## FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0040851

STEELS CAPE, INC.

2/24/2 005Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
TABL E OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

................................................................................................................... ..................... 1 BACKGROUND INF O RMATION

......................................................................................................... .... 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITY

............................................................................................. 3 History

........................................................................................................................ ........ 3 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS

............................................................................................................. .. 3 Summary of Production

...................................................................................................... 4 FACILITY WATER MANAGEME NT

.......................................................................................... 4 Summary of Water Usage

................................................................................................... 4 DESCRIPTION OF WAS TEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

...................................................... 6 Oily Wast e Sy stem

.............................................................................................................. 6 Metal Waste Sy stem

........................................................................................................... 7 Summary of Wastewater Discharge

.................................................................................... 8 DISCHARGE OUTFALL

.............................................................................................................. . 9 PERMIT STATUS

.................................................................................................................. ......... 9 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS PERMIT

.......................................... 11 FLOWS, SOURCES OF P O LLUTION, AND TRE A TMENT PROCESSES

.............................. 12 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZAT ION

.................................................................................. 15 PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS

.................................................................................................... .. 21 DESIGN CRITERIA

................................................................................................................ ..... 22 TECHNOL OGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

.............................................................. 22 Pickle Line: 40 CFR Part 420 - S ubpart I - Acid Pickling Subcategor y .......................... 23 Cold-Rolling Line: 40 CF R Part 420 - Subpart J - C o ld Form ing Subcategor y .............. 24 Metallic [ Z inc] Coating Line: 40 CFR 420 - S ubpart L – Hot Coat ing Subcategor y .................................................................................................................... .. 24 Paint Line: 4 0 CFR Part 465 - Su bpart B - Galvanized Basis Material Subcategor y .................................................................................................................... .. 25 Co m b ined Technology-Based Effluent L i m itations

......................................................... 25 Arsenic Perfo rm ance-Based Lim itations

.......................................................................... 27 Other Technology

- Based Li m itations

............................................................................... 27 SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

...................................... 27 Nu m e rical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life

...................................................... 27 Nu m e rical Criteria for the Protection of Hu m a n Health

................................................... 27 Narrative Criteria

............................................................................................................. . 28 Antidegradation

................................................................................................................ 28 Critical Conditions

............................................................................................................ 28 Mixing Z one s
................................................................................................................... . 28 Description of the Receivi ng Water

.................................................................................. 28 Surface Water Quality Criteria

......................................................................................... 29 Consideration of Surface Water Qualit y - Based Lim i ts for Numeri c Criteria

................... 30 Whole Effluent Toxicit y ................................................................................................... 37 Hu m a n Health

................................................................................................................... 38 Sedi m e nt Quality

.............................................................................................................. 3 8 GROUND W A TER QUALITY LIMITATIONS

.......................................................................... 39 COMPARIS ON OF EFFL UENT LIMITS WITH THE EXISTING PERMIT ISSUED SEPTEMBER 14, 1998

.................................................................................................... 39 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

........................................................................................................ ... 41

2/24/2 005Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. EFFLUENT LIMITS BELOW QUANT ITATION

....................................................................... 41 EFFLUENT LIMITS BELOW DETECTION

............................................................................... 41 LAB ACCREDITATION

.............................................................................................................. 41 OTHER PERMIT CONDI TI ONS

........................................................................................................ ...... 41 REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPI NG

..................................................................................... 41 NON- ROUTI N E AND UNANTICIP AT ED DISCHARGES

....................................................... 42 SPILL PLAN

..................................................................................................................... ............ 42 SOLID WAS TE PLAN...............................................................................................................

... 42 EFFLUENT MIXI NG ST UDY

..................................................................................................... 42 OUTFALL E VALUATION

.......................................................................................................... 42 TREATMENT SYSTEM OPERATING PLAN

............................................................................ 43 GENERAL CONDITIONS

........................................................................................................... 43 PERMIT ISSUANCE P R OCEDURES

..................................................................................................... . 43 PERMIT MODIFICATIONS

........................................................................................................ 43 RECOMME NDATI ON F O R PERMIT ISSUANCE

.................................................................... 43 REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APP E NDICES

..................................................................................... 43 APPENDI X A--PUBLIC I NVOL VE M E NT INFORMATION

................................................................. 45 APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY

........................................................................................................... .......... 46 APPENDIX C--TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS

.................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX D--RESPONSE TO COM M ENTS

........................................................................................ 50 APPENDIX E-- TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

.................................................................................... 51

2/24/2 005Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

INTRODUCTION The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972 , and late r m odifications, 197 7, 19 81, and 1 987 ) established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) water s of the United States. One of the mechanism s fo r achieving the goals of t h e Clean Water Act is the National Poll utant Discharge Elim inati on S y stem (NPDES) of perm its, which is adm i nistered by the E nvironm ental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has authorized the state of Washington to adm i nist er the NPDES perm it program . Chapter 90.48 Revised Code of Washingto n (RC W ) defines th e Department of Ecol og y ' s (Department) authorit y an d ob ligations in adm i nisteri ng the wastewater dischar ge per m it progra m
. The regulations adopted b y the state include proce dur es for issuing perm its [ C hapter 173-2 20 Washington Ad m i nistrative Code (WAC)] , water quality criteria for surface and ground wa ters (Chapters 173-201A and 200 WA C), and sediment management standar d s (C hapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations require that a per m it be issued before discharge of wastewat er to waters of the state is allowed. The regulations also establish the basis for effluent li m i tations and o t her requirements which are to be included in the perm it. One of the requirem e nts (WAC 173-220- 0 60) for issuing a perm it under the NPDES perm it program is t h e preparation of a draft per m it and an acco m p anying fact sheet. Public notice of the availability of the draft perm it is required at leas t 30 da y s before the perm it is issued (W AC 173-220- 050). T h e fact sheet and draft perm it are availa ble for review (see Appendix A--Public Involvem e nt of the fact sheet for m o re deta il on the Public Notice procedures). The fact sheet and draft perm it have bee n reviewed by the Per m itt ee. Errors an d om is sions identified in this review h a ve been corrected before going t o pu blic notice. After the public co mment period has closed, the D e part m e nt wi ll su mmariz e the substant ive co mment s and the r e s ponse to eac h co mment. The summary and response to comments will become pa rt of the fil e on the permit and parties subm itting co mments will receive a copy of t h e Depart men t ' s response. The fact sheet will not be revised

. Co mments and the result ant changes to the perm it will be summarized in Appendix D- -Response to Co mments.
Table 1 General Informa t ion
A p p l i c a n t S t e e l s c a p e , I n c
. Facility Name and Address Steelscape, Inc. 222 West Kalam a River Road Kalama, Washingto n 9 862 5 Type of Facility Cold-Rolled and Steel Sheet, Strip, and Bars SIC Code 3316 Discharge Lo cation Waterbod y n a m e : Colu mbia River @ RM 72.2 Latitude: 46 ° 0 2 ' 40" N Longitu de: 122 ° 5 2 ' 30" W Water Body I D Nu m b er WA-CR-1010

2/24/2 005 Page 1Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. 

### Figure 1 Topographical map of the facility vicinity; scale 1:50,000

Outf all

2/24/2 005 Page 2Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

BAC K GROUND I N FORMATI O N
DESCR I

PTION OF T H

E

FACILITY The facility nam e i s Steelscape, Inc. (Steelscap e) . It was fo r m erly know as BHP Coated Steel Corporation. The facility is located in Kalam a , Washington. The site is on Port of Kala m a pr opert y, bordered by Burlington No rthern Railroad to the east, Wes t Kalama River Road to the south, the C o lum b ia Rive r to the west, and Port of Kala ma domestic se wage treat ment plant (the POTW) to the north. The lega l description of the site is Section 31, Township 7N, Range 1 W; Section 36, Township 7N, Range 2W, W illam e tte Meridian. Steelscape is sharing an outfall with the Publ icly Owned T r eat ment Works (POTW). At this time, Steelscape has no co mmitted future plan s, although a request to use effluent discharge for dust suppression has been subm itted to the Depart ment. Approxim a tely 1 70 opera tors and 30 m a nager s a nd engineers work at St eelsc ape. T h e co m p any corporate offices located n e xt door em ploy 80 people . The product i on lines operate 24 hours a day , seven day s a week, in a standard three shift work schedul e. Production operations are fairly consistent y ear round wit h very l ittle seasonal variat ion. Wastewater flows are also fair ly consistent due to t h e continuo us o p eration of th e productio n l i nes. H ISTORY Construction began on the facility in Novem b er of 1995. Pickle l i ne operations began March 23, 1997. Overall plant operations started August 1, 1997. The industrial wastewater treatm ent facility was operational when the pickl e line operations began. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS 1 Facility Steelscape is a facility for cold rolling and coating of st eel strip. The facility is classifi ed under SIC code of 331 6 and i n cludes four principal pro duction li nes: 1. Pickle Line 2. Cold Rolling Mill 3. Metallic [ Z inc] Coating Line 4. Coil Paint Li ne. All four principal product i on lines generate wast ewat er. Additional sources of wastewat er are boilers, cooling t o wers, and water dem i neralizer.

1 A ful l descr i ption of industri al pro c e ss is provide d in Rayt he on’s Engine ering Report, 199 6.

2/24/2 005 Page 3Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
S UMMAR Y OF P RODUCTION A su mmary o f Steelscape’s producti on is listed in

. Tabl e 2 Table 2 Pro duction rates at 100% eff i ciency

Line Short tons per year Tonnes (t) per year Tonnes per day Square meters per day
Pickle Line 500, 000 453, 592 1340 Cold Rolling Mill 488, 000 442, 706 1308 Metallic Coating Line 270, 000 244, 940 724 155, 096
Coil Paint Li ne 108, 000 97,9 76 289 73,8 55


### FACILITY WAT E R M ANAGEME NT 2 Design Water Usage and D i sposal Overview The design t o tal plant wa ter usage was 534 ,89 0 gall ons per da y ( gpd) or 3 71 gallons per minute (gpm ) from the City of Kalam a municipal water suppl y . Ma jor water uses include cooling towers, steam sy ste m and process areas. The pr ocess areas i n clude the pickle line, col d rolling m ill , m e talli c coating line, and the paint line. Demineralizers produce 173,28 0 gpd of dem i neralized (dem in) water to be used in the processes and in the boilers to m a ke steam

. The bo ilers (rat e d for 30,000 lbs per hour) produc e the st eam equivalent of 70,56 0 gp d of wate r. Ev aporation fro m the cooling towers accounts for 2 1 6 ,06 0 gpd of water lost to the at m o sphere. The proc esses account for another 128,880 gpd of evaporation. Dom e sti c waste (8,000 gpd) is treated offsite b y the Port of Kalama Municipal Wastewater Treatment S y stem

. Some water l eaves the process with wastes that ar e t r ansported offsite such as spent pickle l i quor. The rem a ining water is treated in the industr ial waste treat m e nt which consists of an oily waste sy stem and a metal wastewater treatment sy stem . All values said above are maxim u m gallons per da y . Ins t antaneous maxim u ms may be higher. S UMMAR Y OF W ATER U SAGE A su mmary of Steelsc ape’ s water usage i s listed in

. Table 3

2 A full description of facility water management is provide d in Raytheon’s Engineering Report , 1996

.

2/24/2 005 Page 4Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Table 3: Steelscape wate r usage Water Usage Activity [gallons per day (gpd)] % of total w a ter usage Design total water usage 5 3 4 , 890 1 0 0 1) Dem i neralizers productio n (water used in processe s and in the boilers to m a ke st ea m) 173, 2 8 0 3 2

• Rolling Mill 89,2 8 0 1 7

• Boiler sy stem 70,5 6 0 1 3 a) Pickle Line 17,2 80 3.2 b) Zincalu m e  Line 28,8 0 0 5

. 4 c) Paint Line 23,0 40 4.3 d) Cooling t o wer 1,44 0 0.3

• Paint Line 1,44 0 0

. 3 2) Pickle Line 55,7 30 10 3) Zincalu m e  Line 48,2 4 0 9

. 0 4) Paint Line 15,8 40 3.0 5) Cooling t o wer 219, 580 41 6) Wastew ater tr eat ment 15,220 2.8

• Oily wastewa t er treat ment 5 0 0 0

. 1

• Metal wa stew ater treat ment 14,7 2 0 2

. 8 7) Do m e s t i c 8 , 0 0 0 1

. 5

2/24/2 005 Page 5Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
DESCR I

PTION OF WAS T EWATER TREATMENT PLANT 3
Over view The industrial waste water treatment plant for the Pacific No rthwest Flat Pro ducts facility enco m p asses two distinct process sy stems. The firs t is an "oil y waste" tre a t m ent process which pre-treats all plant waste water s that are potentially contam i n ated with oi ls or grease. The second sy stem for "Metal Wast e" is a phy sical/che m i c a l tre a t m ent proce ss for reducti on of m e tals and insolu ble contam inants fro m all industrial waste water stream s (includin g the pretreated oil y waste streams) prio r to their discharged to the environm ent. All equipm e n t associated with the industrial wast e w ater tre a t m ent plant is located in a common are a within the facility ; and with the exception of a wast e oil storage tank and two w aste blending tanks (one for each treat ment process ), the industrial waste w ate r treat m e nt sy ste m is locat e d indoors in Area 17, the Utilities Building. The industrial wastewater treatm ent plant was designed t o operate continuousl y , 24 hours per da y. Equipm ent redundanc y and waste retenti on capacity was incorp orated into th e sy stem to obtain optimum reli ability. There are no s y stem bypass provi sions; all industri a l waste is tr eated prior to discharge to the environm ent. O ILY W AS TE S YS TEM The oil y wast e sy stem treat s waste streams fro m the Cold Roll Mill, Metallic Coating and Coil Paint lines which are associated with oil processing. This sy stem produces effluent for discharge to the metal wast e sy stem and al so produces oily sludge for off-site disposal. The sy stem is designed to receive both inter m ittent and continuous flows. Alth ough onl y a portion of the waste streams flow continuousl y , the waste tr eat ment process will operate continuousl y . A blending tank allows for mixing of cont inuous and i n term ittent stre ams prior to treatm e nt. The oil y waste treatment sy stem was designed to process a co m b ined oily w aste strea m having the characte r istic s presented i n at a d esign service rate of 60 gp m (86,400 gp d). Table 4 Table 4 Design criteria for th e oily waste treat m en t system
Constituent Units Concentrati o n
Flow Gallons per minute (gpm ) Gallons per day (g pd) 60 86,4 00

NaOH Milligrams per liter (m g/L ) 12,250
Oil m g / L 3 , 0 2 5
Zn mg / L 2
Al m g / L 3 5

3 A full description of wastewat er treatment plant is provide d in Raytheon’s Engineering Report, 1996

.

