National PollutantDischarge Elimination System /State ... cooling capacity is available for use with...

1

Permittee: St. Paul Park Refining Co., LLC Facility Name: St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC

301 Saint Paul Park Rd 301 Saint Paul Park Rd

St. Paul Park, MN 55071 St. Paul Park, MN 55071

Permit Number: MN0000256

Current Permit Expiration: October 31, 2012

Public Comment Period Begins: April 28, 2014

Period Ends: May 28, 2014

Receiving Water: Mississippi River, Class 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, 6

Proposed Action: Permit Reissuance

Permitting Contact

Robert Kostinec

18 Wood Lake Drive SE

Rochester, MN 55904

Phone 507‐206‐2628

Fax 507‐280‐5513

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System /State Disposal

System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Program

Fact Sheet

2

Table of Contents

Purpose and Participation .................................................................................................................. 3

Applicable Statutes

Fact Sheet Purpose

Public Participation

Facility Description ............................................................................................................................. 4

Background Information

Facility Location Legal Description

Outfall Location Legal Description

Permitted Facility Map

Components and Treatment Technology ............................................................................. 6

Current Information

Flow Schematic

Changes to Facility or Operation

Proposed Changes to Facility or Operation…………………………………………………………………… 12

Recent Compliance History………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

Recent Monitoring History

Receiving Water ................................................................................................................................. 14

Use Classification

Impairments, Listings, and Total Maximum Daily Load Studies

Existing Permit Effluent Limits ........................................................................................................... 15

Technology Based Effluent Limits

Water Quality Based Effluent Limits

Proposed Permit Effluent Limits

Technology Based Effluent Limits ......................................................................................... 17

Water Quality Based Effluent Limits ..................................................................................... 27

Additional Requirements ................................................................................................................... 32

Pollutant Minimization Plans ................................................................................................ 32

Lagoon Seepage Evaluation .................................................................................................. 32

Facility Site Specific Regulation Considerations……………………………………………………………………………. 34

Compliance Schedule: (Construction Schedule)………………………………………………………………………….. 35

Variances ............................................................................................................................................ 35

Total Facility Requirements ............................................................................................................... 36

Nondegredation and Anti‐backsliding ............................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX A. Facility Effluent Data ................................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX B. Compliance Issues Table ............................................................................................. 40

3

Purpose and Participation

Applicable Statutes This fact sheet has been prepared according to the Title 40 Federal Code of Regulations (CFR) § 124.8 and 124.56 and Minn R. 7001.0100, Subp. 3 in regards to a draft NPDES/SDS permit to construct and/or operate wastewater treatment facilities and to discharge into waters of the State of Minnesota. Purpose This fact sheet outlines the principal issues related to the preparation of this draft permit and documents the decisions that were made in the determination of the effluent limitations and conditions of this permit. Public Participation You may submit written comments on the terms of the draft permit or on the Commissioner’s preliminary determination. Your written comments must include the following: 1. A statement of your interest in the permit application or the draft permit. 2. A statement of the action you wish the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to take,

including specific references to sections of the draft permit that you believe should be changed. 3. The reasons supporting your position, stated with sufficient specificity as to allow the

Commissioner to investigate the merits of your position. You may also request that the MPCA Commissioner hold a public informational meeting. A public informational meeting is an informal meeting which the MPCA may hold to help clarify and resolve issues. In accordance with Minn. R. 7000.0650 and Minn. R. 7001.0110, your petition requesting a public informational meeting must identify the matter of concern and must include the following: items 1 through 3 identified above; a statement of the reasons the MPCA should hold the meeting; and the issues you would like the MPCA to address at the meeting. In addition, you may submit a petition for a contested case hearing. A contested case hearing is a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. Your petition requesting a contested case hearing must include a statement of reasons or proposed findings supporting the MPCA decision to hold a contested case hearing pursuant to the criteria identified in Minn. R. 7000.1900, subp. 1 and a statement of the issues proposed to be addressed by a contested case hearing and the specific relief requested. To the extent known, your petition should include a proposed list of witnesses to be presented at the hearing, a proposed list of publications, references or studies to be introduced at the hearing, and an estimate of time required for you to present the matter at hearing. You must submit all comments, requests, and petitions during the public comment period identified on page 1 of this notice. All written comments, requests, and petitions received during the public comment period will be considered in the final decisions regarding the permit. If the MPCA does not receive any written comments, requests, or petitions during the public comment period, the Commissioner or other MPCA staff as authorized by the Commissioner will make the final decision concerning the draft permit. During the public comment period, however, you may request that the draft permit be presented to the

4

MPCA’s Citizens’ Board (Board) for final decision. You may participate in the activities of the Board as provided in Minn. R. 7000.0650. Comments, petitions, and/or requests must be submitted by the last day of the public comment period to:

Robert Kostinec Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

18 Wood Lake Drive SE Rochester, MN 55904

The permit will be reissued if the MPCA determines that the proposed Permittee will, with respect to the Facility or activity to be permitted, comply or undertake a schedule to achieve compliance with all applicable state and federal pollution control statutes and rules administered by the MPCA and the conditions of the permit and that all applicable requirements of Minn. Stat. ch. 116D and the rules promulgated thereunder have been fulfilled. More detail on all requirements placed on the Facility may be found in the Permit document.

Facility Description Background Information Facility Location The Saint Paul Park Refining Co LLC Facility (Facility) is located at SW ¼ of SW ¼ of Section 1, Township 27 North, Range 22 West, St. Paul Park, Washington County, Minnesota. It is owned and operated by St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC (SPPRC). The Facility is located on the northwest city boundary of the city of Saint Paul Park, Minnesota, with a small portion of the Facility property extending into the city of Newport to the north. The western edge of the Facility is adjacent to the Mississippi River, with the main channel of the river running alongside the adjacent river bank. Within the river the Facility has a barge dock for own private use in product transportation. On the eastern property edge is interstate 10. The southern property edge is adjacent to Lion’s Levee Park to the west as well as both residential and commercial areas. Within the boundaries also include non‐direct refinery production areas including a fire fighting practice area and several above ground storage tank facilities. Outfall Location The Facility has one out fall which discharges through surface discharge station SD001. Discharges are to the Mississippi River, at approximately river mile 830, and is located between the Facility’s badge dock and the adjacent river bank. Below are the coordinates for the discharge point. Public Land Survey: SW ¼, SW ¼ of section 2, Township 27 North, Range 22 West. Latitude/Longitude: +44.848066 / ‐93.00847904

5

Map of Permitted Facility

6

Components and Treatment Technology

Current Information

The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) currently consists of the following treatment units:

prescreening, neutralization system, diversion Tank 146, velocity reduction/splitter box, American

Petroleum Institute (API) oil/water separators, API solids tank (red box), API slop oil tank, flow

equalization tanks, Dissolved Gas Floatation (DGF) Sludge Tanks (T‐13/T‐9), dissolved gas floatation

units, submerged biological contactors (SBC), moving bed bioreactor (MBBR), evaporative air cooler, a

lagoon partitioned for settling and aeration, multimedia sand filtration system, granular activated

carbon system and back‐up equipment to be used during maintenance, shutdowns or plant upset.

The final treated effluent from the WWTP is discharged from the granular activated carbon treatment

system to the Mississippi River at surface discharge SD001. The treated discharge is monitored by

continuous flow, temperature, pH monitors and composite samplers located after the granular activated

carbon treatment system.

The Permittee has installed additional piping so that the Facility may utilize half of the permanent sand

and carbon filter systems to treat the SBC effluent during high benzene events, prior to discharging to

the lagoon. During high benzene events, 3 sand filters and 2 carbon filters will be used to treat the SBC

effluent while the other 3 sand filters and 3 carbon filters will continue to treat the effluent to the river.

The Permittee also installed a new lift station which diverts the incoming flow from the SBC’s to the

lagoon, or to the filters during high benzene events. The WWTP flow diagram is shown on the next

page. When flow is directed to the filters, daily samples are taken and analyzed for chemical oxygen

demand at SPPRC’s onsite lab to monitor the condition of the filters and allow for proper maintenance

of the filters.

The Facility has a thermal effluent diffuser on the outlet pipe for SD001 located in the Mississippi River.

Pursuant to MPCA approval of the diffuser design, the Facility is permitted to discharge thermal effluent

at temperatures up to 105F so long as the diffuser is utilized. The Facility is allowed to discharge wastewater at temperatures up to 95F when the diffuser is not in use. Conditions for the discharge of thermal effluent are detailed in the Surface Discharge Station chapter of the permit. Additional

wastewater cooling capacity is available for use with the installation of an evaporative air cooler located

between the API separators and the equalization tanks #158 and #159.

Flow Schematics

Flow schematics are provided for both the existing Facility in two diagrams, stormwater areas at Facility,

and the proposed Facility following the completion and start‐up of the new wastewater treatment

Facility. Additionally, a stormwater flow schematic is provided to illustrate the handling of the industrial

stormwater that is covered under this permit.

