requirement for additional BMPs, without specifying any formal process for this waiver. This is impermissible because it means that Ecology can informally waive the requirement, without opportunity for public participation and PCHB appeal, leaving the permit inadequate to ensure that stormwater discharges will either receive AKART or not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Phillips 66 will determine whether additional BMPs are warranted. However, they are required to submit a report to Ecology regarding their investigation of sample results above benchmarks and any remedial actions taken. Ecology will review the report and Phillips 66’s determination. If we disagree with their conclusions, we will likely require them to make a change. Additional BMPs are warranted if modifications to existing BMPs do not reduce stormwater contamination below benchmark values. Ecology will approve a schedule for implementing changes to existing BMPs or additional BMPs in writing. It is difficult to predict what additional BMPs may be required and what timeframe would be needed to implement them. Ecology left this open to be able to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

of 147

Should Ecology exercise its discretion and waive the requirement for additional controls and/or BMPs identified by the process set out in Condition S1.C.4., this discretionary action will be made through a permit modification or administrative order with opportunity for public comment and appealable to the PCHB.

42. Conditions S1.C.4. and S12. and Appendix C all concern a stormwater pollution prevention plan and AKART for stormwater discharges, but in an uncoordinated way that is incoherent. The provisions regarding the SWPPP and stormwater AKART should be consolidated and coordinated so that they are clear, non-contradictory, and complete (i.e., not dependent upon informal future Ecology determinations). The permit should address the SWPPP separately from the other pollution prevention planning provisions instead of in combination.

For instance, S12. states that stormwater BMPs must “[b]e consistent with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 edition) or provide an equivalent level of pollution prevention approved by Ecology,” while Appendix C refers to that Manual, among others, and incorporates by reference the extensive and detailed SWPPP requirements from the Industrial Stormwater General Permit. Based on this, it is not clear what BMPs must be included in the SWPPP. And, it is poor practice to incorporate by reference into an individual permit the conditions of an entirely separate general NPDES permit, which may be modified or reissued with different conditions, instead of clearly and completely setting out the requirements for the individual permittee. This is really sloppy, and fails to ensure that AKART will be implemented. Also, what does “an equivalent level of pollution prevention approved by Ecology” mean? Conditions S1. C.4. and S12. and Appendix C were revised to better coordinate with each other and to clarify that the Pollution Prevention Plan includes BMPs necessary to provide all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment of stormwater pollution. Appendix C was revised to include the SWPPP elements of the ISWGP rather than incorporating them by reference. Equivalent level of pollution prevention means operational, source control, treatment, or innovative BMPs which result in an equal or better quality of stormwater discharge to surface water or to ground water than BMPs selected from the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.

43. Appendix C is unclear about which of its provisions apply to the SWPPP and which are for the other aspects of a pollution prevention plan. For example, does the last section of

of 147

Appendix C, “Prioritization & Selection of Pollution Prevention Opportunities,” apply to the SWPPP? If so, how is this consistent with the instruction to make the SWPPP consistent with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington? The Pollution Prevention Plan referred to in Condition S12. and Appendix C is a compilation of previous pollution prevention plans required by the NPDES permit including Phillips 66’s stormwater pollution prevention plan, solid waste control plan, and spill plan. Stormwater pollution prevention is a section of the Pollution Prevention Plan rather than a plan itself. Appendix C was revised to clarify that Phillips 66 should identify and evaluate pollution prevention opportunities to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or control releases of pollutants to stormwater. Condition S12. requires Phillips 66 to ensure that any BMPs identified are consistent or equivalent to those in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.

44. S12.A. indicates that the Pollution Prevention Plan is to be submitted for Ecology’s review and approval 18 months from permit issuance. Does this include the SWPPP? If so, what is the basis for allowing 18 months for the preparation of a SWPPP and how does the permit require that AKART be implemented for stormwater in the meantime? 18 months is an unreasonably long period for development and implementation of a SWPPP – the Industrial Stormwater General Permit allowed six months from the permit effective date. If not, when must the SWPPP be completed and all BMPs implemented? Condition S12.A. requires Phillips 66 to update its Pollution Prevention Plan within 18 months of the permit effective date. The Pollution Prevention Plan includes SOPs, BMPs, and work practices developed and updated from previous permit pollution prevention plans including the SWPPP. Ecology believes that the stormwater requirements of the permit, including the requirement to follow existing SOPs, BMPs, and work practices consistent with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington meet AKART.

45. The fact sheet (p. 5) states that “[i]f the stormwater is considered ‘contaminated,’ it is pumped to the wastewater treatment plant for treatment.” This sounds like a good pollution control practice, but what in the permit requires that this be done? Operators inspect the Stormwater Observation Channel at least twice per day as part of a standard operating procedure entitled the Wastewater Treatment Plant Daily Unit Operating Rounds. Management of stormwater in the Stormwater Observation Channel is outlined in the Treatment System Operating Plan required by Condition S4.A.

of 147

46. The fact sheet (p. 8) states that the permittee switched to batch processing of stormwater

effluent to Outfall 001 to prevent TSS exceedances and installed an analyzer at the secondary effluent sump to monitor upstream for TSS. These sound like good pollution control practices, but what in the permit requires that they be maintained? Condition S4., Operation and Maintenance, requires that Phillips 66 properly operate and maintain all industrial and stormwater facilities or systems of treatment and control which are installed to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.

47. S1.C.3. and S12.C. both address stormwater inspections, but in an inconsistent manner. S1.C.3. requires monthly inspections, including a BMP assessment. S12.C. requires only two inspections per year. How are these two provisions to be reconciled and why are stormwater inspection requirements not addressed in a single place in the permit? Condition S1.C.3. requires monthly inspections of the existing stormwater discharges at Outfalls 002-005. Condition S12.C. requires seasonal inspections throughout the refinery to identify sources of pollutants that have or could come into contact with stormwater and be discharged offsite.