2/24/2 005 Page 6Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

Constituent Units Concentrati o n Fe m g / L 4 6 0
Cr m g / L 0

. 1
PO 4 m g / L 3 8
TSS m g / L 1 5 The oily waste sy stem consists of the foll owing pri n cip l e co m ponents:

• Oily Waste Collection Sy ste m

• Oily Waste Blending Sy ste m

• Oil Water Separation S y st em Stage 1 and 2

• Waste Oil Ho lding and Discharge Sy stem

• Treated Oily Waste Holding and Discharge Sy ste m

• Hy dr ochloric Acid Feed System

• De-e m u l s ifier Feed Sy stem

• Coagulant Feed Sy ste m

• Pol y m e r Feed S y stem
M ETAL W AS TE S YS TEM The m e t a l w aste sy ste m t r eats wa ste st rea m s fro m t h e Pickle lin e, Metalli c Coating line, Coil Paint line and m i scellaneous facility auxiliar y waste (demin eralizer regenerant waste and cooling tower blowdowns). It also pr ocesses the clear effluent from the oil y waste sy stem . This sy stem produces liquid effluent for di scharge to the Colum b ia Ri ver and solids (filter cake) for rem oval from the site. The sy stem i s designed to r eceive both inter m ittent and continuous flows. Although onl y a portion of t h e waste streams flow continuousl y , the waste tr eat ment process will operate continuousl y . A blending tank allows for mixing of c ontinuous and interm itten t streams prior to treatment. The metal wast e is chem ically reduced, neutralized, oxidized, coagulated, pr ecipitated, clarified, filtered, and the resultant sludge dewat e red into a cake for disposal. The m e t a l waste tr eat ment sy stem was designed to process the co m b ined industrial waste strea m h a ving the characte r istics pres ented in

. Table 5 Table 5 Design criteria for the me tal waste treat m ent syste m Constituent Units Concentrati o n

Flow Gallons per minute (gpm ) Gallons per day (g pd) 125 180, 000

2/24/2 005 Page 7Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

HCl Milligrams per liter (m g/L ) 3,440
NaCl m g / L 1 5 , 0 0 0
Oil m g / L 1 0
Zn mg / L 5
Al m g / L 2 4
Fe m g / L 3 9 0
Cr m g / L 2 5
PO 4 m g / L 5 5
TSS m g / L 1 0 0
The metal w a ste process co nsists of the following:

• Metal Waste Collection Syste m

• Metal Waste Blending Sy s t e m

• Chrom i u m Reduction S y st em

• Neutralizatio n/Oxidation Sy stem

• Flocculation and Clarificat ion Sy stem

• Filtering S y st em

• Sludge Dewatering S y stem

• Treated Wast e Holding and Discharge Sy stem

• Sodium Hy dr oxide Feed S y stem

• Sodium Meta-bisulfite Feed S y stem

• Pol y m e r Dilu tion and Deli very S y s t em
S UMMAR Y OF W AS TEW ATER D ISCHARGE Summary of Steelsc ape w astew ater dis c harge is li sted in . Evaporation of 345, 000 gpd from th e Table 6 cooling towers and processes accounts for 64 percent of th e water usage. Thirt y four (34) percent of the water, or 180 ,000 gpd, is treated in the industrial wast ewater treatment sy stem a nd then disc harged to the Colum b ia Ri ver. The remaining two percent of th e water l eaves the plant with the domestic sewage or the liquid wastes such as spent pickle li quor t h at will be transported off site for t r eatment and disposal.

2/24/2 005 Page 8Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Table 6: Steelscape wast ewater dis c h a rge Wastewate r discharge Activity/Wastewater Typ e [gallons per day (gpd)] % of total w a ter usage 1) Metal wastewater treatment 180, 000 34 2) Water lost to evaporation 344, 140 64

• Pickle Line 4,32 0 0

. 8

• Rolling Mill 88,4 8 0 1 7

• Zincalu m e  Line 23,0 4 0 4

. 3

• Paint Line 12,2 4 0 2

. 3

• Cooling t o wer 216, 0 6 0 4 0 3) Net loss of water with spent pickle liquor 2,450 0.5 4) Do m esti c wa ste (treat ed offside by the Port of Kala ma Municipal Wastewater Treat ment Syste m ) 8,00 0 1

. 5

DISC HAR G E OUTFALL Treated efflu e nt from the facility is disc harged to t h e Colum b ia Ri ver via a submerged outfall pipe with a diffuser. A f our-port, submerged diffuser is positioned 200 feet from shore at the sout h end of a wharf. The outfall is shared wit h the Port of Kala ma sew age treat men t plant. The two treated waste w ate r strea m s ar e c o m b ined and then discharged to the Co l u m b ia River @ RM 72.2 t h roug h the sh ared outfall. PERMIT ST ATUS The previous perm it for this facility w as issued on Septem ber 14, 1998. Th e previous perm it placed effluent lim it ations as listed in

. Table 7 Table 7: Previous permit effluent limi t ations
EFFLUE NT LIMITATIONS: OUT F ALL # 001 Paramete r Average Monthly 1, 5, 6 Ma x i mum D a ily 2, 4, 6 Flow, MGD [millions of ga llons per day ] - - - - 0

. 1 8 0 pH, std. units Between 6.0 and 9.0 TSS [ t otal suspended solids] , kg/day [ k ilogram s per day ] 1 1 2 3

2/24/2 005 Page 9Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

EFFLUE NT LIMITATIONS: OUT F ALL # 001 Paramete r Average Monthly 1, 5, 6 Ma x i mum D a ily 2, 4, 6 Oil and Grease, kg/da y 4.6 11 Te m p erature, ° C [degre e C e lsius ]

- - - - 3 5 Chrom i u m (Total), kg/da y 0.02 4 0.06 0 Copper, kg/ d a y 0.03 4 0.07 2 Cy anide, kg/ day 0.01 3 0.03 2 Iron, k g /da y 0.10 0.20 Lead, kg/da y 0.04 5 0.14 Mercury , kg/ day 0.00 10 0.00 20 Silver, kg/ day 0.01 4 0.02 9 Zinc, kg/da y 0.13 0.34 Naphthalene, kg/da y ---- 0.0022 (3 , 4 ) Tetrachloroethy lene, kg/day ---- 0.0031 (3 , 4 ) WET [ w hole effluent toxic ity ] (acute) WET (chroni c) The perm ittee should note t h at there also may be additi onal effluent lim its in section S5. Acute Toxi city an d S6. Chronic Toxicit y .
Footno tes for Table 7 : (1) T h e average m onthly e ffluent lim itation is define d as the high est allowable average of daily discharges over a cal endar m onth, calcul a ted as th e su m of all daily discharges measured during a calendar m o n t h divi ded b y the num ber of dail y discharges m e asured duri ng that m onth.
(2) The m a xi mum daily effluent lim itatio n is defi ned as the highest allowable daily discharge.
(3) The MDL for napht halene is 1.6 μ g /L usi ng gas chro m a t ography /m ass spectro m e tr y and method number 625 from 40 CFR Part 136. T h e quan titation le vel (QL) for naphthalene is 10 μg /L. The MDL fo r tetrachloroethy lene is 4.1 μg/L using gas chro m a to graphy /m as s spectro m e try and method number 624 from 40 CFR Part 136. The quan titation level (QL) for tetrachloroethylene is 10 μg/L. These QLs will be used for assessment of com p lianc e with these effluent lim its. If the Perm i ttee is unable to attain the MDL and QL in its effl uent due to m a t r ix effects, the Perm ittee shal l subm it a mat r ix specific MDL and QL to the Depart m e nt by J u l y 1, 19 97. The m a trix specific MDL and QL shall be calculated as follows:
MDL = 3.14 x (standard deviation of 7 repli cate spiked sam p les). This corresponds to the calculation of the m e th od detection l i m it, as defined in 40 CFR Part 13 6, Ap pendix B, with the provision that the MDL be calculated for a specific effluent m a trix.

2/24/2 005 Page 10Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. The QL = 5 x MDL Check standards at concentrations equal to th e QL shall be analy zed alongside all co m p liance m onitoring sa m p les. Che c k standards shall be produced independentl y of calibration standards and m a intained as a part of the Permittee's reco rds. All ch eck standard recovery data and duplicate m e asure ments s h all be subm i tted to the De partm e nt in the discharge m onitoring report. The Department' s precision goal is +/- 2 0 percent.
(4) If the m e asured effluent concentration is be low the QL, the Permittee shall rep o rt NQ for no nquantifiable.
(5) Average values shall be calculat e d as follo ws: measurem ents belo w the MDL = 0 ; mea s ure m ents greater than the MDL = the mea s ure m ent.
(6) When sa mple mea s ure m ents for com p lian ce wi t h m a ss-based lim it s fall below the MDL, the average load ing shall be calculat e d using a c oncentration value of zero. When sa m p l e measurements for com p liance with mass-based li m i t s fall above t h e MDL, the average loading shall be calcu lated using the m e asured c oncentration. An application for perm it r e newal was subm itted to the Depart ment on December 26, 2001, and accepted b y the Department on January 1 8 , 2 002

.
SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WIT H

THE PR E V IOUS PE R M IT The facility l ast received an inspection on August 3, 2001. Table 8 summariz es Steel scape’ s co m p liance with the previous pe r m it. Table 8 Summary of compliance
Paramete r Units Type Value Min Limit Max Lim i t DMR Date Iron, total (as Fe) Kilogram s per day (kg/da y ) Average m onthly 0

. 1 4 0

. 1 1

- F e b

- 9 9
Iron, total (as Fe) kg/da y M a x i mu m daily 0

. 3 6 0

. 2 1

- F e b

- 9 9 Iron, total (as Fe) kg/da y M a x i mu m daily 0.27 7 0

. 2 1

- J u n - 9 9 Mercury , t o tal (as Hg) kg/da y Average m onthly 0.00 6 0.00 1 1

- J a n - 9 9 Mercury , t o tal (as Hg) kg/da y M a x i mu m daily 0.01 8 0.00 2 1

- J a n - 9 9

N a p h t h a l e n e k g / d a y M a x i mu m 0.00 2 0.00 2 1

- M a r - 9 9

2/24/2 005 Page 11Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

Paramete r Units Type Value Min Limit Max Lim i t DMR Date daily Oil & grease kg/da y M a x i mu m daily 1 4

. 7 1 1 1-May

- 0 0
pH Standard units (S.U.) R A N 5

. 7 6

. 0 9

. 0 1

- M a r - 9 9

p H S

. U

. R A N 5

. 6 6

. 0 9

. 0 1

- S e p - 0 0

Te m p erature Degree Celsius (o C) M a x i mu m daily 3 7

. 4 3 5 1

- O c t

- 0 0

Te m p erature o C M a x i mu m daily 3 6 3 5 1

- J a n - 0 1

Te m p erature o C M a x i mu m daily 3 8

. 4 3 5 1

- J u l

- 0 1

FLOWS, SOURCES OF POLLUTION, AND TRE A TMENT P R OCESSES
Table 9 Sour ces of pollution, flows, and treatment process es Operations Contributing Flow Treatment Outfall Numbe r Operation Average Flow Desc ription Codes From

001 Pickle Line Oily Waste 600 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.1 & 3.2 2-K,2-C,2- D,1-G,1-H 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Pickle Line Metal Waste 3500 0 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.1 & 3.3 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Cold Mill Oil y Waste 800 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.2 & 3.2 2-K,2-C,2- D,1-G,1-H 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Roll Shop Oily Waste 1400 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.2 & 3.2 2-K,2-C,2- D,1-G,1-H 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q 

### Table 10

2/24/2 005 Page 12Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Operations Contributing Flow Treatment Outfall Numbe r Operation Average Flow Desc ription Codes From 

### Table 10

001 Metal Coating Line Oily Waste 3500 0 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.3 & 3.2 2-K,2-C,2- D,1-G,1-H 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Metal Coating Line Metal Waste 700 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.3 & 3.3 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Paint Line Oily Waste 4400 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.4 & 3.2 2-K,2-C,2- D,1-G,1-H 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Paint Line M e tal Waste 5400 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

1.1.4 & 3.3 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

0 0 1 U t i l i t i e s Oily W a s t e 4 3 0 0 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

2.2.7 & 3.2 2-K,2-C,2- D,1-G,1-H 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

001 Utilities Metal Waste 12000 Steelsc ape, 2001, section

2.2.7 & 3.3 2-L,2-K,2- C,2-D,1-U,1- P,4-A,5-R,1- C,5-Q

2/24/2 005 Page 13Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

Table 10 Codes for treat m ent units PHYSICAL TREATMENT PROCESSES 1-A

................... Amm onia Stripping 1-B

................... Dialy s is 1-C

................... Diato m aceous Earth Filtration 1-D

................... Distillation 1-E

.................... Electrodialy s i s 1-F

.................... Evaporation 1-G

................... Flocculation 1-H

................... Flotation 1-I

..................... Foam Fractio nation 1-J

..................... Freezing 1-K

................... Gas-Phase Separation 1-L

.................... Grinding (Co mminutors 1-M

.................... Grit Rem oval 1-N

.................... Microstraining 1-O

.................... Mixing 1-P

..................... Moving Bed Filters 1-Q

.................... Multim edia F iltration 1-R

..................... Rapid Sand F iltration 1-S

..................... Reverse Osmosis (Hyperfil tration) 1-T

..................... Screening 1-U

.................... Sedim e ntation (Settling) 1-V

.................... Slow Sand Fi ltration 1-W

.................... Solvent Extra c tion 1-X

.................... Sorption CHEM ICAL TREATM ENT PROCESSES 2-A

................... Carbon Adsorption 2-B

................... Chem ical Oxidation 2-C

................... Chem ical Precipitation 2-D

................... Coagulation 2-E

.................... Dechlorination 2-F

.................... Disinfection (Chlorine) 2-G

.................... Disinfection (Ozone) 2-H

.................... Disinfection (Other) 2-I

...................... Electrochem ical Treatment 2-J

...................... Ion Exchange 2-K

.................... Neutralizatio n 2-L

..................... Reduction BIOL OGICAL TRE A T M ENT PROCESSES 3-A

................... Activated Sludge 3-B

................... Aerated Lago ons 3-C

................... Anaerobic Treatment 3-D

................... Nitrification-Denitrificatio n 3-E

..................... Pre-Aeration 3-F

..................... Spray Irri gation/Land Appl ication 3-G

.................... Stabilization Ponds 3-H

.................... Trickling Filt ration OTHER PROCESSES 4-A

................... Discharge to Surface Water 4-B

................... Ocean Di scharge Through Outfall 4-C

.................... Reuse/Recy cle of Treated Effluent 4-D

.................... Underground Injection SLUD GE T R EATM EN T AND DIS P OSAL PR OCESSES 5-A

................... Aerobic Digestion 5-B

................... Anaerobic Digestion 5-C

................... Belt Filtration 5-D

................... Centrifugation 5-E

.................... Chem ical Conditioning 5-F

.................... Chlorine Treatm e nt 5-G

................... Co m posting 5-H

................... Dry i ng Beds 5-I

..................... Elutriation 5-J

..................... Flotation Thi c kening 5-K

................... Freezing 5-L

.................... Gravity T h ickening 5-M

.................... Heat Dry i ng 5-N

.................... Heat Treatment 5-O

.................... Incineration 5-P

..................... Land Application 5-Q

.................... Landfill 5-R

..................... Pressure Filtr ation 5-S

..................... Py r o l y sis 5-T

..................... Sludge Lagoons 5-U

.................... Vacuu m Filtration 5-V

.................... Vibration 5-W

.................... Wet Oxidation

2/24/2 005 Page 14Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
WASTEWAT ER CHARA CTERIZAT I

ON The proposed waste w ater discharge is characte r ized for the regul ated by the perm it parameters in and to . The proposed wast e w ater dischar ge is also ch aracte r ized fo r num ber of unregulated b y the perm it paramete rs in t h e perm it application. Table 11 Figure 2 Figure 27
A detailed spreadsheet of a ll the data and copy of the perm it application can be requested from: Industrial Uni t Perm it Coordinator Department of Ecolog y Southwest Region - Water Quality P.O. Box 47 7 75 Oly m pia, WA 9850 4-77 7 5 Table 11 Wastewater ch aracteri z a tion

Permit li mit a tions Ma x i mum (a nd minimu m fo r pH) Numbe r Rep o rted in Data Monitoring

Reports (DMRs), Novem b er 1998— October 2003 Paramete r Average Monthly 1, 5, 6 Ma x i mum Daily 2, 4, 6 Average Monthly Ma x i mum D a ily Flow, m illions of gallons per day (MGD) - - - - 0

