FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0022900 

BP CHERRY POINT REFINERY 

February 14, 2012 

PURPOSE of this Fact Sheet 

This fact sheet explains and documents the decisions Ecology made in drafting the proposed 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for BP Cherry Point Refmery. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the NPDES permitting program as a 

tool to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's 

waters." EPA delegated to Ecology the power and duty to write, issue, and enforce NPDES 

permits within Washington State. Both state and federal laws require any industrial facility to 

obtain a permit before discharging treated process water to a water body. 

An NPDES permit limits the types and amounts of pollutants the facility may discharge. 

Those limits are based either on (1) the pollution control or wastewater treatment technology 

available to the industry, or on (2) the receiving water's customary beneficial uses. This fact 

sheet complies with Section 173-220-060 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), 

which requires Ecology to prepare a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet for public 

evaluation before issuing an NPDES permit. 

PUBLIC ROLE in the Permit 

Ecology makes the draft permit and fact sheet available for public review and comment at 

least thirty (30) days before issuing the final permit to the facility operator (WAC 173-220-050). 

Copies of the fact sheet and draft permit for BP Cherry Point Refinery, NPDES permit 

WA 0022900, are available for public review and comment from April13, 2011 until the close 

ofbusiness June 13, 2011. For more details on preparing and filing comments about these 

documents, please see Appendix A - Public Involvement. 

Before publishing the draft NPDES permit, BP Cherry Point Refinery reviewed it for factual 

accuracy. Ecology corrected any errors or omissions about the facility's location, product type 

or production rate, discharges or receiving water, or its history. 

After the public comment period closes, Ecology will summarize substantive comments and 

our responses to them. Ecology will include our summary and responses to comments to this 

Fact Sheet as Appendix 0- Response to Comments, and publish it when issuing the fmal 

NPD.ES permit. Ecology will not revise the rest of the fact sheet, but the full document will 

become part of the legal history contained in the facility's permit file. 

Liem Nguyen prepared the permit and this fact sheet. 
FACT SHEET FOR NPDES fERMIT WA0022900 

SUMMARY 

The BP Cherry Point Refmery operates a wastewater treatment plant that discharges to the 

Strait of Georgia. Ecology issued the previous permit for this facility on October 1, 1999. 

The proposed permit retains 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 sulfide from the previous permit issued in 1999. 

New limits are proposed for hexavalent chromium. 

Ecology added new limits at the biological treatment system to ensure that flow and BOD 

loading do not exceed approved facility design criteria. The proposed permit retains the 

monitoring frequencies from the previous permit for BODS, TSS, O&G, sulfide, and phenol, 

reduces the monitoring frequencies for COD and ammonia, and adds monitoring for fecal 

coliform. · 

The proposed permit adds annual monitoring for priority pollutants, a herring toxicity study, 

and groundwater monitoring. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... : .................................................. ! 

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 2 

A. Facility Description ...................................................................................................... 3 

SiteDescription and History .................................................................................... 3 

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

Wastewater Treatment ............................................................................................. 4 

Solid Wastes ............................................................................................................. 6 

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

Discharge Locations ................................................................................................. 7 

B. Permit Status ................... : ............................................................................................ 7 

C. Summary of Compliance with Previous Permit Issued ............................................ 8 

D. Review of Previous Permit Requirements ................................................................. 9 

E. Wastewater Characterization ................................................................................... 12 

F. Description of the Receiving Water .......................................................................... 13 

G. Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve .................................................................................. l4 

H. SEPA Compliance ...................................................................................................... 14 

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

A. Design Criteria ........................................................................................................... 15 

B. Technology-Based Effluent Limits ........................................................................... 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 

Final Effluent Discharge for Firewater Testing ..................................................... 23 

Construction Project Stormwater Discharge Requirements ................................. .23 

C. Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits ......................................................... 23 

Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life ........................................... 24 

Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ....................................... .24 

Narrative Criteria ............................................................ ~ ...................................... 24 

Antidegradation ...................................................................................................... 24 

Mixing Zones ................... · ...................................................................................... 25 

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria ............................................ 30 

E. Evaluation of Surface Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits for Numeric 

Criteria .................................................................................................................. 31 

Chronic Mixing Zone ............................................................................................. 32 

Acute Mixing Zone ................................................................................................ 32 

Storm water Outfalls 002-007 ................................................................................. 36 

F. Whole Effluent Toxicity ............................................................................................. 37 

Cherry Point Herring .............................................................................................. 38 

G. Human Health ................................................................................................. : ........... 39 

H. Sediment Quality ........ : ............................................................................................... 41 

I. Ground Water Quality Monitoring .......................................................................... .42 

2/14/2012 
IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... .43 

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

B. Performance-Based Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies .................................. .43 

V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... .44 

A. Priority Pollutant Testing ......................................................................................... .44 

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

C. Operation and Maintenance Plan ............................................................................ .44 

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

E. Wastewater Treatment Efficiency Study and Updated Engineering 

Report. ................................................................................................................... 45 

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

G. Dangerous Wastes- Permit by Rule Requirements .............................................. .47 

H. Outfall Evaluation ............................................................................... : ...................... 47 

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

VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES ................................................................................. .48 

A. Permit Modifications ................................................................................................. 48 

B. Proposed Permit Issuance .......................................................................................... 48 

VII. REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES .............................................................. ..48 

APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION ................................................... .49 

APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................ 50 

APPENDIX C- WASTEWATER TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM ...................................... 54 

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

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

APPENDIX F--DRY WEATHER FLOW CALCULATION ....................................................... 54 

APPENDIX G--STORMWATER ALLOCATION EVENTS ...................................................... 54 

APPENDIX H--STORMWATER MONITORING DATA .......................................................... 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 WET TESTING RESULTS .................................................... 54 

APPENDIX M--GROUND WATER IMPACT STUDY RESULTS ........................................... 54 

2/14/2012 
APPENDIX N--PERFORMANCE-BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING 

FREQUENCY .............. ······· ............................................................................................ ········· .54 

APPENDIX 0--RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................................... 54 

2/14/2012 
I. INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications, 1977, 1981, and 1987) 

established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United States. One 

mechanism for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), administered by the federal Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA authorized the State of Washington to manage the NPDES 

permit program in our state. Our state legislature accepted the delegation and assigned the power 

and duty for conducting NPDES permitting and enforcement to Ecology. The legislature defined 

Ecology's authority and obligations for the wastewaterdischarge permit program in 90.48 RCW 

(Revised Code of Washington). Ecology adopted rules describing how it exercises its authority: 

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

• Water quality criteria for surface waters and ground waters (Chapters 173-201A and 

Chapter 173-200 WAC), 

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

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

240 WAC) 

These rules require any industrial facility operator to obtain an NPDES permit before 

discharging wastewater to state waters. They also help define the basis for limits on each 

discharge and for performance requirements imposed by the permit. 

Under the NPDES permit program and in response to a complete and accepted permit 

application, Ecology must prepare a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet, and make 

them available for public review before fmal issuance. Ecology must also publish an 

announcement (public notice) telling people where can read the draft permit, and where to send 

their comments during a period ofleast thirty days (WAC 173-220-050). (See Appendix A--

Public Involvement for more detail on the Public Notice and Comment procedures). After the 

public comment period ends, Ecology may make changes to draft NPDES in response to 

comments. Ecology will suinmarize the response to comments and any changes to the permit u( 

AppendixO. 

Page 1 
TI. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

Table 1. General Facility Information 

Applicant: BP Cherry Point Refmery 

Facility Name and BP Cherry Point Refmery 

Address: 4519 Grandview Road 

Blaine, Washington 98230 

Type of Facility: Petroleum Refmery 

SIC Code: 2911 

Discharge Location: Water Body Name: Strait of Georgia 

Latitude Longitude 

Outfall 001 48.860833 122.757222 

Outfall 006 48.866111 122.752222 

Discharge Location: Water Body Name: 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 

Page2 
A. Facility Description 

Figure 1. Facility Location Map 

SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY 

The BP Cherry Point Refinery is located in a rural area ofWhatcom County, approximately six 

miles northwest ofFemdale, Washington. The refmery encompasses an area of about 740 acres, 

bordered by Grandview Road to the north, Point Whitehorn Road on the south, and Jackson 

Road to the west. BP's property extends eastward to the railroad spur west of the Chemco 

facility. Prior to construction of the 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 of crude oil. The 

refmery processed an average of209,000 bbls per day of crude oil over a 24-month period from 

October 2008 to October 2010. The main source of crude oil has historically been from tankers 

delivering oil from Alaska's North Slope, however, crude oils from other sources are also 

processed. 

Page 3 
The refmery separates crude oil into various components for further processing and blending into 

a variety of petroleum products. These products include gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel, liquid 

petroleum gas, and residual fuel oil. The refinery also has a coke calciner operation; coke is a 

product used in the aluminum smelting industry. The refmery processes use an average of 7 

million gallons of water per day (MGD). Additionally, another 30,000 gallons per day are used 

for potable water purposes. The Public Utility District #1 ofWhatcom County supplies raw 

water and Birch Bay Water and Sewer District supplies potable water. Major process 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 wastewater treatment plant treats various wastewaters including process water, ballast 

water from tankers, tank water draws, and storm water that falls in process areas of the site. The 

refinery treats its process water with primary and secondary treatment in a wastewater treatment 

system consisting of four parallel API oil/water separators, two induced gas floatation units, an 

equalization tank, a complete mix activated sludge unit, a secondm;y clarifier, and two 

clarification ponds. BP further treats the sludges generated in the activated sludge units by 

sludge thickening in aerated sludge holding tank followed by dewatering with a belt filter press, 

and disposal in the on-site non-hazardous waste landfarm located in the southwest comer of the 

refinery property. A flow diagram of the wastewater treatment system is shown in Appendix C. 

The refinery's stormwater sewer system collects stormwater falling on industrial areas of the 

refinery, other than the areas within the process unit boundaries. This stormwater receives 

primary treatment before being discharged through Outfall 001. Any oil present on the water 

surface as it enters the observation channel of the stormwater pond is skimmed off by a rotating 

surface skimmer at the head of the channel and is routed to the API separators. Solids settle out 

in the stormwater pond, and stormwater flows to the final holding pond where it commingles 

with the treated process water before discharge. 

The refmery's oily water sewer system collects stormwater falling within the process unit boundaries 

for treatment, along with process wastewater, at the refinery's wastewater treatment plant. 

In the event that fmal effluent does not meet specifications, the refinery can divert the final 

effluent to the emergency wastewater impoundment until it returns it to the wastewater treatment 

system for additional treatment. · 

Sanitary wastewater from the refmery is discharged to the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District 

for treatment. 

The draft permit authorizes BP to receive untreated wastewater from the Praxair, Inc. Ferndale 

facility and the proposed BP Cogeneration facility and treat it in the refinery's wastewater 

treatment system. More details on these waste streams are provided below. 

Praxair Inc. is a carbon dioxide (C02) manufacturing plant. This plant was built in 1978 and is 

located next to the BP Cherry Point Refmery. Praxair's treated process water is discharged 

through BP's Outfall 001 at an average flow rate of 50,000 gallons per day (gpd). The 

wastewater mainly consists of cooling tower blowdown, a small volume of cooling water sand 

filter back-wash, stormwater from the scale sump pit, process condensate, and wastewater from 

Page4 
plant floor drains. Praxair has an NPDES Permit, No. W A0030350, issued on June 28, 2002. 

Ecology's Northwest Regional Office sent the permit renewal 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 

cooling tower blowdown, wash tower 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 information provided by BP and determined that the 

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 of two (2) natural gas-fired combustion turbines 

(CGTs), each driving one electric generator. The power plant will employ an evaporative 

cooling system using water from the Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD). The 

PUD owns the water rights for water in this area. Both Alcoa and the BP refinery contract for 

the water through the PUD. The PUD withdraws water from the Nooksack River. The refinery 

currently uses approximately 7 MGD ofPUD supplied water. 

BP, Intalco, and the PUD entered into a "No Use" Agreement. Under this agreement, BP will 

provide funding for Intalco to install a compressor cooling system on the Intalco site. The 

compressor will eliminate approximately 3.6 million gallons of water per day currently used by 

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 with the PUD to use this water 

for the cogeneration project. 

The cogeneration facility is expected to produce non-recyclable process wastewater which will 

be sent to the BP refinery's wastewater treatment system. This non-recyclable process 

wastewater is a combination of filtered raw water backwash solids and dissolved solids from the 

circulating water in the cooling water lines. Other wastewater streams that could be produced 

and introduced 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 in the discharge permit and site certificate 

for the cogeneration facility. 

The cogeneration facility will collect process wastewater in a sump before discharge to the 

refinery to prevent an upset to the refmery' s wastewater treatment system. The refinery will treat 

the cogeneration facility's wastewater along with its process wastewater. 

The cogeneration facility will route stormwater that has the potential to collect process chemicals 

and lube oils to the process wastewater system. The facility will be capable of checking 

stormwater with a very low potential for contamination prior to discharge (such as secondary 

containment around electrical breakers) to the stormwater system. Initiation of the project is 

currently pending. 

Page 5 
SOLID 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 0UTF ALLS 

BP Cherry Point Refmery has one process wastewater outfall (00 1) 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 of 57 feet below mean lower low water. 

The refinery pumps treated effluent into the Strait of Georgia on a continual basis. Since 

October 1999, the monthly average of effluent discharge generally ranged between 2.8 to 6.4 

MGD. During heavy rainfall events the flow can reach levels as high as 10.5 MGD, as occurred 

in September of2010. 

Stormwater Outfalls 002-007 

Outfall 002 drains approximately 108 acres of refinery property including construction 

equipment laydown yards, contractor areas, salvage yard, paint and sandblast area, and 

warehouse. The drainage area for Outfall 002 contains the largest percentage of areas of 

industrial activity (as compared to the other stormwater outfalls). Discharge from Outfall 002 

flows north under Grandview Road and eventually to Terrell Creek. 

Outfall 003 drains 37 acres of refinery property, primarily the area along the northern portion of 

the refinery. Outfall 003 could discharge wastewater in the unlikely event of an overflow of the 

Final Holding Pond or an alternative discharge of water held in the Storm Water Pond. Drainage 

from the outfall flows west along Grandview Road before flowing under Jackson Road and 

eventually to Terrell Creek. Only 4% of Outfall 003's drainage area is an area of industrial 

activity. · 

Outfall 004 drains 62 acres ofrefmery property, primarily the northwest portion of the property. 