7

SIMPLIFIED FLOW CHART of EXISTING FACILITY

8

Flow Schematic for Alternative Filter Flow Path

9

Stormwater Flow Schematic

10

Proposed Facility Schematic

11

Changes to Facility or Operation Since the last permit re‐issuance in 2007, the Facility completed Facility upgrades and made several component and operational changes. In order to provide an accurate NPDES Permit that represented the Facility the permit underwent five minor modifications to accommodate the necessary changes. Below is a list of completed permit conditions and modifications that took place since the last permit re‐issuance in 2007. Minor modification issued on August 27, 2008.

Temperature Limit: An administrative modification was conducted to reflect the higher temperature limit allowed due to the installation of a thermal effluent diffuser at outfall SD001. This now allowed a discharge temperature of up to 105oF, in accordance with the permit conditions.

Biological Treatment Change in Kind: Conditions were added to the permit to allow the conversion of the submerged biological contactor (SBC) unit #2 with a MBBR. This was determined to be a replacement in kind. The request to do the conversion was based upon the necessity to replace the aging SBCs for which replacement parts were hard to obtain. Additionally, conditions in the permit allowed the other SBC units to be converted to MBBR units as necessary.

Minor Modification issued on January 27, 2011.

This modification was conducted to have the permit reflect the change in ownership (from Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC to Saint Paul Park Refining Co LLC) and issue the permit in the name of the new (current) owners.

Minor Modification issued on June 30, 2011.

A minor modification was issued to allow the permit to reflect the additional piping modifications proposed to be installed and operated as necessary to address potential upset conditions. The modifications included the installation of additional diversion piping to allow the select routing of wastewater to the sand and carbon filters during conditions of high benzene levels. Changes also included the additional sampling requirements to be administered during diversion events.

Completion of Sewer System Evaluation and Upgrade: The Facility NPDES permit issued on September 4, 2002 required a comprehensive evaluation of the condition of the refinery sewer system including all components of the system such as pipelines, sewer junction boxes, manhole, etc. Following the evaluation a plan for the remediation and upgrade of the systems was to be conducted. The requirement to complete the necessary remediation and upgrades to the Facility was completed during the current permit. Final work was reported as being complete December 28, 2009. Given that the work was completed it was appropriate to remove these completed requirements from the permit.

Minor Modification issued on April 20, 2012.

Changes under this modification included a Dissolved Gas Floatation (DGF) Pump Pit to provide a means for directing existing Facility SBC effluent to the 4th lagoon, handle overflow from the API during extreme precipitation events, provide for carbon treatment of all SBC effluent during high benzene conditions and to initiate changes to allow for future wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) upgrades. Permit conditions added to accommodate the future WWTP upgrade included the conversion of the two lagoon system to a one lagoon system and the closure of the smaller lagoon. The Permittee demonstrated in the request the ability of the larger remaining lagoon to provide adequate polishing treatment through some changes in operation and with the installation of a wet

12

surface air cooler. With a mechanical water cooler, it is possible for the Permittee to provide active cooling as needed, instead of the passive pond cooling. This provided additional conditioning of the water before entering the SBC and MMBR systems, thus allowing better treatment through temperature control.

The change also incorporated a Response Action Plan. This plan contained the conditions to be followed during the removal of Lagoon 3.

Removal of Lagoon 3 to provide space for Activated Sludge treatment system to be installed to replace aging SBC and MBBR biological treatment systems.

Proposed Changes to Facility or Operation The Facility has proposed and MPCA has approved changes to the WWTP, including replacement of the current SBCs and installation of a new biological treatment system. The proposed biological treatment system will consist of activated sludge system followed by clarifiers. Once this new system is fully operational the lagoon will no longer operate as a part of the petroleum WWTP. It will continue to be in use as described below. New Biological Treatment System: Installation of the new biological treatment systems began following SPPRC’s submittal of the permit re‐issuance application and design plans. The new biological treatment system will consist of an activated sludge system and clarifier components and is considered a replacement in‐kind. Start‐up of the new system is proposed to begin following the completion of the construction planned for April 2014. The new system is designed with a maximum wastewater treatment capacity of 2.85 mgd. The new biological treatment system will include two covered aerators, two clarifiers diversion tank, sludge storage tank, effluent tank, and equipment for chemical addition of polymer and phosphoric acid. The flow diagram is shown the earlier in ”Proposed Facility Schematic.” Lagoon System Future Use Once the new biological treatment system is on‐line the lagoon will no longer be used as part of the petroleum wastewater treatment system. However, the lagoon is proposed for continued use as a stormwater collection, storage, and treatment pond following the disconnection of the pond from the WWTP treatment system. Additionally, the lagoon may accept clean water from the hydrostatic testing of above ground storage tanks. Discharges of excess volumes of collected water, above the lagoon design operation level, will go to the WWTP for full treatment and discharge through SD001 as necessary. Additionally, the lagoon will continue to be used as a source of emergency firefighting water, so that the facility can remain in compliance with the API Recommended Practice 2001 “Fire Protection In Refineries,” for the availability of fire water. If the influent stormwaters are insufficient to maintain an adequate volume of firefighting water, then additional make‐up waters that may be added to the lagoon include clean well waters, municipal waters, or treated effluent from the WWTP. It must be noted that additions of WWTP treated waters may be disallowed if the lagoon is found to exceed the allowable seepage rate (discussed below). Located at the Facility is a designated firefighting training area. Training at the facility will use the pond water in the hands‐on training. Firefighting water sprayed at the facility is collected and piped back to the pond so that it is not discharged from the Facility until it receives treatment in the WWTP.

13

Pond operations will therefore change and it will be necessary to modify the pond operation and maintenance plan to reflect the changes. Aerators within the lagoon will be present and operating as needed to control nuisance conditions that may develop due to organic and nutrient additions contributed through the influent flows. Since the lagoon, as proposed, will continue to contain industrial WWTP sediment, sludge, and waters following disconnection from the WWTP, the Permittee is required to conduct a water balance test to evaluate whether the lagoon seeps or leaks less than the maximum allowable rate of 3,500 gallons per acre per day. Conditions related to the pond seepage evaluation are discussed in the “Additional Requirements” section of this fact sheet. Should the lagoon be unable to pass the seepage test as prescribed found, then the addition of treated WWTP effluent may only be allowed as part of an approved Pond Restoration Plan. Production Level Changes: During the last permit cycle the Facility had an average daily rate of 83,000 bbl/day (bbl = barrel = 42 US gallons) of crude oil production. During the latter part of 2012 the Facility replaced the existing preflash drum with a preflash tower to improve efficiency and throughput of an existing crude distillation units. With this change in place the Facility proposes to maintain this increase in the average daily crude oil production rate of 90,000 bbl/day during the course of this next permit cycle. Recent Compliance History Since the last re‐issuance of this permit in 2007 the Facility did have occurrences of non‐compliance. Summary information on the non‐compliance events and the actions taken are provided in a summary table located in Appendix B. More significant changes that came about due to non‐compliance are summarized below. Beginning in 2010 the Facility was experiencing conditions at the WWTP that were producing nuisance odors noticeable at the Facilities’ third lagoon (recently removed). It was reported that the odor issue did not go beyond the Facility boundary. Conditions included incidents of large storm events that caused discharges of combined stormwater and industrial wastewater to the Facility and at times power outages. Both events caused times when the primary lift station, to the WWTP, was either overloaded or shutdown. Under these conditions overflows of the lift station flowed to the 3rd lagoon. To address the odor issue and overflow potential the Facility took two actions. Initial the Facility requested approval for a chemical additive to use in the lagoon system so as to mask the odor. Additionally, the Facility undertook additional wastewater monitoring at the biological treatment system (SBCs and MBBR) and prior to the discharge to the third lagoon. These tests provided the information needed to identify that high levels of benzene were being discharged to the third lagoon. Levels of the benzene in the wastewater discharging to the lagoon were high enough such that the benzene concentrations would classify the wastewater discharges to lagoon 3 as hazardous waste. Following this report the MPCA’s hazardous waste staff became involved in the WWTP upset and the remedial actions needing to take place. Following additional sampling and investigations the Facility proposed and installed a by‐pass system that could divert flows from the biological treatment units to temporary carbon filters for treatment prior to being discharged to the lagoon. A more permanent solution included installing additional by‐pass infrastructure to divert flows to the permanent sand and carbon filters for treatment under up‐set conditions that produced high benzene levels. These changes were conducted to resolve a part of the MPCA stipulation agreement with prior owner, Marathon

14

Petroleum Co. LLC. Changes to the facility were included in the incorporated into the NPDES permit in the June 30, 2011 minor modification. Recent Monitoring History Annual summary of monthly monitoring reports are provided in Appendix B. It contains the annual sampling results from 2008 to 2013.