. 1 8 0

- - - - 0

. 1 6 pH, std. units Between 6.0 and 9.0 5.6-8. 92 (5 .6 is below the li m itation) Arsenic, m i cr ograms per liter (μg/L) - - - - - - - - 1

. 5 6 5 Total suspended solids (TSS), kg/da y 1 1 2 3 6 1 5

. 9 Oil and Greas e, kilogram s per day (kg/da y ) 4

. 6 1 1 4

. 0 1 14.7 (excided lim it ation)
Te m p erature, ° C

- - - - 3 5

- - - - 38.4 (excided lim it ation) Chrom i u m (T otal), kg/da y 0.02 4 0

. 0 6 0 0.01 3 0

. 0 3 Copper, kg/ d a y 0.03 4 0.07 2 0.03 4 (at lim it ation) 0.06 6 Cy anide, kg/ day 0.01 3 0.03 2 0.01 1 0.02 2 Iron, k g /da y 0.10 0.20 0.14 (excided lim it ation) 0.36 (excided lim it ation) Lead, kg/da y 0.04 5 0

. 1 4 0

. 0 2 0

. 0 8 Mercury , kg/ day 0.00 10 0.00 20 0.00 6 0.01 8 Silver, kg/ day 0.01 4 0.02 9 0.00 6 0.00 6 Zinc, kg/da y 0.13 0.34 0.06 1 0.24 1

2/24/2 005 Page 15Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

Permit li mit a tions Ma x i mum (a nd minimu m fo r pH) Numbe r Rep o rted in Data Monitoring

Reports (DMRs), Novem b er 1998— October 2003 Paramete r Average Monthly 1, 5, 6 Ma x i mum Daily 2, 4, 6 Average Monthly Ma x i mum D a ily Naphthalene, kg/da y ---- 0.0022 (3 , 4 )

- - - - 0

. 0 0 2 Tetrachloroethy lene, kg/da y - - - - 0

. 0 0 3 1 (3 , 4 )

- - - - 0

. 0 0 1

Footno tes for : Table 11
(1) The average m onthl y effluent lim i tation is de fined as the h i ghest allowa ble average of daily discharges over a calenda r m onth, calculated as the su m of all daily discharges measured during a calendar m o n t h divi ded b y the num ber of dail y discharges m e asured duri ng that m onth.
(2) The m a xi mum daily effluent lim itatio n is defi ned as the highest allowable daily discharge.
(3) The MDL for naphthal e ne is 1.6 μ g /L using gas chromatograph y /m ass spectrometry and method num ber 625 from 40 CFR Part 136. T h e quantitatio n level (QL) for naphthalene is 10 μg/L. The MDL f o r tetrachloroethy lene is 4.1 μg/L using gas chromatography /mas s spectro metry and method num ber 624 from 40 CFR Part 136. The quan titation level (QL) for tetrachloroethy lene is 10 μg /L. These QLs will be used for assessment of com p liance with these effluent lim it s. If the Permittee i s unable to attain the MDL and QL i n it s effluent due to m a trix effects, the Per m ittee shall subm it a matrix specific MDL and QL to the Depart m e nt by July 1, 1997. The m a trix s p ecific MDL and QL shall be calcu lated as follows:
MDL = 3.14 x (standard deviation of 7 replicat e sp iked sam p les). This corresponds to the calculation of the method detection limit, as defi ned in 40 CFR Part 136, Ap p e ndix B, with the provision that the MDL be calcula ted for a specific effluent matr ix. The QL = 5 x MDL Check stand a rds at conc entrations equal to the Q L shall be a n aly zed alongside all com p lian c e m onitoring sam p les. Check standards shall be pr od uced indepen d entl y of calibration standards and maintained a s a part of t h e Per m itte e ' s records. All check st andard recovery data and duplicate measurements shall be subm itted to the Depart me nt in the discharge m o nitoring report. The Department's precision goal is +/- 20 per cent.
(4) If the m easured effluent concentration is below the QL, the Perm ittee shall report NQ for nonquantifiable.
(5) Average values shall be calculat e d as follows: me asure ments b e low the MD L = 0; mea s ure m ents greater than the MDL = the m e asure me nt.

2/24/2 005 Page 16Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
(6) When sa m p l e m e asur e m e nts for c o m p lianc e w ith m a ss-ba s e d lim it s fall below the MDL, the average loading shall be calculated using a concentr ation value of zero. When sa m p le mea s ure m ents for co m p liance with m a ss-based li m i t s fall above th e MDL, the average loadi ng shall be calculated using the m e asured concentration.
Figure 2 Flow—maxim u m daily Figure 3 pH —m inim u m and m a xim u m daily



### Fl o w

0 0. 05

0. 1 0. 15

0. 2

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m emgd

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e 

### pH

5 6 7 8 9 10

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m eS.U.

Ef

f l ue nt U ppe r Li m i t Low e r L i m i t Tr e n d l i n e
Figure 4 Tot a l suspended solids (TSS)—average m onthly m a ss load Figure 5 Tot a l suspended solids (TSS)— maxim u m daily m a ss load



### T o t a l Su spe n de d So l i d s ( T SS )

0 5 10 15 20 25

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v er age M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e n d l i n e 

### T o t a l Su spe n de d So l i d s ( T SS )

0 5 10 15 20 25

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e

2/24/2 005 Page 17Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Figure 6 Oil and Grease ( O &G)

— aver age m onthly m a ss load Figure 7 Oil and Grease ( O &G)

— maxim u m daily mas s load



### Oil and Grea s e ( O & G )

0 5 10 15

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v er age M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e n d l i n e 

### Oil and Grea s e ( O & G )

0 5 10 15

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e
Figure 8 Tem p erature— maxi m u m dai l y Figure 9 Arsenic (As)— m axi m u m daily concentration



### T e m p erat u re

25 30 35 40

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m eoC

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e 

### Ar se n i c

0 2 4 6

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m eμg/L

A v er age M o n t h l

y Ma x i mu m D a i l y Tr e n d l i n e
Figure 10 C h rom i u m (Cr) —average monthl y mas s load Figure 11 C h rom i u m (Cr)

— m axi m u m daily m a ss load



### Ch r o m i u m

0 0. 02 0. 04 0. 06

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v erage M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e d l i n e Ch r o m i u m

0 0. 02 0. 04 0. 06

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mum D a i l y Li m i t Tr e d l i ne

2/24/2 005 Page 18Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Figure 12 C opper (Cu)—average m onthl y m a ss load Figure 13 C opper (Cu)—maxim u m daily m a ss load



### Co ppe r

0 0. 02 0. 04 0. 06 0. 08

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v erage M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e d l i n e 

### Co ppe r

0 0. 02 0. 04 0. 06 0. 08

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mu m Da i l y Li m i t Tr e d l i ne
Figure 14 C y ani d e (CN)—average monthl y m a ss load Figure 15 Cy anide (CN)— m axi m u m daily m a ss load 

### Cy a n i d e

0 0. 01 0. 02 0. 03 0. 04

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v erage M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e d l i n e 

### Cy a n i d e

0 0. 01 0. 02 0. 03 0. 04

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mu m Da i l y Li m i t Tr e d l i ne
Figure 16 Ir on (Fe)—average m onthl y mass load Figure 17 Ir on (Fe)—m axim u m daily mass load



### Ir on

0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Tim ekg/day

A v erage M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e d l i n e 

### Ir on

0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Tim ekg/day

Ma x i mu m Da i l y Li m i t Tr e d l i n e

2/24/2 005 Page 19Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Figure 18 L ead (Pb)—average m onthly m a ss load Figure 19 L ead (Pb)—m axim u m daily mass load



### Lead

0 0. 05

0. 1 0. 15

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v er age M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e n d l i n e 

### Lead

0 0. 05

0. 1 0. 15

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e
Figure 20 M e rcury (Hg) —average monthl y m a ss load Figure 21 M e rcury (Hg) —m axim u m daily m a ss load



### Me rcu r y

0 0. 005

0. 01 0. 015

0. 02

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Tim ekg/day

A v er age M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e n d l i n e 

### Me rcu r y

0 0. 005

0. 01 0. 015

0. 02

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Tim ekg/day

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e
Figure 22 Si lver (Ag)—average m onthly m a ss load Figure 23 Silver (Ag)— m axi m u m daily mass load



### S ilv er

0 0. 01 0. 02 0. 03

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

A v er age M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e n d l i n e 

### S ilv er

0 0. 01 0. 02 0. 03

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Ti m ekg/day

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e

2/24/2 005 Page 20Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Figure 24 Zi nc (Zn)—average m onthl y mass load Figure 25 Zi nc (Zn)—m axim u m daily mass load



### Zi n c

0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Tim ekg/day

A v er age M o n t h l

y Li m i t Tr e n d l i n e 

### Zi n c

0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 3 0. 4

N ov- 9 8 N ov- 9 9 N ov- 0 0 N ov- 0 1 N ov- 0 2 N ov- 0 3 

### Tim ekg/day

Ma x i mu m D a i l y Li m i

t Tr e n d l i n e
Figure 26 N a phthalene —average monthl y m a ss load Figure 27 T e trachloroethylene —m axim um daily m a ss load 

### Naphthalene

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-00 Nov-01 Nov-02 Nov-03 

### Timekg/day

Maximum Daily Li mi t Trendl ine 

### Tetrachloroethylene

0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Nov-98 Nov-99 Nov-00 Nov-01 Nov-02 Nov-03 

### Timekg/day

Maximum Daily Li mi t Trendl ine

PROP OSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS Federal and state regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES perm it must be either technology

- or water qualit y - based. Technology -based lim itations are based upon the treatment methods available to tr eat specific pollutants. Technology-b ased lim itations are set by re gulation or developed on a case-by -case basis (40 C F R 125.3, and Chapter 173 -220 WAC). Water qual ity

- b ased limitations are based upon c o m p liance wi th the Surfac e Water Qua lit y Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Sedim e nt Quality Standard s (Chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (Fed eral Register, Volu m e 57, No. 246, Tue s day , December 22, 1992) . The m o re stringent of these two lim i t s m u st be chosen for each of the para meters of conce r n. Each of these ty pes of lim it s is descr ibed in m o re detail below. The lim its in this perm it are based in part on infor m ation recei ved in the application. The effluent constituents in the applica tion were evaluated on a technology- and water qualit y - basis. The lim its necess ary to meet the rule s and regulations of the st ate of Washington were deter m ined and included in this perm it. The Department does not develop effluent lim its for a ll pollutants that may be reported on the application as present i n the effluent
. Some pollutants are not treatable at th e concentrati ons reported,

2/24/2 005 Page 21Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. are not controllable at the source, ar e not listed in regulation, an d do not hav e a reasonable potential to cause a water qualit y vi olation
. Effluent lim its are n o t alway s developed for pollutants that may be i n t h e discharge but not reported as present in the appli cation. In those circu m sta n ces the permit does not authorize discharge of the non-rep o rted pollu tants. Effluent discharge conditi ons m a y change from the conditions reported in the per m it appli cation. If significant changes o ccur in any constituent, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), the Perm ittee is required to notif y the Departm e nt. The Perm ittee may be in violation of t h e perm it until the perm it i s m odified to reflect additional discharge of poll u tants. DESIGN CR ITERIA In accordance with WAC 173-220-150 (1)(g), flows or waste load ings shall not exceed appr oved design criteria. The design criteria for this treatm ent facility ar e taken fro m updated Decemb er 2001 engineering report prepared by Ray t heon Engineers a nd Constructors and are listed in and

. Table 4 Table 5 TECHNOLOGY
- BASED EFFLUE NT LIMITATIONS The Pickle Line, Cold Rolling Mill, Metallic [Zinc] Coating Line, and the Paint Line all generat e wastewater that m u st m e et technology-based effluent lim itations. Each production line is subject to a specific f e deral effluent l i m itation. All technolog y based li m i t a tions for the Steel scape facility are derived fro m the applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), since the Steelscap e facility was built after the standards were enact ed. The fed e r a l effluent li mitations ar e based on th e am ount of production fr om a particul ar process. With the exc e ption of the fum e scrubbers, the technology

- based lim it ations that apply to the Steel scape facility are ca lculated by multiply ing the federal li mit a tion by the applicable production rate. The following NSPSs were reviewed b y the Depart ment and found not applic able to the facility : 9 40 CFR 420. 114(a) Alkaline cleaning subcategory

— Steel sc ape has an alkaline cleaning sect ion on the metall ic [zinc ] coat ing line that is presen tly not used. Because of the use of sy nthetic rolling oil on the cold m ill line there is no n eed to use the alkaline cleaning section.
9 40 CFR 420

. 124(c) Hot c o ating subcat egor y

— fum e scrubbers; 40 CFR 420. 1 24(c) does n o t appl y because a process that requ ires a scrubber is operate d less than two weeks a y ear (none bet w een January 1 , 20 04, and Au gu st 18, 2 004).
9 40 CFR 465. 13 Coil coating 4 , steel basi s material subcategory ; 4 0 CFR 465.13 does not appl y t o the waste w at er discharges fro m the metalli c coating lin e. The metalli c coating line discharges w aste waters r esulting from the operations in which steel is coated with zinc by the hot dip process ; therefore 40 CFR 420.1 2 4 ( a)(1) applies to the wastewater di scharges from the metallic coating line. The following is a list of applicable NSPSs:

4“ 

### Coil coating ” m eans the process of converting basis m a terial st rip into coated stock. Usually cleaning, conversion coating, and painting are perfor m ed on the ba sis m a terial. This regulation covers processes which perform any tw o or m o re of the three operations.

2/24/2 005 Page 22Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
9 Pickle Line; 40 CFR 420. 94(b)(2) and 40 CFR 420. 94( b)(4) are applicable including lim itation s for O&G [oil and grease] because aci d pickling waste waters ar e tr eated with cold rolling wast e waters. 9 Cold Rolling Mill; 40 CF R 420. 104(a) (1) is appli cable includi ng lim itations for chrom i u m and nickel in lieu of those for lead and zinc because cold rolling waste waters are co -treated with acid pickling waste water s
. 9 Metallic (Zinc) Coating Line; 40 CF R 420.124(a) (1) is applicable including lim itations for hexavalent chrom i u m b ecause Ste e l scape has galvanizing operations which discharge waste w ate r s f r om the chro mate rinse ste p
. 9 Coil Paint Li ne; 40 CFR 465.23 The following tables prese nt the applicable federal ef fluent lim itati ons and the resultant production-based effluent lim it ations for each of the production lines.
P ICKLE L INE : 40 CFR P ART 42 0

- S UBPART I

- A CID P ICKLING S UBCATEGORY Wastewater d i scharges fro m the hy droc hloric acid pick ling line must m e et the t echnology

- based effluent lim itations as specified in 40 CFR Part 420 - Iron an d Steel Manufacturing Poi n t Source Categor y . The pickle line processes maxi m u m of 1,340 tonne per day and is subject to the eff l uent lim it ati ons listed in

. Table 12
T a bl e 12 : 4 0 CFR 4 2 0 . 9 4(b ) ( 2 ) - Hy droc h l ori c aci d pi ckling effluent limitatio ns (s tri p , shee t, a nd p l ate) .