It includes 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 intersection with Grandview Road, and eventually to Terrell Creek. Only 17% of 

Outfall 004's drainage area is an area of industrial activity. 

Outfall 005 drains 177 acres in the southwest comer of the refinery property, which includes an 

area below the pipelines running between the refinery and dock facilities along Jackson Road, as 

well as a tank dike area near the dock facilities. In addition, stormwater from the east and west 

of the refmery's property drains to Outfall 005. The discharge from Outfall 005 flows under 

Jackson Road to the northwest and eventually to Terrell Creek. Only 1% of Outfall 005's 

drainage area is an area of industrial activitY. 

Outfall 006 drains 7 acres of refinery property near the dock facilities. Storm water discharging 

to Outfall 006 is normally captured in an on-shore sump and pumped back to the refmery' s 

Page 6 
wastewater treatment system. During heavy rainfall events, the refmery may bypass the initial 

on-shore sump and send the stormwater directly to Outfall 006, rather than run the risk of 

overflowing the on-shore sump. Discharges associated with Outfall 006 discharge directly to the 

Strait of Georgia. 

Outfall 007 drains 267 acres of the eastern undeveloped and unsewered areas ofthe refinery east 

of Blaine Road. The construction of an equipment/materiallaydown area has re-characterized a 

·portion of the drainage's stormwater discharge from this outfall as an area of industrial activity. 

Storm water runoff from the lay down area is captured in the storm water detention pond located in 

the northwest comer of the lay down area prior to discharge. Discharge from Outfall 007 flows 

to the north under Grandview Road and eventually to Terrell Creek. Only 8% of Outfall 007's 

drainage area is an area of industrial activity. 

See Attachment C in the permit renewal application for more detail of all the above outfalls. 

DISCHARGE LOCATIONS . 

The process wastewater outfall line (001) is located under a pier that extends approximately 

2,200 feet offshore. The outfall discharges through a diffuser into about 57 feet of water. 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 permit renewal to Ecology on May 03, 2004. Due to the dry 

weather at the time, the refmery was 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 on December 14,2004. 

Ecology determined that the permit renewal application was complete and accepted it on 

January 3, 2005. BP submitted an update to the permit renewal application on July 10, 2010. 

Ecology issued the 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 permit placed effluent 

limits on BOD, COD, TSS, oil and grease, phenols, ammonia, sulfide, chromium, fecal coliform, 

and pH. 

Ecology based the limits for Outfall 001 in the previous permit on two feedstock rates or tiers. The 

permit established effluent limits for Tier 0 and Tier 1 scenarios. Tier 0 was included in the permit 

in response to the failure of the Olympic Pipeline. BP Cherry Point Refmery was limited in the 

amount of crude oil that it could process as a result of the pipeline being unavailable to transport 

refmed products. From January 2001 to November 2004, the feedstock rate averaged 194,730 bbls 

per day. The feedstock average exceeded the Tier 0 limits in 2001. Upon achieving this rate, the 

discharge from Outfall 001 became subject to the Tier 1limits. The following table summarizes 

the Monthly Average and Daily Maximum limits for Tier 0 and Tier 1. 

Page 7 
Table 2. Previous Tier 0 and Tier 1 Permit Limits 

OUTFALL-001 TIERO TIER1 

. (170,000 bbls/day) (205,000 bbls/day) 

PARAMETERS Units Monthly Daily Monthly Daily 

Average Maximum Average Maximum 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand 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/1 OOmls 

pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 

In March 2002, BP began discharging its domestic wastewater to the Birch Bay Wastewater 

Treatment Plant and was no longer subject to the effluent limits for domestic wastewater 

discharge included in the previous permit. Prior to March 2002, the effluent limitations for the 

domestic wastewater discharge were as shown in the table below. 

Table 3. Previous Permit Limits for the Domestic Wastewater Discharge 

SANI-PAK I Concentration Limit ·. 

' Weekly .. 

Monthly Average/ PARAMETERS· Units _t\ve~age Daily 

' ; .. ·. . ... ·.·.· Maximum 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)- lbs/day 30 45 Effluent 

Total Suspended Solids- Effluent lbs/day 30 45 

Fecal Coliform Colonies/1 OOml 200 400 

Residual Chlorine mg/1 -- 0.35 

C. Summary of Compliance with 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 issued in 2001, Ecology has conducted a total of twenty Class 1 and ten Class 2 

inspections at the refmery. A Class 1 is a walk-through inspection to visually check the wastewater 

treatment system and stormwater outfalls, including stormwater BMPs. A Class 2 is a combination 

of a Class 1, reviewing records of the laboratory, and taking samples at Outfall 001 and at the 

industrial stormwater outfalls. Ecology conducted the last Class 2 inspection on May 9-10, 2011 

and found the facility in compliance with the permit at the time of inspection. 

Page 8 
During the term of the previous permit, the refmery remained in compliance except for one 

exceedance, according to Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) submitted to Ecology 

(see Appendix D) and based upon the results of inspections 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 in the final holding pond. The refmery has since 

covered the fmal holding pond to minimize light penetration and discourage algal growth in the 

summer months. 

D. Review of Previous Permit Requirements 

The previous permit required BP to conduct the following studies and submit reports during the 

permit cycle. Ecology used the data from these reports to prepare this proposed permit. 

1. Stormwater Monitoring Results: 

See the results discussed later in this document. 

2. Spill Reporting and Notification System (SRNS): 

BP submitted the SRNS on February 2, 2000. The SRNS fulfills the requirement in the 

current permit. 

3. Treatment Efficiency Study Plan and Engineering Report: 

BP submitted this report on June 4, 2002. Ecology approved the report on January 6, 2006 

and determined it met the requirement in the previous permit. See the results discussed later 

in this document. 

4. Sediment study: 

The refmery submitted this report in 2001. See results discussed later in this document. 

5. Dioxin Study Report: 

The refmery submitted the Dioxin Study Report to Ecology on July 9, 2001. The 

previous permit required BP to sample the chlorinated dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-Cl 

substituted tetra-through acta-congeners) concentrations as follows: 

• In the wastewater stream from each of the catalytic reformer regenerations 

( 4 sampling events) 

• In the fmal effluent most likely to contain wastewater generated during the 

catalytic reformer regeneration events sampled for dioxins (2 samplillg events) 

• In the API separator sludge generated during the catalytic reformer regeneration 

events sampled for dioxins (2 sampling events) 

The sampling results indicated that the most toxic compound of the chlorinated 

dioxin/furan congeners (2,3,7,8 TCDD) was detected in one sample of the wastewater 

Page 9 
stream from Catalytic Reformer #2. The refmery measured a concentration of 0.028 ng/1; 

just above the practical reporting limit of 0. 010 ng/1. It did not detect any dioxin or 

furans in the effluent. The proposed permit requires BP to monitor the chlorinated dioxin 

and furan (2,3,7,8-Cl substituted tetra-through acta-congeners) concentrations at the fmal 

effluent of Outfall 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 an updated TSOP to Ecology on May 4, 2004. The TSOP met the 

requirements in the previous permit. 

7. WET Testing Reports: 

The results are described later in this document. 

8. Report on Impacts from Isomerization Unit: 

BP Cherry Point Refinery submitted a report informing Ecology of the potential impacts 

to the refinery's wastewater effluent resulting from the construction of the proposed 

Isomerization (Isom) Unit. BP submitted an amended NPDES permit application Form 

2C seeking permission to accept and treat the wastewaters generated from the Isom Unit 

under its current NPDES permit. The report and amended application were dated 

December 22, 2003. 

Construction of the Isom Unit allows BP Cherry Point Refinery to produce gasoline that 

meets all current and pending gasoline quality regulations. The isomerization process 

requires a very dry state to produce a low sulfur, high octane, and low benzene gasoline 

component. 

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 Isom 

Unit. Ecology authorized BP to treat the wastewater from the Isom Unit without 

modifying the existing permit on January 26, 2004. BP began operation of the Isom Unit 

in July 2004. 

The Isom Unit contributes an increased flow to the refinery's wastewater treatment plant 

(WWTP) of approximately 23 gallons per minute (gpm) which is less than 1% of the 

current WWTP effluent flow rate of approximately 2500 gpm. The wastewater stream 

generated by this unit is similar to other wastewater streams generated throughout the 

refmery. The wastewater commingles with other process wastewater and is treated and 

discharged in accordance to the BP Cherry Point NPDES Permit. 

9. Impacts from the Diesel Hydro Desulfurization Unit (DHDS): 

BP Cherry Point Refmery submitted a report informing Ecology of the potential impacts 

· to the refinery's wastewater effluent resulting from the construction of the proposed 

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

Page 10 
the report and an amended NPDES permit application Form 2C, dated May 27, 2005, 

seeking permission to accept and treat the wastewaters generated from the DHDS Unit 

under its cunent NPDES 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 in June 2005. 

The ULSD project is designed to minimize cooling water, steam usage, and sour water 

production. The DHDS Unit contributes an increased flow to the refinery's WWTP of 

approximately 35 gpm which is less than 2% of the CU1Tent WWTP effluent flow rate of 

approximately 2500 gpm. The wastewater stream generated by this unit is similar to 

other wastewater streams generated throughout the refinery, The wastewater generated 

from this unit commingles with other process wastewater and is treated and discharged in 

accordance with the BP Cheny Point NPDES Permit. 

10. Impacts from the Proposed BP Cogeneration Facility Discharge: 

BP Alternative Energy will own and operate the proposed BP Cogeneration Facility. 

The cogeneration facility will discharge the wastewater to the BP Cherry Point Refmery 

wastewater treatment system. As part of the permitting process for the proposed BP 

Cogeneration Facility, BP prepared a conservative analysis of the cogeneration process 

wastewater pollutant and flow characteristics to evaluate potential impacts on the existing 

refinery discharge to the Strait of Georgia. This analysis included a review of the 

refinery wastewater treatment design capacity and projected changes to the amount of 

capacity available at the time that the cogeneration facility begins operation. 

BP evaluated changes to organic and hydraulic loading to the refinery's wastewater 

treatment system, the addition of other new process wastewater streams, and the addition 

of the cogeneration process wastewater. The refinery used the treatment efficiencies and 

other information it collected in the refinery treatment system efficiency study in this 

evaluation. BP reported that with these projected increases in loading, it will use 

approximately 50% of the organic and 60% of the hydraulic capacity of the wastewater 

treatment system. 

Ecology reviewed this 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 of the refinery's NPDES permit limits. 

The BP Cogeneration Facility's application included the projected metal concentrations 

in the blended cogeneration wastewater stream to be discharged to the refinery. BP 

compared the metal concentrations in the cogeneration process wastewater to state water 

quality standards at different stages: prior to combining with refmery process wastewater, 

when mixed with refmery process wastewater influent, and following treatmentofthe 

combined flows. The refmery applied removal percentages calculated from data 

collected in the refinery treatment system efficiency study to the metal concentrations to 

determine approximate removal through the refmery wastewater treatment system. 

Page 11 
Dilution factors authorized in the refinery's NPDES permit were also applied. Ecology 

determined that the metal concentrations in the 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 permit No. EFSEC 2002-01 and apply AKART to the 

discharge of pollutants into the process wastewater. 

After beginning commercial operation of the BP cogeneration facility, the facility will 

prepare an initial characterization of its process wastewater as required by its discharge 

permit. Ecology requires regular process wastewater monitoring to ensure that over time 

there are no significant changes in the characteristics of the discharge (quality and 

quantity) than from what was predicted. 

E. Wastewater Characterization 

BP characterized the proposed wastewater discharges in the permit application process for: 

conventional pollutants, metals, cyanide, volatile organic compounds, acid compounds, base 

neutral compounds, and pesticides. The long term average values reported below for 

Outfalls 001 are based on extensive (daily to weekly) monitoring completed during the term of 

the current permit. 

The values in Table 4 are for pollutants with significant concentrations and/or of interest and 

metals and organics that were quantified at greater than detection limits. This information is 

from the updated BP's NPDES permit renewal application dated July 30, 2010 and represents the 

quality of the effluent discharged from January 2009 through December 2009. 

Table 4. Wastewater Characterization for Outfall 001 (Long Term Averages except where 

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 12 
Parameter 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 Below Measurable Quantity 

F. Description of the Receiving Water 

BP discharges to the Strait of Georgia, which is designated as an extraordinary marine 

receiving water in the vicinity of Outfall 001. Characteristic uses include the following: fish 

migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing, spawning, and harvesting; 

crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, scallops, etc.) rearing, spawning, and harvesting; 

wildlife habitat; primary contact recreation; sport fishing; commerce and navigation; boating; 

and aesthetic enjoyment. Water quality of this class shall markedly and uniformly exceed the 

requirements for all or substantially all uses. 

Other nearby point-source outfalls include ConocoPhillips Refinery, Intalco Aluminum Smelter, 

and Birch Bay POTW. Significant nearby non-point sources of pollutants include storm water 

runoff and groundwater seeps/discharges from contaminated sites, in .particular the abandoned 

Treoil Industries site. 

The closest Ecology long-term core monitoring station, GRG002, is located in the Strait of 

Georgia near Patos Island. It is far enough away from the Cherry Point industries to prevent 

their discharges from influencing readings taken there. There is also substantial data for this 

station. The station at Bellingham Bay,BLL009, is also very close but is influenced by activity 

in Bellingham and is not suitable for a background data station. The closest long-term rotating 

station is LOP001 in Lopez Sound. 

The table below includes the ambient background for 90th percentile temperature calculated from 

January 1999 through June 2005 at Station GRG002 and the metal concentrations taken from the 

Background Metals Concentrations in Selected Puget Sound Marine Receiving Waters prepared 

by Eric Crecelius, Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory, February 1998. 

Page 13 
Table 5. Ambient Background Data 

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. Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve 

BP discharges to the Strait of Georgia which is part of the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve. In 

2000, the Washington State Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) designated the Cherry 

Point area as an environmental aquatic reserve. DNR developed the Cherry Point Aquatic 

Reserve Management Plan to guide future management decisions for the reserve. The plan 

includes actions related to: protection, enhancement and restoration, outreach and education, 

monitoring, data collection and research, and allowed and prohibited uses within the reserve. 