Receiving Water(s)

Use Classification The Facility discharges to a portion of the Mississippi River Twin Cities major water shed, located in the upper portion of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This section of the Mississippi River is classified as a 2B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 5, and 6 waters of the state. This section of the Mississippi River is therefore been classified for the propagation and maintenance of cool or warm water sport or commercial fisheries and suitable for aquatic recreation of all kinds including bathing, industrial, consumption, agriculture and wildlife, aesthetic enjoyment and navigation uses. The 7Q10 low flow of the Mississippi River at the point of discharge is approximately 1,270 mgd.

Impairments The existing Facility is a petroleum refinery. The wastewater treatment system discharges at a maximum design flow of 2.858 mgd. The 7Q10 low flow of the Mississippi River at the point of discharge is approximately 1,270 mgd. In the table below is the information on impairments and associated TMDL status and applicable requirements. Lake Pepin, a lake on the Mississippi River near Lake City, Minnesota, is downstream of the SPPRC. In 2002, Lake Pepin was placed on the federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters due to excess nutrients. The listing was based on the narrative standards in Minn. R. 7050.0150 subp. 3. Phosphorus is the primary nutrient responsible for excess algal growth in Lake Pepin. Federal law [40 CFR § 122.44(d)] restricts mass increases upstream of impaired waters and states that all NPDES dischargers that cause, contribute, or have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to downstream impaired waters are required to have a water quality based effluent limit (WQBEL). A discussion of the phosphorus limits that will be applied to SPPRC, to address this impairment, is provided in the total phosphorus discussion.

Table: Impaired Waters & TMDL Status:

Downstream

Impairments

Number of

Impaired

Reaches

TMDL Status

Mississippi River 8

Turbidity 3 A draft South Metro Mississippi TMDL Turbidity

Impairment has been completed to address these

impairments. TSS WLAs assigned to this discharge, based

upon the draft South Metro Mississippi TMDL Turbidity

Impairment, are as follows:

15

draft WLA = 62,780 kg/year and 172 kg/day.

The draft WLA is equivalent to the Facility’s

current permitted TSS effluent limit.

Mercury in Fish Tissue 3 The Statewide Mercury TMDL is applicable to this

impairment. Permit limits and monitoring requirements

should be in accordance with the Mercury Permitting

Strategy

Mercury in Water Column 2

Pepin Lake 1

Nutrient/Eutrophication

Biological Indicators

1 The draft Lake Pepin – Excess Nutrients TMDL is on hold

until a site specific water quality standard is approved in

connection with the next iteration of Minnesota Rules

Chapter 7050. Probably next summer. See discussion

below.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has asked states to develop statewide nutrient reduction plans. In response the MPCA has developed the “The Minnesota Nutrient Reduction Strategy” to direct the efforts to better understand and address these concerns. Additional information on this plan may be found on the MPCA web site at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/surface-water/nutrient-reduction/nutrient-reduction-strategy.html. To understand the effect of industrial and municipal WWTP effluent contributions on the nutrient impairment it is first important to have the necessary data to conduct the analysis. SPPRC, like many of the other industrial and municipal WWTPs, do not have a complete set of historic data. Therefore, as part of the nutrient reduction strategy these facilities are being required to conduct sampling on the full range of nutrient related constituents. For SPPRC, the additional sampling will include NO3/NO2, TKN, and TDS.

Existing Permit Effluent Limits

The MPCA may use standards based on Minnesota state water quality standards, federal categorical

standards applicable to specific industrial categories, or a combination of these standards to derive

NPDES/SDS discharge limitations. In addition, the MPCA may also drive standards which are site specific

to a particular discharge. These standards may be based on toxicity studies, best professional judgment

analysis, technology based standards, and in some instances standards developed by other U.S. states,

or other governments if appropriate.

Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs)

The existing permit technology effluent limits are based on a combination of Minnesota State Secondary

Treatment Standards and federal categorical standards, which includes best available technology

economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) for the

Petroleum Refining Source Category. Federal standards used are based on 40 CFR pt. 419 for the

Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, subpart B, the Cracking subcategory, as promulgated by the

16

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The allowances shown for stormwater runoff are based on

the federal categorical standards included in 40 CFR § 419.22, subp. e. The Minnesota State Standards

used are described in Minn. R. 7053.0215. State secondary treatment concentration standards for BOD5,

TSS, and Oil & Grease were applied to the facility prior to the Federal ELGs was developed.

Table of TBEL’s in CURRENT PERMIT (2008‐2012)

Parameter Units

Monthly

Average Daily Max

Ammonia, Total as N kg/day 108 238

BOD5 kg/day 186 369

BOD5 mg/l 25 ‐‐

COD kg/day 1495 2887

Oil & Grease kg/day 63 118

Oil & Grease mg/l ‐‐ 10

Phenol, Total kg/day 2.4 9.7

Solids, Total Suspended

(TSS) kg/day 172 269

Solids, Total Suspended

(TSS) mg/l 30 ‐‐

Sulfide, Total (as S) kg/day 1 2.4

pH Within the range of 6.0 go 9.0

Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs)

Below is a table of the WQBELs in the existing permit. The origin of these limits will be discussed in the

Proposed Effluent Limits section of this fact sheet.

Water Quality Based Effluent Limits for existing Permit (2007‐2012)

Parameter Units

Monthly

Average Daily Max

Ammonia, Un‐ionized, as N mg/l ‐‐ 0.46

Mercury, Total ng/l 10 18

Phenol ug/l 2,214

Temperature, water ˚F ‐‐ 105˚

Whole Effluent Toxicity

(WET) ‐ Acute

ToxicityUnits(TUa) 0.999

Zinc ug/l 421

17

Proposed Permit Effluent Limits

The MPCA may use standards based on Minnesota state water quality standards, federal categorical

standards applicable to specific industrial categories, or a combination of these standards to derive

NPDES/SDS discharge limitations. In addition, the MPCA may also derive standards which are site

specific to a particular discharge. These standards may be based on toxicity studies, best professional

judgment analysis, technology based standards, and in some instances standards developed by other

U.S. states, or other governments if appropriate.

Technology Based Effluent Limits

Guidelines were published August 12, 1985, under 40 CFR pt. 419 by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) for the cracking subcategory of petroleum refining. The refinery effluent limitations are

based on terms of a settlement agreement dated April 17, 1984, between EPA and the Natural

Resources Defense Council resolving litigation about the EPA guidelines. The August 12, 1985, guidelines

establish Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) as equal to Best

Practicable Technology (BPT) for all parameters except phenols and chromium. Phenols and chromium

are regulated by whichever guideline is more stringent.

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

treatment technologies, pollutants discharged, pollutant loadings, and potential water quality impacts.

Based upon this review, EPA decided not to revise the refinery effluent guidelines. EPA determined that

the best treatment technology currently available was essentially the same as that applied at the time

the effluent guidelines were originally promulgated. EPA also determined that if the wastewater

treatment systems at the refineries are properly operated and maintained, priority pollutants will be

removed or treated to negligible or below detectable levels.

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

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

opportunities, emerging treatment technologies, revising the effluent guidelines, and expanding the list

of regulated pollutants. EPA reviewed information and comments on several issues including: control

technologies for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxin sources and reduction/control

technologies, sources of toxic metals, process modifications to reduce metals, and what toxics are being

released and remain unreported.

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

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

present in refinery wastewater discharges in concentrations above the detection limit. They also

concluded that the concentration of metals being discharged by refineries is at or very near treatable

levels, leaving little to no opportunity to reduce metals discharges through conventional end‐of‐pipe

treatment.

18

EPA reviewed the available dioxin information collected by refineries nationwide. The overall data

indicated that dioxins are only occasionally discharged in relatively low concentrations in treated

refinery effluent. In its opinion, this data did not warrant the development of national categorical

limitations on dioxin in refinery wastewater discharges. EPA did note that on a case‐by‐case, best

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

also encouraged permit writers and refineries to consider pollution prevention opportunities. As a result

of their evaluation, EPA concluded that there was no need to revise the federal effluent guidelines at

this time.

EPA TBEL Limits:

During the last permit re‐issuance, EPA based TBEL evaluations used a production level of 86,000 barrels

per day (bbl/day). During the determination of the limits the staff reviewed data from the Facility and

the operating practices at the wastewater treatment plant and determined that would meet the TBEL

limits based upon a production rate of 86,000 bbl/day. For this NPDES permit, the EPA based TBEL

calculations are based on the 98 percentile crude production level of 90,000 bbl/day, as was stated in

the permit application.

Derivation of Factors for Calculation of Federal Categorical Standards

Factors are used in calculating the Federal allowable technology based categorical standards in

accordance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40, Part 419, Petroleum refining Point Source

Category, subpart B, Cracking subcategory. Below is the Facility production information and calculations

of the various required factors. The factors will be used in calculating the individual technology based

effluent limits.