Pollutant Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/t 5 of prod uct) Average Monthly (kg/t of product) Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/day 6 ) Average Monthly (kg/day) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 1.17E-0 2 5

. 0 1 E

- 0 3 1

. 5 7 E + 0 1 6

. 7 1 E + 0 0
Oil and Grease (O&G) 5.01E-0 3 1

. 6 7 E

- 0 3 6

. 7 1 E + 0 0 2

. 2 4 E + 0 0
Lead 7.51E-0 5 2

. 5 0 E

- 0 5 1.01E-0 1 3

. 3 5 E

- 0 2 Zi n c 1.00E-0 4 3

. 3 4 E

- 0 5 1.34E-0 1 4

. 4 8 E

- 0 2 pH within the ra nge of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tim es
Wastewater d i scharges fro m any f u m e scrubber that s upports a h y d r ochloric acid pickling line m u st meet the technology

- based effluent li m itations as specifi ed in 40 CFR Part 420 - Iron and Steel M a nufacturing Point Source Category

. The effluent lim itations for wastewater fro m the si ngle fu m e scrubber in the pickle line are subject to the effluent li mitations in

. Ta ble 13

5 Kilog r am s per ton
6 Ki l o grams per d a y

2/24/2 005 Page 23Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Table 13: 40 CFR 420.94(b)(4) - Fume Scrubbers.

Pollutant Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/scrubber) Average Monthly (kg/scrubber) Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/day 7 ) Average Monthly (kg/day) TSS 5

. 7 2 E + 0 0 2

. 4 5 E + 0 0 5

. 7 2 E + 0 0 2

. 4 5 E + 0 0 O&G 2

. 4 5 E + 0 0 8

. 1 9 E

- 0 1 2

. 4 5 E + 0 0 8

. 1 9 E

- 0 1 Lead 3.68E-0 2 1

. 2 3 E

- 0 2 3.68E-0 2 1

. 2 3 E

- 0 2 Zi n c 4.91E-0 2 1

. 6 4 E

- 0 2 4.91E-0 2 1

. 6 4 E

- 0 2 pH within the ra nge of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tim es
C OLD -R OLLING L INE : 40 CFR P ART 42 0

- S UBPART J

- C OLD F ORMING S UBCA TEGORY Wastewater discharges from the cold-rolling li ne m u st meet the technology-based effluent li mitations as specified in 40 CFR Part 420 - Iron and Steel Manuf acturing Poi n t Source Categor y . The cold-rolling line processes a maxi m u m of 1,308 tonne per day and is subject t o the effluent li m itations li sted in

. Table 14 Table 14: 40 CFR 420.104(a)(1) - Col d -rolling mills. Recirculation -- single stand.

Pollutant Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/t 8 of prod uct) Average Monthly (kg/t of product) Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/day 9 ) Average Monthly (kg/day) TSS 1.25E-0 3 6.26E-0 4 1

. 6 3 E + 0 0 8

. 1 9 E

- 0 1 O&G 5.22E-0 4 2

. 0 9 E

- 0 4 6.83E-0 1 2

. 7 3 E

- 0 1 Chromiu m 2.09E-0 5 8

. 4 0 E

- 0 6 2.73E-0 2 1

. 1 0 E

- 0 2 Nickel, total recoverable 1.88E-0 5 6

. 3 0 E

- 0 6 2.46E-0 2 8

. 2 4 E

- 0 3 Naphthalene 2.10E-0 6 N / A 2.75E-0 3 N / A Tetrachloroethylene 3.10E-0 6 N / A 4.05E-0 3 N / A pH within the ra nge of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tim es
M ETALLIC [Z INC ] C OA TING L INE : 40 CFR 420

- S UBPART L

– H OT C OATING S UBCATEGOR Y Wastewater d i scharges fro m the metalli c coating line m u st meet the technology

- based effluen t li m itation s as specified i n 40 CFR Part 420 - Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point S ource Category. The metallic coating line process es a maxi m u m of 7 24 tone per day a nd is subject to the eff l uent lim it ations listed in

. Table 15

7 Ki l o grams per d a y
8 Kilog r am s per ton
9 Ki l o grams per d a y

2/24/2 005 Page 24Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Table 15: 4 0 CFR 420.12 4(a)(1) - (a) Galvaniz ing, terne coating and other coatings—(1) Strip, sheet, and miscella neous products.

Pollutant Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/t of product) Average Monthly (kg/t of product) Ma x i mum D a ily (kg/day) Average Monthly (kg/day)

TSS 4.38E-0 2 1

. 8 8 E

- 0 2 3

. 1 7 E + 0 1 1

. 3 6 E + 0 1 O&G 1.88E-0 2 6

. 2 6 E

- 0 3 1

. 3 6 E + 0 1 4

. 5 3 E + 0 0 Lead 2.82E-0 4 9

. 3 9 E

- 0 5 2.04E-0 1 6

. 7 9 E

- 0 2 Zi n c 3.76E-0 4 1

. 2 5 E

- 0 4 2.72E-0 1 9

. 0 5 E

- 0 2 Chromiu m +6 3.76E-0 5 1

. 2 5 E

- 0 5 2.72E-0 2 9

. 0 5 E

- 0 3 pH within the ra nge of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tim es
P AINT L INE : 40 CFR P ART 46 5

- S UBPA RT B

- G ALVANIZED B ASI S M ATERIAL S UBCATEGOR Y Wastewater discharges fr om the paint line m u st meet the technology -based effluent limitations as specified in 40 CFR Part 465 - Coil Coa ting Poi n t So urce Categor y. The paint line processes an average of 74, 000 m 2 /day of coated steel strip and is subject to the effluent l i m itations listed in

. Table 1 6 Table 16: 4 0 CFR 465.23 - Coil coatin g, gal vaniz ed basis m a terial subcatego r y.

Pollutant Ma x i mum D a ily (mg/m 2 of product) 10 Average Monthly (mg/m 2 of product) Ma x i mum L i mit (kg/day 11 ) Average Monthly (kg/day)
TSS 5

. 1 5 E + 0 0 4

. 1 2 E + 0 0 7.61E-0 1 6.09E-0 1 O&G 3

. 4 3 E + 0 0 3

. 4 3 E + 0 0 5.07E-0 1 5.07E-0 1 Chromiu m 1.30E-0 1 5

. 2 0 E

- 0 2 1.92E-0 2 7

. 6 8 E

- 0 3 Copper 4.40E-0 1 2

. 1 0 E

- 0 1 6.50E-0 2 3

. 1 0 E

- 0 2 Cyanide 7.00E-0 2 2

. 8 0 E

- 0 2 1.03E-0 2 4

. 1 4 E

- 0 3 Zi n c 3.50E-0 1 1

. 5 0 E

- 0 1 5.17E-0 2 2

. 2 2 E

- 0 2 Iron 4.30E-0 1 2

. 2 0 E

- 0 1 6.35E-0 2 3

. 2 5 E

- 0 2 pH within the ra nge of 7.5 to 10.0 at all tim es
C OMBINED T ECHNOLOGY -B ASED E FFL UENT L IMITATIONS Table 12 Ta ble 13 T able 14 Ta ble 15 Table 1 6 , , , , and show the technology -based effluent limitations that appl y to t h e indivi dual pr oduction line s . Wastewater fro m the four pro ductio n lines is com b ined and

10 Milligrams per square meter of product

11 Ki l o grams per d a y

2/24/2 005 Page 25Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. treated in the industrial wastewater treatm ent plant. The effluent lim itations that appl y to t h e co m b ined waste w ate r discharge ar e derived by summi ng the indivi dual effluent lim itations. gives the Table 17 technology based effluent lim itations f o r the com b ined industrial wastewater discharge. Limitations in μg /L 12 are cal c u lated for the 0.180 m g d 13 flow. Table 17: C o m b ined technology-b a sed effluent lim i tations based .
Ma x i mum D a ily Limit Monthly Av erage Lim i t Pollutant kg/da y 14 μg /L kg/da y μg /L Flow, millions of gallons per d ay (mgd) 1.80E-0 1
pH within the ra nge of 6.0 to 9.0 at all tim es Total suspended solids (TSS) 5

. 5 5 E + 0 1 8

. 1 4 E + 0 4 2

. 4 2 E + 0 1 3

. 5 5 E + 0 4 Oil and grease (O&G) 2

. 4 0 E + 0 1 3

. 5 2 E + 0 4 8

. 3 7 E + 0 0 1

. 2 3 E + 0 4
Chromiu m , total recoverable 4.65E-0 2 6

. 8 3 E + 0 1 1

. 8 7 E

- 0 2 2

. 7 4 E + 0 1
Hexavalent chromiu m , total recoverable 2.72E-0 2 3

. 9 9 E + 0 1 9

. 0 5 E

- 0 3 1

. 3 3 E + 0 1 Copper, total recoverable 6.50E-0 2 9

. 5 4 E + 0 1 3

. 1 0 E

- 0 2 4

. 5 5 E + 0 1 Cyanide 1.03E-0 2 1

. 5 2 E + 0 1 4

. 1 4 E

- 0 3 6

. 0 7 E + 0 0 Iron, total recoverable 6.35E-0 2 9

. 3 2 E + 0 1 3

. 2 5 E

- 0 2 4

. 7 7 E + 0 1 Lead, total recoverable 3.41E-0 1 5

. 0 1 E + 0 2 1

. 1 4 E

- 0 1 1

. 6 7 E + 0 2 Nickel, total recoverable 2.46E-0 2 3

. 6 1 E + 0 1 8

. 2 4 E

- 0 3 1

. 2 1 E + 0 1
Z i n c , total recoverable 5.07E-0 1 7

. 4 4 E + 0 2 1

. 7 4 E

- 0 1 2

. 5 5 E + 0 2 Naphthalene 2.75E-0 3 4

. 0 3 E + 0 0 N / A N / A Tetrachloroethylene 4.05E-0 3 5

. 9 5 E + 0 0 N / A N / A

12 Micrograms p e r liter

13 Mil lions of gal l ons per day

14 Ki l o grams per d a y

2/24/2 005 Page 26Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
A RSENIC P ERFORMANCE -B ASED L IMITATIONS The technology -based effluent lim it ations for arsenic ( ) are c a lcul ated based o n Steelsc ape Table 18 performance during m o st r ecent three y ears prior to drafting this permit.
Table 18: A rsenic pe rfor mance-based limitations
Ma x i mum D a ily Limit Monthly Av erage Lim i t Pollutant μg /L Arseni c 4

. 8 2

. 4
O THER T ECH NOLOGY -B AS ED L IMITATIONS The technology -based effluent lim itatio n for tem p er ature ( ) was esta b lished for the previous Table 19 perm it and is retained in thi s perm it. Table 19: Other technology-based li m i tations
Ma x i mum D a ily Limit Monthly Av erage Lim i t Pollutant Degre e Celsi u s (oC) Temp eratur e 3 5 N / A
SURFAC E WATER QUALITY
- BASED EFFL UENT LIMIT A TIONS In order to protect existing water quality and preser ve the designated beneficial uses of Washington's surface water s , WAC 173- 201A-060 states that waste disch arge per m its shall be conditi oned such that the discharge wil l m eet est ablished Surface Water Qualit y Standards. The Washington State Surface W a te r Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) is a state regulation designed to protect the beneficial uses of the surface water s of the state. Surface water quality -based effluent lim itati ons m a y be based on an indivi dual waste load allocation (WLA) or on a WLA developed du ring a basin wide total maxim u m daily loading study (TMDL).

N UMERICAL C RITERIA F O R THE P ROTECTION OF A Q UATIC L IFE "Numerical" water quality criteria are num eri cal values set forth in the state of Washingt on' s Wate r Quality Standards for Sur f ace W a ters ( C hapter 173- 201A WAC). They specif y t h e levels of pollutants allowed in a receiving wate r while re maining protective of aquatic life. Nu m e ri cal criteri a se t forth in the Water Qualit y Standards are used along with chem ical and phy s ical data for the wastewater and receiving water to deri ve the effluent li m its in t h e discharge perm it. When surface wat e r quality -bas ed li m its are m o r e stringent or potenti ally m o re str i ngent than t echnology

- based li m itatio ns, they m u st be used in a perm it.
N UMERICAL C RITERIA F O R THE P ROTECTION OF H U M AN H EALTH The U.S. EPA has pro m ulgated 91 num eric water quality criteria for the protection of hum a n health that are applicable to Washington State (E PA 1992). These criteri a are designed to protect hum ans fro m

2/24/2 005 Page 27Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. cancer and other disease and are primarily applicable to fish and shellfish consum ption and drinking water fro m su rface w a ters. N ARRATIVE C RITERIA In addition t o num erical criteria, "narrative" water qualit y criteria (WAC 173-201A-030) lim it toxic, radioactive, or deleterious m a terial concentrations below those which have the potential to adversely affect chara c t eristic water uses, caus e acute or ch ronic toxicity to biota, im p a ir a esthe tic values, o r adversely affect hu m a n he alth. Narrati ve criteria pr otect the specific benefici al uses of all fresh (WAC 173-2 01A-13 0 ) and m a rine (WAC 173-2 01A-140) wat e rs in the state of Washing t on. A NTIDEGRAD A TION The state of Washington's Antidegradation Polic y requi res that discharges into receiving wa ter shall not further degrade the existing water quality of the wate r body

. In cases where t h e natural conditions of receiving wat e r ar e of lower quality tha n the criteri a assigned, the natural conditions shall co nstitute the water quality criteria. Si m i larly , when the natural conditions of receiving water are of higher qualit y than the criteria assigned, the natural conditions shall be protected. More information on the Stat e Antidegradation Polic y can be obtained b y referring t o WAC 173- 201A-07 0

. The Depart ment has reviewed existing records and is unable to determ ine if am bient wat e r qualit y is either higher or lower than the designated classi fi cation criteria given in Chapter 173- 201A WAC; therefore, the Department will use the designated clas sification criteria for this water body in t h e proposed per m it. The discharges au thorized by t h is proposed per m it should not cause a loss of beneficial uses. C RITICAL C ONDITIONS Surface water qualit y - based lim its are d e rived for the waterbody ' s critical condition, which re presents the receiving wat e r and waste discharge condition with the highest pote n tial for adve rse i m pact on the aquatic biota, hum an health, and existing or characteristi c wat e r body uses. M IXING Z ON ES The Water Qualit y Standa rds allow the Department to authorize m i xing zones around a po int of d i scharge in establishing surface wat e r quality -based effluent limits . Both "acute" and "chronic" m i xing zones m a y be authorized for pollutant s that can have a toxic effect on the aquatic enviro nment near the point of discharge. T h e concentrat ion of pollut a nts at the b oundar y of t h ese mixing zones may not exceed the num eri cal cri t eria for that ty pe of zone. Mixing zones can only be authorized for discha r ges that ar e receiving all known, avail a ble, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART) and in accordance with other m i xing zo ne requirem e nt s of WAC 173-201A-100. The National Toxics Rule (EPA, 1992) allows the chroni c m i xing zone to be used to m e et human health criteria.
D ES CRIP T ION OF THE R ECEIVING W ATER The facility discharges to Colum b ia Ri ver which is d esignated as a Class A receiving water in the vicinit y of the outfall. Other nearby p o int sourc e outfalls in clude Noveon Kalama and the City of Kalam a sewage treatment plant. Characteristic uses include the following: water supply (d om estic, industrial, agricultural); stock waterin g ; fish m i grat ion; fish a nd shellfish rearing, spawning and harvesting; wildlif e habitat; primary contact recre a tion; sport fish ing; boating and aesthetic en joy m ent; co mme rce and

2/24/2 005 Page 28Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. navigation. Water quality of this cl ass shall meet or exceed the requirem e nts for all or substantially all uses. A special co ndition for the Colum b ia River in the vicinity of the outfall is that the receiving water te m p erature s h all not exceed 20 ° C due to hum an acti v ities. This i s above the Class A st andard of 18 ° C. When natural conditions exceed 20.0 ° C, no tem p er at ure increase will be allowed which will raise the receiving wat e r te m p er ature by greater than 0.3 ° C; nor shall such te m p eratur e increas es, at any tim e, exceed 0.3 ° C due to an y single source. S URFACE W ATER Q UALITY C RITERIA Applicable criteria are defined in Chapt e r 173-201A WA C for aquatic biota. I n addition, U. S. EPA has prom ulgated hum an health criteria for toxic polluta nts (EPA 1992). The surface wat e r quality criteria applicable to the com b ined discharge from St eels cap e and the Port of Kala ma ar e su mmarized below: Table 20: Surface Wate r Quality Cr iteria. Paramete r Criteria
Fecal Coliform 100 col onies/100 m L m a xim u m geo m etric m ean Dissolved Oxygen 8 mg / L mi n i mu m
Temp eratur e Shall not exc eed 20.0 ° C due to hum an activities. Note: Am bient tem p erature m onitoring in the vicinit y of the outfall has detected te m p eratures a s high as 22.5 ° C. pH 6.5 to 8.5 standard un its Turbidity Less than 5 NTU above background

