### FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0000 76

- 1

TESORO REFIN ING & MARKETING LLC
May 2013

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 Tesoro Refin ing

Anacortes

.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the NPDES permitti ng 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 c ontrol 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 prepar e a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet for public evaluation before issuing an NPDES permit.

P UBLIC R OLE 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 Tesoro Refining

- Anaco rtes , NPDES permit WA

0000 76

- 1

, are available for public review and comment from May 29 , 201 3 until the close of

business J uly 29 , 20 13 . For more details on preparing and filing comments about these documents, please see Appendix A

- Public Involvement

.

Before publishing the draft NPDES permit, Tesoro Refining

- Anacortes 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 in this Fact

Sheet as Appendix M

- 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

.

J. Mark Dirkx, P.E. prepared the permit and this fact sheet.FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0000 76

- 1

SUMMARY

The Tesoro Refining

- Anacortes operates a wastewater treatment plant that discharges to Fidalgo Bay. Ecology issued the previous permit for this facility on April 19, 2006

.

The proposed permit contains effluent limits for the conventional pollutants Biochemic al Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Oil

and Grease (O&G) , phenols, hexavalent chromium, ammonia, and sulfide similar to the previous permit

.

Ecology retained limit s at the biological treatment system to ensu re that flow and BOD loading do not exceed approved facility design criteria. The proposed permit increases the m onitoring frequencies from the previous permit for TSS, O&G

, and , sulfide ; reduces frequencies for

BOD5 and COD; and retains the frequency for phenol

, ammonia , and fecal coliform

.

The proposed permit adds a new acute toxicity limit and increased acute and chronic toxicity sampling frequency and a herring toxicity study

.DRAFT NPDES FACTSHEET FOR PUBLIC NOTICE

5/22/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 1

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

................................ ................................ ............................ 2 A. Facility Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3 Site Description and History

................................ ................................ .................... 3

Industrial Process

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

Wastewater Treatment

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

Solid Wastes

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 Discharge Outfalls

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 B. Summary of Compliance with Previous Permit Issued

................................ ............ 5 C. Review of Previous Permit Requirements

................................ ................................ . 6

D. Wastewater Characterization

................................ ................................ ..................... 7 E. Description of the Receiving Water

................................ ................................ ............ 8 F. SEPA Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9

III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS

................................ ................................ ...................... 9 A. Design Criteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 B. Technology

- Based Effluent Limits

................................ ................................ ........... 11

Process Wastewater

................................ ................................ ............................... 11

Ballast and Stormwater Allocations

................................ ................................ ....... 16 Final Effluent Discharge for Firewater Testing

................................ ..................... 18

Construction Stormwater

................................ ................................ ...................... 18 C. Surface Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limits

................................ ........................ 18 Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life

................................ ........... 18

Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

................................ ........ 18

Narrative Criteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18 Antidegradation

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 19 Mixing Zones

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 20 D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria

................................ ............ 25 E. Evaluation of Surface Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limits for Numeric

Criteria

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 26 F. Whole Effluent Toxicity

................................ ................................ ............................. 32 Pacific Herring

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33

G. Human Health

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 35 H. Sediment Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 37 I. Ground Water Quality

................................ ................................ ................................ 37

IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

................................ ................................ ........................ 38

A. Lab Accreditation

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 39

B. Performance

- Based Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies

................................ ... 39

V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS

................................ ................................ ........................... 40 A. Priority Pollutant Testing

................................ ................................ .......................... 40 B. Reporting and Recordkeeping

................................ ................................ .................. 40 C. Operation and Maintenance Plan

................................ ................................ ............. 40DRAFT NPDES FACTSHEET FOR PUBLIC NOTICE

5/22/2013 D. Non

- Routine and Unanticipated Discharges

................................ ........................... 40

E. Wastewater Tr eatment Efficiency Study and Updated Engineering Report

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 40

F. Pollution Prevention Plan

................................ ................................ .......................... 41 G. Dangerous Wastes

– Permit by Rule Requirements

................................ ............... 42

H. Outfall Evaluation

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 42 I. Certified Operator

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 43

J. General Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43

VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

................................ ................................ ................... 43

A. Permit Modifications

................................ ................................ ................................ . 43 B. Proposed Permit Issuance

................................ ................................ ......................... 43

VII. REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES

................................ ................................ 43

APPENDIX A

- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

................................ ................... 45

APPENDIX B

- GLOSSARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 46

APPENDIX C

- WASTEWATER TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM

................................ ....... 50

APPENDIX D

- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS

................................ ... 50

APPENDIX E

- TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION

................................ ............................. 50

APPENDIX F

- DRY WEATHER FLOW CALCULATION

................................ ...................... 50

APPENDIX G

- STORMWATER ALLOCATION EVENTS

................................ ..................... 50

APPENDIX H

- REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

............................... 50

APPENDIX I

- MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS DATA

................................ ................................ ... 50

APPENDIX J

- TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS

................................ ................................ ............ 50

APPENDIX K

- HERRING AND WET TESTING RESULTS

................................ ................... 50

APPENDIX L

- PERFORMANCE

- BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING FREQUENCY

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 50

APPENDIX M

- RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

................................ ................................ .......... 50Page 1 

### I. INTRODUCTION

The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, a nd 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 define d 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:

• Procedu r es Ecology follows for issuing NPDES permits (Chapter 173

- 220 WAC),

• W ater quality criteria for surface waters and ground waters (Chapters 173

- 201A and

C hapter 173

- 200 WAC),

• S ediment management standards (Chapter 173

- 204 WAC) , and

• Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater Facilities (Chapter 173

- 240 WAC)

These r ules require any industrial facility operator to obtain an NPDES permit bef ore discharg ing wastewater to state waters . They also help define the basis for limit s 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 an 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 t o send their comments during a period of least thirty days (WAC 173

- 220

- 050). (See Appendix A

- Public Involvement for more detail on the Public Notice and Comment procedures). After the public comment period ends, Ecology may make changes to the draft NPDES in response to

comments. Ecol ogy will summarize the response to comments and any changes to the permit in Appendix M

.Page 2 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATI ON

Table 1: General Facility Information

Facility Information

Applicant : Tesoro Refining & Marketing LLC

Facility Name and

Address : Tesoro Refining & Marketing LLC

West March Point Road

Anacortes, Washington 982 21

Type of Facility: Petroleum Refinery

SIC Code : 2911

Discharge Location: Water Body Name: Fidalgo Bay

Latitude Longitude

Outfall 001 48. 5 08 3 33 122.5 6666 7

Outfall 002 48. 4 916 6 7 122.5 75

Outfall 003 48.5 122.561389

Outfall 004 48. 490278 122.575

Permit Status

Renewal Date of Previous Permit April 19, 2006

Application for Permit Renewal Submittal Date November 3, 2010

Amended Application Submittal Date February 21, 2012

Date of Ecology Acceptance of Application May 4, 2011

Inspection Status

Date of Last Non

- sampling Inspection November 2012Page 3 A. Facility Description

Figure 1: Facility Location Map

(Northern half of March Point, Skagit County, WA)

S ITE D ESCRIPTION AND H ISTORY

The refinery is located on the northwestern coast of Washington on March Point, which extends into Fidalgo Bay to the west and Padilla Bay to the east. The facility is located in Skagit County, approximately two miles east/southeast of the town of Anacortes, Washington.

I NDUSTRIAL P ROCESS

The refinery was originally constructed in 1955. In 1965

, 68,000 barr els (bbl) per day of crude oil was processed. Currently the facility has the capacity to process approximately 105,000 to 115,000 bbl/stream day of crude oil. The main source of crude oil in the last five years has been from tankers delivering oil from A laska's Northern Slope and pipeline delivery oil from Canada.

