### FACT SHEETFORNPDES PERMIT WA0022900 BP CHERRYPOINTREFINERY February 14, 2012
PURPOSE ofthis Fact Sheet This fact sheet explains and documents the decisions Ecology made in drafting the proposed National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for BP Cherry Point Refmery.
The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) developed the NPDES permitting program as a tool to "restore and maintainthe chemical, physical, and biological integrity ofthe Nation's waters." EPA delegatedto Ecology the power and duty to write, issue, and enforce NPDES permits within Washington State. Both state and federal laws require any industrial facility to obtain a permitbefore discharging treated process water to a waterbody. AnNPDES permit limits the types and amounts ofpollutants the facility may discharge. Those limits are based either on (1) the pollution control orwastewater treatmenttechnology available to the industry, or on (2) thereceiving water's customarybeneficial uses. This fact sheet complies with Section 173-220-060 ofthe Washington Administrative Code (WAC), whichrequires Ecologyto prepare a draft permit andaccompanying fact sheetfor public evaluation before issuing anNPDES permit.
PUBLIC ROLE in the Permit Ecologymakes the draft permit and fact sheet available for public review and comment at least thirty (30) days before issuing the final permitto the facility operator (WAC 173-220-050). Copies ofthe fact sheet and draftpermitfor BP Cherry Point Refinery, NPDES permit WA0022900, are available for public review and comment from April13, 2011 until the close ofbusiness June 13, 2011. Formore details onpreparing and filing comments about these documents, please see Appendix A - Public Involvement.
Before publishing the draftNPDES permit, BP Cherry Point Refineryreviewed it for factual accuracy. Ecology corrected any errors or omissions aboutthe facility's location, product type orproductionrate, discharges orreceiving water, or its history.
Afterthe public commentperiod closes, Ecology will summarize substantive comments and ourresponses to them. Ecology will include our summary andresponses to comments to this Fact Sheet as Appendix 0- Response to Comments, and publishitwhen issuing the fmal NPD.ES permit. Ecology will not revise the rest ofthe fact sheet, butthe full document will become part ofthe legal history contained inthe facility's permitfile.
LiemNguyenprepared the permit and this fact sheet.FACTSHEETFOR NPDESfERMIT WA0022900

SUMMARY The BP Cherry Point Refmery operates a wastewater treatmentplantthat discharges to the Strait ofGeorgia. Ecology issued the previous permit for this facility on October 1, 1999.
The proposed permitretains the effluent limits for the conventional pollutants Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Oil and Grease (O&G), phenols; ammonia, and sulfidefrom the previous permit issued in 1999. Newlimits are proposed for hexavalent chromium. Ecology added newlimits at the biological treatment system to ensure that flow and BOD loading do not exceed approved facility design criteria. The proposedpermit retains the monitoring frequencies from thepreviouspermit for 

### BODS, TSS, O&G, sulfide, andphenol, reduces the monitoring frequencies for COD and ammonia, and adds monitoring for fecal coliform. · Theproposedpermit adds annual monitoring for prioritypollutants, a herring toxicity study, and groundwater monitoring.

### TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION

....................................................................:.................................................. !
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

............................................................................................2 

### A. Facility Description

......................................................................................................3 SiteDescriptionand History

....................................................................................3 Industrial Process

.....................................................................................................3 Wastewater Treatment

.............................................................................................4 Solid Wastes

.............................................................................................................6 Discharge Outfalls

...................................................................................................6 Discharge Locations

.................................................................................................7 

### B. Permit Status

...................:............................................................................................7 C. Summary ofCompliancewith Previous PermitIssued

............................................8 D. Review ofPrevious PermitRequirements

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

### E. Wastewater Characterization

...................................................................................12 F. Description ofthe Receiving Water

..........................................................................13 G. CherryPointAquatic Reserve

..................................................................................l4 H. SEPA Compliance

...................................................................................................... 14 III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS

....................................................................................

### 14 A. Design Criteria

...........................................................................................................15 B. 

### Technology-Based EffluentLimits

...........................................................................15 Process Wastewater :.............................................................................................. 

### 15 Ballast and Storm water Allocations

.......................................................................

### 20 Stormwater Discharge Monitoring (Outfalls 

### 002, 003, 004, 005, and 

### 007)

..........21 Alternative Stormwater Discharge

.........................................................................

### 22 FinalEffluent Discharge for Firewater Testing

.....................................................

### 23 ConstructionProject StormwaterDischarge Requirements

.................................

### .23 C. SurfaceWater Quality-BasedEffluentLimits

.........................................................23 Numerical Criteria for the Protection ofAquatic Life

...........................................

### 24 Numerical Criteria for the Protection ofHuman Health

.......................................

### .24 Narrative Criteria

............................................................**~**......................................

### 24 Antidegradation

......................................................................................................

### 24 Mixing Zones

...................· ......................................................................................

### 25 D. Designated Uses and SurfaceWater Quality Criteria

............................................30 E. Evaluation ofSurfaceWater Quality -Based EffluentLimits for Numeric Criteria

..................................................................................................................31 Chronic MixingZone

.............................................................................................

### 32 AcuteMixing Zone

................................................................................................

### 32 Storm water Outfalls 

### 002-007

.................................................................................36 

### F. Whole EffluentToxicity

.............................................................................................37 Cherry Point Herring

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

### G. Human Health

.................................................................................................:...........39 H. Sediment Quality

........:...............................................................................................41 I. Ground Water QualityMonitoring

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

2/14/2012IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

.......................................................................................43 A. Lab Accreditation

......................................................................................................43 B. Performance-Based Reduction ofMonitoringFrequencies

...................................43 V. OTHERPERMIT CONDITIONS

...........................................................................................44 A. Priority PollutantTesting

..........................................................................................44 B. Reporting and Recordkeeping

...................................................................**~**..............44 C. Operation and Maintenance Plan

.............................................................................44 D. Non-Routine and Unanticipated Discharges

...........................................................44 E. WastewaterTreatmentEfficiency Study and Updated Engineering Report.

...................................................................................................................45 F. Pollution Prevention Plan

..........................................................................................45 G. Dangerous Wastes- PermitbyRule Requirements

...............................................47 H. OutfallEvaluation

...............................................................................:......................47 I. General Conditions

......................................................................................................47 VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

..................................................................................48 A. PermitModifications

.................................................................................................48 B. Proposed PermitIssuance

..........................................................................................48 VII. REFERENCES FORTEXT AND APPENDICES

................................................................48 APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

....................................................49 APPENDIXB--GLOSSARY

........................................................................................................50 APPENDIX C- WASTEWATERTREATMENTFLOW DIAGRAM

......................................54 APPENDIX D --:MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS

...................................54 APPENDIX E-- TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION

............................................................54 APPENDIX F--DRY WEATHERFLOW CALCULATION

.......................................................54 APPENDIX G--STORMWATERALLOCATION EVENTS

......................................................54 APPENDIXH--STORMWATERMONITORINGDATA

..........................................................54 APPENDIX I--REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

.................................54 APPENDIX J--MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS DATA

...................................................................54 APPENDIX K-TEMPERA TURE ANALYSIS

..........................................................................54 APPENDIX L-- HERRING AND WETTESTING RESULTS

....................................................54 APPENDIX M--GROUND WATERIMPACT STUDY RESULTS

...........................................54

2/14/2012APPENDIXN--PERFORMANCE-BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING FREQUENCY

..............·······............................................................................................·········.54 APPENDIX 0--RESPONSETO COMMENTS

...........................................................................54

2/14/2012

### I. 

### INTRODUCTION
The Federal CleanWater Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, and 1987) established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters ofthe United States. One mechanism for achieving the goals ofthe Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ofpermits (NPDES permits), administered by the federal Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). The EPA authorized the State ofWashingtonto manage the NPDES permit program in our state. Our state legislature acceptedthe delegation and assigned the power and duty for conductingNPDES permitting and enforcement to Ecology. The legislature defined Ecology's authority and obligations for the wastewaterdischargepermitprogram in 90.48 RCW (Revised Code ofWashington). Ecology adopted rules describing how it exercises its authority:

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

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

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

o Submission ofPlans and Reports for Construction ofWastewater Facilities (Chapter 173- 240 WAC) These rules require any industrial facility operator to obtain anNPDES permitbefore discharging wastewaterto state waters. They also help define the basis for limits on each discharge and for performancerequirements imposedby the permit. UndertheNPDES permitprogram and inresponse to a complete and accepted permit application, Ecology mustprepare a draftpermit and an accompanying fact sheet, and make them available for public reviewbefore fmal issuance. Ecology must also publish an announcement (public notice) telling people where canreadthe draft permit, and where to send their comments during a period ofleastthirty days (WAC 173-220-050). (See 

### Appendix A-- 

### Public Involvement for more detail onthe PublicNotice and Commentprocedures). Afterthe public commentperiod ends, Ecology may make changes to draft NPDES inresponseto comments. Ecology will suinmarize the response to comments and any changes to the permit 

### u( AppendixO.

Page 1TI. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

### Table 

### 1. GeneralFacilityInformation Applicant: BP Cherry Point Refmery FacilityName and BP Cherry Point Refmery Address: 4519 GrandviewRoad Blaine, Washington 98230 Type ofFacility: Petroleum Refmery SIC Code: 2911 Discharge Location: Water BodyName: Strait ofGeorgia Latitude Longitude Outfall 001 48.860833 122.757222 Outfall 006 48.866111 122.752222 Discharge Location: WaterBodyName: Terrell Creek Outfall 002 48.859167 122.731944 Outfall 003 48.8925 122.743056 Outfall 004 48.8925 122.747778 Outfall005 48.8825 122.747778 Outfall 007 48.891944 122.726389

Page2A. Facility Description Figure 

### 1. FacilityLocation Map

SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY The BP Cherry Point Refinery is located in arural area ofWhatcom County, approximately six miles northwest ofFemdale, Washington. The refmery encompasses an area ofabout 740 acres, bordered by Grandview Roadto the north, Point Whitehorn Road onthe south, and Jackson Roadto the west. BP'sproperty extends eastward to the railroad spurwest ofthe Chemco facility. Priorto construction ofthe refinery in 1971, the site was used as agricultural land. The refinery employs approximately 800 people.

INDUSTRIAL PROCESS In 1979, the refmery processed an average of 106,000 barrels (bbls) per day ofcrude oil. The refmery processed an average of209,000 bbls per day ofcrude oil over a 24-monthperiod from October 2008 to October 2010. The main source ofcrude oil has historically been from tankers delivering oil from Alaska's North Slope, however, crude oils from other sources are also processed.

Page 3The refmery separates crude oil into various components for further processing and blending into a variety ofpetroleumproducts. These products include gasoline,jetfuel, diesel fuel, liquid petroleum gas, and residual fuel oil. The refinery also has a coke calciner operation; coke is a product used inthe aluminum smelting industry. The refmery processes use an average of7 million gallons ofwater per day (MGD). Additionally, another 30,000 gallons per day are used for potable waterpurposes. The Public Utility District #1 ofWhatcom County supplies raw water and BirchBayWater and Sewer District supplies potable water. Majorprocess water uses include cooling tower water make-up (3.8 MGD), boiler feed water (2.6 MGD), and utility services (0.72 MGD).
WASTEWATER TREATMENT BP's wastewatertreatment plant treats various wastewaters including process water, ballast waterfrom tankers, tank water draws, and storm waterthat falls inprocess areas ofthe site. The refinery treats its process water withprimary and secondarytreatment in a wastewatertreatment system consisting offour parallel API oil/water separators, two induced gas floatation units, an equalizationtank, a complete mix activated sludge unit, a secondm;y clarifier, and two clarificationponds. BP further treats the sludges generated inthe activated sludge units by sludge thickening in aerated sludge holding tankfollowed by dewatering with a belt filter press, and disposal inthe on-site non-hazardous waste landfarm located inthe southwest comerofthe refineryproperty. A flow diagram ofthe wastewatertreatment system is shown inAppendix 

### C. The refinery's stormwater sewer system collects stormwater falling onindustrial areas ofthe refinery, otherthanthe areas withinthe process unit boundaries. This stormwaterreceives primarytreatment before being discharged through Outfall 001. Any oil present onthe water surface as it enters the observation channel ofthe stormwaterpond is skimmed offby a rotating surface skimmer atthe head ofthe channel and is routed to the API separators. Solids settle out inthe stormwaterpond, and stormwater flows to the final holding pond where it commingles withthe treatedprocess water before discharge. The refmery's oily water sewer system collects stormwater falling withinthe process unit boundaries for treatment, along withprocess wastewater, atthe refinery's wastewatertreatment plant.
Inthe event that fmal effluent does not meet specifications, the refinery can divertthe final effluent to the emergency wastewater impoundment until itreturns itto the wastewatertreatment system for additional treatment. · Sanitary wastewater from the refmery is dischargedto the BirchBayWater and SewerDistrict for treatment. The draftpermit authorizes BP to receive untreated wastewater from the Praxair, Inc. Ferndale facility and the proposed BP Cogeneration facility andtreat itinthe refinery's wastewater treatment system. More details onthese waste streams are providedbelow. Praxair Inc. is a carbon dioxide (C02) manufacturingplant. This plantwas built in 1978 and is located nextto the BP CherryPoint Refmery. Praxair's treatedprocess water is discharged through BP's Outfall 001 at an average flowrate of50,000 gallons per day (gpd). The wastewater mainly consists ofcoolingtowerblowdown, a small volume ofcooling water sand filter back-wash, stormwater from the scale sumppit, process condensate, and wastewater from

Page4plant floor drains. Praxair has an NPDES Permit, No. WA0030350, issued onJune 28, 2002. Ecology'sNorthwest Regional Office sentthe permitrenewal for public notice on July 10, 2008 and issued the fmal permit on October 28, 2011.
In 2007, BP notified Ecology that they planned to accept several wastewater streams from Praxair for treatment in the refinery's wastewater treatment system. These wastestreams include coolingtower blowdown, washtower water, cooling water sand filter backwash, stormwater from the scale sump pit, process condensate, and plant floor drain waters. Praxair's NPDES permit includes monitoring requirements and pretreatment limits for these wastestreams prior to their discharge to BP. Ecology reviewed the informationprovided by BP and determined thatthe wastewater treatment facility had the capacity to treat the additional Praxair wastewater. The proposed BP Cogeneration Facility includes a 480 MW combined-cycle (steam and electricity) cogeneration facility consisting oftwo (2) natural gas-fired combustionturbines (CGTs), each driving one electric generator. The powerplant will employ an evaporative cooling system using water from the Whatcom County Public Utility DistrictNo. 1 (PUD). The PUD owns the water rights for water inthis area. BothAlcoa and the BPrefinery contract for the waterthrough the PUD. The PUD withdraws water from the Nooksack River. The refinery currentlyuses approximately 7 MGD ofPUD supplied water. BP, Intalco, and the PUD entered into a "No Use" Agreement. Underthis agreement, BP will provide funding for Intalco to install a compressor cooling system onthe Intalco site. The compressor will eliminate approximately 3.6 million gallons ofwaterper day currently usedby the smelter for once-through cooling. Once· the project is complete, Intalco will release its contractural right to the water. BP will enter into an agreement withthe PUD to use this water for the cogenerationproject.
The cogeneration facility is expected to produce non-recyclable process wastewaterwhichwill be sent to the BP refinery's wastewater treatment system. This non-recyclableprocess wastewater is a combination offiltered raw water backwash solids and dissolved solids from the circulating water in the cooling water lines. Other wastewater streams that could be produced andintroduced into the process wastewater include equipment water leaks and wash down waters, water from the compressor wash system, process area stormwater, water from containment areas, and other wastewaters as identified inthe discharge permit and site certificate for the cogenerationfacility.
The cogeneration facility will collectprocess wastewater in a sump before discharge to the refinery to prevent an upsetto the refmery's wastewatertreatment system. The refinery will treat the cogeneration facility's wastewater along with its process wastewater. The cogeneration facility will route stormwaterthathas the potential to collectprocess chemicals and lube oilsto the process wastewater system. The facility will be capable ofchecking stormwater with a very lowpotential for contaminationpriorto discharge (such as secondary containment around electrical breakers) to the stormwater system. Initiation ofthe project is currentlypending.

Page 5SOLID WASTES The BP refinery manages various solid wastes onsite including: garbage, recyclables, (paper, plastic, glass, metal, and wood) biosolids, clay tower media, non-hazardous vessel sludge, offspec coke, non-hazru·dous excavated soil, concrete, and refractory.

DISCHARGE 0UTFALLS BP Cherry Point Refmery has one process wastewater outfall (001) and six industrial storm water outfalls (002, 003, 004, 005, 006, and 007). The discharge from each outfall is described below. Process Wastewater Outfall 00 1 The refmery treats process water, ballast water, and stormwater and discharges it via a 20-inch diameter multi-port submerged diffuser at Outfall 001. The diffuser is located under the south pier, 2200 feet offshore at a depth of57 feet belowmean lower lowwater. The refinery pumpstreated effluent into the Strait ofGeorgia on a continual basis. Since October 1999, the monthly average ofeffluent discharge generallyranged between 2.8 to 6.4 MGD. During heavy rainfall events the flow can reach levels as high as 10.5 MGD, as occurred inSeptember of2010. Stormwater Outfalls 002-007 Outfall 002 drains approximately 108 acres ofrefinery property including construction equipment laydown yards, contractor areas, salvage yard, paint and sandblast area, and warehouse. The drainage areafor Outfall 002 contains the largestpercentage ofareas of industrial activity (as compared to the other stormwater outfalls). Discharge from Outfall 002 flows north under GrandviewRoad and eventually to Terrell Creek. Outfall 003 drains 37 acres ofrefineryproperty, primarilythe area along the northernportion of the refinery. Outfall 003 could discharge wastewater in the unlikely event ofan overflow ofthe Final Holding Pond or an alternative discharge ofwater held inthe Storm Water Pond. Drainage from the outfall flows west along Grandview Road before flowing under Jackson Road and eventually to Terrell Creek. Only 4% ofOutfall 003's drainage area is an area ofindustrial activity. · Outfall 004 drains 62 acres ofrefmeryproperty, primarilythe northwestportion ofthe property. Itincludes the butane sphere area, the contractor equipment storage area, and the calciner area. Drainage from the outfall flows north along Jackson Road before flowing west under Jackson Road, at its intersectionwith Grandview Road, and eventuallyto Terrell Creek. Only 17% of Outfall 004's drainage areais an area ofindustrial activity. Outfall 005 drains 177 acres inthe southwestcomer ofthe refinery property, which includes an areabelowthe pipelines running betweenthe refinery and dock facilities along Jackson Road, as well as a tank dike areanearthe dockfacilities. In addition, stormwater from the east and west ofthe refmery's property drains to Outfall 005. The discharge from Outfall 005 flows under Jackson Road to the northwest and eventuallyto Terrell Creek. Only 1% ofOutfall 005's drainage area is an area ofindustrial activitY. Outfall 006 drains 7 acres ofrefinery property nearthe dock facilities. Storm water discharging to Outfall 006 is normally captured in an on-shore sump and pumpedbackto the refmery's
Page 6wastewatertreatment system. During heavy rainfall events, the refmery may bypass the initial on-shore sump and sendthe stormwater directly to Outfall 006, rather thanrunthe risk of overflowing the on-shore sump. Discharges associated with Outfall 006 discharge directly to the Strait ofGeorgia. Outfall 007 drains 267 acres ofthe eastern undeveloped and unsewered areas oftherefinery east ofBlaine Road. The construction ofan equipment/materiallaydown areahas re-characterized a ·portionofthe drainage's stormwater discharge from this outfall as an area ofindustrial activity.

Storm waterrunofffrom the laydown area is captured inthe storm water detentionpond located in the northwest comer ofthe laydown areaprior to discharge. Discharge from Outfall 007 flows to the northunder GrandviewRoad and eventually to Terrell Creek. Only 8% ofOutfall 007's drainage area is an area ofindustrial activity. See Attachment C inthe permitrenewal applicationfor more detail ofall the above outfalls.
DISCHARGE LOCATIONS

. The process wastewater outfall line (001) is located under a pierthat extends approximately 2,200 feet offshore. The outfall discharges through a diffuser into about 57 feet ofwater. Table 1 (see above) identifies the approximate locations ofOutfalls 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, and 007. B. Permit Status BP submitted an application for permitrenewal to Ecology onMay 03, 2004. Due to the dry weather at the time, the refmerywas unable to collect stormwater samples to characterize the stormwater discharging from Outfalls 002, 003, 004, and 005. Ecology authorized an extension for submitting Form 2F until December 2004. BP submitted Form 2F onDecember 14,2004. Ecology determinedthat thepermitrenewal application was complete and accepted it on January 3, 2005. BP submitted an update to the permit renewal application onJuly 10, 2010. Ecology issuedthe previous permit for this facility on October 1, 1999 and modified it on February 1, 2001, May 7, 2001, and September 7, 2001. The previous permitplaced effluent limits onBOD, COD, TSS, oil and grease, phenols, ammonia, sulfide, chromium, fecal coliform, and pH. Ecologybased the limits for Outfall 001 inthe previous permit ontwo feedstockrates or tiers. The permit established effluent limits for Tier 0 and Tier 1 scenarios. Tier 0 was included inthe permit inresponse to the failure ofthe Olympic Pipeline. BP Cherry Point Refmery was limited inthe amount ofcrude oil that itcouldprocess as a result ofthe pipeline beingunavailable to transport refmedproducts. FromJanuary 2001 to November 2004, the feedstock rate averaged 194,730 bbls per day. The feedstock average exceeded the Tier 0 limits in2001. Upon achieving this rate, the discharge from Outfall 001 became subject to the Tier 1limits. The following table summarizes the Monthly Average and DailyMaximumlimits for Tier 0 and Tier 1.

Page 7

### Table 2. Previous Tier 0 and Tier 1 PermitLimits
OUTFALL-001 TIERO TIER1

.(170,000bbls/day) (205,000 bbls/day) PARAMETERS Units Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Average Maximum Average Maximum Biochemical OxygenDemand lbs/day 1151 2098 1240 2260 (5-day) Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day 7959 15461 8540 16610 Total Suspended Solids lbs/day 923 1457 990 Oil and Grease lbs/day 338 629 360 Phenolic Compounds lbs/day 7.5 15.5 8.1 AmmoniaasN lbs/day 784 1724 870 Sulfide lbs/day 6.2 13.7 6.7 Total Chromium lbs/day 11.1 25.2 12.5 Hexavalent Chromium lbs/day 0.8 1.8 0.9 Fecal Coliform Colonies/1OOmls pH Withinthe range of6.0 to 9.0 

### InMarch2002, BP began discharging its domestic wastewaterto the Birch BayWastewater TreatmentPlant and was no longer subjectto the effluent limits for domestic wastewater discharge included in the previous permit. Priorto March 2002, the effluent limitations for the domestic wastewater discharge were as shown in the table below. 

### Table 3. Previous PermitLimits for the Domestic WastewaterDischarge SANI-PAK I 

### ConcentrationLimit

·. ' 

### Weekly

.. 

### Monthly Average/ PARAMETERS· Units**_t\ve~age** 

### Daily

' ; .. ·.

. ...·.·.· 

### Maximum Biochemical OxygenDemand (5-day)- lbs/day 30 45 Effluent Total Suspended Solids- Effluent lbs/day 30 45 Fecal Coliform Colonies/1OOml 200 400 Residual Chlorine mg/1



## -- 0.35


### C. Summary ofCompliancewith Previous Permit**Is~ued** 1570 680 16.7 1910 14.7 27.5

2

.

...

Ecology conducts two Class 1 and one Class 2 compliance inspections annually at BP. Since.the permit was issuedin2001, Ecologyhas conducted a total of

### twenty Class 1 and 

### ten Class 2 inspections at the refmery. A Class 1is awalk-throughinspection to visually checkthe wastewater treatment system and stormwater outfalls, including stormwater BMPs. A Class 2 is a combination ofa Class 1, reviewing records ofthe laboratory, andtaking samples at Outfall 001 and at the industrial stormwater outfalls. Ecology conductedthe last Class 2 inspection onMay 9-10, 2011 and found the facility in compliance withthe permit at the time ofinspection.