Toxics No toxics in t oxic am ounts (see Appendix C for num eric criteria for toxics of concern for this discharge) N o t e : A m bient m onitoring in the Colum b i a R i v e r h a s d e t e r m ined that arsenic is pre sent at a conc entration of 1 μ g/L. This is above the h u man health standard of 0. 018 μ g / L, therefore, as is consiste nt with the state’ s polic y , 1 μ g/ L will be the standard used to determ ine co m p liance with the hum an he alth standards.
The Colum b ia River (WRI A 15 27) is listed as im paired on t h e latest CWA 16 303(d) list for the f o llowi ng param e t e rs: 1. 4,4 ’ -DDE (category 2 17 ); Steelsc ape believes that 4,4’ -DDE is absent and did not test for the pollutant; the perm it requires Steelscape to test for 4,4’-DDE and subm it the data with th e perm i t renewal application

15 Water Resource Inventory Ar ea
16 Clean Water A c t

2/24/2 005 Page 29Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. 2. A m m onia- N (category 2); according to the per m it a pp lication amm onia conce n tr ation in effluent is 4.4 m illigrams per liter (mg/L); that ’s approxim a tely on the level of the calculated acute wat e r quality criteria and several ti mes higher than the calculat e d chronic water quality criteria; the permit requires Steelscape to conduct receiving water and effluent study f o r ammonia, m i xing zone study , AKART analy s is for a mmonia, and su mmarize findings i n an e ngineering re port 3. Arsenic, inorganic (category 2); performance-ba se li mitations set in the perm it 4. Bis(2-ethy lehexy l) phthalate (category 2); Steelscap e believes that bis(2-ethy lehexy l) phthalate is absent; however Steelscap e tested fo r the pollutant because testi ng was required; bis(2-ethy lehexyl) phthalate was not fo und in one tested sam p le. 5. Dieldrin (category 5 18 ); Ste e lscape belie ves that dieldrin is absent and did not test for the pollutant; the per m it r e quires Steel scape to test for dieldrin and subm it the data wi th the perm i t renewal application 6. Dioxin (categor y 4A 19 ); Steelscape believ es that dioxin is absent and did not test for the polluta nt; the per m it requires Steels cape to test for dioxin and su bmit the data with the pe rm it renewal application 7. Total PCBs (category 5); Steelsc ape believes that PCBs are abs e nt and did not test for PCBs; the perm it requires Steelscape to test for total P CBs and subm it th e data with the perm it renewal application 8. Te m p erature; the perm it li mit is based o n an ex isting performance based li m it a nd m e ets wat e r quality criteria at the edge of chronic m i xing zone 9. Total dissolved gas ( categ ory 4A); Steelscape is no t a source that would contribute to the surfac e water quality criteria violation The Colum b i a River TMDL 20 to assign waste load allocations for pollutants has not been done y e t. C ONSI D ERATION OF S URFA CE W ATER Q UALITY -B AS ED L IMITS FOR N UMERIC C RITERIA

17 Waters sh ou ld be pla c ed in C a teg o ry 2 if the r e are data and information th at meet the req u irements of th e State's as s e ss ment an d li s t i n g method ol ogy that s u pport a d e term i n at ion that so me, but not a ll, de signated uses are a ttained and none are t h reatened. At t a inment status of the re mai n i n g d e s i gnated us es i s unknow n bec a us e d a ta are insufficient to categorize wate r consistent with the State's li sti n g method ol ogy.
18 This category constitutes the Section 303(d) list that EPA w i ll approve or disapprove under the CWA. W a ters shou ld be plac ed in Categ o ry 5 when it is det e rm ined , in accordance with t h e State's assessment and list ing m e thodolog y , t h at a pollu tant has cau s e d , is s u spected of ca u s in g , or i s pro j ected to cau s e an im pairm e n t or th reat. If that impairment or threat is due to a po lluta nt, the water s h ou ld be pla c e d in Categ o ry 5 and the pollu t a nt cau s ing the im pairm e nt ident i fie d

. A water is cons id ered im paired when one or more designated uses are not att a ined.

19 Waters sh ou ld on ly be p l ace d in C a teg o ry 4A wh en all TM DLs nee d ed to resu lt in at tain m e nt of all app licabl e WQSs h a ve be en approved or estab lish e d by EPA

. On ce the TMDLs hav e b een approved or establ ished , the State should implem ent the TMDL as so on as practicable

. Additionally, EPA en cour ages State s to provide monitoring schedule s for t h ese waters to ensure that suf f icient data are obtained to do cument pr ogre ss o f the imple m entation actions toward the attainment of WQ Ss, and that progress is reasonably co nsistent w i th t h e projected time of attainm e nt incl u d ed in the T M DL.
20 Total Maxi mum Dai l y L o ad

2/24/2 005 Page 30Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Pollutant concentrations in the pr opose d discharge e x ceed water qualit y criteri a with technology

- b ased controls which the Department has deter m ined to be AKART. A m i xing zone was previously authorized by the Depart m e nt. The mixing zone was authorized in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow restriction, an d ot her restrictions for m i xi ng zo nes in Chapt e r 173-2 01A WAC and are defined as follows: The acute m i xing zone wi ll be to a m a xim u m of 9.7 meters do wnstream of the diffuser. The chronic mixing zone will be a m a x i m u m of 97 meters dow nstream and 30 meters upstream of the diffuser. The dilution factors of effl uent to receiving water tha t occur within these zones have been deter m ined at the critical co ndition by the use of the EPA co m put er program P L UMES. The dilution factors have been determ ined to be (Ray theon, 1996) and a listed in

. Ta ble 21 Table 21: Di lution factor s Acute Chronic Aquatic Life 4 6 1 5 0 Human H e alth N / A 1 5 0 Human Health; inorganic ar senic N / A 1

The dilution factors were reviewed and approved by th e Depart ment before construction of facility was finished. The Depart m e nt recognizes that revaluation of t h e factors is necessary and t h erefore the m i xing zone stud y is required b y t h e perm it. Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environm ent near the point of discharge (near field) or at a considerable distance fro m the point of discharge (far fi eld). Toxic pollutants, for exam ple, ar e near-fi eld pollutants--their adverse effects di m i nish rapidl y w ith m i xing i n the receiving water. C onversely , a pollutant suc h as BOD is a far-field pollutant whose a dverse effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilution has occurred. Thus, t h e method of calculating surf ace water quality -based effluent lim it s varies with the point at whi c h the pollutant has its maxi m u m effect. The derivation of surface water quality-based li m its also takes into account t h e variabilit y of the pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the receiving water. The critical conditi on for the Colu m b ia River in the v i ci nit y of the discharge is t h e seven-day average low river flow wit h a recurrence interval of t e n y ears (7Q 10). The receiving stream am bient data used for this perm it includes the following from USGS data:
Table 22: A m bient Data. Paramete r Value used 7Q10 low flo w 2,30 0 m 3 /s Velocity 0.3 m / s and 0.1 m / s for acu te and chronic respectively Depth 12.2 m Width 732 m

2/24/2 005 Page 31Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

Paramete r Value used Temp eratur e 22 ° C pH (high) 7.9 To ta l Ammo nia
- N 0.10 m g /L Hardness 46 m g /L as CaCO3 Arseni c (Tot al) 1.0 μ g/L Copper 2.0 μ g /L Iron 46 μ g/L Zi n c 2.0 μ g /L All Other M e tals 0.0 (below de tection lim its)
The im pa cts of tem p er atur e, pH, a m m o nia, metals, a nd ot her toxi cs were determ ined as described below, using the dilution factors at critical conditions described above. BOD 21 --This discharge with technology- based lim it at i ons results i n a small am ount of BOD loading relative to the large am ount of dilution occurring in the receiving water at critical conditi ons. T echnology

based li m itati ons will be protective of dissolv ed oxygen criteria in the receiving water.
Tem p erature and pH --The im pact of pH and tem p erature were m o d e led using the calculations fro m EPA, 1988 . The input variables were dilution factor (chro n ic) of 150, upstream temperature 22.5 ° C, upstrea m pH 8.03, upst r eam alkalinity 46 (as m g CaCO3/L), effluent tem p erature 35 ° C, effluent pH of 6, effluent pH of 9, an d effluent alkalinit y 1 0 (as mg CaCO3/L). Under critical conditions there is no predicted viol ation of the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters. Therefore, the technology-based effluent li mitations for tem p erature and pH are placed in the perm it. Turbidit y -- Due to the large degree of dilution, it was antic ipated that the turbi d it y criteria would not be violated outsi de the design ated m i xing zone. Toxic Polluta nts --Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.4 4 ) require NPDES perm its to contain effluent lim it s for toxic che m ical s in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable pot ential for those chem i cals to excee d the surface water quality criteria. The process of evalua ting reasonable potential occurs concurrently with the derivation of technol o gy -based effluent lim its. Facilities with technol ogy - based effluent lim its defined in regulation are not exem pted from meeting the Water Quality Standards for Surface W a ters or from having surface wat e r quality

- based effluent lim it s. A deter m inat ion of the dis c harge ' s potential to cau se an exceedance of the water quality standards wa s conducted as required by 40 CFR 122. 44(d). T h e reasonable potential deter m i n ation was evaluated with procedures given in the Technical Support Doc u ment for Water Quali t y - Based Toxics Control

21 B i oc hemi c a l oxygen d e mand

2/24/2 005 Page 32Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. (EPA/505/2- 90-00 1) and the Departme nt' s Perm it Writer's Man u al (Ecolog y Publication 92-10 9, Jul y , 1994). The determ ination of t h e r easonable potential for par a m e t e rs listed in and to exceed the Ta ble 23 Table 24 water quality criteria was evaluated (see Appendix C) at the critical condition. The critical condition in this case occurs during the periods of low flow in the su mmer. The parameters used in the critical condition m odeling are as follows: acute dilution fa ctor of 46, chronic dilution factor of 150 and 1 for inorganic arsenic, and bac kgrou nd co n centration of pollutants listed in (aquatic life) and (hum an health). Table 23 T able 24
T a bl e 23 : B a c k gr oun d c o nc entr ati o n of p o l l u t a nt s us ed in the critica l co ndition modeling (aqua t i c life)
Ambient Concentrati o n 22 Paramete r μg /L 23 Aluminu m , total recoverable 0 24 Ammonia, unioniz ed 3.07E+01 Arseni c , diss olved 1.53E+00 Hexavalent chrom i um , dissolved 0 25 Trivalent chromium, dis s o lved 0 26 Copper, dissolved 1.29E+00 Cyanide 0 27 Iron, dissolved 8.00E+01 28 Lead, dissolved 7.06E-0 2 Mercury, dis s olved 0 29 Nickel, disso lved 8.42E-0 1 Silver, dissolved 0 30 Zin c , dissolved 2.76E+00

22 Calculated as a geometric me an of all detect ed va lu es m u lt iplied by 1

. 74 t o est i m a te the 90 th percentile f o r 1-20 data points.
23 Micrograms p e r liter

24 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 25 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 26 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 27 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 28 Background data obtained fr om the previou s fact sheet wit h assu m p tion t h at it represent e d d i ssolve d iron.
29 Not dete cted

30 Not dete cted

2/24/2 005 Page 33Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Ambient Concentrati o n 22 Paramete r μg /L 23 Hardness 4.10E+04

T a bl e 24 : B a c k gr oun d c o nc entr ati o n of p o l l u t a nt s us ed in the critica l co nditio n m o deling (hum an he alth )
Ambient Concentrati o n 31 Paramete r μg /L 32 Arseni c , inorganic 0 33 Bis(2 chloroisopropyl)ether 0 34 Cyanide 0 35 Iron, total recoverable 0 36 Mercury, tot a l recoverable 0 37 Nickel, total recoverable 1.15E+00 Tetrachloroethylene 0 38 A determination of reasonable potential resulted in no reasonable potential for a ll paramet e rs list e d in and except inorganic arsenic. Si nce the reaso nable potential deter m inat ion indicated Table 23 Table 2 4 that the discharge has no reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality standards, thus water quality

- based effluent lim it ations are not warranted. The Per m ittee is required in section 9 of the propos ed per m it to collect background concentrations near the point of discharge for all param e ters lim it ed in the perm it plus ammonia. This inform ation may resul t in a perm it modification or m odification of th e perm it lim it ations in the next renewal. Water quality criteria for metal s in Chapter 173-201 A WAC are based on the dissolved fr action of t h e metal. The Per m ittee m a y provide data clearly dem onstratin g the seasonal partitioning of the dissolved metal in the am bient water in relation to an effluent discharge. Metal s cri t eria may be adjusted on a site-spe cifi c

31 Calculated as a geometric me an of all detect ed va lu es m u lt iplied by 1

. 74 t o est i m a te the 90 th percentile f o r 1-20 data points.
32 Micrograms p e r liter

33 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 34 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 35 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 36 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

. 37 Not dete cted

38 No vali d am bi ent back g r ou nd data was ava ilable

.