A number of the management actions in the Cherry Point Aquatic Reserve Management Plan are 

addressed in the proposed permit, including conditions to ensure ongoing compliance with water 

quality standards, sediment monitoring, and herring toxicity testing. 

H. SEP A Compliance 

Regulation exempts reissuance or modification of any wastewater discharge permit from the 

SEP A process as long as the permit contains conditions that are no less stringent than state rules 

and regulations. The exemption applies only to existing discharges, not to new discharges. 

III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS 

Federal and State regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES permit must 

be either technology or water quality-based. 

o Technology-based limits are based upon the treatment methods available to treat specific 

pollutants. Technology-based limits are set by the EPA and published as a regulation, or 

Ecology develops the limit on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 125.3, and chapter 173-220 

WAC). 

o Water quality-based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the Surface 

Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-201A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter 

173-200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the National 

Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). 

Page 14 
o Ecology must apply the most stringent of these limits to each parameter of concern. 

These limits are described below. 

The limits in this permit reflect information received in the application and from supporting 

reports (engineering, hydrogeology, etc.). Ecology evaluated the permit application and 

determined the limits needed to comply with the rules adopted by the State of Washington. 

Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all reported pollutants. Some pollutants are not 

treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in 

regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation. 

Ecology does not usually develop permit limits for pollutants that were not reported in the permit 

application but that may be present in the discharge. The permit does not authorize discharge of 

the non-reported pollutants. During the five-year permit term, the facility's effluent discharge 

conditions may change from those conditions reported in the permit application. The facility 

must notify Ecology, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), if significant changes occur in any 

constituent. Industries may be in violation of their permit until Ecology modifies the permit to 

reflect additional discharge of pollutants. 

A. Design Criteria 

Under WAC 173-220-150(1)(g), neither flows nor waste loadings may exceed approved design 

criteria. Ecology approved the following design criteria for the refinery's wastewater treatment 

plant. These criteria were obtained from BP's engineering report dated June 04, 2002 and 

updated permit renewal application dated July 30, 2010. 

Table 6. Design Criteria for BP's Biological Wastewater Treatment System -:·-----.·--------·-·----··----. --------:--·-~.----------------7"····---·· ':0·:·-. _Q _____ t:!Y.-

Parameter · ·· ..• --~§.~n _ _!!l!n -~ ___ 

Daily Maximum Flow from the Secondary Clarifier 13MGD 

Daily Maximum BOD5 Influent Loading to Aeration Tank 25,160 lbs/day 

B. Technology-Based Effluent Limits 

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), and New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Guidelines were 

published August 12, 1985 under 40 CFR Part 419 by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) for the cracking subcategory of petroleum refining. 

The refmery effluent limitations are based on terms of a settlement agreement dated April 1 7, 

1984, between EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council resolving litigation about the 

EPA guidelines. The August 12, 1985 guidelll!~s establish Best Available Technology (BAT) 

and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) as equal to Best Practicable Technology (BPT) for all 

Page 15 
parameters except phenols and chromium. Phenols and chromium are regulated by whichever 

guideline is m.ore stringent. 

In 1996, EPA completed a study of the petroleum refining industry (EPA-821-R-96-015) 

including treatment technologies, pollutants discharged, pollutant loadings, and potential water 

quality impacts. Based upon this review, EPA decided not to revise the refinery effluent 

guidelines. EPA determined that the best treatment technology currently available was 

essentially the same as that applied at the time the effluent guidelines were originally 

promulgated. EPA also determined that if the wastewater treatment systems at the refineries are 

properly operated and maintained, priority pollutants will be removed or treated to negligible or 

below detectable levels. 

In addition, Ecology requires facilities to use all known, available, and reasonable methods to 

control toxicants (AKART) in its wastewater as required under Washington State regulations. 

Because Ecology applies new source performance standards (NSPS) on the basis of the AKART 

requirements, the refinery's NPDES perffiit limits are more stringent than those in other states. 

Ecology has applied the more stringent NSPS limits to all crude throughput increases since 1984. 

On December 31, 2003, EPA published its intention to review the petroleum refining industry 

again to decide the necessity for revising their effluent guidelines. EPA evaluated pollution 

prevention opportunities, emerging treatment technologies, revising the effluent guidelines, and 

expanding the list of regulated pollutants. EPA reviewed information and comments on several 

issues including: control technologies for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (P AHs ), dioxin 

sources and reduction/control technologies, sources of toxic metals, process modifications to 

reduce metals, and what toxics are being released and remain unreported. 

On September 2, 2004 (Federal Register Volume 69 No. 170), EPA published its decision 

regarding revising the refinery effluent guidelines. EPA concluded that there is little evidence 

that P AHs are present in refinery wastewater discharges in concentrations above the detection 

limit. They also concluded that the concentration of metals being discharged by refineries is at 

or very near treatable levels, leaving little to no opportunity to reduce metals discharges through 

conventional end-of-pipe treatment. 

EPA reviewed the available dioxin information collected by refineries nationwide much of which 

was collected at the Washington state refmeries. The overall data indicated that,dioxins are only 

occasionally discharged in relatively low .concentrations in treated refmery effluent. In its 

opinion, this data did not warrant the development of national categorical limitations on dioxi~ in 

refmery wastewater discharges. EPA did note that on a case-by-case, best professional judgment 

basis, permit writers may decide to include effluent limitations for dioxin. 

EPA also encouraged permit writers and refmeries to consider pollution prevention 

opportunities. As a result of their evaluation, EPA concluded that there was no need to revise the 

federal effluent guidelines at this time. 

Ecology must decide whether the effluent guidelines also constitute all known, available and 

reasonable methods of treatment (AKART). As a general rule, if the effluent guidelines for a 

particular category are 5 years old or less, they are considered to be AKART. This will be 

immediately apparent in reviewing the development document. The development document 

Page 16 
describes production processes, pollutants generated, treatment efficiencies, and unit process 

designs present nationwide in the specific industry at the time of effluent guideline development. 

Generally, when effluent guidelines are over 10 years old, Ecology will analyze unit process designs 

and efficiencies to determine that the effluent guidelines constitute AKART and meet the intent of 

RCW 90.48.520. The previous NPDES permit required BP to prepare a treatment efficiency study 

and an engineering report describing the treatment capacity of the wastewater facility. 

Ecology compared BP's production processes, pollutants generated, and treatment technology to 

EPA's original development document and the results ofEPA's 1996 and 2004 evaluations of 

the petroleum refining industry. Ecology also examined the treatability data base and BP's 

wastewater treatment design and efficiencies. Ecology determined that BP is providing AKART 

for its wastewater. 

Since Ecology issued the 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 

in refmery processes are shown in the table below, along with the applicable size and process 

factors selected from the EPA guidelines. The size and process factor determination is 

documented in Appendix E. Ecology multiplied these factors by the actual feed stock to 

obtain an adjusted feed stock that is used in determining effluent limits, except for 

determining BAT limits for phenols and chromium. Table 7 shows production rates and 

factors for a feedstock rate of209,000 bbls/day. 

T a e bl 7 R emery fi p rocess Th rougJlpU h t 

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 stock rates specified in this permit represent actual crude throughput less 

recycled oil and other recycled material. 

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

chromium. 

Increases in the 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 of AKART. 

Ecology calculated the NSPS limitations by multiplying the increase in adjusted feed stock, 

(294,690- 142,114 = 152,576 bbls per day) by New Source Performance Standards. It added the 

resulting NSPS increment, based upon 152,576 bbls per day, to the BAT and BPT limitations, 

based upon the adjusted baseline feedstock rate of 142,114 bbls per day. Ecology did not include 

BCT limitations because they are equivalent to BPT limitations. 

Table 8 compares the calculated effluent limits with the limits from the previous permit issued 

on October 1, 1999. BP has stated that they are willing to accept .the limits from the previous 

permit calculated for a crude throughput rate of205,000 bbls/day. The proposed permit includes 

the 1999 limits for all parameters with the exception of new limits for hexavalent chromium and 

a correction to the monthly average limit for phenols. 

T a bl e 8 C . 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 18 
The Environmental Protection Agency determined federal effluent guidelines for total and hexavalent 

chromium back when chromium was commonly used in cooling water systems and discharged at 

much higher levels in the effluent. Chromium was banned for use in cooling systems by EPA in the 

early 1990s and the only remaining source of chromium is in the crude oil. Because federal effluent 

guidelines still include limits for chromium, Ecology must include an effluent limit for chromium in 

the proposed permit to ensure that refineries in Washington are subject to the same requirements as 

refineries located in other states. 

Ecology believes the guideline-derived effluent limit is artificially high now that chromium in the 

effluent has decreased to levels bordering on non-detectable. All detectable samples of chromium in 

the BP effluent have been within the range of 5 to 11 f.lg/l which is less than 1/1 oth of the marine 

chronic water quality standard of 50 f.lg/l for hexavalent chromium (acute standard= 1100 f.lg/1). 

Approximately half of the samples collected during the last 5 years have been non-detectable for 

chromium. 

Based on this information, Ecology's Best Professional Judgment is that a 50 11gll hexavalent 

chromium concentration limit is technologically achievable, reasonable, and protective of the 

receiving water quality. The proposed permit 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. At lower effluent 

flows, this limit will continue to be more stringent than the federal effluent guideline limit. 

However, at higher effluent flows, the federal effluent guideline limit will be more stringent. 

Therefore, the proposed permit includes both a concentration limit of 50 f..Lg/1 and a mass-based 

limit of2.0 lbs/day to cover all flow situations that might occur. (The 2.0 lbs/day is the massbased limit retained from the current permit.) 

The technology-based hexavalent chromium limit replaces the total chromium limits and the 

hexavalent chromium limits in previous permits. 

If chromium levels change in the crude oil refined at BP and result in concentration increases, 

Ecology will modify the permit to increase the limit as needed to allow continued facility 

compliance. Ecology will evaluate any revised limit to ensure that the effluent continues to meet 

water quality standards within the authorized mixing zone and the anti backsliding requirements 

are met and to ensure that chromium concentrations do not exceed limits allowed under the 

federal effluent guidelines. In the event that the federal effluent guidelines are promulgated 

without chromium limits, Ecology will drop the limit from the permit unless the situation 

changes and a water quality limit is necessary. BP will continue to perform semi-annual 

hexavalent chromium monitoring. 

The permit limit calculations are tabulated in Appendix E. The actual permit limit is based on 

the NSPS increment and the more stringent of the BAT and BPT determinations. BAT 

limitations are more stringent than BPT for phenol and chromium. The proposed effluent 

limitations are listed in the Table 9 below. 

Page 19 
Table 9. Proposed Effluent Limits 

PARAMETER Units Monthly Daily Maximum 

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 of oil and 

grease in the discharge shall at no 

time exceed 15 mg/1 and shall not 

exceed 1 0 mg/1 more than three 

days per month. 

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 of 6.0-9.0 

BALLAST AND STORMW ATER ALLOCATIONS 

Contaminated stormwater from the process area and the wastewater treatment facility is collected 

by the oily water sewer system and conveyed to the wastewater treatment facility for treatment. 

Storm water from the tank farms and the rest of the 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 stormwater pond at the wastewater treatment plant. Any oil or grease on 

the surface is removed by a skimmer that discharges to the oily water sewer. The water then 

cascades into the stormwater pond, where settling occurs. The stormwater pond discharges from 

an outlet box located near the floor of the pond into the final holding pond along with treated 

process wastewater effluent. 

Vessel personnel measure ballast water volumes. The refmery pumps ballast water from the 

dock facilities to a tank in the wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The volume of ballast 

water is very small compared to process water and stormwater. BP refmery has not received 

ballast water since February 2001. Stormwater volume is not directly measured at the facility. 

Direct measurement of total storm water is not possible since a portion of the storm water is 

diverted into the oily water sewer and mixed with process wastewater at many collection points 

throughout the process area. A portion of the 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 20 
Ecology performed the dty weather flow calculation in Appendix F by completing a linear 

regression on the average monthly flow versus the total monthly rainfall using data collected 

during years 2005-2010. It determined the new dry weather flow rate of3.87 MGD by averaging 

they-intercepts oflinear regression for years 2009 and 2010 because those years had the 

strongest correlation between average monthly flow and rainfall. 

The ballast and storm water allocations in the permit are based on guidelines in 40 CFR 419 .12( c) 

and 419 .22( e). The proposed permit does not include a storm water allocation for chromium as 

provided for in the federal effluent guidelines. The allocations for stormwater were developed to 

apply to runoff from areas associated with industrial activity. During the months of June through 

October, 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 when big storms hit it takes approximately that amount of time to discharge 

accumulated stormwater. BP retains stormwater within the tank dikes during rain events to the 

extent possible and slowly discharges stormwater into the stormwater system following rain 

events to maximize the settling that occurs through the stormwater system. Should the on-site 

means of measuring rainfall be unavailable due to equipment malfunction, BP may use rainfall 

data from other nearby industries or the National Weather Service station at Blaine. 

Table 10. Stormwater and Ballast Water Allocations 

.·· . 

Parameter Stormwater Allocation Ballast Water Allocation I : (Ibs/million gallons) (lbs/million gallons) . 

Monthly Average Daily . MonthlyAverage Daily Maximum 

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 last permit cycle. Appendix G 

shows the monitoring periods when BP claimed the stormwater allocation for TSS. 

STORMWATERDISCHARGE MONITORING (OUTFALLS 002,003,004,005, AND 007) 

Stormwater monitoring data for Outfalls 002 and 003 collected during the previous permit term 

are tabulated in Appendix H. The data indicate that the stormwater runoff from the areas 

drained by the two outfalls is similar in composition to non-industrial runoff in the area. During 

years 2000 thru 2002, the results were lower than Ecology and EPA stormwater benchmarks. 

Therefore, Ecology allowed BP to reduce the stormwater monitoring frequency from semiannually to annually on March 12, 2003, per permit condition Sl.E.a. 

Page 21 
The proposed permit expands the parameters to be monitored at Outfalls 002 and 003. In 

addition, there is a new source of storm water to Outfall 002 from construction activities for the 

Clean Fuels Project. Because of these changes, the proposed permit increases the frequency of 

monitoring at Oufalls 002 and 003. The permit requires 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 application purposes. Outfall 007 is currently permitted 

under the Industrial Stormwater General Permit. These outfalls drain areas that have very little 

exposure to industrial activities or materials. The proposed permit requires 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 may petition Ecology to reduce the sampling - ' 

frequency for one or more parameters based upon a consistent attainment of benchmark values. 