Canada has been the primary source of crude for the past several years. Additional crude is now supplied via railcar from the Ba k ken Shale R eserves of Montana and North Dakota

. The refinery

sep arates crude oil into its various component parts. Separated components are further processed and blended into a variety of petroleum products. Th e se products include gasoline, turbine and jet fuel, diesel oil, liquid petroleum gas, and residual fuel oi l. The refinery directly employs about 330 people, and the estimated in direct employment is 280 jobs.Page 4 W ASTEWATER T REATMENT

Sanitary wastewater is treated in a septic tank. The effluent from the septic tank is discharged

into a neutraliz ation pit where spent acid from the refinery boiler feed water demineralization

process is added. The pH of the chemical wastewater ranges from 2 to 4. The spent acid is added once or twice a day in a batch process which keeps the neutraliz ation pit at a low e nough pH to effectively kill the microorganisms in the septic tank effluent. The neutraliz ation pit effluent is added to the end of the API separators at the afterbay. The pH of the wastewater is continuously monitored downstream of the neutralization pi t addition in the afterbay of the API separator. An

automated pH adjustment system adds spent acid from the alkylation unit or fresh caustic to the API afterbay in order to maintain an optimum pH for the biomass in the aeration basins.

I ndustrial wastewat er (including process wastewater and contaminated stormwater) receives primary and secondary treatment in a wastewater treatment system consisting of 2 parallel API oil/water separators, 2 primary clarifiers, 2 activated sludge units, 2 secondary clarifier s, and 2 final holding ponds. The total discharge volume generally ranges between 2.0 to 6.0 million gallons per day. The highest daily discharge since 2007 was 9.823 million gallons per day. The discharge is generally pumped into Fidalgo Bay between t he hours of 9 AM to 3 P M. There is another potential discharge point, Outfall 002, which could occasionally discharge during high

rainfall events. It is described later in the fact sh eet in the stormwater section.

Tesoro Logistics Operations LLC , Crude Railcar Off

- Loading Facility is a new rail car unloading facility located at the west end of the refinery. This operation is separately owned and operated from the refinery. The proposed permit authorizes the refinery to accept and treat oily

waste water from the rail yard un loading platform

. This amount is estimated to be approximately 144, 000 gallons per day. This discharge is permitted under State W aste Discharge Permit

No. ST0045528

.

S OLID W ASTES

The refinery manages various solid wastes onsite inc luding : garbage, recyclables, (paper, p lastic, glass, metal, and wood) , non

- hazardous excavated soil, concrete, and asphalt

.

D ISCHARGE O UTFALLS

All process water, sanitary wastewater, stormwater, and ballast water is discharged via a 30

- inch

multi

- port su bmerged diffuser at Outfall 001. The refinery's wastewater outfall is supported on the Tesoro shipping pier and extends approximately 3400 feet from the shore in a

north/northwester ly direction into Fidalgo Bay.

Stormwater /Emergency Outfalls 002

- 00 4

During extremely heavy rainfall events, Tesoro may discharge water from a retention pond on the west side of the refinery to prevent damage to refinery equipment and treatment facilities. The discharge points are designated Outfall 002 and Outfall 004. T his wastewater would consistPage 5 almost entirely of stormwater, but may contain small amounts of oily wastewater from drainage of the diesel loading rack pad and maintenance of the line supplying the loading rack. This pond receives no process wastewater from the refinery's process units. Under normal circumstances, Tesoro pumps this stormwater into the refinery's sewer system for processing at the wastewater treatment plant. Stormwater was last discharged from th e s e outfall s in November 1990,

November 1995 and December 1996. Since those incidents, Tesoro has increased the volume of this retention pond which has decreased the chances of an overflow or emergency discharge. No discharges have occurred at th e s e outfall s since December 1996.

During extremely he avy rainfall events, Tesoro may discharge water through the emergency overflow, Outfall 003, located between the East and West Polishing Ponds. The discharge would consist of high quality wastewater, treated to secondary treatment levels and would be

disch arged due to a heavy rain exceeding the storage capacity of either pond. Tesoro has not discharged from Outfall 003 since prior to 1990.

Tesoro Logistics Operations, Crude Railcar Off

- Loading Facility, Stormwater Outfalls 005 and

006

The construction of the new railcar unloading facility created two new stormwater outfalls designate d 005 and 006. The stormwater collection systems feeding the outfalls gather runoff from the rail facility arrival and departure tracks where rail cars and locomotives are sta ged. Outfall 005 drains a total area of approximately 20 acres to a retention pond before discharging

the stormwater to a vegetated hillside above March Point Road via a flow spreader. Outfall 006 drains an area of about 2 acres and discharges directly t o a vegetated swale above March Point Road. These vegetated slopes will control flow and remove possible sediments from the

stormwater. Both final outfall stormwater discharges combine with offsite (upslope) stormwater before reaching Fidalgo Bay. Becau se the new railcar facility is owned by a separate entity, discharges from stormwater outfalls 005 and 006 are authorized and covered by the Industrial

Stormwater General P ermit . Permit No. WAR126080, issued on August 27, 2012.

B . Summary of Compliance with Previous Permit Issued

Ecology conducts sampling and non

- sampling compliance inspection s annually at Tesoro . Since

the current permit was issued in 200 6

, Ecology has conducted a total of 8 non

- sampling and 5 sampling inspections at the refinery

. A non

- sampling inspection is a walk

- through inspection to visually check the wastewater treatment system

. During a sampling inspection Ecology reviews laboratory records

, and collects sampl es in addition to the facility walk

- through

.

T he refinery exceeded the total suspended solid permit limit based on one occasion on January 2,

2007 . An extreme rainfall event flushed TSS into the system and the effluent measured 2093 lbs for the day which exceeded t he limit of 2069 lbs. This is approximately 1.2% over th e limit. During follow

- up conversations the facility indicated this was an extreme event and any re

occurrence would be extremely rare. No TSS violations have occurred during this permit cycle

since this inc i dent.

The refinery also reported one fecal col iform sample above the permit limit that occurred on November 5, 2008. The sample measured 660/100 mL which exceeds the limit of 400Page 6 colonies/100 mL. This is 65% above the limit. The refinery believed that this result was due to

a first flush rain event from adjacent farm land ditches providing probable pollutants. The facility committed to improving ditch quality around their site so as to prevent fecal intrusion from reoccurring. Improved attention towards preventing these exceedances was agreed upon and implemented with no further incident or enforcement.

A possible facility sampling/lab error/anomaly resulted in a sample value for fecals that exceeded permitted levels on June 2, 2010. The sample was tested at 480/100 mL which exceeded the daily max imum limit of 400/100 mL. Further testing of samples for this day and preceding days could not duplicate the results within an order of magnitude (results were 1

- 10/100 mL). Improved attention to sampling and analytical procedures have prevented a

reoccu rrence of this problem. Although technically a violation, Ecology did not issue a penalty

.
A facility lab error resulted in a sample value for fecals that exceeded permitted levels on October 13, 2011. The sample was tested at 2752/100 mL which exceeded the daily maximum

limit of 400/100 mL. Lab t esting of the sample blank for this day resulted in “numbers to big to count”. A lab contamination problem was discovered. Modification of the lab procedures were put into place and results returned to normal . Tests up

- stream of the compliance point provided results that the discharge for this day was below the permit limit of 400/100 mL. Ecology did not issue a penalty.

C

. Review of Previous Permit Requirements

The previous permit required Tesoro 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. Outfall Evaluation Report : Tesoro submitted this report o n Septem ber 20, 2010. All discharge pipes appeared to be in good condition. The report fulfills the requirement in the previous permit.

2. Flow Measurement Engineering Report : Tesoro submitted th is report on June 2 8 , 20 07 . The report fulfills the requirement in the previous permit.

3. Treatment Efficiency Study Plan and Engineering Report : Tesoro submitted this report on October 22 , 20 10

. Ecology determined it met the requirement s in the previous permit. The evaluation of this report is discussed later in

this document.

4. Sediment S tudy:

The refinery submitted this report in 200 1

. The evaluation of this report is discussed later

in this document.

5. Dioxin Study and AKART Engineering Report : The refinery submitted the Dioxin Study and AKART Engineering Report to Ecology on March 12 , 200 9

.Page 7 The previous permit also required Tesoro to sample the chlorinated dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8

- Cl substituted tetra

- through octa

- congeners) concentrations as follows:

• In the wastewater stream from each of the c atalytic reformer regenerations

• In the final effluent most likely to contain wastewater generated during the catalytic reformer regenera tion events sampled for dioxins

The sampling results indicated that the most toxic compound of the chlorinated dioxin/furan congeners (2,3,7,8 TCDD) wa s detected in the wastewater stream from the Catalytic Reformer. The highest measured concentration was 103 ppq. N o dioxin s or furans were detected in the final effluent. The proposed permit requires Tesoro to monitor the chlorinated dioxin and furan (2,3 ,7,8

- Cl substituted tetra

- through octa

- congeners)

concentrations in the final effluent at Outfall 001 and the upstream wastewater from the catalytic reformer units twice during the next permit cycle.