48. Both stormwater inspection provisions are inadequate because they do not require “a record summarizing the results of the inspection and a certification that the facility is in compliance with the [SWPPP] and the permit, and identifying any incidents of non-compliance,” as mandated by 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(4)(ii). See, e.g., Industrial Stormwater General Permit condition S7. Condition S1.C.3. requires Phillips 66 to record the results of the monthly stormwater inspections including any observations of non-compliance and the remedial actions they plan to take. The results of the monthly inspections must be submitted to Ecology quarterly. Results from the stormwater inspections required by S12.C. must be reported in the pollution prevention plan biennial update reports. Condition G1. requires that all reports or information submitted to Ecology must be signed and certified.

49. S1.C.2. states that the permittee must prevent stormwater discharges containing oil “as identified by an oil sheen”. This is imprecise. In what locations is an oil sheen effectively prohibited? Is it at the point of discharge in the receiving waters, or anywhere at the facility, or at some other location?

of 147

An oil sheen is effectively prohibited at the point of discharge offsite to receiving waters.

50. S10. should affirmatively require a wastewater treatment efficiency study if the permittee proposes substantial refinery alterations that could cause a material change in the influent to the treatment system. This condition, which leaves the requirement for such a study to Ecology’s discretion, provides inadequate assurance that facility changes will be appropriately addressed. The permit is supposed to include the permit conditions, not merely state that Ecology may require something more in the future. Furthermore, WAC 173-240-110(1) requires the submission of engineering reports, plans, and specifications before a wastewater facility can be modified. How is S10. consistent with this requirement? Condition S10. states that Ecology will require a treatment efficiency study and updated engineering report if Phillips 66 proposes substantial refinery alterations that could cause a material change in the influent to the wastewater treatment system. This engineering report is different than the one required by WAC 173-240-110(1). The engineering report required by Condition S10. is to update the design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment system based upon data obtained in the treatment system efficiency study. WAC 173-249-110(1) requires submittal of an engineering report and design plans and specifications for new wastewater facilities or modifications to wastewater facilities.

51. Lining the wastewater and stormwater treatment ponds should be a requirement of the permit, to be implemented at the earliest practicable time, rather than merely pollution prevention measures that the permittee must evaluate within 18 months of the permit’s effective date, as specified by S12.A. In developing this permit, it is Ecology’s obligation to determine AKART for this facility and to require AKART in the permit. Lining treatment ponds is AKART when there is potential for groundwater contamination, particularly when the permittee is a major corporation operating a major refinery. What is Ecology’s AKART determination with respect to lining these ponds? The Implementation Guidance for the Ground Water Quality Standards, revised October 2005, includes requirements to comply with the Ground Water Quality Standards. This document states that all wastes must be provided with all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment (AKART) prior to entry into the state’s waters, regardless of the quality of the water. Ecology has included lining of the wastewater ponds in the list of pollution prevention opportunities to be evaluated during the next permit cycle. Phillips 66 will determine the technological and economic feasibility of lining the ponds. This determination will provide information for Ecology to evaluate the reasonableness of the retrofit.

of 147

52. S13. requires the permittee to identify and report the well elevation “if not already

established.” Why does Ecology not determine whether the well elevation is established before issuing this permit and modify this provision to conform to this discoverable information? The existing wells at Phillips 66 have established well elevations. The language in the permit is intended to cover situations when new groundwater wells are installed. The permit wording was revised to reflect this intent.

53. Condition G21. references “any compliance schedule of this permit.” To what compliance schedule(s) does this refer? There are no formal compliance schedules in the permit. Condition G21. is a general condition that is standard to all permits.

54. The fact sheet (p. 4) states that ownership of the refinery is to be transferred to a new company called the Phillips 66 Company in April 2012. Should the permittee be identified as the Phillips 66 Company rather than ConocoPhillips Ferndale Refinery? The ConocoPhillips Ferndale Refinery was changed to the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery in the final permit and fact sheet. Tenaska Ferndale Cogeneration was also updated in the fact sheet to Puget Sound Energy - Ferndale Generating Station.

Comments from Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery (55.-82.)

55. As of May 1, 2012, corporate restructuring was completed and the ownership changed for the Ferndale refinery from ConocoPhillips to Phillips 66 as noted in previous correspondence. Please update the Fact Sheet and NPDES permit to reflect this change in ownership. Please see the response to Comment #54.

56. S1. Effluent Limitations (page 7) – utilize the following values:

a. Limits in draft were rounded while BPT Basis calculations show - i. COD maximum daily value of 6453 (not 6450)

ii. Oil and grease monthly average value of 141 (not 140) iii. Oil and grease maximum daily value of 263 (not 260)

The effluent limits for Outfall 001 were rounded to the nearest tenth for ease in comparing to monitoring results to determine compliance.

of 147

b. Phenolic Compounds maximum daily BAT basis is 9.9 (not 6.5)

The daily maximum limit in the proposed permit is the limit based upon BPT. Whichever is the more stringent of the limits based upon BAT and BPT is included in the permit. Please note that the effluent limits were revised in the final permit to address Tier 2 antidegradation requirements (see response to Comment #21). The daily maximum limit for phenolic compounds was changed to 5.4 lbs/day.

57. S1. Priority Pollutants (page 8) – results should be due within 90 days of sampling rather than 60 days (as specified in other draft permits). Condition S1.A. was changed to require that priority pollutant sample results be submitted within 90 days of each sampling event.

58. S1.C. Stormwater Monitoring (page 11): As discussed during previous WDOE

visits/audits, Stormwater Outfall 002 has inflow from offsite during winter months so collecting a first flow event as required would not be representative of normal refinery discharge influence. Sampling at this specific location will need to be delayed to the fall until the effluent is representative. Condition S1.C.3. requires that Phillips 66 sample the stormwater discharge from Outfall 002 during the first fall storm event each year. The first fall storm event is defined as the first time after October 1st of each year that precipitation occurs and results in a stormwater discharge from a facility. If there is inflow from offsite that will interfere with collecting a representative sample from Outfall 002 after October 1st, Phillips 66 needs to work with Whatcom County to dredge and maintain the ditch along Slater Road or modify the sample collection point.