2/24/2 005 Page 34Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. basis when data is avail a ble clearly dem onstrati ng the season a l partitioning in the ambient water i n relation to an effluent discharge. Metals criteri a may also be adjusted using the wa ter effects ratio approach est ablished by USEPA, as generally gui ded by the pr ocedures in USEPA Water Quality Standards Han dbook , Decem b er 1983, as supplemented or replaced. Water quality li m its were calculate d (see Appendix C) for co m p arison purpose s for paramet e rs list e d i n

. Table 25 Table 25: S u rface water quality-base d effluent limitations
Aquatic life Human health Aquatic life Human health Average Monthly Lim it (AML) Maxi m u m Daily Lim it (MDL) PARAME T E R
Microgram s per liter (μg/L) Arseni c , total recoverable 8,22 0 16,4 9 1 Hexavalent chrom i um , to tal recoverable 3 5 0 7 0 3 Copper, total recoverable 1 4 0 2 8 1 Cyanide 5 0 4 1 0 5 , 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 286, 2 3 9 Iron, total recoverable 113, 0 5 5 4 5 , 0 0 0 226, 8 1 0 122, 6 7 4 Lead, total r ecoverable 2 3 0 4 6 1 Mercury, tot a l recoverable 2

. 0 2 1 3

. 0 5 2 Nickel, total recoverable 9,00 5 9 1 , 3 2 8 18,0 6 6 158, 2 2 7 Silver, total recoverable 2 8 4 0 Zin c , total recoverable 1,17 6 2,35 9 Tetrachloroethylene 1 2 0 3 2 7 Aluminu m , total recoverable 17,1 9 7 34,5 0 0 Ammonia, unioniz ed 83,4 9 6 167, 5 0 8 Arseni c , inorganic 0

. 0 1 8 0.01 8 Bis(2 chloroisopropyl)ether 2 1 0 , 0 0 0 306, 3 5 1 Trivalent chromium, tot a l recoverable 19,1 8 4 38,4 8 6
The followin g param e ters are not evaluated bey o nd t h is point: 1. Mercury , t o tal recoverable 2. Silver, total r ecoverable 3. Alu m inum , total recoverable

2/24/2 005 Page 35Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. 4. Amm onia, unionized 5. Arsenic, total recoverable 6. Bis(2 chloroi s oprop y l )ethe r 7. Trivalent chrom i u m , total recoverable In 1992 t h e USEPA adopted risk-based arsenic criteria for the pr otection of human health for the state of Washington. The criterion for m a rine waters is 0.14 μ g/L inorganic arsenic, and is based on exposure from fish and shellfish tissue ingesti on. The freshwater criterion is 0.0 18 μ g/L, and is based on exposure from fish a nd shellfish tissue and water inge s tion. These criteri a have caus e d confusion in i m ple m entati on because t h ey differ from the drinking water ma xim u m conta m inant level (MCL) of 5 0 μ g/L, which is not risk-based, and beca use the hu m a n health crite ria are so metimes exce ede d by natural background concentrations of arsenic in surface water and ground water. In Washington, when a natural background concentr ation exceeds the criterion, the natural background concentration becomes the criterion, and no dilution z one is allowed. This c ould result in a situation where natural groundwater or surface water used as a m unicipal or industrial source-water would need additional tr eatment to meet nu m e ric effluent li mits even though n o arsenic was ad ded as waste. Although this is not the case for all dischargers, we do not have dat a at this tim e to quant if y t h e extent of the problem

. A regulatory m e chanis m to deal with the issues a s so ciated with natural back groun d concentrations of arsenic in groundwater-derived drinking waters is cu rrentl y lacking. Consequently, the Water Quality Program , at t h is ti m e , has decided to use a three-pr onged strategy to address the issues associ ated with the arsenic crit eri a . The three strategy elements are: 1. Pursue, at th e national level, a solution to th e regu l atory issue of groundwater sources with high arsenic conc entrations c a using municipal t reatment plant ef fluent to ex ceed crit eria. T h e upcom ing revision of the MCL for arsenic offers a n a tional op por tunit y to discuss how dri n king water sources can affect NPDE S wastewat er dischargers

. This discussion should f o cus on developing a national poli c y for arsenic regulation that acknow ledges the risks and costs associated with management of the public exposure to natural b ackground concen trations of arsenic through water sources. 2. Additional and more foc u sed data collection . The Water Qu ality Pr ogram will in some cases require additional and m o re focused arsenic data co ll ection, will encourage or require dischargers to test for source water arsen ic concentrations, and will pursue developm ent of a proposal to have the Department's Environm ental Asse ssment Program co nduct drinki n g water source m onitoring as well as so m e additional am bient m onitoring data. At this ti m e , Washin gton NPDES perm its will contain num eric efflu e nt lim its for arsenic based onl y on tr e a t m ent techn o logy and aquatic life protection as appropriate. 3. Data sharing . The Depart ment will share data with U SEPA as they wor k

to de velop new ris k -based criteria for ar senic and as t h ey develop a strategy to regulate arsenic

. This perm it s e ts perfor m an ce based li m i t s for inorganic arsenic.

2/24/2 005 Page 36Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
W HOLE E FFLUENT T OXICITY The Water Quality Standa rds for Surfa ce Waters r e quire that the effluent not cause toxic effects in the receiving wat e rs. M a ny toxic pollutants cannot be de tected by commonly available detectio n m e thods. However, toxicity can be measured directly b y expo sing living or ganism s to th e wastewater in laborator y tests and m e a s uring the response of the organisms. T oxicity tests measur e the aggregate toxicity of the whole effluent, and t h erefore this appr oach is called whole effluent toxicit y ( W ET) testing. Som e WET tests measur e acute toxicity and other WET tests measure chronic toxicity

. Acute toxicity tests m e asure m o rtality as the signifi cant response to the t oxicit y of t h e effluent. Discharger s who m onitor their waste w ater with a c ute toxicit y tests are providing an in dication of t h e potential lethal effect of the effluent to organis m s in the receiving environm ent. Chronic toxicity tests m e asure various sub lethal toxic responses such as re tarded growth or reduced reproduction. Chronic tox i city tests often involve eit h er a co m p lete life cy cle test of an organism with an extre m ely short life c y cle or a partial life cy cle test on a critical stage of one of a test organis m 's life cy cles. Organis m survival is also m e a s ured in som e c h ronic toxicity tests. Accredited WET testing laboratories have the proper WET testing protoco l s, data requirem e nts, and reporting for m at. Accredited laboratories are know ledgeable about WE T testing and capable of calculating a n NOEC, L C 50 , EC 50, IC25, etc. All a ccredited lab s ha ve been provided the m o st recent version of the Department of Ec olog y Publication # WQ-R-95-80, Labora t o ry Guidance and W hole Effluent Toxi city Test R e view Criteria which is referenced in the perm it. Any Perm ittee i n terested i n receiving a copy of this publication may call the De part ment Publications Distribution Center (360) 407-7472 for a copy . The Department reco mmends th at Perm ittees send a cop y of t h e acute or chronic toxicit y sections(s) of thei r perm its to their laboratory of choice. An effluent characterization for acute and chronic t oxi city was conducted during t h e previous p e rm it term (Appendix C). In accordance with WAC 173-205-060, the Perm ittee must repeat chronic effluent characte r izati on for the following reason: Chronic WET testing in February 2 002 39 was not conducted on samples handled as required in WAC 173- 205-0 80. Th e results of this WET testing cannot b e u sed to characterize effluent toxicit y or m a ke the regulator y de term ination required in Chapter 173-205 WAC. Therefor e, the Perm ittee is required to conduct anot her effluent characterization for chro nic whole effluent toxicit y . Acute toxicity was m e asu red during effluent charact er ization in the previous p e rm it term (Appendix C). Acute toxicity was found to be at levels that , in accordance with WAC 173- 205-050(2)(a), have a reasonable po tential to cau se r eceiving water toxicity. An acute to xicity lim it is therefore r e quired. The acute toxicity li m it is no statistically significant diffe rence in test organis m su rvival betwee n the acut e critical effluent concentration (ACEC), 2.2 pe rcent of the effluent, and the contr o l. The acute toxicit y lim it is set relative to the zone of acute criteria exce eda n ce (acute mixing zone) established in accordance with WAC 173-201A-100. The acu te critical effluent concentration (ACEC) is the concentration of efflue nt existing at the boundar y of the acute mixing zone during critical conditions.

39 

### Steelscape m i ght have had chr onic toxicity at 2.2% effluent in February 2002, but the ACEC was not included in the test. The NOEC was 1.6% effluent in this test and the LOEC was 3.7% effluent. It is im possible to know if 2.2% effl uent would have been toxic when 3.7% was toxic and 1.6% wasn' t toxic.

2/24/2 005 Page 37Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Monitorin g f o r com p liance with an acute toxicit y li mit is acco mplished b y co nducting an acute toxicit y test using a sam p le of effluent diluted t o equal the ACEC, 2.2 per cent of the effluent, and co m p aring test organism survival in t h e ACEC to survival in nont oxic control water. The Perm ittee is in com p liance with the acute toxicit y li mit if there is no statistica lly significant difference in test orga nis m survival between the ACEC and the control. Steelsc ape w as ranked #4 (Washington State Depart me nt of Ecolog y , 199 4). The ranking requires the Perm ittee to characterize effluent for acute toxici ty quarterl y and for chr o nic toxicit y sem i annually (Appendix C) . Monitori ng shall be c ond ucted using e ach of the species listed below on a rotati ng basis:

• One fish

• One invertebrate
H UMA N H EALTH Washington ’s water quality standards now includ e 91 num eri c health-base d criteria that m u st be considered in NPDES per m its. Thes e criteria wer e pro m ulgated for the state by the U.S

. EPA in its National Toxi cs Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tue s day , December 22, 1 992)

. The Depart ment has determined that the effluent is likely to have chem icals of concern for h u man health. The che m ical s of concern for hum an health are listed in

. The discharger's high priority status is Ta ble 24 based on the following: 1. The discharger’ s status as a m a jor disch arger, 2. Knowledge of data or proc ess infor m ati on indica ting regulated che m ic als occur in the discharge, and 3. The applicant discharges to a waterbody that is 303( d) listed for a regulated chem ical, and that chem ical is known or ex pected to be in t h e effluent. A deter m inat ion of the dis c harge ' s potential to cau se an exceedance of the water quality standards wa s conducted as required b y 4 0 CFR 12 2.4 4 (d). The re asonable potential determ ination was evaluated with procedures given in the Technical Support Doc u ment for Water Quali t y - Based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2- 90-00 1) and the Departme nt' s Perm it Writer's Man u al (Ecolog y Publication 92-10 9, Jul y , 1994). The d e term ination indicated that the discharge has no reasonable potent i al to cause a violation o f water quality standards, thus effl uent lim it ations based on hum an health he alth-based criteria are not warranted. H o wever, the limitations wer e calculat e d for com p ari s on purposes and the y are listed in . None of t h em became the perm it limitation. Table 25 S EDIMENT Q UALITY The Department has promulgated a quatic sediment standards (Chapter 173-20 4 WAC) to protect aquatic biota and human health. These standar d s state that t h e Depart ment m a y require Per m ittees t o evaluate the potential for t h e discharge to cause a violation of appli cable standards (WAC 173 -204-4 00). The Depart ment has d e ter m ined, f o r the previous perm it, throug h a review of the discharger characte r istic s and effluent characteri s tics that this discharge has no reasonable potential to violate the Sedim e nt Managem e nt Standards.

2/24/2 005 Page 38Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
GROU ND W A TER QU A L ITY LIMITATIONS The Department has promulgated Ground Water Qua lity Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC) to protect beneficial uses of ground water. Pe rmits issued by t h e Department sh all be conditioned in such a m a nner so as not to al low violation s of those standards (WAC 173-2 00-1 0 0 )

. Steelscape applied to dis c harge an av erage of 29, 000 gallo ns per day (gp d ) of wastewater as a dust suppressant over 24 acres of their site. Currentl y St eelscape applies City of Kalama wat e r as a dust suppressant. The Depart ment believes t h e discharge of waste w ate r as a dust su ppressant has the potential to cause a violation of t h e Ground Water Qualit y Standards a nd therefore the Depart ment i m poses t h e following conditions in the proposed perm it: 1. Steelscape may discharge wastewater at an average o f 1500 gpd as a dust suppressant fro m June through Sept em ber as long as the total disch arge does not e x ceed 183,000 gallons for an application season. Steel scape would not be subje c t to the requirem e nts of the ground water qualit y standa rds but the f o l l owing con d it ions shoul d appl y :

a. the volum e of the discharge should be m e asured, recorded and repor ted b. the discharge should be app lied uniform ly over 2 4 acres

c. chloride and TDS concentrations in the wast ewater should be determ ined m onthl y duri n g times of disc harge 2. If Steelscape wants to discharge wastewater to ground at higher rates than 15 00 gpd or gr eater than 183,000 gallons per y ear, the y will need to provide site-specific hy drogeologic inform ation that dem onstr ates that the discharge wil l be in com p liance with the Washington State’ s ground water quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC). Bases for the above conditi ons is e xplain e d in details in Appendix E

. COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT LIMITS WITH THE EXISTING PE RMIT ISSUE D SEPTEMBER 1 4 , 1 998
Table 26: C o mparison of effluent limits with the existing permit Existing Limits Proposed Lim i ts Average Monthly

Limit (AML) Ma x i mum Daily Limit (MDL) PARAME T E R
kg/day 41 Units 40 Average Monthly

Limit (AML) Ma x i mum Daily Limit (MDL) Limit Origin

Flow, millions of gallons per d ay (mgd) ---- 0.18 m gd N/A 0.18 Existing from the engineering r e port

40 Units in this c o lu m n are for valu es in tw o columns to the r i ght from the u n its c o lu m n . 41 I n ki lograms per d a y unl e s s otherwi s e defi n e d i n the parameter c o l u mn.

2/24/2 005 Page 39Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Existing Limits Proposed Lim i ts Average Monthly

Limit (AML) Ma x i mum Daily Limit (MDL) PARAME T E R
kg/day 41 Units 40 Average Monthly

Limit (AML) Ma x i mum Daily Limit (MDL) Limit Origin

pH, S.U. 42 Between 6.0 and 9.0 S.U. Within the ra nge of 6.0 to 9.0 Existing, 40 CFR Total suspended solids (TSS) 11 23 kg/da y 11 23 Existing, 40 CFR Oil and grease (O&G) 4.6 11 kg/da y 4.6 11 Existing, 40 CFR Temp eratur e , oC 43 ---- 35 o C N/A 35 Existing, wat e r quality

- based Arseni c , total recoverable N/A N/A μg/L 2.4 4.8 New, perfor m ancebased Chromiu m , total recoverable 0.02 4 0.06 0 kg/da y 0.01 9 0.04 7 Changed, 40 CFR
Hexavalent chromiu m , total recoverable N/A N/A kg/da y 0.00 90 0.02 7 New, 40 CFR Copper, total recoverable 0.03 4 0.07 2 kg/da y 0.03 1 0.06 5 Changed, 40 CFR Cyanide 0.01 3 0.03 2 kg/da y 0.00 4 0.01 0 Changed, 40 CFR Iron, total recoverable 0.10 0.20 kg/da y 0.03 0.06 Changed, 40 CFR Lead, total recoverable 0.04 5 0.14 kg/da y 0.04 5 0.14 Existing, 40 CFR Mercury, tot a l recoverable 0.00 10 0.00 20 μ g /L None None Rem oved, no reasonable potential Nickel, total recoverable N/A N/A kg/da y 0.00 82 0.02 5 New, 40 CFR Silver, total recoverable 0.01 4 0.02 9 μ g /L None None Rem oved, no reasonable potential Z i n c , total recoverable 0.13 0.34 kg/da y 0.13 0.34 Existing, 40 CFR
Naphthalene ---- 0.0022 kg/da y N/A 0.0022 Existing, 40 CFR

42 Standard units
43 Deg r ee Cels iu s

2/24/2 005 Page 40Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Existing Limits Proposed Lim i ts Average Monthly

Limit (AML) Ma x i mum Daily Limit (MDL) PARAME T E R
kg/day 41 Units 40 Average Monthly

Limit (AML) Ma x i mum Daily Limit (MDL) Limit Origin

Tetrachloroethylene ---- 0.0031 kg/da y N/A 0.0031 Existing, 40 CFR

MONI TORI NG RE QU I R EMEN TS Monitorin g , recording, and reporting are required (WAC 173-220- 210 and 40 CFR 122.41) t o verify that the treat m e nt process is functioning corre ctly an d the e ffluent lim itat i ons are being achieved. The m onitori ng schedule is detailed in the proposed perm it under Condition S.1. Specified m onitoring frequencies take into account the quant ity and variab ilit y of the discharge, the treatment method, past co m p liance, s i gnificance of pollutants, and cost of m onitoring . The m onitoring f r equencies of parameters required to be m onitored by the existing perm it are retained in this perm it.
EFFLUE NT LIMITS BE LOW QUA NTITATION The Quantitation Level (Q L) is the level at which con centrations can be reliably reported wi th a specified level of error. For maxi m u m daily effluent lim it s, if the m e asured effluent concentration is below the QL, the Perm ittee reports NQ for non- qua ntifiable in add ition to the QL nu m e rical value. For average m onthly effluent lim its, all effluent concentrati ons below the Quantitation Level but above the Method Detection Level are used as reported fo r calculating the average monthly value.
EFFLUE NT LIMITS BE LOW DETE CTION The Method Detection Le vel (MDL) is the m i ni m u m c oncentration of an analy t e that can be measure d and reported with a 99 percent confidence that it' s co n centration is greater than zero as deter m ined by a specific laboratory m e thod. For m a xim u m daily li mits, if the concentrations are below the MDL the Perm ittee rep o rts ND for non-detectable in addition to the MDL num erical value. For average m onthly lim its, all values above the MDL are used as reporte d and all values below th e MDL are calculated as zero. LAB ACCR E

D

ITATION With the exception of certain para meters the permit requires all m on itoring data to be prepared by a laborator y re gistered or a ccredited under the pr ov isions of Ch apter 173-5 0 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. OTHER PE RMIT C O N D ITI O NS REPORT I

NG AND R E C O RDK EEPING The conditions of S2 are based on the authority to specify any appropriate reporting and re cordkeeping requirem e nts to prevent an d control waste discharges (WAC 173-2 20-21 0).