The AKART report concluded that the existing waste water treatment system is the Best Available Technology (BAT) to treat dioxin at the refinery. After reviewing this report Ecology agreed with this conclusion.

6. Treatment System Operating Plan (TSOP) : The refinery submitted an updated TSOP to Ecology on August 2 4, 20 10 . The TSOP met the requirements in the previous permit.

7. WET Testing Reports : The results are described later in this document.

8. Mercury P2 Plan : The refinery submitted the initial plan to Ecology on April 16, 2007 with update s on 2009, 2010, 2011, and on March 27, 2012. This plan attempted to identify possible linkages between the Hg content of crude oils coming into the refinery and any Hg in the final discharge of effluent. No linkages could be established and all effluent sa mples were compliant with the permit limits. The plan met the requirements in the previous permit.

D . Wastewater Characterization

Tesoro characterized the wastewater discharge at outfall 001 in the permit application process for: conventional pollutant s, metals, cyanide, volatile organic compounds, acid compounds, base neutral compounds, and pesticides. The l ong term average values reported below for Outfall 001 are based on extensive (daily to weekly) monitoring completed during the term of the curren t permit.

The values in Table 2 are for pollutants with significant concentrations and/or of interest and metals and organics that were quantified at greater than detection limits. This information is

from the NPDES permit renewal application received on November 3 , 2010 and annual priority pollutant results for metals

.Page 8 Table 2 : Wastewater Characterization for Outfall 001 (Long Term Averages except where noted)

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

BOD 5. 9 142

COD 49 1119

TSS 9 217

Ammonia as N 1. 0 1 8

Flow 2

. 8 MGD

Temperature Winter 1 4

. 8 oC Summer 2 6 .4 oC

pH Minimum 6. 1 SU Maximum 9

. 2 SU

Oil & Grease 3 7 1

Sulfide 0.0 13 0. 2 8

Phenols (Total) 0.0 09 0.217

Parameter Concentration ( μ g/l) Mass (lb/day)

Arsenic (Total) 5.33 0. 1168

Copper (Total) 5 .01 0.1 1 57

Nickel (Total) 5 .33 0.1168

Selenium (Total) 13.0 0

. 3038

Zinc (Total) 66 1.54

Mercury (Total) 0.100 0.0023

Cyanide (Total) 7.0 0.1636

E . Description of the Receiving Water

Tesoro discharges to Fidalgo Bay

, which is designated as a n extraordinary marine receiving

water i n the vicinity of Outfall 001.Page 9 Other nearby point source outfalls includes the Shell Oil Products US

- Puget Sound Refining Company and the Anacortes City POTW . The Shell wastewater treatme nt plant outfall is located in the vicinity of the Tesoro outfall at a Latitude of 48 .509744 and a Longitude of 122 .57694

. The outfalls are physically located within 3000 feet of each other. For the city of Anacortes,

treated water from the wastewater tr eatment plant is piped out into the Guemes Channel. The end of the pipe is located just to the west of the Port of Anacortes Pier 2. This outfall is approximately 2 miles from the Tesoro outfall.

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.

T he t able below includes t he ambient background for 90 th 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 Rec eiving Waters prepared by Eric Crecelius, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, February 1998.

Table 3 : Ambient Background Data

Parameter Value Used

Temperature (90 th percentile) 11.8 0 C

Ammonia 16 ug/L

Aluminum 45.2 ug/L

Cadmium 0.059 ug/L

Copper 0.673 ug/L

Lead 0.146 ug/L

Mercury 0.001 ug/L

Zinc 3.9 ug/L

F . 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 dis charges, not to new discharges.



### III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS

Federal and State regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES p ermit must be either technology or water quality

- based.Page 10 • 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 C hapter 173

- 220 WAC).

• Water quality

- based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the Surface Water Quality Standards ( C hapter 173

- 201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter

173

- 200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards ( C hapter 173

- 204 WAC) or the Nationa l 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 permit renewal application and from supporting reports (engineering, priority pollutant sampling , 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 effl uent 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.

Ecolog y 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, t he facility’s effluent discharge 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 vio lation 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 th e refinery ’s wastewater treatment plant

. The design criteria for this treatment facility we re obtained from Tesoro correspondence from April 2000, January 4, 2005

, July 25, 2005, and the updated October 19, 2010 engineering

reports prepared by Tesoro

.

Table 4 : Design Standards

Flows or waste loadings of the following design criteria for the permitted treatment facility shall not be exceeded:

Process Wastewater treatment plant capacity (prior to commingling with non

- process area storm water) Average monthly flow for the maximum month 1 4.3 MGD

Average monthly COD for the maximum month 2 1700 mg/l

1 as measured at influent to the API

2 as measured at the primary clarifierPage 11 B. Technology

- Based Effluent Limits

P ROCESS W ASTEWATER

Ecology calculated effluent limits for the Tesoro 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 subc ategory of petroleum refi ning.

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 whicheve r 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 efflue nt 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 toxicant s (AKART) in its wastewater as required under Washington State regulations. Because Ecology appl ies 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 s tates. 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 te chnologies 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 r eleased and remain unreported.

On September 2, 2004 (Fed eral 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

lim it. It 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

conve ntional end

- of

- pipe treatment.Page 12 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

f

ederal eff luent 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 y ears old or less

, they are considered to be AKART . T his will be immediately apparent in reviewing the development document. The development document describes production processes, pollutants generated, treatment efficiencies, and unit process designs pr esent nationwide in the specific industry at the time of e ffluent guideline development.

Generally, when effluent guidelines are over 10 years old, Ecology will analyze unit process design s and efficiencies to determine that the effluent guidelines consti tute AKART and meet the intent of RCW 90.48.520. The previous NPDES permit required Tesoro to prepare a treatment efficiency study and an engineering report describing the treatment capaci ty of the wastewater facility.

Ecology compared Tesoro ’s productio n processes, pollutants generated, and treatment technology to EPA’s original development document and the results of EPA’s 1996 and 2004 evaluations of the petroleum refining industry. Ecology also examined the treatability data base

and Tesoro ’s wastewa ter treatment design and efficiencies. Ecology determined that Tesoro is providing AKART for its wastewater.

Since Ecology issued the previous NPDES permit ( May 1, 2006 ), Tesoro 's crude oil throughput

rate has changed

. The daily average throughput rate ranged from 59,000 to 130,000 bbls/day. The rate changes in refinery processes are shown in the table belo w . The size and process factor determination is documented in Appendix E

. 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 limits for phenols and chromium.

Table 5 : Refinery Process Throughput

Production Rates (bbls/day) and Factors 1990 Permit 1998 Permit 2006 Permit Proposed

Permit

Actual Feed Stock 85

, 400* 110

, 000 113

, 600 114

, 300

Desalting 85

, 400 117

, 100 119

, 600 115

, 300Page 13 Production Rates (bbls/day) and Factors 1990 Permit 1998 Permit 2006 Permit Proposed

Permit

Atmospheric Distillation, 85

, 400 110

, 000 113

, 600 114

, 300

Vacuum Distillation 34

, 000 34

, 000 42

, 800 47

, 200

Fluid Catalytic Cracking 35

, 900 44

, 300 43

, 300 46

, 400

Propane Deasphalting 15

, 100 13

, 800 14

, 000 22

, 000

Hydrotreating ** 19

, 000 69

, 900 61

, 000 67

, 000

H 2 SO 4 Alkylation 9

, 000 12

, 400 11

, 300 12

, 000

Catalytic Reforming ** 15

, 000 23

, 200 23

, 800 31

, 000

Process Factor 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29

Size Factor 1.13 1.23 1.23 1.23

Adjusted Feedstock 121,236 147,477 152,304 181,360

New Source Performance

Increment 23,380 49,540 54,376 83,423

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

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

chromium.