59. S1C. Stormwater Monitoring Requirements (page 12, paragraph 6) – please change “The inspection must include an assessment that all BMPs have been implemented,” to “The inspection must include an assessment that applicable BMPs have been implemented,”

Condition S1.C. was revised to clarify the inspection requirement. This sentence now reads “The inspection must include an assessment of all BMPs that have been implemented, the effectiveness of the BMPs, and whether any maintenance or changes in BMPs are needed.”

60. S3. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements - Clarification: In the past, in order to minimize paperwork for the monthly DMR, WDOE has allowed MDL/QL for outside lab routine analysis to be retained and audited by WDOE representative as needed during Class I and Class II inspections. Refinery would like to continue this practice. Yes, Ecology agrees that it is appropriate to continue this practice.

of 147

61. S3.E. Reporting Permit Violations (page 18): Please add qualification on step a. to include

first: “if safe to proceed” Condition S3.E.a. was revised to add “when it is safe to proceed”.

62. S3.E. Reporting Permit Violations (page 18, Section 2): This contact should be Ecology Industrial Section and NOT the Regional Office number

The Spills Program at Ecology is responsible for evaluating and responding to spills and releases at the refinery. Notifications must be made to the 24-hour number listed in the permit to ensure that Phillips 66 meets its spill reporting obligations.

63. S3.E. Reporting Permit Violations (page 19): Section 2 e. is not specific enough, as an

overflow of fire water or service water entering a storm sewer or process sewer would require reporting. In addition, overflow that remains in engineered confinement should not be included. These overflows are not impacting waters of the State.

Condition S3.E. was revised to address this concern. Section 2.e. now reads “Any wastewater that is not treated in accordance with the Ecology approved engineering report, whether or not such wastewater endangers health or the environment or exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit.”

64. S4. Operation and Maintenance - Clarification: Our named Safety/Operational manual is

online along with procedures manuals (emergency, routine, start-up, and shutdown) which cover the specific of this manual section. Comment noted.

65. S7. Acute Toxicity: Section A. Effluent Characterization - The species are not consistent

between area refinery permits. The current permit utilized fathead minnow and Daphnia. Each NPDES permit should be utilizing the same species for the same screening. Because acute toxicity does not differ much between freshwater fish and crustaceans and marine fish and crustaceans and because testing with freshwater organisms is easier and less expensive, permittees receive requirements to test effluents for acute toxicity to freshwater organisms unless there is a specific reason to switch to marine test organisms. Phillips 66 was switched to acute testing with marine organisms to be consistent with herring testing and provide topsmelt as a substitute for herring when herring are not available.

66. S7. Acute Toxicity: Section E. Response to Noncompliance with the Effluent Limit for Acute Toxicity (page 28) - Please remove the last sentence regarding utilization of Pacific herring as typically TI/RE issues are species specific, so utilization of herring may not be applicable at all.

of 147

The sentence regarding utilization of Pacific herring was removed from the permit. TI/RE plans are based on procedures in the latest versions of the EPA guidance documents for conducting toxicity reduction evaluations or toxicity identification evaluations. However, Ecology may ask for additions to a plan as necessary to identify possible causes and preventive measures for controlling or eliminating toxicity that is affecting a species of local concern.

After determining appropriate toxicity reduction measures using EPA procedures and toxicity tests, Phillips 66 may also be required to confirm that the toxicity reduction measures also protect herring by conducting herring toxicity tests. Doing so will not only provide protection for this key species but also give Phillips 66 assurance that implementing the measures will meet all needs.

67. S9. Herring Toxicity Testing: Requirements to do herring toxicity testing are not required to issue this NPDES permit. Therefore, this section should be removed from the permit. As indicated in previous entity review, Phillips 66 believes the better option is to perform this monitoring under an agreed order outside of the permit process as agreed to by all involved parties.

The herring toxicity study was removed from the permit. Ecology and Phillips 66 signed an agreed order requiring Phillips 66 to conduct a herring chronic toxicity study. Please see the response to Comment #34.

68. S9.A. Acute Testing Requirements and S9.B. Chronic Testing Requirements (pages 33 and 35): The second paragraph of each section appears to require a second set of WET testing which are already required under S7. and S8. The topsmelt testing conducted in the comparison studies with herring in Condition S9. may also be used to satisfy the acute and chronic toxicity testing requirements in Conditions S7. and S8.

69. S9.C. Sampling and Reporting Requirements (page 36): Not sure reference toxicant is

required to be copper chloride. Believe laboratory utilizes whatever EPA requires in normal WET testing.

Copper chloride is the standard reference toxicant for herring toxicity testing. Copper chloride is the preferred reference toxicant in the EPA test method for topsmelt. Standardizing on a single reference toxicant improves comparability between herring and EPA toxicity tests in addition to providing quality assurance for results.

of 147

70. S11. Sediment Monitoring (page 38): Due to the time needed to finalize this permit, the date listed for completion of sediment monitoring should be within 2 years from permit issuance, not a set date of February 1, 2014. It is important to follow up on the chemical exceedances found during the last sediment sampling event in 2004. The date for submittal of the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan was changed to “within 180 days of the permit effective date”.

71. S12.A. Pollution Prevention Plan Update and Implementation: During the WWTP upgrade, pollution prevention plan opportunity #3 listed was evaluated and addressed in the design plan.

Ecology could not find the design plan that Phillips 66 is referring to. The wording in Condition S12.A. was not changed.