2/24/2 005 Page 41Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
NON- ROUT INE A ND U N

ANTI CIPA TED DISC HARGES Occasionally , this facility may generate wastewater wh ich is not characterized in their permit application because it is not a routine discharge and was not anticipat ed at the ti m e of application. These typically are waters used t o pressure te st storage t a nks or fire wa ter sy ste m s or leaks f r o m drinking water sy ste m s
. These are ty pically clean waste water s but m a y be cont am inated with pollutants. The permit contains an authorization for no n-rout ine and unan ticipated disch arges. The perm it requi res a chara c t e rization of these wast e waters for pollutants and ex am ination of the opportuni ties for r e use. Depending on the nature and extent of pollutants in this wastewater and oppor tunities for reuse, the Dep a rtm e nt may authorize a direct discharge via the process w aste w a t er outfall or through a stormwat er outfall for clean water, require the wastewat er to be placed through the facilities wast ewater tr eat ment process or require the water to be reused. SPILL PLAN The Depart ment has determined that the Perm itt ee stor es a quantity of chem ical s that have the potential to cause water p o llution if accidentally released. The Depa rt ment has the authority to require the Per m itte e to develop be st m a n a gement plans to prevent this accidental release under sectio n 402(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Contr o l Act (FWPCA) and RCW 90. 48.0 80. The Per m ittee has developed a plan for preventing the acci dental r e lease of pollutants to state waters an d for m i nim i zin g dam a ges if such a spill o ccurs. Th e p r oposed permit requires the Perm ittee to review and update the Spill Plan, as needed, at least annuall y . Cha nges to the plan shall be sent to the Depart m e nt. SOLID WAS T E PLAN The Depart ment has determined that the Perm ittee h as a potential to cause pollution of the waters of th e state fro m le a c hate of solid waste. This prop osed perm it req u ires, under the authorit y of RCW 90 .48.0 80, that the Perm ittee update, if necess ary , the solid waste plan desi gned to prevent solid waste fro m causing pollution of the waters of th e state. The plan m u st be subm itted to t h e local pe rmitting agency for appr oval, if necessary , and to the Department.
EFFLUE NT MIXING STUDY The Department has estimated the amo unt of m i xing of the discharge within the authorized mixing zone to deter m ine the potential for violations of the Wa ter Quality Standards for Surface W a ter s ( C hapter 173- 201A WAC). Condition S 7 of this permit requires the Perm ittee to m o re accurately determ ine the m i xing characteristics of the discharge. Mixing will be m e asured or m o deled under conditi ons specified in the per m it to assess whether assu m p tions made about dil u ti on will pr otect the receiving water quality outside the allotted di lution zo ne b oundar y . OUTFALL E VALUAT I

ON Proposed permit Condition S11 require s the Permittee to conduct an outfall inspection and subm it a report detailing the findings of that inspection. The purpose of the insp ection is to d e term ine the condition of the discharge pipe and diffusers and to e v aluate the ex tent of sedi m ent accu m u lat i ons in the vicinity of the outfall.

2/24/2 005 Page 42Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
TREATMENT SY STEM OPERAT ING PLAN In accordance with state and federal regulations, the Per m ittee i s required to take all reason a ble steps to properl y oper a te and maintain the treatment sy st em (40 CFR 122 .41(e)) and WAC 173-22 0-150 (1)( g). An operation and m a inten a nce m a nual is required b y st ate regulation for the c onstruction o f wastewater treatment facilities (WAC 173-240-150). It has b een determ ined that the im plementation of the procedures in the Treat me nt Sy stem O p erating Plan is a rea s onable m e asure t o ensure co mpliance wit h the term s and lim it ations in the perm it. GENE RAL COND ITI O

NS General Conditions are based directly on state and fe de ral law and regulations and have been standardiz e d for all indiv i d u al industrial NPDES permits issued by t h e Department. PERMIT IS SUAN CE P R OC EDU R E S
PERMIT M ODIF I

CAT IONS The Depart ment m a y m odify this per m it to i m pose num eri cal li mitations, if necess ary to meet Water Quality Standards for Surface Wat e rs, Sediment Qua lity Standa rds, or Water Quality Standards for Ground Wat e rs, based on new infor m ation obtai ne d from sources such as inspections, effluent m onitoring, o u tfall studies, and effluent mixing studie s
. The Depart ment may also m odify this per m it as a res u lt of new or am ended stat e or federal regulations. RECOMM E

NDATION F O R PERMIT ISSUANC E This proposed perm it mee t s all statutory requirements for authorizing a waste w ater dischar ge, including those lim itati ons and conditions believe d necessary to c ontrol toxics, protect huma n health, aquatic life, and the benef i cial uses of waters of the state of W ash ington. The Depart ment proposes that this proposed per m it be iss u ed according to the Colum b ia Gorge Basin (Basi n 5) schedule with expiration da y of June 30, 2 0 0 8

. REFER E NC ES FOR TE X T AND AP PENDI CES Environm ental Protection Agency (EPA ) 1992 . Nation a l T o x i c s R u l e
. Federal Register, V. 57, No. 246, Tue s day , December 22, 1 992

. 1991. Techni cal Support D o cument for Water Qualit y - based Toxi cs Control . E P A/505/2-9 0

- 001. 1988 . Techni cal Guidance on Su pplem entary Stream Design Condi tions for Stead y State Mod e ling

. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Proce dure for Toxi c and Conventional Poll utants in Surface and Ground Water . EPA/600/6

- 85/00 2a. 1983. Water Quality S t a n d a r d s H a n d b o o k

. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

2/24/2 005 Page 43Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Ray t heon En gineers and Construc tors, P h iladelphia, P e nnsy l vania 1996 . Engi neering Report for Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilit y . Prepared for BHP Coated Steel Corporation, Kalam a , Washington; approve d b y the Department on April 1 9 , 19 96; upda ted by Steelscape on Decem b er 2001 and A ugust 2004 Tsivoglou, E.C., and J.R. Wallace. 1972 . Characterization of Stream Reaeration Capacity . EPA-R3-7 2 -012. (Cited in EPA 19 85 op.cit.) Washington State Department of Ecolog y . 1994 . Perm it Writer’s Manual . Publicati on Num b er 92-109 Washington State Department of Ecolog y . Laws and Regulations( htt p ://www.ecy .wa.gov/laws-rules/index.ht ml )
Per m it and Wastew ater R e l a ted Informat ion ( http://www.ecy .wa.gov/programs/wq/w astew ater/index.htm l Wright, R.M. , and A.J. McDonnell. 1979 . In-stream Deoxy gena tion Rate Prediction . Jo urn a l Environm ental Engineer ing Division , ASCE. 105(E E 2). (Cited i n EPA 198 5 op.cit.)

2/24/2 005 Page 44Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
APPEND IX A--PUBL I C INV O LV E M ENT I N F O RMA T I O N The Depart ment has tentatively deter m ined to reissue a perm it to the applicant listed on page 1 of this fact sheet. The p e rm it contain s conditions and effluent lim ita tions wh ich are de scri b ed in the res t of this fact sheet. Public notice of applicatio n was publishe d on Ma y 15, 2 004, an d May 23, 2 004, i n The Daily News to inform the pu blic that an application had been su bm i tted and to invite comment on the reissuance of this perm it. The Depart ment will publish a Public Notice of Draft (PNOD) on __________ ,in The D a ily News to inform the public that a draft per m it and fact sheet are available for review. Interested persons are invited to subm it written co mments regarding the draft perm it. The draft perm it , fact sheet, and related docum ents are available for inspectio n and co p y i ng between the hours of 8:00 a.m
. and 5: 00 p.m. weekday s , b y appointm e nt, at the region al office lis ted below. Wri tten comments should be m a iled to: Industrial Uni t Perm it Coordinator Department of Ecolog y Southwest Region - Water Quality P.O. Box 47 7 75 Oly m pia, WA 9850 4-77 7 5 Any i n terested part y m a y co mment on the draft permit or request a public he aring on t h is draft perm it within the 30-day comm ent period t o t h e address above . T h e request for a hearing shall indicate the interest of the party and r easons why t h e hearing is warranted. The Depart m e nt will hold a hearing if it determ ines th ere is a significant public interest in the draft perm it (WAC 173-220-0 90). P ublic notic e regarding any hearing will be circulat ed at least 30 day s in advance of the hearin g. People ex pressing an interest in thi s perm it will be mailed an indivi dual notice of hearing (WAC 173- 220-100). Co mments sh ould reference specific tex t followed b y proposed modification or concern when possible. Co mments may address technical issue s , accuracy and com p lete ness of information, the s c ope of the facility’s proposed coverage, adequacy of environm ental protection, perm it conditions, or any ot her concern that would result from is suance of this perm it

. The Depart ment will consider all comments received within 30 da y s from t h e date of public notice of draft indicated above, in f o rm ulating a final determin ation t o issue, revise, or den y the pe rm it. The Department's response to all significant comments is av ailable upon request and will be mailed directl y to people expressing an interest in this permit. Further infor m ation m a y be obtained fr om the Depart m e nt by tele phone, ( 360) 407-6280, or by writing t o the address listed above. This perm it a nd fact sheet were writt en by Jacek Anuszew ski, P.E.

2/24/2 005 Page 45Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY Acute Toxici ty --The lethal effect of a co m pound on an organi sm that occurs in a short peri od of tim e, usually 48 to 96 h ours. AKA R T -- An acrony m for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of treat m e nt”. Ambient Water Quality

-- The existing environm ental condition of the water in a receiving water body

. Ammonia --Amm onia is produced b y the breakdown of nitr o g en ous materials in wastewater. Amm onia is toxic to aq uatic organisms, exerts an ox ygen demand, and con t ributes to eu trophication. It also increases the am ount of chl o rine n eeded to disinfect wastewater. Average Monthly Discharge Lim i tation --The average of the m e asured values obtained over a calendar m onth ' s time. Best Management Pract i ces (BMPs) --Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenanc e procedures, and other ph y s ical, structural and/or managerial practice s to p r event or re duce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs include treatment sy ste m s , operating procedures, and practices to control: pl ant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or dr ainage fro m raw m a terial storage. BMPs m a y be further categorized as op erational, source control, erosion and sedi m ent control, and treat ment BMPs. BOD 5 --Det er mining the Bioche m i cal O x y g en Dem a nd of an effluent is an indirect way of measuring the quantity of organic materi al present in an effl uent that is utilized by bacteria. The BOD 5 is used in m odeling to measur e the reduction of dissolved oxygen in a receiving water aft e r effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved ox ygen levels m a k es organism s less co m p etiti ve and less able to sustain their species in t h e aqua tic environm ent. Although BOD is not a specifi c co m pound, i t is defined as a conventiona l pollu tant un der the federal Clean Water Act. Bypass --The intentional di version of waste stream s from any porti on of a treatment facility

. Chlorine --C hlorine is used to disinfect waste w ate r s of pa thogens harm ful to hum an health. It is also extrem ely toxic to aquatic life. Chronic Tox i city --The effect of a co m p ound o n an or ganism over a relatively long tim e, often 1/10 of a n organism's lifespan or m o re. Chronic to xicit y can m e asure survival, reproducti o n or growth r a tes, or other param e ters to m e asure the toxic effects of a co mpoun d or com b ination of co m pounds. Clean Water Act (CWA) --The Federal Water Pollution Contro l Ac t enacted b y Public La w 92-500, as am ended by Public Laws 95-21 7, 9 5 -5 76, 9 6 -48 3 , 9 7 -117; USC 1251 et seq. Compliance Inspection
- Without Sampling --A si te visit for the purpose of determ ining the co m p liance of a facility w ith the term s and conditi ons of its pe rm it or with appli cable statutes and regulations. Compliance Inspection - With Samp ling --A site visit to accom p lish the p u rpose of a Co m p liance Inspection - Without Sampling an d as a m i nim u m , sa m p ling and analy s is for all param e ters with lim it s in the perm it to ascertain co m p liance with t hose li m its; and , for m unicipal facilities, sam p ling of influent to ascertain com p lian ce wit h the 85 percent rem oval requirem e nt. Additional sam pling may be cond ucted.

2/24/2 005 Page 46Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
Co mpo s ite S a mple --A mi xture of grab sa m p le s coll ected at the s a m e sa m p lin g point at different ti m e s, formed either by cont i nuous sam pling or b y mixing discrete samples. May be "timeco m posite"(collected at co nstant tim e in tervals) or "flow-proporti o n al" (collected either as a constant sa m p le volume at ti m e in tervals proportional to strea m flow, or collected by increasing the volum e of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots. Constructio n Activity --Clearing, grading, excavation and any ot her activity which disturbs the surface of the land. Such activities m a y include road build ing, construction of residential houses, office buildi ngs, or industrial bui ldings, and de m o lition activity. Continuous Monitoring –Uninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the perm it. Critical Con d ition --The tim e during which the co m b ination of receiving water and waste discharg e conditions have the highest potential for causing toxi city in the receiving water environm ent. This situation usually occurs when the fl ow within a wat e r body is low, thus, its ability to dil u te effluent is reduced. Dilution Factor --A m e asu re of the am o unt of m i xing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundar y of t h e m i xing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the percent effluent fr action e.g., a dilution factor of 10 means the eff l uent com p ris es 10% by volume and the receiving wat e r 90%. Engineering Report --A docum ent which thorou g h l y exam ines the engineering and adm i nistrativ e aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility . The report shall contain the appropriate in formation required in WA C 173-2 40-0 60 or 173- 24 0-130. Fecal Coliform Bacteria --Fecal colifor m bact eria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria in th e effluent that are harm ful to hum ans. P a thogenic ba cteria in wastewater discharges are controlled b y disinfecting the wast ewat e r . The presen ce of high num b ers of fe ca l coliform ba cteria in a wa ter body can indicate the recent rele ase of untreated wast e w ate r and/or the presenc e of animal fe ces. Grab Sample --A single sa m p l e or m e as ure m ent take n at a specific tim e or over as short period of tim e a s is feasible. Industrial Wastewater

- - Water or li quid-carried waste fro m i ndustrial or co mmercial processes, as distinct from dom estic wastewater. These wastes ma y result from any process or activity of i ndustr y , manufacture, trade or business, fro m the developm ent of any natural reso urce, or from ani m al operations such as feed lot s , poultry houses, or dair i es. The ter m includes conta m inated stor m w a ter and, also, leachate fro m so lid waste faci lities. Major Facility-- A facility discharging to surface wat e r with an EP A rating score of > 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic poll u t a nt potential, and pub lic health im pact. Maxim u m Daily Discharge Lim i tatio n --The highest allowable daily d i scharge of a pollutant m e asured during a cale ndar day or any 24-hour period that rea s onably represents the cale ndar day for purposes of sa m p ling. The daily discharge is cal culated as the average m e a s ure m ent of the pollutant over the day

. Method Det ection Level (MDL)-- The minim u m concentration of a subs tance that can be measured an d reported with 99% confidence that the analy t e conc entration is above zero and is determ in ed fro m analy s is of a sa m p le in a given m a trix co ntaining the analy t e.