Increases in the feed stock rate are subject to limitations that Ecology determined to be the

treatment leve l obtained from using all known available and reasonable treatment methods. The

increases are subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on the basis of AKART

. Ecology calculated the NSPS limitations by multiplying the increase in adjusted feed s tock, (181,360

– 97,937 = 83,423 bbls/day ) by New Source Performance Standards. It added the resulting NSPS increment, based upon 83,423 bbls/day, to the BAT and BPT limitations , based upon the adjusted baseline feedstock rate of 97,937 bbls/day

. Ecology did not include BCT limitations because they are equivalent to BPT limitations.

The Environmental Protection Agency determined 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 chromi um, Ecology must include 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.Page 14 Ecology believes the guideline

- der iv ed effluent limit is art ificially high now that chromium in the effluent has decreased to levels bordering on non

- detectable. All detectable samples of

chromium in the Tesoro effluent have been within the range of 5 to 11 μg/l which is less than

1/10 th of the marine chronic water quality standard of 50 μg/l for hexavalent chromium (acute standard = 1100 μg/l). Approximately half of the samples collected during the last 5 years have

been non

- detectable for chromium.

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 μg/l as a technology

based limit a nd not a s a water quality

- based limit.

At a 2. 62 MGD effluent flow (dry weather), the 50 μg/l limit converts to 1.1 2 lbs/day. This limit is more stringent than the federal effluent guideline BAT limit of 1.52 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 a nd a mass

- based BAT limit of 1.52 lbs/day to cover all flo w 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 Tesoro 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 th at 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. Tesoro will continue to perform semi

annual hexavalent ch romium monitoring.

The effluent limit calculations are tabulated in Appendix E . The calculated limit s are based on the NSPS increment and the more stringent of the BAT and BPT determinations. BAT limitations are more stringent tha n BPT for phenol and chromium.

The state’s antidegradation p rogram is discussed later in this document. The federally mandated

program has three tiers of protection. The Tier II a ntidegradation provisions limit the conditions under which waters of higher quality than standa rds 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 a n 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.Page 15 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 Tesoro in March

, 1998

.

The calculated effluent limits based on production are greater than 10% of the limits in Te soro’s

1998 permit. For Ecology to consider applying the higher limits to Tesoro’s discharge, Tesoro 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 dete rmines that lowering the water quality is necessary and in the ov erriding public interest. Base d 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 proposed permit includes effluent limits that are 10% higher than the effective limits in

Tesoro’s 1998 permit. This increase i n limits does not require a Tier II analysis. The proposed

limits are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6 : Proposed Effluent Limits

PARAMETER Units Baseline Effluent Limits

(from 1998 Permit) 10 % Increase from

Baseline Limits

July 2003

Monthly Average July 2003

Daily

Maximum Proposed

Monthly Average Proposed

Daily

Maximum

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5

- day) lbs/day 690 1,260 760 1,390

Chemical Oxygen

Demand lbs/day 4,800 9,300 5,280 10,230

Total Suspended

Solids lbs/day 560 870 620 960

Oil and Grease lbs/day 200 380 220 420

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 4.5 9.3 5.0 10.2

Ammonia as N lbs/day 440 970 480 1,070

Sulfide lbs/day 3.7 8.2 4.0 9.0

Hexavalent lbs/day 0.6 1.3

-- 1.52 lbs/dayPage 16 PARAMETER Units Baseline Effluent Limits

(from 1998 Permit) 10 % Increase from

Baseline Limits

July 2003

Monthly Average July 2003

Daily

Maximum Proposed

Monthly Average Proposed

Daily

Maximum

Chromium and mg/l and 0.050 mg/l

Fecal Coliforms Organism

/100ml 200 400 200 400

B ALLAST AND S TORMWATER A LLOCATIONS

C ontaminated stormwater from the process area is collected by the oily water sewer and

convey ed to the wastewater facility for treatment . Stormwater runoff generated from the

wastewater treatment area is discharged ordinarily to the stormwater flume but it can be routed back to the wastewater treatment plant and treated if necessary. S tormwater from the tank farms

and the rest of the industrial site is collected in the stormwater system and diverted to the

stormwater flume

. Some settling occurs in th e fl ume and oil and grease can be skimmed from the surface as necessary. S tormwater is then routed to the west retention pond where it is commingled with the treated process wastewater prior to final discharge. Tesoro can discharge petroleum contaminated bal last water into the process wastewater treatment system , but has not during the last 5 years

.

Stormwater is not directly measured at the facility . Direct measurement of total stormwater is not possible since a portion of the stormwater is diverted into t he oily water sewer at many collection points, and a portion of the stormwater is collected in the stormwater system. The stormwater flow is calculated by subtracting an estimated dry weather flow from the to tal flow discharged each day.

Dry weather flow for current conditions was estimated by evaluating total flow during dry weather time periods at the facility. This estimate was determined to be 2. 62 MGD . The data used in the dry weather flow estimate is presented in Appendix F.

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 w ere developed to apply to runoff from areas associated with industrial activity. During the months of June through October, Tesoro 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. Tesoro may retain stormwater within the north tank dike ponds or in dedicated tanks du ring rain events to the extent possible and slowly dischargesPage 17 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, Tesoro may use rainfall data from other nearby industries or the

National Weathe r Service station at Anacortes.

Table 7 : Stormwater and Ballast Water Allocations

Parameter Stormwater Allocation (lbs/million gallon s) 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

Tesoro claimed the stormwater allocation once for BOD, 24 times for TSS , and 8 times for oil and grease during the last permit cycle. Appendix G shows the monitoring periods when Tesoro

claimed the stormwater allocation s

.

S TORMWATER /E MERGENCY O VERFLOW M ONITORING ( OUTFALLS 002/003/004)

There were n o discharges from outfall s 002, 003, and 004 during the previous permit term.

In the event of a discharge from Outfall 002, 003, or 004, the proposed permit requires Tesoro to characterize the quality of the effluent discharged. The facility must monitor pH, BOD, TSS, COD, oil and grease, lead, zinc, volatile organics, base neutral acids (BNA s ), and phenols.

Ecology chose t hese parameters based on knowledge of the characteristics of the materials handled at the truck rack and the constituents detected in the stormwater flume discharge

. W hen contaminated with oily materials , this monitoring is consistent with the types of ana lyses required for the final effluent discharge d to the bay.

Tesoro must estimate the flow for any discharge from outfalls 002, 003, and 004 and report it along with the sampling results from these outfall’s discharges with the monthly discharge

monitorin g report.Page 18 F INAL E FFLUENT D ISCHARGE FOR F IREWATER T ESTING

The proposed permit authorizes Tesoro 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 d uring the firewater testing or ERT training.

C ONSTRUCTION S TORMWATER

Tesoro 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 at the refinery are not c overed by the proposed NPDES permit.

C. Surface Water Quality

- Based Effluent Limits

The Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards ( C hapter 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 q uality

- 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).

N UMERICAL C RITERIA FOR THE P ROTECTION OF A QUATIC L IFE

Numerical water qu ality 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 cri teria 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

.

N UMERICAL C RITERIA FOR THE P ROTECTION OF H UMAN H EALTH

The U.S. EPA has published 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human health that are applicable to dischargers in Washingt on 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 incl ude radionuclide criteria to protect humans from the effects of

radioactive substances.

N ARRATIVE C RITERIA

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:Page 19 • Adversel y affect designated water uses.

• Cause acute or chronic t oxicity 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.

A NTIDEGRADATION

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 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) f or 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 a pplies 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.

The proposed permit increases the limits by 10% but not greater than 10% therefore t his 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 C hapter 173

- 201A WAC.Page 20 • 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 wit h 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 e xplicitly allowed in this C hapter.

T his 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 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 standa rds for

marine waters extraordinary quality category given in Chapter 173

- 201A WAC. Therefore, Ecology use s 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 Tesoro’s discharge meet the definition of an expanded action and trigger a Tier II analysis.

Should Tesoro 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

d egradation 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.

M IXING Z ONES

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 criteria, so long as the dilut ed 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 mixing zones must meet water quality numeric criteria.