72. S12. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: Is it possible to include a section with regards to CSWP areas less than 5 acres where we can use a CESCL individual to prepare the necessary SWPPP and monitoring for small projects to avert having to go through public notification and another Ecology Department section for permitting similar to other industrial area NPDES permits? Ecology did not include coverage for stormwater discharges from construction activities in the Phillips 66 permit. These discharges are generally short term and different enough from normal refinery operations that we decided they were better addressed by Ecology’s Construction Stormwater General Permit. Phillips 66 will need to apply for coverage under the general permit for stormwater discharges from future construction projects.

73. S12.B. Specific Plan Update Requirements: The proposed permit sites that if Ecology determines through inspection or investigation that BMPs are ineffective, Permittee must modify plan as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct a problem identified. This statement should be clarified to set some criteria as to what is “ineffective”. BMPs could be considered ineffective if visual inspections of the stormwater discharge show the presence of floating materials, a visible sheen, discoloration, or turbidity. BMPs may also be ineffective if investigative sampling shows that benchmark parameter levels are elevated or a benchmark is being exceeded and the elevated levels or exceedance cannot be attributed to vegetative or naturally-occurring conditions.

74. S16. Certified Operator (page 43): As above, hard dates should not be utilized until the permit is issued. Please remove 12/31/13 and add a new date allowing approximately 1½ years or two years to obtain the level II requirement.

of 147

Condition S16. was revised to remove the deadline to become certified. Phillips 66 already has an operator certified for a Class II plant on call.

75. G2. Right of Inspection and Entry (page 44): Last paragraph of section should be headed

as D. Condition G2. was revised to add heading D.

76. Appendix C – Refinery NPDES Pollution Prevention Plans – Specific Requirements:

Guidance Document - The 2005 edition of Stormwater Management Manual should be referenced, not the older 2001 publication. Appendix C was revised to reference the 2012 edition of the Stormwater Manual for Western Washington and change the publication number to 12-10-030.

77. Appendix C (page 63): Description of Potential Pollutants and Sources: Edit the following

sentence to add commas – “Influent wastewater streams must include those having daily average flow rates equal to or greater than 30 gpm at the point where the waste water stream enters the collection stream, the catalytic wash water, spent caustic and wash water waste streams.”

Commas were added to this sentence in Appendix C.

78. Appendix C (page 63, paragraph 5) - Diethanolamine is no longer utilized at this facility.

Diethanolamine was deleted from this paragraph in Appendix C.

79. Fact Sheet:

a. Except for Site Description and History, change all ConocoPhillips globally and

replace with Phillips 66. b. Transfer date of the ownership was May 1, 2012 (page 4). c. Refinery does not “pump” treated effluent, gravity flow. d. Add that annual Ground Water monitoring was added.

The fact sheet was revised to address the changes mentioned in a.-d. above. However, the frequency of groundwater monitoring was changed to quarterly in the final permit.

e. Refer to manganese and iron as common “background” constituents in ground water (page 40). Although common groundwater constituents, manganese and iron are not always present as common “background” constituents.

of 147

80. Fact Sheet: As mentioned earlier in permit, BPT and BAT should not be mixed for phenolic compounds (pages 16 and 17). Please see the response to Comment #56.

81. Fact Sheet: The Human Health dilution factor should be 104, not 103 (check rounding) (page 29).

The human health dilution factor is calculated by multiplying the dilution factor at the end of the near field by the additional dilution due to farfield diffusion (47 x 2.2). This equals 103.4 rounded to 103. Please see Table 2. in Appendix J.

82. Fact Sheet:

a. Remove herring toxicity study from last sentence in Summary. b. Remove the herring testing as a permit condition in Section G. c. Remove discussion about pacific herring testing required by the NPDES permit on

pages 35, 36, and 37. Refer to testing required by Administrative Order only. Please see the response to Comment #67. Ecology Internal Review Comment – Water Quality Program (83.)

83. The Industrial Section needs to require electronic submittal of discharge monitoring reports and other documents in their water quality permits to meet EPA and Ecology data completeness, accuracy, and timeliness requirements.

Permit Conditions S3.A., S7.G., S8.E., and S9.C. were revised to require electronic submittal of discharge monitoring reports and WET test results.

of 147

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS


3901 Unick Road Ferndale, Washington 98248

NPDES Permit No. WA000298-4

February 21, 2014

Ecology published notice of an opportunity to comment on the revised draft NPDES Permit No. WA000298-4 in the Ferndale Record and Bellingham Herald on December 4, 2013. The proposed permit will allow the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery to discharge treated process wastewater and stormwater to the Strait of Georgia and unnamed tributary to Lummi Bay. In the notice, Ecology invited public review of the revised draft permit and provided a 30-day public comment period. The deadline for submittal of written comments was January 13, 2014. Ecology received written comments from five interested parties. Comments were received from:

4. Katelyn Kinn, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance/ Wendy Steffensen, RE Sources for Sustainable Communities/Fred Felleman, Friends of the Earth

5. Sandy Robson, Birch Bay citizen 6. Christine Westland, Birch Bay citizen 7. Alice Brown, Birch Bay citizen 8. Paula Rotondi, Birch Bay citizen

We included all of the comments received in this document. We summarized the comments, where appropriate, to save time and space. The original comments comprise part of the legal record for this permit. The record is available for public review at Ecology’s Industrial Section office in Lacey, Washington. Anyone interested in reading the full text of the comments or in obtaining a copy of a particular comment should call or e-mail Liem Nguyen in Lacey at (360) 407-6955 or [email protected]. Comments appear in regular text, followed by Ecology’s response in italicized text. Ecology will send a copy of this response to comments to each individual who provided comments.

of 147

Comments from Puget Soundkeeper Alliance/Friends of the Earth/RE Sources (1.-10.)

1. Soundkeeper recognizes the minor improvements to the effluent limits for Outfall 001 to the extent that the revisions forestall the Tier II analysis requirement. Thank you for addressing this issue in response to Soundkeeper’s 2012 comments.

Comment noted.