Consistent attainment is defined as eight consecutive quarters of monitoring. 

Benchmark values are not water quality standards or permit limits. They are indicator values. 

Values at or below the benchmark are considered unlikely to cause a water quality violation. 

The proposed permit includes standar·d language regarding general prohibitions and requiring 

actions to respond to monitoring results above benchmark values for these outfalls. There are no 

limits established for discharges from these outfalls in the proposed permit. 

ALTERNATIVE STORlviW ATER DISCHARGE 

On-shore Sump 

Under normal operating conditions, BP collects stormwater from the southern hillside above the 

dock pipe run in a basin. From the collection basin, stormwater flows into an on-shore sump, 

which also collects oily wastewater from the dock facilities. BP pumps the commingled 

stormwater and wastewaters from the dock's onshore sump to the refinery's wastewater 

treatment plant. During heavy rainfall events, the proposed permit authorizes BP to discharge 

stormwater directly to the Strait of Georgia from the collection basin via Outfall 006 rather than 

running the risk of overflowing the dock's onshore sump. In the event of a storm water discharge 

via Outfall 006, the refinery must monitor the following parameters: turbidity, TSS, O&G, pH, 

and estimated flow and report the monitoring results with the monthly discharge monitoring 

report. 

Discharge of Outfall 003 

The proposed permit authorizes the refmery to discharge water from the stormwater holding 

pond through Outfall 003 during heavy rainfall events. The use of Outfall 003 allows the 

refinery to pump the water from the stormwater holding pond to avoid overflowing the fmal 

holding pond, which contains treated process wastewater. In the event of discharge, the refinery 

must monitor the following parameters: turbidity, TSS, O&G, pH, and estimated flow and report 

the monitoring results with the monthly discharge monitoring report. 

Page 22 
FINAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE FOR FIREWATER TESTING 

The proposed permit authorizes BP to use treated fmal effluent for monthly firewater testing 

supply and during Emergency Response Team (ERT) training. It does not authorize the use of 

foam during the firewater testing or ER T training. 

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT STORMW A TER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 

The table below includes a list of projects at the refinery and the Industrial and Construction 

Stormwater General permits issued by Ecology since 2004. When Ecology issues the proposed 

NPDES permit, it will replace the Industrial Storm water General Permit for Outfall 007. BP 

must submit a notice of termination for its coverage under the Industrial Storm water General 

Permit as per Condition S 13. of that permit. 

BP will need to apply for coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit for future 

construction projects that disturb one or more acres and discharge to surface waters .of the state. 

Discharges from construction activities will not be covered by the proposed NPDES permit. 

Table 11. Permit Status 

. ·.· 

Permit Type Pennit No. Issued Date ·.· · •. Termhiated Date 

Industrial Stormwater General Permit - for 803-007537 I 71312006 Still in effect 

stormwater Outfall 007 WAR007537 

Construction Stormwater General Permit -

for the construction of roundabout at SR- WAR012598 

548 Grandview Road and Blaine Road 

613012010 12109/2010 

Intersection 

Construction Storm water General Permit - WAR010680 611712008 1111212010 

for the Non Process Facility Siting Project 

Construction Stormwater General Permit - WAR011683 

for the Cogeneration/Facilities Wetlands 

61112009 1012812010 

Construction Stormwater General Permit -

for the East Refinery Utility Infrastructure WAR009118 81212007 8/2212008 

Project 

Construction Stormwater General Permit - 803-006168 I 51212005 61212006 for the Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Project WAR006168 

Construction Stormwater General Permit - 803-005451 I 121212003 9/1212008 for the Brown Road Material Storage Area WAR005451 

Construction Stormwater General Permit -

for the Isomerization Unit 

803-005178 312112003 512712004 

C. Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits 

The Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) were 

designed to protect existing water quality and preserve the beneficial uses of Washington's 

surface waters. Waste discharge permits must include conditions that ensure the discharge will 

meet established surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A-510). Water quality-based 

effluent limits may be based on an individual waste load allocation or on a waste load allocation 

developed during a basin wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL). 

Page 23 
NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR TIIE PROTECTION OF AQUA TIC LIFE 

Numerical water quality criteria are published in the Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters 

(chapter 173-20 lA WAC). They specify the levels of pollutants allowed in receiving water to 

protect aquatic life and recreation in and on the water. Ecology uses numerical criteria along 

with chemical and physical data for the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent 

limits in the discharge permit. When surface water quality-based limits are more stringent or 

potentially more stringent than technology-based limits, the discharge must meet the water 

quality-based limits. 

NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH 

The U.S. EPA has published 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human health 

that are applicable to dischargers in Washington State ( 40 CFR 131.36). These criteria are 

designed to protect humans from exposure to pollutants linked to cancer and other diseases, 

based on consuming fish and shellfish and drinking contaminated surface waters. The Water 

Quality Standards also include radionuclide criteria to protect humans from the effects of 

radioactive substances. 

NARRATIVE CRITERIA 

Narrative water quality criteria (e.g., WAC 173-201A-240(1); 2006) limit the toxic, radioactive, 

or other deleterious mateii.al concentrations that the facility may discharge to levels below those 

which have the potential to: 

• Adversely affect designated water uses. 

o Cause acute or chronic toxicity to biota. 

• Impair aesthetic values. 

• Adversely affect human health. 

Narrative criteria protect the specific designated uses of all fresh waters (WAC 173-201A-200, 

2006) and of all marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210, 2006) in the State of Washington. 

ANTIDEGRADA TION 

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

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

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

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

water. 

• Ensure that all human activities likely to contribute to a lowering of water quality, at a 

minimum, apply all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and 

treatment (AKART). 

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

Tier I ensures existing and designated uses are maintained and protected and applies to all waters 

and all sources of pollutions. Tier II ensures that waters of a higher quality than the criteria 

Page 24 
assigned are not degraded unless such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the 

overriding public interest. Tier II applies only to a specific list of polluting activities. Tier III 

prevents the degradation of waters formally listed as "outstanding resource waters," and applies 

to all sources of pollution. 

A facility must prepare a Tier II analysis when all three of the following conditions are met: 

e The facility is planning a new or expanded action. 

• Ecology regulates or authorizes the action. 

• The action has the potential to cause measurable degradation to existing water quality at 

the edge of a chronic mixing zone. 

This facility must meet Tier I requirements. 

• Dischargers must maintain and protect existing and designated uses. Ecology may not 

allow any degradation that will interfere with, or become injurious to, existing or 

designated uses, except as provided for in Chapter 173-201A WAC. 

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

Ecology will take appropriate and definitive steps to bring the water quality back into 

compliance with the water quality standards. 

• Whenever the natural conditions of a water body are of a lower quality than the assigned 

criteria, the natural conditions constitute the water quality criteria. Where water quality 

criteria are not met because of natural conditions, human actions are not allowed to 

further lower the water quality, except where explicitly allowed in this Chapter. 

This section of the fact sheet describes Ecology's analysis. The analysis demonstrates that the 

existing and designated uses of the receiving water will be protected under the conditions of the 

proposed permit. 

Ecology has reviewed existing water quality data from Ecology's long-term monitoring station 

GRG002 and from Eric Crecelius (1998). The data show that the ambient water meets the 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, ammonia, cyanide and metals standards for 

marine waters extraordinary quality category given in Chapter 173-201A WAC. Therefore, 

Ecology uses the designated classification criteria for this water body in the proposed permit. 

The discharges authorized by this proposed permit should not cause a loss of beneficial uses. 

MIXING ZONES 

A mixing zone is the defined area in the receiving water surrounding the discharge port(s), where 

wastewater mixes with receiving water. Within mixing zones, the pollutant concentrations may 

exceed water quality numeric criteria, so long as the diluted wastewater doesn't interfere with 

designated uses of the receiving water body (e.g., recreation, water supply, and aquatic life and 

wildlife habitat, etc.). The pollutant concentrations outside of mixing zones must meet water 

quality numeric criteria. 

Page 25 
State and federal rules allow mixing zones because the concentrations and effects of most 

pollutants diminish rapidly after discharge, due to dilution. Ecology defines mixing zone sizes to 

limit the amount of time any exposure to the end-of-pipe discharge could harm water quality, 

plants, or fish. 

The State's Water Quality Standards allow Ecology to authorize mixing zones for the facility's 

permitted wastewater discharges only if those discharges already receive all known, available, 

and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART). Mixing zones typically 

require compliance with water quality criteria within a specified distance from the point of 

discharge; and use no more than 25% of the available width of the water body for dilution. 

Ecology uses modeling to estimate the amount of mixing within the mixing zone and determine 

the potential for violating the water quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone and derive 

any necessary effluent limits. Steady-state models are the most frequently used tools for 

conducting mixing zone analyses. Ecology chooses values for each effluent and for receiving 

water variables that correspond to the time period when the most critical condition is likely to 

occur (see Ecology's Permit Writer's Manual). Each critical condition parameter (by itself) has 

a low probability of occurrence and the resulting dilution factor is conservative. The term 

"reasonable worst-case" applies to these values. 

The mixing zone analysis produces a numerical value called a dilution factor (DF). A dilution 

factor represents the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the 

boundary of the mixing zone. For example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 

1 0% by volume and the receiving water comprises 90% of the total volume at the boundary of 

the mixing zone. Ecology uses dilution factors with the water quality criteria to calculate 

reasonable potentials and effluent limits. Water quality standards include both aquatic life-based 

criteria and human health-based criteria. The former are applied at both the acute and chronic 

mixing zone boundaries; the latter are applied only at the chronic boundary. The concentration of 

pollutants at the boundaries of any of these mixing zones may not exceed the numerical criteria 

for that zone. 

Each aquatic life acute criterion is based on the assumption that organisms are not exposed to 

that concentration for more than one-hour and more often than one exposure in three years. Each 

aquatic life chronic criterion is based on the assumption that organisms are not exposed to that 

concentration for more than four consecutive days and more often than once in three years. 

The two types of human health-based water quality criteria distinguish between those pollutants 

linked to non-cancer effects (non-carcinogenic) and those linked to cancer effects (carcinogenic). 

The human health-based water quality criteria incorporate several exposure and risk 

assumptions. These assumptions include: 

• A 70-year lifetime of daily exposures. 

• An ingestion rate for fish or shellfish measured in kg/day. 

• An ingestion rate of two liters/day for drinking water 

• A one-in-one-million cancer risk for carcinogenic chemicals. 

This permit authorizes a small acute mixing zone, surrounded by a chronic mixing zone around 

the point of discharge (WAC 173-201A-400; 2006). The water quality standards impose certain 

conditions before allowing the discharger a mixing zone: 

Page 26 
1. Ecology must specify both the allowed size and location in a permit. 

The proposed permit specifies the size and location of the allowed mixing zone. 

2. The facility must fully apply AKART to its discharge. 

Ecology has determined that the treatment provided for the discharge at Outfall 001 and the 

pollution prevention activities practiced at BP meet the requirements of AKART (see 

"Technology based Limits"). 

3. Ecology must consider critical discharge conditions. 

Surface water quality-based limits are derived for the water body's critical condition, (the 

receiving water and waste discharge condition with the highest potential for adverse impact on 

the aquatic biota, human health, and existing or designated water body uses). The critical 

discharge condition is often pollutant-specific or water body-specific. 

Critical discharge conditions are those conditions that result in reduced dilution or increased 

effect of the pollutant. Factors affecting dilution include the depth of water, the density 

stratification in the water column, the currents, and the rate of discharge. Density stratification is 

determined by the salinity and temperature of the receiving water. Temperatures are warmer in 

the surface waters in summer. Therefore, density stratification is generally greatest during the 

summer months. Density stratification affects how far up in the water column a freshwater 

plume may rise. The rate of mixing is greatest when an effluent is rising. The effluent stops 

rising when the mixed effluent is the same density as the surrounding water. After the effluent 

stops rising, the rate of mixing is much more gradual. Water depth can affect dilution when a 

plume might rise to the surface when there is little or no stratification. Ecology uses the water 

depth at mean lower low water (MLL W) for marine waters. 

Ecology's Permit Writer's Manual describes additional guidance on criteria/design conditions for 

determining dilution factors. The Manual can be obtained from Ecology's website at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/92109.html. 

Ecology used the following critical conditions to model the discharge: 

• Water depth at MLL W of 57 feet. 

• Density profile with a difference of9.29 sigma-t units between 57 feet and the surface. 

• 50th percentile current speeds of 0.15 m/sec for chronic and human health mixing zones. 

• lOth or 90th percentile current speeds of0.04 m/sec for acute mixing.zone. 

• Maximum average monthly effluent flow of 4.4 MGD for chronic and human health noncarcinogen. 

• Annual average flow of 4.0 MGD for human health carcinogen. 

• Maximum daily flow of 8.4 million gallons per day (MGD) for acute mixing zone. 

• 1 DAD MAX Effluent temperature of28.4 degrees C. 

Ambient data at critical conditions in the vicinity of the outfall was taken from the "Mixing 

Zone Analysis ofBP's Outfall" prepared by ENSR Corporation in May 2008. 

Page 27 
4. Supporting information must clearly indicate the mixing zone would not: 

"' Have a reasonable potential to cause the loss of sensitive or important habitat, 

e Substantially interfere with the existing or characteristic uses, 

119 Result in damage to the ecosystem, or 

"' Adversely affect public health. 

Ecology established Washington State water quality criteria for toxic chemicals using EPA 

criteria. EPA developed the criteria using toxicity tests with numerous organisms, and set the 

criteria to protect all aquatic species. 

EPA sets acute criteria for toxic chemicals assuming organisms are exposed to the pollutant at 

the criteria concentration for 1-hour. They set chronic criteria assuming organisms are exposed to 

the pollutant at the criteria concentration for 4 days. Dilution modeling under critical conditions 

generally shows that both acute and chronic criteria concentrations are reached within minutes of 

being discharged. 

The dilution modeling under critical conditions shows that the acute dilution at Outfall 001 is 

attained in less than 3 minutes and the chronic dilution in less than 6 minutes. 

The discharge plume does not impact drifting and non-strong swimming organisms because they 

cannot stay in the plume close to the outfall long enough to be affected. Strong swimming fish 

could maintain a position within the plume, but they can also avoid the discharge by swimming 

away. Mixing zones generally do not affect benthic organisms (bottom dwellers) because the 

buoyant plume rises in the water column. Ecology has 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 of the receiving water after mixing with the discharge will not create 

lethal conditions or blockages to fish migration. 