S tate 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 S tate’s W ater Q uality S tandards 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 typicallyPage 21 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 f requently 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 Manu al). 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 calle d 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

crite ria 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 ex ceed 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 po llutants

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.

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 allowin g the discharger a mixing zone:

1. Ecology must specify both the allowed size and location in a permit. The proposed permit specifies the size and location of the allowed mixing zone.

2. The facility must fully apply AKART to its discharge

.Page 22 Ecology has determined that the treatment provided for the discharge at Outfall 001 and the pollution prevention acti vities practiced at Tesoro 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.

Critic al 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 dischar ge. 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 stratifi cation 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

stop s 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 w ater (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 cond itions to model the discharge:

• Water depth at MLLW of 2 5 feet.

• Density profile with a difference of 8.18 sigma

- t units between 2 5 feet and the surface.

• 50 th percentile current speeds of 5 .5 c m/sec for chronic and human health mixing zones.

• 10 th percentile current speeds of 1.0 c m/sec for acute mixing zone.

• Maximum average monthly effluent flow of 4. 5 MGD for chronic and human health non

carcinogen.

• Annual average flow of 2

. 8 MGD for human health carcinogen.

• Maximum daily flow of 7

. 78 million gal lons per day (MGD) for acute mixing zone.

• 1 DAD MAX Effluent temperature of 31

. 7 degrees C.

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.Page 23 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 chro nic 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 disc harged

.

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 al so 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 additionally determined that th e discharge at Outfall 001 will not exceed 3 3 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 Tesoro 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 a nd is centered at a distance of 2 434 feet from shore. The mixing zone does not lie near the herring spawning areas, which are clos er to shore.

There is no documented link between Tesoro ’s discharge at Outfall 001 and the decline in the local herring population. Tesoro will use the recently developed herring bioassay tests to evaluate the possible effects of their effluent on herring and to compare the herring bioassay

results with oth er EPA approved bioassay tests.

Ecology revi ewed 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 reasona ble 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 excee d 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 ( Appendix H ) . Ecology concluded the discharge/receiving water

mi xture 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.Page 24 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 ther efore 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 m oves 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 mixin g zone (in the form of the dilution factor) using design criteria with a low probability of occurrence. For example, Ecology uses the expected 95 th percentile pollutant concentration, the 90 th percentile background concentration,

the centerline dilution f actor 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.

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 th at th e acute criteria will be met at 10% of the distance (22.5 ft) of the chronic mixing zone (225 ft)

.

• 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 notPage 25 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 organis m s 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. 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 p oses 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 th e dis tance of the chronic mixing zone.

• Comply with size restrictions.

The mixing zone authorized for th e discharge at Outfall 001 complies with the size restrictions published in C hapter 173

- 201A WAC.

9. Overlap of Mixing Zones.

Th e mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 001 does not overlap another mixing zone

.

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria

Applicable designated uses and surface water quality criteria are defined in C hapter 173

- 201A WAC. In addition, the U.S. EPA set human health criteria for toxic pollutants (40 CFR 131.36). Criteria applicable to this facility’s discharge are summarized below.

Aquatic life uses are designated using the following general categories. All indigenous fish and

non

- fish aquatic species must 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.Page 26 T he a quatic l ife u ses for this receiving water are identified below :

Table 8 : Aquatic Life Uses & Associated Criteria

Ex cellent quality Temperature Criteria

– Highest 1D MAX 16 o C (60.8 o F) Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

– Lowest 1 Day

Minimum 6 .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. 5 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 mari ne water uses are wildlife habitat, harvesting, commerce and navigation, boating, and aesthetics.

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 ne ar

- 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 W AC.

Diffuser Information

The diffuser at O utfall 001 is 26 feet long with a diameter of 30 inches. There are 3 ports 12 inches in diameter. The distance between ports is 11 feet. The port openings are rectangular shaped with a length of 12.8 inches and width of 6 inches. The port ope ning information was

obtained f r o m information contained in “Outfall and Diffuser Inspection ” report dated September 20, 2010. The MLLW depth at the diffuser is 25 feet. This information is available in

the Dilution Ratio St udy prepared by CH2M HILL and submitted t o Ecology in February of

1991.Page 27 Chronic Mixing Zone

WAC 173

- 201A

- 100(4)(b)(i) specifies mixing zones shall not extend in any horizontal direction from the discharge ports for a distance greater than 200 feet plus the depth of water over the discharge ports as measured during mean lower low water (MLLW). Given a MLLW water depth of 25 feet (7.6 meters) for Tesoro's outfall, the horizontal distance therefore is 225 feet (68.6 meters). The mixing zone extends from the seabed to the top of the water surface.

Acute Mixing Zone

WAC 173

- 201A

- 100(8)(b) specifies that in estuarine waters a zone where acute criteria may be exceeded shall not extend beyond 10% of the distance established for the maximum or chronic

zone as meas ured independently from the discharge ports. The acute zone therefore extends 22.5 feet (6.86 meters) from the dis charge ports.

Dilution factors Ecology used EPA’s Visual Plumes model UM3 to predict dilution factors at the edge of the mixing zones. The a mbient characteristics used were similar to those used for the mixing zone analysis at the BP Cherry Point refinery . Ecology’s previous mixing zone analysis for Tesoro used DOS Plumes. UM3 is now fully three

- dimensional compared to UM in DOS Plumes. So,

s ome of the results may be slightly different.

To determine the acute dilution factor

, Ecology used a 10 percentile ambient velocity of 1 cm/s from previous mixing zone analysis along with the updated current daily maximum flow of 7.78 MGD and a daily maxim um temperature of 31.7 C. These assumptions resulted in a dilution

factor of 18 was obtained which is comparable to the previous dilution factor of 20. The

difference is likely related to the slight increase in daily maximum flow.

To determine the chronic dilution factor

, Ecology used a 50th percentile ambient velocity of 5.5

cm/s from the previous mixing zone analysis along with the updated current monthly average flow of 4.5 MGD. The average pump

- out rate for effluent discharge was estimated previously at 10,500 gpm which is equivalent to 15.12 MGD. The highest 30

- day average flow (2006

- 2011)

was estimated at 4.5 MGD. At a rate of 15.12 MGD, it would take 0.297 day to pump all the water. So the flow occurs for 29.7% of the day. The model predicted dilution factor of 31 was divided by this number (0.297) to get a near 100 dilution factor. The previous dilution factor was 91.

For non

- carcinogens the flow is the same as the chronic flow, so the dilution factor will be same.

To determine the dilution factor fo r carcinogens the annual average flow (2.8 MGD) was used and the same procedure as in estimating the chronic dilution factor was followed. This produced a Human Health Carcinogen dilution factor of 166. This compares to the previous factor of 93.

Append ix I shows the input parameters and dilution factors.

WAC 173

- 201A

- 400

- (6) requires the dilution zone to be minimized, and as such the most conservative of dilution results must used. In this case, with Ecology decided to retain the

dilution factors from the previous permit, with the exception of the new acute dilution factor of

18.Page 28 Table 9 : Dilution Factors (DF)

Acute Chronic

Aquatic Life 18 91 Human Health, Carcinogen N/A 9 3
Human Health, Non

- carcinogen N/A 9 1

Ecology determined the impacts of immediate oxygen deficiency, temperature, pH, fecal coliform, chlorine, ammonia, metals, nutrients, and other toxics as described below, using the dilution factors in the above table. The derivation of surface water quali ty

- based limits also takes into account the variability of pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the receiving water.

BOD 5 E cology 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

BOD 5 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 potenti al 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 a ctions 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 an d 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 tem perature (7

- DADMax). The 7

- DADMax temperature is the arithmetic average of seven consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures. Criteria for marine waters andPage 29 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 increment. These increments are permitted only to the extent doing so does n ot 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 abov e 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 eve n 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 co mbined.

• Temperature Acute Effects

Instantaneous lethality to passing fish: The upper 99 th 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

te mperature 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 locati ons where eggs are incubating.

Annual summer maximum, supplementary spawning criterion, and incremental warming

criteria: Ecology calculated the reasonable potential for th e discharge to exceed the annual summer maximum, the supplementary spawning criterion, and the incremental warming criter ia (see temperature calculation in Appendix J ).