2/24/2 005 Page 47Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Minor Facility-- A facility discharging to surface wat e r with an EP A rating scor e of < 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic poll u t a nt potential, and pub lic health im pact. Mixing Z o ne --An area that surroun ds an effluent dis c harg e within which water qualit y crite ria m a y be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility ' s perm it and follows procedures outlined in state regul ations (Chapter 173- 201A WAC). National P o l l utant Discharge Elim ination S y stem (NPDES)

- - The NPDES (Section 402 of the Clea n Water Act) i s the Federal wastewater perm itting sy stem for discharges to navigable waters of the United States . Many state s , including the State of Washington, have been delegated the authorit y t o issue thes e per m its. N P DES per m i t s issued by Washington State permit writers are joint NPDES/State perm its issued un de r both State and Federal laws. pH --The pH of a liquid measure s its ac idity or alkalinit y . A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and large variations above or below this value are considered harm ful to m o st aquatic life. Quantitation Level (QL)-
- A calculated value five ti mes the MDL (method detection level). Responsible Corporate Officer -- A pre s ident, secret ary , treasurer, or vice-presi dent of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any ot her person who perfor m s si mil a r policy

- or decisionmaking funct i ons for t h e corporation , o r the m a nage r of o n e or m o re m a nufacturing, prod uction, or operating facilities em plo y i ng m o re th an 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 m illion (in second quarter 1980 doll a rs), if authority to sign docum ents has been assigned or delegated to the m a nager in accordan ce with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22). Technology-based Effluent Lim i t --A per m it li m it t h at is based on the abilit y of a treat ment method t o reduce the pollutant. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) --Total suspended solids is the particulate m a t e rial in an effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiving water m a y result in solids accu m u lat i on. Apart fr om any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respirator y passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly , su spended solids can screen out light and can prom ot e and m a intain the development of no xiou s conditions t h roug h ox yge n depletion. State Waters --Lakes, rivers, ponds, stream s, inland waters, undergroun d waters, salt waters, and all other surface w a ter s and waterco u rses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. Storm w ater --That portion of precipitation that d o es not naturall y percolate into the groun d o r evaporate, but flows via overland flo w , interflow, pipes, and ot he r features of a stor m wat e r drainage s y stem int o a defined surface water body, or a c onstr ucted infiltration facilit y . Upset --An exceptional incident in which there is unintenti onal and tem porary no ncom p liance with technology

- based per m it effluent lim it ations because of factors beyond t h e reasonable control of the Perm ittee. An upset does not include noncom plian ce to the extent caused by operational error, i m properly designed treat ment facilities, lack of pr eventative m a i n tenance, or careless or i m proper operation. Water Quali t y-based Effluent Limit --A li m it on the concentration of an effluent parameter that is intended to pr event the concentration of that para meter fro m exceed ing its water qualit y criterion after it is discharged into a receiving water.

2/24/2 005 Page 48Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
APPEND IX C--TEC HN I CAL C A LC ULAT IONS Several of the Excel ® spreadsheet tools used to evaluate a di scharger’s abilit y t o m eet Washington State water quality standards can be found on the Depart ment’ s hom epag e at http://www.ecy .wa.gov. All cal culations of per m it lim it s ar e in a spre adsheet na m e d application data

. xls . The spre adsheet i s available upo n request fro m: Industrial Uni t Perm it Coordinator Department of Ecolog y Southwest Region - Water Quality P.O. Box 47 7 75 Oly m pia, WA 9850 4-77 7 5

2/24/2 005 Page 49Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.
APPENDIX D--RESP O NSE TO COMMENTS

2/24/2 005 Page 50Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc.

APPEND IX E-- TEC HNI CAL MEM O RA ND UM
WASHIN GT ON STATE DEPARTME NT OF ECO L OGY Water Qualit y Program Southwest Regional Office

Technical Mem o randum January 2 8 , 2 004
To: Jacek Anusz e w ski, Per m it Manager
From : Denis Erickson, H y dr ogeo l ogist Subject: Steelscape Inc. Perm it Application, NPDES Perm it No. WA00408 5 - Request to Use Wastew ater f o r Dust Suppressant At y our request I r e viewe d the Steelsc ape per m it a pplication regarding their proposal to discharge an average of 2 9 ,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastew at er as a dust suppressant over 24 acres of their site. Currently Ste e lscape applies City of Kalama water as a dust su ppressant. This m e m o r a ndum is my response to your request. Wastewater Quality Three analy ses of the wa stewat er ar e included in the per m it ap plication. Based on these analy ses the constituents of concern in the effluent are total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride. The average concentrations and ground water qua lity standard cr iteria for the constituents of concern are listed in Table 1. Table 1. Constituents of Concern, Co ncentrations and Criteria. Effluent Effluent Effluent Ground Water Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 A v e r a g e Q u a l i t y Sam p ling Date 11/3/9 8 8 / 8 / 0 0 8 / 1 4 / 0 1 C o n c e n t r a t i o n Criteria

Paramete r

C h l o r i d e 9 8 0 1 4 0 0 8 6 0 1 0 8 0 2 5 0 Total Dissolved Solids 1 9 0 0 2 3 0 0 1 4 4 8 1 8 8 3 5 0 0 Note: Concentrations in m g /L. The average concentrations for chloride and TDS concentrations are 1080 m g /L and 1883 m g /L, respectively , however the sa m p le s show considerable variation, and there is so m e concern abou t the representativ e ness of these av erage v a lues. As y ou will see l a ter in this mem o r a ndum I rely fairly heavily on these aver age values to evaluate th e potential for ground water conta m ination. The perm it application does not desc ribe the site hy drogeology or soil conditions at the facilit y and there is no evaluation of t h e pote n tial effects o f the discharge on ground water quality

.

2/24/2 005 Page 51Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. To understand the site hy drogeologi c conditions, at least in a general way , and to evaluate the susceptibility of the site to ground water contam ination I reviewed the following:

• the soil survey for the Cow litz survey
• regional geol ogic reports f o r the area, and
• well logs for wells in the site vicinit y in Ecology Well Log Database (Ecology , 2003). These source s are readily available on the Departme nt’ s website and as GIS coverages

. The site conditions are su mmarized below. Geology, Soi l s, and Hydrogeolog y The site is un derlain b y fl o odplain all uvi al deposits of the Colum b ia River that consist of sand , gravel and silt (Mey ers, 1970 and Wa lsh, et al, 1987). T h e soils c onsist m o stly of silt loam and silt y clay loam (Call, 1970). All soils are subject to seasonal high water tables of 1 to 3 feet below the ground surf ace. A well log for two re source protection wells drilled on the “ B HP Steel ” site to a depth of 20 feet showed 18 feet of sand overly i ng two feet of silt. The water l e vel w as not record ed on the log. One g e neral i zed log fo r 20 cone penetrometer tests at the “BHP” site encount ered sand an d silty sand t o 90 feet with an organic silt and clay lay e r at a depth interval of 9 to 19 feet . The regional water table w as logged at a depth of 13 feet and water perched about the orga ni c silt and clay la y e r at a depth of seven feet. Two wells near th e facility were test wells drilled by the Port of Kala m a to depths of 67 and 101.5 feet. The wells encountered sand and silt y sand with occasional si lt la y e rs. Generally below a depth of 50 feet th e material consisted of fine-mediu m and coarse sand. The water lev e l in the 67-f oot well was about 23 feet but was not r ecorded for the 101. 5-foot well. Regional gro und-water flow beneath the site is likely to ward the Colum b ia River. The local flow pattern in the upperm o s t water-b earing zone will be influen ced by discharge activiti es at the ground surface and infiltration va riabilit y and may be com p lex. Because of the flat-l y i ng topography the hydrauli c gradient is likel y to be low.
Estimated Effects on Gro und Water Quality Based on hydrogeologic conditions at the site, the propo sed di scharge of wastewater wil l likel y affect ground water quality

. To esti m ate this effect I used a water balan ce m odel co m b ined with a si m p le mas s balance m odel. The water balance m o del estim ates th e am ount of recharge to gro und wat e r. For this m odel, evap otranspiration was estim a ted using th e method b y Thornthwaite and Mather (1957) and Palm er and Havens (1958) using norm a l m onthly temperature data for the City o f Kalama. The m onthl y recharge was esti m ated using the m e th od described by Fenn (1985). The am o unt of runoff from the sit e was assu med to be negligible. The climatological data and esti m ated ground water recharge rate are su mmarized a s follows: Annual Precipitation 56.3 44 inches Annual Evap otranspiration 25.9 i n ches Annual Estimated Recharg e 30.4 i n ches The m a ss balance m odel is used to calculate an average ground w a ter concentration for selected loading rates and site-specific aquifer conditions. The basic charact eristi cs of this model are described in the

44 45.7 inches

2/24/2 005 Page 52Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. Appendix 45 VIII in the Per m it Writers Manual. I modified the m odel so that t h e water co mponent of the waste w ate r did not contribute to the concentration calculation. This is based on the assu m p tion that the water co m ponent of the wastewater bei ng applie d as a dust suppressant under dr y conditi ons would be evaporated and not infil t rated. I al so m odified the m odel to account for seasonal applications. The original m odel assu m e d an nual loading only

. Other m odel assu m p tions are listed as f o llows:

• Wastew ater i s applied uniform ly over 24 acres
• Infiltrated water and ground water m i x instantaneously
• Contam inants were not attenuated by sorpti on or losses fro m biodegradation or volatilization
• Hy dr od ynam i c dispersion and diffusi on a r e disregarded.
Assu med aquifer properties are listed as follows:

• Hy draulic Co nductivit y 3 feet/day
• Hy draulic Gr adient 0.00 20 feet/feet
• Aquifer and Depth of Mixing Thickness 20 feet
• P o r o s i t y 0

. 3 0
• Site width pe rpendicular to groun d-water flow 1600 feet
• Background c oncentration f o r TDS 100 m g /L
• Background c oncentration f o r chloride 10 m g /L
In m y opi ni on, these input values are fairly con servative for the site conditions. The esti m ated concentrations for chloride and TDS for thr ee discharge scenarios ar e shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Estimated Chloride and TD S Con centra t ions for Three Dis c harge Scenarios.
Chloride Total Dissolved Solids E s t i m a t e d E s t i m a t e d Number of Aquifer Aquifer D i s c h a r g e D i s c h a r g e Concentrati o n Concentrati o n Discharge Scenarios ( g p d ) D a y s ( m g / L ) ( m g / L ) Background (Assumed) ---- ---- 10 100 1. Steelscape Per m it Request 29000 365 562 1006 2. Steelscape Summer Di sc harge Only 2900 0 1 2 2 1 8 8 3 3 6 3. Steelscape Summer Di sc harge Only 1 5 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 0
From Table 2, an annual discharge of 29,000 gpd would exceed groun d water quality cri t eria for both chloride and TDS (Scenario 1). The estimated aver age concentration in grou n d water is 562 m g /L for chloride and 1006 m g /L for TDS, over two tim e s the gr oun d water qualit y criteria. This discharge would violate the gr ound water qualit y standards (C hapter 173-20 0) and i s not allowable. Ground Water Quality Standards

45 Chapter

2/24/2 005 Page 53Fact Sheet fo r NPDES Permit No. W A 00408 51 Steelscape, Inc. The goal of the ground wa ter quality sta ndards is to ma intain a high qualit y of ground water and to protect existing and future beneficial uses. Th is goal is achieved by three mechanis ms: 1. AKART- all known, avail a ble and reasonable m e tho d s of preventi on, contr o l and treat m e nt 2. An antidegradation polic y which mandates the protection of backgr ound water quality and prevents degradation of gr ound water qua lit y that wo uld harm beneficial use. 3. Nu m e ric a l an d narrative standards.
Assu m i ng that AKART h as been achie ved for the wast e w ate r , the mechanis m to est ablish enforcement lim its under the antidegradation polic y i s to determ in e background concentrations for the constituents of concern. Thi s requires a ground water m onitoring pr ogr am . The process to define enforcement li m its i s described in the I m plementation Guidance for Gr ound Water Quality Standards (Ecology , 1996). Basically , we m u st know background co ncentrations before we can determ ine g r ound water l i m its. Additional Discharge Scenarios It seems unlikely t h at dust suppression would be needed at the facilit y on a y ear round basis as request ed by the Steelscape. Most likely the disc harge would only be needed during the summer. T h e esti m at ed effects of discharging 29, 000 gp d of wastewater fr om June thro ugh Septem b e r, 122 day s , are shown in scenario 2 in Table 2. Again the estimated concentr ations in ground water for chloride (188 m g /L) an d TDS (336 m g /L) are m u ch greater than assu m e d back groun d levels. However, as shown in Scenario 3, if the discharge to gr oun d is about 1 500 g pd d u ring Ju ne throu gh S e ptem ber, the chloride con centration is equal to the assu m e d back ground level. Because chlori de is the limiting water qua lity parameter, the TDS concentration is reduced to below the backgroun d lev e l.
Conclusions
1. The Steelscape site is underlain by all u vial de posits consisting mostly of sand and silt y sand with a shallow water table. The uppermost aquifer is susceptible to contam ination from surface activities.
2. The constituents of concern in the wastewater are chloride and T D S with average concentrations of 1080 m g /L and 1883 m g /L, respectively. These averages ar e based on three sam p l es that show considerable variation and additi onal te sting shoul d be considered to prov ide a better estimate of the average.
3. The proposed discharge of 29,000 gpd t o ground as a dust suppressant would exceed the ground water quality criteria for chloride and T D S and is not allowable under the ground water qualit y standards (Chapter 173-20 0 WAC).
4. Steelscape may discharge wastewater an average of 1500 gpd as a dust suppressant fro m Ju ne through Sept em ber as long as the total disch arge does not e x ceed 183,000 gallons for an application season. Steel scape would not be subje c t to the requirem e nts of the ground water qualit y standa rds but the f o l l owing con d it ions shoul d appl y :

• the volum e of the discharge should be m e asured, recorded and repor ted
• the discharge should be app lied uniform ly over 2 4 acres
• chloride and TDS concentrations in the wast ewater should be determ ined m onthl y duri n g times of disc harge

2/24/2 005 Page 54Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit No. WA0040851 Steelscape, Inc.

2/24/2005 Page 55 5. If Steelscape wants to discharge wastewater to ground at higher rates than 1500 gpd or greater than 183,000 gallons per year, they will need to provide site-specific hy drogeologic information that demonstrates that the discharge will be in compliance with the Washington State’s ground water quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC).
References Call, W.A., 1974. Soil Survey of the Cowlitz Area , Washington. US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. 112p +maps Ecology, 1990. Water Quality St andards for Ground Waters of the St ate of Washington, Chapter 173-200 WAC. 8p. Ecology, 1996. Implementation Guidance for the Gr ound Water Quality Standards, Ecology publication #96-02, http//www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/96002.pdf. Ecology, 1999. Permit Writer's Manual, Appendix VIII, July 1999 Ecology Well Log Home Page, 2003. November 19, 2003 Fenn, D.G. et al., 1975. Use of the Water Balanc e Method for Predicting Leachate Generation from Solid Waste Disposal Sites. US EPA/530/SW-168. 40p. Myers, D.A., 1970. Availability of Ground Water in Western Cowlitz County, Washington. Washington Department of Ecology Water-Supply Bulletin No.35. 63 p. Palmer, W.C. and A.V. Havens, 1958. A Graphical Technique for Determining Evapotranspiration by the Thornthwaite Method. Monthly Weather Review, pp. 123-128. Walsh, T.J., M.A. Korosec, W.M. Phillips, R.L. Logan, H.W. Schasse, 1987. Geologic Map of Washington -- Southwest Quadrant. Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-34. Thornthwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather, 1957. Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance. Drexel In stitute of Technology, Publications in Climatology, Volume X, Number 3.