Ecology evaluates the cumulative toxicity of an effluent by testing the discharge with whole 

effluent toxicity (WET) testing. WET testing performed by BP for Outfall 001 indicates that 

there is no reasonable potential for acute or chronic receiving water toxicity. 

The mixing zone for Outfall 001 is small and is centered at a distance of 2,200 feet from shore. 

The mixing zone does not lie near the herring spawning areas, which are closer to shore. 

There is no documented linkage between BP's discharge at Outfall 001 and the reduction in the 

local herring population. BP will use the recently developed herring bioassay tests to evaluate 

the possible effects of their effluent on herring and to compare the herring bioassay results with 

other EPA approved bioassay tests. 

· Ecology reviewed the above information, the specific information on the characteristics of the 

discharge, the receiving water characteristics, and the discharge location.· Based on this review 

Ecology concluded that the discharge at Outfall 001 does not have a reasonable potential to 

cause the loss of sensitive or important habitat, substantially interfere with existing or 

characteristics uses, result in damage to the ecosystem or adversely affect public health. 

Page 28 
5. The discharge/receiving water mixture must not exceed water quality criteria outside 

the boundary of a mixing zone. 

Ecology conducted a reasonable potential analysis, using procedures established by the EPA and 

by Ecology, for each pollutant (see Appendix I). Ecology concluded the discharge/receiving 

water mixture will not violate water quality crite1ia outside the boundary of the mixing zone if 

permit limits are met. 

Modeling studies by ENSR in 2001 also evaluated the aggregate impact of the different 

industrial discharges in Cherry Point area. It was concluded from the studies that the combined 

discharges do not result in exceedance of water quality criteria. 

6. The size of the mixing zone and the concentrations of the pollutants must be minimized. 

At any given time, the effluent plume uses only a portion of the acute and chronic mixing zone, 

which minimizes the volume of water involved in mixing. Because tidal currents change 

direction, the plume orientation within the mixing zone changes. The plume rises through the 

water column as it mixes therefore much of the receiving water volume at lower depths in the 

mixing zone is not mixed with discharge. Similarly, because the discharge may stop rising at 

some depth due to density stratification, waters above that depth will not mix with the discharge. 

Ecology determined it is impractical to specify in the permit the actual, much more limited 

volume in which the dilution occurs as the plume rises and moves with the current. 

Ecology minimizes the size of mixing zones by requiring dischargers to install diffusers when 

they are appropriate to the discharge and the specific receiving waterbody. When a diffuser is 

installed the discharge and the receiving water is more completely mixed in a shorter time 

period. Ecology also minimizes the size of the mixing zone (in the form of the dilution factor) 

using design criteria with a low probability of occurrence. For example, Ecology uses the 

expected 95th percentile pollutant concentration, the 90th percentile background concentration, 

the centerline dilution factor and the lowest flow occurring once in every 1 0 years to perform the 

reasonable potential analysis. 

The facility continues to conduct pollution prevention activities and has completed pollution 

prevention projects. These activities also minimize the concentrations of pollutants in the 

discharge. 

Because of the above reasons, Ecology has effectively minimized the size of the mixing zone 

authorized in the proposed permit. 

7. Maximum size of mixing zone. 

The authorized mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 001 does not exceed the maximum size 

restriction. 

Page 29 
8. Acute Mixing Zone -

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

the point of discharge as practicably attainable. 

Ecology determined that the acute criteria will be met at 10% of the distance (257ft) 

of the chronic mixing zone. 

o The pollutant concentration, duration and frequency of exposure to the 

discharge, will not create a barrier to migration or translocation of indigenous 

organisms to a degree that has the potential to cause damage to the ecosystem. 

As described above, the toxicity of any pollutant depends upon the exposure, the 

pollutant concentration, and the time the organism is exposed to that concentration. 

Authorizing a limited acute mixing zone for this discharge assures that it will not 

create a barrier to migration. The effluent from this discharge will rise as it enters the 

receiving water, assuring that the rising effluent will not cause translocation of 

indigenous organisms near the point of discharge (below the rising effluent). 

Dilution modeling has demonstrated that mixing in the acute zone occurs very rapidly 

as the less dense effluent rises through the water column due to both the diffuser 

design and the buoyance of the effluent. Acute mixing occurs in less than 3 minutes 

for Outfall 001. The duration and frequency of exposure to elevated concentrations by 

any drifting or non-strong sWimming organisms is minimized because the organisms 

simply cannot stay in one place while the plume moves past them. Because the 

mixing zone poses no barrier to organisms, strong swimming species are able to avoid 

the plume. Exposure to elevated concentrations in the effluent by benthic organisms is 

avoided because the plum rises in the water column. 

The acute mixing zone is sized at 10% of the distance of the chronic mixing zone. 

• Comply with size restrictions. 

The mixing zone authorized for the discharge at Outfall 001 complies with the size 

restrictions published in Chapter 173-201A WAC. 

9. Overlap of Mixing Zones. 

The mixing zone for the discharge at Outfall 001 does not overlap another mixing zone. 

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria 

Applicable designated uses and surface water quality criteria are defmed in Chapter 173-201A 

WAC. In addition, the U.S. EPA set human health criteria for toxic pollutants ( 40 CFR 131.36). 

Criteria applicable to this facility's discharge are summarized below. 

Page 30 
Aquatic life uses are designated using the following general categories. All indigenous fish and 

non-fish aquatic species must be protected in waters of the state. 

(a) Extraordinary quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; 

clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, 

shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning. 

(b) Excellent quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, 

oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, 

crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning. 

(c) Good quality salmonid migration and rearing; other fish migration, rearing, and 

spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish 

(crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning. 

(d) Fair quality salmonid and other fish migration. 

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 1 Day 7.0 mg/L 

Minimum 

Turbidity Criteria • 5 NTU over background when the 

background is 50 NTU or less; or 

• A 1 0 percent increase in turbidity when the 

background turbidity is more than 50 NTU. 

pH Criteria I pH must be within the 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 must not exceed a geometric 

mean value of 14 colonies/1 00 mL, and not have more than 10 percent of all samples (or any 

single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric 

mean value exceeding 43 colonies/100 mL. 

The miscellaneous marine water uses are wildlife habitat, harvesting, commerce and 

navigation, boating, and aesthetics. 

E. Evaluation of Surface Water Quality -Based Effluent Limits for Numeric Criteria 

Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environment near the point of discharge (near 

field) or at a considerable distance from the point of discharge (far field). Toxic pollutants, for 

example, are near-field pollutants--their adverse effects diminish rapidly with mixing in the 

receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) is a far-field 

pollutant whose adverse effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilution has occurred. 

Page 31 
Thus, the method of calculating surface water quality-based effluent limits varies with the point 

at which the pollutant has its maximum effect. 

Pollutant concentrations in the proposed discharge exceed water quality criteria despite using 

technology-based controls which Ecology determined fulfills AKART. Ecology therefore 

authorizes a mixing zone in accordance with the geometric configuration, flow restriction, and 

other restrictions imposed on mixing zones described in chapter 173-201A WAC. 

The diffuser at Outfall 001 is 52 feet long with a diameter of 20 inches. The diffuser has total 13 

ports, seven ports on one side and six ports on the other side. Each port has a 3-inch diameter. 

The distance between the ports is 4 feet. The mean lower low water (MLL W) depth at the 

diffuser is 57 feet. This information is available in the Mixing Zone Analysis ofBP's Outfall 

conducted by ENSR Corporation submitted to Ecology in May 2008. 

CHRONIC MIXING ZONE 

WAC 173-201A-400(7)(b) specifies that mixing zones must not extend in any horizontal 

direction from the discharge ports for a distance greater than 300 feet plus the depth of water 

over the discharge ports as measured during MLL W. 

The horizontal distance of the chronic mixing zone is 257 feet. The mixing zone extends from 

the seabed to the top of the water surface. 

ACUTE MIXING ZONE 

WAC 173-201A-400(8)(b) specifies that in estuarine waters a zony where acute criteria may be 

exceeded must not extend beyond 1 0% of the distance established for the chronic zone. The acute 

mixing zone for Outfall 001 extends 26 feet in any spatial direction from any discharge port. 

BP determined the dilution factors of effluent to receiving water that occur within these zones by 

the use of a dye study and modeling. The results of the dye study and initial modeling of the 

mixing zones at BP is documented in the 1990 Dilution Ratio Study Report. Additional 

modeling is presented in the report entitled "Effluent Plumes Modeling Study" and "Mixing 

Zone Analysis ofBP's Outfall" prepared by ENSR Consulting and Engineering in August 2001 

and May 2008, respectively. 

Ecology selected the most conservative density profile and ambient current velocity specified in 

the 2008 ENSR Mixing Zone Analysis to calculate the dilution factors at Outfall 001. Appendix 

J shows the input parameters and dilution factors. Ecology decided to retain the acute dilution 

factor for Outfall 001 from the previous permit per WAC 173-201A-400, which requires that the 

size of mixing zone be minimized, as follows: 

Table 13. Dilution Factors (DF) 

Human Health, Carcinogen N/A 136 

Human Health, Non-carcinogen N/A 136 

Ecology determined the impacts of immediate oxygen deficiency, temperature, pH, fecal 

coliform, chlorine, ammonia, metals, nutrients, and other toxics as described below, using the 

Page 32 
dilution factors in the above table. The derivation of surface water quality-based limits also 

. takes into account the variability of pollutant concentrations in both the effluent and the 

receiving water. 

BODs 

Ecology predicted no violation of the surface water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO) 

under critical conditions. Therefore, Ecology placed the technology-based effluent limit for 

BODs in the permit. 

Temperature 

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

elements: 

• Annual summer maximum threshold criteria (June 15 to September 15) 

• Supplemental spawning and rearing season criteria (September 15 to June15) 

G Incremental warming restrictions 

• Protections against acute effects 

Ecology evaluates each criterion independently to determine reasonable potential and derive 

permit limits. 

• Annual summer maximum and supplementary spawning/rearing criteria 

Each water body has an annual maximum temperature criterion [WAC 173-201A-200(1) 

(c), 210(1)(c), and Table 602]. These threshold criteria (e.g., 12, 16, 17.5, 20°C) protect 

specific categories of aquatic life by controlling the effect of human actions on summer 

· temperatures. 

Some waters have an additional threshold criterion to protect the spawning and 

incubation of salmonids (9°C for char and l3°C for salmon and trout) [WAC 173-201A602, Table 602]. These criteria apply during specific date-windows. 

The threshold criteria apply at the edge of the chronic mixing zone. Criteria for most 

fresh waters are expressed as the highest 7-Day average of daily maximum temperature 

(7-DADMax). The 7-DADMax temperature is the arithmetic average of seven 

consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures. Criteria for marine waters and 

some fresh waters are expressed as the highest 1-Day annual maximum temperature (1-

DMax). 

• Incremental warming criteria 

The water quality standards limit the amount of warming human sources can cause under 

specific situations [WAC 173-201A-200(1)(c)(i)-(ii), 210(1)(c)(i)-(ii)]. The incremental 

warming criteria apply at the edge of the chronic mixing zone. 

At locations and times when background temperatures are cooler than the assigned 

threshold criterion, point sources are permitted to warm the water by only a defmed 

Page 33 
increment. These increments are permitted only to the extent doing so does not cause 

temperatures to exceed either the annual maximum or supplemental spawning criteria. 

At locations and times when a threshold criterion is being exceeded due to natural 

conditions, all human sources, considered cumulatively, must not warm the water more 

than 0.3°C above the naturally warm condition. 

When Ecology has not yet completed a TMDL, our policy allows each point source to 

warm water at the edge of the chronic mixing zone by 0.3°C. This is true regardless of 

the background temperature and even if doing so would cause the temperature at the edge 

of a standard mixing zone to exceed the numeric threshold criteria. Allowing a 0.3°C 

warming for each point source is reasonable and protective where the dilution factor is 

based on 25% or less of the critical flow. This is because the fully mixed effect on 

temperature will only be a fraction of the 0.3°C cumulative allowance (0.075°C or less) 

for all human sources combined. 

o Temperature Acute Effects 

Instantaneous lethality to passing fish: The upper 99th percentile daily maximum 

effluent temperature must not exceed 33°C; unless a dilution analysis indicates ambient 

temperatures will not exceed 33°C 2-seconds after discharge. 

General lethality and migration blockage: Measurable (0.3°C) increases in 

temperature at the edge of a chronic mixing zone are not allowed when the receiving 

water temperature exceeds either a lDMax of23°C ora 7DADMax of22°C. 

Lethality to incubating fish: Human actions must not cause a·measurable (0.3°C) 

warming above 17.5°C at locations where eggs are incubating. 

Annual summer maximum, supplementary spawning criterion, and incremental warming 

criteria: Ecology calculated the reasonable potential for the discharge to exceed the annual 

summer maximum, the supplementary spawning criterion, and the incremental warming criteria 

(see temp·erature calculation in AppendiX K). 

The discharge is only allowed to warm the water by a defined increment when the background 

(ambient) temperature is cooler or warmer than the assigned threshold criterion. Ecology allows 

warming increments only when they do not cause temperatures to exceed either the annual 

maximum or supplemental spawning criteria. 

The incremental increase for this discharge is within the allowable amount. Therefore, the 

proposed permit does not include a temperature limit. 

The permit requires additional monitoring of effluent temperature. Ecology will reevaluate the 

reasonable potential during the next permit renewal. 

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

II.F. ofthe fact sheet. The Strait of Georgia does not exceed a lDMax of23°C. 

Compliance with the technology-based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance with the water 

quality standards of surface waters because of the high buffering capacity of marine water. 

Page 34 
Fecal Coliform 

Ecology's 2006 Class 2 inspection showed high fecal coliform value in the final effluent. BP 

suspected that the high fecal coliform was due to increased wildlife activitiy at the ponds in the 

tertiary treatment system. BP sent a sample of effluent 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 proposed permit includes a study to collect data to determine if there is reasonable potential 

for fecal coliform in the final effluent to 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 Ecology to place limits in NPDES permits on toxic 

chemicals in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable potential for those chemicals to exceed 

the surface water quality criteria. Ecology does not exempt facilities with technology-based 

effluent limits from meeting the surface water quality standards. 