2. Soundkeeper comprehends that the numbers are higher than the 2002 permit because of an increase in flow. In theory, the higher effluent limitations represent the same concentrations as before. However, it appears that this assumption depends on a complicated fact analysis related to the facility’s expanded operations and an increase in the volume of process wastewater discharged to Puget Sound. How can Ecology be certain that these effluent limits are not less stringent than the previous permit? How does Ecology know that the facility’s throughput has increased? Why should anyone expect the flow to remain at this or any particular level over the course of the permit term? Soundkeeper is concerned about whether the climbing effluent limitation numbers are substantiated by reality. Why don’t the effluent limitations increase by just 5% instead of the proposed 10%? How is issuing a permit that allows for the discharge of increased volumes of pollutants to Puget Sound consistent with the Clean Water Act goal of approaching zero discharge and the statewide mandate of Puget Sound recovery by 2020? The effluent limitations in the proposed permit are production-based. Ecology reviews crude throughput data from the last permit cycle to determine the highest 12-month average. This average is used to calculate effluent limitations for the next permit cycle, unless a lower production rate is anticipated. This approach is consistent with EPA guidance for applying refinery effluent guidelines. The effluent limits calculated for Phillips 66 were 30-50% higher than the limits in the previous permit. Ecology capped the increase in limits in the proposed permit at 10% in accordance with the agency’s anti-degradation policy. To receive any higher effluent limits in the future, Phillips 66 will have to conduct a Tier II analysis to demonstrate that the increased limits will not degrade receiving waters. Although the Clean Water Act states a goal of zero discharge, it does not provide the tools necessary to achieve it. Ecology believes that the federal effluent guidelines in combination with other NPDES permit conditions meet the requirements of all known available and reasonable methods of treatment (AKART) for the Phillips 66 refinery. The

of 147

proposed permit includes conditions that require Phillips 66 to prevent and control the discharge of pollutants from the refinery, properly operate and maintain its wastewater treatment system, and to identify and implement opportunities to further reduce pollution through source control.

3. Soundkeeper supports the revisions to S7.A.1 and S8.C.3, which now require that testing begin within 90 days of the permit effective date. Thank you for addressing this issue in response to Soundkeeper’s 2012 comments.

Comment noted.

4. Ecology proposes to revise the language in Conditions S7.E. and S8.D. to modify the WET provisions of the permit. Ecology purports that the new wording, embodied in a single additional sentence, identifies when a WET test failure is a permit violation. Soundkeeper was a party to the 2012 appeal of the BP Cherry Point Refinery permit and Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) proceedings resulting in the PCHB’s decision on the acute WET effluent limitation (order on summary judgment, July 26, 2013). A petition for judicial review of that decision is currently pending in Thurston County Superior Court while the Court of Appeals considers petitions for direct review by the parties. Soundkeeper has also appealed the December 2, 2013, modification to the BP permit. For the following reasons, Soundkeeper asserts that the proposed modifications to Conditions S7.E. and S8.D. are inadequate to comply with either state law or the terms of the July 26, 2013 PCHB order in the BP appeal. a. The Permit Should Prohibit Toxic Discharges

As noted above, the PCHB’s order with which Ecology claims these revisions comport has been appealed to Superior Court. As part of this ongoing legal debate, Soundkeeper insists that the order reflects a faulty interpretation of state law on WET effluent limitations. Soundkeeper maintains that the permit may not authorize a discharge that fails the compliance test for acute or chronic WET, thus violating the effluent limit for acute or chronic toxicity. Washington’s water quality standards prohibit the discharge of toxic substances that cause acute or chronic toxicity in the receiving waters. WAC 173-201A-240. The following prohibition is found in state statute: “In no event shall the discharge of toxicants be allowed that would violate any water quality standard, including toxicant standards, sediment criteria, and dilution zone criteria.” RCW 90.48.520. The purpose of

of 147

the WET testing under WAC 173-205 is to determine whether a discharge is toxic and subject to the prohibition. This regulation describes monitoring for compliance with WET limits, and states that the compliance test “shall be considered to be a maximum daily discharge permit limitation.” WAC 173-205-070(1)(d) and 173-205-070(2)(d). The test for permit compliance must be the same as the compliance test for acute and chronic toxicity, as defined by the regulation. The permit may not authorize a toxic discharge, which is one that fails the acute or chronic toxicity compliance test. Sections 7 and 8 already provide procedures for Phillips 66 to demonstrate that a failing WET test is an anomaly to invalidate it. There is no legal, practical, or rational basis for interpretation of these state laws and regulations that would allow authorization of any discharge that fails a WET compliance test. Sections 7 and 8 should be rewritten to effect the prohibition on toxic discharges by equating any failure of the compliance test with violation of the acute or chronic WET effluent limitation and the permit. b. The Anomaly Allowance Should Be Singular, Not Quarterly

Even assuming acceptance of the PCHB’s interpretation in its July 2013 order, the proposed modifications are problematic. This provision as drafted makes violations of the permit contingent on the failure of a follow-up WET test for each regularly scheduled acute and chronic WET compliance test failure. In other words, no failure of a regularly scheduled WET test would constitute a permit violation unless a subsequent test is also failed. This is unacceptable. Repeated failures of regularly scheduled WET tests indicate an ongoing pattern of toxicity regardless of the results of each follow-up test. S7 and S8 should clarify that any failure of any WET test following the first failure recorded during the permit term constitutes a permit violation. Soundkeeper recognizes that the proposed language represents a minor improvement over the language in the BP permit. Specifically, the new phrasing in S7. and S8. of this permit state that the WET test violation is “a violation of the permit”. While this tighter language is appreciated for its clarity, the proposed revisions still suffer from the fundamental problems noted above. Soundkeeper would point to the WET limit language that Ecology’s Northwest Regional Office incorporated into NPDES Permit No. WA0031968 for Seattle Iron & Metals Corporation as a more appropriate permit drafting response to the PCHB’s order on WET Limitations. The changes Ecology made to Conditions S7.E. and S8.D are consistent with the PCHB’s decision regarding exceedances of WET limitations. The Board deferred to Ecology’s

of 147

determination that a single WET limit exceedance does not indicate a pattern of toxicity. Instead, it triggers additional testing aimed at determining if there is continued toxicity and a violation of the toxicity standard in the permit. If any of the subsequent tests fail the WET limit, that test failure is a violation of the permit.