Page 8During the term ofthe previous permit, the refmery remainedin compliance except for one exceedance, according to Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submittedto Ecology (see Appendix D) and based upon the results ofinspections conducted by Ecology. On August 8, 2008, BP discharged 1655 lbs ofTSS which is 85 lbs (5%) over the daily maximum limit. On October 17, 2008, Ecology issued BP a penalty of$1000 for the violation. This exceedance was related to seasonal algal growth inthe final holding pond. The refmery has since covered the fmal holding pond to minimize light penetration and discourage algal growth inthe summer months. D. Review ofPrevious PermitRequirements The previous permitrequired BP to conduct the following studies and submit reports during the permit cycle. Ecologyusedthe data from these reports to prepare this proposed permit.
1. Stormwater Monitoring Results:
See the results discussed later inthis document. 2. Spill Reporting andNotification System (SRNS):

BP submittedthe SRNS onFebruary 2, 2000. The SRNS fulfills the requirement inthe current permit.
3. Treatment Efficiency Study Plan and Engineering Report:
BP submittedthis report onJune 4, 2002. Ecology approved the report on January 6, 2006 and determined itmetthe requirement inthe previous permit. See the results discussed later inthis document.
4. Sediment study:
The refmery submitted this report in 2001. See results discussed later inthis document.
5. Dioxin StudyReport:
The refmery submitted the Dioxin StudyReport to Ecology onJuly 9, 2001. The previous permitrequired BP to sample the chlorinated dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-Cl substitutedtetra-through acta-congeners) concentrations as follows:

• Inthe wastewater stream from each ofthe catalytic reformer regenerations ( 4 sampling events) • Inthe fmal effluentmost likelyto containwastewater generated during the catalytic reformer regeneration events sampled for dioxins (2 samplillg events) • Inthe API separator sludge generated during the catalytic reformer regeneration events sampled for dioxins (2 sampling events)
The sampling results indicatedthatthe mosttoxic compound ofthe chlorinated dioxin/furan congeners (2,3,7,8 TCDD) was detected in one sample ofthe wastewater

Page 9stream from Catalytic Reformer #2. The refmery measured a concentration of0.028 ng/1; just above the practical reporting limit of0.010 ng/1. Itdid not detect any dioxin or furans inthe effluent. The proposed permitrequires BP to monitor the chlorinated dioxin and furan (2,3,7,8-Cl substituted tetra-through acta-congeners) concentrations at the fmal effluent ofOutfall 001 and the upstream wastewater from the catalytic reformer units twice during the next permit cycle.
6. Treatment System Operating Plan (TSOP):
The refmery submitted anupdated TSOP to Ecology on May 4, 2004. The TSOP metthe requirements inthe previous permit.
7. WET Testing Reports: The results are described later inthis document.
8. Report on Impacts from IsomerizationUnit:
BP Cherry Point Refinery submitted areport informingEcology ofthe potential impacts to the refinery's wastewater effluentresulting from the construction ofthe proposed Isomerization (Isom) Unit. BP submitted an amendedNPDES permit application Form 2C seeking permissionto accept and treat the wastewaters generatedfrom the IsomUnit underits currentNPDES permit. The report and amended application were dated December 22, 2003.
Construction ofthe Isom Unit allows BP Cherry Point Refinery to produce gasoline that meets all current and pending gasoline quality regulations. The isomerizationprocess requires a very dry state to produce a low sulfur, high octane, and low benzene gasoline component. Ecology reviewedthe above report andthe amended Form 2C and determined the existing BP Cherry Point WWTP had capacity to treatthe additional flow from the Isom Unit. Ecology authorized BPto treat the wastewater from the Isom Unit without modifying the existing permit onJanuary 26, 2004. BP began operation ofthe IsomUnit inJuly 2004.
The Isom Unit contributes an increased flow to the refinery's wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) ofapproximately 23 gallons per minute (gpm) which is less than 1% ofthe current WWTP effluent flow rate ofapproximately 2500 gpm. The wastewater stream generated bythis unit is similarto other wastewater streams generated throughoutthe refmery. The wastewater commingles with otherprocess wastewater andis treated and discharged in accordance to the BP Cherry PointNPDES Permit.
9. Impacts from the Diesel Hydro DesulfurizationUnit (DHDS):
BP CherryPoint Refmery submitted a report informing Ecology ofthe potential impacts

· to the refinery's wastewater effluentresulting from the construction ofthe proposed

DHDS Unit also known as the UltraLow Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) project. BP submitted

Page 10the report and an amended NPDES permit application Form 2C, dated May 27, 2005, seeking permissionto accept and treat the wastewaters generated from the DHDS Unit under its cunentNPDES permit. Ecology reviewed the above report and the amended Form 2C and determined the existing BP Cherry Point WWTP had capacity to treat the additional flow from the DHDS. Ecology authorized BP to treat the wastewater from the DHDS Unit without modifying the existing permit inJune 2005.
The ULSD project is designed to minimize cooling water, steam usage, and sourwater production. The DHDS Unit contributes an increased flow to the refinery's WWTP of approximately 35 gpm which is less than 2% ofthe CU1Tent WWTP effluent flow rate of approximately 2500 gpm. The wastewater stream generated by this unit is similarto otherwastewater streams generatedthroughout the refinery, The wastewater generated from this unit commingles with otherprocess wastewater and is treated and discharged in accordance withthe BP ChenyPointNPDES Permit.
10. Impacts from the Proposed BP CogenerationFacilityDischarge:
BP Alternative Energy will own and operate the proposed BP Cogeneration Facility. The cogeneration facility will discharge the wastewaterto the BP CherryPointRefmery wastewatertreatment system. As part ofthe permittingprocess for the proposed BP Cogeneration Facility, BP prepared a conservative analysis ofthe cogenerationprocess wastewaterpollutant and flow characteristics to evaluate potential impacts onthe existing refinery discharge to the Strait ofGeorgia. This analysis included a review ofthe refinery wastewatertreatment design capacity and projected changes to the amount of capacity available at the time thatthe cogeneration facility begins operation.
BP evaluated changes to organic and hydraulic loadingto the refinery's wastewater treatment system, the addition ofothernewprocess wastewater streams, and the addition ofthe cogenerationprocess wastewater. The refinery usedthe treatment efficiencies and otherinformation it collected in the refinery treatment system efficiency study inthis evaluation. BP reportedthat withthese projected increases in loading, it will use approximately 50% ofthe organic and 60% ofthe hydraulic capacity ofthe wastewater treatment system. Ecology reviewedthis analysis and determined that this project will not adversely affect the refmery's wastewater treatment system and the cogeneration's process wastewater will not.cause the refmery to exceed any ofthe refinery'sNPDES permit limits.
The BP Cogeneration Facility's application included the projectedmetal concentrations inthe blended cogenerationwastewater stream to be discharged to the refinery. BP comparedthe metal concentrations inthe cogenerationprocess wastewater to state water quality standards at different stages: priorto combiningwithrefmeryprocess wastewater, whenmixed with refmery process wastewater influent, and following treatmentofthe combined flows. The refmery appliedremoval percentages calculated from data collected inthe refinery treatment system efficiency study to the metal concentrations to determine approximate removal throughthe refmery wastewatertreatment system.

Page 11Dilution factors authorized in the refinery's NPDES permit were also applied. Ecology determined that the metal concentrations inthe combined discharge were well within acute and chronic marine water quality standards.
The cogeneration facility's discharge to the refmery's wastewater treatment system will be covered by the NPDES permitNo. EFSEC 2002-01 and apply AKART to the discharge ofpollutants into the process wastewater. After beginning commercial operation ofthe BP cogeneration facility, the facility will prepare an initial characterization ofits process wastewater as required by its discharge permit. Ecology requires regular process wastewater monitoring to ensure that overtime there are no significantchanges in the characteristics ofthe discharge (quality and quantity) than from what was predicted. 

### E. Wastewater Characterization BP characterized the proposed wastewater discharges inthe permit applicationprocess for: conventional pollutants, metals, cyanide, volatile organic compounds, acid compounds, base neutral compounds, and pesticides. The long term average values reportedbelowfor Outfalls 001 are based on extensive (dailyto weekly) monitoring completed during the term of the currentpermit. The values in Table 4 are for pollutants with significant concentrations and/or ofinterest and metals and organics that were quantified at greaterthan detection limits. This information is from the updated BP'sNPDES permitrenewal application dated July 30, 2010 andrepresents the quality ofthe effluent discharged from January 2009 through December 2009.


### Table 4. Wastewater Characterization for Outfall 001 (Long Term Averages exceptwhere noted)

' ·' 

### Parameter Concentration (mgll) Mass (lb/day)

.. ·
.. BOD 5.1 207 COD 74 2844 TSS 14 541 AmmoniaasN 1.9 81 Flow 4.69MGD Temperature Winter 18.4

## oc Summer 24.4

## oc Maximum 27.3 °C pH Minimum 6.8 SU Maximum 8.7 SU Oil & Grease 1.4 51 Sulfide 0.02 0.8

Page 12Parameter Concentration (mgll) ·Mass (lb/day)

·. Phenols (Total) 0.06 2.3

·. . ·. Parameter Concentration (J.lg/1) Mass(lb/day) Arsenic (Total) 15 0.593 Copper (Total) 3.75 0.157 Chromium (Total) 4.5 0.174 Nickel (Total) 40.5 1.49 Selenium (Total) 66.5 2.7 Zinc (Total) 18 0.741 Cyanide (Total) <5 BelowMeasurable Quantity



### F. Description ofthe ReceivingWater BP discharges to the StraitofGeorgia, which is designated as an extraordinary marine receiving water inthe vicinity ofOutfall 001. Characteristic uses include the following: fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, andmussel rearing, spawning, andharvesting; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.) rearing, spawning, and harvesting; wildlife habitat; primary contact recreation; sport fishing; commerce and navigation; boating; and aesthetic enjoyment. Water quality ofthis class shall markedly and uniformly exceedthe requirements for all or substantially all uses. Other nearbypoint-source outfalls include ConocoPhillips Refinery, Intalco Aluminum Smelter, and BirchBayPOTW. Significantnearbynon-point sources ofpollutants include stormwater runoffand groundwater seeps/discharges from contaminated sites, in.particularthe abandoned Treoil Industries site. The closest Ecology long-term core monitoring station, GRG002, is located inthe Strait of Georgia near Patos Island. Itis far enough away from the Cherry Point industries to prevent their discharges from influencing readings takenthere. There is also substantial data for this station. The station at BellinghamBay,BLL009, is also very close but is influenced by activity inBellingham and is not suitable for a background data station. The closest long-term rotating station is LOP001 in Lopez Sound.
The table below includes the ambientbackground for 90thpercentile temperature calculated from January 1999 through June 2005 at Station GRG002 and the metal concentrations taken from the BackgroundMetals Concentrations in SelectedPugetSoundMarine Receiving Waters prepared byEric Crecelius, BattelleMarine Sciences Laboratory, February 1998.

Page 13Table 5. Ambient BackgroundData Parameter Value Used



### - Temperature (90th percentile) 11.8 °C. Ammonia 16 ug/L

------- Aluminum 45.2 ug/L Cadmium 0.059 ug/L Copper 0.673 ug/L Lead 0.146 ug/L Mercury 0.001 ug/L Zinc 3.9 ug!L
G. CherryPointAquatic Reserve
BP discharges to the Strait ofGeorgia which is part ofthe Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. In 2000, the Washington State Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) designated the Cherry Point area as an environmental aquatic reserve. DNRdeveloped the CherryPoint Aquatic Reserve ManagementPlanto guide future management decisions for the reserve. The plan includes actions related to: protection, enhancement and restoration, outreach and education, monitoring, data collection andresearch, and allowed and prohibited uses withinthe reserve. A number ofthe management actions inthe Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan are addressed inthe proposed permit, including conditions to ensure ongoing compliance with water quality standards, sedimentmonitoring, and herring toxicity testing.
H. SEP A Compliance Regulation exempts reissuance or modification ofany wastewater discharge permit from the SEPA process as long as the permit contains conditions that are no less stringentthan state rules and regulations. The exemption applies onlyto existing discharges, notto new discharges. 

### III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS
Federal and State regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in aNPDES permitmust be either technology orwater quality-based.

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

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

Page 14o Ecology must apply the most stringent ofthese limits to each parameter ofconcern. These limits are described below.
The limits inthis permitreflect information received inthe application and from supporting reports (engineering, hydrogeology, etc.). Ecology evaluated the permit application and determined the limits needed to comply with the rules adopted by the State ofWashington. Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all reported pollutants. Some pollutants are not treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation. Ecology does not usually develop permit limits for pollutants that were not reported inthe permit applicationbutthat may be present inthe discharge. The permit does not authorize discharge of the non-reportedpollutants. During the five-year permit term, the facility's effluent discharge conditions may change from those conditions reported inthe permit application. The facility must notify Ecology, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), ifsignificant changes occur in any constituent. Industries maybe in violation oftheir permituntil Ecologymodifies the permitto reflect additional discharge ofpollutants. A. Design Criteria Under WAC 173-220-150(1)(g), neither flows nor waste loadings may exceed approved design criteria. Ecology approved the following design criteria for the refinery's wastewater treatment plant. These criteriawere obtained from BP's engineering report dated June 04, 2002 and updated permitrenewal application dated July 30, 2010.

Table 6. Design Criteriafor BP's Biological WastewaterTreatment System

-:·-----.·--------·-·----··----.**--------:--·-~.----------------7"····---··**

# ':0·:·-._Q

_____ 

# t:!Y.- Parameter · ·· ..•**--~§.~n** _ _!!l!n**-~** ___ Daily Maximum Flow from the Secondary Clarifier 13MGD Daily Maximum BOD5 Influent Loading to AerationTank 25,160 lbs/day
B. Technology-Based EffluentLimits
PROCESS WASTEWATER Ecology based the effluent limits for the BP refinery on Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT), Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT), andNew Source Performance Standards (NSPS) developed bythe Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Guidelines were publishedAugust 12, 1985 under 40 CFRPart 419 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the cracking subcategory ofpetroleum refining.
The refmery effluent limitations are based onterms ofa settlement agreement dated April 1 7, 1984, betweenEPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council resolving litigation about the EPA guidelines. The August 12, 1985**guidelll!~s** establish BestAvailable Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) as equal to BestPracticable Technology (BPT) for all

Page 15parameters exceptphenols and chromium. Phenols and chromium are regulated by whichever guideline is m.ore stringent.
In 1996, EPA completed a study ofthe petroleum refining industry (EPA-821-R-96-015) includingtreatment technologies, pollutants discharged, pollutant loadings, and potential water quality impacts. Based upon this review, EPA decided not to revise the refinery effluent guidelines. EPA determined that the best treatment technology currently available was essentially the same as that applied at the time the effluent guidelines were originally promulgated. EPA also determined that ifthe wastewater treatment systems atthe refineries are properly operated and maintained, priority pollutants will be removed ortreated to negligible or belowdetectable levels.
In addition, Ecology requires facilities to use all known, available, andreasonable methods to control toxicants (AKART) in its wastewater as required under Washington State regulations. Because Ecology applies new sourceperformance standards (NSPS) onthe basis ofthe AKART requirements, the refinery'sNPDES perffiit limits are more stringent than those in other states. Ecology has applied the more stringentNSPS limits to all crude throughput increases since 1984.
OnDecember 31, 2003, EPApublished its intention to reviewthe petroleumrefining industry again to decide the necessity for revising their effluent guidelines. EPA evaluatedpollution prevention opportunities, emerging treatmenttechnologies, revising the effluent guidelines, and expandingthe list ofregulatedpollutants. EPAreviewed information and comments on several issues including: control technologies for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxin sources and reduction/control technologies, sources oftoxic metals, process modifications to reduce metals, and what toxics are being released and remain unreported.
On September 2, 2004 (Federal Register Volume 69 No. 170), EPApublished its decision regarding revising the refinery effluent guidelines. EPA concludedthat there is little evidence that PAHs are present inrefinery wastewater discharges inconcentrations above the detection limit. They also concludedthat the concentration ofmetals being discharged byrefineries is at or very near treatable levels, leaving little to no opportunityto reduce metals discharges through conventional end-of-pipe treatment.
EPAreviewed the available dioxin information collected byrefineries nationwide much ofwhich was collected at the Washington state refmeries. The overall data indicated that,dioxins are only occasionally discharged inrelatively low.concentrations in treated refmery effluent. Inits opinion, this data did not warrant the development ofnational categorical limitations on**dioxi~** in refmery wastewater discharges. EPA did note that on a case-by-case, best professionaljudgment basis, permitwriters may decide to include effluent limitations for dioxin.
EPA also encouragedpermit writers and refmeries to considerpollutionprevention opportunities. As aresult oftheir evaluation, EPA concludedthatthere was no needto revise the federal effluent guidelines at this time. Ecology must decide whetherthe effluent guidelines also constitute all known, available and reasonable methods oftreatment (AKART). As a general rule, ifthe effluent guidelines for a particular category are 5 years old or less, they are consideredto beAKART. This will be immediately apparent inreviewing the development document. The development document

Page 16describes productionprocesses, pollutants generated, treatment efficiencies, and unitprocess designs present nationwide inthe specific industry at the time ofeffluent guideline development. Generally, when effluent guidelines are over 10 years old, Ecology will analyze unitprocess designs and efficiencies to determine that the effluent guidelines constitute AKART and meet the intent of RCW 90.48.520. The previous NPDES permitrequired BP to prepare a treatment efficiency study and an engineering report describing the treatment capacity ofthe wastewater facility. Ecology compared BP'sproductionprocesses, pollutants generated, andtreatment technology to EPA's original development document and the results ofEPA's 1996 and 2004 evaluations of the petroleumrefining industry. Ecology also examinedthetreatability database and BP's wastewater treatment design and efficiencies. Ecology determinedthat BP is providing AKART for its wastewater. Since Ecology issuedthe previous NPDES permit (October 1, 1999), BP's crude oil throughput rate has changed. The feedstock rate increased slightly during the permit term. The daily average throughput rate ranged from 78,341 to 234,051 bbls/day. The rate changes inrefmery processes are shown inthe table below, along with the applicable size andprocess factors selected from the EPA guidelines. The size andprocess factor determination is documented inAppendixE. Ecology multipliedthese factors bythe actual feed stockto obtain an adjusted feed stock that is used in determining effluent limits, except for determining BAT limits for phenols and chromium. Table 7 shows productionrates and factors for a feedstock rate of209,000 bbls/day.
T bl 7 R fi

a e emeryprocess Th 

### h t rougJlpU Production Rates and 

### ·1979 1990 1999. 2011

.Factors .. Permit Permit Permit Permit ·..

.· 

### . . . . - Actual Feed Stock, bbls/day 106,000 172,200* 205,000 209,000 Desalting, bbls /day 106,000 172,200 205,000 209,000 Atmospheric Distillation, bbls/day 106,000 172,200 205,000 209,000 Vacuum Distillation, bbls/day 55,000 89,400 115,100 139,000 Hydrocracking, bbls/day 35,ooo· 47,600 53,510

. 55,000 Coking, bbls/day 29,000 51,300 55,710 59,600 Catalytic Reforming, bbls/day** 29,000 Hydrotreating, bbls/day** 13,000 Process Factor 1.09 1.09 1.00 1.00 Size Factor 1.23 1.41 1.41 1.41 Adjusted Feed Stock, bbls/day 142,114 265,000 289,050 294,690 New Source Performance Standards 122,990 146,940 152,576 Increment, bbls/day

Page 17

## * Ali feed stockrates specified inthis permit represent actual crude throughput less recycled oil and otherrecycled material. 

## ** Baseline values for these processes are usedto calculate BAT limitations for phenols and chromium.
Increases in the feed stock rate are subject to limitations that Ecology determined to be the treatment level obtained from using all known available and reasonable treatment methods. The increases are subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on the basis ofAKART. Ecology calculatedthe NSPS limitations by multiplyingthe increase in adjusted feed stock, (294,690- 142,114 

### = 152,576 bbls per day) byNew Source Performance Standards. It added the resulting NSPS increment, based upon 152,576 bbls per day, to the BAT and BPT limitations, based uponthe adjusted baseline feedstock rate of 142,114 bbls per day. Ecology did not include BCTlimitations because they are equivalentto BPT limitations.
Table 8 compares the calculated effluent limits with the limits from the previous permit issued on October 1, 1999. BP has statedthatthey are willing to accept.the limits from the previous permit calculated for a crude throughput rate of205,000 bbls/day. The proposedpermit includes the 1999 limits for all parameters withthe exception ofnewlimits for hexavalent chromium and a correction to the monthly average limit for phenols.


### T bl 8 C

a e 

# . ompanson o fEffl uen lllil s

..
. '' ·. Previous 1999 Calculated .· Units. Basis of · Effluent Limits: Outfall 001 Effluent limits:. Limit.· ·.:.-: ' Outfall001 at205,000 bbls/day at 209;000 bbls/day
·. < 

### ' Parameter Average Maximum Average Maximum Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Biochemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day BPT 1240 2260 1260 2290 (5-day) Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day BPT 8540 16610 8660 16850 Total Suspended Solids lbs/day BPT 990 1570 1010 1590 Oil and Grease lbs/day BPT 360 680 370 690 The concentration of oil and grease in the discharge Oil and Grease mg/1 must at no time exceed 15 mg/1 and must not exceed 10 mg/1 more than three days per month. Phenolic Compounds lbs/day BPT & BAT 8.1 16.7 7.6 16.9 Ammonia as N lbs/day BPT 870 1910 880 1950 Sulfide lbs/day BPT 6.7 14.7 6.7 14.9 Total Chromium lbs/day BAT 12.5 27.5

-- --
Hexavalent Chromium lbs/day BAT 0.9 2 0.050 mg/1

-- and 2.1 lbs/day pH In the range of 6.0 to 9.0

Page 18The Environmental Protection Agency determined federal effluent guidelines for total and hexavalent chromium back when chromium was commonly used in cooling water systems and discharged at muchhigher levels in the effluent. Chromium was banned for use in cooling systems byEPA inthe early 1990s and the only remaining source ofchromium is in the crude oil. Because federal effluent guidelines still include limits for chromium, Ecology must include an effluent limit for chromium in the proposedpermitto ensure that refineries in Washington are subject to the same requirements as refineries located in other states. Ecology believes the guideline-derived effluent limit is artificially high nowthat chromium inthe effluent has decreased to levels bordering on non-detectable. All detectable samples ofchromium in the BP effluent have beenwithin the range of5 to 11 f.lg/l whichis less than 1/1 othofthe marine chronic water quality standard of50 f.lg/l for hexavalent chromium (acute standard= 1100 f.lg/1). Approximatelyhalfofthe samples collected during the last 5 years have beennon-detectable for chromium.
Based onthis information, Ecology's Best Professional Judgment is that a 50 11gll hexavalent chromium concentration limit is technologically achievable, reasonable, and protective ofthe receiving water quality. The proposedpermit condition imposes the 50 f.lg/1 as a technology-based limit and not as a water quality-based limit.
At a 3.87 MGD effluent flow (dry weather), the 50 f-Lg/llimit converts to 1.61lbs/day. This limit is more stringent than the federal effluent guideline BAT limit of2.llbs/day. Atlower effluent flows, this limitwill continue to be more stringentthanthe federal effluent guideline limit. However, athigher effluent flows, the federal effluent guideline limit will be more stringent. Therefore, the proposedpermitincludes both a concentration limit of50 f..Lg/1 and a mass-based limit of2.0 lbs/dayto cover all flow situations that might occur. (The 2.0 lbs/day is the massbased limitretained from the currentpermit.)
The technology-basedhexavalent chromium limitreplaces the total chromium limits and the hexavalent chromium limits inprevious permits.
Ifchromium levels change inthe crude oil refined at BP andresult in concentration increases, Ecology will modify the permitto increase the limit as neededto allow continued facility compliance. Ecology will evaluate any revised limitto ensure thatthe effluent continues to meet water quality standards withinthe authorized mixing zone and the anti backsliding requirements are met and to ensure that chromium concentrations do not exceed limits allowed under the federal effluent guidelines. Inthe eventthatthe federal effluent guidelines are promulgated without chromium limits, Ecology will drop the limitfrom the permitunless the situation changes and a water quality limit is necessary. BP will continue to perform semi-annual hexavalent chromium monitoring.
The permit limit calculations are tabulated inAppendix E. The actual permit limit is based on theNSPS increment and the more stringent ofthe BAT and BPT determinations. BAT limitations are more stringentthan BPTfor phenol and chromium. Theproposed effluent limitations are listed inthe Table 9 below.

Page 19Table 9. Proposed EffluentLimits PARAMETER Units Monthly DailyMaximum Average Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day) lbs/day 1260 2290 Chemical Oxygen Demand lbs/day 8660 16850 Total Suspended Solids lbs/day 1010 1590 Oil and Grease lbs/day 370 690 Oil and Grease mg/1 The concentration ofoil and grease inthe discharge shall at no time exceed 15 mg/1 and shall not exceed 10 mg/1 more thanthree days permonth. Phenolic Compounds lbs/day 7.6 16.9 AmmoniaasN lbs/day 880 1950 Sulfide lbs/day 6.7 14.9 Hexavalent Chromium lbs/day



## -- 0.050 mg/1 and 2.11bs/day pH In the range of6.0-9.0

BALLASTAND STORMW ATER ALLOCATIONS Contaminated stormwater from the process area andthe wastewater treatment facility is collected by the oily water sewer system and conveyed to the wastewatertreatmentfacility for treatment. Storm water from the tank farms and the rest ofthe industrial site is diverted into the storm water system. The effluent from the stormwater system is discharged into the stormwater observation channel adjacent to the stormwaterpond at the wastewatertreatmentplant. Any oil or grease on the surface is removedby a skimmer that discharges to the oily water sewer. The waterthen cascades into the stormwater pond, where settling occurs. The stormwater pond discharges from an outlet box located nearthe floor ofthe pond into the final holding pond along withtreated process wastewater effluent.
Vessel personnel measure ballast water volumes. The refmerypumps ballast water from the dockfacilities to a tankinthe wastewater treatmentplant for treatment. The volume ofballast water is very small comparedto process water and stormwater. BPrefmery has notreceived ballastwater since February 2001. Stormwater volume is not directly measured atthe facility. Directmeasurement oftotal storm water is notpossible since a portion ofthe storm water is diverted into the oily water sewer and mixed withprocess wastewater at many collectionpoints throughout the process area. A portion ofthe storm water is collected in the storm water system. The refmery calculates stormwater flow during storm events by subtracting an estimated dry weather flow from the**tota~** flow discharged each day.

Page 20Ecologyperformed the dty weather flow calculation in 

### Appendix F by completing a linear regression onthe average monthly flow versus the total monthly rainfall using data collected during years 2005-2010. Itdetermined the new dry weather flow rate of3.87 MGD by averaging they-intercepts oflinearregression for years 2009 and 2010 because those years had the strongest correlation between average monthly flow and rainfall. The ballast and stormwater allocations inthe permit are based on guidelines in 40 CFR419.12(c) and 419.22(e). The proposedpermit does notinclude a storm water allocation for chromium as provided for inthe federal effluent guidelines. The allocations for stormwater were developedto apply to runofffrom areas associated withindustrial activity. Duringthe months ofJune through October, BP may only claim the stormwater allocation when it can demonstrate that measurable rainfall has occurred at the refmery site during the previous 

### 10 calendar days. Ecology chose ten days because whenbig storms hit ittakes approximately that amount oftime to discharge accumulated stormwater. BP retains stormwater withinthe tank dikes during rain events to the extentpossible and slowly discharges stormwater into the stormwater systemfollowing rain events to maximize the settling that occurs throughthe stormwater system. Shouldthe on-site means ofmeasuring rainfall beunavailable due to equipmentmalfunction, BP mayuse rainfall data from othernearby industries or the National Weather Service station atBlaine.