Production Data: Total Crude Feed = 90,000 bbl/day (barrels/day)

Production Types Capacity

Barrel per day

(bbl/day)

Atmospheric Crude Distillation 72,500

Vacuum Distillation 40,700

Desalting ‐ Crude 90,000

Fluid Cat. Cracking 28,300

Hydrotreating (gas+diesel) 70,800

Lube category 0

Asphalt production 13,600

19

Process “Configuration Value” Calculation: (Categories per 419.42(b)(3))

Process Capacity

1000 Barrel per day

(1K bbl/day)

Relative

Capacity

(1K bbl/1K bbl)

Weighting

Factor

Process

Configuratio

n

CRUDE:

Atmospheric Crude Distillation 72.5 72.5/90

Vacuum Distillation 40.7 40.7/90

Desalting ‐ Crude 90.0 90/90

Total Crude: 203.2

Sub‐Total Process

Configuration

2.258 X 1 = 2.26

Cracking and Cooking

Fluid Cat. Cracking 28.3 28.3/90

Hydrotreating (gas+diesel) 70.8 70.8/90

Total Cracking and Cooking: 91.1

Sub‐Total Process

Configuration

1.101 X 6 = 6.61

Lube 0 0 X 13 = 0

Asphalt

Asphalt production 13.6 13.6/90

Total Asphalt: 13.6

Sub‐Total Process

Configuration

0.151 X 12 = 1.81

Configuratio

n Value

= 10.68

Size Factor:

To determine the size factor to assign to SPPRC, the crude oil production rate of 90,000 bbl/day is used

in Table 419.22(b)(1) of 40 CFR 419. The assigned sized factor is shown below in an abbreviated table

that only contains the production range currently being considered.

Production Range

(1,000 bbl of feedstock per stream

day)

Size Factor

77.5 to 99.9 1.13

20

Process Factor:

From Table 419.23(b)(2) process factor (40 CFR pt.419) the process factor is determined from the table

using the configuration value, determined above to be 10.68. Below is an abbreviated portion of the

table showing only the process configuration range applicable with the assigned process factor.

Process Configuration Range Process Factor

9.5 or greater 1.89

Adjusted Capacity Multiplier:

The adjusted capacity multiplier is calculated from the production volume, size factor and the process

factor. Shown below is the calculation for SPPRC’s multiplier.

Process Factor x Size Factor x Capacity ( 1000K bbl) = Adjustment Capacity Multiplier

1.89 x 1.13 x 90 = 192.21

The adjusted capacity multiplier is also used in the calculation of the Federal technology based limits

(BPT, BAT, and BCT). Individual parameter limits are determined by multiplying the limit by the

adjustment capacity multiplier. Parameter limits for the Subpart B – Cracking Subcategory may be

found as shown below.

40 CFR § 419.22: Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)

40 CFR § 419.23: Best available technology economically achievable (BAT)

40 CFR § 419.24: Best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) Using the adjusted capacity multiplier and the most restrictive of the applicable technology based ELG

the calculations for the Federal technology based limits are shown below.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Total Suspended Solids (TSS)/Oil and Grease

Allowable mass loading limitations for a 5‐Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), TSS, and oil and

grease calculated on the basis of federal categorical standards for BPT/BCT (both have same allowance

factors) were completed using the current and proposed a 90,000 bbl/day production rate as follows:

BCT/BPT Crude Oil Production Allowances

Parameter (lbs/1000 bbls) monthly

avg/daily max

Adjusted Capacity

Multiplier

discharge limit (lbs/day) monthly

avg/daily max

BOD5 5.5 / 9.9 192.21 1,057 / 1,903

TSS 4.4 / 6.9 192.21 846 / 1,326

Oil/Grease 1.6 / 3.0 192.21 308 / 577

Runoff allowance: Federal categorical standards provide for allowances in loading limitations for BOD5,

TSS, and oil and grease for contaminated runoff that is commingled or treated with process wastewater.

Runoff from snow melt and rainfall is collected and treated at the refinery WWTP. To determine these

21

allowances an average stormwater runoff flow of 0.21 mgd was used. Discharge allowances from

contaminated runoff were calculated as follows:

BCT/BPT Stormwater Allowances

Parameter (lbs/1000 gal runoff)

monthly avg/daily max

Flow (1/1000 gal) discharge allowance (lbs/day)


BOD5 0.22 / 0.40 210 46.2 / 84.0

TSS 0.18 / 0.28 210 37.8 / 58.8

Oil/Grease 0.067 / 0.13 210 14.1 / 27.3

Total: The total mass loading limits can be calculated by summing the BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease

discharge limitations calculated using the size and process factors and the stormwater discharge

allowance. The total limits are as follows:

BCT/BPT Crude Oil Production and Stormwater Allowance totals

Parameter monthly avg

kg/day lb/day

daily max

kg/day lb/day

BOD5 497 1,103 900 1987

TSS 402 884 622 1385

Oil/Grease 144 322 269 604

A review of the Facility discharge monitoring reports indicates that the existing BOD5, TSS, and oil and

grease discharge loadings are consistently well below the current permitted BOD5, TSS, and oil and

grease discharge limitations. The existing discharge limitations for BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease are

based on a combination of state and federal standards, using whichever is determined to be more

restrictive. The existing limitations are BOD5 186 kg/day monthly average, 369 kg/day daily maximum,

TSS 172 kg/day monthly average, 269 kg/day daily maximum, and oil and grease 63 kg/day monthly

average, 118 kg/day daily maximum. Therefore in accordance with a best professional judgment

approach with consideration to the performance of the WWTP, the current more restrictive permit

BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease discharge limitations will be maintained in the reissued permit. As such

the technology based discharge limitations of the draft permit are:

Parameter monthly avg.

kg/day

daily max

kg/day

BOD5 186 369

TSS 172 269

Oil/Grease 63 118

22

In addition to the above mass loading based standards, concentration based standards for CBOD5 and

TSS consistent with Minn. R. 7053.0215, secondary treatment standards will be remain in the reissued

permit. These standards appear in the existing permit as maximum concentrations and are BOD5 25 mg/l

monthly average and TSS 30 mg/l monthly average.

Total Ammonia, Sulfide, and COD

TBEL calculations for total ammonia, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and sulfide are the same for both

the best practicable control technology currently available standards (BPT) and BAT, except for BPT has

contaminated runoff allowances for COD. There are no Minnesota state standards for ammonia, COD,

and sulfide. The discharge limitations are based on a 90,000 bbl/day production rate as follows:

BPT/BAT Crude Oil Production Allowances

Parameter BPT (lbs/1000 bbls)


Adjusted Capacity

Multiplier

BPT discharge limit (lbs/day)


COD* 38.4 / 74 192.21 7,381 / 14,224

Sulfide 0.029 / 0.65 192.21 6 / 12

Ammonia 3 / 6.6 192.21 577 / 1,269

Stormwater allowances are not provided to sulfide and ammonia calculations but they are for COD

under BPT. Mass loading allowances are made for COD from contaminated runoff as follows:

BPT Contaminated Runoff Allowance for COD

Parameter BPT

(lbs/1000 gal runoff)


Flow (1/1000 gal) discharge allowance (lbs/day)


COD 3.0 / 1.5 210 315 / 630

The total mass loading limits based on the federal BAT/BPT standards for COD, sulfide, and ammonia are

as follows, after converting the values from lbs/day to kg/day:

TBEL (BPT) total limits for Production and Contaminated Runoff (COD only)


kg/day

daily max

kg/day

COD 3,474 6,704

Sulfide 2.5 5.5

Ammonia 260 575

These discharge limitations, calculated based on federal BAT/BPT categorical standards at the existing

production rate of 90,000 barrels per day, are less restrictive than the existing permit discharge

limitations, which are 1495 kg/day monthly average, 2887 kg/day daily maximum for COD, 1.0 kg/day

monthly, 2.4 kg/day daily maximum for sulfide, and 108 kg/day monthly average, 238 kg/day daily

23

maximum for ammonia. A review of the monthly discharge monitoring reports for the Facility indicates

that the current permit limitations for COD, sulfide, and ammonia are consistently met. Therefore in

accordance with a best professional judgment approach the current technology based discharge

limitations for COD, sulfide, and ammonia will be maintained in the reissued permit. The discharge

limitations for these parameters are as follows:


kg/day

daily max

kg/day

COD 1495 2887

Sulfide 1.0 2.4

Ammonia 108 238

Phenolics, Total and Hexavalent Chromium

Calculations of production capacities for those categories that are used in the calculation of BAT

allowances for phenolics, total chromium, and hexavalent chromium are shown below

Capacity

(bbl/day)

Capacity

(1000 bbl/day)

CRUDE Categories:

Atmospheric Crude Distillation 72,500

72.50

Vacuum Distillation 40,700 40.70

Desalting ‐ Crude 90,000 90.00

Total Crude Production 203.20

Cracking and Cooking Cat.

Fluid Cat. Cracking 28,300 28.30

Hydrotreating (gas+diesel) 70,800 70.80

Total Cracking and Cooking Production 99.10

Asphalt Category

Asphalt production 13,600 13.60

Total Asphalt Production 13.60

Reforming & Alkylation Cat.