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

the following toxic pollutants are present in the discharge: ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, cyanide, mercury, nickel, selenium, sulfide, and zinc. Ecology conducted a 

reasonable potential to exceed analysis (see Appendix I) on these parameters to determine 

whether it would require effluent limits in this permit. 

Ecology conducted the reasonable potential to exceed analysis using receiving water and waste 

discharge conditions that represent the critical condition. Ecology obtained the receiving water 

background data for the metal parameters from a study undertaken by the Western States 

Petroleum Association (WSP A) in 1997. The study included 1 0 samples taken at three different 

locations within Puget Sound in an effort to provide representative information about the 

receiving water outside the influence of the refineries. The sampling period chosen represents 

the critical period in the receiving water. The resulsts of this study are documented in the 

February 1998 report entitled Background Metals Concentrations in Selected Puget Sound 

Marine Receiving Waters. There are limited effluent data available for metals. Ecology 

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

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

dissolved cadmium, dissolved copper, dissolved lead, mercury, and dissolved zinc. Calculations 

using all applicable data resulted in a determination that there is no reasonable potential for this 

discharge to cause a violation of water quality standards (see Appendix I). This determination 

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

Water quality criteria for most metals published in chapter 173-201A WAC are based on the 

dissolved fraction of the metal (see footnotes to table WAC 173-201A-240(3); 2006). BP may 

provide data clearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning of the dissolved metal in the ambient 

water in relation to an effluent discharge. Ecology may adjust metals criteria on a site-specific 

Page 35 
basis when data is available clearly demonstrating the seasonal partitioning in the ambient water 

in relation to an effluent discharge. 

Ammonia 

Ammonia is considered a toxic pollutant and Ecology evaluated it for reasonable potential to 

exceed water quality standards. Ammonia's toxicity depends on what portion is available in the 

unionized form. The amount of unionized ammonia depends on the pH, salinity, and 

temperature of the receiving marine water. Ecology must use receiving water information to 

· evaluate ammonia toxicity. 

Ecology evaluated one ambient receiving water station, GRG002, to determine the site specific 

acute and chronic criteria and to obtain background ammonia data. Located in the Straits of 

Georgia near Patos Island, GRG002 is a long term core station for which substantial data exists, 

and which adequately represents the receiving water environment near 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 90th percentile value to represent the critical 

condition as recommended by the Ecology Permit Writer's Manual. It used the values for the 

ambient station and the 90th percentile values for background total ammonia concentration in the 

reasonable potential calculation shown in Appendix I. With the available dilution at BP, 

Ecology determined no reasonable potential for BP to exceed water quality standards for 

ammonia at the edge of the acute and chronic dilution zones. 

Cyanide 

Ecology completed an evaluation of BP' s cyanide data to determine if it had a reasonable 

potential to exceed marine cyanide criteria. It used cyanide data from the effluent 

characterization in the permit renewal application to determine the maximum value, and the 

statistical parameter used in the 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 or chronic cyanide criteria in Washington's Water Quality Standards (see 

Appendix I). As a result, the proposed permit does not include limits for cyanide. 

STORMW A TER 0UTF ALLS 002-007 

Stormwater discharges from Outfalls 002-007 are managed by the use ofBMPs and monitoring 

for comparison to benchmark pollutant concentrations. The benchmarks are set at levels deemed 

protective of water quality standards in the receiving waters. Much of the storm water from BP 

runs off from lands not significantly exposed to industrial activities or materials and with little 

impermeable surfaces. At times of the year, most of the storm water percolates into the ground 

and does not discharge offsite at the outfalls. 

Continued monitoring of toxics will provide a database to set limits when storm water mixing 

zone guidance or a regulation is available. If future data collected indicate a problem, Ecology 

may require a mixing study to determine the actual mixing available or may require an 

evaluation of additional best management practices. 

Page 36 
F. Whole Effluent Toxicity 

The water quality standards for surface waters forbid discharge of effluent that causes toxic 

effects in the receiving waters. Many toxic pollutants cannot be measured by commonly 

available detection methods. However, laboratory tests can measure toxicity directly, by 

exposing living organisms to the wastewater and measuring their responses. These tests measure 

the aggregate toxicity of the whole effluent, so this approach is called whole effluent toxicity 

(WET) testing. Some WET tests measure acute toxicity and other WET tests measure chronic 

toxicity. 

• Acute toxicity tests measure mortality as the significant response to the toxicity of the 

effluent. Dischargers who monitor their wastewater with acute toxicity tests fmd early 

indications of any potential lethal effect of the effluent on organisms in the receiving 

water. 

• Chronic toxicity tests measure various sublethal toxic responses such as retarded growth 

or reduced reproduction. Chronic toxicity tests often involve either a complete life cycle 

test on an organism with an extremely short life cycle, or a partial life cycle test during a 

critical stage of a test organism's life. Some chronic toxicity tests also measure organism 

survival. 

Ecology-accredited WET testing laboratories use the proper WET testing protocols, fulfill the 

data requirements, and submit results in the correct reporting format. Accredited laboratory staff 

know about WET testing and how to calculate an NOEC, LCso, EC5o, IC2s, etc. Ecology gives 

all accredited labs the most recent version of Ecology Publication# WQ-R-95-80, Laboratory 

Guidance and Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Review Criteria 

(b.ttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9580.html), which is referenced in the permit. Ecology 

recommends that the Permittee sends a copy of the acute or chronic toxicity sections( s) of its 

NPDES permit to the laboratory. 

Acute Toxicity 

As required in the previous permit, the refinery conducted quarterly acute toxicity testing using 

Pimephales promelas and Daphnia magna on a rotating basis. The acute toxicity test was 

performed using 100% effluent, the acute critical effluent concentration (ACEC) 3.6%, and a 

control. The results of the 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 with WAC 173-205-

050(2)(a), have a reasonable potential to cause receiving water toxicity. No acute toxicity tests 

conducted under the current permit exceeded the acute toxicity limit. 

The proposed permit will impose an acute toxicity limit. The effluent limit for acute toxicity is: 

No acute toxicity detected in a test sample represe,.ting the acute critical effluent 

concentration ACEC, 3.6% of the effluent, and the control. 

Compliance with an acute toxicity limit is measured by an acute toxicity test comparing test . 

organism survival in the ACEC (using a sample of effluent diluted to equal the ACEC) to 

survival in nontoxic control water. BP is in compliance with the acute toxicity limit if there is no 

statistically significant difference in test organism survival between the ACEC sample and the 

control sample. 

Page 37 
Chronic Toxicity 

As required in the current permit, the Permittee conducted chronic toxicity testing on the fmal 

effluent during the third or fourth year of the permit term. BP conducted the testing every third 

month for a period of one year (four times) in 2002. The two organisms tested were Top Smelt 

and Blue Mussel. Results of the chronic characterization study in Appendix L showed no 

reasonable potential for effluent discharges to cause receiving water chronic toxicit-y. The 

proposed permit will 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 toxicity has not increased in the effluent. In addition: 

• If BP makes process or material changes which, in Ecology's opinion, increase the 

potential for effluent toxicity, then Ecology may (in a regulatory order, by permit 

modification, or in the permit renewal) require the facility to conduct additional effluent 

characterization 

o If WET testing conducted for submittal with a permit application fails to meet the 

performance standards in WAC 173-205-020, Ecology will assume that effluent toxicity 

has increased. BP may demonstrate to Ecology that effluent toxicity has not increased by 

performing additional WET testing after it has made the process or material changes. 

CHERRY POINT HERRING 

The Pacific herring; Clupea pallasi, stock which spawns in the Cherry Point vicinity, near 

Bellingham, was once the largest in Washington. The stock has dramatically declined in 

abundance in the last 10-15 years and remains at record low levels. Cherry Point herring once had 

a spawning biomass equal to that of all of the other herring stocks in the state combined. The 

Cherry Point stock size has declined from nearly 15,000 tons in 1973 to only 774 tons in 2010. 

Although much of the decline may be due to natural factors (e. g., temperature increases, 

predation, lack of food source), point and non-point sources of pollution may be potential 

stressors acting in concert with the natural stressors. Because of the large amount of industrial 

activity at Cherry Point associated with refineries and other heavy industry, it has been suggested 

that contamination of the spawning Jp"Ounds may be causing or contributing to the decline. 

In response to this concern, Ecology and Western Washington University developed and 

validated herring toxicity tests to use for routine effluent testing. In November 2005, Ecology 

approved the regulatory use of a 96-hour herring pro larval acute survival test and a 1 0-day 

herring embryo survival and normal development test. A 7 -day larval survival and growth test 

was validated and approved for regulatory use in December 2011. 

In April2006, Ecology issued an agreed order to the BP Cherry Point Refinery, ConocoPhillips 

Ferndale Refmery, Shell Puget Sound Refmery, Tesoro Anacortes Refmery, and the Alcoa-Intalco 

Works Aluminum Smelter requiring them to conduct larval acute survival tests twice annually at 

each of their process wastewater outfalls. The order included a requirement to follow up on any 

adverse effects found during the course of these studies with additional testing and/or 

investigation. Ecology defmed adverse effects as the Lowest Observable Effects Concentration 

(LOEC) being equal to or lower than the Acute Critical Effluent Concentration (ACEC). 

Page 38 
The agreed order stated that if the LOEC was equal to or lower than the ACEC, BP must develop 

and implement a Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation (TVRE) Plan. The order also stated 

that with prior approval from Ecology, BP could use the topsmelt Atherinops ajjinis, 96-hour acute 

survival test as an alternate test if herring larvae are unavailable during the test window. 

In 2007-2010, halfthe hening tests ofBP's effluent showed no toxicity at all. Although the other 

half showed 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 of the herring larval acute testing and topsmelt testing for BP are summarized in 

Appendix L. 

Herring toxicity testing is included in the proposed permit. BP is required to conduct acute 

testing using the pro larval acute survival test and chronic testing using the embryo survival and 

normal development test and the larval survival and growth test. The permit requires that 

effluent monitoring be done with both and standard EPA toxicity tests. 

The permit requires a toxicity investigation if testing shows any adverse effects. The EPA tests 

can be used to investigate the cause of any significant toxicity and the findings of the 

investigation can be confirmed with the herring tests. 

Another goal in pairing the herring tests with EPA tests is to discover the extent to which EPA 

tests can be used to long term to protect herring. Herring are completely unavailable for testing 

outside of the six-month West Coast spawning season. Effectively monitoring effluents and 

controlling toxicity requires more frequent testing than is possible using test organisms from the 

spawning ofwild herring. The standard EPA toxicity tests are readily available all year and can 

be set up quickly if needed. The pennit requrirements seek to establish the relative sensitivity of 

herring tests and analogous EPA tests and to examine the responses of both tests to effluent 

constituents known to be toxic. 

The herring toxicity testing in the proposed permit does not have to meet EPA standards. This 

testing is not for compliance monitoring or effluent characterization so the requirements of WAC 

173-205-050(1)(d) do not apply. 

G. Human Health 

Washington's water quality standards include 91 numeric human health-based criteria that 

Ecology must consider when writing NPDES permits. These criteria were established in 1992 

by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule ( 40 CFR 131.36). The National Taxies Rule allows 

states to use mixing zones to evaluate whether discharges comply with human health criteria. 

Ecology detennined that BP' s effluent may contain chemicals of concern posing a risk to human 

health. Ecology determined this because data or process information indicate regulated 

chemicals occur in the discharge. 

Ecology conducted a determination of the discharge's potential to violate the water quality 

standards as required by 40 CFR 122.44( d) by following the procedures published in the 

Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (EP A/505/2-90-001) and 

Page 39 
Ecology's Permit Writer'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 of their 

permit renewal application dated May 03, 2004. Reasonable potential to exceed human health 

criteria is evaluated for each parameter in Appendix I. Ecology's evaluation showed that the 

discharge has no reasonable potential to cause a violation of water quality standards, thus an 

effluent limit is not warranted. 

Arsenic 

In 1992, the USEP A adopted risk -based arsenic criteria for the protection of human health for the 

State of Washington. 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 shellfish tissue and water ingestion. These criteria have 

caused confusion in implementation because they differ from the drinking water maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) of 10 flg/L, which is not risk-based, and because the human health 

criteria are sometimes exceeded by natural background concentrations of arsenic in surface water 

and ground water. 

In Washington, when a natural background concentration exceeds the criterion, the natural 

background concentration becomes the criterion, and no dilution zone is allowed. This could 

result in a situation where natural groundwater or surface water used as a municipal or industrial 

source-water would need additional treatment to meet numeric effluent limits even though no 

arsenic was added as waste. Although this is not the case for all dischargers, Ecology does not 

have data at this time to quantifythe extent of the problem. 

A regulatory mechanism to deal with the issues associated with natural background 

concentrations of arsenic in groundwater-derived drinking waters is currently lacking. 

Consequently, the Water Quality Program, at this time, has decided to use a three-pronged 

strategy to address the issues associated with the arsenic criteria. The three strategy elements 

are: 

1. Pursue, at the national level, a solution to the regulatory issue of groundwater sources 

with high arsenic concentrations causing municipal treatment plant effluent to exceed 

criteria. The revision of the drinking water MCL for arsenic offered a national opportunity to 

discuss how drinking water sources can affect NPDES wastewater dischargers, however Ecology 

was unsuccessful in focusing the discussion on developing a national policy for arsenic 

regulation that acknowledges the risks and costs associated with management of the public 

exposure to natural background concentrations of arsenic through water sources. The current 

arsenic MCL of 10 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 Program will in some 

cases require additional and more focused arsenic data collection, will encourage or require 

dischargers to test for source water arsenic concentrations, and will pursue development of a 

proposal to have Ecology's Environmental Assessment Program conduct drinking water source 

monitoring as well as some additional ambient monitoring data. At this time, Washington 

Page 40 
NPDES permits will contain numeric effluent limits for arsenic based only on treatment 

technology and aquatic life protection as appropriate. 

3. Data sharing. Ecology will share data with USEPA as they work to develop new risk-based 

criteria for arsenic and as they develop a strategy to regulate arsenic. 

Dioxin 

EPA traced the dioxins found in some refmery effluents to an internal waste stream from the 

regeneration of catalytic reformer units. The BP Cherry Point refmery has two catalytic reformer 

units, each regenerates once every 3 to 18 months, although not necessarily at the same time. BP 

has not detected dioxin in its fmal effluent, but even if present, it would be difficult to detect due 

to dilution with other process wastewaters prior to entering the wastewater treatment plant and 

the intermittent generation of the caustic wash water from the reformers. 