### Table 10. Stormwater and BallastWaterAllocations

.·· . Parameter StormwaterAllocation BallastWaterAllocation I (Ibs/million gallons) (lbs/million gallons)

: . MonthlyAverage Daily

. MonthlyAverage DailyMaximum Maximum Biochemical Oxygen 220 400 210 400 Demand (5-day) Chemical Oxygen 1500 3000 2000 3900 Demand Total Suspended Solids 180 280 170 260 Oil and Grease 67 130 67 126
BP claimed the stormwater allocation for TSS 42 times during the lastpermit cycle. 

### Appendix G shows the monitoringperiods when BP claimedthe stormwater allocation for TSS. STORMWATERDISCHARGE MONITORING (OUTFALLS 002,003,004,005, AND 007)
Stormwatermonitoring data for Outfalls 002 and 003 collected duringthe previous permitterm are tabulated in

### AppendixH. The data indicate thatthe stormwaterrunofffrom the areas drainedbythe two outfalls is similar in compositionto non-industrial runoffinthe area. During years 2000 thru2002, the results were lowerthanEcology and EPA stormwaterbenchmarks. Therefore, Ecology allowed BP to reduce the stormwatermonitoring frequency from semiannually to annually onMarch 12, 2003, perpermit condition Sl.E.a.

Page 21The proposedpermit expands the parameters to be monitored at Outfalls 002 and 003. In addition, there is a new source ofstormwater to Outfall 002 from construction activitiesfor the Clean Fuels Project. Because ofthese changes, the proposedpermit increases the frequency of monitoring at Oufalls 002 and 003. The permitrequires BP to monitor Outfalls 002 and 003 quarierly for turbidity, TSS, oil and grease, pH, total copper, total zinc, and hardness at Outfalls 002 and 003 to be consistent with the Industrial General Stormwater Permit.
BP has not previously monitored stormwater Outfalls 004 and 005 except to do a baseline characterization for NPDES permit applicationpurposes. Outfall 007 is currently permitted under the Industrial Stormwater General Permit. These outfalls drain areas that have very little exposure to industrial activities ormaterials. The proposedpermitrequires the refinery to monitor Outfalls 002, 003, 004, 005, and 007 quarterly for turbidity, TSS, oil and grease, pH, total copper, total zinc, and hardness. BP maypetition Ecologyto reduce the sampling

- ' frequency for one or more parameters based upon a consistent attainment ofbenchmark values. Consistent attainment is defined as eight consecutive quarters ofmonitoring.
Benchmarkvalues are not water quality standards or permit limits. They are indicator values. Values at or belowthe benchmark are considered unlikely to cause a water quality violation. The proposed permitincludes standar·d language regarding general prohibitions and requiring actions to respond to monitoring results above benchmarkvalues for these outfalls. There are no limits establishedfor discharges from these outfalls inthe proposedpermit.

ALTERNATIVE STORlviW ATERDISCHARGE On-shore Sump Undernormal operating conditions, BP collects stormwater from the southern hillside above the dockpipe run in a basin. From the collectionbasin, stormwater flows into an on-shore sump, which also collects oily wastewater from the dockfacilities. BP pumps the commingled stormwater and wastewaters from the dock's onshore sump to the refinery's wastewater treatmentplant. During heavyrainfall events, the proposedpermit authorizes BP to discharge stormwater directly to the Strait ofGeorgiafrom the collectionbasinvia Outfall 006 rather than running the risk ofoverflowing the dock's onshore sump. In the event ofa stormwater discharge via Outfall 006, the refinery must monitor the following parameters: turbidity, TSS, O&G, pH, and estimatedflow andreport the monitoring results withthe monthly discharge monitoring report. Discharge ofOutfall 003 The proposedpermit authorizes the refmery to discharge water from the stormwater holding pondthrough Outfall 003 during heavy rainfall events. Theuse ofOutfall 003 allows the refinery to pump the water from the stormwater holding pond to avoid overflowingthe fmal holding pond, which containstreatedprocess wastewater. Inthe event ofdischarge, the refinery must monitorthe following parameters: turbidity, TSS, O&G, pH, and estimated flow and report the monitoring results withthe monthly discharge monitoring report.

Page 22FINAL EFFLUENTDISCHARGE FOR FIREWATERTESTING Theproposedpermit authorizes BP to use treated fmal effluent for monthly firewater testing supply and during Emergency Response Team (ERT) training. Itdoes not authorize the use of foam during the firewater testing orER T training. CONSTRUCTION PROJECT STORMWA TERDISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
The table belowincludes a list ofprojects at the refinery and the Industrial and Construction Stormwater General permits issuedbyEcology since 2004. WhenEcology issues the proposed NPDES permit, it will replace the Industrial Storm water General Permit for Outfall 007. BP must submit a notice ofterminationfor its coverage under the Industrial Storm water General Permit as per Condition S13. ofthat permit.
BP will need to apply for coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit for future constructionprojects that disturb one ormore acres and discharge to surface waters .ofthe state. Discharges from construction activities will notbe covered bythe proposedNPDES permit. 

### Table 11. Permit Status

. ·.· PermitType PennitNo. Issued Date ·.··•. Termhiated Date Industrial Stormwater General Permit

- for 803-007537 I 71312006 Still in effect stormwater Outfall 007 WAR007537 Construction Stormwater GeneralPermit

- for the construction of roundabout atSR- WAR012598 548 Grandview RoadandBlaine Road 613012010 12109/2010 Intersection Construction Storm water GeneralPermit

- WAR010680 611712008 1111212010 for theNon Process Facility SitingProject Construction Stormwater General Permit

- WAR011683 for the Cogeneration/Facilities Wetlands 61112009 1012812010 Construction Stormwater General Permit

- for the EastRefinery Utility Infrastructure WAR009118 81212007 8/2212008 Project Construction Stormwater General Permit

- 803-006168 I 51212005 61212006 for the Ultra LowSulfur DieselProject WAR006168 Construction Stormwater General Permit

- 803-005451 I 121212003 9/1212008 for theBrown RoadMaterialStorageArea WAR005451 Construction Stormwater GeneralPermit

- for the Isomerization Unit 803-005178 312112003 512712004


### C. SurfaceWater Quality-Based EffluentLimits The Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201AWAC) were designed to protectexisting water quality andpreserve the beneficial uses ofWashington's surface waters. Waste discharge permits mustinclude conditions that ensure the discharge will meet established surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A-510). Water quality-based effluent limits maybebased on an individual waste load allocation or on a waste load allocation developed during a basin wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL).

Page 23NUMERICAL CRITERIA FORTIIE PROTECTION OF AQUATIC LIFE Numerical water quality criteria are published in the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters (chapter 173-20lAWAC). They specify the levels ofpollutants allowed inreceiving water to protect aquatic life and recreation in and on the water. Ecology uses numerical criteria along with chemical and physical data for the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent limits in the discharge permit. When surface water quality-based limits are more stringent or potentially more stringent than technology-based limits, the discharge must meet the water quality-based limits.

NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH The U.S. EPAhas published 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection ofhumanhealth that are applicable to dischargers inWashington State ( 40 CFR 131.36). These criteria are designed to protect humans from exposureto pollutants linked to cancer and other diseases, based on consuming fish and shellfish and drinking contaminated surface waters. The Water Quality Standards also include radionuclide criteriato protect humans from the effects of radioactive substances.

NARRATIVE CRITERIA Narrative water quality criteria (e.g., WAC 173-201A-240(1); 2006) limitthe toxic, radioactive, or other deleterious mateii.al concentrations that the facility may discharge to levels belowthose whichhave the potential to:

• Adversely affect designated water uses.

o Cause acute or chronic toxicityto biota.

• Impair aesthetic values.

• Adversely affecthumanhealth. Narrative criteriaprotectthe specific designated uses ofall fresh waters (WAC 173-201A-200, 2006) and ofall marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210, 2006) inthe State ofWashington.

ANTIDEGRADATION The purpose ofWashington's AntidegradationPolicy (WAC 173-201A-300-330; 2006) is to:
• Restore and maintainthe highestpossible quality ofthesurface waters ofWashington.

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

• Apply to human activities that are likely to have animpact onthe water quality ofsurface water.
• Ensure that all human activities likely to contribute to a lowering ofwater quality, at a minimum, apply all known, available, andreasonable methods ofprevention, control, and treatment (AKART).

• Apply three Tiers ofprotection (describedbelow) for surface waters ofthe state. TierI ensures existing and designated uses are maintained andprotected and applies to all waters and all sources ofpollutions. Tier II ensures that waters ofa higher quality thanthe criteria

Page 24assigned are not degraded unless such lowering ofwater quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. Tier II applies only to a specific list ofpolluting activities. Tier III prevents the degradation ofwaters formally listed as "outstandingresource waters," and applies to all sources ofpollution. A facility must prepare a Tier II analysis when all three ofthe following conditions are met:

e The facility is planning a new or expanded action.

• Ecology regulates or authorizes the action.

• The actionhas the potential to cause measurable degradation to existing water quality at the edge ofa chronic mixing zone. This facility mustmeetTier I requirements.

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

• For waters that do not meet assigned criteria, orprotect existing or designateduses, Ecology will take appropriate and definitive steps to bring the water quality back into compliance withthe water quality standards.

• Wheneverthe natural conditions ofa waterbody are ofa lower quality thanthe assigned criteria, the natural conditions constitute the water quality criteria. Where water quality criteria are notmetbecause ofnatural conditions, human actions are not allowed to further lowerthe water quality, except where explicitly allowed inthis Chapter.
This section ofthe fact sheet describes Ecology's analysis. The analysis demonstrates thatthe existing and designated uses ofthe receiving water will be protected underthe conditions ofthe proposedpermit. Ecology has reviewed existing water quality datafrom Ecology's long-term monitoring station GRG002 and from Eric Crecelius (1998). The data showthat the ambient watermeets the temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, ammonia, cyanide and metals standards for marine waters extraordinary quality category given in Chapter 173-201A WAC. Therefore, Ecology uses the designated classification criteria for this water body inthe proposedpermit. The discharges authorizedby this proposedpermit should not cause a loss ofbeneficial uses.
MIXING ZONES A mixing zone is the defined area in the receiving water surroundingthe discharge port(s), where wastewater mixes withreceiving water. Withinmixing zones, the pollutant concentrations may exceed water quality numeric criteria, so long as the diluted wastewater doesn'tinterfere with designated uses ofthe receiving waterbody (e.g., recreation, water supply, and aquatic life and wildlife habitat, etc.). Thepollutant concentrations outside ofmixing zones must meetwater quality numeric criteria.

Page 25State and federal rules allow mixing zones because the concentrations and effects ofmost pollutants diminishrapidly after discharge, due to dilution. Ecology defines mixing zone sizes to limit the amount oftime any exposure to the end-of-pipe discharge could harm water quality, plants, orfish.
The State's Water Quality Standards allowEcology to authorize mixing zones for the facility's permitted wastewater discharges only ifthose discharges already receive all known, available, andreasonable methods ofprevention, control and treatment (AKART). Mixing zones typically require compliance with water quality criteriawithin a specified distance from the point of discharge; and use no more than 25% ofthe available width ofthe waterbody for dilution. Ecology uses modeling to estimate the amount ofmixing within the mixing zone and determine the potential for violating the water quality standards at the edge ofthe mixing zone and derive any necessary effluent limits. Steady-state models are the most frequently used tools for conductingmixing zone analyses. Ecology chooses values for each effluent and for receiving water variables that correspondto the time period whenthe most critical condition is likelyto occur (see Ecology's Permit Writer's Manual). Each critical conditionparameter (by itself) has a lowprobability ofoccurrence and the resulting dilution factor is conservative. The term "reasonable worst-case" applies to these values.
The mixing zone analysis produces a numerical value called a dilution factor (DF). A dilution factor represents the amount ofmixing ofeffluent and receiving waterthat occurs at the boundary ofthe mixing zone. For example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving water comprises 90% ofthe total volume atthe boundary of the mixingzone. Ecology uses dilution factors with the water quality criteriato calculate reasonablepotentials and effluent limits. Water quality standards include both aquatic life-based criteria and humanhealth-based criteria. The former are applied at boththe acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries; the latter are applied only at the chronic boundary. The concentration of pollutants atthe boundaries ofany ofthese mixing zones maynot exceedthe numerical criteria for that zone. Each aquatic life acute criterion is based onthe assumptionthat organisms are not exposed to thatconcentration for more than one-hour andmore often than one exposure inthree years. Each aquatic life chronic criterion is based onthe assumption that organisms are not exposedto that concentration for more thanfour consecutive days and more oftenthan once inthree years. The two types ofhumanhealth-based water quality criteria distinguish betweenthose pollutants linkedto non-cancer effects (non-carcinogenic) and those linked to cancer effects (carcinogenic). The humanhealth-based water quality criteriaincorporate several exposure and risk assumptions. These assumptions include:

• A 70-year lifetime ofdaily exposures. • Aningestion rate for fish or shellfishmeasured inkg/day. • An ingestionrate oftwo liters/day for drinking water • A one-in-one-million cancerrisk for carcinogenic chemicals.
This permit authorizes a small acute mixing zone, surrounded by a chronic mixing zone around the point ofdischarge (WAC 173-201A-400; 2006). The water quality standards impose certain conditions before allowing the discharger a mixing zone:

Page 261. Ecology must specify both the allowed size and location in a permit.
The proposed permit specifies the size and location ofthe allowed mixing zone. 2. The facility must fully apply AKART to its discharge. Ecology has determinedthat the treatment provided for the discharge at Outfall 001 and the pollutionprevention activities practiced at BP meet the requirements ofAKART (see "Technologybased Limits").
3. Ecology must consider critical discharge conditions. Surface water quality-based limits are derived for the waterbody's critical condition, (the receivingwater and waste discharge condition withthe highestpotential for adverse impact on the aquatic biota, human health, and existing or designated water body uses). The critical discharge condition is oftenpollutant-specific orwater body-specific.
Critical discharge conditions are those conditions that result in reduced dilution or increased effect ofthe pollutant. Factors affecting dilution include the depth ofwater, the density stratification inthe water column, the currents, and the rate ofdischarge. Density stratification is determined bythe salinity and temperature ofthe receiving water. Temperatures are warmer in the surface waters in summer. Therefore, density stratification is generally greatest during the summermonths. Density stratification affects howfar up inthe water column a freshwater plume may rise. The rate ofmixing is greatest when an effluent is rising. The effluent stops rising whenthe mixed effluent is the same density as the surroundingwater. Afterthe effluent stops rising, the rate ofmixing is muchmore gradual. Water depth can affect dilution when a plume mightrise to the surface whenthere is little orno stratification. Ecology uses the water depth at mean lower low water (MLLW) for marine waters. Ecology'sPermit Writer's Manual describes additional guidance on criteria/design conditions for determining dilution factors. The Manual canbe obtained from Ecology's website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/92109.html. Ecology used the following critical conditions to model the discharge:

• Water depth atMLLW of57 feet. • Densityprofile with a difference of9.29 sigma-tunits between 57 feet and the surface. • 50th percentile current speeds of0.15 m/sec for chronic and humanhealth mixing zones. • lOth or 90th percentile current speeds of0.04 m/sec for acute mixing.zone. • Maximum average monthly effluent flow of4.4 MGD for chronic andhuman healthnoncarcinogen. • Annual average flow of4.0 MGD for human health carcinogen. • Maximum daily flow of8.4 million gallons per day (MGD) for acute mixing zone. • 1DAD MAXEffluenttemperature of28.4 degrees C. Ambientdata at critical conditions inthe vicinity ofthe outfall was takenfrom the "Mixing Zone Analysis ofBP's Outfall"preparedbyENSRCorporationinMay 2008.

Page 274. Supporting information must clearly indicate the mixingzonewould not:
"' Have a reasonable potentialto cause the loss ofsensitive orimportant habitat,

e Substantially interferewith the existing or characteristicuses,
119 Result in damage to the ecosystem, or "' Adversely affectpublic health. Ecology established Washington State water quality criteria for toxic chemicals using EPA criteria. EPA developed the criteria using toxicity tests with numerous organisms, and set the criteriato protect all aquatic species.
EPA sets acute criteriafor toxic chemicals assuming organisms are exposedto the pollutant at the criteria concentration for 1-hour. They set chronic criteria assuming organisms are exposedto the pollutant at the criteria concentration for 4 days. Dilutionmodeling under critical conditions generally shows thatboth acute and chronic criteria concentrations are reached withinminutes of being discharged.
The dilution modelingunder critical conditions shows thatthe acute dilution at Outfall 001 is attained in less than 3 minutes and the chronic dilution in less than 6 minutes.
The dischargeplume does not impact drifting and non-strong swimming organisms because they cannot stay inthe plume close to the outfall long enoughto be affected. Strong swimming fish couldmaintain a positionwithinthe plume, butthey can also avoid the discharge by swimming away. Mixing zones generally do not affect benthicorganisms (bottom dwellers) because the buoyantplumerises inthe water column. Ecology has additionally determined that the discharge at Outfall 001 will not exceed 33 degrees C for more than 2 seconds after discharge and that the temperature ofthe receiving water after mixing withthe discharge will not create lethal conditions orblockages to fish migration. Ecology evaluates the cumulative toxicity ofan effluentby testing the discharge withwhole effluenttoxicity (WET) testing. WETtesting performed by BP for Outfall 001 indicates that there is no reasonable potential for acute or chronic receiving watertoxicity.
The mixing zone for Outfall 001 is small and is centered at a distance of2,200 feet from shore. The mixing zone does not lie nearthe herring spawning areas, which are closerto shore.
There is no documented linkage between BP's discharge at Outfall 001 and the reduction in the local herringpopulation. BP will use the recently developed herring bioassaytests to evaluate the possible effects oftheir effluent onherring and to compare the herringbioassay results with other EPA approved bioassay tests.

· Ecology reviewed the above information, the specific information onthe characteristics ofthe

discharge, the receiving water characteristics, and the discharge location.· Based onthis review Ecology concludedthatthe discharge at Outfall 001 does nothave a reasonable potential to cause the loss ofsensitive or importanthabitat, substantially interfere with existing or characteristics uses, result in damage to the ecosystem or adversely affectpublic health.

Page 285. The discharge/receivingwater mixture must not exceedwater quality criteria outside the boundary ofa mixingzone. Ecology conducted a reasonablepotential analysis, using procedures establishedby the EPA and by Ecology, for eachpollutant (see Appendix

### I). Ecology concluded the discharge/receiving water mixture will not violate water quality crite1ia outside the boundary ofthe mixing zone if permit limits are met. Modeling studies by ENSRin 

### 2001 also evaluated the aggregate impact ofthe different industrial discharges in Cherry Point area. It was concluded from the studies thatthe combined discharges do notresult in exceedance ofwater quality criteria.
6. The size ofthe mixing zone and the concentrations ofthe pollutants mustbe minimized.
At any giventime, the effluentplume uses only a portion ofthe acute and chronic mixing zone, whichminimizes the volume ofwater involved inmixing. Becausetidal currents change direction, the plume orientationwithinthe mixing zone changes. The plume rises through the water column as itmixes therefore much ofthe receiving water volume at lower depths inthe mixing zone is notmixed with discharge. Similarly, because the discharge may stop rising at some depth due to density stratification, waters above that depth will not mix withthe discharge. Ecology determined itis impractical to specify inthe permitthe actual, muchmore limited volume inwhich the dilution occurs as the plume rises and moves withthe current. Ecology minimizes the size ofmixing zones byrequiring dischargers to install diffusers when they are appropriate to the discharge and the specific receiving waterbody. When a diffuser is installed the discharge and the receiving water is more completely mixed in a shortertime period. Ecology also minimizes the size ofthe mixing zone (inthe form ofthe dilution factor) using design criteriawith a lowprobability ofoccurrence. For example, Ecology uses the expected 95th percentile pollutant concentration, the 90th percentile background concentration, the centerline dilution factor and the lowest flow occurring once in every 

### 10years to performthe reasonable potential analysis.
The facility continues to conductpollutionprevention activities and has completedpollution preventionprojects. These activities also minimize the concentrations ofpollutants inthe discharge.
Because ofthe above reasons, Ecologyhas effectively minimized the size ofthe mixing zone authorized inthe proposedpermit.
7. Maximum size ofmixingzone. The authorized mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 

### 001 does not exceed the maximum size restriction.

Page 298. Acute Mixing Zone

-

• The discharge/receivingwater mixture must comply with acute criteria as near to the point ofdischarge as practicably attainable. Ecology determined that the acute criteria will be met at 10% ofthe distance (257ft) ofthe chronic mixing zone.

o The pollutant concentration, duration and frequency ofexposure to the discharge, will not create a barrierto migration ortranslocation ofindigenous organisms to a degree that has the potentialto cause damage to the ecosystem. As described above, the toxicity ofany pollutant depends upon the exposure, the pollutant concentration, andthe time the organism is exposed to that concentration. Authorizing a limited acute mixing zone for this discharge assures that it will not create abarrier to migration. The effluent from this discharge will rise as it enters the receiving water, assuring that the rising effluent will not cause translocation of indigenous organisms nearthe point ofdischarge (belowthe rising effluent).
Dilutionmodeling has demonstrated that mixing in the acute zone occurs veryrapidly as the less dense effluentrises throughthe water column due to boththe diffuser design and the buoyance ofthe effluent. Acute mixing occurs inless than 3 minutes for Outfall 001. The duration and frequency ofexposure to elevated concentrations by any drifting ornon-strong sWimming organisms is minimized because the organisms simply cannot stay in one place while the plume moves past them. Because the mixing zone poses no barrierto organisms, strong swimming species are able to avoid the plume. Exposure to elevated concentrations in the effluentbybenthic organisms is avoidedbecause the plumrises inthe water column.
The acute mixing zone is sized at 10% ofthe distance ofthe chronic mixing zone.

• Complywith size restrictions. The mixing zone authorized for the discharge at Outfall 001 complies withthe size restrictions published inChapter 173-201AWAC.
9. Overlap ofMixing Zones. The mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 001 does not overlap another mixing zone. D. Designated Uses and SurfaceWater Quality Criteria Applicable designateduses and surface water quality criteria are defmed in Chapter 173-201A WAC. 

### In addition, the U.S. EPA sethumanhealth criteriafor toxic pollutants ( 40 CFR 131.36). Criteria applicable to this facility's discharge are summarizedbelow.

Page 30Aquatic life uses are designated using the following general categories. All indigenous fish and non-fish aquatic species mustbe protected in waters ofthe state. (a) Extraordinary quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning. (b) Excellent quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning. (c) Good quality salmonid migration andrearing; other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning. (d) Fairquality salmonid and other fish migration.
The aquatic life uses for this receiving water are identified below: Table 

### 12. Aquatic Life Uses & Associated Criteria Extraordinary qualitY Temperature Criteria- Highest 1D MAX l3°C (55.4°F) Dissolved Oxygen Criteria- Lowest 1Day 7.0 mg/L Minimum Turbidity Criteria • 5NTU over background whenthe background is 50 NTU or less; or • A 10 percent increase inturbidity whenthe background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. pH Criteria 

# IpHmust be withinthe range of7.0 to 8.5 with

1 a human-caused**variatio~** within the above

------···----------···-·-··· ________________________j**rang_~_2fl~__s~~~Q:~_l!!llts:_**_______________·-----· To protect shellfish harvesting, fecal coliform organism levels mustnot exceed a geometric meanvalue of 14 colonies/100 mL, and not have more than 10 percent ofall samples (or any single sample when less thanten sample points exist) obtained for calculatingthe geometric mean value exceeding 43 colonies/100 mL. The miscellaneous marinewater uses are wildlife habitat, harvesting, commerce and navigation, boating, and aesthetics. E. Evaluation ofSurfaceWater Quality -Based EffluentLimits for Numeric Criteria
Pollutants in an effluent may affectthe aquatic environment nearthe point ofdischarge (near field) or at a considerable distance from the point ofdischarge (farfield). Toxic pollutants, for example, are near-field pollutants--their adverse effects diminishrapidly withmixing inthe receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) is a far-field pollutantwhose adverse effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilutionhas occurred.

Page 31Thus, the method ofcalculating surface water quality-based effluent limits varies with the point at whichthe pollutanthas its maximum effect.
Pollutant concentrations inthe proposed discharge exceed water quality criteria despite using technology-based controls which Ecology determined fulfills AKART. Ecologytherefore authorizes a mixing zone in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow restriction, and otherrestrictions imposed on mixing zones described in chapter 173-201A WAC.
The diffuser at Outfall 001 is 52 feet long with a diameter of20 inches. The diffuser has total 13 ports, sevenports onone side and six ports onthe other side. Eachport has a 3-inch diameter. The distance betweenthe ports is 4 feet. The mean lower lowwater (MLLW) depth atthe diffuser is 57 feet. This information is available inthe MixingZone Analysis ofBP's Outfall conducted byENSR Corporation submitted to Ecology in May 2008.
CHRONIC MIXING ZONE WAC 173-201A-400(7)(b) specifies that mixing zones mustnot extend in any horizontal direction from the discharge ports for a distance greaterthan 300 feet plus the depth ofwater overthe discharge ports as measured during MLLW. The horizontal distance ofthe chronic mixing zone is 257 feet. The mixing zone extends from the seabedto the top ofthe water surface.
ACUTE MIXING ZONE WAC 173-201A-400(8)(b) specifies that in estuarine waters a zony where acute criteriamay be exceededmust not extend beyond 1 0% ofthe distance established for the chronic zone. The acute mixing zone for Outfall 001 extends 26 feet in any spatial directionfrom any discharge port. BP determined the dilution factors ofeffluentto receiving waterthat occur within these zones by the use ofa dye study and modeling. The results ofthe dye study and initial modeling ofthe mixing zones at BP is documented inthe 1990 Dilution Ratio Study Report. Additional modeling is presented in the report entitled "EffluentPlumes Modeling Study" and "Mixing Zone Analysis ofBP's Outfall" prepared byENSR Consulting and Engineering in August 2001 and May 2008, respectively. Ecology selectedthe most conservative density profile and ambient current velocity specified in the 2008 ENSRMixing Zone Analysis to calculate the dilutionfactors at Outfall 001. 