H2SO4 Alkylation 7,400 7.40

Catalytic Reforming 15,700 15.70

Total Reforming & Alkylation Production 23.10

24

Phenolic Compounds (Phenol, Total)

BAT standards were used to calculate a total phenols or phenolic compounds standard. Total phenols or

total phenolic compounds refers to phenols which are analyzed by the 4AAP (4‐amnioantipyrine)

colorimetric method that determines individual phenol, ortho and meta substituted phenol, and under

proper pH conditions certain para substituted phenols. The calculations used to determine the allowable

phenolic compounds loading is as follows:

Phenolic Compounds (4AAP) Calculation Table – BAT

BAT Allowances English Units Metric Units

Production1

(1000 bbl

/day)

Daily

Max

(lbs /

1000 bbl)

30‐Day Ave.

(lbs/1000 bbl)

Daily

Max

(lbs/day)

30‐day

Ave

(lbs/day)

Daily

Max

(kg/day)

30‐day

Ave.

(kg/day)

Crude

Processing

203.200 0.013 0.003 2.64 0.61 1.20 0.28

Cracking &

Coking

99.100 0.147 0.036 14.57 3.57 6.61 1.62

Asphalt 13.600 0.079 0.019 1.07 0.26 0.49 0.12

Lube 0.000 0.369 0.090 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Reforming &

Alkylation

23.100 0.132 0.032 3.05 0.74 1.38 0.34

Stormwater

Allowance

(1000/gal) (lbs/1000

gal)

(lbs/1000 gal)

Stormwater 210 0.0029 0.0014 0.609 0.294 0.28 0.13

LIMITS 21.94 5.47 9.95 2.48 1 Total Production Multiplier ‐‐The phenols total production multiplier is calculated in accordance with

40 CFR§ 419.43 subpart i (2) using the respective volume of production for the following refining

processes: atmospheric crude distillation, crude desalting, vacuum crude distillation, fluid catalytic

cracking, hydrotreating, asphalt, and alkylation/reforming production volume, size factor and the

process factor. The individual volumes used in the calculation were derived from the permit application

and are shown in the earlier table, Process Configuration.

Phenolic Compounds ‐ BPT Calculations:

BPT calculations for phenolic compounds include allowances for both production and contaminated

runoff (40 CFR§ 419.22). Below is a summary table of the BPT calculations.

BPT Allowances English Units Metric Units

Adjustment

Capacity

Multiplier

(1000 bbl

/day)

Daily

Max

(lbs /

1000 bbl)

30‐Day Ave.

(lbs/1000 bbl)

Daily

Max

(lbs/day)

30‐day

Ave

(lbs/day)

Daily

Max

(kg/day)

30‐day

Ave.

(kg/day)

Phenolic 192.21 0.074 0.036 14.22 6.92 6.42 3.06

25

Compounds

Stormwater Allowance for Phenolics

(1000/gal) (lbs/1000

gal)

(lbs/1000 gal)

Stormwater 210 0.0029 0.0014 0.609 0.294 0.35 0.17

LIMITS 14.83 7.214 6.77 3.23

The allowable phenolic discharge limitation based on the federal BAT standards for phenolic compounds

are 5.47 lb/day (2.48 kg/day) monthly average, 21.94 lbs/day (9.95 kg/day) daily maximum. While the

calculated federal BPT standards for phenolic compounds would be 7.21lb/day (3.23 kg/day) monthly

average, 14.83 lbs/day (6.77 kg/day) daily maximum. Therefore the most restrictive federal calculated

discharge limits are:

5.47 lb/day (2.48 kg/day) monthly average (BAT)

14.83 lbs/day (6.77 kg/day) daily maximum (BPT)

The most restrictive EPA calculated monthly average limit BAT limit of 2.48 kg/day is less restrictive than

the current permit limit of 2.4 kg/day. Given that the current permit limit is more restrictive and the

monitoring data indicates that the monthly levels of phenolic compounds are well below this more

restrictive limit, the current limit will continue to be applied.

As for the current permit maximum daily limit of phenolic compounds, 9.70 kg/day, is less restrictive

than the BPT calculated daily maximum load of 6.77 kg/day. A review of the monthly discharge

monitoring reports indicates that the phenolic compound loading is well below the 6.77 kg/day value.

Therefore, the lower and more restrictive daily maximum load of 6.77 kg/day will be applied in the

permit.

Chromium (Total and Hexavalent):

The Environmental Protection Agency established federal effluent guidelines for total and

hexavalent chromium back when chromium was commonly used in cooling water systems and

discharged at much higher levels in the effluent. Hexavalent chromium was banned for use in

cooling systems by EPA in the early 1990s (40 CFR. § 749.68), and the only remaining primary

source of chromium is from the crude oil. Due to the EPA prohibition on chromium based descalers

in cooling water systems the Facility began using alternative descaling compounds. After some time

the Permittee (at the time) presented information indicating that the discharges of chromium

species were below detection once the Facility discontinued using chromium based descalers. It was

believed by the Facility that the cooling system additives were the primary source of the chromium. A

review of the chromium discharge data at the time indicated that by following the EPA’s prohibition on

the use of chromium based chemical additives (in 1994) the discharge concentrations of chromium were

at very low levels. The 1995 issued permit allowed the Permittee to request reduced or discontinued

sampling based on this information after one year of continued sampling. Continued sampling results

provided discharge levels below detection limits or significantly below the technology ELGs. Given these

26

findings the 2002 reissued permit did not contain chromium sampling requirements and therefore the

last DMR report with a monthly chromium sampling was completed in September 2002.

However, because the federal effluent guidelines still include limits for chromium, the MPCA must

include an effluent limit for chromium in the proposed permit to ensure that refineries in Minnesota are

subject to the same requirements as refineries located in other states. Additionally, crude oil still is a

potential source of chromium in the wastewater and given that the sources of crude oil to the facility

have expanded (to include the North Dakota light shale oil sources) the sampling will be informative as

to any potential issues associated with changes in crude oil sources. Frequency of sampling will be on a

quarterly basis (with two samples taken in a given month), and the limits will be as established by the

EPA technology based effluent limit BAT calculations (shown in the tables below). There are also BPT

calculations for the chromium species, however, it is much less restrictive and therefore not show. In

the event that the federal effluent guidelines are promulgated without chromium limits, MPCA will drop

the limit from the permit, unless condition changes in operation or crude oil source necessitate a water

quality limit.

BAT Calculation for both total chromium and hexavalent chromium.

Total Chromium Calculation Table – BAT with Stormwater BAT Allowances

Production

(1000 bbl

/day)

Daily

Max

(lbs /

1000 bbl)

30‐Day Ave.

(lbs/1000 bbl)

Daily

Max

(lbs/day)

30‐day

Ave

(lbs/day)

Daily

Max

(kg/day)

30‐day

Ave.

(kg/day)

Crude

Processing

203.200 0.011 0.004

2.235 0.813 1.01 0.37

Cracking &

Coking

99.100 0.119 0.041

11.793 4.063 5.35 1.84

Asphalt 13.600 0.064 0.022 0.870 0.299 0.39 0.14

Lube 0.000 0.299 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Reforming &

Alkylation

23.100 0.107 0.037

2.472 0.855 1.12 0.39

Stormwater

Allowance

(1000/gal) (lbs/1000

gal)

(lbs/1000 gal)

Stormwater 210 0.005 0.0018 1.05 0.378 0.48 0.17

LIMITS 18.42 6.41 8.36 2.91

Hexavalent Calculation Table – BAT with Stormwater BAT Allowances

Production

(1000 bbl

Daily

Max

30‐Day Ave.

(lbs/1000 bbl)

Daily

Max

30‐day

Ave

Daily

Max

30‐day

Ave.

27

/day) (lbs /

1000 bbl) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (kg/day) (kg/day)

Crude

Processing

203.200 0.0007 0.0003

0.142 0.061 0.065 0.028

Cracking &

Coking

99.100 0.0076 0.0034

0.753 0.337 0.342 0.153

Asphalt 13.600 0.0041 0.0019 0.056 0.026 0.025 0.012

Lube 0.000 0.0192 0.0087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Reforming &

Alkylation

23.100 0.0069 0.0031

0.159 0.072 0.072 0.032

Stormwater

Allowance

(1000/gal) (lbs/1000

gal)

(lbs/1000 gal)