Ecology has determined that further investigation into the generation of dioxins at refineries is 

necessary. The previous permit required BP to monitor the dioxin and furan in the regeneration 

wastewater stream, in the API separator sludge, and in the final effluent captured at the time that 

is most likely to contain wastewater generated during the catalytic reformer regenerated events. 

The analysis included chlorinated dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-Cl substituted tetra- through actacongeners). The permit specified the test method and the required detection level. 

BP also investigated the fate of any dioxins and furans. Literature has shown that dioxins tend to 

bind to particulate matter in the wastewater, much of which settles out in the API separators. 

BP's Dioxin Study Report submitted to Ecology on July 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 proposed permit requires 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 

substituted tetra- through octa- congeners) concentrations twice during the next permit cycle. 

H. Sediment Quality 

The aq~atic sediment standards (WAC 173-204) protect aquatic biota and human health. Under 

these standards Ecology may require a facility to evaluate the potential for its discharge to cause 

a violation of sediment standards (WAC 173-204-400). You can obtain additional information 

about sediments at the Aquatic Lands Cleanup Unit website. 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sediment.html 

In 2001, BP conducted a marine sediment sampling and analysis study. The purpose of the study 

was to comply with the NPDES permit sediment monitoring requirements. Ecology reviewed 

the study and determined that there were gaps in the data. 

BP agreed to perform another sediment recharacterization study. The objectives of the study 

were to: 

• Obtain additional data by revisiting stations sampled in 2001 in the vicinity of the South Pier. 

• Characterize baseline conditions at the North Pier following its construction. 

Page 41 
BP conducted the study in the fall of 2006 in accordance with the 2006 Sediment 

Recharacterization Sampling and Analysis Plan approved by Ecology on September 13, 2006. 

Several stations at the South Pier showed exceedances of the chemical Sediment Quality 

Standards (SQS) and cleanup screening levels. Per the Sediment Management Standards, 

sediment bioassay results override chemical results [WAC 173-204-31 0(2)]. During the 2006 

sediment sampling event, stations that had chemical exceedances passed the confirmatory 

bioassay. Therefore, no further action was required. One station at the South Pier also had an 

exceedance of the SQS biological critiera, which was believed to be due to a high percentage of 

fines in the sample. BP found no chemical or biological exceedances at the North Pier stations. 

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

em of sediment at the North and South piers. This sediment monitoring is required to be 

conducted at the end of the proposed permit cycle, which is 1 0 years after the 2006 sediment 

sampling event. 

BP must collect enough sediment so that it can analyze conventional sediment parameters, 

conduct bioassays, and if necessary, analyze chemistry. Samples showing biological 

exceedances will be required to undergo chemical analysis. The proposed permit also requires 

sediment monitoring at the North Pier if Ecology 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), protect beneficial uses of 

ground water. Permits issued by Ecology must not allow violations of those standards 

(WAC 173-200-1 00). 

All of the ponds in BP's wastewater treatment system have native clay bottoms and could 

potentially discharge to ground water. Based on an analysis of the water in these ponds, it has 

been determined that there is a potential for an impact to ground water beneath the ponds. 

The refinery conducted a Ground Water Impact Study (GWIS) under an Agreed Order 

(No. DE 01 TCPIS-1959) issued by Ecology in 2001 to assess the. potential groundwater 

impacts beneath the wastewater treatment ponds. The GWIS included installation of three 

wells surrounding the basins and quarterly saln.pling of the basin waters and groundwater for 

one year. Appendix M summarizes the results of the sampling. 

The proposed permit requires BP to install an additional downgradient well to assess the 

attenuation of contaminants within the refinery property boundary. It also requires BP to 

monitor the new and existing wells once per year during the permit term. BP must submit the 

monitoring results to Ecology within 60 days of receiving the laboratory report. Ecology will 

evaluate the results and determine if there is a potential to cause a violation of the 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 treatment process is functioning correctly and that the discharge complies with 

the permit's effluent limits. 

The monitoring schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under Condition S.2. Specified 

monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and variability of the discharge, the 

treatment method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring . 

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

parameters that do not have limits established in the permit. Ecology needs data on crude 

feedstock rates to evaluate technical discharge limits in the next permit. It needs the ballast 

water flow rate and total flow rate to determine the wasteload allocation for several parameters. 

It used rainfall data to determine if the refinery can use the storm water allocation. Ecology will 

use the temperature data to evaluate compliance with water quality standards in the receiving 

water. The proposed permit also requires priority pollutant testing and dioxin testing for 

evaluation at the next permit renewal. 

A. Lab Accreditation 

With the exception of certain parameters, the permit requires all monitoring data to be prepared 

by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, 

Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. The BP laboratory is currently accredited for: 

• Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) 

• Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 

• Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 

• Phenols, Total 

• pH 

• Sulfide (S) 

• Ammonia (N) 

• Oil and Grease (O&G) 

• Hexane Extractable Method 

B. Performance-Based Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies 

EPA published guidance in April of 1996 entitled, "Interim Guidance For Performance-Based 

Reduction ofNPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies". EPA's goal is to reduce the regulatory 

burden associated with reporting and monitoring on the basis of excellent performance. The 

guidance provides a tool to evaluate the facility's performance. 

Page 43 
Ecology 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 with permit 

limits. See Appendix N for the summary and evaluation of monitoring 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 

on the guidance recommendations and best professional judgment. 

Ecology elected to maintain the current monitoring frequencies for BODS, TSS, O&G, sulfide, 

and phenol even though EPA's policy would have allowed less frequent monitoring. TSS and 

O&G are good indicators of when there is an upset condition at the wastewater treatment facility. 

Ecology reduced the frequency of monitoring for COD and ammonia. Ecology uses best 

professional judgment to determine a reduced monitoring frequency to reward BP's good 

performance but also provide enough data to monitor the health of the wastewater treatment 

process. BP must maintain good performance levels to continue to receive the reduced 

monitoring frequencies. If the facility's performance levels deteriorate, Ecology can revert the 

monitoring requirements to the previous levels. 

V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS 

A. Priority Pollutant Testing 

BP is required to sample the effluent from Outfall 001 annually and analyze the sample for 

priority pollutants. BP must submit the results of the analysis to Ecology within 60 days of each 

sampling event. 

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Ecology based permit condition S3 on our authority to specify any appropriate reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-220-210). 

C. Operation and Maintenance Plan 

Ecology requires industries to take all reasonable steps to properly operate and maintain their 

wastewater treatment system in accordance with state and federal regulations [40 CFR 122.41(e) 

and WAC 173-220-150(1)(g)]. BP has prepared and submitted an operation and maintenance 

plan. Implementation of the procedures in the operation and maintenance plan ensures the 

facility's compliance with the terms and limits in the permit. 

D. Non-Routine and Unanticipated Discharges 

BP occasionally generates wastewater, which was not characterized in the permit application 

because it is not a routine discharge and was not anticipated at the time of the application. This 

wastewater typically consists of water used to pressure test petroleum storage tanks or fire water 

systems. 

When BP reconditions petroleum storage tanks, it thoroughly cleans and inspects them. The 

fmal step in the inspection is the hydrotest, which consists of filling the tank with clean water 

and monitoring the water level in the tank over time to see if any leakage has occurred. 

Page 44 
Discharging the hydrotest water to the wastewater treatment system reduces the efficiency of the 

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 or when local wildlife managers 

request water to keep local streams or ponds viable for habitat during very dry summer conditions. 

The permit authorizes non-routine and unanticipated discharges under certain conditions. The 

refinery must characterize these wastewaters and examine any opportunities for reuse. The 

wastewater must meet the applicable water quality standards for the receiving water. 

E. Wastewater Treatment Efficiency Study and Updated Engineering Report 

BP submitted the results of a treatment efficiency study and an engineering report for the 

wastewater treatment system to Ecology on June 4, 2002. Ecology approved the engineering 

report on January 6, 2006. The basic design criteria used to size BP's wastewater treatment 

system are within the acceptable range of criteria from Ecology's Sewage Works Design, 

Publication No. 98-37 WQ. 

With the additional loadings of wastewater from the five sources below, the refmery's biological 

system is operating at approximately 50% of its organic (as BODS) treatment capacity and 50% 

to 60% of its hydraulic loading capacity. 

• The Isomerization Unit and #2 Diesel Unit 

• The proposed addition of wastewater from #3 Diesel Unit and ~raxair' s facility 

• Possible future addition of wastewater from the BP Cogeneration facility 

Ecology determined that the additional process wastewater from these sources will not cause 

adverse effects to the refinery's wastewater treatment system and will not cause the refinery to 

exceed any of its NPDES permit limitations. 

Ecology may require a new wastewater treatment efficiency study if BP proposes substantial 

alterations to the refmery that could cause a material change in the quantity or composition of the 

influent processed by the wastewater treatment system. In the event Ecology requires the study, 

BP must submit a wastewater treatment study plan for Ecology approval. BP must also update 

its engineering report to compare the new conditions with the predicted design capacity. 

F. Pollution Prevention Plan 

The previous NPDES permit required BP to submit a Pollution Prevention Plan to identify 

opportunities to prevent, reduce, eliminate, or control releases of pollutants to influent 

wastewater streams, storm water, and other waters of the state. The permit required BP to 

implement opportunities that were technically and economically feasible. The NPDES Pollution 

Prevention Plan incorporated previous NPDES permit requirements for a spill plan, solid waste 

handling and disposal plan, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan. 

The following are projects completed by BP during the last permit cycle that had a positive 

impact on wastewater treatment plant operations and provide protection to the receiving waters: 

Page 45 
• Eliminated Filmer 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 DEA releases to the oily water sewer (OWS) and 

reduces the risks of biological upsets at the WWTP. 

• Added High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Liner beneath Aboveground Storage 

Tanks (ASTs)- The liner will protect groundwater resources. 

• Developed Computer-Based Training- The training is focused on pollution prevention 

education and identification of pollution prevention opportunities. All refinery personnel 

are required to complete the training. 

• Constructed Containment Berm at Wastewater Area- The containment berm 

prevents off-site releases of process wastewater in the refinery wastewater area and 

provides additional protection against potential impacts to nearby salmon habitat in the 

event of a spill. 

• Upgraded WWTP-area drain sump and OWS- The upgrade reduces the potential for 

direct discharges of stormwater off site during heavy rainfall events and reduces the 

potential for releases of process wastewater. 

• Replaced and Relocated Recovered Oil Pumps at WWTP - The new recovered oil 

pumps significantly reduce the frequency of required maintenance and the 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 project provided a closed system for draining fluids from the 

process unit during regenerations and other unit operations thereby preventing release of 

residual reformate into the oily water sewer. 

• Reduce Heat Stable Salt Formation in DEA System - The refinery installed a 

membrane system to remove heat stable salts (HSS). Reduction of HSS formation in the 

absorbers reduces the potential for foaming, which is the primary source ofDEA 

introduction to the oily water sewer. The project reduces the potential for wastewater 

treatment plant upsets. 

The proposed permit includes a pollution prevention requirement to follow-up on the work done 

by the refinery in the previous permit cycle. It includes a requirement to: 

• Continue to follow and update BMPs, SOPs, and other work practices to prevent or 

minimize the release of pollutants to the wastewater treatment system, stormwater, and 

waters of the state. 

• Submit an update to the current NPDES Pollution Prevention Plan. 

• Submit a biennial evaluation of t1le Pollution Prevention Plan. 

Page 46 
0 Conduct storm water inspections to ensure the adequacy of BMPs and to identify any 

unknown improper discharges to stormwater. 

0 Continue to identify and evaluate pollution prevention opportunities in all decisions 

having environmental consequences. 

G. Dangerous Wastes- Permit by Rule Requirements 

The proposed permit authorizes BP to treat dangerous wastes generated on or off-site at the 

wastewater treatment facility, under the permit-by-rule provisions of WAC 173-303-802(5). 

This authorization is limited to the on-site and off-site waste streams identified and characterized 

in the NPDES permit application and in application amendments approved by Ecology. Wastes 

received from off-site include ballast water and retail distribution water. Ecology determined 

that the waste streams from off-site are similar in nature to those generated on-site and concluded 

that BP's wastewater treatment facility should effectively treat them. 

Effluent sampling and monitoring requirements established in the permit should adequately 

address the pollutants in thesewastestreams. Permit-by-rule provisions cover the identified 

waste streams as long as the refinery complies with the conditions of the NPDES permit and with 

the dangerous waste requirements in WAC 173-303 pertaining to: 

• Notification and identification numbers 

e Designation of dangerous wastes 

• Performance standards 

• General waste analysis 

• Security 

• Contingency plans and emergency procedures 

e Emergencies 

o Manifest system 

• Operating record 

• Facility reporting 

H. Outfall Evaluation 

BP conducted an Outfall Evaluation on September 23, 2003. The purpose of the evaluation was 

to determine the condition of the discharge pipe and diffusers and to determine the extent of 

sediment accumulations in the outfall's vicinity. BP reported that the outfall line and diffuser 

were in good condition and functioning properly. 

Condition S .18 in the proposed permit requires BP to conduct another outfall inspection during 

the next permit term and submit a report detailing the fmdings of that inspection. 

I. General Conditions 

Ecology bases the standardized General Conditions on state and federal law and regulations. 

They are included in all individual industrial NPDES permits issued by Ecology. 

Page 47 
VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES 

A. Permit Modifications 

Ecology may modify this permit to impose numerical limits, if necessary to comply with water 

quality standards for surface waters, with sediment quality standards, or with water quality 

standards for ground waters, after obtaining new information from sources such as inspections, 

effluent monitoring, outfall studies, and effluent mixing studies. 

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

regulations. 

B. Proposed Permit Issuance 

The proposed permit includes all statutory requirements for Ecology to authorize a wastewater 

discharge. The permit includes limits and conditions to protect human health and aquatic life, 

and the beneficial uses of waters of the State of Washington. Ecology proposes to issue this 

permit for a term of 5 years .. 

VII. REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

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

90-001. 

1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional 

Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water. EP A/600/6-85/002a. 

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

Washington State Department of Ecology. 

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

Washington State Department of Ecology. 