### Appendix J shows the inputparameters and dilution factors. Ecology decided to retainthe acute dilution factor for Outfall 001 from the previous permitperWAC 173-201A-400, whichrequires that the size ofmixing zone be minimized, as follows: 

### Table 13. Dilution Factors (DF)

HumanHealth, Carcinogen N/A 136 Human Health, Non-carcinogen N/A 136 Ecology determinedthe impacts ofimmediate oxygen deficiency, temperature, pH, fecal coliform, chlorine, ammonia, metals, nutrients, and othertoxics as described below, using the
Page 32dilution factors in the above table. The derivation ofsurface water quality-based limits also

. takes into account the variability ofpollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the

receiving water. BODs Ecology predictedno violation ofthe surface water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) under critical conditions. Therefore, Ecology placed the technology-based effluent limit for BODs in the permit. Temperature
The state temperature standards (WAC 173-201A-200-210 and -600-612) include multiple elements:

• Annual summer maximumthreshold criteria (June 15 to September 15) • Supplemental spawning and rearing season criteria (September 15 to June15)

G Incremental warmingrestrictions • Protections against acute effects Ecology evaluates each criterion independently to determine reasonable potential and derive permit limits.



### • Annual summermaximum and supplementary spawning/rearing criteria Eachwaterbody has an annual maximumtemperature criterion [WAC 173-201A-200(1) (c), 210(1)(c), and Table 602]. These threshold criteria (e.g., 12, 16, 17.5, 20°C) protect specific categories ofaquatic life by controlling the effect ofhuman actions on summer

·temperatures.

Some waters have an additional threshold criterionto protect the spawning and incubation ofsalmonids (9°C for char and l3°C for salmon andtrout) [WAC 173-201A602, Table 602]. These criteria apply during specific date-windows. The threshold criteria apply atthe edge ofthe chronic mixing zone. Criteriafor most fresh waters are expressed as the highest 7-Day average ofdaily maximumtemperature (7-DADMax). The 7-DADMaxtemperature is the arithmetic average ofseven consecutive measures ofdaily maximum temperatures. Criteria for marine waters and some fresh waters are expressed as the highest 1-Day annual maximum temperature (1- DMax).



### • Incrementalwarming criteria The water quality standards limitthe amount ofwarming human sources can cause under specific situations [WAC 173-201A-200(1)(c)(i)-(ii), 210(1)(c)(i)-(ii)]. The incremental warming criteria apply at the edge ofthe chronic mixing zone. At locations andtimes whenbackgroundtemperatures are coolerthanthe assigned threshold criterion, point sources are permittedto warm the waterbyonly a defmed

Page 33increment. These increments are permitted only to the extent doing so does not cause temperatures to exceed eitherthe annual maximum or supplemental spawning criteria. At locations and times when a threshold criterion is being exceeded due to natural conditions, all human sources, considered cumulatively, must not warmthe water more than 0.3°C above the naturally warm condition. When Ecologyhas not yet completed a TMDL, ourpolicy allows eachpoint source to warm water at the edge ofthe chronic mixing zone by 0.3°C. This is true regardless of the background temperature and even ifdoing so would cause the temperature at the edge ofa standard mixing zone to exceed the numeric threshold criteria. Allowing a 0.3°C warming for each point source is reasonable and protective where the dilution factor is based on 25% or less ofthe critical flow. This is because the fullymixed effect on temperature will only be a fraction ofthe 0.3°C cumulative allowance (0.075°C or less) for all human sources combined.

o 

### TemperatureAcute Effects Instantaneous lethality to passingfish: The upper 99th percentile daily maximum effluenttemperature mustnot exceed 33°C; unless a dilution analysis indicates ambient temperatures will not exceed 33°C 2-seconds after discharge. 

### Generallethality and migration blockage: Measurable (0.3°C) increases in temperature at the edge ofa chronic mixing zone are not allowed whenthe receiving watertemperature exceeds either a lDMax of23°C ora7DADMax of22°C. 

### Lethality to incubatingfish: Human actions mustnot cause a·measurable (0.3°C) warming above 17.5°C at locations where eggs are incubating.


### Annual summermaximum, supplementary spawning criterion, and incrementalwarming criteria: Ecology calculatedthe reasonablepotential for the discharge to exceedthe annual summermaximum, the supplementary spawning criterion, and the incremental warming criteria (see temp·erature calculation in

### AppendiX K).
The discharge is only allowed to warmthe water by a defined incrementwhenthe background (ambient) temperature is cooler or warmer thanthe assigned threshold criterion. Ecology allows warming increments only whenthey do not cause temperatures to exceed eitherthe annual maximum or supplemental spawning criteria. The incremental increase for this discharge is withinthe allowable amount. Therefore, the proposedpermit does not include a temperature limit. The permitrequires additional monitoring ofeffluenttemperature. Ecology will reevaluate the reasonablepotential during the nextpermitrenewal. 

### General lethality and migration blockage: The receiving water conditions are listed in Section II.F. ofthefact sheet. The Strait ofGeorgia does not exceed a lDMax of23°C.

Compliance withthe technology-based limits of6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance withthe water quality standards ofsurfacewaters because ofthe highbuffering capacity ofmarine water.

Page 34Fecal Coliform Ecology's 2006 Class 2 inspection showed highfecal coliform value in the final effluent. BP suspected that the high fecal coliform was due to increased wildlife activitiy at the ponds inthe tertiary treatment system. BP sent a sample ofeffluent to a molecular lab to confirm that the fecal coliform was not from human origins. There was no human gene biomarker detected in the sample.
The proposedpermit includes a study to collect data to determine ifthere is reasonable potential for fecal coliform in the final effluentto exceed water quality standards. BP is required to monitor fecal coliform weekly beginning April1, 2012 to November 1, 2012 (the period when wildlife is the most active at the tertiary treatment system). Toxic Pollutants
Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.44) require Ecologyto place limits inNPDES permits on toxic chemicals in an effluent wheneverthere is a reasonable potential for those chemicals to exceed the surface water quality criteria. Ecology does not exempt facilities withtechnology-based effluent limits from meeting the surface water quality standards. Ecology determined throughreview ofavailable data and knowledge ofthe refineryprocess that the following toxicpollutants are present inthe discharge: ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, mercury, nickel, selenium, sulfide, and zinc. Ecology conducted a reasonable potential to exceed analysis (see 

### AppendixI) onthese parameters to determine whether itwould require effluent limits inthis permit. Ecology conductedthe reasonablepotential to exceed analysis using receiving water and waste discharge conditions that represent the critical condition. Ecology obtained the receiving water background data for the metal parameters from a studyundertaken bythe Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) in 1997. The study included 10 samples taken atthree different locations withinPuget Sound in an effortto provide representative information about the receiving water outside the influence ofthe refineries. The sampling period chosenrepresents the critical period inthe receiving water. The resulsts ofthis study are documented in the February 1998 report entitledBackgroundMetals Concentrations in SelectedPugetSound Marine Receiving Waters. There are limited effluent data available for metals. Ecology obtained effluent values from the permit application andits inspection data. Valid ambient background data were available for ammonia, total cyanide, fluoride, aluminum, dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, dissolved lead, mercury, and dissolved zinc. Calculations using all applicable dataresulted in a determination that there is no reasonablepotential for this discharge to cause a violation ofwater quality standards (see 

### Appendix I). This determination assumes thatthe refmery meets theother effluent limits ofthis permit.

Water quality criteria for most metals published in chapter 173-201A WAC are based onthe dissolved fraction ofthe metal (see footnotes to table WAC 173-201A-240(3); 2006). BP may provide dataclearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning ofthe dissolved metal inthe ambient water in relationto an effluent discharge. Ecology may adjust metals criteria on a site-specific

Page 35basis when data is available clearly demonstrating the seasonalpartitioning in the ambient water in relation to an effluent discharge.
Ammonia
Ammonia is considered a toxic pollutant and Ecology evaluated it for reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards. Ammonia's toxicity depends on whatportion is available in the unionized form. The amount ofunionized ammonia depends onthe pH, salinity, and temperature ofthe receiving marine water. Ecology mustuse receiving water information to

· evaluate ammoniatoxicity.

Ecology evaluated one ambientreceiving water station, GRG002, to determine the site specific acute and chronic criteria and to obtainbackground ammonia data. Located inthe Straits of Georgia near Patos Island, GRG002 is a long term core station for which substantial data exists, and which adequately represents the receiving water environmentnear BP's outfall. Using Hampson's model in a spreadsheet form, Ecology calculated the acute and chronic ammonia criteria. From those criteria, Ecology used the 90thpercentile value to represent the critical condition as recommended by the Ecology Permit Writer's Manual. Itused the values for the ambient station andthe 90thpercentile values for backgroundtotal ammonia concentration inthe reasonable potential calculation shown in Appendix I. Withthe available dilution at BP, Ecology determined no reasonable potential for BP to exceed water quality standards for ammonia at the edge ofthe acute and chronic dilution zones. Cyanide Ecology completed an evaluation ofBP's cyanide data to determine ifithad areasonable potential to exceed marine cyanide criteria. Itused cyanide datafrom the effluent characterization inthe permitrenewal application to determine the maximum value, andthe statisticalparameter used inthe cyanide reasonable potential to exceed analysis. With the available dilution, Ecology determined that BP's effluent does not have reasonable potential to exceed the acute orchronic cyanide criteria inWashington's Water Quality Standards (see Appendix I). As aresult, the proposedpermit does not include limits for cyanide. STORMWA TER 0UTF ALLS 002-007
Stormwater discharges from Outfalls 002-007 are managedbythe use ofBMPs and monitoring for comparisonto benchmarkpollutant concentrations. The benchmarks are set at levels deemed protective ofwater quality standards inthe receiving waters. Much ofthe storm water from BP runs offfrom lands not significantly exposed to industrial activities or materials and with little impermeable surfaces. Attimes ofthe year, most ofthe storm waterpercolates into the ground and does not discharge offsite atthe outfalls.
Continued monitoring oftoxics will provide a database to set limits when storm water mixing zone guidance or a regulation is available. Iffuture data collected indicate aproblem, Ecology may require a mixing studyto determine the actual mixing available or may require an evaluation ofadditional best managementpractices.

Page 36F. WholeEffluentToxicity The water quality standards for surface waters forbid discharge ofeffluent that causes toxic effects inthe receiving waters. Many toxic pollutants cannot be measured by commonly available detection methods. However, laboratory tests can measure toxicity directly, by exposing living organisms to the wastewater and measuring their responses. These tests measure the aggregate toxicity ofthe whole effluent, so this approach is called whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing. Some WET tests measure acute toxicity and other WET tests measure chronic toxicity.

• Acute toxicity tests measure mortality as the significant response to the toxicity ofthe effluent. Dischargers who monitortheir wastewater with acute toxicity tests fmd early indications ofany potential lethal effect ofthe effluent on organisms inthe receiving water.

• Chronic toxicity tests measure various sublethal toxic responses such as retarded growth orreducedreproduction. Chronic toxicity tests often involve either a complete life cycle test on an organism with an extremely short life cycle, or apartial life cycle test during a critical stage ofa test organism's life. Some chronic toxicity tests also measure organism survival. Ecology-accredited WET testing laboratories use the proper WETtesting protocols, fulfill the datarequirements, and submitresults inthe correct reporting format. Accredited laboratory staff know about WET testing andhowto calculate an NOEC, LCso, EC5o, IC2s, etc. Ecology gives all accredited labs the most recent version ofEcology Publication# WQ-R-95-80, Laboratory Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity TestReview Criteria (b.ttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9580.html), whichis referenced inthe permit. Ecology recommends thatthe Permittee sends a copy ofthe acute or chronic toxicity sections(s) ofits NPDES permitto thelaboratory. Acute Toxicity
As required inthe previous permit, the refinery conducted quarterly acute toxicity testing using Pimephales promelas and Daphniamagna on arotating basis. The acute toxicitytest was performed using 100% effluent, the acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC) 

### 3.6%, and a control. The results ofthe acute toxicity test in Appendix L indicate that on 17 occasions (out of 55 tests) the refinery found acute toxicity at levels that, in accordance withWAC 173-205- 050(2)(a), have a reasonable potential to cause receiving watertoxicity. No acute toxicity tests conductedunderthe currentpermit exceeded the acute toxicity limit.
Theproposedpermit will impose an acute toxicity limit. The effluentlimitfor acute toxicity is: No acute toxicity detected in a test sample represe,.ting the acute critical effluent concentrationACEC, 

### 3.6% ofthe effluent, and the control. Compliance with an acute toxicity limit is measured by an acute toxicitytest comparingtest

. organism survival inthe ACEC (using a sample ofeffluent diluted to equalthe ACEC) to survival in nontoxic control water. BP is incompliance withthe acute toxicity limit ifthere is no statistically significant difference intest organism survival betweenthe ACEC sample and the control sample.

Page 37Chronic Toxicity As required in the current permit, the Permittee conducted chronic toxicity testing on the fmal effluent during the third or fourth year ofthe permit term. BP conductedthe testing every third month for a period ofone year (four times) in 2002. The two organisms tested were Top Smelt and Blue Mussel. Results ofthe chronic characterization study in Appendix L showed no reasonable potential for effluent discharges to cause receiving water chronic toxicit-y. The proposedpermitwill not impose a chronic WET limit. The BP Cherry Point Refinery must retest the effluent before submitting an application for permit renewal in order to demonstrate that chronic toxicityhas not increased inthe effluent. In addition:

• IfBP makes process ormaterial changes which, in Ecology's opinion, increase the potential for effluenttoxicity, thenEcologymay (in a regulatory order, by permit modification, or inthe permitrenewal) require the facility to conduct additional effluent characterization

o IfWET testing conducted for submittal with a permit application fails to meetthe performance standards in WAC 173-205-020, Ecology will assume that effluenttoxicity has increased. BP may demonstrate to Ecologythat effluenttoxicityhas not increasedby performing additional WET testing after it has madethe process or material changes.
CHERRY POINTHERRING The Pacific herring; 

### Clupeapallasi, stock which spawns inthe Cherry Pointvicinity, near Bellingham, was once the largest inWashington. The stockhas dramatically declined in abundance inthe last 10-15 years andremains at record low levels. Cherry Point herring once had a spawning biomass equal to that ofall ofthe other herring stocks inthe state combined. The Cherry Point stock size has declined from nearly 15,000 tons in 1973 to only 774 tons in2010. Althoughmuch ofthe decline may be due to natural factors (e.g., temperature increases, predation, lack offood source), point and non-point sources ofpollutionmaybe potential stressors acting in concert withthe natural stressors. Because ofthe large amount ofindustrial activity at Cherry Point associated withrefineries and otherheavy industry, ithas been suggested thatcontamination ofthe spawning Jp"Ounds may be causing or contributingto the decline.
Inresponse to this concern, Ecology and Western WashingtonUniversity developed and validatedherring toxicity tests to use for routine effluenttesting. InNovember 2005, Ecology approved the regulatory use ofa 96-hour herring prolarval acute survival test and a 10-day herring embryo survival and normal development test. A 7-day larval survival and growthtest was validated and approved for regulatory use inDecember 2011. InApril2006, Ecology issued an agreed order to the BP Cherry PointRefinery, ConocoPhillips Ferndale Refmery, Shell Puget SoundRefmery, Tesoro Anacortes Refmery, and the Alcoa-Intalco Works Aluminum Smelterrequiring themto conduct larval acute survival tests twice annually at each oftheirprocess wastewater outfalls. The order included a requirementto follow up onany adverse effects found during the course ofthese studies with additional testing and/or investigation. Ecology defmed adverse effects as the Lowest Observable Effects Concentration (LOEC) being equal to orlower thanthe Acute Critical Effluent Concentration (ACEC).

Page 38The agreed order stated that ifthe LOEC was equal to or lowerthan the ACEC, BP must develop and implement a Toxicity Identification/ReductionEvaluation (TVRE) Plan. The order also stated that withprior approval from Ecology, BP could use the topsmelt

### Atherinops ajjinis, 96-hour acute survival test as an alternate test ifherring larvae are unavailable during the test window.
In 2007-2010, halfthe hening tests ofBP's effluent showed no toxicity at all. Although the other halfshowed some toxicity, they did not trigger additional testing or investigation. In several cases, BP was unable to obtain herring larvae during the test window and Ecology approved the use of the topsmelt test as a substitute.
The results ofthe herring larval acute testing and topsmelttesting for BP are summarized in 

### Appendix 

### L. Herring toxicity testing is included inthe proposedpermit. BP is required to conduct acute testing usingthe prolarval acute survival test and chronic testing usingthe embryo survival and normal developmenttest and the larval survival and growthtest. The permitrequires that effluent monitoring be done with both and standard EPAtoxicitytests. The permitrequires a toxicity investigation iftesting shows any adverse effects. TheEPAtests canbe used to investigate the cause ofany significanttoxicity and the findings ofthe investigation canbe confirmed withthe herring tests. Another goal inpairingthe herring tests with EPAtests is to discover the extentto which EPA tests canbe used to long termto protect herring. Herring are completely unavailable for testing outside ofthe six-monthWest Coast spawning season. Effectively monitoring effluents and controllingtoxicity requires more frequent testing than is possible using test organisms from the spawning ofwildherring. The standardEPAtoxicity tests are readily available all year and can be setup quickly ifneeded. The pennitrequrirements seekto establishthe relative sensitivity of herring tests and analogous EPAtests and to examine the responses ofbothtests to effluent constituents knownto be toxic.
The herring toxicity testing in the proposedpermit does not have to meet EPA standards. This testing is not for compliance monitoring or effluent characterization so the requirements ofWAC 173-205-050(1)(d) do not apply. 

### G. Human Health Washington's water quality standards include 91 numeric humanhealth-based criteriathat Ecology must considerwhenwriting NPDES permits. These criteriawere established in 1992 bythe U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). The National Taxies Rule allows states to use mixing zones to evaluate whether discharges comply withhumanhealth criteria. Ecology detennined that BP's effluentmay contain chemicals ofconcernposing a riskto human health. Ecology determinedthis because data or process information indicate regulated chemicals occur inthe discharge. Ecology conducted a determination ofthe discharge's potential to violate the water quality standards as required by 40 CFR 122.44( d) byfollowing the procedures published inthe Technical SupportDocumentfor Water Quality-BasedToxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) and

Page 39Ecology's PermitWriter's Manual (Ecology Publication 92-109, July, 2006) to make this reasonable potential determination. · BP submitted effluent characterization data for evaluating human health criteria as part oftheir permit renewal application dated May 03, 2004. Reasonable potential to exceed human health criteria is evaluated for eachparameter in Appendix I. Ecology's evaluation showed that the discharge has no reasonable potential to cause a violation ofwater quality standards, thus an effluent limit is not warranted. Arsenic
In 1992, the USEPA adopted risk-based arsenic criteriafor the protection ofhuman health for the State ofWashington. The criterion for marine waters is 0.14 f.Lg/L inorganic arsenic and is based on exposure from fish and shellfish tissue ingestion. The freshwater criterion is 0.018 flg/L and is based on exposure from fish and shellfishtissue and water ingestion. These criteriahave caused confusion inimplementationbecause they differ from the drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 flg/L, which is not risk-based, and because the human health criteria are sometimes exceededbynatural background concentrations ofarsenic in surface water and ground water. InWashington, when a natural background concentration exceeds the criterion, the natural background concentration becomes the criterion, and no dilution zone is allowed. This could result in a situation where natural groundwater or surface water used as a municipal or industrial source-water wouldneed additional treatmentto meet numeric effluent limits eventhough no arsenic was added as waste. Althoughthis is notthe case for all dischargers, Ecology does not have data at this time to quantifythe extent ofthe problem.
A regulatory mechanism to deal withthe issues associated withnatural background concentrations ofarsenic in groundwater-derived drinking waters is currently lacking. Consequently, the Water Quality Program, atthis time, has decided to use a three-pronged strategy to address the issues associated withthe arsenic criteria. The three strategy elements are: 

### 1. Pursue, at the national level, a solution to the regulatory issue ofgroundwater sources with high arsenic concentrations causing municipal treatment plant effluent to exceed criteria. The revision ofthe drinking water MCL for arsenic offered a national opportunity to discuss howdrinking water sources can affectNPDES wastewater dischargers, however Ecology was unsuccessful infocusing the discussion ondeveloping a national policy for arsenic regulation that acknowledges the risks and costs associated with management ofthe public exposure to natural background concentrations ofarsenic through water sources. The current arsenic MCL of 10 flg/L could also result in municipal treatment plants being unable to meet criteria-based effluent limits. Ecology will continue to pursue this issue as opportunities arise.
2. Additional and more focused data collection. The Water Quality Programwill in some cases require additional and more focused arsenic data collection, will encourage or require dischargers to test for source water arsenic concentrations, and willpursue development ofa proposal to have Ecology's Environmental Assessment Program conduct drinking water source monitoring as well as some additional ambient monitoring data. Atthis time, Washington

Page 40NPDES permits will containnumeric effluent limits for arsenic based only ontreatment technology and aquatic life protection as appropriate.
3. Data sharing. Ecology will share datawith USEPA as they work to develop newrisk-based criteria for arsenic and as they develop a strategy to regulate arsenic. Dioxin EPA traced the dioxins found in some refmery effluents to an internal waste stream from the regeneration ofcatalytic reformer units. The BP Cherry Pointrefmery has two catalytic reformer units, eachregenerates once every 3 to 18 months, although not necessarily at the same time. BP has not detected dioxin inits fmal effluent, but even ifpresent, it would be difficult to detect due to dilution with other process wastewaters priorto entering the wastewatertreatment plant and the intermittent generation ofthe caustic washwater from the reformers. Ecology has determined that further investigation into the generation ofdioxins at refineries is necessary. The previous permitrequired BP to monitorthe dioxin and furan inthe regeneration wastewater stream, inthe API separator sludge, andinthe final effluent captured at the time that is most likelyto contain wastewater generated during the catalytic reformer regenerated events. The analysis included chlorinated dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-Cl substitutedtetra- through actacongeners). The permit specified the testmethod and the required detection level. BP also investigated the fate ofany dioxins and furans. Literature has shownthat dioxins tend to bind to particulate matter inthe wastewater, much ofwhich settles out inthe API separators. BP'sDioxin Study Report submittedto Ecology onJuly 12, 2001 indicated that 2,3,7,8 TCDD was detected in one sample (Reformer#2 Regen wash water- Spring 2001). The measured concentration of0.028 ng/1 was above the practical reporting limit of0.010 ng/1. The proposedpermitrequires BP to sample the final effluent (Outfall 001) and the upstream wastewater stream from the catalytic reformer units for chlorinated dioxin and furan (2,3,7,8-Cl substitutedtetra- through octa- congeners) concentrations 

### twice during the nextpermit cycle. 

### H. Sediment Quality
The**aq~atic** sediment standards (WAC 173-204) protect aquatic biota and humanhealth. Under these standards Ecology may require a facility to evaluate the potential for its discharge to cause a violation ofsediment standards (WAC 173-204-400). You can obtain additional information about sediments at the Aquatic Lands Cleanup Unitwebsite. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sediment.html 

### In 2001, BP conducted a marine sediment sampling and analysis study. The purpose ofthe study was to comply with the NPDES permit sedimentmonitoring requirements. Ecology reviewed the study and determined thatthere were gaps inthe data. BP agreed to perform another sediment recharacterization study. The objectives ofthe study were to:

• Obtain additional databy revisiting stations sampled in 2001 in the vicinity ofthe SouthPier. • Characterize baseline conditions atthe NorthPier following its construction.

Page 41BP conducted the study inthe fall of2006 in accordance withthe 2006Sediment Recharacterization Sampling andAnalysis Plan approved by Ecology on September 13, 2006. Several stations at the South Pier showed exceedances ofthe chemical Sediment Quality Standards (SQS) and cleanup screening levels. Per the SedimentManagement Standards, sedimentbioassay results override chemical results [WAC 173-204-310(2)]. During the 2006 sediment sampling event, stations thathad chemical exceedances passed the confirmatory bioassay. Therefore, no further action was required. One station at the SouthPier also had an exceedance ofthe SQS biological critiera, which was believedto be due to a highpercentage of fines in the sample. BP found no chemical or biological exceedances atthe North Pier stations. The proposedpermitrequires a sedimenttoxicity analysis ofsamples collectedfrom the top 10 em ofsediment at the North and Southpiers. This sediment monitoring is required to be conducted at the end ofthe proposedpermit cycle, which is 10 years after the 2006 sediment sampling event. BP must collect enough sediment so that it can analyze conventional sediment parameters, conduct bioassays, and ifnecessary, analyze chemistry. Samples showing biological exceedances will be required to undergo chemical analysis. The proposedpermit also requires sediment monitoring at the NorthPier ifEcology determines that significant spills have occurred since the 2006 baseline ·sediment characterization. 

### I. Ground Water Quality Monitoring The Ground Water Quality Standards, (Chapter 173-200 WAC), protectbeneficial uses of ground water. Permits issued byEcology must not allow violations ofthose standards (WAC 173-200-100). All ofthe ponds in BP's wastewatertreatment systemhave native claybottoms and could potentially discharge to ground water. Based on an analysis ofthe waterinthese ponds, it has been determined that there is a potential for an impact to ground water beneaththe ponds. The refinery conducted a Ground Water Impact Study (GWIS) under an Agreed Order (No. DE 01TCPIS-1959) issued byEcology in 2001 to assess the. potential groundwater impacts beneaththe wastewatertreatmentponds. The GWIS included installation ofthree wells surroundingthe basins and quarterly saln.pling ofthe basinwaters and groundwater for one year. AppendixM summarizes the results ofthe sampling. The proposed permit requires BP to install an additional downgradient well to assess the attenuation ofcontaminants withinthe refinery property boundary. It also requires BP to monitorthe new and existing wells once peryear during thepermitterm. BP must submitthe monitoring results to Ecology within 60 days ofreceiving the laboratory report. Ecology will evaluate the results and determine ifthere is apotential to cause a violation ofthe Ground Water Quality Standards.