The discharge is only allowed to warm the water by a defined increment when the backgr ound (ambient) temperature is cooler or warmer than the assigned threshold criterion. Ecology allowsPage 30 warming increments only when they do not cause temperatures to exceed either the annual maximum or supplemental spawning criteria.

The incremental increas e for this discharge is within the allowable amount. Therefore, the proposed permit does no t include a temperature limit.

The permit requires additional mon itoring of effluent temperature . Ecology will reevaluate the reasonable potential during the next permit renewal

.

General lethality and migration blockage: The receiving water conditions are listed in Section

II.F of the fact sheet. The Strait of Georgia does not exceed a 1DMax of 23°C.

pH Compliance with the technology

- based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 wi ll assure compliance with the water quality standards of surface waters because of the high buffering capacity of marine water.

Fecal Coliform The permit requires the refinery to comply with domestic technology based effluent limits for

fecal coliforms in their effluent, since domestic wastewater is treated in their wastewater facility. Domestic wastewater standards are established in Chapter 173

- 221 WAC, entitled "Discharge

Standards and Effluent Limitations For Domestic Wastewater Facilities". Domesti c effluent limits for fecal coliforms are 200 organisms/100 ml on a monthly average basis with a maximum of 400 organisms/100 ml in any one sample. Tesoro must meet the water quality standard for marine excellent receiving waters (14 organisms/100 ml) at t he edge of the chronic zone. With a dilution of 91:1 at the edge of the chronic zone the predicted fecal coliform concentration at the boundary of the chronic mixing zone is 4.3 organisms/100 ml if the maximum technical

concentration standard of 400 is me t 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(91) + 400(1)]/92 = 4.3

The technological standard is therefore protective of the water quality standard.

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 f acilities with technology

- based effluent limits from meeting the surface w ater q uality s tandards

.

Ecology determined through review of available data and knowledge of the refinery process that

the following toxic pollutants are present in the discharge: cyanide, sulfide, copper, zinc, lead, silver, chloroform, dichlorobromomethane, antimony, arsenic, mercury, nickel, thallium, nitrate, phosphorus, chromium, phenol, selenium, chlorine and ammonia. Ecology conducted a

reasonable potential to exceed analysis (see Appendix H ) on these parameters to determine whether it would require effluent lim its 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 waterPage 31 background data for the metal parameters fr om 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 re presentative 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

Marine R eceiving Waters

. There are limited effluent data avail able for metals. Ecology

obtained effluent values from the permit application and its inspection data.

Valid ambient background data w ere available for ammonia, total cyanide, fluoride, aluminum,

diss olved 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 H ). This determination

assumes that the refinery meets the other effluent limits of this permit.

Sodium hypochlorite is introduced at the final stages of waste water treatment to reduce any

fecal coliform in the effluent. A water quality based effluent limit for chlorine was included in the previous permit. Again

, calculations using the maximum discharge amount, showed that there is no reasonable potential for this discharge to cause a violation of water quality standards

for chlorine . Therefore no chlorine limit is required.

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). Tesoro 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 po rtion 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 ambien t 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 Tesoro’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 Ap pendix H . With the available dilution at Tesoro

, Ecology determined no reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards for ammonia at the edge of the acute and chronic dilution zones.Page 32 Stormwater Outfalls 002

- 004

Much of the stormwater from Tesoro 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 is not discharged offsite. As discussed previously, it

i s a very rare occurrence to have stormwater discharged at outfalls 002

- 004.

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 ca nnot 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 efflu ent, 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 any potential lethal effect of the effluent on organisms in the receiving

water.

• Chronic toxicity tests measure various subletha l toxic responses such as retarded growth or reduced reproduction. Chronic toxicity tests often 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 org anism's life. Some chronic toxicity tests also measure organism

survival.

Ecology

- accredited WET testing laboratories use the proper WET testing protocols, fulfill the data requirements, and submit results in the correct reporting format. Accredited labo ratory staff know about WET testing and how to calculate an NOEC, LC 50 , EC 50 , IC 25 , etc. 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 (h ttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9580.html), which is referenced in the permit. Ecology

recommends that the Permittee sends a copy of the acute or chronic toxicity sections(s) of its NPDES permit to the laboratory.

Acute Toxicity

WET testing conducted during t he previous permit term showed the facility’s effluent has a reasonable potential to cause acute toxicity in the receiving water. The proposed permit will include an acute toxicity limit. The effluent limit for acute toxicity is: No acute toxicity

detec ted in a test sample representing the acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC). The acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC) is the concentration of effluent at the boundary of the acute mixing zone during critical conditions. The ACEC equals 5 % effluent.

Compliance with an acute toxicity limit is measured by an acute toxicity test comparing test organism survival in the ACEC (using a sample of effluent diluted to equal the ACEC) to

survival in nontoxic control water. Tesoro is in compliance wit h the acute toxicity limit if therePage 33 is no statistically significant difference in test organism survival between the ACEC sample and the control sample.

Chronic Toxicity
As required in the existing permit, the Permittee conducted chronic toxicity testing o n the final effluent during the third or fourth year of the permit term. The two organisms tested were t op

s melt and b lue m ussel . Results of the chronic testing in Appendix K showed no reasonable potential for effluent discharges to cause receiving water toxicity. The proposed permit does not

include a chronic WET limit. Tesoro must retest the effluent before submitting an application for permit renewal in order to demonstrate that chronic toxicity has no t increased in the effluent.

In addition:

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

characterization

.

• 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 effluent toxicity

has increased. Tesoro may demonstrate to Ecology that effluent toxicity has not increased by performing additional WET testing after it has made the process or material changes.

P ACIFIC H ERRING The 2008 Washington State Herring Stock Status Report published by the Washington D epartment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in November 2009 notes that the spawning biomass for the Fidalgo Bay Pacific herring ( Clupea pallasi ) stock has declined significantly since 1999. WDFW also considers the status of the North Puget Sound region herring stocks in general to be depressed. Less than half of all Puget Sound herring stocks were listed by WDFW in the 2008 report as healthy or moderately healthy.

The Cherry Point herring stock, which spawns in late spring just north of Bellingham, was once

a s large as all of the other herring stocks in Washington combined. The stock has dramatically declined to 7.5% of its size in 1973. The Cherry Point stock size declined from nearly 15,000 tons in 1973 to only 1120 tons in 2012. Although much of the decl ine may be due to natural factors, point and non

- point sources of pollution potentially may be acting in conce rt with the

natural stressors.

Because of the large amount of industrial activity at Cherry Point and Fidalgo Bay associated

with refineries and other heavy industry, Ecology and Western Washington University developed and validated herring toxicity tests to use for effluent and environmental testing. In November 2005, Ecology announced the validation for regulatory use of a 96

- hour herring prolar val acute

survival test and a 10

- day herring embryo survival and normal development test. The validation

of the 7

- day larval herring survival and growth test was announced in a final report dated November 2011 and updated in September 2012 to add another lab.Page 34 In April 2006, Ecology issued an agreed order to the BP Cherry Point Refinery, ConocoPhillips Ferndale Refinery, Shell Puget Sound Refinery, Tesoro Anacortes Refinery, and the Alcoa

- Intalco Works Aluminum Smelter requiring them to conduct prolarval h erring 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 d efined 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, Tesoro must develop a nd implement a Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation (TI/RE) Plan. The order also stated that with prior approval from Ecology, Tesoro could use the topsmelt Atherinops affinis , 96

- hour acute survival test as an alternate test if herring larvae are unavailable during the

test window.

From 2007 to 2012, the herring tests run on Tesoro’s effluent showed some toxicity on three occasions, but the results did not trigger additional testing or investigation. In several cases, Tesoro 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 prolarval herring acute testing and topsmelt testing for Tesoro are summarized in Appendix K.

Herring toxicity testing is included in the proposed permit. Tesoro is required to conduct acute testing using the prolarval 4

- day survival test and chronic testing using the embryo survival and normal development test and the larval 7

- day survival and gr owth test. The permit requires that effluent monitoring be done with both herring and standard EPA toxicity tests. This testing is not for compliance monitoring or effluent characterization so the requirements of WAC 173

- 205

- 050(1)(d) do not apply.