Stormwater 210 0.00052 0.00023 0.109 0.048 0.05 0.02

LIMITS 1.22 0.54 0.55 0.25

Water Quality Based Limits “Reasonable Potential” is a procedures specified by EPA regulation that compares preliminary water quality‐based effluent limits for a pollutant with effluent monitoring data to determine the need for an effluent limitation. Federal regulation at 40 CFR. § 122.44(d)(1) require that pollutants be evaluated for the potential to exceed water quality standards (“Reasonable Potential”) using acceptable technical procedures, accounting for variability in the effluent. Monitoring data from 2008 to 2012 were reviewed for many of the pollutants of concern for this permit re‐issuance. Ammonia, Unionized (UIA) Unionized ammonia is the molecular species of ammonia that is primarily responsible for acute toxicity of ammonia to aquatic organisms. Ammonia dissociates into ionized and unionized forms in accordance with an equilibrium equation, and the relative concentrations of unionized and ionized ammonia forms occur primarily in accordance with pH and, to a much lesser extent, temperature. The unionized ammonia fraction causing toxicity is directly correlated to pH. Increases in pH lead to increases in the unionized ammonia fraction. Therefore the allowable total ammonia concentration in an effluent at higher pHs is lower due to the unionized fraction increasing with increasing pH. Unionized ammonia is limited in the existing permit at a daily maximum concentration of 0.46 mg/l. The unionized ammonia limit is based on the 1999 EPA National Criterion for Ammonia in Freshwater. The criterion limits total ammonia concentrations and is pH dependent. To avoid a situation in which a total ammonia limit could change day to day depending on pH, MPCA staff developed a unionized ammonia concentration limit based on the EPA criterion for total ammonia. The limit was derived by calculating the unionized ammonia concentration that corresponds to 0.10 pH increments between the Minnesota State standard pH range of 6.0 to 8.0. Temperature was held constant at 20 ˚C for the calculations. The average unionized ammonia calculated from the pH increments was 0.46 mg/l. In addition to the unionized ammonia discharge limitation the permit also contains a condition that the Facility may not adjust the pH as a routine practice for the purpose of meeting the ammonia limitation of 0.46 mg/l. However, upon verbal approval by MPCA staff, the pH of the discharge may be adjusted in extreme circumstances when a combination of high water temperatures and pH (driven by algal blooms

28

in the WWTP lagoons) causes the unionized ammonia concentration to approach the effluent limit of 0.46 mg/l. The pH adjustment restriction does not affect pH adjustment done at wastewater treatment process units, such as pH adjustment for the purpose of optimizing metals removal or neutralizing wastewater prior to biological treatment. The permit prohibits pH adjustment solely as a means to meet unionized ammonia limitations (without MPCA approval) rather than implementing more appropriate wastewater treatment methods such as nitrification to lower any excessive total ammonia levels. As a part of the permit re‐issuance review, effluent monitoring data from 2008 to 2012 was reviewed. During that time all but two of the monthly reported results were above the detection limit, and two samples were above the discharge limit of 0.46 mg/l. Those results above the limit occurred in August and September of 2010, with concentrations of 0.54 and 0.62 mg/l respectively. These exceedances were linked to an upset of the treatment facility due to a power outage. No changes in the limits or monitoring are recommended for UIA. Mercury The Minnesota water quality standard is 6.9 ng/l. The Mississippi River, along with many other water bodies in the state, is listed as impaired for fish consumption due to mercury. To address the impairments MPCA drafted a state‐wide mercury TMDL. In March 2007 EPA approved Minnesota’s state‐wide mercury TMDL. Based on the TMDL, the existing permit limits mercury to 18 ng/l and 10 ng/l as a daily maximum and monthly average, respectively. These limits represent the statistical interpretation of the 6.9 ng/l mercury water quality standard using a 95% confidence interval and were developed using data collected at the Facility over the past five years. Once the mercury TMDL implementation plan is complete the Facility may be subject to more stringent mercury limitations. A review of the effluent monitoring data collected since the pervious permit review indicates that the mercury levels were greater than the level of detection, but less than the effluent limits. No changes in limits or monitoring recommended. Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) Perfluorochemicals may be found in commercial items such as fire fighting foams, hydraulic fluid, chemical additives, and other various sources. Given that the Facility had used fire fighting foams in the past that contained PFCs it is possible that these may still be discharging from the facility. Additionally, PFCs may be found at minute concentrations in various chemical additives, it is important to understand the potential for the Facility to discharge PFCs. Starting in April 2009, the MPCA took effluent samples from facilities discharging into the lower Minnesota River and those discharging into Pool 2 of the Mississippi River. Each sample was analyzed for thirteen forms of Perfluorochemicals (PFCs). Two separate sampling events were done for these dischargers. Several forms of PFCs were found at the outfall for this Facility. Environmental Analysis and Outcomes (EAO) staff does not do reasonable potential analysis based off of just two samples. EAO staff recommends quarterly effluent sampling for all thirteen forms of PFCs shown in in Table 1 and in the ‘Guidance for Perfluorochemicals Analysis’, May 2010, which can be found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view‐document.html?gid=13564 . If the Facility has questions about monitoring for PFC or finding a certified laboratory to perform the PFC chemical analysis, please contact Mr. Bill Scruton at the MPCA St. Paul Office. Mr. Scruton’s phone number is 651‐757‐2710 and his email address is: [email protected] . During the next permit re‐issuance it will be possible, with the additional information gathered, to make a determination as the continued monitoring needs at the Facility.

29

Table1. Reporting Levels of the Thirteen PFCs of Interest.

Target Analyte Acronym Aqueous Report Levels

(ng/L)

Perfluorobutanate PFBA 2.50

Perfluoropentanoate PFPeA 2.50

Perfluorohexanoate PFHxA 2.50

Perfluoroheptanoate PFHpA 2.50

Perfluorooctanoate PFOA 2.50

Perfluorononanoate PFNA 2.50

Perfluorodecanoate PFDA 2.50

Perfluoroundecanoate PFUnA 2.50

Perfluorododecanoate PFDoA 2.50

Perfluorobutanesulfonate PFBS 5.00

Perfluorohexanesulfonate PFHxS 5.00

Perfluorooctanesulfonate PFOS 5.00

Perfluorooctanesulfonamide PFOSA 2.50

Phenol In addition to total phenols and phenolic compounds described above in the technology limits section the permit also contains discharge limitations for phenol. Phenol in this case is the individual phenol compound. The limitation is 2214 ug/l daily maximum which is based on the Final Acute Value (FAV) or daily maximum for phenol as described in Minn. R. 7050.0222, subp. 2. All monitoring data for phenol except one value (14 ug/l, Dec., 2009) were below the level of detection. No reasonable potential analysis was done for phenols. No changes in the limits or monitoring for phenols are recommended. Monitoring will continue to be conducted once per week. Phosphorus Phosphorus is common constituent in many wastewater discharges and a pollutant that has the potential to negatively impact the quality of Minnesota's lakes, wetlands, rivers, and streams. Therefore, phosphorus discharges are being carefully evaluated throughout the state. The current permit requires the Facility to monitor phosphorus once per month and maintain a phosphorus management plan. The phosphorus monitoring and related permit requirements were consistent with the MPCA permitting phosphorus strategy. However, since the last permit reissuance the phosphorus levels in the Mississippi River downstream of the Facility have been studied and found to be impaired. Effluent from SPPRC is discharged upstream of Lake Pepin, a reservoir on the Mississippi River. In 2002, Lake Pepin was placed on the federal Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters due to excess nutrients. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) study is currently being developed and a significant portion of the modeling analysis has been completed. Phosphorus is the primary nutrient responsible for excess algal growth in Lake Pepin. Federal law [40 CFR. § 122.44(d)] restricts mass increases upstream of impaired waters and states that all NPDES dischargers that have the reasonable potential (RP) to cause or contribute to downstream impaired waters are required to have a water

30

quality based effluent limit (WQBEL). When determining reasonable potential, the Code of Federal Regulations also states that the MPCA shall use procedures which account for existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Permittees are found to have RP for TP if: (1) they discharge upstream of a nutrient impaired water body, (2) they discharge at TP concentrations greater than the ambient target, and (3) there is no geographical barrier capable of trapping a significant mass of nutrients between the outfall and the impairment. For all reasons listed above, SPPRC is found to have RP for TP upstream of Lake Pepin. Therefore, SPPRC is required to have a TP WQBEL. Categorical WQBELs were developed for NPDES WWTFs in the Lake Pepin Basin. The limits require reductions for larger WWTFs. These limits have been implemented since 2010.

Draft WLAs for both point and non‐point dischargers above Lake Pepin have been designed, through the use of a computer reservoir model, to support the designated uses of the lake. These WLAs were developed using discharge data from facilities like SPPRC. Individual WLAs are calculated for facilities using the formula shown below. Effluent records, prior to 2010, from SPPRC were reviewed and used in to develop the WLA for SPPRC. Using the Facility average TP concentration of 0.3336 mg/l and the maximum design flow of 2.858 mgd, the limit assigned is a WLA of 1,515 kg/yr TP. This limit will be a 12 month moving total limit for total phosphorus. Because the reissued permit will contain a new WQBEL and will be undergoing facility upgrades, the TP limit will not become effective until 90 days after the upgrade is complete and fully running so as to be treating the entire wastewater flow. Therefore, the proposed permit contains a schedule of compliance that will direct the actual date that the WLA limit will begin. See the “Compliance Schedule” section later in the fact sheet.