Page 42

### IV. MONITORING REQU1REMENTS Ecology requires monitoring, recording, and reporting (WAC 173-220-210 and 40 CFR 122.41) to verify that the treatmentprocess is functioning correctly and that the discharge complies with the permit's effluent limits. The monitoring schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under Condition S.2. Specified monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and variability ofthe discharge, the treatmentmethod, past compliance, significance ofpollutants, and cost ofmonitoring

.

. The proposed permitrequires BP to collect and report information in the monthly DMR about

parameters that do nothave limits established in the permit. Ecology needs data on crude feedstock rates to evaluate technical discharge limits in the nextpermit. Itneeds the ballast water flow rate and total flow rate to determine the wasteload allocation for several parameters. Itused rainfall data to determine ifthe refinery can usethe stormwater allocation. Ecologywill use the temperature data to evaluate compliance withwater quality standards inthe receiving water. The proposedpermit also requires priority pollutanttesting and dioxin testing for evaluation at the nextpermitrenewal. A. Lab Accreditation Withthe exception ofcertainparameters, the permitrequires all monitoring datato be prepared by a laboratory registered or accreditedunderthe provisions ofChapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of EnvironmentalLaboratories. The BP laboratory is currently accredited for:

• Biochemical OxygenDemand (BODS)

• Chemical OxygenDemand (COD)

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

• Phenols, Total

• pH

• Sulfide (S)

• Ammonia (N)

• Oil and Grease (O&G)

• Hexane Extractable Method B. Performance-Based Reduction ofMonitoring Frequencies
EPApublished guidance 

### inApril of 1996 entitled, "Interim Guidance ForPerformance-Based Reduction ofNPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies". EPA's goal is to reduce the regulatory burden associated with reporting and monitoring onthe basis ofexcellentperformance. The guidance provides a tool to evaluate the facility's performance.

Page 43Ecology used this guidance to evaluate several parameters in BP's treated effluent. In addition to the approach recommended in the guidance, Ecology compared maximum values withpermit limits. See AppendixN for the summary and evaluation ofmonitoring data. For the parameters evaluated, BP's monitoring history has demonstrated an ability to consistently comply with regulatory limits. Ecology based the proposed monitoring frequencies onthe guidance recommendations and bestprofessionaljudgment. Ecology elected to maintainthe current monitoring frequencies for BODS, TSS, O&G, sulfide, and phenol eventhough EPA'spolicy would have allowed less frequent monitoring. TSS and O&G are good indicators ofwhenthere is an upset condition at the wastewater treatment facility. Ecology reduced the frequency ofmonitoring for COD and ammonia. Ecology uses best professionaljudgmentto determine a reduced monitoring frequency to reward BP's good performance but also provide enough data to monitorthe health ofthe wastewatertreatment process. BP must maintain good performance levels to continue to receive the reduced monitoring frequencies. Ifthe facility's performance levels deteriorate, Ecology canrevertthe monitoring requirements to the previous levels. 

### V. OTHERPERMIT CONDITIONS A. Priority Pollutant 

### Testing
BP is required to sample the effluent from Outfall 001 annually and analyze the sample for prioritypollutants. BP must submitthe results ofthe analysis to Ecology within 60 days ofeach sampling event. B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Ecology basedpermit condition S3 on our authority to specify any appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-220-210). C. Operation and Maintenance Plan Ecology requires industries to take all reasonable steps to properly operate andmaintaintheir wastewatertreatment system in accordance with state and federal regulations [40 CFR 122.41(e) and WAC 173-220-150(1)(g)]. BP has prepared and submitted an operation and maintenance plan. Implementation ofthe procedures in the operation and maintenance planensures the facility's compliance withthe terms and limits in the permit. D. Non-Routine and Unanticipated Discharges
BP occasionally generates wastewater, which was not characterized inthe permit application because it is not a routine discharge and was not anticipated atthe time ofthe application. This wastewatertypically consists ofwater used to pressure testpetroleum storage tanks or fire water systems. WhenBPreconditions petroleum storage tanks, it thoroughly cleans and inspects them. The fmal step in the inspectionis the hydrotest, which consists offilling the 

### tank with cleanwater and monitoringthe water level inthe tank overtimeto see ifany leakage has occurred.

Page 44Discharging the hydrotest waterto the wastewater treatment system reduces the efficiency ofthe treatment since the clean water dilutes the process water. BP also tests its fire water system.
BP may request to discharge this wastewater through stormwater outfalls, such as when its wastewater system is experiencing heavy hydraulic loadings orwhen local wildlife managers request water to keep local streams orponds viable for habitat during very dry summer conditions.
The permit authorizes non-routine and unanticipated discharges under certain conditions. The refinery must characterize these wastewaters and examine any opportunities for reuse. The wastewater must meet the applicable water quality standards for the receiving water. 

### E. WastewaterTreatmentEfficiency Study and UpdatedEngineeringReport
BP submitted the results ofa treatment efficiency study and an engineering report for the wastewatertreatment systemto Ecology on June 4, 2002. Ecology approved the engineering report onJanuary 6, 2006. The basic design criteriaused to size BP's wastewatertreatment system are withinthe acceptable range ofcriteriafrom Ecology's Sewage Works Design, PublicationNo. 98-37 WQ.
Withthe additional loadings ofwastewater from the five sources below, the refmery's biological system is operating at approximately 50% ofits organic (as BODS) treatment capacity and 50% to 60% ofits hydraulic loading capacity.

• The Isomerization Unit and #2 Diesel Unit • The proposed addition ofwastewater from #3 Diesel Unit and**~raxair'**s facility • Possible future addition ofwastewater from the BP Cogeneration facility Ecology determined that the additional process wastewater from these sources will not cause adverse effects to the refinery's wastewatertreatment system and will not cause the refinery to exceed any ofits NPDES permit limitations. Ecology may require a new wastewatertreatment efficiency study ifBPproposes substantial alterations to the refmery that could cause a material change inthe quantity or composition ofthe influentprocessed by the wastewatertreatment system. 

### Inthe event Ecologyrequires the study, BP must submit a wastewatertreatment studyplanfor Ecology approval. BP must also update its engineering report to compare the newconditions withthe predicted design capacity. 

### F. Pollution Prevention Plan
The previous NPDES permitrequired BP to submit a Pollution PreventionPlanto identify opportunities to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or control releases ofpollutants to influent wastewater streams, storm water, and other waters ofthe state. The permitrequired BP to implement opportunities thatwere technically and economically feasible. TheNPDES Pollution PreventionPlanincorporatedpreviousNPDES permitrequirements for a spillplan, solid waste handling and disposal plan, and a stormwaterpollutionpreventionplan.
The following are projects completed by BP during the lastpermit cycle thathad a positive impact onwastewatertreatmentplant operations andprovide protectionto the receiving waters:

Page 45• EliminatedFilmer from the Diesel Cold Flash Drum- The benefit is elimination of the amine/anide filmer released to the oily water sewer.

111 Switched to Non-DEA (diethylamine) Neutralizer in the Crude Unit and Reformer -The chemical substitution reduces DEAreleases to the oily water sewer (OWS) and reduces the risks ofbiological upsets at the WWTP.

• Added High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Linerbeneath Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)- The liner will protect groundwaterresources.

• Developed Computer-Based Training- The training is focused onpollutionprevention education and identification ofpollutionprevention opportunities. All refinery personnel are requiredto complete the training.

• Constructed ContainmentBerm atWastewaterArea- The containmentberm prevents off-site releases ofprocess wastewater inthe refinery wastewater area and provides additional protection againstpotential impacts to nearby salmonhabitat inthe event ofa spill.

• UpgradedWWTP-area drain sump and OWS- The upgrade reduces the potential for direct discharges ofstormwater offsite during heavy rainfall events andreduces the potential for releases ofprocess wastewater.

• Replaced and Relocated Recovered OilPumps atWWTP

- The newrecovered oil pumps significantly reduce the frequency ofrequired maintenance andthe potential for oil to discharge to soil during maintenance activities.

• Installed Pump-out at No. 2 Reformer

- The refinery installed a blowdown system at the No.2 Reformer. The projectprovided a closed system for draining fluids from the process unit during regenerations and otherunit operations thereby preventing release of residual reformate into the oily water sewer.

• Reduce Heat Stable SaltFormationin DEA System

- The refinery installed a membrane systemto remove heat stable salts (HSS). Reduction ofHSS formation inthe absorbers reduces the potential for foaming, which is the primary source ofDEA introductionto the oily water sewer. The project reduces the potential for wastewater treatmentplantupsets. Theproposedpermit includes a pollutionpreventionrequirement to follow-up onthe work done bythe refinery inthe previous permit cycle. Itincludes a requirementto:

• Continue to follow and update BMPs, SOPs, and otherworkpractices to prevent or minimize the release ofpollutants to the wastewatertreatment system, stormwater, and waters ofthe state. • Submit anupdate to the currentNPDES Pollution Prevention Plan. • Submit abiennial evaluation oft1le PollutionPreventionPlan.

Page 460 Conduct storm water inspections to ensure the adequacy ofBMPs and to identify any unknown improper discharges to stormwater.

0 Continue to identify and evaluate pollutionprevention opportunities in all decisions having environmental consequences. G. Dangerous Wastes- Permitby Rule Requirements
The proposedpermit authorizes BP to treat dangerous wastes generated on or off-site at the wastewater treatment facility, under the permit-by-rule provisions ofWAC 173-303-802(5). This authorization is limited to the on-site and off-site waste streams identified and characterized inthe NPDES permit application and in application amendments approved byEcology. Wastes received from off-site include ballast water and retail distribution water. Ecology determined thatthe waste streams from off-site are similar in nature to those generated on-site and concluded that BP'swastewatertreatment facility should effectively treat them.
Effluent sampling and monitoring requirements established in the permit should adequately address the pollutants inthesewastestreams. Permit-by-ruleprovisions coverthe identified waste streams as long as the refinery complies withthe conditions ofthe NPDES permit and with the dangerous waste requirements in WAC 173-303 pertaining to:

• Notification and identificationnumbers

e Designation ofdangerous wastes • Performance standards • General waste analysis • Security • Contingencyplans and emergencyprocedures

e Emergencies

o Manifest system • Operatingrecord • Facility reporting 

### H. Outfall Evaluation BP conducted an Outfall Evaluation on September 23, 2003. The purpose ofthe evaluation was to determine the condition ofthe discharge pipe and diffusers and to determine the extent of sedimentaccumulations inthe outfall's vicinity. BP reported that the outfall line and diffuser were in good condition and functioning properly. Condition S.18 inthe proposedpermitrequires BP to conduct another outfall inspection during the next permitterm and submit a report detailing the fmdings ofthat inspection. 

### I. General Conditions Ecology bases the standardized General Conditions on state and federal law and regulations. They are included in all individual industrialNPDES permits issued byEcology.

Page 47

### VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

A. Permit Modifications Ecology may modify this permit to impose numerical limits, ifnecessary to comply with water quality standards for surface waters, with sediment quality standards, orwith water quality standards for ground waters, after obtaining new information from sources such as inspections, effluentmonitoring, outfall studies, and effluentmixing studies. Ecology may also modify this permit to comply with new or amended state or federal regulations. B. Proposed PermitIssuance The proposedpermitincludes all statutory requirements for Ecology to authorize a wastewater discharge. The permit includes limits and conditions to protect humanhealth and aquatic life, and the beneficial uses ofwaters ofthe State ofWashington. Ecologyproposes to issuethis permit for a term of5 years..


### VII. REFERENCES FORTEXTAND APPENDICES
Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2- 90-001. 1985. Water QualityAssessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water. EPA/600/6-85/002a. 1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office ofWater, Washington, D.C. Washington State Department ofEcology. 1994. Permit Writer's Manual. PublicationNumber 92-109 Washington State Department ofEcology. 2007. Focus Sheet on SolidWaste Control Plan, Developing a Solid Waste Control Plan for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permittees. PublicationNumber 07-10-024 Washington State Department ofEcology. Laws and Regulations( http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html ) Permit and Wastewater Related Information (http:/ /www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/index.html

Page 48

### APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION Ecology proposes to reissue a NPDES permit to the BP Cherry Point Refinery. The permit prescribes operating conditions and wastewater discharge limits. This fact sheet describt::s the facility and Ecology's reasons for requiring permit conditions. Ecology placed a Public Notice on Aprill3, 2011 in The Bellingham Herald and Ferndale Record to informthe public and to invite comment onthe proposed reissuance ofthis National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systempermit as drafted. TheNotice-

• Tells where copies ofthe draft Permit and Fact Sheet are available for public evaluation (a local public library, the closestRegional or Field Office, posted onourwebsite.).

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

• Asks people to tell us howwell the proposedpermitwouldprotectthe receiving water.
• Invites people to suggest fairer conditions, limits, andrequirements for the permit.

• Invites comments on Ecology's determination ofcompliance with antidegradation rules.

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

• Tells howto request a public hearing about the proposedNPDES Permit.

• Explains the next step(s) inthe permitting process. Ecology has published a document entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Effective Public Commenting which is available on our website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0307023.html. You may obtain further information from Ecology by telephone, (360) 407-6900 or by writing to the permit writer atthe address listedbelow.

LiemNguyen Department ofEcology Industrial Section P.O. Box 47706 Olympia, W A 98504-7706

The primary author ofthis permit and fact sheet is LiemNguyen.

Page 49

### APPENDIXB--GLOSSARY
1-DMax or 1-day maximum temperature- The highest watertemperature reached on any given day. This measure can be obtained using calibrated maximum/minimumthermometers or continuous monitoring probes having sampling intervals ofthirty minutes or less. 7-DADMax or 7-day average ofthe daily maximum temperatures -The arithmetic average of seven consecutive measures ofdaily maximum temperatures. The 7-DADMax for any individual day is calculatedby averaging that day's daily maximumtemperature withthe daily maximumtemperatures ofthe three days prior andthe three days after that date. Acute Toxicity--The lethal effect ofa compound on an organism that occurs in a shortperiod of time, usually 48 to 96 hours. AKART -The acronym for "allknown, available, and reasonable methods ofprevention, control and treatment." AKART is a technology-based approachto limitingpollutants from wastewater discharges whichrequires an engineeringjudgment and an economicjudgment. AKART must be applied to all wastes and contaminants prior to entry into waters ofthe state in accordance with RCW 90.48.010 and 520, WAC 173-200-030(2)(c)(ii), and WAC 173- 216-llO(l)(a). AmbientWater Quality--The existing environmental condition ofthe water in a receiving water body. Ammonia--Ammoniais produced by the breakdown ofnitrogenous materials in wastewater. Ammoniais toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to eutrophication. It also increases the amount ofchlorine neededto disinfect wastewater. Annual AverageDesign Flow (AADF)-The average ofthe daily flow volumes anticipatedto occur over a calendar year. Average Monthly DischargeLimit --The average ofthe measured values obtained over a calendar month's time. BestManagementPractices (BMPs)--Schedules ofactivities, prohibitions ofpractices, maintenance procedures, and otherphysical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution ofwaters ofthe State. BMPs include treatment systems, operating procedures, andpractices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge orwaste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, andtreatment BMPs. BOD5--Determiningthe Biochemical Oxygen Demand ofan effluent is an indirect way of mea:suring the quantity oforganic material presentin aneffluent that is utilized by bacteria. The BODs is used inmodeling to measure the reduction ofdissolved oxygen inreceiving waters after effluent is discharged. Stress causedbyreduced dissolved oxygen levels makes organisms less competitive and less able to sustaintheir species inthe aquatic environment. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defmed as ·a conventional pollutant under the federal CleanWaterAct. Bypass--The intentional diversion ofwaste streams from anyportion ofa treatment facility. Chlorine--Chlorine is usedto disinfect wastewaters ofpathogens harmful to human health. Itis also extremely toxic to aquatic life.

Page 50Chronic Toxicity--The effect ofa co;rnpound on an organism over a relatively long time, often 1/10 ofan organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction or growthrates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects ofa compound or combination ofcompounds. Clean WaterAct (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92- 500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq. ComplianceInspection- Without Sampling--A site visit for the purpose ofdetermining the compliance ofa facility with the terms and conditions ofits permit or with applicable statutes and regulations. ComplianceInspection

- With Sampling-A site visit for the purpose ofdetermining the compliance ofa facility withthe terms and conditions ofits permit or with applicable statutes and regulations. 

### In addition it includes as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all parameters with limits inthe permit to ascertain compliance withthose limits; and, for municipal facilities, sampling ofinfluentto ascertain compliance withthe 85 percent removal requirement. Ecology may conduct additional sampling. Composite Sample--A mixture ofgrab samples collected at the same samplingpoint at different times, formed eitherby continuous sampling orby mixing discretesamples. May be "timecomposite"(collected at constant time intervals) or "flow-proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or**collecte~** by increasing the volume ofeach aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constanttime interval betweenthe aliquots. Construction Activity,..-Clearing, grading, excavation and any other activity which disturbs the surface ofthe land. Such activities may include road building, construction ofresidential houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity. Continuous Monitoring-Uninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the permit. Critical Condition--The time during whichthe combination ofreceiving water and waste discharge conditions have the highestpotential for causing toxicity inthe receiving water environment. This situationusually occurs whenthe flow within a water body is low, thus, its ability to dilute effluent is reduced. DetectionLimit- See Method DetectionLevel. Dilution Factor (DF)--A measure ofthe amount ofmixing ofeffluent and receiving waterthat occurs at the boundary ofthe mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse ofthe percent effluent fraction e.g., a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% byvolume and the receiving water 90%. EngineeringReport--A document whichthoroughly examines the engineering and administrative aspects ofaparticular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report must containthe appropriate informationrequired inWAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130. Fecal Coliform Bacteria--Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators ofpathogenic bacteria in the effluentthat are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteriainwastewater discharges are controlled by disinfecting thewastewater. The presence ofhighnumbers offecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recentrelease ofuntreated wastewater and/orthe presence ofanimal feces.

Page 51Grab Sample--A single sample or measurementtaken at a specific time or over as short a period oftime as is feasible. IndustrialWastewater--Water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity ofindustry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development ofany natural resource, or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities. Major Facility--A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of 

### > 80 points based on such factors as flow volume; toxic pollutantpotential, and public health impact. Maximum Daily Discharge Limit--The highest allowable daily discharge ofa pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hourperiod that reasonablyrepresents the calendar day for purposes ofsampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement ofthe pollutant overthe day. Maximum Day Design Flow (MDDF)-The largest volume offlow anticipated to occur during a one-dayperiod, expressed as a daily average.

. Maximum Month Design Flow (MMDF)- The largest volume offlow anticipatedto occur during a continuous 30-dayperiod, expressed as a daily average. MaximumWeekDesignFlow (MWDF)- The largest volume offlow anticipated to occur during a continuous 7-day period, expressed as a daily average. Method Detection Level (MDL)--The minimum concentration ofa substance that canbe measured and reported with 99% confidence thatthe pollutant concentrationis above zero and is determined from analysis ofa sample in a given matrix containingthepollutant. MinorFacility--A facility discharging to surface water with an EPArating score of< 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxicpollutantpotential, and public health impact. MixingZone--An areathat surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality criteria may be exceeded. The area ofthe authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's permit and follows procedures outlined in state regulations (chapter 173-201A WAC). National PollutantDischargeElimination System (NPDES)--The NPDES (Section 402 ofthe CleanWater Act) is the Federal wastewaterpermitting system for discharges to navigable waters ofthe United States. Many states, including the State ofWashington, have been delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State permitwriters arejointNPDES/State permits issued underboth State and Federal laws. pH--The pH ofa liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. Itis the negative logarithm ofthe hydrogen ion concentration. A pH of7 is defmed as neutral, and large variations above or belowthis value are considered hmmful to most aquatic life. PeakHour Design Flow (PHDF)-The largest volume offlow anticipated to occur during a one-hourperiod, expressed as a daily or hourly average. PeakInstantaneous Design Flow (PIDF)-The maximum anticipated instantaneous flow. QuantitationLevel (QL)-- The smallest detectable concentration ofanalyte greaterthan the Detection Limit (DL) where the accuracy (precision &bias) achieves the objectives ofthe intendedpurpose. This may also be calledMinimum Level or Reporting Level.

Page 52

### Reasonable Potential- A reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation, or loss of sensitive and/or important habitat. Responsible Corporate Officer-- A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president ofthe corporation in charge ofa principal business function, or any otherperson who performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation, or the manager ofone or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), ifauthority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22). Technology-based EffluentLimit--Apermit limitthat is based on the ability ofatreatment method to reduce the pollutant. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)--Total suspended solids is the particulate material in an effluent. Large quantities ofTSS discharged to receiving waters may result in solids accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids m·ay kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages ofvarious aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and canpromote ahd maintain.the development ofnoxious conditions through oxygen depletion. Solid waste

-- All putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, butnot limitedto, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles orparts thereof, contaminated soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials. StateWaters--Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses withinthejurisdictionofthe state ofwashington. Stormwater--Thatportion ofprecipitationthat does notnaturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features ofa storm water drainage system into a defmed surface waterbody, or a constructed infiltration facility. Upset--An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-basedpermit effluent limits because offactors beyondthe reasonable control ofthe facility. Anupset does not include noncompliance to the extent causedby operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack ofpreventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation. Water Quality-basedEffluentLimit--A limit onthe concentration ofan effluentparameterthat is intended to preventthe concentration ofthatparameter from exceeding its water quality criterion after itis discharged into receiving waters.

Page 53APPENDIX C- WASTEWATERTREATMENT FLOWDIAGRAM APPENDIXD --MONTHLYDISCHARGEMONITORING REPORTS APPENDIXE-- TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION APPENDIX F--DRYWEATHERFLOW CALCULATION APPENDIX G--STORMW ATERALLOCATION EVENTS APPENDIXH--STORMWATERMONITORING DATA APPENDIXI--REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS Several ofthe Excel® spreadsheettools used to evaluate a discharger's ability to meet Washington State water quality standards canbe found on Ecology's homepage at http:/ /www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/pwspread/pwspread.html. APPENDIXJ--MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS DATA APPENDIXK-TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS APPENDIX L-- HERRING AND WET TESTING RESULTS APPENDIXM--GROUND WATERIMPACT STUDYRESULTS APPENDIXN--PERFORMANCE-BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING FREQUENCY APPENDIX0--RESPONSE TO.COMMENTSBallast Water**•--'------'---~** -Miscellaneous VWJ -Terminal VNV -Pipeline Hydrotest WN -Spill Response VWV

-RaflneryWW ..Cogan WN (future) -PraxalrWN (future) -Product Loading Rack -Remediation VWV SulfuricAcld --1----,-----'

Caustlc --1-c*:r----1

## R~!~:(s!~;,": I

## :~'**~PLD Fr:~o:·~:::~~~** 

Sanitary Sewer......----e Birch Bay Waste WaterTreatment Plant

.To Emergency WasteWater Impoundment Final Holding Pond Condensate to API Inlet**0~** O<D_!I!L_

__ P_M

__

### ~~::::~ bp BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC. Cherry Point Refinery WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 

## I O.O.Tf 05/08 lllc.o.!.f NTS IA\.11"1-1 

## I
AODE;D lGF SKIDS & ASSOC. EQUIPMENT """""""""'c"'"'41;J"" I ,..,...., "" 1103 !W01eeoo I R. CHRISTENSEN I FIELD VERIFIED & CONVERTED TOVISIO YW!WS] PM REVISION Figure 1NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHROUGHPUT-MO.AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX CHROMIUM- AVE HEX CHROMIUM- MAX TOTALCHROMU]M-AVE TOTAL CHROMU]M- MAX O&GcAVE O&G-MAX O&G-MAX FECAL COLIFORM- AVE FECAL COLIFORM- MAX PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL RES. CHLORINE.- MAX RES. CHLORINE- AVE

SANI-PAK BOD-AVE BOD-MAX TSS -AVE TSS-MAX LIMIT

1151 2098

923 1457 740 1724 6.2 13.7 0.8 1.8 11.1 25.2 338 629 10&15

200 400 7.5 15.5

7959 15461

30

- 45 30 45 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001


### YEAR2000 

### -DISCHARGE MONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JlJN JlJL AUG DegreeFahrenheit 16 70 68.6 77.9 82 94 84 84 Bbls/DAY 183168 168111 173023 179892 182480 182439 182931 175344 LB/DAY 297 268 182 170 140 224 208 221 LB/DAY 527 423 341 395 294 353 359 331

su 7.4 7.4 6.8 7.0 7.0 6.8 7.2 6.9 su 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.6 LB/DAY 480 431 349 371 413 394 417 459 LB/DAY 1179 910 690 672 1193 833 930 698 LB/DAY 91 111 68 56 57 39 34 90 LB/DAY 301 242 184 173 281 134 92 298 LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nt 0.30 nt nt LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nt 0.50 nt nt LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.10 nt nt LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.10 nt nt LB/DAY 182 ll8 ll5 106 127 138 170 140 LB/DAY 367 239 222 196 288 260 266 209

MG!L 8.4 6.8 5.4 4.6 5.8 8.1 8.7 6.4 Colonies!lOOmls 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Colonies/!00m1s 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 I LB/DAY 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.3 1.3 LB/DAY 7.0 3.8 0.0 3.9 2.3 5.6 2.7 5.7 INCHES 2.81 2.66 3.49 1.8 3.55 2.35 1.3 0.69