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 con firmed with the herring tests.

Another goal in p airing the herring tests with EPA tests is to discover the extent to which EPA tests can be used to protect herring. Herring are unavailable for testing outside of the six

- month West Coast herring spawning season. Effectively monitoring effluents and con trolling toxicity requires more frequent testing than is possible using test organisms obtained from the spawning of wild herring. The standard EPA toxicity tests are available all year and can be set up quickly if needed. The permit requirements 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. If successful, future permit fact sheets may define the relative toxicity of the EPA and

he rring tests and describe how the permit requires EPA tests to specifically protect herring. The EPA tests would replace herring testing in permits

.Page 35 G. Human Health

Washington’s water quality standards include 91 numeric human health

- based criteria tha t 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 Tesoro ’s effluent may contain chemicals of concern posing a risk to human health. Ecology determined this because data or process information indicate regulated chemicals occur in the discharge.

Ecology cond ucted 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

reaso nable potential determination.

Tesoro submitted effluent characterization data for evaluati ng human health criteria as part of their permit renewal application rece ived on November 3, 2010 . Reasonable potential to exceed

human health criteria is evaluated for each parameter in Appendix H

. Ecology’s evaluation showed that the discharge has no reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality standards, thus effluent limits are 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 μ g/L inorganic arsenic and is based on exposure from fish and shellfish tissue ingestion. The freshwater criterion is 0.018 μ g/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 μ g/L, which is not risk

- based, and because the human health criteria are sometimes exceeded by natur al 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 cou ld 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 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:Page 36 1. Pursue, at the national level, a solut ion 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 wa ter 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 μ g/L could also result in municipal treatment plants being unable to meet

criteria

- based effluent limits. Ecology will continue to pursue this issue as op portunities 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 concentra tions, 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 ef fluent 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 re gulate arsenic.

Dioxin

EPA traced the dioxins found in some refinery effluents to an internal waste stream from the regeneration of catalytic reformer units. Tesoro has a catalytic reform ing unit, which regenerates sporadically in frequency and duration. Tesoro has not detected dioxin in its final effluent, but even if present

, it would be difficult to detect due to dilution with other process wastewaters prior to entering the wastewater treatment plant and the intermittent generation of the caustic

wash water from the reformers.

Ecology has determined that f urther investigation into the generation of dioxins at refineries is necessary. The previous permit required Tesoro to monitor the dioxin and furan in the regeneration wastewater stream, in the API s eparator sludge, and in the final effluent captured at the time that is most likely to contain wastewater generated during the catalytic reformer regenerated events. The analysis included chlorinated dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8

- Cl substituted

tetra

- throu gh octa

- congeners). The permit specified the test method and the required detection

level.

Tesoro also investigated the fate of any dioxins and furans. Literature has shown that dioxins tend to bind to particulate matter in the wastewater, much of which set tles out in the API

separators.

Tesoro ’s Dioxin Study Report submitted to Ecology on March 12, 2009 indicated that 2,3,7,8

TCDD was detected in 3 sample s (Reformer spent caustic wash water

– April, May, and

December 2008 ). The measured concentration s were 103, 59.1, and 45.3 ppq respectively.

The proposed permit requires Tesoro to sample the final effluent (Outfall 001) and the upstream wastewater stream from the catalytic reformer unit for chlorinated dioxin and furan (2,3,7,8

- Cl

substituted tetra

- through octa

- congeners) concentrations twice during the next permit cycle.Page 37 H. Sediment Quality

The aquatic sediment standards (WAC 173

- 204) protect aquatic biota and human health. Under these standards Ecology may require a facil ity 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

In 2001, Tesoro conducted a marine sediment sampling and analysis study. The purpose of the study was to comply with the NPDES permit sed iment monitoring requirements.

Ecology’s r eview of the sediment surveys in 1995 and 2001 show ed no violation of sediment

standards. There was a concern that more study of possible ammonia impact s may be needed in

the future.

The proposed permit requires a sediment toxicity analysis of samples collected from the top 10

cm of sediment in the vicinity of the outfall

. This sediment monitoring is required to be

conducted at the beginning of the proposed permit cycle, which is approximately 12 years after

the 200 1 sediment sampling event.

Tesoro 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

The Ground Water Quality Standards, ( C hapter 173

- 200 WAC), protect beneficial uses of ground water. Permits issued by Ecology must not allow violations of tho se standards (WAC

173

- 200

- 100).

Tesoro has one un lined holding pond (Tank 165 yard), used intermi ttently to temporarily store final effluent, that could potentially discharge to groundwater. Th i s pond is located within

- approximately 1 00 feet of Padilla Bay at high tide. If a discharge to ground water from th is pond is occurring, it discharges alm ost directly into the Bay, where the final effluent is currently discharged via a marine outfall. The discharge would consist of high quality wastewater, treated to secondary treatment levels. Concentrations of most pollutants in Tesoro’s effluent were f ound to be less than the groundwater quality criteria. Only three metals, mercury, selenium, and arsenic, and the organic compound chloroform exceeded the criteria. Chloroform and arsenic were the only parameters present at levels that were significantly higher than the criteria. Incidental leakage of effluent of this quality, and in this location, should have undetectable or minimal impacts to ground water qual ity. The volume of groundwater whic h would potentially be impacted would be very small and imp acts would occur just prior to its entering the marine receiving water (the current discharge location). Therefore no limitations or actions are required based on potential effects to ground water.

Table 10 compares the calculated effluent limits with the limits from the previous permit issued in April, 2006.Page 38 Table 10 : Comparison of Effluent Limit s with Previous Permit

Units Basis of

Limit Previous Permit 2006

Effluent Limits: Outf all 001 Calculated

Effluent Limits:

Outfall 001

Parameter Average Monthly Maximum Daily Average Monthly Maximum Daily Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5

- day) lbs/day BPT 710 1280 800 1450

Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day BPT 4900 9500 5510 10710

Total Suspended Solids lbs/day BPT 560 890 640 1010

Oil and Grease lbs/day BPT 210 380 230 440

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

Phenolic Compounds lbs/day BPT &

BAT 4.6 9.5 5.2 10.8

Ammonia as N lbs/day BPT 450 1010 540 1200

Sulfide lbs/day BPT 3.8 8.4 4.6 9.5

Hexavalent Chromium mg/l and lbs/day BPJ

-- 0.050

-- 0.050 mg/l

and 1.52 lbs/day

Fecal Coliforms Organisms/

100mls 200 400 200 400

pH In the range of 6.0 to 9.0



### 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

treatm ent method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring.

The proposed permit requires Tesoro to collect and report information in the monthly DMR about parameters that do not have limits established in the permit. Ecology needs da ta on crude feedstock rates to evaluate technical discharge limits in the next permit. It needs the ballast water flow rate and total flow rate to determine the wasteload allocation for several parameters.

It used rainfall data to determine if the refine ry can use the stormwater allocation. Ecology will use the temperature data to evaluate compliance with water quality standards in the receiving water. The proposed permit also requires priority pollutant testing and dioxin testing for

evaluation at the next permit renewal.Page 39 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. The Tesoro laboratory is currently accredited for:

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

• Phenols, Total

• pH

• Sulfide (S)

• Ammonia (N)

• Oil and Grease (O&G)

B . Performance

- Based Reduction of M onitoring 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 t he basis of excellent performance. The guidance provides a tool to evalu ate the facility’s performance.

Ecology used this guidance to evaluate several parameters in Tesoro ’s treated effluent. In addition to the approach recommended in the guidance, Ecology compared maximum values with permit limits. See Appendix L for the summary and evaluation of monitoring data.

For the parameters evaluated, Tesoro ’s monitoring history has demonstrated an ability to consistently comply with regulatory limits

. Ec ology based the proposed monitoring frequencies on the guidance recommendations a nd best professional judgment.