Individual LILC WLAs are calculated as follows:

Individual LILC WLAs are calculated as follows:

General Formula:

LILC WLA = (AWWDF x Avg TPa mg/L TP x 3.785 L/gal x 365 days/yr) +15%

SPPR WWTP WLA:

1,515 kg/yr TP = (2.858 mgd x 0.3336 mg/L x 3.785 L/gal x 365 days/yr) + 198 kg/yr

In general refinery wastewaters are phosphorus deficient. However, some refineries with activated sludge wastewater treatment units find it necessary to add phosphorus in order to maintain adequate biological activity. SPPRC has made a chemical additive request to allow phosphoric acid additions to the new activated sludge system in order to maximize the treatment biota in the WWTP. Due to the new WLA and the future change in treatment process and practices it is appropriate to maintain the same monitoring frequency of monthly. However, during the start‐up of the new treatment system it is advisable to increase the sampling frequency to help adjust the phosphorus addition rates. Additionally, the Facility will need to update the phosphorus management plan.

31

Additional Parameters of Concern (Nitrogen, Solids, Chlorides)

To address the nutrient water quality concerns in the Mississippi River and the waters below additional monitoring is being added to the permit monitoring requirements. Beginning with this permit reissuance, additional parameters are proposed to be added to the monitoring due to the potential to being discharged from the Facility. The additional parameters include: total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrite/nitrate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). These parameters can contribute to eutrophic conditions, like those that exist at the downstream Lake Pepin. This additional information will be evaluated at a later date to better understand potential issues associated with these parameters and the need for any control limits. Monitoring for these additional parameters will occur two times a year. Monitoring will be in April and September. Selenium The existing permit requires the Facility to monitor the discharge for total selenium. The purpose of the monitoring is to determine if selenium is elevated in the discharge. Selenium data collected from 2008 to 2012 was analyzed during the reasonable potential review of the permit application. All but one of the samples had detection of selenium above the detection limit. None of the samples were in excess of the receiving water final acute value (FAV), and no reasonable potential for selenium to cause or contribute to a water quality impairment. The frequency of selenium monitoring in the draft permit is proposed to remain at once per quarter. Selenium monitoring will continue with the next permit cycle primarily due to the proposed change in wastewater treatment technology. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)Testing Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity The Permittee has an existing acute Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) limit of 0.9999 TUa (Toxic Unit acute) established in a previous permit cycle (for the 2002 to 2007 permit). The Permittee has acute WET testing because the ratio of the 7Q10 low flow of the receiving water compared to the Facility’s Maximum Design flow (MDF) is greater than 20:1. Because reasonable potential has been shown in a past permit cycle, an acute WET limit of 0.9999 (Toxic Unit acute (TUa) has been established. The 0.9999 TUa limit was established as a daily maximum limit. A total of five acute WET tests have been conducted since the previous permit review. None of those tests indicated toxicity and Reasonable Potential for WET is not indicated. The following recommendations are made consistent with anti‐backsliding requirements when a limit is currently in place: The recommendation for the permit is to include annual WET monitoring requirements. Tests must use pH control procedures to provide additional assurance that any toxicity that may be present is unrelated to this artifact. No changes to the sampling frequency are recommended. Whole effluent toxicity testing is required to be completed at SD001 on an annual basis, with testing methodology consistent with the requirements in the draft permit. If the permit exceeded five years, there will be an additional WET test for each year that exceeds the five year permit cycle.

32

Zinc The permit includes a zinc limit of 421 ug/l daily maximum. The limit was derived, consistent with Minn. R. 7050.0222 Specific Standards of Quality and Purity for Class 2 Waters of the State; Aquatic Life and Recreation, using a hardness concentration of 200 mg/l. As part of the review of the permit application MPCA staff completed a reasonable potential analysis per 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1). Zinc monitoring data from 2008 to 2012 was reviewed as part of this permit reissuance .All but two of the samples had levels above the detection limit, while all the samples with detections were well below the discharge limit. No changes in the limit or monitoring are proposed. Zinc will continue to be monitored once per quarter.

Additional Requirements

Pollutant Minimization Plans (PMP)

Mercury Minimization Plan (MMP)

This permit requires the development of a Mercury Minimization Plan since the petroleum refinery

industry has the potential to discharge mercury. The plan is required to be submitted to the MPCA 180

days prior to the permit expiration date.

Phosphorus Minimization Plan (PMP)

The permit requirements were developed consistent with the MPCA’s Phosphorus Strategy at

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water‐monitoring‐and‐reporting/water‐quality‐and‐

pollutants/phosphorus/phosphorus‐management‐plans.html Contained in the proposed permit is a

requirement to develop or update the existing Phosphorus Management Plan for the Facility. The

conditions in the plan shall incorporate the limits assigned to the Mississippi River discharge location

SD001. The PMP shall be submitted to the MPCA 180 days prior to the expiration of the permit.

Lagoon Seepage Evaluation:

Contained in the Industrial Pond System chapter of the permit are the requirements that address the

testing of the lagoon seepage rates.

Since the last re‐issuance of the permit for this Facility the MPCA began requesting additional

information on pond systems at all facilities. Requested information on the pond systems are to be

provided to the MPCA as part of the permit application using the MPCA form “Municipal and Industrial

Pond Attachment”. This additional information would be used to screen mass balance information,

along with other site specific conditions, to determine whether a facility’s pond(s) will adequately

contain liquids so as to meet all applicable statutes and rules. Authorization of the MPCA to request

this information is granted by state regulations Minn. R. 7001.0050.H. This information would also

provide insight into the adequacy of the ongoing proper operation and maintenance of the pond facility

(40 CFR § 122.41 (e) and NPDES Permit).

33

Part of the pond attachment application includes the listing of monthly total influent and effluent flows.

This information, along with the other additionally submitted information on the form provides the

MPCA with information for the evaluation of the pond system to adequately contain the wastewaters.

SPPRC’s submitted application did not provide the influent flows to the pond as the Facility did not have

in place influent flow equipment. Given this lack of information, along with the other site specific

conditions present at and near the pond, the MPCA has determined that it will be necessary for the

pond to undergo seepage testing. Some of the site specific conditions of concern include the limestone

bluff on the east side of the pond, high water table relative to pond elevation, close proximity to the

Mississippi River, and adjacent groundwater remedial equipment. Additionally, the pond was

constructed in the 1940’s and the construction methods and materials are unknown and are not in the

agency records. Given the many variables the MPCA is requiring the pond undergo a formal water

balance testing to determine if it provides adequate water pollution control (Minn. Stat. 115.03,

subd. 1[e]).

Additionally, the pond evaluation is warranted by the significant change in the use of the pond. The

Facility has proposed to make significant changes to the use and operation of the pond following the

upgrades to the WWTP. Primarily, this includes the types and volumes of both the influent and effluent

flows to be handled and treated by the pond. Currently the pond has an average influent flow of 1.8

million gallons per day (mgd) of WWTP wastewaters, along with Facility stormwaters and other

incidental flows. Following the installation and start‐up of the new activated sludge treatment system

the pond will be disconnected from influent flows from the petroleum refinery WWTP. This will result in

the Facility having influent flows varying between no influent to infrequent flows of influent

stormwaters (average 0.2 mgd), direct precipitation, hydrostatic test waters, metered additions of

WWTP treated effluent, and clean groundwater. Clean groundwater additions are also proposed to

occur during dry periods when the level of the pond may fall below the required quantity of required

fire water availability. Effluent flows from the pond to the Facility will only occur through an overflow

pipe which drains to the WWTP during high loading precipitation events. Significant changes in

operation will affect the operation and maintenance requirements along with the seepage protection of

the pond. These significant changes will be addressed in the required revision and updating of the pond

operation and maintenance manual, along with ongoing pond seepage testing.

The MPCA provides guidance on the methodology of testing procedures to use, operational conditions,

site evaluations, generally acceptable seepage rates based on research, and other more specific

evaluation considerations. Guidance is provided in the MPCA’s “Prefill and Water Balance Criteria”,

which can be found online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view‐document.html?gid=15336.

Discussions with the Facility have included the many concerns the agency has with the unique

conditions at the Facility that make a defensible evaluation very difficult. However, the Facility has been

working with their consultants and believes that an adequate evaluation may be conducted to meet

containment requirements. Given this understanding the agency is agreeing to allow the Facility to

conduct an evaluation with general conditions that must be incorporated into the evaluation and final

report. Minimum conditions to be incorporated into the testing are described in the permit language in

34

the “Industrial Pond System” chapter. The pond testing will consist of or consider a combined use of

information obtained from new and existing groundwater monitoring wells, pond elevation

measurements, precipitation and evaporation measurements, nearby stormwater influent, lagoon

effluent discharges to WWTP, sludge sampling and evaluation, and other potential measures as to yet to

be determined following the accumulation of additional study information. Seepage testing will have to

be conducted under controlled conditions to include at a minimum the operation of the nearby

remedial recovery wells and French drain systems as well as the river water elevations. A plan for the

study is required to be submitted to the MPCA within 180 days following the re‐issuance of the permit,

for review and approval. The study is required to be completed and the results and proposed remedial

actions (if necessary) to be submitted within three and one half years of reissuance.

It is the best professional judgment of the MPCA that the maximum seepage rate for the Facility’s

lagoon will be the same that is generally assigned to other ponds built before March 16, 1975. Thus the

maximum allowable seepage rate to be assigned to the pond will be 3,500 gallons per acre per day

(gpad).