5. Ecology notes that the herring toxicity study was removed from the permit and put into

an October 21, 2013 agreed order. Where can the public find a copy of the agreed order? Shouldn’t the agreed order be attached to this draft permit? The agreed order is posted at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/industrial/oil_phillips.html. It will be available on this site for 60 days. After that, you can request a copy of the order from Liem Nguyen at [email protected].

6. Soundkeeper supports Ecology’s revision to S1.A. of the monitoring frequency from “7/wk” to “daily”. The revision provides clarity and substantially reduces the risk of misinterpretation or 4 abuse of this requirement. Thank you for making the changes Soundkeeper requested to this section. Soundkeeper also supports the revisions to the twenty-four hour reporting requirement and Pollution Prevention Plan provisions, which provide increased clarity and consistency.

Comment noted.

7. Soundkeeper understands that Ecology has only invited comments that pertain to the new proposed permit changes outlined in the Supplemental Fact Sheet dated Dec 4, 2013. However, Soundkeeper expects that Ecology is interested in issues of major environmental significance, especially where public interest is growing rapidly concerning new trends in the growth of fossil fuel transportation through our region. It is undeniable that the expansion of oil transport through our region is exploding as an issue of concern. Soundkeeper would like to use this opportunity to emphasize its sharp concern about the massive increases in the transport of crude oil and oil sands products through the Puget Sound region via rail, marine vessel and pipeline. As evidenced by the alarming frequency of oil train derailments, explosions and disasters in the U.S. and Canada in the past year, the expansion of oil transport via rail has environmental and public safety concerns of immense proportions. Vessel traffic risks and the threat of a large-scale oil spill in Puget Sound are also huge concerns. What role does Phillips 66’s Ferndale refinery play in this equation? Phillips 66 is constructing a railcar unloading facility at the Ferndale refinery to receive Bakken oil shale crude by train from North Dakota.

of 147

8. Soundkeeper has every reason to believe that Phillips 66 is engaged in this expansion and

that it will ultimately impact facility operations. Discussion of the facility’s feedstock and plans for expansion are essential components of any conversation related to the regulation of Puget Sound’s oil refineries today. Phillips 66 is no exception. Ecology’s Fact Sheet dated April 25, 2012 for this facility states “the main source of crude oil has historically been from tankers delivering oil from Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil field and Canadian Crude oil via pipeline” (page 4). However, in its October 25, 2013 Response to 5 Comments document, Ecology confirmed that the existing and project crude sources for Phillips 66 refinery is becoming much more diverse and slightly less intelligible (page 17). Isn’t Phillips 66 planning to build a railcar offloading facility at this site to increase its rail shipments from North Dakota's Bakken shale oil play? Yes. Please see the response to Comment 7.

9. Soundkeeper urges Ecology to closely scrutinize Phillips 66’s feedstock, both in source and volume. Will an increase in throughput increase the volume of discharges? Will a change in feedstock (to oil sands, diluted bitumen or Bakken shale) necessitate a permit modification? Will conversion of part of the operation to a crude oil loading facility generate the need for additional spill control measures? Are issues around the volatility/explosive nature of Bakken oil being addressed? What about the corrosive and abrasive nature of diluted bitumen?

An increase in crude throughput could increase the volume of wastewater discharged by a facility. A number of factors determine wastewater volumes including refinery process technology, water reuse/recycle practices, reduction in flows through other pollution prevention techniques, and the efficiency of the wastewater treatment system. The proposed permit includes a number of conditions that require Phillips 66 to notify Ecology of any activities that would result in a significant change in the nature or quantity of pollutants discharged. Depending upon the circumstances of the change, the permit may be modified. Ecology’s Spills Program has been involved in the construction of the new crude railcar unloading facility. They reviewed the designs for the new facility and required Phillips 66 to update their oil spill contingency plans and operations manuals to cover the facility. These plans require Phillips 66 to conduct an oil spill risk analysis and mitigate for this possibility.

of 147

Refineries today are designed to process a variety of crudes. Caustic solutions are used to neutralize corrosive properties in crudes and in wastewater associated with the refinery process. Canadian and American officials are calling for new safety regulations for transporting Bakken crude. Railroad safety issues are outside the scope of the proposed permit.

10. Soundkeeper urges Ecology to closely monitor any changes to the refinery that could cause a change in the quantity or composition of the influent processed by its wastewater treatment system. Soundkeeper also urges Ecology to require the facility to improve its spill response capabilities alongside any proposed expansion so that it is capable of dealing with the unique nature and volumes of the new crude stocks being processed. Please see the response to Comment 9.

Comments from Sandra Robson and Christine Westland (11.-17.)

11. I have recently been informed and am concerned about the ocean acidification problem along the coastal waters of Washington State and it's detrimental effect this has had on the shellfish industry which has thrived here since it began in 1890. Acidification of these coastal waters is caused by increasing amounts of CO2 from upwelling, cold coastal waters, but there are other causes of the difficulties this industry faces on a daily basis, trying to maintain the health and viability of shellfish beds and spawning areas. These other causes include any and all water pollution from sources including businesses like Phillips 66 Refinery. What is Phillips 66 Refinery planning to do in the future to monitor, upgrade, and reduce its CO2 emissions; and monitor and reduce other pollutants which could likely end up seeping into the nearby coastal waters? Phillips 66 has been monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their operations for several years under state and federal rules. Over the past 10 years, they have increased energy efficiency to lower emissions. Phillips 66 is conducting research in alternative energy, carbon dioxide (CO2) capture, processing improvements, and product innovation and is supporting education on energy issues.