Ecology increased the current monitoring frequencies for TSS, O&G, and sulfide

. In some cases

EPA’s policy would have allowed less frequent monitoring. TSS and O&G are good indicators

of when the re is an upset condition at the wastewater treatment facility

. Ecology maintained the monitoring frequencies for phenols and ammonia and reduced the monitorin g frequenc ies for

BOD and COD. Ecology uses best professional judgment to determine a reduce d monitoring frequen c y to reward Tesoro ’s good performance but also provide enough data to monitor the health of the wastewater treatment process. Tesoro must maintain good performance levels to continue to receive the reduced monitoring frequencies. If the facility ’s performance levels deteriorate, Ecology can revert to the previous monitoring requirements.Page 40 

### V. OTHER PERMIT CON DITIONS

A. Priority Pollu tant Testing

Tesoro is required to sample the effluent from Outfall 001 annually and analyze the sample for priority pollutants. Tesoro must submit the results of the analysis to Ecology within 60 days of each sampling event.

B. Reporting and Recordkeep ing

Ecology based permit c ondition 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 thei r wastewater treatment system in accordance with state and federal regulations [40 CFR 122.41(e)

and WAC 173

- 220

- 150(1)(g)]. Tesoro has prepared and submitted an operation and maintenance plan. Im plementation of the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan ensures the facility’s compliance with the terms and limits in the permit.

D . Non

- Routine and Unanticipated Discharges

Tesoro occasionally generates wastewater

, which was not characteri zed in the permit application

because it is not a routine discharge and was not anticipated at the time of the application. This wastewater typically consists of water used to pressure test petroleum storag e tanks or fire water

systems.

When Tesoro recon ditions 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. Tesoro also test s its fire water system

.

Tesoro may request to discharg e this wastewater through outfalls 001, 002, 003, or 004

.

The permit authorizes non

- routine and unanticipated discharges under certain conditions. The refinery must characterize these wastewaters and examine any opportunities for reuse. The

waste water mus t meet the applicable water quality stan dards for the receiving water.

E

. Wastewater Treatment Efficiency Stud y and Updated Engineering Report

Tesoro submitted the results of a n updated t reatment e fficiency s tudy and an e ngineering r eport
for the wastewater treatment system to Ecology on October 19 , 20 10

. Ecology approved the original engineering report submitted on April 28, 2000.Page 41 The refinery’s biological system is operating at approximately 35% of its organic (as BOD5) treatment capacity and 6 0% to 70% of its hydraulic loading capacity.

Ecology will require a new wastewater treatment efficiency study if Tesoro proposes substantial alterations to the refinery that could cause a material change in the quantity or composition of the influent proc essed by the wastewater treatment system. In the event Ecology requires the study,

Tesoro must submit a wastewater treatment study plan for Ecology approval. Tesoro must also update its engineering report to compare the new conditions with the predicted design capacity.

F . Pollution Prevention Plan

T he previous NPDES permit required Tesoro to submit a Pollution Prevention Plan to identify opportunities to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or control releases of pollutants to influent

wastewater streams, storm water, and other waters of the state

. The permit required Tesoro 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 T esoro during the last permit cycle that had a positive impact on wastewater treatment plant operations and provide protection to the receiving waters:

• New Amine Unit

– The benefit is improved effluent plant reliability and increased effluent plant efficiency.

• Automated Crude Tank Dewatering System

– These were installed on crude oil tanks 3, 4, 5, and 60

. This increases effluent plant treatment efficiency by reducing oil and grease loading at the bioreactor.

• Final Clarifier Skimmer

– The new west skimmer incr eases effluent plant treatment efficiency

.

• Trapman System

– an integrated ultrasonic and temperature measurement system used to evaluate stream traps

. This saves increased amounts of warm condensate that in turn

can reduce the TSS in the effluent.

• Pollution Prevention Training

– The training re

- emphasizes environmental awareness

which is essential to the success of the pollution prevention program

. R efinery staff and

managers are required to complete the training.

The proposed permit includes a po llution 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

.

• S ubmit an update to the current NPDES Pollution Prevention Plan

.Page 42 • Submit a biennial evaluation of the P ollution Prevention P lan

.

• 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

havi ng environmental consequences.

G . Dangerous Wastes

– Permi t by Rule Requirements

The proposed permit authorizes Tesoro 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

i n the NPDES permit application and in application amendments approved by Ecology. W astes
received from off

- site include ballast water and retail distribution water . Ecology determined

that the waste streams from off

- site are similar in nature to those generated on

- site and conclude d

that Tesoro ’s wastewater treatment facility should effectively treat them

.

E ffluent sampling and monitoring requirements established in the permit should adequa tely 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

Tesoro conducted an Outfall Evaluation i n the summer of 2010 and submitted the report on September 20, 20 10 . The purpose of the evaluation was to determine the condition of the discharge pipe and diffusers and to determine the extent of sedime nt accumulation in the

outfall’s vicinity. Tesoro reported that the outfall line and diffuser were in good condition and functioning properly.

C ondition S.18 in the proposed permit requires Tesoro to conduct an other outfall inspection during the next perm it term and submit a report detailing th e findings of that inspection.Page 43 I. Certified Operator

The refinery generates approximately 10,000 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.

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 PROC EDURES

A. Permit Modi fications

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

Th e proposed perm it 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.

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.

Washington State Department of Ecology.Page 44 1994. Permit Writer’s Manual . Publica tion Number 92

- 109

Washington State Department of Ecology.

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

- 10

- 024

Washington State Department of E cology.

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 )Page 45 

### A PPENDIX A

- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I NFORMATION

Ecology proposes to reissue a NPDES permit to the Tesoro Refining

- Anacortes . The permit prescribes operating conditions and wastewater discharge limits. This fact sheet describes the facility and Ecology’s reasons fo r requiring permit conditions.

Ecology will place a Public Notice o n May 29, 2013 in the Skagit Valley Herald/Anacortes

American to inform the public and to invite comment on the proposed issuance 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 abo ut 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

- 6945 or by writing to the permit writer at the address listed below.

J. Mark Dirkx, P.E. Department of Ecology

Industrial Section

PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504

- 7 600

The primary author of this permit and fact sheet is J. Mark Dirkx

.Page 46 

### APPENDIX B

- GLOSSARY

1

- DMax or 1

- day maximum temperature : T he highest water temperature reached on any given day. This measure can be obtained using calibrated maximum/minimum thermometers or continuous monitoring probes having sampling interva ls of thirty minutes or less.

7

- DADMax or 7

- day average of the daily maximum temperatures : T he arit hmetic 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 a fter that date.

Acute Toxicit y: 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 w ith 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.

Ammonia : 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.

Annua l 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) : Sche dules 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 practic es 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.

BOD 5 : Determining the B iochemical 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 BOD 5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in receiving

waters aft er 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 pollu tant under the

federal Clean Water Act.

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

Chlorine : Chlorine is used to disinfect wastewaters of pathogens harmful to human health. It is

also e xtremely toxic to aquatic life.Page 47 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 toxi c effects of a compoun d 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 Samp ling : 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

co mpliance 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 lim its; 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 differen t 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 du ring 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 d ilute 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 waste water facility. The report must contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173

- 240

- 060 or 173

- 240

- 130.Page 48 Fecal Coliform Bacteria : Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria

in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pat hogenic 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.

G rab 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 Disch arge 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 conti nuous 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 t he 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 Federa l 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.Page 49 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 Cor porate 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

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

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) : T he particulate material in an efflue nt. 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 a brasive 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 condit ions through oxygen depletion.

Solid W aste : 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

cont aminated 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 infiltratio n 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 t o the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.

Water Quality

- B ased Effluent Limit : A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter that

is inten ded to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water quality criterion after it is discharged into receiving waters.Page 50 APPENDIX C

- WASTEWATER TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM

APPENDIX D

- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MO NITORING REPORTS

APPENDIX E

- TECH NICAL LIMIT CALCULAT ION

APPENDIX F

- DRY WEATHER FLOW CAL CULATION

APPENDIX G

- STORMWATER ALLOCATIO N EVENTS

APPENDIX H

- REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

Several of the Excel ® spreadsheet tools used to evaluate a discharger’s ability to meet Washing ton State water quality standards can be found on Ecology’s homepage at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/pwspread/pwspread.html.

APPENDIX I

- MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS DATA

APPENDIX J

- TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX K

- HERRING AND WET TEST ING RESULTS

APPENDIX L

- PERFORMANCE

- BASED REDUCTION OF M ONITORING FREQUENCY

APPENDIX M

- RESPONSE TO COMMENT S