MGD 4.7 3.9 4.3 3.6 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.8 MGD 8.4 4.9 6.7 6.2 7.5 5.8 4.2 5.7 LB/DAY 2832 1816 1431 1975 2123 2590 2224 2017 LB/DAY 6649 3174 2519 3687 3678 5391 3453 2646

MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MGIL 0.18 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.14 0.22 MG!L 0.08 0.07 0.07

MGIL 2 5 3.7 4.1 MG/L 3.3 7.5 6.6 7.9 MGIL 3.3 7 5.8 5.8 MG!L 12 8.5 8 18 

### YEAR2001 -DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT

--- --------- -

Page 1 of 10 SEP OCT NOV DEC 79 77 68 66 189298 185764 180245 181116

268 188 224 146

----- 670 289 520 289 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.8 389 450 426 415 797 697 1035 784 153 141 

### -211

## -~1 -------- 524 274 370 390 ! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 nt nt nt nt

---- nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt 148 125 108 117 233 264 245 203 8.1 8.7 9.3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 3.0 2.3 0.6 8.7 6.2 6.9 4.7 2.04 2.76 2.72 3.03 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.0 8.7 6.0 7.6 8.2 2011 2540 2156 2044

---- 4017 5031 4509 3140

0 0.009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.08

---- ------

4.3 11.2 2.8 4.7 6.9 27 5.4 6.4 2.9 4.8 2.2 1 5 10.5 12 INPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

.PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHROUGHPUT- MO. AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE-MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE iHEX CHROMIUM- MAX TOTALCHROMIUM-AVE TOTALCHROMIUM- MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX O&G-MAX FECAL COLIFORM- AVE FECAL COLIFORM- MAX PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL-TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL RES. CHLORINE- AVE RES. CHLORINE- MAX

SANI-PAK BOD-AVE BOD-MAX TSS -AVE TSS-MAX

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX LIMIT

1151 2098

923 1570 740 1724 6.2 13.7 0.8 1.8 11.1 25.2 338 629 10&15

200 400 7.5 15.5

7959 15461

30 45 30 45

LIMIT APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Degree Fahrenheit 68 70 73 77 81 81 83 85 Bbls/DAY 176749 200478 211012 158641 200465 224910 223412 223247 LB/DAY 168 266 262 469 216 371 300 250 LB/DAY 519 497 485 1162 436 793 499. 417



### su 6.5 7.4 7.0 7.2 6.9 7.2 7.1 6.9 

### su 8.0 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.1 8.5 8.6 8.0 LB/DAY 438 307 466 340 255 393 518 393 LB/DAY 1308 510 1179 706 619 748 787 711 LB/DAY 225 189 174 252 303 334 109 240 LB/DAY 676 358 373 974 609 565 279 567 LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.60 1.00 LB/DAY 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.60 1.10 1.10 1.40 4.30 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt. nt nt <0.13 nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt 0.14 nt nt nt 0.09 nt LB/DAY nt nt 0.15 nt 0.15 nt 0.10 nt LB/DAY 135 81 108 103 93 96 129 99 LB/DAY 353 149 393 241 168 201 187 183

MGIL 7.6 4.4 6.6 3.8 5 5.7 6.3 5.1 Colonies/!OOmls 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 Colonies/!OOmls 0 24 0 0 12 12 0 0 LB/DAY 0.7 2.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 1.1 0.9 4.1 LB/DAY 4.8 4.2 4.5 5.3 4.1 3.6 3.5 5.6 INCHES 3.2 0.8 3.28 3.19 1.35 1.89 0.78 2.12

MGD 4.0 3.4 4.2 4.6 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.6 MGD 8.7 5.1 7.9 8.0 6.0 6.3 4.2 5.0 LB/DAY 2048 1805 2464 2104 1918 1972 2563 2119 LB/DAY 3852 2841 4389 4533 3501 3510 4536 5504 AVEIMGD 0.003 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MGIL 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.08 MGIL 0.13 0.10 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.17

MG/L 3.1 8.8 7.9 16.4 15 5.4 5 2.8 MGIL 6 13 10.1 34 27 7.1 5.8 5.8 MGIL 1 2.6 4.6 25.3 20 2.4 2.2 3.4 MG/L 2 5.5 9 33.5 30 6.0 3.0 6.5 

### YEAR2002 -DISCHARGE MONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Degree Fahrenheit 66 67 72 74 77 83 86 84

Page 2 oflO SEP ocr NOV DEC 80 74 68

. 63 176758 224002 165682 188739

273 452 334 452 471 1252 774 858 6.7 7.2 7.0 6.9 8.2 7.6 7.6 7.7

---- 371 551 600 687 665 1608 1395 1553 84 131 185 196

. 217 187 327 405

----- ---- 0.40 0.40 0.60 2.80 0.70 1.30 1.20 13.50

-- ------- nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt- nt

-- ---- r-----

----- 117 105 144 120 199 399 264 223 7.2 6.2 7.4 4.4

---- 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3.6 0.8 2.6 1.7 6.4 1.9 8.9 6.8 1.42 4.72 4.18 4.81 3.1 3.6 4.4 4.6 4.2 7.7 7.1 8.1 2022 2307 2566 2183 4164 4730 5684 5540

---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.15 0.14

1.5 1 1 <I**~--~,---·**------ 3 1 1 <1 2.4 2.5 1.6 <1 3 4.5 2.5 < 1 r----

..

SEP OCT NOV DEC

----- 80 74 L_ 72 71NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

CRUDETHROUGHPUT-MO.AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX !pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM-MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM- MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS- MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL RES. CHLORINE- AVE RES. CHLORINE- MAX

SANI-PAK BOD-AVE BOD-MAX TSS -AVE TSS-MAX

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHROUGHPUT-MO.AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN 1240 2260

990 1570 870 !910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610

30 45 30 45

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

Bbls/DAY 217835 218018 212147 175211 186498 205862 206016 211139 LB/DAY 749 576 444 408 262 349 325 410 LB/DAY 1833 1499 823 991 763 670 1052 813

su 7.2 6.9 7.4 7.7 6.9 6.8 6.4 6.9 su 7.8 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.1 8.6 8.5 8.4**-~** LB/DAY 574 761 467 552 393 680 594 573 LB/DAY 1153 2457 1131 1622 878 1548 1499 1094 LB/DAY 393 226 138 86 57 267 185 220 LB/DAY 846 815 352 210 113 656 681 474 LB/DAY 0.80 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.50 0.40 0.30 LB/DAY 1.80 1.60 0.90 1.20 0.60 2.20 1.60 0.60 LB/DAY nt nt nt· nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY <0.13 nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.17 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY <0.14 nt nt nt nt nt nt 0.37 LB/DAY 123 114 76 71 61 101 111 86 LB/DAY 285 277 198 198 143 238 202 146

MG!L 5.4 5 5.4 5.6 4.7 6.6 5.6 4.7 LB/DAY 2.2 1.4 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.5 1.4 1.5 LB/DAY 9.6 7.4 6.8 1.7 3.3 3.8 5.2 4.4 INCHES 5.11 3.54 1.83 2.67 1.92 1.77 0.81 0.39

MGD 4.2 4.5 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.5 3.0 MGD 7.7 9.8 6.0 6.9 6.6 6.5 7.8 4.4 LB/DAY 2034 2798 2094 2084 2389 2879 2813 2227 LB/DAY 5401 5642 3430 4744 3911 5027 6842 3436 AVE/MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MG!L 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.03 na - no longer chlorinating MG!L 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 na - no longerchlorinating

MG!L I 1 1.7 na - connected to BirchBay MG/L 1 1 2.4 na - connected to Birch Bay MG!L 1.7 1.4 9.3 na -connectedto Birch Bay MG/L 2.5 2.5 13:5 na - connectedto Birch Bay 

### YEAR2003- DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG DegreeFahrenheit 71 72 73 75 79 84 89 82 Bbls/DAY 221959 203573 206908 206497 212010 192705 211302 209144 LB/DAY 350 290 232 268 288 325 272 357 LB/DAY 714 589 604 546 516 846 675 769

su 7.1 7.4 7.1 6.9 7 7.16 7.2 7.05

Page 3 of 10 219917 195912 203716 215506 493 405 656 567 806 932 1148 1247 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0

----··-- ·---· 8.2 7.9 7.7 7.6**c------~- ---~** **--~- ~--·-**  510 450 797 406 963 896 5132 1472**--~~~ --~-**  260 148 206 312

--**----~ -~-----**  425 479 523 678 !------ 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.40**-~~-- f--·-··-~·-··**  nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.17 nt nt nt nt nt nt nt 0.34 nt ' ------"

-------- 85 96 100 116 135 233 266 235 5.5 4.9 7.7 6.4

--**1-----~** --- 1.6 0.5 1.8 2.3 4.0 1.1 6.9 8.3 1.45 0.92 4.31 3.94 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.4 3.8 7.2 7.8 7.8 2791 2266 2833 2661 6917 3644 4801 3979

-·--·**-·-····-~** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

I

-··-- SEP OCT NOV DEC 81 76 69 66.5 182519 176322 213007 201897

----- 436 545 321 271 825 1140 944 541 6.93 6.93 7.15 6.89NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0
pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM -MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM- MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW -AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHROUGHPUT- MO. AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE

- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM- MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM-MAX O&G-AVE 9 990 1570 870 i910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001



### su 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.5 8.97 8.94 8.98 LB/DAY 382 286 349 325 504 651 584 592 LB/DAY 788 512 903 788 1252 1261 1389 1103 LB/DAY 264 55 70 147 205 130 132 155 LB/DAY 550 121 205 291 385 257 262 587 LB/DAY 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 LB/DAY 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.5 I 1.6 1.2 1.4 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.16 nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt 0.07 0.24 nt LB/DAY 100 63 73. 99 101 87 91 122 LB/DAY 171 120 160 201 211 189 179 286

MGIL 4.9 4 4.5 5.1 5 6.9 6.6 6.6 LB/DAY 3.3 1.4 1.3 0.4 0.7 0.7. 1.6 1.5 LB/DAY 5.6 3.2 8.3 0.9 1.9 2.8 3.3 2.8 INCHES 4.91 1.23 4.83 3.61 2.25 0.8 0.18 0.19

MGD 4.5 3.8 4.2 3.7 3.7 2.9 2.8 3.4 MGD 7.4 4.7 8.3 6.3 7.9 5.4 5 6.4 LB/DAY 2707 1845 2228 2224 2238 2080 2082 2695 LB/DAY 4171 ' 3034 4097 3549 5499 4093 3770 4331 AVEIMGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### YEAR2004- DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG DegreeFahrenheit 68.1 68.9 72.2 78.5 81 83 86 84.4 Bbls/DAY 201616 204337 187713 193884 97598 174598 201730 211599 LB/DAY 331 370 359 251 358 403 211 213 LB/DAY 830 779 836 368 794 923 366 454



### su 7.13 7.33 6.88 7.78 7 6.72 6.99 6.67 

### su 7.75 7.92 7.9 9 9 8.39 9.01 8.97 LB/DAY 515 416 425 523 554 354 560 621 LB/DAY 1111 1044 847 917 982 949 1097 1442 LB/DAY 358 173 58 82 120 182 39 96 LB/DAY 546 463 164 237 345 500 108 257 LB/DAY 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.7 LB/DAY 1.5 1.4 1.1 0.8 3.3 1.1 0.8 1.4 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY 124 96

.... 94 120 103

____ '

__ 141

- ll3 121

-

Page 4 of 10 8.1 7.87 7.95 7.8 484 537 615 452 873 1378 1525 914 416 412 380 347 632 1194 880 914

- 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.8 1.6 2.4 1.6 nt nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.1 nt nt nt nt nt nt nt 0.15 126 143 151 100 225 267 453 166 7.8 7.6 8.2 6.5 0.4 2.8 1 0.7 2 6.5 2.4 3.8 1.62 10.59 5.55 0.69 3.4 5.5 4.8 3.7 5.1 9.7 9.7 7.1 2785 2926 3056 2111 4457 8165 6936 3997

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

--· 0 0 0 0

. --- SEP ocr NOV DEC 78.91 77.1

## 2~:i93 69.4 189067 176322 214480

419 351 502 401 711 778 987 815 7.1 6.4 6.98 6.33 8.53 8.7 8.04 7.68 392 482 616 546 849 1309 1580 1503 141 243 295 433 343 872 641 981 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.9 2.4 4.6 -nt nt nt nt nt <0.17 nt <0.18 nt nl nt nt nt <0.05 nt 0.223 105 90 129 102

--------NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHROUGHPUT- MO. AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE-MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM- MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM- MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL-TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

LB/DAY 165 223 177 188 194 283 214 283

MG/L 4.4 4.9 4.8 6.6 4.8 10.3 6.1 8.8 LB/DAY 1.2 1.3 2.1 1.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.2 LB/DAY 3 5.7 5.2 3.8 1 2.3 1.5 2.6 INCHES 2.57 1.72 3.23 0.3 1.97 0.74 0.55 2.57

MGD 4.6 4 3.9 3.4 

### n 3.3 3.4 3.8 MGD 8.9 8.3 6.4 4.6 5.7 6.8 4.8 6.2 LB/DAY 2545 2220 2086 2361 2441 2436 2196 2605 LB/DAY 4026 3895 5116 3243 4869 4756 5221 5040 AVEIMGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES Q 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 

### YEAR2005- 

### DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Degree Fahrenheit 70.5 70.5 73.7 80.1 84.2 81.7 84.5 84.5 Bbls/DAY 214762 215913 222191 89779 78341 220193 231152 214567 LB/DAY 260 321 291 507 273 444 290 441 LB/DAY 468 833 906 972 403 780 575 1185

su 6.54 6.87 6.83 7 6.65 7.08 6.9 6.96 su 7.61 7.75 7.74 8.36 8.23 7.68 8.61 8.61 LB/DAY 799 466 519 586 284 506 392 426 LB/DAY 2378 1170 1651 1601 612 1091 730 869 LB/DAY 312 250 288 233 249 169 296 311 LB/DAY 553 724 504 501 612 311 637 791 LB/DAY 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 LB/DAY 1.6 1.3 1.9 2.1 1.2 1.6 0.9 1.4 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY 109 109 146 154 90 159 126 144 LB/DAY 325 179 268 299 180 300 196 229

MG/L 4.8 4.8 7.8 7.8 6.3 8.7 6.2 6.J LB/DAY 1.4 1.1 2.3 1.4 0.3 3 1.8 2 LB/DAY 7.9 2.6 5.5 5.5 0.4 6.4 4.2 6 INCHES 5.4 0.93 3.21 2.43 1.78 1.66 0.86 0.98

MGD 5.5 4.2 4.7 4.1 3.1 4.1 3.7 4.4 MGD 9.5 8.3 9.4 8.4 4.9 6.5 5.5 8 LB/DAY 2954 2438 3084 3011 1896 3062 2947 2670 LB/DAY 6285 4443 4885 6504 3752 4933 5182 4225 AVEIMGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 5 of 10 220 153 318 214

---- 5.6 6.2 7.6 4.3

. 0.4 0.7 1.4 1.5 0.8 1.9 2.4 3.1 3.68 3.8 8.13 5.35 4.1 4.5 5.8 5.2 6.4 8.7 9.5 9 2402 2433 2803 2774 3949 4073 5091 4723

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEP OCT NOV DEC 77.4 73.7 68.1 67.5 177759 224378 219498 231343

283 433 462 395 641 810 888 704 6.94 7 6.89 6.69 8.19 9.3 7.79 8.17 285 514 831 575 592 1431 1807 1132

·-- -----**~---** 400 270 274 167 728 622 452 317 --·· 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 r----- 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.5 nt nt nl <0.17 nt nt nt <0.21 nt nt nt 0.1 nt nt nt 0.12 105 125 130 97 196 211 426 161 5.8 6.2 6.1 6 1.6 3.2 2.6 2.6 4.3 6.9 8.4 10.1 1.57 4.68 4.75 3.62 3.9 4.7 5.7 4.5 8.4 8.6 8.4 8

------- 2382 2518 3202 2283

--- 7013 6799 6696 3537

0 0 0 0**-~--·**r--··--- -·-- 0 0 0 0**--~ ----~~-**  ----- 0 0 0 0NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHRU-AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM- MAX TOTALCHROMIUM-AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM-MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX O&G-MAX PHENOLICS- AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW -AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHRU- AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

7959 15461

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001



### YEAR2006 -DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Fahrenheit 67.2 68.5 74 78 82 86.4 89.1 84.2 Bbls/DAY 227917 207627 223013 193472 222435 234051 230403 207973 LB/DAY 520 279 409 219 352 425 462 428 LB/DAY 900 886 1329 368 801 725 768 915

su 7.7 6.9 7.2 6.7 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.9 su 6.8 7.7 7.8 7.7 8.8 8.4 8.3 7.0 LB/DAY 1065 578 473 521 524 638 752 745 LB/DAY 2342 2027 946 895 895 888 1160 1383 LB/DAY 187 223 436 165 100 226 158 303 LB/DAY 332 546 845 492 380 421 466 774 LB/DAY 1.30 0.80 0.60 0.70 0.20 0.50 1.20 1.00 LB/DAY 4.00 2.30 1.40 1.80 0.90 1.30 2.80 1.90 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt <0.15 nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt 0.09 nt nt LB/DAY 181 107 76 101 83 107 140 99 LB/DAY 351 239 172 209 182 201 450 243

MG/L 5.3 6.6 5 5.4 4.8 6.3 12.1 5.1 LB/DAY 4.0 2.6 2.8 1.6 0.4 1.3 5.0 3.4 LB/DAY 9.2 8.0 6.0 3.6 1.1 4.0 10.4 7.5 INCHES 9.45 1.59 1.25 2.88 1.32 1.22 0.16 0.35

MGD 6.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.5 4.3 5.0 4.7 MGD 9.5 9.0 6.2 6.4 4.8 6.7 6.6 7.3 LB/DAY 4693 3027 2751 3058 3384 3458 3965 3298 LB/DAY 11518 5159 4424 4574 6099 5275 6121 5912 AVE/MGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

### YEAR2007- DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Fahrenheit 68.1 71.7 73.9 77.4 83.7 85.1 88.4 85.7 Bbls/DAY 221,430 218,713 215,724 135,884 194,451 224,647 226,470 208,374 LB/DAY 489 375 274 549 410 403 333 389 LB/DAY 1067 900 513 1230 655 901 811 548

su 6.2 7.2 6.5 6.9 6:9 5.3 6.8 7.0 su 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.7 LB/DAY 873 708 826 513 523 568 637 734 LB/DAY 2320 1543 2064 987 837 888 958 1204

Page 6 of 10 

### __L

__

SEP OCT Nov· DEC 83.1 76.1 69.5 67.5 181810 151726 172921 208202

253 359 475 315 387 710 885 754

·-·- ---- 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.8 8.1 7.5 7.7 8.0

----- 474 423 779 692 822 1096 1837 1980 386 162 344 419 704 547 919 816

----·- ------- 0.50 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 2.70 3.00 2.10 nt nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.17

. nt nt nl nt nt nt nt 0.48 79 116 106.00 87

··---- ---- 153 290 218 169**-~** --- 5.5 8.4 3.5 3 2.0 2.9 3.1 2.6 4.1 5.9 6.4 5.5 2.74 2.03 10.1 4.09 3.7 4.0 6.2 5.4 5.1 5.5 9.6 9.1

----- 2415 3193 3090 3154 4605 5599 4953 6789

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEP OCT NOV DEC 82.6 74.5 72.4 66.5 206,320 202,069 169,448 205,271

314 401 427 491 526 771 722 1416

-· -· ---- 7.1 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.9 7.9 8.2 7.8 512 594 539 1000 925 1295 974 2985

----NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMWM- MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM- MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL-TOTAL FLOW -AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATER FLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDE THRU- AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM-MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE TOTALCHROMWM-MAX 0&0-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

LB/DAY 88 124 64 187 117 83 212 206 LB/DAY 304 303 199 433 310 372 591 364 LB/DAY 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.60 1.50 0.30 LB/DAY 1.60 1.30 1.60 1.10 3.00 1.40 2.90 1.70 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.2 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt 0.16 LB/DAY 65 91 117 120 117 104 104 90 LB/DAY 128 176 247 294 356 202 158 144

MG!L 2.4 4.3 3.4 9 13 4.8 4.2 3.5 LB/DAY 3.2 1.9 2.2 3.2 2.4 2.0 2.8 1.6 LB/DAY 6.9 5.2 7.1 9.9 4.6 4.2 3.6 3.3 INCHES 1.37 3.82 7.19 1.81 1.49 1.68 1.53 0.55

MGD 5.6 5.4 6.4 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.9 5.0 MOD 9.3 8.8 9.5 7.9 6.1 5.6 6.2 6.9 LB/DAY 3858 3064 3851 3674 4128 4269 4063 3678 LB/DAY 9863 6070 8535 10115 6828 7878 6262 5319 AVE/MOD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

### YEAR2008 -DISCHARGEMONITORING REPORT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Fahrenheit 67 73 71 75 81 85 83 83 Bbls!DAY 201,900 214,414 220,826 186,395 215,498 221,747 216,217 220,124 LB/DAY 239 227 414 284 146 182 250 211 LB/DAY 444 803 699 575 198 344 410 328

su 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3 6.9 7.2 7.7 su 7.8 7.7 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.7 9.1 8.8 LB/DAY 794 551 591 524 504 673 799 871 LB/DAY 2,221 1,385 946 1,068 836 1,059 1,309 1,655 LB/DAY 196 178 60 31 25 37 25 39 LB/DAY 617 484 188 97 126 91 64 104 LB/DAY 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.9 LB/DAY 4.3 2.0 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.0

-- LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt <0.18 nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt

. nt LB/DAY nt 0.21 nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY 69 50 87 43 53 77 88 73 LB/DAY 136 96 201 100 107 182 196 150 MG/L 2.2 2.2 4.1 2.4 3.0 5.8 6.2 5.0 LB/DAY 1.3 2.6 1.7 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.7 LB/DAY 2.6 5.9 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.3

Page 7 oflO 69 202 40 85 212 588 162 253 0.80 1.20 0.70 2.10 1.60 2.00 1.30 6.00 nt nt nt nt <0.12 nt nt nt

nt nt nt nt

- 0.07 nt nt nt 82 81 54 92**--~~-** ---- 162 171 101 304 4.2 3.5 2.4 4

-- 2.2 2.1 1.4 2.5 5.8 4.1 2.8 6.1 1.48 3.45 2.52

. 5.91 4.4 4.8 4.2 5.6**-~~** 5.5 8.2 6.9 9.1 3426 3258 2465 3926 6795 5727 3781 8978

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEP OCT NOV DEC 82 76 72 71 214,697 211,781 233,772 220,182 1--·--- 147 181 218 431 295 376 659 1,637 7.3 7.3 7.0 7.3**·--~ -~-~**  8.5 8.0 7.8 7.6 598 459 678 638

--- 1,101 856 1,772 1,215 29 236 99 214 78 616 286 1,146 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7

----**r-----~** --- 1.5 0.8 1.2 2.4

------ ---- ----**~--** nt nt nt nt

-- -----**--~-** <0.22 nt nt nt

---- nt nt nt nt

----**~--~-** 0.17 nt nt nt 53 43 53 116 138 100 169 407

-----**-~-** 3.8 3.1 3.0 13.8

----- ----- 1.3 2.0 2.6 2.9**~-**3.0 3.6 6.2 5.1NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-00229G-O

RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE ICOD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHRU- AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM- MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM- AVE TOTAL CHROMIUM- MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW -AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE- MAX CRUDETHRU- AVE 8540 16610

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610

LIMIT APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

INCHES 4.1 2.2 3.5 LI 1.7 1.6 0.3 2.5 MGD 4.9 4.7 4.9 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.6 MGD 8.6 6.5 8.1 8.0 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.9 LB/DAY 3,675 3,040 3,603 2,457 2,846 3,661 3,357 3,351 LB/DAY 8,020 4,491 8,748 4,204 4,486 6,310 6,064 6,699 AVEIMGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 

### YEAR2009- DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Fahrenheit 70 72 72 78 82 86 90 86 Bbls/DAY 216,421 224,185 216,891 162,882 140,097 197,513 216,410 190,533 LB/DAY 566 165 !50 206 161 148 141 218 LB/DAY 1,179 291 305 431 292 313 229 389

su 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.1 su 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.2 8.7 8.4 LB/DAY 767 421 554 564 382 471 638 475 LB/DAY 1,538 744 890 1,545 812 932 1,023 854 LB/DAY 302 18 26 64 52 91 23 169 LB/DAY 760 30 70 140 157 229 51 549 LB/DAY 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 LB/DAY 4.7 0.7 0.6 1.6 6.2 0.9 1.7 2.2 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt <0.19 nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt

· LB/DAY nt nt 0.04 nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY 63 25 41 35 42 35 45 80 LB/DAY 162 70 104 117 201 78 101 272 MG/L 2.7 1.9 2.2 2.8 4.0 2.5 3.1 7.2 LB/DAY 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.3 3.2 2.3 2.9 LB/DAY 4.0 3.6 3.6 5.7 3.6 5.3 3.4 4.6 INCHES 4.2 2.1 3.0 2.1 3.0 0.4 0.7 1.3 MGD 6.2 4.4 5.2 5.2 4.9 4.2 4.0 3.9 MGD 9.7 7.3 7.6 9.7 7.5 5.4 5.1 5.2 LB/DAY 3,878 2,383 2,460 2,396 2,709 2,528 3,107 2,513 LB/DAY 7,728 3,391 5,206 3,228 4,211 3,749 5,892 4,150 AVEIMGD 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### YEAR2010 -DISCHARGEMONITORINGREPORT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Fahrenheit 67.8 69.2 71.8 75.4 77.9 79.9 85.5 86.5 Bbls/DAY 202,859 215,041 212,737 215,689 217,216 217,178 211,594 211,468