The Department of Ecology is proposing to adopt Chapter 173-485 WAC, Petroleum Refinery Greenhouse Gas Emission Requirements. This rulemaking proposal is to establish reasonably available control technology (RACT) to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from petroleum refineries in Washington State. Ecology proposes that the five Washington petroleum refineries meet GHG RACT requirements using one of two options – by meeting an energy efficiency standard or by implementing GHG emission reduction projects.

of 147

Phillips 66 routinely monitors a suite of indicator parameters at their process and stormwater outfalls and is required to perform annual priority pollutant testing under the proposed permit. The new permit requires the refinery to update their Pollution Prevention Plan to continue to evaluate opportunities to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or control release of pollutants to stormwater and waters of the state.

12. In 2012, an Executive Order by then Governor Gregoire mandated that the Department of Ecology provide a progress report to a document entitled, "Ocean Acidification: From Knowledge to Action - Washington's Strategic Response to Changing Ocean Chemistry". This document recommends actions to reduce contributions to the existing problem of ocean acidification and was supposed to be submitted December 31, 2013. What was the result of this report and where I can find it? The report the commenter refers to can be found at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1201015.pdf. The Blue Ribbon Panel recommended 42 strategies and actions in the report for addressing ocean acidification in Washington’s marine waters. Ecology’s website on ocean acidification is at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oceanacidification.html. The Washington Marine Resources Advisory Council (MRAC) meets regularly to advise and work on the effects and sources of ocean acidification. The status of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations was presented at the November 21, 2013 MRAC meeting. The status report can be found on Ecology’s website at the above link.

13. According to recent news, Phillips 66 Refinery is beginning construction to receive and refine trainloads of Bakken crude oil from North Dakota. It is widely publicized that this crude oil has been obtained from the earth using fracking, and therefore contains highly toxic, highly flammable chemicals. I understand that it is the mixture of these chemicals into the crude that has caused the enormous fire conflagrations whenever and wherever trains that carry them de-rail and crash. What kind of mitigation efforts is Phillips 66 Refinery planning to ensure that these volatile chemicals are: 1) somehow safely removed from the oil; 2) disposed of in a way that will not be detrimental to the land or marine environment; and 3) handled in such a way as to avoid an accident or explosion at that site? The Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery’s wastewater treatment system is specifically designed to capture, remove, and treat hydrocarbons and some of the other chemicals associated with the refining process. The NPDES permit contains effluent limits and other

of 147

conditions to ensure that the water quality standards are not exceeded and the discharge does not pose a threat to the environment. The wastewater treatment system consists of a two stage treatment process. During the first stage free hydrocarbons, emulsified hydrocarbons, and solids are removed from the wastewater. The removed hydrocarbons are returned back to the refinery for processing. During the second stage, the wastewater is biologically treated to further remove wastewater contaminants. A substantial amount of testing is conducted by the facility to ensure that the wastewater treatment facility is operating correctly, and the treated wastewater effluent is within permit limits. Several operational parameters are monitored on a daily basis and adjustments are made to the operation of the facility to ensure effective wastewater treatment. The final effluent is tested on a regular basis to confirm compliance with permit limits.

14. I live in Birch Bay just a few miles from the Phillips 66 Refinery. Should a train carrying Bakken crude explode as it nears the Phillips 66 Refinery, it is likely that the results will be deadly to many people and all living things. Also, it is understood that fires resulting from these explosions are very large and must just burn out. Is there a trained critical response team in place to deal with such an event? The Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery has multiple response teams, including a fire brigade, a rescue team, and an oil spill response group. Members of these teams receive annual training and participate in exercises and drills (often in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Ecology) to maintain their technical competency. The refinery spill response team alone has more than 120 highly trained members, supplemented by trained spill response contractors based throughout northwest Washington and our Mutual Aid agreements with Washington State refineries through the Western States Petroleum Association.

15. As I understand it, of all the 148 refineries in the U.S., only about 50 of them use hydrofluoric acid in order to boost octane levels. None of the other refineries in Whatcom County use it at all. Hydrofluoric acid is described by federal health officials as a "highly corrosive . . . serious systemic posison." In fact, it is one of the most deadly chemical every invented. It is strong enough to eat through glass and persons who live approximately 14 miles downwind of an explosion caused by this acid will be harmed.

I live in Birch Bay - a few short miles from the Phillips Refinery! It has been said that retrofitting the refinery so that alternatives could take the place of hydrofluoric could be used, would be very costly, and therein lies the problem, even though the refinery is rich

of 147

with profits. Is Phillips 66 refinery still using hydrofluoric acid in the refining process and are they planning to continue it use?

The refinery’s alkylation unit, which uses hydrofluoric acid as a catalyst in the refining process, is staffed 24 hours a day by highly trained professionals. The facility has numerous safeguards in place, including closed circuit video cameras to continuously monitor the unit, along with detection equipment and a water deluge system to identify, suppress and confine potential releases.

In recent years, the refinery has made improvements and modifications to increase the safety of operations at the alkylation unit. These include:

A state-of-the-art laser detection system along the perimeter of the unit. Additional monitors and a point detection system to quickly identify any leaks or

releases. Safety instrumented systems that can place the unit in fail safe mode. An acid inventory management system that can quickly transfer all the acid from the

alkylation unit to a safe storage vessel in a matter of minutes. Remotely operated emergency isolation valves that limit a release by remotely

blocking in vessels containing acid. Dual pump seals and other pump improvements that minimize the potential for a leak The unit is closely monitored and inspected. 2,300 points are inspected annually using x-ray and ultrasound technology. The refinery has a rigorous maintenance program to ensure the ongoing mechanical integrity of their equipment and they conduct regular audits, assessments and drills to determine if any modifications to their equipment or systems – or enhancements to their policies and procedures – are warranted.

16. What is the nature of this permit? It must be a new one, since it is listed as a 'draft'. To what exactly does this permit pertain? The proposed permit is a renewal of an existing NPDES permit that authorizes the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery to discharge treated process wastewater and stormwater to the Strait of Georgia and an unnamed tributary to Lummi Bay.