If the pond is found to have a seepage rate of less than 3,500 gpad, then the facility will be able to

continue the use of the pond without modification, unless directed by another regulatory requirement

outside of the permit’s regulatory authority (See next section below). Follow‐up lagoon testing shall be

repeated each permit cycle for the life of the Facility, or when adverse conditions may have caused a

change in the pond or the sediment/sludge layer. The need for follow‐up testing may be reviewed if

the pond were to undergo sufficient upgrades and modifications such that the pond meets current

standards and acceptable construction methods and materials.

A failed seepage test, seepage > 3,500 gpad, or the inability to perform a valid test due to unacceptable

test conditions within three and one‐half year time frame, will result in the Facility being required to

submit a plan to restore the pond. Under this condition the facility shall submit a Pond Restoration Plan

for review and approval by the MPCA. The plan shall include all proposed remedial work, modifications,

schedule of work, and other relevant conditions. Reporting of the pond seepage testing, and if needed

the Pond Restoration Plan, shall be submitted to the MPCA within three and one‐half years of permit

issuance for review and approval of the MPCA.

Facility Site Specific Regulatory Considerations:

Although aspects of the WWTP activities are covered under the NPDES/SDS permit, this area of the site

is also under the oversight of the MPCA Remediation Division, which is regulated under a November

13, 2007 Compliance Agreement (CA) between MPCA and SPPRC. The CA is pursuant to the MPCA’s

authority under Water Pollution Control Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 115, the Minnesota Environment Repose

and Liability Act, Minn. Stat. 115B.01‐115B.20 (MERLA) and the Petroleum Response and Liability Act,

Minn. Stat. Ch. 115C, Minn Stat. Ch. 116 and is intended to resolve liabilities for response actions and

response action costs under Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. (CERCLA).

35

Given that these remedial activities are administered by other regulations and agreements it should be

noted that the NPDES/SDS permit does not address the site specific needs of the Remediation

Division. As such, it may be possible that the needs and requirements of the Remediation Division may

require additional conditions on the WWTP area that are beyond the conditions in the NPDES/SDS

permit. Although this is a general condition that would apply to all facilities in these types of situations,

it is important that this be specifically noted in this permit with respect to the proposed future

operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment pond. The Remediation Division has declared

pond 4 as a potential source area under the CA which may involve additional sampling, stabilization or

removal of the sludge.

If any of these requirements have an effect on operation conditions specified in the permit it is

important that SPPRC coordinate with the MPCA NPDES Permitting and Remediation staff to address

necessary operational changes

Compliance Schedule

Construction Schedule

Due to the Facility proposal to construct upgrades to the biological treatment system, there will be

notification, submittal, and a compliance schedules. Within eight months of the re‐issuance of the

permit the construction of the upgraded system shall be reported as complete. Within seven days of

the facility being run at full operational flow the Facility shall notify the MPCA of the initiation of

operation. Then within 90 days of the initiation of operation the Facility shall attain the final limits for

total phosphorus, and report this to the MPCA. The attainment of the final limits shall not be more than

one year after the re‐issuance of the permit. Additionally, within 365 days after the initiation of

operation the as‐built drawings of the upgraded facility shall be submitted to the MPCA.

Variances

The permit does not contain any variances.

36

Total Facility Requirements (TFR)

Chapter 9 of the permit is titled “Total Facility Requirements.” This section contains numerous and various requirements that pertain to this and other NPDES/SDS permitted facilities. All NPDES permits issued in the state of Minnesota contain certain conditions that remain the same regardless of the size, location, or type of discharge. These standard conditions satisfy the requirements outlined in 40 CFR § 122.41. These requirements cover a wide range of areas including recordkeeping, sampling, equipment calibration, equipment maintenance, reporting, facility upsets, bypass, solids handling, changes in operation, prohibitions on toxics and nuisance conditions, property rights, liability, MPCA’s obligations, future regulatory changes, facility inspection and entry by MPCA, and permit reissuance. Also included in this chapter is the “Incorporated by Reference” section which references both federal and state regulations that may apply to the Facility. Due to the significant general conditions required of all facilities it is most appropriate to reference specific sections, rather to try and itemize specific and applicable regulations. In addition to the general language contained in all NPDES/SDS permits, this permit has additional language at the beginning of the chapter that more specifically addresses the submittal for approval of chemical additives. This additional clarification is contained in this permit due to the Facility’s need to use numerous chemical additives as part of the industrial activity, petroleum refining.

Nondegredation and Anti‐Backsliding

In accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency rules regarding nondegredation for all waters (that are not Outstanding Resource Value Waters), nondegredation review is required for any new or expanded significant discharge (Minn. R. 7050.0185). A significant discharge is 1) a new discharge (not in existence before January 1, 1988) that is greater than 200,000 gallons per day or 2) an expanded discharge that expands by greater than 200,000 gallons per day that discharges to any non‐ORVW water other than a Class 7 water or 3) a new or expanded discharge containing any toxic pollutant at a mass loading rate likely to increase the concentration of the toxicant in the receiving water by greater than one percent over the baseline quality.

This Permit also complies with Minn. R. 7053.0275 regarding anti‐backsliding.

Any point source discharger of sewage, industrial, or other wastes for which a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit has been issued by the agency that contains effluent limits more stringent than those that would be established by parts 7053.0215 to 7053.0265 shall continue to meet the effluent limits established by the permit, unless the permittee establishes that less stringent effluent limits are allowable pursuant to federal law, under section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, United States Code, title 33, section 1342.

37

APPENDIX A (DMR Effluent Data)

2008 Monitoring Data

2009 Monitoring Data

38

2010 Data

2011 Data

39

2012 Data

2013 DMR Data

40

APPENDIX B

Below are the summary tables of the compliance and enforcement events, related to the NPDES

wastewater permit, which took place since the last permit re‐issuance. It includes the discharge effluent

limits, releases, inspections, and NPDES enforcement actions.

Efluent Violations

Monitoring Period Parameter Unit Result Limit Limit Type

Explanation of Non-Compliance Compliance Schedules/Corrective Actions

09/01/10 - 09/30/10Nitrogen, Ammonia,

Un-ionized (as N) mg/L 0.62 0.46 Daily Maximum Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

08/01/10 - 08/31/10BOD, 05 Day

(20 Deg C) kg/day 188.8 186.0Calendar Month Average Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

08/01/10 - 08/31/10BOD, 05 Day

(20 Deg C) mg/L 39 25Calendar Month Average Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

08/01/10 - 08/31/10 Sulfide, Total (as S) kg/day 7.7 1.0Calendar Month Average Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

08/01/10 - 08/31/10 Sulfide, Total (as S) kg/day 33.9 2.4 Daily Maximum Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

08/01/10 - 08/31/10Nitrogen, Ammonia,

Un-ionized (as N) mg/L 0.54 0.46 Daily Maximum Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

08/01/10 - 08/31/10BOD, 05 Day (20 Deg

C) kg/day 533.7 369.0 Daily Maximum Exceeded Limit Cited in 11/4/2011 Stipulation Agreement, Case Closed on 1/3/2012

Releases

Report Date

Duty Officer Report # Description Corrective Actions

12/19/2009 108214 Release, pipe break Cleanup conducted

9/8/2010 114195release from site French Drain system Cleanup conducted

8/23/2011 121430 Release from 4th lagoon Cleanup conducted1/5/2012 123893 Release, line break Cleanup conducted9/6/2012 128915 SBC overflow Cited in 10/18/2013 CER, corrective actions completed 1/24/20149/10/2012 128973 SBC bypass Cleanup conducted9/15/2012 129083 SBC overflow Cited in 10/18/2013 CER, corrective actions completed 1/24/2014

12/6/2012 130798Release from API pump pit Cited in 10/18/2013 CER, corrective actions completed 1/24/2014

2/22/2013 132064 Overflow to 4th lagoon Cleanup conducted

5/20/2013 133867 API overflow to 4th lagoon Cited in 10/18/2013 CER, corrective actions completed 1/24/20146/27/2013 134904 Bypass to 4th lagoon Cited in 10/18/2013 CER, corrective actions completed 1/24/20147/9/2013 135156 overflow Cited in 10/18/2013 CER, corrective actions completed 1/24/20147/13/2013 135309 SBC overflow Cleanup conducted

Inspections

Inspection DateInspection Report (CER) Date Corrective Actions Required

Corrective Actions Completed

9/9/2008 Not RequiredYes, implement training on SWPPP BMPs 2/20/2009

9/28/2010 Not Required None Required Not applicable9/13/2012 2/11/2013 None Required Not applicable

8/20/2013 10/18/2013Yes, release reporting and response 1/24/2014

Enforcement Actions

NoneAll compliance concerns have been addressed through the CERs and required corrective actions

National PollutantDischarge Elimination System /State ... cooling capacity is available for use with...

Documents

Transcript of National PollutantDischarge Elimination System /State ... cooling capacity is available for use with...