Page 8 of10 0.7 1.3 5.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 10.1 9.5**~----~~ --~~-**  3,077 2,818 3,360 4,628 4,857 3,830 6,279 11,513

----·---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEP OCT NOV DEC 80 75 70 67**~---** :------ 222,074 213,121**~.2~** 221,544**r---~~**

164 220 201 !53

--- --- 262 491 454 327 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.5

-- 8.6 7.7 7.9 7.8 423 514 658 648 793 1,272 1,894 1,558 85 207 42 27 156 804 96 119 1.0 0.5 1.4 1.2 2.8 0.8 4.5 6.6 nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.16 nt nt nt nt nt r--------

----- nt nt 0.1 nt 117 62 36 43 312 145 114 167 13.7 5.0 2.3 3.1 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.4 4.0 4.9 3.9 4.8 2.0 5.2 6.4 2.3 3.8 5.1 5.2 4.7 4.8 9.6 9.9 8.9 3,081 3,401 2,871 3,035 4,789 5,157 4,937 8,161

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SEP OCT NOV DEC

------ 78.6 77.2 74.1

. 70.6 208,002 205,045 210,256 210,403NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0

BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIDM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM- MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM- AVE TOTALCHROMillM-MAX O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOLICS -AVE PHENOLICS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW-AVE FLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATERFLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

PARAMETERS TEMPERATURE-MAX CRUDE THRU- AVE BOD-AVE BOD-MAX pH -MIN pH -MAX TSS-AVE TSS-MAX AMMONIA-AVE AMMONIA-MAX SULFIDE- AVE SULFIDE- MAX HEX. CHROMIUM- AVE HEX. CHROMIUM- MAX TOTAL CHROMIUM-AVE 1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 27.5 360 680 10&15

8.1 16.7

8540 16610

LIMIT

1240 2260

6 9 990 1570 870 1910 6.7 14.7 0.9 2.0 12.5 APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

LB/DAY 144 Ill 97 148 !56 283 137 118 LB/DAY 247 189 !54 318 416 586 307 218

su 7.4 7.1 7 7.1 7.1 7 6.9 7.4 su 8 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.7 8.2 7.9 LB/DAY 610 543 518 548 445 525 555 511 LB/DAY 1307 1215 1021 1232 1210 833

. 1205 962 LB/DAY 21 19 26 28 70 62 28 23 LB/DAY 39 32 51 110 201 160 66 46 LB/DAY 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 LB/DAY 2.2 1 0.9 1.9 1.5 1.7 0.7 1 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt <0.14 nt nt nt <0.04 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt LB/DAY nt nt nt 0.08 nt nt nt 0.07 LB/DAY 36 26 26 90 31 103 20 22 LB/DAY 104 71 71 241 78 393 53 88 MGIL 2.7 1.4 1.5 8.6 2.2 9 2.2 3.1 LB/DAY !.3 1.5 2 2.2 2.7 2.2 1.3 1.8 LB/DAY 2.3 2.6 3.5 5.2 5.3 3.9 2.2 2.7 INCHES 4.38 2.69 3.51 1.68 3.01 1.83 0 1.27 MGD 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.5 3.9 4.1 MGD 8.7 7.7 8.5 7.8 9.1 6.6 4.4 6.1 LB/DAY 2236 2336 2273 3062 2561 3505 2656 2795 LB/DAY 3890 3772 4116 4619 4445 6256 4249 4252

. AVEIMGD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

### YEAR2011 -DISCHARGEMONITORING REPORT UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Fahrenheit 68.2 68.3 74 73 77.5 79.4 81.6 81.7 Bbls/DAY 186,855 193,699 208,080 82,941 40,528 210,316 224,330 216,811 LB/DAY 53 54 52 57 98 62 69 89 LB/DAY 85 156 127 126 250 88 127 152

su 7 7.6 7.5 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.4 6.9 su 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.1 8 8.2 7.9 LB/DAY 672 570 558 536 413 415 438 454 LB/DAY 1941 1110 1498 1358 994 641 876 865 LB/DAY 24 18 19 19 22 17 16 25 LB/DAY 43 37 42 41 62 41 25 61 LB/DAY 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 LB/DAY 1.7 1.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 0.4 1 1.2 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.09 LB/DAY nt nt nt nt nt nt nt <0.09 LB/DAY nt nt nt

__ L_

__ _____!!__!

-- L_

______E_!__

---- nt , ___ nt -·. 0.14

Page 9 of 10 208 179 139 121**--~~~** 419 337 412 276

7 6.8 7.5 7.3 7.7 8 8 7.9 640 470 594 720 1214 887 1545 1684 28 52 21 25**-----~-** !-----·- 49 307 58 46 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.7 1.5 2 nt nt nt nt**~--~--** nt nt nt nt nt nt nt nt

. nt nt nt nt

.. 89 34 26 30 470 140 96 89 12.5 2.7 1.5 2.1 1----··--**·---~** 2.4 1.8 1.6 2.5 5.3 3.1 4.4 5.7 5.52 2.13 3.77 5.7

-· 5.9 4.3 4.7 5.6 1----· 10.5 6.6 8.8 9.7 3316 2815 2234 2446 6414 5096 6696 4162**---~ --~~** 

0 0 0 0**·------~ --~--** **-~~-~-** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0**f--~~~ ~-**  SEP ocr NOV DEC 82.3 75.5 74.4 72.2

. 225,254 206,601 213,579 218,186 139 72 135 88 242 161 371 162 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.8 7.5 7.7 531 364 661 546 1184 822 1695 1053 42 17 21 17 164 24 39 34 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.5 3 2 nt nt nt <0.07 nt nt nt <0.07

-----**~~-** nt ,___ nt nt 0.11NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-002290-0**TOTALCHRO~-MAX** O&G-AVE O&G-MAX 0 & G- MAX (Concentration) PHENOUCS -AVE PHENOUCS -MAX RAINFALL- TOTAL FLOW -AVE fLOW-MAX COD-AVE COD-MAX BALLASTWATER FLOW pH EXCURSIONS > 60 MIN. pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL

Note: nt- no test 27.5 LB/DAY 360 LB/DAY 680 LB/DAY 10&15 MG/L

8.1 LB/DAY 16.7 LB/DAY INCHES

MGD MGD 8540 LB/DAY 16610 LB/DAY AVEIMGD MONTiiTOTAL ACCUM. MINUTES APPENDIX D- MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT SUMMARY FOR OUTFALL 001

nt nt nt nt nt nt nt 0.14 31 19 31 25 24 28 26 23 95 43 100 62 56 61 55 65 2.5 1.3 2.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.3 1.7 1.5 0.8 4.3 1.5 3.1 2.5 0.8 2.3. 4.1 3.4 7.16 2.33 3.95 3.37 3.63 0.66 1.87 0.47 5.8 4.3 4.5 4.7 4 3.6 3.8 4.1 10.2 8.9 10 9.8 9.2 5 6.1 5.6 2550 2155 2541 2069 1852 2236 2175. 2155 4761 3182 4909 3595 5197 2908 2989 2998

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

- -**-~**

Page 10 oflO nt nt nt 0.11 27 22 26 22

·-- -- 61 75 85 81 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.3 0.6 1**---~~- ~-~--**  3.9 3.3 2.3 2.4 1.92 1.94 3.99 2.17 4.4 4 5.1 4 7.6 5.7 9.4 8.1 2512 2216 3006 2573 4129 3434 5721 5043

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-------····-NPDES Permit WA-002290-0 APPENDIX E- TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION

I Capacity 

## I I Process Weightin

# i Process Rate (1000 1 Relative to Process bbls/day) IThroughput g Factor Configuration BASELINE: I I I I I I Crude: I I I Desalting j 106 1.00 I Atmospheric Distillation 106 1.00 I Vacuum Distillation I 551- I 0.52 I Crude Total I 2671 I 2.52 II 2.52 I I I I Cracking: 35 0.33 6 1.98 I I Coking: 29 0.27 6 1.64
Total Process Configuration Factor I 6.14 I NEW SOURCEPERFORMANCE STANDARDS: I PREVIOUS PRODUCTION Crude Desalting 205 1.00 Atmospheric Distillation 205 1.00 Vacuum Distillation 

### I 115.1 I 0.56 Crude Total 

### I 525.1 2.56 1 2.56 Cracking: 53.5 0.26 6 1.57 Coking: 55.7 0.27 6 1.63
Total Process Configuration Factor I 5.76
CURR.ENT PRODUCTION Crude 

### I I Desalting 209 

### I 

### r.ool Atmospheric Distillation 209 1.00 Vacuum Distillation 139 0.67 Crude Total 557 2.67 1 2.67 Cracking: 55 0.26 6 1.58 I Coking: 60 0.29 6 ' 1.72
Total Process Configuration Factor 5.97 I The process rate information can be found tabulated in the fact sheet in the technology based limits section. A comprehensive example ofthe above calculation can be found in 40 CFR Chapter 419.42(b)(3). A process configuration of6.0- 6.49 results in a process factor of1.09 in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(2). A process configuration of5.5

- 5.99 results in a process factor of1.00 I
I 

## i

' I

I

I

Size factors are determined from the amount offeedstock per day. 100,000 to 124,900 bbls/day results in a size factor of1.23 and 150,000 orgreaterresults in a size factor of1.41 in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(1).
Baseline Process Factor= 1.09 (baseline production= 106,000 bbls/day) (as per 419.22 (b)(2)) CurrentProcess Factor= 1.00 (currentproduction 209,000 bbls/day) (as per 419.22 (b)(2)) 

### I

Page 1 I j

! I

I I

I

'**~,**NPDES Permit WA-002290-0

Baseline Size Factor= Previous Size Factor Current Size Factor= 

### I I

c APPENDIX E**~** TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION

1.23 

### I Baseline Condition= I 106,000

### I bbls/day 1.411 Baseline Condition= 205,000 bbls/day 1.41 Current Condition = 

### I 209,000 bbls/day I Adjusted Production=Production *(Process factor)*(Size factor) i 

### I I Adjusted Baseline Production = 1106,000 bbls/day

### * 1.09 * 1.23 = 142,114 ibbls/day Adjusted Previous Production = 205,000 bbls/day *I* 1.41 = 

### I 289,050 bbls/day Adjusted Current Production = 209,000 bbls/day * 1 * 1.41 = 294,690 bbls/day 

### I I I I [as per 419.22(b)(1)] [as per 419.22(b)(1)] [as per 419.22(b)(l)]

I

New Source Performance Standard Increment=AdjustedPrevious Production- Adjusted BaselineProduction= 146,936 New Source Performance Standard Increment = Adjusted CurrentProduction

- Adjusted BaselineProduction = 152,576 

### I I Technology based limits are based onthe adjusted production levels, with the exception ofBAT limits for phenols and chrommm. I I I I I I

Page 2 

### I

I

bbls/day bbls/dayNPDES Pennit WA-002290-0 APPENDIX E- TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION FOR CRUDE THROUGHPUT AT 205,000 bbls/day

BASELINE BASELINE BAT LIMITS PERMIT BPTLIMITS PERMIT NSPSLIMITS NSPS TOTALLIMlT TOTAL LIMIT**---~** LBS/1000BBLS BATLIMITS LBS!lOOOBBLS BPTLIMITS LBS/1 OOOBBLS INCREMENT BPTBASIS BAT BASIS LBS/DAY LBS/DAY LBS/DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY MAX 30DAY

----- DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE DAY AVE

1BOD 9.9 5.5 1407 782 5.8 3.1 852 456 2259 1237 TSS 6.9 4.4 981 625 4 2.5 588 367 1568 993 COD 74 38.4 10516 5457 74 38.4 10516 5457 41.5 21 6098 3086 16614 8543 16614 8543 OIL&GREASE 0 3 1.6 426 227 1.7 0.93 250 137 676 364 AMMONIAASN 6.6 3 938 426 6.6 3 938 426 6.6 3 970 441 1908 867 1908 867 SULFIDE 0.065 0.029 9 4 0.065 0.029 9.24 4.12

. 0.037 0.017 5.44 2.50 14.67 6.62 14.67 6.62
PHENOLIC CMPDS 0.074 0.036 10.52 5.12 0.042 0.02 6.17 2.94 16.69 8.05 24.79 7.44

CRUDE 0.013 0.003 3.47 0.80

--- CRACKING 0.147 0.036 11.32 2.77**---~** REFORMING 0.132 0.032 3.83 0.93
TOTAL CHROMIUM 0.15 0.088 21.32 12.51 0.084 0.049 12.34 7.20 33.66 19.71 27.55 12.50

CRUDE 0.011 0.004 2.94 1.07 CRACKING 0.119 0.041 9.16 3.16 REFORMING 0.107 0.037 3.10 1.07

-- HEX CHROMIUM 0.012 0.0056 1.71 0.80 0.0072 0.0032 1.06 0.47 2.76 1.27 2.03 0.90

CRUDE 0.0007 0.0003 0.19 0.08 CRACKING 0.0076 0.0034 0.59 0.26 REFORMING 6.0069 0.0031 0.20 0.09
NOTES:**1----~** ADJUSTED BASELINEPRODUCTION IN 1000 BBLS/DAY 142.1 (See Process FactorDetermination) NSPS INCREMENT IN 1000 BBLS/DAY 146.9 rseeProcess FactorDetermination)
ForBATLimitations: For BATlimitations Calculations: '-------

---- BASELINE (1974) CRUDE IN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 267 Crude processes include desalting, atmospheric distillation, and vacuum distillation. BASELINE (1974) CRACKINGIN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 77 Cracking processes include hydrocracking, delayed coking and hydrotreating = 13+35+29 =**7~** BASELINE (1974) REFORMING IN 1000 BBLS/DAY 29 Reforming processes include catalytic reforming.

Page 3NPDES Permit WA-002290-0

Year2005 APPENDIX F - DRY WEATHER FLOW CALCULATION

Year2006 Year2007 Year2008 Year2009 Year 2010 Month Ave. Flow Rainfall Ave. Flow Rainfall Ave. Flow Rainfall Ave. Flow Rainfall Ave. Flow Rainfall Ave. Flow Rainfall MGD inch MGD inch MGD inch MGD inch MGD inch MGD inch January 5.5 5.4 6.4 9.45 5.6 1.37 4.9 4.1 6.2 4.2 4.6 4.38 February 4.2 0.93 4.1 1.59 5.4 3.82 4.7 2.2 4.4 2.1 4.6 2.69 March 4.7 3.21 3.9 1.25 6.4 7.19 4.9 3.5 5.2 3.0 4.8 3.51 April 4.1 2.43 3.9 2.88 4.3 1.81 4.2 1.1 5.2 2.1 4.3 1.68 May 3.1 1.78 3.5 1.32 4.3. 1.49 4.0 1.7 4.9 3.0 4.2 3.01 June 4.1 1.66 4.3 1.22 4.5 1.68 3.9 1.6 4.2 0.4 4.5 1.83 July 3.7 0.86 5.0 0.16 4.9 1.53 3.3 0.3 4.0 0.7 3.9 0 August 4.4 0.98 4.7 0.13 5.0 0.55 3.6 2.5 3.9 1.3 4.1 1.27 September 3.9 1.57 3.7 2.74 4.4 1.48 4.0 0.7 3.8 2.0 5.9 5.52 October 4.7 4.68 4.0 2.03 4.8 3.45 4.0 1.3 5.1 5.2 4.3 2.13 November 5.7 4.75 6.2 10:1 4.2 2.52 5.4 5.9 5.2 6.4 4.7 3.77 December 4.5 3.62 5.4 4.09 5.6 5.91 5.3 3.9 4.7 2.3 5.6 5.7 Average 4.38 2.66 4.59 3.08 4.95 2.73 4.35 2.40 4.73 2.73 4.63 2.96 R2 0.63 0.61 0.50 0.70 0.47 0.79 Y-intercept (linear regression) 3.45 3.89 4.30 3.58 3.99 3.72 AverageY-intercept 3.67 4.1 3.94 3.79 3.87
The dryweather flow is determinedbytaking an average oftheY-interception (linearregresstion) for years 2009 and 2010 as thoseyears hadthe strs>ngestcorrelation between average daily flow andrainfall.

- L__ L_

Page 1 of2NPDES Permit WA-002290-0 APPENDlX G- STORMWATER A1.LOCATION EVENTS

Date Parameter 

## I Unit Discharged Limit allowed w/ Daily Max stomwater allocation 10/31/2001 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1608 2813 2/22/2002 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1963 3399 2/23/2002 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2457 3399 4/14/2002 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1622 2600 11/3/2004 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) I lb/day 1580 3306 1/17/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1963 2928 1/18/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1666 3317 1/19/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1905 3320 1/20/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2378 3317 1/21/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2362 3297 3/29/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1651 2964 4/6/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1601 2508 11/4/2005 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1807 2250 1/12/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1790 3266 1/13/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2342 3275 1/15/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2090 3073 1/17/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1621 3020 1/18/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1774 3037 1/30/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1975 3110 1/31/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1983 3213 Jan-06 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1065* 1565* 2/1/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2027 3174 11/7/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1837 3336 11/18/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1773 3135 12/15/2006 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1980 3211 1/3/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1955 3177 1/4/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2320 3250 1/23/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1903 3020 3/12/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2064 3320 3/18/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1580 3308 12/3/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2987 3099 12/4/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1976 3206 12/5/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2770 3168 12/6/2007 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2189 3104 Dec-07 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1000* 1404 1/10/2008 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1618 2917 1/11/2008 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2221 3060

Page 1 of 2NPDES Permit WA-002290-0 APPENDIX G- STORMWATER ALLOCATION EVENTS

1/14/2008 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 2065 2211 11/7/2008 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1659 3186 11/11/2008 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day I 1772 3488 11/23/2009 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) I lb/day 1894 3421 12/1/2010 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) lb/day 1684 2917 *For Monthly Average**,~I**

Page 2 of2NPDES Permit WA-002290-0

Parameters OUTFALL 002 BODS TSS COD O&G pH OUTFALL 003 BODS TSS COD O&G pH 

## I

Unit
ppm I ppm I ppm ppm su I

ppm ppm ppm ppm su APPENDIX H**~** STORMWATER MONITORING DATA

Year 2000 I Year 2001 Year 2002 Benchmark

Values 1st sample 2nd sample 1st sample 2nd sample 1st sample 2nd sample
5 <1 <1.2 <1 <1.2 2 <1.2 25 <1 <1 <4 <1 <4 <4 60 7.7 <0.5 11.4 10.3 <8 <17 15 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 6-9 7.7 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.7

5 <1 4 1.9 <1.2 2 <1.2 25 <1 <1 <4 <1 <4 <4 60 15.5 2.8 13.5 13.3 8 18 15 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 6-9 7.5 7.1 7.3 7.2 6.9 7
Note: Ecology approved BP to reduce stormwater monitoring frequency from semi-annually to annually on March 12, 2003.
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 OUTFALL 002 BODS ppm 5 2 2 1 <1 3 2 TSS ppm 25 16 13 <4 <4 <4 5 COD ppm 60 11 27 18 11 26 9 O&G ppm 15 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 pH su 6-9 7.05 7.5 6.3 7.62 7.72 7.38 OUTFALL 003 BODS ppm 5 7 9 2 2 3 32 TSS ppm 25 21 <4 <4 <4 <4 5 COD ppm 60 57 23 15 17 27 88 O&G ppm 15 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 <2.5 pH su 6-9 6.52 7.3 8.1 7.63 7.83 7.06
STORMWATER OUTFALL CHARACTERISTICS
Outfall 002 Outfall 003 Outfall 004 Outfall 005 No. of Flow Weighted Grab Flow Grab Flow Grab Flow Sample Composite sample Weighted sample Weighted sample Weighted Pollutant taken Composite taken Composite taken Composite during 1st during 1st during 1st

20 min. 20 min. 20 min. ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm Oil and Grease 8 N/A <2.5 N/A <2.5 N/A <2.5 N/A BODS 8 3 7 6 10 7 22 13 COD 8 14 57 71 70 61 110 79 TSS 8 101 21 20 115 129 68 16 Total Nitrogen 1 2.2 3.96 2.64 2.3 2.4 2.905 30.1 Total Phosphorous 1 0.19 0.13 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 pH 1 7.68 6.82 7.5 N/A 6.8 N/A 6.5 Ammonia 1 0.17 0.2 0.36 0.15 0.13 0.24 0.25 Phenol, Total 1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 N/A N/A <0.05 <0.05 Sulfide 1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.32 0.32 <0.1 <0.1 Chromium 1 9* <10* <10* 8.4* 12* 3.5 2.9 Chromium, Hexavalent 1 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Page 1 of2 2003

<1 <4 <8 <2.5 7.15

<1 <4 14 <2.5 6.82

2010

<1 22 20 <2.5 7.43

<1 <4 21 <2.5 7.38NPDES Permit No. WA-000295-0

REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATIONMARINE WATER 

### NPDES PERMIT NO. WA002290-0 OUTFALL 001 Parameter ACENAPTHENE 83329 1 B ACROLEIN 107028 1V ACRYLONITRILE 107131 2V ALKALINITY ALDRIN 309002 1 P ALUMINUM, total recoverable, pH 6.5-9.0 7429905 AMMONIA wrionized -see seperate·spreadsheets for FWcriteria ANTHRACENE 120127 38 ANTIMONY (INORGANIC) 7440360 1M !ARSENIC (dissolved) 7440382 2M ARSENIC (inorganic) ASBESTOS 1332214 ATRAZINE BACTERIA BENZENE 71432 3V BENZIDINE 92875 48 BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 56553 58 BENZO(a)PYRENE 50326 6B BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 205992 78 BENZO(k) FLUORANTHENE 207089 9B BERYLLIUM 7440417 3M BHC- ALPHA 319846 2P BHC-BETA 319857 3P BHC- GAMMA 58899 4P (Lindane) BHC-DELTA 319868 5P BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111444 118 BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER 39638329 128 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117817 13B BROMOFORM 75252 5V BUTYLBENzyL PHTHALATE 65687 CADMIUM- 7440439 4M Hardness dependent Based on hardness in next column CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56235 6V CHLOROBENZENE 108907 7V CHLORDANE 57749 6P CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124481 8V CHLORIDE (dissolved) in mg/L 16887006 2-CHLORONAPTHALENE 91587 168 CHLORINE (Total Residual) 7782505 CHLOROETHYL ETHER (BIS

- 2) 111444 CHLOROFORM 67663 11V CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER (BIS-2) 108601 2-CHLOROPHENOL 95578 1A 4-CHLOROPHENOL 106489 CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDES(2,4-D) 94757 CHLORPYRIFOS 2921882 CHROMIUM(HEX) 18540299 CHROMIUM(TRI) -16065831 5M Hardness dependent Based on hardness in next column CHRYSENE 218019 188 COLOR APPENDIX I- AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

Max concentration at Water Quality Criteria edge of...