17. I have serious concern that our governmental agencies are not requiring stronger regulations about industrial pollutants which cause harm to our health and to our environment, and that the agencies need to stand behind those regulations and not bow to pressure from industries which are causing the pollution to our air, water, and land. I ask that you do everything in your power to ensure citizens like myself are protected. I also am very concerned about the permits already granted to the BP Refinery at Cherry Point and the ConocoPhillips 66 Refinery at Cherry Point for their crude by rail oil

of 147

terminals and rail tracks. I live about one mile from BP Refinery and the thought of a fire of explosion from those trains is extremely frightening to me. I am appalled that there was no EIS conducted and an MDNS was given to both BP and ConocoPhillips 66 and that seems negligent on the part of our county and state to have not considered those projects to conduct EISs. In light of the 4 very serious crude by rail accidents in which some had human lives lost and great destruction to property, it is my belief that the permits granted should be withdrawn, and an EIS should be required for each project. And really, a Programmatic EIS considering all the Pac NW crude by rail terminal projects is what is called for since altogether they proposed crude by rail projects are substantial and there will be reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts felt throughout our region from those proposals.

The Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency regularly review their regulations to ensure that they are protective of human health and the environment. Several environmental groups have asked that Whatcom County reverse its prior decision and require an EIS for the crude by rail projects at the Cherry Point refineries.

Comments from Alice Brown (18.-19.)

18. My concern is in regard to approval of the Revised Draft of the Phillips 66 Ferndale Refinery National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES). Past permits have been focused on marine transportation and transfer of crude oil from Alaska. Recent shipments of oil by rail from the Bakken fields in North Dakota present a different set of potential impact on our local environment. I’ve recently learned there is a chemical difference in the two oil products due to hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” procedures versus the North Slope drilling techniques. “Fracking” requires chemical additive formulas that are not disclosed to the public at large. It is believed those chemical additives are transported with the oil and dealt with at the refinery. None of it must ever enter our water or soil the beach. We have a new railroad spur bringing Bakken oil trains to the BP Refinery adjacent to Birch Bay. I would think the Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations apply to both BP and Phillips refineries. Can you confirm this? Yes, the National Pollutant ischarge Elimination System regulations apply to both the BP and Phillips 66 refineries. The discharges from the refineries are regulated under the NPDES permit. The discharges must comply with the effluent limits and other conditions in the permit to ensure that water quality standards in the receiving waters are not exceeded and the discharges do not pose a threat to human health or the environment.

of 147

19. In reality the refineries will remain. Your job, on our behalf, is to be sure they use every

best practice possible to protect the rest of us from accident or neglect. We are in a new era of oil refinement and the old rules are not enough. Please be diligent in scrutiny and implementation of the revised NPDES permit to insure the safest and best practices for all concerned. I’ve enjoyed an 80 year lifetime appreciating the bounty of our beaches and waters. As such I am deeply concerned about the harmful side effects of industrial waste on all of our waterways. No matter how carefully a corporation designs procedures, pipelines, ships, tanks, trains, accidents continue to plague the earth. Some are not so accidental as they are deliberate neglect of accepted science, engineering or prevention procedures. The flames of the last BP refinery fire were clearly seen from Birch Bay. Should there ever be a train fire or explosion nearby we would have a grandstand seat or more likely evacuate. That is about 8,500 people in winter and 22,000 in summer. This is a resort area, dependent on clean water, clean beaches, abundant salmon, fishing, crabbing, clamming and the activities western Washington is famous for.

Comments noted. Comments from Paula Rotondi (20.-21.)

20. As a Birch Bay resident, I am greatly concerned about pollutants discharged by Whatcom

County refineries into the air I breathe and water where I enjoy recreating. I am also greatly concerned about the refineries pollution emissions contribution to ocean acidification and global warming. What is Phillips 66 Refinery planning to do in the future to monitor, upgrade, and reduce its CO2 emissions; and monitor and reduce other pollutants which could likely end up seeping into the nearby coastal waters?

Pleases see the response to Comment 11.

21. Phillips 66 Refinery is preparing to receive and refine trainloads of Bakken crude oil from North Dakota. It is widely publicized that this crude oil is obtained from the earth using fracking, and therefore contains highly toxic, highly flammable chemicals that increase the risk of enormous fire conflagrations when transporting trains de-rail. To avoid this "accidental" discharge of pollutants, I submit the following questions: Is Phillips 66 Refinery being required to only transport Bakken crude through Washington State in the newest, mostly highly secure petroleum rail cars? Would Phillips 66 Refinery maintain a 365, 24/7 trained critical response team to deal with such an event? What are Phillips 66 Refinery's plans to ensure that these volatile chemicals are:

of 147

1) somehow safely removed from the oil; 2) disposed of in a way that will not be detrimental to the land or marine environment; and 3) handled in such a way as to avoid an accident or explosion at that site? Does the revised pollutant discharge permit include specification of Phillips 66 Refinery responsibilities to private citizens, businesses, and Washington State for any/all damage from accidental or unauthorized discharges? Phillips 66 already receives crude oil by rail at some of its other U.S. refineries and expects to do so at its Ferndale refinery by the end of 2014. The company began modernizing its rail car fleet a couple of years ago with an order for 2,000 new tank cars. As a precaution, Phillips 66 uses the most conservative shipping/packaging classification for the crude oil it receives via rail in the U.S. Please see the response to Comment 14. The proposed NPDES permit contains conditions to prevent accidental and unauthorized discharges to waters of the state. It does not specify Phillips 66’s responsibilities for damages from these discharges. However, under state law (RCW 90.56.370), individuals or companies responsible for spilling oil into state waters are liable for damages resulting from injuries to public resources.

of 147

Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0002984 - Washington

Documents

Transcript of Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit WA0002984 - Washington