2007. Focus Sheet on Solid Waste Control Plan, Developing a Solid Waste Control Plan 

for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permittees. Publication Number 07-10-024 

Washington State Department 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 inform the public and to invite comment on the proposed reissuance of this National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit as drafted. 

The Notice-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecology has published a document entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Effective 

Public Commenting which is available on our website at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0307023.html. 

You may obtain further information from Ecology by telephone, (360) 407-6900 or by writing to 

the permit writer at the address listed below. 

Liem Nguyen 

Department of Ecology 

Industrial Section 

P.O. Box 47706 

Olympia, W A 98504-7706 

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

Page 49 
APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY 

1-DMax or 1-day maximum temperature- The highest water temperature reached on any 

given day. This measure can be obtained using calibrated maximum/minimum thermometers 

or continuous monitoring probes having sampling intervals of thirty minutes or less. 

7-DADMax or 7-day average of the daily maximum temperatures -The arithmetic average of 

seven consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures. The 7-DADMax for any 

individual day is calculated by averaging that day's daily maximum temperature with the 

daily maximum temperatures of the three days prior and the three days after that date. 

Acute Toxicity--The lethal effect of a compound on an organism that occurs in a short period of 

time, usually 48 to 96 hours. 

AKART -The acronym for "all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, 

control and treatment." AKART is a technology-based approach to limiting pollutants from 

wastewater discharges which requires an engineering judgment and an economic judgment. 

AKART must be applied to all wastes and contaminants prior to entry into waters of the state 

in accordance with RCW 90.48.010 and 520, WAC 173-200-030(2)(c)(ii), and WAC 173-

216-llO(l)(a). 

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

water body. 

Ammonia--Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in wastewater. 

Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to 

eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect wastewater. 

Annual Average Design Flow (AADF)-The average of the daily flow volumes anticipated to 

occur over a calendar year. 

Average Monthly Discharge Limit --The average of the measured values obtained over a 

calendar month's time. 

Best Management Practices (BMPs )--Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, 

maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/ or managerial practices to prevent 

or reduce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs include treatment systems, operating 

procedures, and practices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste 

disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as 

operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs. 

BOD5--Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of 

mea:suring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria. 

The BODs is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in receiving 

waters after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes 

organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment. 

Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defmed as ·a conventional pollutant under the 

federal Clean Water Act. 

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

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

also extremely toxic to aquatic life. 

Page 50 
Chronic Toxicity--The effect of a co;rnpound on an organism over a relatively long time, often 

1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction 

or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or 

combination of compounds. 

Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-

500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq. 

Compliance Inspection- Without Sampling--A site visit for the purpose of determining the 

compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes 

and regulations. 

Compliance Inspection - With Sampling-A site visit for the purpose of determining the 

compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes 

and regulations. In addition it includes as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all 

parameters with limits in the permit to ascertain compliance with those limits; and, for 

municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the 85 percent removal 

requirement. Ecology may conduct additional sampling. 

Composite Sample--A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different 

times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May be "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 of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time 

interval between the aliquots. 

Construction Activity,..-Clearing, grading, excavation and any other activity which disturbs the 

surface of the land. Such activities may include road building, construction of residential 

houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity. 

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

Critical Condition--The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste 

discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water 

environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus, 

its ability to dilute effluent is reduced. 

Detection Limit- See Method Detection Level. 

Dilution Factor (DF)--A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that 

occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the percent effluent 

fraction e.g., a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the 

receiving water 90%. 

Engineering Report--A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and 

administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report 

must contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130. 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria--Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria 

in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater discharges are 

controlled by disinfecting the wastewater. The presence ofhigh numbers of fecal coliform 

bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the 

presence of animal feces. 

Page 51 
Grab Sample--A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short a period 

oftime as is feasible. 

Industrial Wastewater--Water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, 

as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity 

of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development of any natural resource, or 

from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes 

contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities. 

Major Facility--A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of > 80 points 

based on such factors as flow volume; toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. 

Maximum Daily Discharge Limit--The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant 

measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar 

day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement 

of the pollutant over the day. 

Maximum Day Design Flow (MDDF)-The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during 

a one-day period, expressed as a daily average . 

. Maximum Month Design Flow (MMDF)- The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur 

during a continuous 30-day period, expressed as a daily average. 

Maximum Week Design Flow (MWDF)- The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a 

continuous 7 -day period, expressed as a daily average. 

Method Detection Level (MDL)--The minimum concentration of a substance that can be 

measured and reported with 99% confidence that the pollutant concentration is above zero 

and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the pollutant. 

Minor Facility--A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of< 80 points 

based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. 

Mixing Zone--An area that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality criteria 

may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's permit 

and follows procedures outlined in state regulations (chapter 173-201A WAC). 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)--The NPDES (Section 402 ofthe 

Clean Water Act) is the Federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable 

waters of the United States. Many states, including the State of Washington, have been 

delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State 

permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both State and Federal laws. 

pH--The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. It is the negative logarithm of the 

hydrogen ion concentration. A pH of 7 is defmed as neutral, and large variations above or 

below this value are considered hmmful to most aquatic life. 

Peak Hour Design Flow (PHD F)-The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a 

one-hour period, expressed as a daily or hourly average. 

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

Quantitation Level (QL)-- The smallest detectable concentration of analyte greater than the 

Detection Limit (DL) where the accuracy (precision &bias) achieves the objectives of the 

intended purpose. This may also be called Minimum Level or Reporting Level. 

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 of the 

corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs 

similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation, or the manager of one or 

more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or 

have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 

dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in 

accordance with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22). 

Technology-based Effluent Limit--A permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment 

method to reduce the pollutant. 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)--Total suspended solids is the particulate material in an effluent. 

Large quantities 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 of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended 

solids can screen out light and can promote ahd maintain. the development of noxious 

conditions through oxygen depletion. 

Solid waste -- All putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not 

limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and 

construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated soils and 

contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials. 

State Waters--Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and 

all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of washington. 

Stormwater--That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or 

evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water 

drainage system into a defmed surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility. 

Upset--An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 

with technology-based permit effluent limits because of factors beyond the reasonable 

control of the facility. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by 

operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, 

or careless or improper operation. 

Water Quality-based Effluent Limit--A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter that 

is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water quality 

criterion after it is discharged into receiving waters. 

Page 53 
APPENDIX C- WASTEWATER TREATMENT FLOW DIAGRAM 

APPENDIX D --MONTHLY DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORTS 

APPENDIX E-- TECHNICAL LIMIT CALCULATION 

APPENDIX F--DRY WEATHER FLOW CALCULATION 

APPENDIX G--STORMW ATER ALLOCATION EVENTS 

APPENDIX H--STORMWATER MONITORING DATA 

APPENDIX I--REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED ANALYSIS 

Several of the Excel® spreadsheet tools used to evaluate a discharger's ability to meet 

Washington State water quality standards can be found on Ecology's homepage at 

http:/ /www.ecy. wa.gov/programs/eap/pwspread/pwspread.html. 

APPENDIX J--MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS DATA 

APPENDIX K-TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS 

APPENDIX L-- HERRING AND WET TESTING RESULTS 

APPENDIX M--GROUND WATER IMPACT STUDY RESULTS 

APPENDIX N--PERFORMANCE-BASED REDUCTION OF MONITORING 

FREQUENCY 

APPENDIX 0--RESPONSE TO .COMMENTS 
Ballast Water •--'------'---~ 

-Miscellaneous VWJ 

-Terminal VNV 

-Pipeline Hydrotest WN 

-Spill Response VWV 

-RaflneryWW 

..Cogan WN (future) 

-Praxalr WN (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 Water Treatment 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 I A\.11"1-1 I AODE;D lGF SKIDS & ASSOC. EQUIPMENT """""""""'c"'"'41;J"" I ,..,...., "" 

1103 ! W01eeoo I R. CHRISTENSEN I FIELD VERIFIED & CONVERTED TO VISIO YW!WS] PM REVISION 

Figure 1 
NPDES 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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

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 

YEAR 2000 -DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JlJN JlJL AUG 

Degree Fahrenheit 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!l OOmls 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 

MONTH TOTAL 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 

YEAR 2001 -DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT --- --------- -

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 

524 274 --------

370 -~1 390 ! 

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 I 
NPDES PERMIT 

NO. WA-002290-0 

. PARAMETERS 

TEMPERATURE- MAX 

CRUDE THROUGHPUT- 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 

TOTAL CHROMIUM- 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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

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 

MONTH TOTAL 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 

YEAR 2002 -DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

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 71 
NPDES 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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

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 

MONTH TOTAL 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 longer chlorinating 

MG!L I 1 1.7 na - connected to Birch Bay 

MG/L 1 1 2.4 na - connected to Birch Bay 

MG!L 1.7 1.4 9.3 na -connected to Birch Bay 

MG/L 2.5 2.5 13:5 na - connected to Birch Bay 

YEAR 2003- DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 

Degree Fahrenheit 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 6.89 
NPDES 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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. 

pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL 

PARAMETERS 

TEMPERATURE- MAX 

CRUDE THROUGHPUT- 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 

MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

YEAR 2004- DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

UNIT JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 

Degree Fahrenheit 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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. 

pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL 

PARAMETERS 

TEMPERATURE- MAX 

CRUDE THROUGHPUT- 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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

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 

YEAR 2005- DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

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 

MONTH TOTAL 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 0 
NPDES 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 

BALLAST WATER 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 

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 

YEAR 2006 -DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

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 

MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

YEAR 2007- DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

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 

BALLAST WATER 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 

YEAR 2008 -DISCHARGE MONITORING 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 5.1 
NPDES PERMIT 

NO. WA-00229G-O 

RAINFALL- TOTAL 

FLOW-AVE 

FLOW-MAX 

COD-AVE 

ICOD-MAX 

BALLAST WATER 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 

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 

BALLAST WATER FLOW 

pH EXCURSIONS> 60 MIN. 

pH EXCURSIONS TOTAL 

PARAMETERS 

TEMPERATURE- MAX 

CRUDE THRU- 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 

MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 0 

YEAR 2009- DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

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 

YEAR 2010 -DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT 

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 

208,002 205,045 210,256 210,403 
NPDES 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 

BALLAST WATER 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 

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 

MONTH TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ACCUM. MINUTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

YEAR 2011 -DISCHARGE MONITORING 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 0.11 
NPDES 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 

BALLAST WATER 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 

MONTii TOTAL 

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 

Rate (1000 1 Relative to W eightin i Process 

Process bbls/day) I Throughput 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 SOURCE PERFORMANCE 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 of the above calculation can be found in 40 CFR Chapter 419.42(b)(3). 

A process configuration of 6.0- 6.49 results in a process factor of 1.09 in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(2). 

A process configuration of 5.5 - 5.99 results in a process factor of 1.00 

I 

I 

i 

' 

I 

I 

I 

Size factors are determined from the amount of feedstock per day. 100,000 to 124,900 bbls/day results in a size factor of 1.23 

and 150,000 or greater results in a size factor of 1.41 in 40 CFR 419.22(b)(1). 

Baseline Process Factor= 1.09 (baseline production= 106,000 bbls/day) (as per 419.22 (b)(2)) 

Current Process Factor= 1.00 (current production 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= Adjusted Previous Production- Adjusted Baseline Production= 146,936 

New Source Performance Standard Increment = Adjusted Current Production - Adjusted Baseline Production = 152,576 

I I 

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

and chrommm. I I I I I I 

Page 2 

I 

I 

bbls/day 

bbls/day 
NPDES 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 BAT LIMITS 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 1

BOD 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 BASELINE PRODUCTION IN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 142.1 (See Process Factor Determination) 

NSPS INCREMENT IN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 146.9 rsee Process Factor Determination) 

For BAT Limitations: For BAT limitations Calculations: '-----------

BASELINE (1974) CRUDE IN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 267 Crude processes include desalting, atmospheric distillation, and vacuum distillation. 

BASELINE (1974) CRACKING IN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 77 Cracking processes include hydrocracking, delayed coking and hydrotreating = 13+35+29 = 7~ 

BASELINE (1974) REFORMING IN 1000 BBLS/DA Y 29 Reforming processes include catalytic reforming. 

Page 3 
NPDES 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 

Average Y-intercept 3.67 4.1 3.94 3.79 3.87 

The dry weather flow is determined by taking an average of theY-interception (linear regresstion) for years 2009 and 2010 

as those years had the strs>ngestcorrelation between average daily flow and rainfall. - L__ L_ 

Page 1 of 2 
NPDES 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 2 
NPDES 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 of 2 
NPDES 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 

7.38 
NPDES 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 FW criteria 

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) 1 08601 

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 of 4 

effluent . 

cone. 

measured 

(metals as Acute Chronic 

total Co elf #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 28 110 
NPDES 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 1 08952 1 OA 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 - 77 40224 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 1 08883 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 of 4 

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 28 110 
NPDES 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 7 429905 

AMMONIA unionized -see seperate spreadsheets for FW criteria 

ANTHRACENE 120127 3B 

ANTIMONY INORGANIC 7440360 1M 

ARSENIC dissolved 7 440382 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 - 7 44058 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 0.86 136 
NPDES 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 Number of AVERAGE MAXIMUM Estimated 

NPDES PERMIT NO. 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- 77 40224 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 7 440260 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 2.49 136 
NPDES Permit 

No. WA-000290-0 

APPENDIX J - MIXING ZONE ANALYSIS OAT A 

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 

I 
NPDES Permit 

No. WA-002290-0 

APPENDIX K- TEMPERATURE ANAL VSIS 

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 1 DADMax Ambient Temperature (Background 90th percentile) 

3. 1 DADMax 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 LIMIT 
NPDES 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 tops melt 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 tops melt 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 tops melt 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 of 3 
NPDES 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 Test Results 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 I Daphnia 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 tops melt 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 tops melt 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 tops melt 96-hour Survival 50 100 

co Daphnia magna 48-hour Survival 100 100 

BP Cherry Point Chronic WET Test Results 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 tops melt 7 -day Survival 69.8 > 69.8 

Biomass 69.8 > 69.8 

Weight 69.8 > 69.8 

9/12/2002 9/13/2002 EVS tops melt 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 top smelt 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 Point Herring Test Results 

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 of the volatile and semi-volatile organic compound concentrations were detected at their respective method 

reporting limits in either of the 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