Metal Metal Ambient Criteria Criteria Concentrat Acute Chronic Effluent Translator Translator ion (metals Mixing Mixing LIMIT percentile as decimal as decimal as dissolved) Acute Chronic Zone Zone REQ'D? value

Acute Chronic ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.71 0.0019 0.95 45.2 81.22 54.37 0.95 0.050 16.0 233.00 35.00 60.05 27.21 NO 0.95 0.992 0.95 0.050 0.19 0.05 0.95 0.224 1.00 69 36 2.03 0.52 NO 0.95 0.224 0.95 0.95 760.00 26.00 0.95. 0.95 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.14 0.03 0.95 0.224 0.95 0.95 0.16 0.95 0.95 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.66 0.17 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.994 0.994 0.0590 42.00 9.3 0.09 0.07 NO 0.95 0.224 0.95 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.09 0.004 0.95 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 13 7.50 11.07 2.82 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.44 0.11 NO 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.44 0.11 NO 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.95 0.011 0.0056 NO 0.95 0.993 0.993 1100 50 0.79 0.20 NO 0.95 0.050 0.95 0.95 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 0.95
Page 1 of4 effluent

. cone. measured (metals as Acute Chronic

total Coelf #of Dil'n Dil'n recoverable) Variation samples Multiplier Factor Factor

ug/L CV s 4 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 170.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 1900.0 0.60 0.55 365 0.66 28 11' 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 1 1.4 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 11u 15.0 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 26 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 26 110 < 1.0 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 3.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 0.3 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110- 0.60 0.55 28 1 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 11, < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 < 50.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 3.6 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 < 2.0 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110NPDES Permit No. WA-000295-0 APPENDIX I- AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

REASONABLE POTENTIAL CALCULATION- Max concentration at MARINE WATER Water Quality Criteria edge of

... effluent cone. Metal Metal Ambient measured 

### NPDES PERMIT NO. WA- Criteria Criteria Concentrat Acute Chronic Effluent (metals as



### 002290-0 OUTFALL 001 Translator Translator ion (metals Mixing Mixing LIMIT percentile total as decimal as decimal as dissolved) Acute Chronic Zone Zone REQ'D? value recoverable) Parameter Acute Chronic ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L IRON 7439896 61.98 15.78 0.95 0.050 280.0 ISOPHORONE 78591 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 LEAD- 7439921 7M Dependent on hardness 0.951 0.95 0.1460 210.00 8.10 0.21 0.16 NO 0.95 0.224 < 0.5 Based on hardness in next column 0.95 MANGANESE 7439965 18.82 4.79 0.95 0.050 85.0 2-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 0.95 3-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 59507 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 3-METHYL-6-CHLOROPHENOL 0.95 METHYL BROMIDE 74839 20V 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75092 22V 1.11 0.28 0.95 0.050 < 5.0 MERCURY 7439976 8M 0.85 0.0010 1.80 0.0250 0.00 0.00 NO 0.95 0.224 0.0070 MONOCHLOROBENZENE 108907 0.95 NAPHTHALENE 91203 39B 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 NICKEL -7440020 9M

- Dependent on hardness 0.99 0.99 74.00 8.20 5.43 1.38 NO 0.95 0.224 40.5 Based on hardness in next column 0.95 NITROBENZENE 98953 40B 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 2-NITROPHENOL 88755 1.11 0.28 0.95 0.050 < 5.0 NITRATE/NITRITE (N) 22.14 5.63 0.95 0.050 < 100.0 NITROSAMINES 0.95 NITROSODIBUTYLAMINE N 924163 0.95 NITROSODIETHYLAMINE, N 55185 0.95 NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N 62759 41B 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 N- NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621647 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N 86306 43B 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 NITROSOPYRROLIDINE N 930552 0.95 OIL AND GREASE 321.73 81.89 0.95 0.992 13700.0 OXYGEN DISSOLVED 7782447 0.95 PARATHION 56382 0.95 PENTACHLOROBENZENE 608935 0.95 PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87865 SA (pH dependent in 13.00 7.90 2.21 0.56 NO 0.95 0.050 < 10.0 fresh water) Enter pH in next cell>>>>>>>> 0.95 I pH 7.0- 8.5 0.95 PHENOL 108952 1OA 2.21 0.56 0.95 0.944 60.0 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) 53469219, 11097691, 1104282, 11141165, 12672296, 11096825 10 0.03 0.95 PYRENE 129000 45B 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 SELENIUM 7782492 10M 290 71 10.30 2.62 NO 0.95 0.224 76.0 SILVER

- 7740224 11M dependent on hardness. 0.85 1.90 NA 0.02 0.01 NO 0.95 0.224 < 0.2 Based on hardness in next column 0.95 SOLIDS,DISSOLVED AND SALINITY 0.95 SOLIDS,SUSPENDED AND TURBIDITY 0.95 SULFIDE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783064 2.0 0.74 0.19 NO 0.95 0.944 20.0 TETRACHLOROETHANE 1,1 ,2,2 79345 23V 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 127184 24V 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 TETRACHLOROPHENOL 2,3,4,6 95954 0.95 THALLIUM 7440280 12M 0.14 0.03 0.95 0.224 < 1.0 TOLUENE 108883 25V 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 TOXAPHENE 8001352 25P 0.21 0.0002 0.95 1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 156605 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 TRIBUTYL TIN (TBn 0.37 0.010 0.95 TRICHLOROBENZENE 1,2,4 120821 0.44 0.11 0.95 0.050 < 2.0 TRICHLOROETHANE 1 1 1 71556 27V 0.44 0.11

- _0.95**~-** L_<

-**~-Q_** Page 3 of4 Acute Chronic Coeff #of Dil'n Dil'n Variation samples Multiplier Factor Factor

CV s 4 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110

__ 0.60 0.55 28 11 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 11 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 365 0.66 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 11<' 0.60 0.55 28 1 0.60 0.55 28 1h. 0.60 0.55 52 1.03 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 52 1.03 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60. 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 2 3.79 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 0.60 0.55 28 110 0.60 0.55 1 6.20 28 110 Q_,f5_() Q,§§ 1 6.20 28 110NPDES Permit No. WA-00029()..()

HUMAN HEALTH CALCULATION

NPDES PERMIT NO. WA-000295-0 OUTFALL 001

Parameter ACENAPTHENE 83329 1 B ACROLEIN 107028 1V ACRYLONITRILE 107131 2V ALKALINITY ALDRIN 309002 1 P ALUMINUM total recoverable, pH 6.5-9.0 7429905 AMMONIA unionized -see seperate spreadsheets for FW criteria ANTHRACENE 120127 3B ANTIMONY INORGANIC 7440360 1M ARSENIC dissolved 7440382 2M ARSENIC (inorganic) ASBESTOS 1332214 ATRAZINE BACTERIA BENZENE 71432 3V BENZIDINE 92875 4B BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 56553 5B BENZO(a PYRENE 50328 6B BENZO b FLUORANTHENE 205992 7B BERYLLIUM 7440417 3M BHC -ALPHA 319846 2P BHC- BETA 319857 3P BHC- GAMMA 58899 4P (Lindane) BHC- DELTA 319868 5P BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 111444 11B Bl<i\2 CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER 39638329 ·12B BIS 2-ETHYLHEXYL PHTHALATE 117817 13B BROMOFORM 75252 5V BUTYLBENZVL PHTHALATE 85687 CADMIUM- 7440439 4M Hardness dependent Based on hardness in next column CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 56235 6V CHLOROBENZENE 108907 7V CHLORDANE 57749 6P CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE 124481 8V CHLORIDE (dissolved) in mg/L 16887006 2-CHLORONAPTHALENE 91587 16B CHLORINE otal Residual 7782505 CHLOROETHYL ETHER SIS- 2) 111444 CHLOROFORM 67663 11V CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER (BIS-2 108601 2-CHLOROPHENOL 95578 1A 4-CHLOROPHENOL 106489 CHLOROPHENOXY**HERBICIDE~(2** 4-D) 94757 CHLORPYRIFOS 2921882 CHROMIUM HEX 18540299 CHROMIUM TRI -16065831 SM Hardness dependent Based on hardness in next column CHRYSENE 218019 18B COLOR COPPER

- 744058 6M Hardness dependent APPENDIX I

- HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

Water Max Quality concentrati Criteria for on at edge Expected Ambient Protection of chronic Number of AVERAGE MAXIMUM Estimated Concentratio of Human mixing Compliance MONTHLY DAILY Percentile n (Geometric Health zone. Samples EFFLUENT EFFLUENT at95%

Mean) LIMIT REQ'D? per Month LIMIT LIMIT Confidence ug/L ug!L ug!L ug!L ug!L Pn 990.00 0.04 NO NONE 0.50 0.05 <

780 0.08 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.66 0.08 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.47 < 0.50 0.00014 0.50 45.2 47.10 0.50 0.05 16.0 0.50 110000 0.18 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 4300 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.72 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.72 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 71 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 0.00054 0.18 undetermined 0.1 0.1 0.50 0.05 < 0.031 0.04 undetermined 4.2 6.2 0.50 0.05 < 0.031 0.04 undetermined 4.2· 6.2 0.50 0.05 < 0.031 0.04 undetermined 4.2 6.2 0.50 0.05 < 0.031 0.04 undetermined 4.2 6.2 0.50 0.05 < 0.50 0.013 0.50 0.046 0.50 0.063 0.50 0.50 1.4 0.18 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 170000 0.50

5.9 0.92 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 360 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < ·1900 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 0.0590 0.06 0.50 0.61 < 0.50 4.40 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 21000 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 0.00059 0.50

34 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 0.50 1600.00 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 2.56 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.05 1.40 0.50 470 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 170000 0.50 150.00 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.031 0.04 undetermined 4.2 6.2 0.50 0.05 < 0.50 0.6730 0.68 0.50 0.61

Page 1 of4 #of samples Calculated

from 50th**~/!Yia?S~:;;;** which# percentile f-------.- in col. K Effluent**yg~!~~~** Coeff was Cone. Dilution measurec Variation taken Multiplier (When n>10) Factor

ug!L cv s n 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 4 1.04 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 122.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 7.50 0.60 0.6 9 0.73 136 7.50 0.60 0.6 9 0.73 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 50.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.10 0.60 0.6 6 0.86 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 140.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.20 0.60 0.6 6 0.86 136NPDES Permit No. WA-000290-0 APPENDIX I -HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS

Water Max HUMAN HEALTH CALCULATION Quality concentrati Criteria for on at edge Expected Ambient Protection of chronic Numberof AVERAGE MAXIMUM Estimated NPDES PERMITNO. WA-000295-0 Concentratio of Human mixing Compliance MONTHLY DAILY Percentile n (Geometric Health zone. Samples EFFLUENT EFFLUENT at95% OUTFALL 001 Mean) LIMIT REQ'D? per Month LIMIT LIMIT Confidence

Parameter ug/L ug!L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn LEAD- 7439921 7M Dependent on hardness .0.1460 0.15 0.50 0.61 < Based on hardness in next column 0.50 MANGANESE 7439965 100.00 NO 0.50 12-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 0.50 :3-METHYL-4-CHLOROPHENOL 59507 NO 0.50 < 3-METHYL-6-CHLOROPHENOL 0.50 METHYL BROMIDE 74839 20V 4000 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05. < METHYLENE CHLORIDE 75092 22V 1600 0.09 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < MERCURY 7439976 SM 0.0010 0.15 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.72 < MONOCHLOROBENZENE 108907 0.50 NAPHTHALENE 91203 39B 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.05 < NICKEL -7440020 9M

- Dependent on hardness 4600 0.45 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.72 Based on hardness in next column NO 0.50 NITROBENZENE 98953 40B 1900 0.18 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < 2-NITROPHENOL 88755 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.05 < NITRATE/NITRITE N 92.26 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.05 NITROSAMINES 1.24 0.50 NITROSODIBUTYLAMINE N 924163 0.220 0.50 NITROSODIETHYLAMINE N 55165 1.24 0.50 NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE N 62759 41B 8.10 0.16 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < N- NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE 621647 0.51 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE N 66306 43B 16 NO 0.50 < NITROSOPYRROLIDINE N 930552 0.50 OIL AND GREASE 15.92 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.99 OXYGEN DISSOLVED 7782447 0.50 PARATHION 56382 0.50 PENTACHLOROBENZENE 608935 1.50 0.50 PENTACHLOROPHENOL 87865 SA (pH dependent in 8.20 0.18 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < fresh water) Enter pH in next cell»>»»> 0.50 H 0.50 PHENOL 108952 10A 4600000

. 0.18 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < PHOSPHORUS-ELEMENTAL 7723140 11.42 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.05 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's) 53469219 11097691 1104282,11141165 0.000170 0.50 PYRENE 129000 45B 11000 0.16 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < SELENIUM 7782492 10M 4200.00 0.16 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.61 SILVER- 7740224 11M dependent on hardness. 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.61 Based on hardness in next column 0.50 SOLIDS DISSOLVED AND SALINITY 0.50 SOLIDS SUSPENDED AND TURBIDITY 0.50 SULFIDE HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783064 0.50 TETRACHLOROETHANE 1 1 2 2 79345 23V 11.00 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 127184 24V 8.85 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < TETRACHLOROPHENOL 2 3 4 6 95954 0.50 THALLIUM 7440260 12M 6.30 0.00 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.72 < TOLUENE 106683 25V 200000 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < TOXAPHENE 8001352 25P 0.00075 0.50 1 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE 156605 140000 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < TRIBUTYLTIN BT 0.50 TRICHLOROBENZENE 1 2 4 120821 940 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < TRICHLOROETHANE 111 71556 27V 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.05 < TRICHLOROETHANE 1 1 2 79005 26V 42.00 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 < TRICHLOROETHYLENE 79016 29V 61.00 0.04 NO NONE NONE 0.50 0.05 <

Page 3 of4 #of samples Calculated

from 50th

-

# ~~~~" Coeff which# percentile in col. K Effluent

was Cone. Dilution**~~~h!:f'** Variation taken Multiplier (When n>10) Factor ug/L cv s n 0.50 0.60 0.6 6 0.86 136 0.60 0.6 136 187.00 0.60 0.6 1 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 5.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.20 0.60 0.6 9 0.73 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 85.00 0.60 0.6 9 0.73 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00

. 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 5.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 5040.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0:6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 136 0.60 0.6 136 8200.00 0.60 0.6 365 0.26 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 624.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 10.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 25.10 0.60 0.6 6 0.86 136 0.90 0.60 0.6 6 0.86 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 0.50 0.60 0.6 9 0.73 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 0.60 0.6 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136 2.00 0.60 0.6 1 2.49 136NPDES Permit No. WA-000290-0 APPENDIXJ

- MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS OATA


### Dilution Model Input Parameter- Outfall 001 ,Model Input Parameter Units Input References Number of Ports 13 From Table 2-1 in 2008 ENSR Mixing Zone Analysis Report. Port Diameter m 0.0762 Same as above Port Spacing m 1.219 Same as above Depth of Diffuser (MLLW) m 17.37 Same as above Port Height m 0.9144 Same as above Vertical Angle Degree -15 Same as above Horizontal Angle Degree 90 Same as above Effluent Temperature (August average last 4 yrs from 2002-2005) 

### oc 28.3 From Discharge Monitoring Reports Acute

- Effluent flow (Highest Daily Max. Values) from Jan. 2007 through Oct. 2011 MGD 10.5 From Discharge Monitoring Repo.rts, Table Vl-1 in Permit Writer's Manual. Chronic (HH Non-carcinogen)- Effluent flow (Highest Monthly Average Values) from Jan. 2007 through Oct. 2011. MGD 6.4 From Discharge Monitoring Reports, Table Vl-1 in Permit Writer's Manual. Chronic (HH carcinogen) -Annual average effluent flow from Jan. 2007 through Oct. 2011 MGD 4.6 From Discharge Monitoring Reports, Table Vl-1 in Permit Writer's Manual. Ambient Temperature @ 95th percentile 

### oc 12.8 Long-term marine water quality data from GRG002 from 1989-2005. Ambient Current Velocity From Appendix A, Effluent Plumes Modeling Study, August 2001, ENSR Consulting. For Acute (1oth percentile) m/s 0.05 For Chronic (50th percentile) m/s 0.19

Dilution Factors Acute 31 Chronic 110 HH Carcinogen 136 HH Non-Carcinogen 136

Page 1 INPDES Permit No. WA-002290-0 APPENDIX K- TEMPERATURE ANALVSIS

Marine T-mix T-Mix is based on WAC 173-201A-200(1)(c)(i)--(ii) and Water Quality Program Guidance.
All Data inputs must meet WQ guidelines. The Water Quality temperature guidance document may be found at: http://vNiw.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0610100.html Notes:

1. Chronic Dilution Factor at Mixing Zone Boundary 2. Annual max 1DADMax Ambient Temperature (Background 90th percentile) 3. 1DADMax Effluent Temperature (95th percentile) 4. Aquatic Life Temperature WQ Criterion

5. Temperature at Chronic Mixing Zone Boundary: 6. Incremental Temperature Increase or decrease: 7. Incremental Temperature Increase 12/(T-2) if T.::; crit: 8. Maximum Allowable Temperature at Mixing Zone Boundary:

9. Does temp fall within this warmer temp range?

18. uired?

Page 1 114 114 11.8

### oc 11.8

### oc 31.7?C 25.6 

### oc 13.0

### oc 13.0

### oc

11.97

### oc 11.92

### oc 0.17

### oc 0.12 

### oc 1.22

### oc 1.22

### oc 13.00

### oc 13.00

### oc

NO

NO LIMIT NO LIMITNPDES Permit No. WA-002290-0 APPENDIX L- HERRING AND WET TESTING RESULTS



### BP Cherry Point Acute WET Test Results as % Survival in 100% Effluent Sample Date Start Date 

### I Lab Organism 

### I Endpoint %Survival

3/6/2000 3/6/2000 EVS Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.0% 4/4/2000 4/5/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 82.5% I 4/4/2000 4/5/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 82.5% 7/18/2000 7/19/2000 ENSR Daphnia magna" 48-hour Survival 90.0% I 11/28/2000 11/29/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 60.0% 1/23/2001 1/24/2001 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.0% 5/21/2001 5/22/2001 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 77.5% 9/18/2001 9/19/2001 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 60.0% 11/28/2001 11/29/2001 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 27.5% 3/13/2002 3/14/2002 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 85.0% 5/1/2002 5/2/2002 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 57.5% 9/17/2002 9/18/2002 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 0.0% 11/20/2002 11/21/2002 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 87.5% 3/17/2003 3/18/2003 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.0% 5/12/2003 5/13/2003 ENSR' fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 67.5% 9/23/2003 9/24/2003 ENSR Daphnia magna· 48-hour Survival 75.0% 11/18/2003 11/19/2003 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 97.5% 2/17/2004 2/18/2004 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 95.0% 6/14/2004 6/15/2004 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 0.0% 8/31/2004 9/1/2004 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.0% 12/1/2004 12/2/2004 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 7.5% 3/1/2005 3/2/2005 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 95.0% 6/7/2005 6/8/2005 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 90.0% 8/24/2005 8/25/2005 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 80.0% 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 95.0% 2/28/2006 3/1/2006 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 95.0% 6/21/2006 6/22/2006 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 22.5% 8/23/2006 8/24/2006 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 95.0% 12/5/2006 12/6/2006 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 92.5% 1/30/2007 1/31/2007 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 22.5% 1/30/2007 1/31/2007 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 53.3% 2/6/2007 2/7/2007 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.0% 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 20.0% 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 0.0% 6/12/2007 6/13/2007 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 20.0% 8/7/2007 8/8/2007 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 95.0% 12/18/2007 12/19/2007 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 67.5% 2/12/2008 2/13/2008 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 90.0% 4/1/2008 4/2/2008 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 97.5% 4/1/2008 4/2/2008 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 65.0% 4/1/2008 4/2/2008 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 85.0% 5/21/2008 5/22/2008 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 95.0% 5/21/2008 5/22/2008 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 60.0% 11/18/2008 11/19/2008 

### co fathead minnow 96·hour Survival 80.0% 2/27/2009 2/28/2009 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 100.0% 2/27/2009 2/28/2009 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100.0% 4/9/2009 4/10/2009 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 95.0% 10/27/2009 10/28/2009 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100.0% 7/21/2009 7/22/2009 Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100.0% 4/6/2010 4/7/2010 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 55.0% 4/6/2010 4/7/2010 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 20.0% 5/26/2010 5/26/2010 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 97.5% 6/29/2010 6/30/2010 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 50.0% 6/29/2010 6/30/2010 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 70.0%

Page 1 of3NPDES Permit No. WA-002290-0
7/13/2010 7/14/2010 APPENDIX L- HERRING AND WET TESTING RESULTS

Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 85.0% 

### BP Cherry Point Acute WET TestResults as NOEC/LOEC in% Effluent Sample Date I Start Date I Lab I Organism I Endpoint 

## I NOEC 

## I LOEC

3/6/2000 3/6/2000 EVS IDaphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 4/4/2000 4/5/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 4/4/2000 4/5/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 7/18/2000 7/19/2000 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 11/28/2000 11/29/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 11/28/2000 11/29/2000 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 1/23/2001 1/24/2001 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 5/21/2001 5/22/2001 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 9/18/2001 9/19/2001 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 50 100 11/28/2001 11/29/2001 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 3/13/2002 3/14/2002 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 5/1/2002 5/2/2002 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 25 50 9/17/2002 9/18/2002 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 50 100 11/20/2002 11/21/2002 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 3/17/2003 3/18/2003 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 5/12/2003 5/13/2003 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 9/23/2003 9/24/2003 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 50 100 11/18/2003 11/19/2003 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 2/17/2004 2/18/2004 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 6/14/2004 6/15/2004 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival '50 100 8/31/2004 9/1/2004 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 12/1/2004 12/2/2004 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 12.5 25 3/1/2005 3/2/2005 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 6n12oos 6/8/2005 ENSR fathead minnow**96~hour** Survival 50 100 8/24/2005 8/25/2005 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 50 100 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 2/28/2006 3/1/2006 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 6/21/2006 6/22/2006 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 8/23/2006 8/24/2006 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 100 12/5/2006 12/6/2006 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 1/30/2007 1/31/2007 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 1/30/2007 1/31/2007 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 3.6 100 1/30/2007 1/31/2007 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 100 > 100 2/6/2007 2/7/2007 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 50 100 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 50 100 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 6/12/2007 6/13/2007 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 8/7/2007 8/8/2007 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 12/18/2007 12/19/2007 ENSR fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 2/12/2008 2/13/2008 ENSR Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 > 100 4/1/2008 4/2/2008 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 50 100 4/1/2008 4/2/2008 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 4/1/2008 4/2/2008 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 5/21/2008 5/22/2008 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 100 100 5/21/2008 5/22/2008 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 5/21/2008 5/22/2008 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 100 100 11/18/2008 11/19/2008 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 1/27/2009 1/28/2009 

### co Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 100 2/27/2009 2/28/2009 Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 2/27/2009 2/28/2009 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 100 100 2/27/2009 2/28/2009 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 100 100

Page 2 of3 MSDp
4.56% 4.56% 9.12% 12.65% 12.65%
8.42% 20.75% 4.51% 8.69% 9.41% 5.72% 4.85% 4.21% 15.91% 6.03% 12.28% 4.21% 35.56% 8.35% 22.56% 9.20% 9.80% 5.00% 7.58% 9.20% 5.83% 11.28% 4.57% 12.31% 17.78% 6.72% 9.20% 13.34% 22.74% 20.25% 10.22% 9.20% 5.29% 9.96% 17.73% 4.57% 11.93% 22.56% 10.09% 40.08% 6.98% 16.87% 5.90% 5.00% 6.70%NPDES Permit No. WA-002290-0
3/26/2009 4/9/2009 7/21/2009 10/27/2009 1/26/2010 4/6/2010 4/6/2010 4/6/2010 5/26/2010 6/29/2010 6/29/2010 7/13/2010 3/27/2009 4/10/2009 7/22/2009 10/28/2009 1/27/2010 4/7/2010 4/7/2010 4/7/2010 5/26/2010 6/30/2010 6/30/2010 7/14/2010 APPENDIX L- HERRING AND WET TESTING RESULTS

Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 50 100 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 

### co Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 100 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100 

### co Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 100

Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 12.5 25 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hour Survival 50 100 

### co fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 100 100

Nautilus fathead minnow 96-hour Survival 50 100 Nautilus topsmelt 96-hour Survival 50 100 

### co Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 100 

### BP Cherry Point Chronic WET TestResults as NOEC/LOEC in % 

### Effluent Sample Date Start Date 

### I Lab Organism Endpoint 

### I NOEC LOEC 

### I

3/13/2002 3/13/2002 EVS blue mussel Proportion Normal 35.8 71.6 Survival 35.8 71.6 3/13/2002 3/14/2002 EVS topsmelt 7-day Survival 71.4 > 71.4 Biomass 71.4 >71.4 Weight 71.4 > 71.4 6/21/2002 6/21/2002 EVS blue mussel Proportion Normal 3.6 8.9 Survival 8.9 17.8 6/21/2002 6/22/2002 EVS topsmelt 7-day Survival 69.8 > 69.8 Biomass 69.8 > 69.8 Weight 69.8 > 69.8 9/12/2002 9/13/2002 EVS topsmelt 7-day Survival 38.5 76.9 Biomass 38.5 76.9 Weight 76.9 > 76.9 9/16/2002 9/17/2002 EVS blue mussel Proportion Normal 3.6 9 Survival 36.1 72.2 11/20/2002 11/20/2002 EVS topsmelt 7-day Survival 69.1 > 69.1 Biomass 69.1 > 69.1 Weight 69.1 > 69.1 11/20/2002 11/20/2002 EVS blue mussel Proportion Normal 68.3 > 68.3 Survival 68.3 > 68.3


### BP Cherry PointHerring TestResults Sample Date Testing Date Lab Organism Endpoint NOEC LOEC

1/30/2007 1/31/2007 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hr Survival Rate 100 >100 6/11/2007 6/12/2007 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hr Survival Rate 50 100 5/21/2008 5/22/2008 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hr Survival Rate 100 100 2/27/2009 2/28/2009 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hr Survival Rate 100 100 3/26/2009 3/27/2009 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hr Survival Rate 50 100 4/6/2010 411/2010 Nautilus Pacific herring 96-hr Survival Rate 50 100

Page 3 of3 11.64% 4.94% 9.20% 2.50% 9.20% 14.96% 27.01% 18.81% 5.51% 12.19% 22.94% 13.68%

MSDp

0.80% 3.26% 10.63% 10.94% 13.43% 0.90% 2.32% 12.45% 19.18% 19.41% 8.49% 18.75% 20.34%

1.74% 8.79% 11.31% 20.22% 20.41%

1.63% 4.99%NPDES Permit No. WA-002290-0

First Round

- May 2003 Iron Arsenic Manganese Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids
Second Round -August 2003 Iron Arsenic Manganese Sulfate Total Dissolved Solids

Notes: NV: no value 

### APPENDIX M: GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS


### BASIN WATER RESULTS

Units Groundwater Quality Standards MTCA Groundwater Criteria Stormwater Pond mg/1 0.3 NV <0.300 mg/1 0.00005 0.005 <0.00100 mg/1 0.05 2.24 0.0636 mg/1 250 NV 24.3 mg/1 500 NV 110

mg/1 0.3 NV <0.300 mg/1 0.00005 0.005 <0.001 00 mg/1 0.05 2.24 0.0186 mg/1 · 250 NV 15.3 mg/1 500 NV 69

None ofthe volatile and semi-volatile organic compound concentrations were detected at their respective method reporting limits in either ofthe basin water samples.

Page 1 I I Clarification Pond i 0.674 ! 0.0253 0.116 4350 6800

1.08 0.025

0.1 4160 6800

---- --NPDES Permit APPENDIX N

- PERFORMANCE-BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING FREQUENCY No. WA-002290-0


### OUTFALL 001 BOD TSS Ammonia as N Sulfide Oil & Grease Phenolics COD Units lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day Monthly Average permit limit in current permit 1240 990 870 6.7 360 8.1 8540 Daily maximum permit limit in current permit 2260 1570 1910 14.7 680 16.7 16610 Long-term average values* 207 541 81 0.8 51 2.3 2844 Long-term average I monthly average permit limit (% basis) 17% 55% 9% 12% 14% 28% 33% Maximum of the monthly averages 431 871 214 1.6 117 3.2 4628 Maximum daily values (from DMRs) 1637 2985** 1146 6.6 470 10.1 11518 Current permit monitoring frequency 1/7 7/7 5/7 1/mo 717 1/7 717 Policy monitoring recommendations 2/mo 4/7 1/7 1/6 mas 3/7 1/2 mas 3/7 Proposed permit monitoring frequency 1/7 717 3/7 1/mo 717 1/7 3/7
*The Long-term Ave values reflect the data from January 2009 and December 2009. **Limit allowed w/ stormwater allocation is 3099 lb/day (12/3/2007).

Page 1 of 1